On February 14 2011 12:18 Azzur wrote: Interesting topic, actually, I've always wondered about the HIV -> AIDS link. Now, put the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA in perspective for medical drugs are a billion dollar industry. There is also a lot of conflict of interest because a lot of the people sitting on the FDA boards are also part of the pharmaceutical industry.
There is no doubt that the HIV virus exist. However, I wonder if it can be more carefully managed without the use of the HIV drugs. I wonder if those drugs are actually causing the AIDS rather than the virus. The pharmaceutical industry has a lot of lose if the link were dis-proven, which is why it is not surprising that they will want to prevent debate on the subject.
Another thing is that AIDS is a big killer in Africa. Do these people have access to the drugs? Because if the HIV -> AIDS naturally happens there, then maybe it's enough proof.
Any time you get into the whole Big Pharma conspiracy thing you're basically saying that literally millions of doctors, pharmacists, and biomedical researchers all around the world are in on it together. These are people that have devoted their lives to modern medicine in one way or another. You hear the exact same argument about cancer drugs and vaccines, for instance. I'm not going to say that money doesn't corrupt (it does), or that there aren't doctors who have forsaken their oath in pursuit of money (there are). But the vast, vast majority of them? I just don't understand how people can follow that line of reasoning.
No, I don't believe that all the doctors, researchers, etc are all in it altogether. I also believe that many of them genuinely believe they they are correct. What I'm stating is that those people high up in the industry have a vested interest in rejecting research and debate on the HIV -> AIDS causality. The doctors who spend a lot of time studying medicine frequently are just told the "facts" rather than having to research it themselves.
I'll give an example in physics. For a long time, Newtonian mechanics was considered the correct theory and there were many scientists who have devoted their lives believing in this. But we now know that Newtonian mechanics is incomplete, just like we're now discovering that Einstein's theory is also incomplete.
What is important is debate and research on the subject, rather than claiming that something is already "proven". It is my belief that modern medicine is too reliant on drugs and I would hope to see research on alternatives. Unfortunately, most of the money is generated on drugs and that is where the research goes.
Your analogy is really bad but i wont get into that but why is it your belief "that modern medicine is too reliant on drugs and I would hope to see research on alternatives."?, do you have any experience in molecular biology research or in university's spending on research or is it just something you read?
And also what are the "alternatives"
Nope, I don't have experience in molecular biology research but I can see the conflict of interest in the research of pharmaceutical drugs. This automatically raises alarm bells since there is a lot of money involved in the industry. Then there are scientists in the field claiming things contrary to the generally accepted opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism).
Whether these scientists are right or wrong, this raises questions on why research is stifled on the topic? Why have so many people come here using strong words to debunk these people? This is because we have been conditioned to believe in the established theories.
Research hasn't been stifled on the topic, in fact it's one of the most researched viruses of all time. Also, while you looked up some of the more famous denialists, you should read more into the particulars of their cases and some of the counter claims discrediting them to get a fuller picture here.
The reason that it's relevant that it would take a conspiracy involving millions of researchers/doctors etc outside of the States is because all funding isn't through the major Pharmaceutical companies nor does it all originate in the US. So while it's a beguiling idea to consider the possibility of corruption and vested interests, in this case it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
@AcuWill
First you quote Bauer. Then someone responds why he isn't revelant. Then you try to enlist Luc Montagnier, again, someone who isn't sympathetic to your case. Then in this latest post you jump back to Duesberg, mentioning how respected he is by Gallo, before going on to attack Gallo as a fraud.
At no point in this thread do you ever respond to the points made by others, instead you leap from one subtopic to another, without showing how they're relevant beyond wild claims and links to dubious sources. Your whole argument is disjointed and doesn't seem to be coherent.
On February 14 2011 12:18 Azzur wrote: Interesting topic, actually, I've always wondered about the HIV -> AIDS link. Now, put the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA in perspective for medical drugs are a billion dollar industry. There is also a lot of conflict of interest because a lot of the people sitting on the FDA boards are also part of the pharmaceutical industry.
There is no doubt that the HIV virus exist. However, I wonder if it can be more carefully managed without the use of the HIV drugs. I wonder if those drugs are actually causing the AIDS rather than the virus. The pharmaceutical industry has a lot of lose if the link were dis-proven, which is why it is not surprising that they will want to prevent debate on the subject.
Another thing is that AIDS is a big killer in Africa. Do these people have access to the drugs? Because if the HIV -> AIDS naturally happens there, then maybe it's enough proof.
Any time you get into the whole Big Pharma conspiracy thing you're basically saying that literally millions of doctors, pharmacists, and biomedical researchers all around the world are in on it together. These are people that have devoted their lives to modern medicine in one way or another. You hear the exact same argument about cancer drugs and vaccines, for instance. I'm not going to say that money doesn't corrupt (it does), or that there aren't doctors who have forsaken their oath in pursuit of money (there are). But the vast, vast majority of them? I just don't understand how people can follow that line of reasoning.
No, I don't believe that all the doctors, researchers, etc are all in it altogether. I also believe that many of them genuinely believe they they are correct. What I'm stating is that those people high up in the industry have a vested interest in rejecting research and debate on the HIV -> AIDS causality. The doctors who spend a lot of time studying medicine frequently are just told the "facts" rather than having to research it themselves.
I'll give an example in physics. For a long time, Newtonian mechanics was considered the correct theory and there were many scientists who have devoted their lives believing in this. But we now know that Newtonian mechanics is incomplete, just like we're now discovering that Einstein's theory is also incomplete.
What is important is debate and research on the subject, rather than claiming that something is already "proven". It is my belief that modern medicine is too reliant on drugs and I would hope to see research on alternatives. Unfortunately, most of the money is generated on drugs and that is where the research goes.
