So CLEARLY there is a link between some cancers, and some viruses.
Absolutely, many documented examples.
At what point that "link" blurs and the line between "causing" and "becoming" i have ZERO idea.
A virus cannot become a cancer, only be (one of) the cause(s). If the government did actually work to create a virus causing lymphoma, it kind of failed
But i don't think either one of us has a complex and high level understanding of microbiology.
Well not a high, but high enough to know microbiology is for bacteria and molecular biology is for cancers and virus
I'm sure Baraka could posit some ways that these two "different" life forms could come together.
Technically neither are life forms, but the closest would be the virus. A cancer is just some of your cells going horribly bad. Many cases of virus causing cancers are documented (such as the link hpv - cervical cancer and the recent vaccine supposed to prevent infection and then the cancer).
Also, keep in mind, that one of the governments favorite tricks back in the 60s and 70s was to expose their experimental viruses or cancers to RADIATION.You wanna talk about a quick way to mutate the shit out of something.
Radiations are actually one of the available treatments for cancer
And radiation is a shitty way to mutate a virus since technically you can't control the way you'll mutate it. It's much easier to just create it from scratch. But that wasn't feasible in the 60-70's.
Do governments create biological weapons? yes
Do governments work on virus/bacteria and other infectious shit? yes
Does their findings help progress in medical techniques? yes
Does anyone have to gain anything by creating hiv? not really. unless you're really cynical and consider pharmaceutical companies create the diseases they treat.
Does anyone have to gain anything by raising the incidence of cancers in the general population? no, definitely not.
Does anyone have to gain anything by creating hiv? not really. unless you're really cynical and consider pharmaceutical companies create the diseases they treat.
Does anyone have to gain anything by raising the incidence of cancers in the general population? no, definitely not.
Policy makers concerned with overpopulation, or the political uprising of poverty stricken populations around the globe might "have something to gain".
I'm pretty sure they would much rather these people just dropped dead. Dropping dead, and requiring their governments to go heavily in to debt to purchase expensive treatments would be even better.
Call me cynical.
You said "virus causing cancer" and dismissed it,
but you just acknowledged there were "cancer causing viruses" ... why do you think Lymphoma Virus was supposed to be a cancer that caused a virus, and not the other way around?
And why do you not acknowledge that according to the DOD's own admission in a 1970 congressional budget record, that they were hoping to create a new disease that would significantly and permanently destroy the immune system of the infected individual?
That seems significant,
particularly in the context of the origin of HIV.
?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Policy makers concerned with overpopulation, or the political uprising of poverty stricken populations around the globe might "have something to gain".
I'm pretty sure they would much rather these people just dropped dead. Dropping dead, and requiring their governments to go heavily in to debt to purchase expensive treatments would be even better.
Call me cynical.
That is cynical, and doesn't really make sense. If you see things that way what's to stop you from thinking every modern disease is an invention from "these people" designed to raise money and lower population density?
You said "virus causing cancer" and dismissed it,
but you just acknowledged there were "cancer causing viruses" ... why do you think Lymphoma Virus was supposed to be a cancer that caused a virus, and not the other way around?
And why do you not acknowledge that according to the DOD's own admission in a 1970 congressional budget record, that they were hoping to create a new disease that would significantly and permanently destroy the immune system of the infected individual?
That seems significant,
particularly in the context of the origin of HIV.
I don't think I acknowledged cancer causing viruses (if so, I'm sorry it's wrong), so no I think lymphoma virus is a virus specifically designed to cause lymphomas. And that stuff clearly failed since it comes far behind treatments, genetics and environment for causes.
