wut

Let's inject an HIV+ person's blood into you and then let it develop and destroy your immune system. This is called AIDS. Koch's postulate confirmed

Koch’s postulates have largely been supplanted by other criteria such as the Bradford Hill criteria for infectious disease causality in modern public health. These postulates were generated prior to understanding of modern concepts in microbial pathogenesis that cannot be examined using Koch's postulates, including viruses (which are obligate cellular parasites) or asymptomatic carriers.

Also iirc this experiment was carried out by a volunteer (I am struggling to find his name and/or link to this, may someone please help), and the injectee(s) did not develop AIDS.

Also iirc this experiment was carried out by a volunteer (I am struggling to find his name and/or link to this, may someone please help), and the injectee(s) did not develop AIDS.

Yeaaaaaaah - you're going to need to supply a source for that one.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7z6uer/dr_robert_willner_injects_hiv_into_himself_on_tv/

Interesting! From what I can read, he died less than 6 months later from a heart attack. Any evidence that he never contracted AIDS?

It's also noteworthy that he had his medical license stripped previously.

About the medical "license", I guess it is to be expected. About the heart attack, I'll not speculate as I don't know. My view is that if he's right, that truth would indeed have to be violently occulted. Personally I trust Montagnier's research more than this anecdotal experiment. The amount of abuse and slander directed at Montagnier after he expressed his views publicly only comforts my impression there is truth to his claims.

About the medical "license", I guess it is to be expected.

Well, ozone therapy is not really a well-established form of treatment, at least not in the modern world. Isn't that where you use ozone, essentially, as a germicide to treat viruses/diseases/etc.? That was very, very popular in the late 1800's - luckily, modern medicine has come very far since those days.

My understanding is that, in order to be effective, ozone as germicide has to be at such extremely concentrated levels that most humans (or living things in general) would die as a result of exposure (see https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=801.415). It's kind of hard to maintain a working medical license when you're using treatment that has been shown to be harmful, no?

And at the very least, I would think the issue of Willner's self-injection is moot - he died before it could be confirmed whether or not he contracted the virus. So his stunt really proved nothing without a follow-up. In addition, do we even know that he used the actual virus in the injection? An individual who has previously gotten his license revoked for using therapy that is not effective isn't exactly the most trustworthy individual...why are we to accept, without question, that his actions were authentic?

The amount of abuse and slander directed at Montagnier after he expressed his views publicly only comforts my impression there is truth to his claims.

I'm not aware of any abuse or slander - just legitimate objections to his methods. I also think people tend to get upset when they claim they know better than 99% of established science. After all, why hasn't anyone taken up Montagnier's work? Why haven't they developed his theories in a lab, where his methods can be tested and proven?

I don't understand why you keep editing and revising your comments completely - as of almost 30 minutes ago, I've counted three different comments that have been posted, edited, and then deleted. Why not just let me reply?

No one asks that question because we already know the answer to it. The only people questioning it are the same people actively contributing to ignorance and pseudoscience.

How do you know the answer?

Because we already have the answer - http://science.sciencemag.org/content/220/4599/868 & http://science.sciencemag.org/content/224/4648/497

The people with proof and evidence are on my side. Not yours.

That's why they can't point to any actual evidence, right?

Oh so the cells are grown in lab to be HIV as per Gallo's discovery - so again you haven't done anything but supported my argument.

How does that one small quote (out of a massive research text, mind you) disprove anything related to HIV? You seem to be educated enough to be able to write a massive thesis on the subject, so, please, tell me why that one quote disproves the existence of HIV?

The other one is from 1983 or a year before HIV was discovered, so I dont even know... what that is supposed to suggest...

The paper you just claimed has nothing to do with HIV discovery was one of the key and seminal publications that put HIV on the map.

Let me ask you a question - why are denialists so incapable of producing any evidence? Rather than producing a published and peer-reviewed document or even a research study, all denialists do is attempt to pick apart existing research. So many of the ones who make a living off of denialism end off dying of...wait for it...AIDS-related complications. Funny how just snapping your fingers and saying, "HIV/AIDS isn't real!" doesn't actually prevent you from dying.

If you're so certain that the research is wrong, please rush to your nearest research institution and start working on a new publication. It would quite literally change the world.

You haven't produced anything. You've linked to a Chicago Tribune article and a google search.

The Tribune didn’t report that the DHHS determined Gallo’s HIV was contaminated with HTLV?