Your analogy is really bad but i wont get into that but why is it your belief "that modern medicine is too reliant on drugs and I would hope to see research on alternatives."?, do you have any experience in molecular biology research or in university's spending on research or is it just something you read?
And also what are the "alternatives"
Nope, I don't have experience in molecular biology research but I can see the conflict of interest in the research of pharmaceutical drugs. This automatically raises alarm bells since there is a lot of money involved in the industry. Then there are scientists in the field claiming things contrary to the generally accepted opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism).
Whether these scientists are right or wrong, this raises questions on why research is stifled on the topic? Why have so many people come here using strong words to debunk these people? This is because we have been conditioned to believe in the established theories.
Research hasn't been stifled on the topic, in fact it's one of the most researched viruses of all time. Also, while you looked up some of the more famous denialists, you should read more into the particulars of their cases and some of the counter claims discrediting them to get a fuller picture here.
The reason that it's relevant that it would take a conspiracy involving millions of researchers/doctors etc outside of the States is because all funding isn't through the major Pharmaceutical companies nor does it all originate in the US. So while it's a beguiling idea to consider the possibility of corruption and vested interests, in this case it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
This basicly, HIV and aids research are done and have been done in dozens of coutries without any link to the States, the conspiracy theory just do not hold up and the results and general concensus all agree regardless of country.
I have yet seen a single actual argument based on science backed up by research from a source that holds up to the minimal scrutiny that 5 minutes of googling entails. That tells me one thing, this is just all complete bullshit.
But hey, i am not HIV positive but if i ever got infected i would rely on all the medication i could get my hands on to prevent me from developing Aids. If anyone out there is HIV positive and refuse treatment that is up to them, it is a human right to be as stupid as you want and i wont force feed ayone meds.
Meanwhile, even if the US somehow buy into this (and i really really doubt it would ever happen) i am sure scientists in Europe and other countries will still do actual science based on facts and dictated by what the experts in the field are reccomending not what people with lots of opinions but little knowledge are reccomending.
On February 14 2011 13:30 Azzur wrote: Nope, I don't have experience in molecular biology research but I can see the conflict of interest in the research of pharmaceutical drugs. This automatically raises alarm bells since there is a lot of money involved in the industry. Then there are scientists in the field claiming things contrary to the generally accepted opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism).
Whether these scientists are right or wrong, this raises questions on why research is stifled on the topic? Why have so many people come here using strong words to debunk these people? This is because we have been conditioned to believe in the established theories.
I thank you for linking me to that wikipedia article.
When I first read that article, my initial reaction was "wow, this is really biased against aids denialism". So I checked out what was going on in the talk page, and apparently one of the reason why the article was so harsh against aids denialism is that multiple pages on aids were sabotaged by members of the site questioningaids.com and as a result, aids denialists were labeled a fringe group by wikipedia editors. In wiki policy this means two things - one, proponents of fringe science are routinely banned from editing wikipedia (scientologists and dianetics is the most famous example of this) - two, what you'd expect NPOV to look like essentially goes out the window, because the NPOV on a fringe group is "these guys are insane".
First I would like to introduce myself. I am a third year student in an Oriental Medicine program. I have been a “dissident” for 5-6 years. What began as a pre-med Biochemistry major’s academic pursuit of studying two opposing sides of a scientific theory ended up with the complete and utter questioning of science in general and all medical paradigm. This culminated in me finding Oriental Medicine and a physiological/healing system that did make sense.
Then it suddenly hit me - AcuWill stands for Acupuncture Will. This guy has been running through this thread claiming to have done substantial medical research on HIV when in reality his medical research is on traditional chinese medicine. At any rate, AcuWill has made it quite clear that he doesn't believe HIV is the cause of AIDS. So, what does Acuwill believe is the real cause of AIDS?
This phenomenon transpires because there is a similarity in the stressors, and subsequently the terrain, that cause AIDS. This will lead to many of the same underlying patterns. For example, symptoms associated with Yin deficiency (I’m using this example to be consistent) include: night sweats, afternoon sensations of fever, anorexia, dry, deformed and brittle nails, black floaters in the eye (or symptoms associated with CMV-retinitis), constipation, dry and persistent cough, dry eyes, dry mouth with desire to drink in small sips throughout day, thirst that is not satisfied with drinking, grasshopper mind, difficulty falling asleep, agitation, restlessness, etc. What can cause this pattern? Worry, fear, over thinking, over work, the “gay party scene”, lack of sleep, drugs like meth, cocaine, smoking, smoking marijuana, lack of proper nourishment, excessive cleansing, diarrhea, alcohol, medications, etc. Proceeding further with the example above, when one has a profound Yin deficiency, the body’s Yang (Yin being the moist, cooling, physical substance of the body, and Yang being the metabolic force, heat and capacity of the body to perform its physiological duties) can separate, causing chaos. When one takes drugs that suppress the body’s motive force, like chemotherapy, then the negative physiological expression of the chaos will temporarily cease. This is one example as to why the drugs can be effective to alleviate some of the symptoms associated with AIDS.
In plain English, the cause of AIDS isn't a retrovirus, but rather, is caused by Yin deficiency.
Now, I don't have anything against traditional chinese medicine at all (some of it has been proven to have scientific value, although most of it hasn't), but when you reread his posts in this thread knowing this information, suddenly there's some underlying logic to his train of thought. The reason why he doesn't believe that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, is because he doesn't believe any disease is caused by a virus.
At first I thought it was quite ironic that a person who's profession is dealing with needles doesn't believe that a virus in which one of its primary methods of transfer from person to person is contaminated needles doesn't believe this virus causes any harm, then I realized how incredibly disturbing this is. If he is sincerely attempting to cure AIDS with acupuncture, I sincerely hope that he properly sterilizes his equipment.