I don't believe this hope to create a disease destroying the immune system: I fail to see the use of it. If you want to show me a "smoking gun" of government created diseases, show me the use of doing such diseases knowing :
1 - there are diseases far more deadly than aids (faster and more efficient)
2 - there are diseases costing much more than aids in treatments
When Robert Gallo's blood test for HIV became available in the mid-1980s, the New York Blood Center's stored gay blood specimens were re-examined. Most astonishing is the fact that 20% of the gay men who volunteered for the hepatitis B experiment in Manhattan were discovered to be HIV-positive in 1980 (one year before the AIDS epidemic became "official" in 1981). This signifies that Manhattan gays in 1980 had the highest incidence of HIV anywhere in the world, including Africa, the supposed birthplace of HIV and AIDS. In addition, we now know that one out of five gay men (20%) tested positive for the new KS herpes-8 virus in 1982 when stored blood samples from an AIDS trial in New York City were re-examined by epidemiologists at the NCI in 1999.
Do you not see a major problem with HIV allegedly coming from a monkey virus "jumping" species in Africa, but yet the initial population with the highest incidence of HIV was a gay community involved with a government vaccine study in America?
Further, the same percentage (20%) of these men come up positive for a new form of herpes (HHV-8 which causes "gay cancer". This virus was not official "discovered" for another 15 years.
WTF do you make of that?
Particularly considering the government had a stated (and HEAVILY FUNDED) mission to come up with a biological program that would create both a virus to permanently destroy the immune system, and then also to find a cancer that was transmissible via viral infection.
HIV with HHV-8 sure seems to fit that bill.
?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Ahh. Jesus.
I don't even know where to start, girl.
I'm so riled up, and so much of what you quoted (i assume the bottom of that last post was quoted?) is disingenious information.
'disingenious information?' Are you talking about conspiracy sites opposed to peer reviewed papers, & articles & books written by an epidemiologist, a physician, or a public health professional, those on the front lines and in the field?
Instead of addressing this directly, i want to RE-DIRECT you BACK to the 10 minute video i posted, which i still don't think you've watched. If you had, i think you may have some questions yourself.
And the scientific reason given is ??? (snip)
WTF does that mean?
Seriously. Yeah its some words on paper but just THINK about it. Just THINK. A sexually transmitted disease, that is 112 times more prevalent on one continent than another ... and the attempted rationalization is that "local economies" have something to do with this ??? Poverty? MIGRATION ??? War ???? "global economies" WTF? Cultural politics !!??!?
A SEXUALLY transmitted disease, and the alleged reason that Africa has 11,250% more infections than America is?
They are poor, have more wars, and their economy ???
Drifting, I'm not sure how much more empirical evidence you need. I've provided answers to all these questions in my many lengthy posts in this thread.
To briefly explain "my" position,
i'm tempted to believe that the government was heavily involved in creating this virus, and i also think the test (Western Blot) is faulty, being used subjectively, and may be causing many false diagnosis in Africa and around the world. On top of that the drugs that have historicaly been given for HIV were and are highly toxic. Its not a stretch to think if you give a highly toxic drug to someone who is already seriously malnourished and ill that they might die, is it?
Test methodology is my forte! I do it for a living. Now, I've already provided some information about testing eariler in this thread, but maybe I can be a little bit clearer this time without getting too boring.
First of all, out of the thousands of medical diagnostic tests out there to diagnose any medical problem, the Aids test ( Elisa followed by western blot which amplifies HIV DNA) is the most sensitive and specific test out there. Like I've said earlier, it's a damn good test, in fact, many other diagnostic tests out there don't come close to surpassing the AIDS test in its accuracy. The current tests that look for Lupus or rheumatoid arthritis or syphllis doesn't even come close to the accuracy of the AIDS test. Why no 'conspiracy' about rheumatoid arthritis or lupus or syphillis?
The rapid ELISA test has a sensitivity and specificity of over 99%. (The sensitivities and specificities close to 100% really make the test very reliable in the right clinical setting.) I don't know of any other medical diagnostic serum testing that is so sensitive or specific. And yes there are false positives and negatives. However, if you look at the fact that the most common malaria test has only a sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 95 %, the malaria testing has a much higher rate of false positives! Is there also a conspiracy about the malaria epidemic?
