Re: Adieu is right! at Mens Health Support Forum

A forum is a public space. It's not a blog that remains the intellectual property of his sole creator.

Correct, a public forum where I have just as much right as anyone else to post information. The forum should not be controlled by self-proclaimed dictators who want to control what can and cannot be said.

Knowing that you cannot tell us to not read your post if we do not agree with their content. It's our right and even our duty to bring to the attention of others what we believe to be false, dangerous or inapropriate.

Key word is believe. There are people who still believe the earth is flat and that Elvis is still alive and well. So because they believe this does this make it true?

What really gets me is that you will sit here and waste all sorts of time arguing over something you clearly know NOTHING about. But you refuse to take 15 minutes to verify the facts I have presented by looking in the medical journals. For that matter you do not even have to open the journals. You can check abstracts online with Medline, or check online journal articles. But apparently you prefer to remain bliss in your ignorance.

How do you know? Have you bothered to look and see if the information is in the medical journals or are you just making another assumption like usual?

You present a selection of facts that fits into your own theory which has nothing to do with some kind of universal or encyclopedic knowledge.

I love how you think the world revolves around you. As long as you refuse to look at the evidence the evidence does not exist. I hate to break the news to you but things don't work that way in reality.

There is a huge difference between presenting the facts and presenting some facts. You are talking about peer reviews articles that are supposed to confirm what you've been postulating in this forum while you're leaving aside 99% of the findings of a whole scientific and medical community.

LOL!!!! So how did you come up with 99%? Did you just pull that out of your magic hat, or do you have proof to your claim?

Let's take a look at some of the evidence straight from the mainstream medical community:

Rayfield M et al. HIV culture. Chapter 7 in “AIDS Testing: a comprehensive guide to technical, medical, social, legal and management issues”. Springer Verlag. 1994;129.

“Although serologic assays are capable of identifying prior exposure to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), they cannot alone demonstrate whether an individual is currently harboring the virus. The first method used to ascertain if a blood specimen contained HIV was co-cultivation with stimulated primary human lymphocytes or continuous human T cell lines and monitoring the culture supernatants for the presence of reverse transcriptase. Although viral isolation has proved to be a poor diagnostic tool because of its relative insensitivity, high costs, and lengthy time requirements, culture has served as the standard by which all other diagnostic tests have been judged and established. Furthermore, virus culture remains the steadfast route by which new variants are identified, isolated and initially characterised.”

Kion TA, Hoffmann GW. Anti-HIV and anti-anti-MHC antibodies in alloimmune and autoimmune mice. Science. 1991 Sep 6;253:1138-40.

“Alloimmune mice...were shown to make antibodies against gp120 and p24 of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and mice of autoimmune strains...made antibodies against gp120. This is surprising because the mice were not exposed to HIV.

Ou CY et al. DNA amplification for direct detection of HIV-1 in DNA of peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Science. 1988 Jan 15;239(4837):295-7.

“Serologic assays identify persons with prior exposure to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1), they do not specifically determine current infection...The number of peripheral blood lymphocytes expressing viral RNA, as detected by in situ hybridization in an infected person is less than 1 in 10,000 cells...Defective provirus would be detected by the PCR technique provided the region targeted for amplification was preserved"

Cleary PD et al. Compulsory premarital screening for the human immunodeficiency virus: Technical and public health considerations. JAMA. 1987 Oct 2;258(13):1757-62.

“for HIV infection, there is no independent, unequivocal way of identifying a group of individuals who are all assuredly infected or uninfected”

Ward JW et al. Laboratory and epidemiologic evaluation of an enzyme immunoassay for antivodies to HTLV-III. JAMA. 1986 Jul 18;256(3):357-61.

“Evaluation of a new test requires an established or known standard for comparison. At this point, however, no established standard exists for identifying HTLV-III infection in asymptomatic people. Current culture methods for identify virus in only 36% to 85% of persons with AIDS or related conditions and cannot be used as an absolute standard for HTLV-III/LAV infection. For this reason, we defined specimens positive on Western blot or culture as positive for infection with HTLV-III”

Since you probably don't have a clue what they are talking about above, what they are saying is that since they have no standard to measure HTLV-III (HIV) against they are ASSUMING that a positive test means HIV infection.

Papadopulos-Eleopulos E et al. HIV antibodies: further questions and a plea for clarification. Curr Med Res Opin. 1997;13(10):627-34.

“The only way to obtain ‘specific reagents’ is to isolate the virus, that is, obtain viral particles separate from everything else. If this is not done it is impossible to say which reagents (proteins) originate from the virus and which are contaminants. Only then can the viral proteins be used as ‘specific reagents’ with which to perform antibody tests. Even then, because a given antigen can react with antibodies directed against other antigens (cross-reactions), the specificity of the reactions must be determined by using viral isolation as a gold standard. However, instead of using this procedure, the only one scientifically valid, Gallo and his colleagues cultured a leukaemic cell line (HT) with tissues with tissues derived from AIDS patients. Proteins derived from the culture supernatants (but without proof of origin from a retrovirus or even particles, viral or non-viral, or even from the patients), were incubated with sera from AIDS patients or those at risk.”

Hmm.... Cross reactions? Seems like I mentioned this to you several times, a process called serological cross reactivity. Oh, that's right I did mention this but of course this reality does not exist in your world, only the real world!!!

Also note that in the abstract that Gallo did not follow the proper procedure to prove cause. Gallo is the CDC scientist that got busted for scientific fraud for falsely claiming discovery of the HIV virus. Then he lied to the world by claiming that HIV caused AIDS embarrassing the US government again. So the government was forced to change the definition of AIDS in the early 80s to fit the HIV virus to cover up Gallo's lie. This is why the definition of AIDS was changed to include the drop in CD4s since this is the only thing HIV can do.

High False-positive Rate of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Rapid Serum Screening in a Predominantly Hispanic Prenatal Population

False-Positive and Indeterminate Human Immunodeficiency Virus Test Results in Pregnant Women

Many False-Positive HIV Test Results for Those in AIDS Vaccine Trials

Multiple False Reactions in Viral Antibody Screening Assays after Influenza Vaccination

The above article is about the cross reactivity caused by influenza vaccines, which have been shown to create antibodies that react positive on HIV tests. Other vaccines shown to cause positive HIV tests include polio, hepatitis, rabies, typhoid, malaria, etc.

Report of a False-Positive HIV Test Result and the Potential Use of Additional Tests in Establishing HIV Serostatus

False positive results for antibody to HIV in men with systemic lupus erythematosus

Lupus is not the only autoimmune disorder that has been shown to cause false positives with HIV antibody tests. The problem stems from the fact that during autoimmune reactions the body generates an abundance of low affinity (nonspecific) antibodies that can cross react on antigen test targets due to the non-specific nature. This is the same reason that these antibodies tag healthy tissue instead of the antigens they are supposed to target.

These are just the tip of the iceberg of what is printed in the medical journals about HIV false positives. So I could post so many more references but I think that I already made my point about your choosing to be ignorant on the subject rather than taking the short time to verify the facts I posted.

So as to your 99% claim this means that you were either lying or 99% of the medical establishment is as ignorant as you on the subject because like you they also refused to look at the available proof. So which one is it?

I do have one other thing you need to see before I end this post. The following is a quote from the actual product insert for an HIV antibody test that there are NO tests that can confirm the presence of HIV antibodies in human blood:

“At present, there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.”

We, as readers of this forum, have the duty to express our taughts about what we may read in here. Nobody has to remain mouth wide shut.

It is pretty hard to shut your mouth when you have both feet shoved so far in it right now!!!