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
I would like to apologize for this on behalf of the TL community. We originally had you figured as some sort of christian religious zealot, when in reality we had the wrong religion all along.
On February 14 2011 13:30 Azzur wrote: Nope, I don't have experience in molecular biology research but I can see the conflict of interest in the research of pharmaceutical drugs. This automatically raises alarm bells since there is a lot of money involved in the industry. Then there are scientists in the field claiming things contrary to the generally accepted opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism).
Whether these scientists are right or wrong, this raises questions on why research is stifled on the topic? Why have so many people come here using strong words to debunk these people? This is because we have been conditioned to believe in the established theories.
I thank you for linking me to that wikipedia article.
When I first read that article, my initial reaction was "wow, this is really biased against aids denialism". So I checked out what was going on in the talk page, and apparently one of the reason why the article was so harsh against aids denialism is that multiple pages on aids were sabotaged by members of the site questioningaids.com and as a result, aids denialists were labeled a fringe group by wikipedia editors. In wiki policy this means two things - one, proponents of fringe science are routinely banned from editing wikipedia (scientologists and dianetics is the most famous example of this) - two, what you'd expect NPOV to look like essentially goes out the window, because the NPOV on a fringe group is "these guys are insane".
First I would like to introduce myself. I am a third year student in an Oriental Medicine program. I have been a “dissident” for 5-6 years. What began as a pre-med Biochemistry major’s academic pursuit of studying two opposing sides of a scientific theory ended up with the complete and utter questioning of science in general and all medical paradigm. This culminated in me finding Oriental Medicine and a physiological/healing system that did make sense.
Then it suddenly hit me - AcuWill stands for Acupuncture Will. This guy has been running through this thread claiming to have done substantial medical research on HIV when in reality his medical research is on traditional chinese medicine. At any rate, AcuWill has made it quite clear that he doesn't believe HIV is the cause of AIDS. So, what does Acuwill believe is the real cause of AIDS?
This phenomenon transpires because there is a similarity in the stressors, and subsequently the terrain, that cause AIDS. This will lead to many of the same underlying patterns. For example, symptoms associated with Yin deficiency (I’m using this example to be consistent) include: night sweats, afternoon sensations of fever, anorexia, dry, deformed and brittle nails, black floaters in the eye (or symptoms associated with CMV-retinitis), constipation, dry and persistent cough, dry eyes, dry mouth with desire to drink in small sips throughout day, thirst that is not satisfied with drinking, grasshopper mind, difficulty falling asleep, agitation, restlessness, etc. What can cause this pattern? Worry, fear, over thinking, over work, the “gay party scene”, lack of sleep, drugs like meth, cocaine, smoking, smoking marijuana, lack of proper nourishment, excessive cleansing, diarrhea, alcohol, medications, etc. Proceeding further with the example above, when one has a profound Yin deficiency, the body’s Yang (Yin being the moist, cooling, physical substance of the body, and Yang being the metabolic force, heat and capacity of the body to perform its physiological duties) can separate, causing chaos. When one takes drugs that suppress the body’s motive force, like chemotherapy, then the negative physiological expression of the chaos will temporarily cease. This is one example as to why the drugs can be effective to alleviate some of the symptoms associated with AIDS.
In plain English, the cause of AIDS isn't a retrovirus, but rather, is caused by Yin deficiency.
Now, I don't have anything against traditional chinese medicine at all (some of it has been proven to have scientific value, although most of it hasn't), but when you reread his posts in this thread knowing this information, suddenly there's some underlying logic to his train of thought. The reason why he doesn't believe that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, is because he doesn't believe any disease is caused by a virus.
At first I thought it was quite ironic that a person who's profession is dealing with needles doesn't believe that a virus in which one of its primary methods of transfer from person to person is contaminated needles doesn't believe this virus causes any harm, then I realized how incredibly disturbing this is. If he is sincerely attempting to cure AIDS with acupuncture, I sincerely hope that he properly sterilizes his equipment.
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
I would like to apologize for this on behalf of the TL community. We originally had you figured as some sort of christian religious zealot, when in reality we had the wrong religion all along.[/QUOTE
LMAO this is gold. Thank you. I'd already had enough of trying to debate with him, but this really clinches it.
I'm posting this video in response to why people get so angry at AIDS denialists. It's not that we're suppressing science and forcing AIDS research down specific pathways, it's because of people like this:
On February 14 2011 13:30 Azzur wrote: Nope, I don't have experience in molecular biology research but I can see the conflict of interest in the research of pharmaceutical drugs. This automatically raises alarm bells since there is a lot of money involved in the industry. Then there are scientists in the field claiming things contrary to the generally accepted opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism).
Whether these scientists are right or wrong, this raises questions on why research is stifled on the topic? Why have so many people come here using strong words to debunk these people? This is because we have been conditioned to believe in the established theories.
I thank you for linking me to that wikipedia article.
When I first read that article, my initial reaction was "wow, this is really biased against aids denialism". So I checked out what was going on in the talk page, and apparently one of the reason why the article was so harsh against aids denialism is that multiple pages on aids were sabotaged by members of the site questioningaids.com and as a result, aids denialists were labeled a fringe group by wikipedia editors. In wiki policy this means two things - one, proponents of fringe science are routinely banned from editing wikipedia (scientologists and dianetics is the most famous example of this) - two, what you'd expect NPOV to look like essentially goes out the window, because the NPOV on a fringe group is "these guys are insane".
First I would like to introduce myself. I am a third year student in an Oriental Medicine program. I have been a “dissident” for 5-6 years. What began as a pre-med Biochemistry major’s academic pursuit of studying two opposing sides of a scientific theory ended up with the complete and utter questioning of science in general and all medical paradigm. This culminated in me finding Oriental Medicine and a physiological/healing system that did make sense.