So anyway, keeping it real, the ELISA detects antibodies to HIV +/- p24 Antigen (in the case of 4th generation assays). It is a highly sensitive and highly specific assay, but is capable of giving significant numbers of false positives in a low prevalence population (where the pre-test odds are low). This is a common pitfall, low prevalence compromises positive predictive value in any test with less than 100% specificity.
The Western Blot (or immunoblot) detects specific antibodies to weight sorted HIV-1 proteins belonging to the 3 classes (gag, pol, env). It is a less sensitive but more specific assay than the ELISA, and is often used for confirmation and disease follow-up. The Western Blot pattern can be positive, negative or indeterminate and there are different criteria for reading them (CDC/ASTPHLD, American Red Cross, CRSS etc.) The pattern can evolve with disease progression. HIV-2 specific WBs are available.
Nucleic acid tests are the most sensitive, most specific and most expensive. They are difficult to perform with expertise (if done improperly, false negatives due to sample matrix inhibition and false positives due to sample-sample carryover contamination abound). They are uncommonly used in routine clinical diagnosis and are generally reserved for screening blood products prior to human transfusion. They are also sometimes useful in testing neonates with vertically acquired maternal antibodies to HIV. You can test for viral RNA or proviral DNA (which is the form that integrates into human cells). And you can use different assay methodologies (PCR for DNA, RT-PCR for RNA and bDNA (branched chain DNA assay).
There is no doubt under the right circumstance a test can produce false positives and negatives but there is no other medical diagnostic test that I can think of offhand that has such a good specificity and sensitivity (thus the potential to diagnose a blood clot in the lungs is fraught with much more false negatives and positives). That's why bringing up the rate of false positives and false negatives as the main thrust of the argument is way off base. Most folks have no idea that almost all other medical diagnostic testing are far less sensitive and specific.
Ah, you had to get me going on methodology!!!
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Also, as far as Africa (and I mentioned this earlier in the thread), the diagnosis of AIDS, especially in very impoverished areas, is often on symptoms rather than a molecular test. I said this earlier, but doctors get pretty damn good at diagnosis based on symptoms alone. Like I said, a single bout of malaria or diarrhea won't cause a physician to suspect AIDS, even in Africa. It's when those are frequent, and accompanied by other signs (such as severe weight loss, etc.) that the physician begins to suspect AIDS.
As far as the toxicity of the medicines or treatments.............well, again, like my argument concerning testing, this is a fact of medicine in general for many things. Some treatments cause other conditions. A lot of treatments, such as chemo & radiation are quite dangerous actually.
Also, I'm actually still unclear of your position. Do you believe HIV cause AIDS? Or do you just believe HIV is a man made virus? Some of your arguments leads me to believe you don't actually believe HIV causes AIDS.
And if you don't believe the Africans are dying from AIDS or that the tests are faulty giving false positives, then what do you think is happening to these folk's immune systems that is making them die from things that just don't kill people with normal immunities, even under the most distressing physical conditions ( ie: starvation?) I'm talking about cryptococcal meningitis, toxoplasmosis, PCP pneumonia, etc, infections that were almost non existent until the AIDS epidemic. I suppose you could argue about how these folks died from 'normal infections' like cholera, streptococcal pneumonia, malaria, etc which also kill non HIV infected folks, but how do you explain these opportunistic infections? MAC colitis ( Mycobacterium avium complex) diarrhea is almost unheard of in those with normal immune systems. Ok, maybe you can argue about chemotherapy induced immune dysfunction (which predisposes these patients to some similar opportunistic infections found only in HIV), but I doubt that that many Africans are getting chemotherapy.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Cynisism makes a LOT of sense when dealing with government,
but hey whatever man.
Well then answer this : "If you see things that way what's to stop you from thinking every modern disease is an invention from "these people" designed to raise money and lower population density?".
You have doubts on HIV because of documents, but what's to stop you from falling in the all paranoid delirium that we don't know shit and every single disease in a human invention?
Baraka: I don't really need to quote anything, but i read everything you typed, and i really appreciate your responses.
So heres the deal.
I posted this thread immediately after watching AIDS, Inc so my head was filled with mixed thoughts.
