http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/cfmullis.htm

ARE YOU GOING TO DISAGREE WITH A NOBEL PRIZE WINNER?

Quote :

"One of Duesberg's strongest arguments in the debate has been that the HIV virus is barely detectable in people who suffer from AIDS. Ironically, when PCR was applied to HIV research, around 1989, researchers claimed to have put this complaint to rest. Using the new technology, they were suddenly able to see viral particles in the quantities they couldn't see before. Scientific articles poured forth stating that HIV was now 100 times more prevalent than was previously thought. But Mullis himself was unimpressed. "PCR made it easier to see that certain people are infected with HIV," he told Spin in 1992," and some of those people came down with symptoms of AIDS. But that doesn't begin even to answer the question, 'Does HIV cause it?'" Mullis then went on to echo one of Duesberg's most controversial claims. "Human beings are full of retroviruses," he said, "We don't know if it is hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands. We've only recently started to look for them. But they've never killed anybody before. People have always survived retroviruses." "

5/19/2006 6:55:19 PM

so what. some smart people are paranoid.

5/19/2006 7:18:43 PM

yeah like george w bush and ultra right wing gun people

5/19/2006 8:48:17 PM

I disagree with Nobel Prize Winners all the time.

5/19/2006 9:01:17 PM

I mow down Nobel peace prize winners

and orphans having Christmas dinners

5/20/2006 12:08:48 AM

YOU DISAGREED WITH A NOBEL PRIZE WINNER. YOU ARROGANT BASTARDS.

5/20/2006 1:38:59 AM

why hasnt sals. been on this....

7/3/2006 12:08:26 AM

"The horror of it is every goddamn thing you look at, if you look at it through the glasses that you've developed through looking at this thing, seems pretty scary to me. Look at the oncogene people and I go, oh yeah, I know what they are doing. Same stuff. Oncogenes don't have anything to do with cancer. Radiation probably doesn't have anything to do with stopping cancer. The drugs that we use on people - all those goddamn horrible poisons - they're no less toxic than AZT. And we are doing it to everybody. Everybody's aunt is being radiated once a goddamn month and given drugs that are going to kill her. We're dealing with a bunch of witch doctors. The whole medical profession - except for the people that patch you up when you get a broken leg or you have a pumbling problem - is really fucked. It's just a bunch of people that have become socially important and very rich by thinking about the fact that they might be able to cure the diseases that actually cause people in our society to die. And they can't do shit about it. It's scary, that's what it is."

7/3/2006 1:03:03 AM

Quote :

"About half a million people went for it. No one has been cured. Most of them are dead. The ones who are not are also taking another drug now, a protease inhibitor. Who knows what it will do? The manufacturers didn't know when they started selling it. The FD.A. didn't require them to show that it would cure AIDS and not kill the patient, any more than they required them to show that about A.Z.T. They only required that a surrogate goal be met. A surrogate goal means that something that we think may be related to the disease in question may be improved by the drug, like the level of CD-4 cells, whatever the fuck they are. It's a way to get around the notion that a drug ought to be effective in curing the disease that it is sold for before it can be sold. The surrogate-goal bullshit is an indication that our F.D.A. no longer serves our needs. Or at least it does not serve our needs unless we own stock in the pharmaceutical industry and don't give a shit about health care."

7/3/2006 1:34:33 AM

those decades of fda trials and millions in fines are sure helping big business.

7/3/2006 9:39:20 AM

7/3/2006 10:41:37 AM

He's right that our Medical advancements are still very crude and brute force.

7/3/2006 11:47:14 AM

^Heck, our dentists use a lot of the same tools they used in Roman times.

7/3/2006 12:06:29 PM

Uhm, no not really.

7/3/2006 1:48:43 PM

because I work in an AIDS research laboratory, I am happy to review the evidence that HIV causes AIDS

Quote :

"The evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV-1 or HIV-2 is clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous, meeting the highest standards of science3-7. The data fulfil exactly the same criteria as for other viral diseases, such as polio, measles and smallpox: * Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV3-7. * If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within 5–10 years6, 7. HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections. * People who receive HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who receive untainted or screened blood do not6. * Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV-infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected8. * In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4 lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS3-5. * Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80% (ref. 9). * Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS10."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6791/full/406015a0_r.html

7/3/2006 2:27:07 PM

the latest research says HIV-2 cannot cause aids.