Then it suddenly hit me - AcuWill stands for Acupuncture Will. This guy has been running through this thread claiming to have done substantial medical research on HIV when in reality his medical research is on traditional chinese medicine. At any rate, AcuWill has made it quite clear that he doesn't believe HIV is the cause of AIDS. So, what does Acuwill believe is the real cause of AIDS?
This phenomenon transpires because there is a similarity in the stressors, and subsequently the terrain, that cause AIDS. This will lead to many of the same underlying patterns. For example, symptoms associated with Yin deficiency (I’m using this example to be consistent) include: night sweats, afternoon sensations of fever, anorexia, dry, deformed and brittle nails, black floaters in the eye (or symptoms associated with CMV-retinitis), constipation, dry and persistent cough, dry eyes, dry mouth with desire to drink in small sips throughout day, thirst that is not satisfied with drinking, grasshopper mind, difficulty falling asleep, agitation, restlessness, etc. What can cause this pattern? Worry, fear, over thinking, over work, the “gay party scene”, lack of sleep, drugs like meth, cocaine, smoking, smoking marijuana, lack of proper nourishment, excessive cleansing, diarrhea, alcohol, medications, etc. Proceeding further with the example above, when one has a profound Yin deficiency, the body’s Yang (Yin being the moist, cooling, physical substance of the body, and Yang being the metabolic force, heat and capacity of the body to perform its physiological duties) can separate, causing chaos. When one takes drugs that suppress the body’s motive force, like chemotherapy, then the negative physiological expression of the chaos will temporarily cease. This is one example as to why the drugs can be effective to alleviate some of the symptoms associated with AIDS.
In plain English, the cause of AIDS isn't a retrovirus, but rather, is caused by Yin deficiency.
Now, I don't have anything against traditional chinese medicine at all (some of it has been proven to have scientific value, although most of it hasn't), but when you reread his posts in this thread knowing this information, suddenly there's some underlying logic to his train of thought. The reason why he doesn't believe that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, is because he doesn't believe any disease is caused by a virus.
At first I thought it was quite ironic that a person who's profession is dealing with needles doesn't believe that a virus in which one of its primary methods of transfer from person to person is contaminated needles doesn't believe this virus causes any harm, then I realized how incredibly disturbing this is. If he is sincerely attempting to cure AIDS with acupuncture, I sincerely hope that he properly sterilizes his equipment.
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
I would like to apologize for this on behalf of the TL community. We originally had you figured as some sort of christian religious zealot, when in reality we had the wrong religion all along.
Thanks for posting that. Actually I don't think that AIDS is solely caused by Yin Deficiency. If you go to read my entire posting, you will find that it is simply a very common theme within many of the Western manifestations of the disease. Further, I have never once stated that I am trying to cure anything with needles Rather, I am pointing out how a different system of physiology can be used to explain a lot of the disjointed phenomena regarding Western manifested AIDS.
Also, you make claims that my understanding of HIV and AIDS is based on Oriental medicine, not Western backed research. This is also false and not a claim that I ever made at all. If you were to read my actual and entire posting, it would be clear that I spent 2 years during my undergrad analyzing Peter Duesberg's and the orthodoxy's position for fun as an exercise to see how someone like Duesberg could have such an odd position.
During this time I read thousands of pages of research and articles, something I doubt that you have ever done. What lead me to my conclusions was not Duesberg's research or arguments, but the lack of evidence and terrible foundational science I found with the "normal" research.
This then lead me to have to severely reevaluate my life goals, which included being on the fast track to medical school. I have held a license and been practicing in the medical profession in some form or another since I was 18, all through my undergrad studies. I had to make a hard decision and decided that the easy way, to simply ignore my misgivings and become part of a system I did not believe in, was not something I could do.
I then looked for something else, as I always wanted to be a healer. Towards the end of my senior year I discovered a medical system that fulfilled what I was looking for. Also, acupuncture is not Oriental Medicine, it is simply a modality therein.
I am proud of my decision, am now a conventional PhD candidate and applying the differences in physiological ideology to other hard to treat diseases that have not had and development like cystic fibrosis. But that is neither here nor there and unrelated to the discussion at hand.
All of this is own post that you have spliced and diced, but I don't think you truly read it for comprehension in the first place, did you?
Regarding viruses in general, I do believe that the general accepted disease mechanism is actually a misinterpretation of microvesicle intercellular communication during oxidative stress. Once again, this stems from reading of foundational research and methods used in labs. A good overview of the concept can be found in the book Fear of the Invisible by Janine Roberts. Once again this opinion was developed by reading foundational research regarding the tobacco mosaic virus if anyone is interested to look into it.
Oh, and to add more relevant information to the discussion of HIV/AIDS, I have voted Republican in the last three elections and am a non-practicing Catholic. I enjoy surfing, chess, have a chow chow, ferret. and very happy it finally stopped raining the last 2 days.
Also, the reason that I have not responded to all hundreds of counter arguments made is that I do have a real life and am not interested in spending inordinate quantities of time making the proper counter arguments to each "herp derp what about Africa, people are dying." Those arguments are discussed in the links I have provided and I am uninterested in doing a dissertation's worth of work to make each one on my own to people that cannot even click on links.
And I have jumped from topic to topic because that has been the nature of responses and there are a lot of things wrong with HIV/AIDS theory. That includes testing, treatment, isolation, foundational proof, silencing of dissenting opinions by black listing of research, racism, homophobia, etc. If you are interested in an overview, what some videos like "The House of Numbers" which details a lot of the isolation and testing issues. You can get it straight from Gallo's, Montagnier's, etc. At the bottom left of this page are links to a host of such videos, most with Google links. http://reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Main_Page
And that her daughter was never even tested for HIV antibodies? A fact that lead Los Angeles county to settle a suit out of court for more than the initial law suit was for?