But i've come across some new information that has solidified my opinion.
Check this out:
You want to know what my position is?
I'm sticking with Dr. Leonard Horowitz and PhD Boyd Graves on this issue -- the government made HIV.
Earlier i said that it was possible some of this "HIV doesn't exist" line of thinking could simply be explained as Counter Intelligence -- false opposition -- psychological operations. That assertion apparently IS correct!
Here is what made the lightbulb go off if you will:
The preeminent "AIDS denialist", the one that apparently started it all and continues to lead the "denialist" charge is none other than Doctor Peter Duesberg.
Want to take a guess what Dr. Duesberg did before denying HIV as a cause of "AIDS"?
I mean, besides being a preeminent researcher of retrovirology, and a professor of molecular and cell biology at UCLA Berkley.
I'll give you one guess.
Give up?
Through the 1970's he worked under the same Litton Bionetics contract for the Department of Defense, as a collegue and co-research associate of Dr. Robert Gallo ... FOR? ... huh ? ... The US Special Virus Cancer Program.
Get it?
Spell it out for you?
Gallo and Deusberg were BOTH part of the SVCP and are probably co-conspirators to the research on and eventual creation of the "special virus", which in all actuality is HIV.
So the masks these gentleman wore to disguise their association with the creation of HIV?
One becomes the Dr. who DISCOVERS the virus.
And the other one discredits himself and smokescreens the whole things by becoming the DENIER of the virus.
Again,
SERIOUSLY.
Anyone who questions this as idiotic conspiracy REALLY needs to check in to just what the fuck the Special Virus Cancer Program was.
Did you see the quote that appears halfway through that 10 minute clip?
IT DESCRIBES HIV\AIDS, TO THE T-CELL.
Is it not just a LITTLE bit curious that a program that ran 15 years prior to the initial outbreak of HIV had the stated intention of creating a virus EXACTLY like HIV ... and they said in 1970 it could be ready in ten years? 1980, again to the T-Cell.
???
Brains people.
Use them.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Comments
A virus cannot become a cancer, only be (one of) the cause(s). If the government did actually work to create a virus causing lymphoma, it kind of failed
Well not a high, but high enough to know microbiology is for bacteria and molecular biology is for cancers and virus
Technically neither are life forms, but the closest would be the virus. A cancer is just some of your cells going horribly bad. Many cases of virus causing cancers are documented (such as the link hpv - cervical cancer and the recent vaccine supposed to prevent infection and then the cancer).
Radiations are actually one of the available treatments for cancer
And radiation is a shitty way to mutate a virus since technically you can't control the way you'll mutate it. It's much easier to just create it from scratch. But that wasn't feasible in the 60-70's.
Do governments create biological weapons? yes
Do governments work on virus/bacteria and other infectious shit? yes
Does their findings help progress in medical techniques? yes
Does anyone have to gain anything by creating hiv? not really. unless you're really cynical and consider pharmaceutical companies create the diseases they treat.
Does anyone have to gain anything by raising the incidence of cancers in the general population? no, definitely not.
Policy makers concerned with overpopulation, or the political uprising of poverty stricken populations around the globe might "have something to gain".
I'm pretty sure they would much rather these people just dropped dead. Dropping dead, and requiring their governments to go heavily in to debt to purchase expensive treatments would be even better.
Call me cynical.
You said "virus causing cancer" and dismissed it,
but you just acknowledged there were "cancer causing viruses" ... why do you think Lymphoma Virus was supposed to be a cancer that caused a virus, and not the other way around?
And why do you not acknowledge that according to the DOD's own admission in a 1970 congressional budget record, that they were hoping to create a new disease that would significantly and permanently destroy the immune system of the infected individual?
That seems significant,
particularly in the context of the origin of HIV.
?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I don't think I acknowledged cancer causing viruses (if so, I'm sorry it's wrong), so no I think lymphoma virus is a virus specifically designed to cause lymphomas. And that stuff clearly failed since it comes far behind treatments, genetics and environment for causes.