The Tribune article points to some serious ethical violations Gallo made in his research, specifically as it related to the French samples. It does not, importantly, ever suggest or even allude to the idea that HIV does not exist. How can you use a document that never suggests HIV doesn’t exist as so-called “evidence” that HIV is fake?

Yes a google patent search. Why do Gallo and Montagnier still hold the patent if it was any different from the 1984 discovery?

”The out-of-court agreement, announced jointly by French prime minister Jacques Chirac and US president Ronald Reagan, stipulated that each of the two parties had equal rights to claim priority concerning detection and isolation of the virus, and Gallo and Montagnier would henceforth be recognised as the “co-discoverers” of HIV – a stipulation also included in a Chronology of AIDS research co-authored by the two in Nature on 2 April 1987.” (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-12-31/news/9204280756_1_dr-gallo-french-virus-scientific-misconduct/3)

Seriously – you act like you’re poking holes in something when, in reality, it just shows you’ve never bothered to look up the reasons.

Why do you think Gallo’s HIV research is valid despite these contradictions?

The idea that the modern understanding of HIV/AIDS is based exclusively on Gallo’s work is false. Ever since 1990, most scientific research lists Montagnier’s work exclusively.

Please answer the questions specified try not to mix it up attempting to conceal your lack of knowledge.

See, the funny thing is, you don’t answer any of my questions – in fact, you’ve left me hanging on one comment entirely when I asked you why, if HIV doesn’t exist, has prEP had such a tremendous impact on new HIV infections? But, I know, you probably won’t answer that incarnation of the question, either.

Just for good measure – I do have a legitimate question I'd like to ask you: have you ever volunteered at an HIV/AIDS outreach clinic?

The Tribune didn’t report that the DHHS determined Gallo’s HIV was contaminated with HTLV?

The Tribune article points to some serious ethical violations Gallo made in his research, specifically as it related to the French samples. It does not, importantly, ever suggest or even allude to the idea that HIV does not exist. How can you use a document that never suggests HIV doesn’t exist as so-called “evidence” that HIV is fake?

Yes a google patent search. Why do Gallo and Montagnier still hold the patent if it was any different from the 1984 discovery?

See previous answer. Seriously – you act like you’re poking holes in something when, in reality, it just shows you’ve never bothered to look up the reasons.

Why do you think Gallo’s HIV research is valid despite these contradictions?

The idea that the modern understanding of HIV/AIDS is based exclusively on Gallo’s work is false. Ever since 1990, most scientific research lists Montagnier’s work exclusively.

I’ve tried to answer your questions – you may not like my answer but at least I’ve given you the effort. The funny thing is, you don’t answer any of my questions – in fact, you’ve left me hanging on one comment entirely when I asked you why, if HIV doesn’t exist, has prEP had such a tremendous impact on new HIV infections? But, I know, you probably won’t answer that incarnation of the question, either.

Just for good measure – question: have you ever volunteered at an HIV/AIDS outreach clinic?

You’ve made it clear that you have no desire to answer any of my questions so I don’t see the point in me attempting to answer yours. You’re not interested in legitimate debate, you’re interested in being validated for your demonstrably dangerous belief systems.

It’s not really surprising that you’ve never worked with HIV/AIDS outreach – the fact that you’re smearing and defaming a segment of the population from behind the safety of your computer screen is a very sad thing.

Adding a short video interview of Luc Montagnier, Nobel laureate and discoverer of the HIV virus at Institut Pasteur, saying that with simple antioxidants and a good immune system you can spontaneously heal yourself of HIV:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSSpoFq7uhM

(From House of Numbers.)

You mean that documentary that extensively showcases Christine Maggiore? The woman that essentially transmitted the virus to her own daughter because she was too deep into AIDS-denialism that she didn't understand the risk of breastfeeding? You should note her daughter died of AIDS opportunistic-pneumonia (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2835537/) at age three. Oh, and Maggiore herself died of the same illness brought on as a result of her untreated condition.

This is the same documentary that misled the very people it tried to interview (which is always an excellent example of how to have integrity and credibility in documentary filmmaking) with two of the interviewees going so far as to release a statement documenting the dishonest practices of the filmmakers themselves, right? The same documentary that 18 scientists from around the globe actually refuted in a signed statement (see http://www.sitemason.com/files/lDjTYQ/House%20of%20Numbers%20Letter.pdf), right?