Why is that ironic? You linked to her book (a picture of which appears in the video) as if I didn't know she was an AIDS denialist (which is a major portion of the video). I don't understand.
Also lol iatrogenic. You quacks think all AIDS deaths that are being treated by modern medicine are iatrogenic. Eliza Jane's death was infanticide, but you probably think that was iatrogenic too.
On February 14 2011 22:42 Igakusei wrote: Why is that ironic? You linked to her book (a picture of which appears in the video) as if I didn't know she was an AIDS denialist (which is a major portion of the video). I don't understand.
Also lol iatrogenic. You quacks think all AIDS deaths that are being treated by modern medicine are iatrogenic. Eliza Jane's death was infanticide, but you probably think that was iatrogenic too.
Reread my edit and do some research before you base all that you know on a YouTube video made by a group (AIDsTruth) that disseminates false information about dissident leaders. And it is false, look at the links above, which is actual evidence to your and the video's claims.
On February 14 2011 13:30 Azzur wrote: Nope, I don't have experience in molecular biology research but I can see the conflict of interest in the research of pharmaceutical drugs. This automatically raises alarm bells since there is a lot of money involved in the industry. Then there are scientists in the field claiming things contrary to the generally accepted opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism).
Whether these scientists are right or wrong, this raises questions on why research is stifled on the topic? Why have so many people come here using strong words to debunk these people? This is because we have been conditioned to believe in the established theories.
I thank you for linking me to that wikipedia article.
When I first read that article, my initial reaction was "wow, this is really biased against aids denialism". So I checked out what was going on in the talk page, and apparently one of the reason why the article was so harsh against aids denialism is that multiple pages on aids were sabotaged by members of the site questioningaids.com and as a result, aids denialists were labeled a fringe group by wikipedia editors. In wiki policy this means two things - one, proponents of fringe science are routinely banned from editing wikipedia (scientologists and dianetics is the most famous example of this) - two, what you'd expect NPOV to look like essentially goes out the window, because the NPOV on a fringe group is "these guys are insane".
First I would like to introduce myself. I am a third year student in an Oriental Medicine program. I have been a “dissident” for 5-6 years. What began as a pre-med Biochemistry major’s academic pursuit of studying two opposing sides of a scientific theory ended up with the complete and utter questioning of science in general and all medical paradigm. This culminated in me finding Oriental Medicine and a physiological/healing system that did make sense.
Then it suddenly hit me - AcuWill stands for Acupuncture Will. This guy has been running through this thread claiming to have done substantial medical research on HIV when in reality his medical research is on traditional chinese medicine. At any rate, AcuWill has made it quite clear that he doesn't believe HIV is the cause of AIDS. So, what does Acuwill believe is the real cause of AIDS?
This phenomenon transpires because there is a similarity in the stressors, and subsequently the terrain, that cause AIDS. This will lead to many of the same underlying patterns. For example, symptoms associated with Yin deficiency (I’m using this example to be consistent) include: night sweats, afternoon sensations of fever, anorexia, dry, deformed and brittle nails, black floaters in the eye (or symptoms associated with CMV-retinitis), constipation, dry and persistent cough, dry eyes, dry mouth with desire to drink in small sips throughout day, thirst that is not satisfied with drinking, grasshopper mind, difficulty falling asleep, agitation, restlessness, etc. What can cause this pattern? Worry, fear, over thinking, over work, the “gay party scene”, lack of sleep, drugs like meth, cocaine, smoking, smoking marijuana, lack of proper nourishment, excessive cleansing, diarrhea, alcohol, medications, etc. Proceeding further with the example above, when one has a profound Yin deficiency, the body’s Yang (Yin being the moist, cooling, physical substance of the body, and Yang being the metabolic force, heat and capacity of the body to perform its physiological duties) can separate, causing chaos. When one takes drugs that suppress the body’s motive force, like chemotherapy, then the negative physiological expression of the chaos will temporarily cease. This is one example as to why the drugs can be effective to alleviate some of the symptoms associated with AIDS.
In plain English, the cause of AIDS isn't a retrovirus, but rather, is caused by Yin deficiency.
Now, I don't have anything against traditional chinese medicine at all (some of it has been proven to have scientific value, although most of it hasn't), but when you reread his posts in this thread knowing this information, suddenly there's some underlying logic to his train of thought. The reason why he doesn't believe that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, is because he doesn't believe any disease is caused by a virus.
At first I thought it was quite ironic that a person who's profession is dealing with needles doesn't believe that a virus in which one of its primary methods of transfer from person to person is contaminated needles doesn't believe this virus causes any harm, then I realized how incredibly disturbing this is. If he is sincerely attempting to cure AIDS with acupuncture, I sincerely hope that he properly sterilizes his equipment.
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
I would like to apologize for this on behalf of the TL community. We originally had you figured as some sort of christian religious zealot, when in reality we had the wrong religion all along.
Thanks for posting that. Actually I don't think that AIDS is solely caused by Yin Deficiency. If you go to read my entire posting, you will find that it is simply a very common theme within many of the Western manifestations of the disease. Further, I have never once stated that I am trying to cure anything with needles Rather, I am pointing out how a different system of physiology can be used to explain a lot of the disjointed phenomena regarding Western manifested AIDS.
Also, you make claims that my understanding of HIV and AIDS is based on Oriental medicine, not Western backed research. This is also false and not a claim that I ever made at all. If you were to read my actual and entire posting, it would be clear that I spent 2 years during my undergrad analyzing Peter Duesberg's and the orthodoxy's position for fun as an exercise to see how someone like Duesberg could have such an odd position.
During this time I read thousands of pages of research and articles, something I doubt that you have ever done. What lead me to my conclusions was not Duesberg's research or arguments, but the lack of evidence and terrible foundational science I found with the "normal" research.
