The Great "HIV" Hoax - Page 4

commonsense · #31 10-13-2009, 06:17 AM

Huh? So what is your education on this subject? First off, I very much doubt you could be tired of my 'weak rebuttals' as this is my 5th post and I've only registered 2 days ago!

Again, just for you, zoonosis is 100% possible with retrovirus such as HIV. Here is a paper which details very well but, without sounding condescending, its very heavy language unless you've got a health related BSc.

Retroviral zoonoses. (1998) Robin A. Weiss. Nature Medicine 4, 391 - 392

Now this was published in Nature, without a doubt one of the most respected medical journals in the world, so it has a lot of basis. I do believe this one single point hinges a lot of your additional 'things' which you argue so once you realise you are wrong you can drop with theory?

EireEngineer · #32 10-13-2009, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eye-Kon

My signature in other words would be.. I the phrase conspiracy theory is a dis-info term that is thrown around to make people doubt certain theorys before they even read them.

I never said this cure is the absolute real deal blah blah. I just said it could very possibly be a real cure for AIDS/HIV. Theres more evidence pointing towards it being a real cure then it not being one. I also find it hard to believe AIDS has been around since any time before 1960. They couldn't even identify the virus until the 70s or 80s. The whole theory about AIDS being around before 1960's is just more dis-info thats on the net to confuse the AIDS situation even more.

Well, its not just disinfo thats on the net....its published info in peer reviewed journals, and if you had bothered to read any of it you would know that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eye-Kon

As for zoonosis, retro-virus' don't fall in to the infectious agents catagory that can perform zoonosis.

This on is just plain wrong. Retrovirus' can and do jump the species barrier and are on the list of vectors that can, had you bothered to do a 2 second google search

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eye-Kon

Its just like if you had hepatitis C, your cat wouldn't be able to catch it from you no matter what, just like if your cat had cat hepatitis you wouldn't be able to catch it from your cat. However there is infections that are communicable between animals and humans most of them are bacterial. No offense or anything but I'm honestly tired of the weak rebuttals you dish out in every thread. You seem to be a forum spammer who just gives links to articles with no basis and you ignore alot of the main points I make in general about things.

Since it is obvious that you have gotten most of your info from the internet and refuse to look at anything that the actual scientific community has on the subject, i dont know what to tell you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eye-Kon

Heres a tid-bit for ya, I think around 400 people got trial hep B vaccines in the 70s or somethin, in new york. I think around 310 of those people died of AIDS, the other 90 people have 'unknown' deaths. In other words they all could of died of AIDS. Something along those lines happend in africa in the 70's as well. I find it hard to believe AIDS just jumped continents from Africa to the US in a few years and infected thousands in each place yet there was no cases in other places like Europe or Asia. I also find it hard to believe someone caught AIDS from monkey for a number of reasons. Well for one thing its a retro-virus and for another the disease was essentially just a virus that was only in sheep and lambs until after a few monkeys were used for trial vaccinations. The virus originates from lambs and sheeps however it was spliced to infect humans and monkeys. You cannot get AIDS/HIV from a monkey or anything besides another human! The disease started through vaccinations in Africa and New York. Its a contagious form of cancer in a sense. However, its main mode of destruction is a immunological supression so ones body its defenseless against other infections.

Actually, if you had read any of the articles you would see that there is clear evidence of HIV in the human population well before the seventies. Analisys of two samples, one from 1959 and one from 1960, showed two different strains of HIV. Given the known rate of genetic drift we can extrapolate that these two strains had to come from a source which crossed the species barrier sometime between 1890 and 1928.

BlueAngel · #33 10-13-2009, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by commonsense

Huh? So what is your education on this subject?

Mr. Engineer knows all.

He's a ROCKET SCIENTIST; a DEMOLITION ENGINEER and an expert on HIV/AIDS, thus far.

Stay tuned.

I'm certain there is more to come.

EireEngineer · #34 10-14-2009, 08:09 AM

I do read alot. How many journals do you subscribe to? And can you rebut anything I have said without resorting to ad hominem?

commonsense · #35 10-14-2009, 09:57 AM

I'm sorry I think you've misunderstood - that comment was aimed at eye-kon.

EireEngineer · #36 10-14-2009, 10:16 AM

Yeah, she likes setting up that strawman argument, but rarely has a legitimate rebuttal. Its funny.