Quote :

"Nef variants from the great majority of primate SIVs, including the less virulent human strain HIV-2, suppress the expression of a receptor normally found on the surface of T cells, making the immune cells less responsive to activation, the researchers found. In contrast, they report, the nef gene of HIV-1 and a subset of closely related SIVs failed to limit T cell activation and death."

cell

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060616091615.htm



[Edited on July 3, 2006 at 2:42 PM. Reason : 432]

7/3/2006 2:32:51 PM

you're right I was just trying to pull the wool over your eyes

the great thing about science is you can come up with an opposing theory and go to work gathering experimental evidence to prove it instead of arguing on message boards

7/3/2006 3:30:18 PM

not without funding ... and nobody is gonna get funding for saying HIV2 might be harmless

but relax, i doubt there is truth to the claim that HIV doesnt cause aids, but something has to explain why we dont have an effective treatment/cure for HIV given the amount of research. That something most likely is that one of the big assumptions made about AIDS--one of the many that have been made of the past 20 years--is dead wrong.




[Edited on July 3, 2006 at 3:40 PM. Reason : gfs]

7/3/2006 3:38:39 PM

there are lot of viruses we don't have cures for, like the common cold

Quote :

"funding for saying HIV2 might be harmless"

how much funding would it take to prove that?

I would personally pay $100 to see Kary Mullis inject a bunch of HIV-2 into his bloodstream

7/3/2006 4:26:39 PM

Quote :

"there are lot of viruses we don't have cures for, like the common cold"

thats a collection of viruses, and not nearly as heavily studied

Quote :

"I would personally pay $100 to see Kary Mullis inject a bunch of HIV-2 into his bloodstream"

I think he said he'd do it as long as someone else took AZT for the rest of their lives.

7/3/2006 4:56:02 PM

guns don't kill people.

7/4/2006 2:35:42 AM

PEOPLE CAUSE AIDS

7/4/2006 2:52:57 AM

it dem goddamn negros eatin them dang ol monkey brains in de jungle you know dats what it wuz.

7/4/2006 2:56:57 AM

We don't have ANY cures for ANY viruses do we?

7/4/2006 3:18:33 AM

yeah, thats the funny thing about viruses...

7/4/2006 3:34:31 AM

^^ dozens of vaccines



[Edited on July 4, 2006 at 11:57 AM. Reason : rte]

7/4/2006 11:56:20 AM

a vaccine is not a cure, by definition.

7/5/2006 9:30:57 AM

we do have a cure for the cold

7/5/2006 9:46:51 AM

^^ so what? there are vaccines for many viruses, but the one tried for HIV/AIDS failed miserably.

7/5/2006 11:01:20 AM

you're a troll

7/5/2006 4:36:15 PM

kary mullis is a troll

7/5/2006 4:37:49 PM

We do have a cure for AIDS.

Its called Magic Johnson.

7/5/2006 5:08:22 PM

there aint gon be no aids vaccine

the drug companies dont make any money on something if they cure it

7/5/2006 5:37:38 PM

yea becuase vaccines are free

[Edited on July 5, 2006 at 6:55 PM. Reason : 423 ]

7/5/2006 6:49:55 PM

lois lane won a pulitzer but she can't spell catasrofy

7/5/2006 6:50:53 PM

AIDS:

Kills fags DEAD!

7/5/2006 9:54:33 PM

id imagine the acclaim you'd get from producing an AIDS cure would help in a variety of areas though.

7/5/2006 10:22:31 PM

Chuck Norris does not have AIDS but he gives it to people anyway

7/6/2006 4:42:37 PM

i find it hilarious that the guy who pioneered PCR goes against everything that people have concluded from research using PCR

7/12/2006 7:32:03 PM

those conclusions didnt directly follow from PCR, PCR is just a tool. a lot of HIV reserach is done by other methods.

7/12/2006 7:37:11 PM