This then lead me to have to severely reevaluate my life goals, which included being on the fast track to medical school. I have held a license and been practicing in the medical profession in some form or another since I was 18, all through my undergrad studies. I had to make a hard decision and decided that the easy way, to simply ignore my misgivings and become part of a system I did not believe in, was not something I could do.
I then looked for something else, as I always wanted to be a healer. Towards the end of my senior year I discovered a medical system that fulfilled what I was looking for. Also, acupuncture is not Oriental Medicine, it is simply a modality therein.
I am proud of my decision, am now a conventional PhD candidate and applying the differences in physiological ideology to other hard to treat diseases that have not had and development like cystic fibrosis. But that is neither here nor there and unrelated to the discussion at hand.
All of this is own post that you have spliced and diced, but I don't think you truly read it for comprehension in the first place, did you?
Regarding viruses in general, I do believe that the general accepted disease mechanism is actually a misinterpretation of microvesicle intercellular communication during oxidative stress. Once again, this stems from reading of foundational research and methods used in labs. A good overview of the concept can be found in the book Fear of the Invisible by Janine Roberts. Once again this opinion was developed by reading foundational research regarding the tobacco mosaic virus if anyone is interested to look into it.
Oh, and to add more relevant information to the discussion of HIV/AIDS, I have voted Republican in the last three elections and am a non-practicing Catholic. I enjoy surfing, chess, have a chow chow, ferret. and very happy it finally stopped raining the last 2 days.
Also, the reason that I have not responded to all hundreds of counter arguments made is that I do have a real life and am not interested in spending inordinate quantities of time making the proper counter arguments to each "herp derp what about Africa, people are dying." Those arguments are discussed in the links I have provided and I am uninterested in doing a dissertation's worth of work to make each one on my own to people that cannot even click on links.
And I have jumped from topic to topic because that has been the nature of responses and there are a lot of things wrong with HIV/AIDS theory. That includes testing, treatment, isolation, foundational proof, silencing of dissenting opinions by black listing of research, racism, homophobia, etc. If you are interested in an overview, what some videos like "The House of Numbers" which details a lot of the isolation and testing issues. You can get it straight from Gallo's, Montagnier's, etc. At the bottom left of this page are links to a host of such videos, most with Google links. http://reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Main_Page
Yeah you've easily been the most active participant in this thread, and this wall of text shows you have plenty of time to write responses so I'm not buying any of the "I have a social life so therefore I don't have time to respond to any of my critics". I haven't actually seen you respond to any of the counter-arguments put to you yet. All I see is you continually pushing your own ideology on the subject and then usually linking to a youtube video or a particularly biased source.
Actually a good idea is that if you're far to busy to respond to the arguments put to your assertions/citations then it's probably best not to enter the debate in the first place.
On February 14 2011 13:30 Azzur wrote: Nope, I don't have experience in molecular biology research but I can see the conflict of interest in the research of pharmaceutical drugs. This automatically raises alarm bells since there is a lot of money involved in the industry. Then there are scientists in the field claiming things contrary to the generally accepted opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism).
Whether these scientists are right or wrong, this raises questions on why research is stifled on the topic? Why have so many people come here using strong words to debunk these people? This is because we have been conditioned to believe in the established theories.
I thank you for linking me to that wikipedia article.
When I first read that article, my initial reaction was "wow, this is really biased against aids denialism". So I checked out what was going on in the talk page, and apparently one of the reason why the article was so harsh against aids denialism is that multiple pages on aids were sabotaged by members of the site questioningaids.com and as a result, aids denialists were labeled a fringe group by wikipedia editors. In wiki policy this means two things - one, proponents of fringe science are routinely banned from editing wikipedia (scientologists and dianetics is the most famous example of this) - two, what you'd expect NPOV to look like essentially goes out the window, because the NPOV on a fringe group is "these guys are insane".
First I would like to introduce myself. I am a third year student in an Oriental Medicine program. I have been a “dissident” for 5-6 years. What began as a pre-med Biochemistry major’s academic pursuit of studying two opposing sides of a scientific theory ended up with the complete and utter questioning of science in general and all medical paradigm. This culminated in me finding Oriental Medicine and a physiological/healing system that did make sense.
Then it suddenly hit me - AcuWill stands for Acupuncture Will. This guy has been running through this thread claiming to have done substantial medical research on HIV when in reality his medical research is on traditional chinese medicine. At any rate, AcuWill has made it quite clear that he doesn't believe HIV is the cause of AIDS. So, what does Acuwill believe is the real cause of AIDS?
This phenomenon transpires because there is a similarity in the stressors, and subsequently the terrain, that cause AIDS. This will lead to many of the same underlying patterns. For example, symptoms associated with Yin deficiency (I’m using this example to be consistent) include: night sweats, afternoon sensations of fever, anorexia, dry, deformed and brittle nails, black floaters in the eye (or symptoms associated with CMV-retinitis), constipation, dry and persistent cough, dry eyes, dry mouth with desire to drink in small sips throughout day, thirst that is not satisfied with drinking, grasshopper mind, difficulty falling asleep, agitation, restlessness, etc. What can cause this pattern? Worry, fear, over thinking, over work, the “gay party scene”, lack of sleep, drugs like meth, cocaine, smoking, smoking marijuana, lack of proper nourishment, excessive cleansing, diarrhea, alcohol, medications, etc. Proceeding further with the example above, when one has a profound Yin deficiency, the body’s Yang (Yin being the moist, cooling, physical substance of the body, and Yang being the metabolic force, heat and capacity of the body to perform its physiological duties) can separate, causing chaos. When one takes drugs that suppress the body’s motive force, like chemotherapy, then the negative physiological expression of the chaos will temporarily cease. This is one example as to why the drugs can be effective to alleviate some of the symptoms associated with AIDS.