If you're interested in a more in-depth analysis as to why the film is pseudo-science and arguably dangerous, check this out: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLthPsWmE3cec-DqXSC8sT3hCW9c9Zu4v8 Otherwise, please - realize the very real danger this sort of propaganda can do (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_denialism_in_South_Africa) and maybe go volunteer for your local HIV/AIDS outreach. You'll learn a lot more than what you're learning sitting behind a computer screen.

I noticed you linked to House of Numbers. Isn't that the documentary that extensively showcases Christine Maggiore? The woman that essentially transmitted the virus to her own daughter because she was too deep into AIDS-denialism that she didn't understand the risk of breastfeeding? You should note her daughter died of AIDS opportunistic-pneumonia (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2835537/) at age three. Oh, and Maggiore herself died of the same illness brought on as a result of her untreated condition.

This is the same documentary that misled the very people it tried to interview (which is always an excellent example of how to have integrity and credibility in documentary filmmaking) with two of the interviewees going so far as to release a statement documenting the dishonest practices of the filmmakers themselves, right? The same documentary that 18 scientists from around the globe actually refuted in a signed statement (see http://www.sitemason.com/files/lDjTYQ/House%20of%20Numbers%20Letter.pdf), right?

If you're interested in a more in-depth analysis as to why the film is pseudo-science and arguably dangerous, check this out: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLthPsWmE3cec-DqXSC8sT3hCW9c9Zu4v8 Otherwise, please - realize the very real danger this sort of propaganda can do (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_denialism_in_South_Africa) and maybe go volunteer for your local HIV/AIDS outreach. You'll learn a lot more than what you're learning sitting behind a computer screen.

Dangerous is code for complete on-target and there is no argument besides "safety" - note this is the same argument the Marxists and Neocons use when trying to justify their ridiculous policies. "The compulsory pronouns is for SAFETY, the pre emptive attack is for our SAFETY" Safety is what sickos say when they're trying to control other people.

Uh. Okay.

Find the report where Christine Maggiore was tested for Pneumonia and link it for us to all see.

You want me to not only access private medical records but to post them on Reddit? Obviously, I don't have access to that. However the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office stated she'd be treated for pneumonia in the previous 6-months leading up to her death. In addition, her family doctor noted that AIDS medications could have prevented her death. See the Los Angeles Times article released at the time of her death: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-christine-maggiore30-2008dec30-story.html

SO if all the AIDs death in Africa happened why are the death rates unchanging?

I'm not aware of that - could you provide a source?

So how do you know if you can’t access the private records? I have no legal basis for requesting access to this woman’s private medical history. You should know this – especially since you claim to be so knowledgeable on medical issues. Yes I’m sure the LA times will tell an accurate story. Why wouldn’t they? They’re an established, award-winning publication. I certainly trust them more than I trust some random dude on the internet. What does pneumonia treatment 6 mos before death have to do with cause of death. Maybe that it shows that, six months before her death, she was suffering from one of the most common infections related to HIV (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2835537/)? It’s also important to note that since the widespread use of antiretroviral therapy and prophylaxis in these patients, that specific type of pneumonia has declined. Is there evidence of a pneumonia test? The Coroner’s office was able to confirm the infection, otherwise they wouldn’t have attributed her death to it. In addition, her personal family doctor wouldn’t have come out and made a statement to the effect that had she sought HIV treatment, her death was preventable. Again, I consider a coroner’s office and a medical official to have a significant amount of more credibility than some guy on the internet that thinks anyone can access anyone’s medical records. I know we are saying Pnuempnia but as you know it is a Pneumo Cystis Jiroveci and requires a test for diagnosis. I’m sure you knew that...why would you spread incorrect information about someone you never met? Yep, I’m aware of the specific pneumonia we’re discussing. And it’s interesting that you’re accusing me of spreading incorrect information – I’ve used published and peer-reviewed sources and you’ve used, well, a whole bunch of faulty logic and conjecture to “prove” your point. It seems like you’re unaware of a lot of basic hiv information. Maybe you should understand the basics before getting in over your head. I don’t have a medical degree, you’re correct, but I’m assuming you don’t either. So your attempt to reject or disqualify me from this discussion is as faulty as your attempt to come off as an expert.

Question - what do you think of prEP and the advancements it has made in bringing down HIV infection? In its early trials, it reduced new HIV infection in the San Francisco area by almost half (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/03/daily-pill-can-prevent-hiv-infections-why-don-t-more-people-use-it). If HIV hasn’t been discovered, or doesn’t exist, why are the very drugs that were developed to treat HIV infection actively decreasing the amount of new HIV infections?

