Posted on 05/02/2005 4:59:11 PM PDT by TapTheSource
The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis came into existence as a group of signatories of an open letter to the scientific community. The letter (dated June 6, 1991) has been submitted to the editors of Nature, Science, The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine. All have refused to publish it. In 1995 The Group was able to get a letter published in Science.
You can also sign the statement below online.
To the editor:
It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken.
(Feel free to click the link and sign the petition!)
(Excerpt) Read more at virusmyth.net ...
I'd be personally very happy to find out that there is no such thing as AIDS or HIV. But arguing over how, whatever the hell you want to call it, is being spread should be pretty much without question by any sane person. I'd like to see the name changed just to get this ridiculous quarantine lifted by the CDC on releasing information about people who have this obviously communicable disease. If it were treated as an actual disease instead of a civil right, we can hunt down the criminal scumbags who are doing most of the infecting and shoot them (or electrocute them if they live in FL).
Should I wear a tin foil hat while I'm reading it?
I'm willing to approach this with an open mind. So please in your own words describe why thousands of doctors would lie about AIDS. Also why do people who get blood transfusions during operations get and die from the this fake virus?
I read the first 2 or 3 paragraphs of your link, and it still didn't get to the point.
Either summarize in one short paragraph what it says or I'm moving on.
Life is too short to read everything anyone recommends to any of us, unless we know ahead of time what makes an article so important.
If you are unable to condense the meaning of the article into a short paragraph, then that says something to us about what you say we should spend our time reading.
I read the article and now can say that I wasted my time. Nothing in the writing provided me with the information I needed to believe that 100,000's of thousand of people are liars.
Yet, I'm still here waiting for someone to convince me otherwise.
If there is no AIDS, what exactly is it that gay guys are inseminating each other with? (other than the obvious). And why are they dying now when they weren't dying 30 years ago?
I'm starting to wonder what agenda this poster has in posting so many threads on the "HIV does not cause AIDS" routine. I saw at least five threads posted by him/her on this subject yesterday.
No, but you had better bring your brain to the read.
Peter Duesberg is the dean of American virologists and retroviruses have been his main area of expertise for forty years.
The book runs several hundred pages of closely reasoned and rigorously documented fact. Tinfoil won't help protect you from the truth.
No, that was a medical doctor...I think his name was Willner or something like that. Unfortunately, he died of a heart attack before he had a chance to prove his point.
First link: Article demonstrates HIV is not the cause of AIDS. AIDS is not infectious. All scientific debate on the subject has been silenced by the Public Health Movement (in much the same way as scientists who challenge environmental science, but on a much larger scale).
Second Link: Shows how the Public Health Movement silenced debate, coopted the conservative movement re: AIDS, and managed to use well-meaning conservatives to push a radical left-wing AIDS/Public Health agenda.
==I read the article and now can say that I wasted my time. Nothing in the writing provided me with the information I needed to believe that 100,000's of thousand of people are liars.
Who said they are ALL liars? True, many of these scientists have been knowingly coopted. Still others know enough not to make waves or risk their funding being cut off. Listen to the following audio file if you want to learn more. Indeed, I would listen to all of them if you have the time. Also get Duesberg's book, "Inventing the AIDS Virus" published by Regnery. Here's the audio file link (only a few minutes long):
"Inside the War on AIDS"
http://www.attacreport.com/ar_audio/aids_video_19.mp3
Click these links if you want to listen to all of them (very eye-opening, indeed!):
Part One
http://www.attacreport.com/ar_audio/ref_aids_video_1.htm
Part Two
http://www.attacreport.com/ar_audio/ref_aids_video_2.htm
The question is whether it be a specific disease or merely a set of common symptoms.
See post #51
Aids is not caused by a virus, aids is tuberculosis pure and simple. The prescribed durgs are what do the killing, before the disease can.
And catch all the real diseases that the fool has? Is that what passes for logic with you? or are you really that disengenuous?
Not discredited, just attacked by the drug establishment, and the MSM in the same manner that any other truth is attacked.