In plain English, the cause of AIDS isn't a retrovirus, but rather, is caused by Yin deficiency.
Now, I don't have anything against traditional chinese medicine at all (some of it has been proven to have scientific value, although most of it hasn't), but when you reread his posts in this thread knowing this information, suddenly there's some underlying logic to his train of thought. The reason why he doesn't believe that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, is because he doesn't believe any disease is caused by a virus.
At first I thought it was quite ironic that a person who's profession is dealing with needles doesn't believe that a virus in which one of its primary methods of transfer from person to person is contaminated needles doesn't believe this virus causes any harm, then I realized how incredibly disturbing this is. If he is sincerely attempting to cure AIDS with acupuncture, I sincerely hope that he properly sterilizes his equipment.
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
I would like to apologize for this on behalf of the TL community. We originally had you figured as some sort of christian religious zealot, when in reality we had the wrong religion all along.
Thanks for posting that. Actually I don't think that AIDS is solely caused by Yin Deficiency. If you go to read my entire posting, you will find that it is simply a very common theme within many of the Western manifestations of the disease. Further, I have never once stated that I am trying to cure anything with needles Rather, I am pointing out how a different system of physiology can be used to explain a lot of the disjointed phenomena regarding Western manifested AIDS.
Also, you make claims that my understanding of HIV and AIDS is based on Oriental medicine, not Western backed research. This is also false and not a claim that I ever made at all. If you were to read my actual and entire posting, it would be clear that I spent 2 years during my undergrad analyzing Peter Duesberg's and the orthodoxy's position for fun as an exercise to see how someone like Duesberg could have such an odd position.
During this time I read thousands of pages of research and articles, something I doubt that you have ever done. What lead me to my conclusions was not Duesberg's research or arguments, but the lack of evidence and terrible foundational science I found with the "normal" research.
This then lead me to have to severely reevaluate my life goals, which included being on the fast track to medical school. I have held a license and been practicing in the medical profession in some form or another since I was 18, all through my undergrad studies. I had to make a hard decision and decided that the easy way, to simply ignore my misgivings and become part of a system I did not believe in, was not something I could do.
I then looked for something else, as I always wanted to be a healer. Towards the end of my senior year I discovered a medical system that fulfilled what I was looking for. Also, acupuncture is not Oriental Medicine, it is simply a modality therein.
I am proud of my decision, am now a conventional PhD candidate and applying the differences in physiological ideology to other hard to treat diseases that have not had and development like cystic fibrosis. But that is neither here nor there and unrelated to the discussion at hand.
All of this is own post that you have spliced and diced, but I don't think you truly read it for comprehension in the first place, did you?
Regarding viruses in general, I do believe that the general accepted disease mechanism is actually a misinterpretation of microvesicle intercellular communication during oxidative stress. Once again, this stems from reading of foundational research and methods used in labs. A good overview of the concept can be found in the book Fear of the Invisible by Janine Roberts. Once again this opinion was developed by reading foundational research regarding the tobacco mosaic virus if anyone is interested to look into it.
Oh, and to add more relevant information to the discussion of HIV/AIDS, I have voted Republican in the last three elections and am a non-practicing Catholic. I enjoy surfing, chess, have a chow chow, ferret. and very happy it finally stopped raining the last 2 days.
Also, the reason that I have not responded to all hundreds of counter arguments made is that I do have a real life and am not interested in spending inordinate quantities of time making the proper counter arguments to each "herp derp what about Africa, people are dying." Those arguments are discussed in the links I have provided and I am uninterested in doing a dissertation's worth of work to make each one on my own to people that cannot even click on links.
And I have jumped from topic to topic because that has been the nature of responses and there are a lot of things wrong with HIV/AIDS theory. That includes testing, treatment, isolation, foundational proof, silencing of dissenting opinions by black listing of research, racism, homophobia, etc. If you are interested in an overview, what some videos like "The House of Numbers" which details a lot of the isolation and testing issues. You can get it straight from Gallo's, Montagnier's, etc. At the bottom left of this page are links to a host of such videos, most with Google links. http://reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Main_Page
Yeah you've easily been the most active participant in this thread, and this wall of text shows you have plenty of time to write responses so I'm not buying any of the "I have a social life so therefore I don't have time to respond to any of my critics". I haven't actually seen you respond to any of the counter-arguments put to you yet. All I see is you continually pushing your own ideology on the subject and then usually linking to a youtube video or a particularly biased source.
Actually a good idea is that if you're far to busy to respond to the arguments put to your assertions/citations then it's probably best not to enter the debate in the first place.
Are not the sources the HIV causes AIDS (which none were posted) biased as well? That is the nature of having a position either way.
Also, the burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not the skeptic. The claim is that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS. Someone post me evidence of that and I will counter argue it.
On February 13 2011 14:19 AcuWill wrote: Anyway, my last post on this thread. It's nice to see some positive replies, but I don't have the time or the energy make educated replies to every counter argument that is thrown at me in an offhanded manner, especially when there is a plethora of information out there already on the topic. If anyone is curious, the links below are a good place to start.
On February 14 2011 22:25 AcuWill wrote: Also, the reason that I have not responded to all hundreds of counter arguments made is that I do have a real life and am not interested in spending inordinate quantities of time making the proper counter arguments...
The good old "I have better things to do, but I'll suffer one more response" hypocrisy.
Please stick to the discussion. If your real-life really can't be bothered, then don't waste your time justifying your reluctance to engage in debate.
And that her daughter was never even tested for HIV antibodies? A fact that lead Los Angeles county to settle a suit out of court for more than the initial law suit was for?
It looks like the suit had to do with the unauthorized release of private medical records, which doesn't exactly have anything to do with whether or not she actually had AIDS.