I guess I totally wasted my time working in a BSL 3 lab working with HIV-1 while I was getting my PhD studying the lentivirus class of retroviruses. Oops.

It was the NHL-3 strain. We didn’t work with human blood. All the PCR sequencing and restriction sites matched up. Why?

That question doesn’t make any sense.

Gallo wasn't the only one to look at HIV. He wasn't the only one to provide HIV research. HIV confirmation has been studied by thousands of scientists around the world and sequenced countless of times. The sequence of HIV is fundamentally different that the sequence of any HTLV virus.

Within a given sequence, there are many short areas that a restriction endonuclease can cut. For example TTAGA might be one or AGGGA might be another. Such sequences may be 900 bp apart from one another. If you combine the restriction endonuclease with the HIV dna for example, and a 900 bp chunk comes out after running it on a gel, then you have some confirmation. You can also take the same chunk of DNA, clean it up from the gel, and sequence it. If there is not enough of the DNA, you can amplify it via PCR and sequence it.

If you are suggesting that I was still working with HTLV, that virus is more simple than HIV-1. It lacks, vpr, vpu, tat, rev, nef, the same structure for a packing signal, the same location for a packing signal, a nuclear localization signal within the nucleocapsid protein of the gag gene and on and on. It is still a complex and fascinating virus though.

I'd suggest you go to a community college and enroll in a molecular biology class with a lab component. Learning some of these assays is a pretty good way to understand how gels, sequencing, cloning, PCR, and other tools of the trade work. I mean this with sincerity. If my daughter is still interested in this type of stuff when she gets to high school, I intend on finding a class that she can take as well. It is really great stuff.

I think the moral to this story is that I should never comment on threads like these after I've been drinking. It isn't that I am wrong, but rather that arguing the sky is blue with a person insisting that the sky is made of fish doesn't really work very well.

How cute. It’s almost like you aren’t a HIV researcher with a PhD who decided to become a biotech patent attorney like me.

It's almost like you're not. That was all non sense that didn't answer the question of HOW we know the various methods for detecting HIV is indeed HIV...

Gallo didn’t patent the HIV genome. The patent claims don’t pertain to that. Also see Diamond v. Chakrabarty. If you are suggesting that HIV is HTLV 1 or 2, you are woefully mistaken. The accessory genes of those viruses and the conserved accessory genes of lentivirus aren’t similar.

Also, none of this really gets to the point of HIV causing aids. The envelope proteins can fuse T4 cells to infected cells and prevent interference from the infected cells own membrane receptors (CD4 and cxcr4 or ccr5) through expression of vpu and nef.

Anyway, you haven’t properly applied the patent claims of gallo. Even then, He wouldn’t have a patent from every country in the world even if the claims were read as you suggested. A university in Tokyo, Sidney, Amsterdam and the like would have just as easily been able to isolate and sequence the provirus and publish the sequence. Publishing a naturally occurring sequence isn’t something that the government can stop.

Lastly your insistence on proper calibration of PCR machines is weird and I’m not sure makes sense. You could calibrate temperature and time the way could do in BBQ grill equipment or your air conditioner, but I don’t think you are talking about that.

Anyway, I got my PhD studying lentiviruses for years before becoming a patent attorney. Keeping this argument going is counterproductive. I’m sure you will point out that I didn’t answer some question and therefore you “win”. I’d say feel free to contract HIV, skip any meds, and see how that goes, but AIDS isn’t pleasant. So stay healthy.

Shit dude. Just like any gene or dna strand...

A guy I studied under worked for Howard Temin. Read some of his papers.if I had to guess, they probably started with LTR conserved sequences. Howard Temin discovered reverse transcriptase.

Most microscopes don’t show HIV. I have seen it with the naked eye before. It took a shitload of the stuff and several hours of a centrifuge running at 80,000 rpm. It is white.

Calibrate PCR? How do you calibrate a thermocycler? That's...not how it works.

Solid comment man.

Yeah, I keep beating my head against the wall on that one. The guy really needs a basic molecular biology class with a lab component. There are absolutely things that need to be calibrated. A thermocycler isn’t one of them.

Funny this comes up around here, I just got 2 new PCR systems at work. They were like "hey man, you want to figure these out in addition to the 100 other things you don't got time for already?" I was like "OK, I guess" . But man these are my new favorite toys in the lab. I'm like PCR all the things!

So, I'm no expert yet, but this guy doesn't make any sense.