I don't believe this hope to create a disease destroying the immune system: I fail to see the use of it. If you want to show me a "smoking gun" of government created diseases, show me the use of doing such diseases knowing :
1 - there are diseases far more deadly than aids (faster and more efficient)
2 - there are diseases costing much more than aids in treatments
Cynisism makes a LOT of sense when dealing with government,
but hey whatever man.
All i'm saying is this doesn't add up:
-source
Do you not see a major problem with HIV allegedly coming from a monkey virus "jumping" species in Africa, but yet the initial population with the highest incidence of HIV was a gay community involved with a government vaccine study in America?
Further, the same percentage (20%) of these men come up positive for a new form of herpes (HHV-8 which causes "gay cancer". This virus was not official "discovered" for another 15 years.
WTF do you make of that?
Particularly considering the government had a stated (and HEAVILY FUNDED) mission to come up with a biological program that would create both a virus to permanently destroy the immune system, and then also to find a cancer that was transmissible via viral infection.
HIV with HHV-8 sure seems to fit that bill.
?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
'disingenious information?' Are you talking about conspiracy sites opposed to peer reviewed papers, & articles & books written by an epidemiologist, a physician, or a public health professional, those on the front lines and in the field?
Ah, Dr Gallo again. I agree that his credibility is in serious doubt. But is the whole story really http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gallo#HIV.2FAIDS_research_and_subsequent_controversy
Drifting, I'm not sure how much more empirical evidence you need. I've provided answers to all these questions in my many lengthy posts in this thread.
Test methodology is my forte! I do it for a living. Now, I've already provided some information about testing eariler in this thread, but maybe I can be a little bit clearer this time without getting too boring.
First of all, out of the thousands of medical diagnostic tests out there to diagnose any medical problem, the Aids test ( Elisa followed by western blot which amplifies HIV DNA) is the most sensitive and specific test out there. Like I've said earlier, it's a damn good test, in fact, many other diagnostic tests out there don't come close to surpassing the AIDS test in its accuracy. The current tests that look for Lupus or rheumatoid arthritis or syphllis doesn't even come close to the accuracy of the AIDS test. Why no 'conspiracy' about rheumatoid arthritis or lupus or syphillis?
The rapid ELISA test has a sensitivity and specificity of over 99%. (The sensitivities and specificities close to 100% really make the test very reliable in the right clinical setting.) I don't know of any other medical diagnostic serum testing that is so sensitive or specific. And yes there are false positives and negatives. However, if you look at the fact that the most common malaria test has only a sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 95 %, the malaria testing has a much higher rate of false positives! Is there also a conspiracy about the malaria epidemic?
So anyway, keeping it real, the ELISA detects antibodies to HIV +/- p24 Antigen (in the case of 4th generation assays). It is a highly sensitive and highly specific assay, but is capable of giving significant numbers of false positives in a low prevalence population (where the pre-test odds are low). This is a common pitfall, low prevalence compromises positive predictive value in any test with less than 100% specificity.
The Western Blot (or immunoblot) detects specific antibodies to weight sorted HIV-1 proteins belonging to the 3 classes (gag, pol, env). It is a less sensitive but more specific assay than the ELISA, and is often used for confirmation and disease follow-up. The Western Blot pattern can be positive, negative or indeterminate and there are different criteria for reading them (CDC/ASTPHLD, American Red Cross, CRSS etc.) The pattern can evolve with disease progression. HIV-2 specific WBs are available.
Nucleic acid tests are the most sensitive, most specific and most expensive. They are difficult to perform with expertise (if done improperly, false negatives due to sample matrix inhibition and false positives due to sample-sample carryover contamination abound). They are uncommonly used in routine clinical diagnosis and are generally reserved for screening blood products prior to human transfusion. They are also sometimes useful in testing neonates with vertically acquired maternal antibodies to HIV. You can test for viral RNA or proviral DNA (which is the form that integrates into human cells). And you can use different assay methodologies (PCR for DNA, RT-PCR for RNA and bDNA (branched chain DNA assay).