Eye-Kon · #37 10-20-2009, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

Since it is obvious that you have gotten most of your info from the internet and refuse to look at anything that the actual scientific community has on the subject, i dont know what to tell you.
Actually, if you had read any of the articles you would see that there is clear evidence of HIV in the human population well before the seventies. Analisys of two samples, one from 1959 and one from 1960, showed two different strains of HIV. Given the known rate of genetic drift we can extrapolate that these two strains had to come from a source which crossed the species barrier sometime between 1890 and 1928.

The conclusion that the disease jumped species somewhere between 1890 and 1928 is just an assumption. It doesn't dis-credit my arguement of it being a synthetic disease. The disease could have been made to have mutiple strains upon its release. Also, lies can be easily made up, I honestly think the 'regulators' do what ever seems appropriate to cover their tracks such as in-accurate articles. And btw your right, I have gotten most of my info from the internet. I've seen articles about tetra-silver that regard AIDS get removed from search engines, forums etc over and over again. I can't even post anything about tetra-silver on AIDS forum about how it could possibly be a cure with out it being removed with in 5 minutes. I see this as a tell-tale sign of it being the truth. I see multiple other threads on those forums about possible cures. Internet censorship has been around since '05 btw. I also find it odd how Boyd Graves wikipedia profile was removed from the net about a year ago. Its also weird how he was found mysteriously shot in his home about a year ago, this incident was labled as a suicide, hell I'm having trouble finding that article now.

Eye-Kon · #38 10-20-2009, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by commonsense

Huh? So what is your education on this subject? First off, I very much doubt you could be tired of my 'weak rebuttals' as this is my 5th post and I've only registered 2 days ago!

Again, just for you, zoonosis is 100% possible with retrovirus such as HIV. Here is a paper which details very well but, without sounding condescending, its very heavy language unless you've got a health related BSc.

Retroviral zoonoses. (1998) Robin A. Weiss. Nature Medicine 4, 391 - 392

Now this was published in Nature, without a doubt one of the most respected medical journals in the world, so it has a lot of basis. I do believe this one single point hinges a lot of your additional 'things' which you argue so once you realise you are wrong you can drop with theory?

All that really says is that it could be possible to get it from a monkey. Again this doesn't dis-credit or dis-prove any of my information.

Mr Blee · #39 10-20-2009, 04:04 AM

I think this erieengineer is a real scientist and has his fact together.
As far as a cure for AIDS I can speak on this subject. my brother died from the AIDS virus. And when he was sick his boyfriend was an OB/GYN sugeon, actually graduated second from Pitt medical school, not easy to do.

So here it is...
AIDS may never be cured totally. However it might be treated like diabetes ie taking meds for the rest of your life.
When AIDS first hit my brother lived in San Francisco and lost his boyfriend (boyfriend before the doc) to this hideous disease. At first it took only a couple months from the time the patient showed symptoms to the time of death. When my brother contracted the virus he lived 7 years from symptoms to death. so they are making progress.

We did alot of discussion on the matter. We know my brother contracted AIDS on the west coast (he moved back to Pittsburgh after the big earthquake) due to the fact that his major symptom was cancer (they called it gay cancer) lymposynoma or something like that. And most east coast case symptoms were pneumonia. Best we could figure is our weather is more problematic to east coast weather conditions. We get more flu cases due to this. But it was the best guess not proven at the time.

The upside of my brother getting the cancer was Pit cancer institute did not have many cases of the cancer and my brother got into a study. if you look at the picture of the cancerous leg in the books from Pitt it is my brother leg. This got him alot of medicine and help we could not afford.

As far as conspiracy when the the Doc got AIDS and told the hospital and wanted to tell his patients that he operated on them with the virus, it was actually hidden deep in his contract that he was not aloud to tell his patients. That is a sickness in itself.

commonsense · #40 10-20-2009, 04:53 AM

Mr Blee- sorry for your loss. Telling past patients that their doctor may have had HIV would be a bad idea, think of the mass panic - having to wait weeks for the results.

Eye-Kon- one of your strong points for a man-made HIV virus was that zoonosis was not possible, but now you agree with me that it is entirely possible for a monkey to pass the virus on? Although this doesn't discount your theory, it makes it an awful lot harder to swallow. It is much more likely a human caught the virus from a monkey, now this doesn't mean a human had sex with a monkey. A more realistic senario would be the preperation of a monkey for a meal, during the slaughtering infected blood could enter the human blood stream - BINGO - HIV zoonosis.