And what's the deal with Al-Bayati? The fact that he's such an outspoken and prolific denialist casts suspicion over everything he does. The fact that they got him to release that report instead of a real medical pathologist that doesn't have any personal stake in the issue says a lot. If she really died from iatrogneic causes, shouldn't that be obvious to ANY pathologist?
Edit: I've been familiar with the creator of that video for awhile. I have found a trend, and it's that every virologist I've met thinks HIV is a primary cause of AIDS.
On February 13 2011 14:19 AcuWill wrote: Anyway, my last post on this thread. It's nice to see some positive replies, but I don't have the time or the energy make educated replies to every counter argument that is thrown at me in an offhanded manner, especially when there is a plethora of information out there already on the topic. If anyone is curious, the links below are a good place to start.
On February 14 2011 22:25 AcuWill wrote: Also, the reason that I have not responded to all hundreds of counter arguments made is that I do have a real life and am not interested in spending inordinate quantities of time making the proper counter arguments...
The good old "I have better things to do, but I'll suffer one more response" hypocrisy.
Please stick to the discussion. If your real-life really can't be bothered, then don't waste your time justifying your reluctance to engage in debate.
Burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim. Provide proof that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS and I will argue it. I have yet to see it.
And that her daughter was never even tested for HIV antibodies? A fact that lead Los Angeles county to settle a suit out of court for more than the initial law suit was for?
It looks like the suit had to do with the unauthorized release of private medical records, which doesn't exactly have anything to do with whether or not she actually had AIDS.
And what's the deal with Al-Bayati? The fact that he's such an outspoken and prolific denialist casts suspicion over everything he does. The fact that they got him to release that report instead of a real medical pathologist that doesn't have any personal stake in the issue says a lot. If she really died from iatrogneic causes, shouldn't that be obvious to ANY pathologist?
In the article you ignore this quote, "Eliza Jane Scovill had never been tested for HIV."
And once again the circular logic. You are saying that Al-Bayati is unqualified to make his report because of the very nature of his argument, that his argument invalidates itself? That his pathology/toxicology report is invalid because of what the evidence that it indicates?
Seriously?
Yet, your youtube video made by AIDsTruth is valid and real evidence?
And that her daughter was never even tested for HIV antibodies? A fact that lead Los Angeles county to settle a suit out of court for more than the initial law suit was for?
It looks like the suit had to do with the unauthorized release of private medical records, which doesn't exactly have anything to do with whether or not she actually had AIDS.
And what's the deal with Al-Bayati? The fact that he's such an outspoken and prolific denialist casts suspicion over everything he does. The fact that they got him to release that report instead of a real medical pathologist that doesn't have any personal stake in the issue says a lot. If she really died from iatrogneic causes, shouldn't that be obvious to ANY pathologist?
Edit: I've been familiar with the creator of that video for awhile. I have found a trend, and it's that every virologist I've met thinks HIV is a primary cause of AIDS.
So your evidence that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS is that "every virologist I've met thinks HIV is a primary cause of AIDS." Ok.
My counter argument for your astounding argument and providing such strong case with the burden of proof on your shoulders: I have met virologists that think otherwise.
And that her daughter was never even tested for HIV antibodies? A fact that lead Los Angeles county to settle a suit out of court for more than the initial law suit was for?
It looks like the suit had to do with the unauthorized release of private medical records, which doesn't exactly have anything to do with whether or not she actually had AIDS.
And what's the deal with Al-Bayati? The fact that he's such an outspoken and prolific denialist casts suspicion over everything he does. The fact that they got him to release that report instead of a real medical pathologist that doesn't have any personal stake in the issue says a lot. If she really died from iatrogneic causes, shouldn't that be obvious to ANY pathologist?
In the article you ignore this quote, "Eliza Jane Scovill had never been tested for HIV."
And once again the circular logic. You are saying that Al-Bayati is unqualified to make his report because of the very nature of his argument, that his argument invalidates itself? That his pathology/toxicology report is invalid because of what the evidence that it indicates?
Seriously?
Yet, your youtube video made by AIDsTruth is valid and real evidence?
All your posts are pure rhetoric and your modus operandi is to ignore facts and evidence and react only to those parts of posts that contain opinions and then claiming that noone actually posted any evidence.
Point of that youtube video was not to provide evidence, but point out the dangers people like you pose to others.
And that her daughter was never even tested for HIV antibodies? A fact that lead Los Angeles county to settle a suit out of court for more than the initial law suit was for?
It looks like the suit had to do with the unauthorized release of private medical records, which doesn't exactly have anything to do with whether or not she actually had AIDS.
And what's the deal with Al-Bayati? The fact that he's such an outspoken and prolific denialist casts suspicion over everything he does. The fact that they got him to release that report instead of a real medical pathologist that doesn't have any personal stake in the issue says a lot. If she really died from iatrogneic causes, shouldn't that be obvious to ANY pathologist?
In the article you ignore this quote, "Eliza Jane Scovill had never been tested for HIV."
And once again the circular logic. You are saying that Al-Bayati is unqualified to make his report because of the very nature of his argument, that his argument invalidates itself? That his pathology/toxicology report is invalid because of what the evidence that it indicates?
Seriously?
Yet, your youtube video made by AIDsTruth is valid and real evidence?
All your posts are pure rhetoric and your modus operandi is to ignore facts and evidence and react only to those parts of posts that contain opinions and then claiming that noone actually posted any evidence.
Point of that youtube video was not to provide evidence, but point out the dangers people like you pose to others.
Provide me with those facts that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. You are making a claim, back it up. Burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine.
Think of it this way. I say, "The Jolly Green Giant is real." It is not your job to go out to prove that he isn't. It is my job to prove that he is.
EPT