There is no doubt under the right circumstance a test can produce false positives and negatives but there is no other medical diagnostic test that I can think of offhand that has such a good specificity and sensitivity (thus the potential to diagnose a blood clot in the lungs is fraught with much more false negatives and positives). That's why bringing up the rate of false positives and false negatives as the main thrust of the argument is way off base. Most folks have no idea that almost all other medical diagnostic testing are far less sensitive and specific.
Ah, you had to get me going on methodology!!!
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
As far as the toxicity of the medicines or treatments.............well, again, like my argument concerning testing, this is a fact of medicine in general for many things. Some treatments cause other conditions. A lot of treatments, such as chemo & radiation are quite dangerous actually.
Also, I'm actually still unclear of your position. Do you believe HIV cause AIDS? Or do you just believe HIV is a man made virus? Some of your arguments leads me to believe you don't actually believe HIV causes AIDS.
And if you don't believe the Africans are dying from AIDS or that the tests are faulty giving false positives, then what do you think is happening to these folk's immune systems that is making them die from things that just don't kill people with normal immunities, even under the most distressing physical conditions ( ie: starvation?) I'm talking about cryptococcal meningitis, toxoplasmosis, PCP pneumonia, etc, infections that were almost non existent until the AIDS epidemic. I suppose you could argue about how these folks died from 'normal infections' like cholera, streptococcal pneumonia, malaria, etc which also kill non HIV infected folks, but how do you explain these opportunistic infections? MAC colitis ( Mycobacterium avium complex) diarrhea is almost unheard of in those with normal immune systems. Ok, maybe you can argue about chemotherapy induced immune dysfunction (which predisposes these patients to some similar opportunistic infections found only in HIV), but I doubt that that many Africans are getting chemotherapy.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
You have doubts on HIV because of documents, but what's to stop you from falling in the all paranoid delirium that we don't know shit and every single disease in a human invention?
So heres the deal.
I posted this thread immediately after watching AIDS, Inc so my head was filled with mixed thoughts.
But i've come across some new information that has solidified my opinion.
Check this out:
You want to know what my position is?
I'm sticking with Dr. Leonard Horowitz and PhD Boyd Graves on this issue -- the government made HIV.
Earlier i said that it was possible some of this "HIV doesn't exist" line of thinking could simply be explained as Counter Intelligence -- false opposition -- psychological operations. That assertion apparently IS correct!
Here is what made the lightbulb go off if you will:
The preeminent "AIDS denialist", the one that apparently started it all and continues to lead the "denialist" charge is none other than Doctor Peter Duesberg.
Want to take a guess what Dr. Duesberg did before denying HIV as a cause of "AIDS"?
I mean, besides being a preeminent researcher of retrovirology, and a professor of molecular and cell biology at UCLA Berkley.
I'll give you one guess.
Give up?
Through the 1970's he worked under the same Litton Bionetics contract for the Department of Defense, as a collegue and co-research associate of Dr. Robert Gallo ... FOR? ... huh ? ... The US Special Virus Cancer Program.
Get it?
Spell it out for you?
Gallo and Deusberg were BOTH part of the SVCP and are probably co-conspirators to the research on and eventual creation of the "special virus", which in all actuality is HIV.
So the masks these gentleman wore to disguise their association with the creation of HIV?
One becomes the Dr. who DISCOVERS the virus.
And the other one discredits himself and smokescreens the whole things by becoming the DENIER of the virus.
Again,
SERIOUSLY.
Anyone who questions this as idiotic conspiracy REALLY needs to check in to just what the fuck the Special Virus Cancer Program was.
Did you see the quote that appears halfway through that 10 minute clip?
IT DESCRIBES HIV\AIDS, TO THE T-CELL.
Is it not just a LITTLE bit curious that a program that ran 15 years prior to the initial outbreak of HIV had the stated intention of creating a virus EXACTLY like HIV ... and they said in 1970 it could be ready in ten years? 1980, again to the T-Cell.
???
Brains people.
Use them.
If I opened it now would you not understand?