It would be very helpful if someone would state the case succinctly so it can be judged on its merits. As a non-medical-professional person, I need the implications of the medical statements spelled out for me, or I won't understand the argument that's being made. I find this a possibly plausible idea, but possibly not. The questions people are raising need to be answered in sufficiently convincing detail to convince people that what appears to be well-established truth is not so.
Dr. Duesberg has done this. I'll see if I can find the link, and post it in this thread.... He is knowledgable and logical.
I'd like to direct you to http://www.duesberg.com
There you will find many articles, links to scientific papers and the like. I'd recommend Kerry Mullis' (Nobel Prize in Chemistry - 1993) article in the June 1994 issue of Reason magazine as a good place to start. You'll find a link to it under "Articles" at the Duesberg.com website.
Meanwhile here is a taste, one paragraph of the Mullis article focusing on the circular definition of AIDS:
"There are probably thousands of cases of AIDS without HIV in the United States alone. Peter Duesberg found 4,621 cases recorded in the literature, 1,691 of them in this country. (Such cases tend to disappear from the official statistics because, once it's clear that HIV is absent, the CDC no longer counts them as AIDS.) In a 1993 article published in Bio/Technology, Duesberg documented the consistent failure of the CDC to report on the true incidence of positive HIV tests in AIDS cases. The CDC concedes that at least 40,000 "AIDS cases" were diagnosed on the basis of presumptive criteria-that is, without antibody testing, on the basis of diseases such as Kaposi's sarcoma. Yet these diseases can occur without HIV or immune deficiency. Perhaps some of the patients diagnosed as having AIDS would have tested negative, or actually did test negative, for HIV. Physicians and health departments have an incentive to diagnose patients with AIDS symptoms as AIDS cases whenever they can, because the federal government pays the medical expenses of AIDS patients under the Ryan White Act but not of persons equally sick with the same diseases who test negative for HIV antibodies."
and, the following paragraph, focusing on the fact that AIDS is not a disease, but a syndrome:
"Krynen's remark calls attention to the fact that AIDS is not a disease. Rather, it is a syndrome defined by the presence of any of 30 separate and previously known diseases, accompanied by the actual or suspected presence of HIV. The definition has changed over time and is different for Africa (where HIV testing is rare) than for Europe and North America. The official CDC definition of AIDS in the United States was enormously broadened for 1993 in order to distribute more federal AIDS money to sick people, especially women with cervical cancer. As a direct result, AIDS cases more than doubled in 1993. Absent the HIV mystique, there would be no reason to believe that a single factor is causing cervical cancer in women, Kaposi's sarcoma in gay males, and slim disease in Africans."
Also, don't let anyone tell you that this article is outdated. Nothing has changed since 1994.
I am a retired nurse. Here's my understanding of HIV, and AIDS.
AIDS stands for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Some people are born with immune deficiency, and some acquire it through medical treatments, for instance those that prevent transplanted organ rejection.
HIV is the retrovirus that destroys certain white blood cells, the ones that activate when an infection threatens. T cells, if I'm not mistaken, or correct me if I am.
While HIV infection and the destruction of the white blood cells that mediate immunity does not cause any disease per se, it leaves the host vulnerable to many ordinary bugs that don't bother regularly healthy people. Thus, p.carinii, yeast infections, herpes viruses, and others cause serious diseases in people who have had their immune systems compromised by HIV infection.
In fact, tuberculosis is one of the infections that most healthy people can fight off and survive after exposure, that HIV infected people with a destroyed or severely compromised immune system cannot.
I agree that HIV in and of itself cannot kill anyone. But a person who has been infected with HIV and who has a compromised or destroyed immune system can easily die from any of a number of diseases that don't affect healthy, uninfected people.
I've taken care of HIV+ patients who didn't die of HIV, but from pneumonia or cancer.
So, I say this is BS.
Oh, and HIV infection is passed through blood and body fluids from person to person. And those people will have their immune system destroyed, and die from ordinary comensals of man that normally cause no disease in healthy people uninfected with HIV.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.