MyoGro

[proud13]

Ummm...I'll take your word on the AIDS thing SS. I don't know too much about it but HIV or AIDS does have an effect on T-cell counts which in turn leads to a weakand immune system right? I've heard things like IL-5/15 have been studied to see if strengthening the immune system could help battle the efx of AIDS/HIV. Also, where did you hear that AZT causes AIDS?? Isn't AZT supposed to slow the progression of HIV to AIDS and if HIV isn't related to AIDS then why is it all HIV patients (with exception to the handful of people who have genes that will not allow the disease to progress or worsen into AIDS) eventually die of AIDS. One company even gathered the people with the genes that doesn't allow HIV to progress to AIDS, took blood samples and isolated the gene and patented it. Now the people with the genes can not donate blood anywhere for research purposes since the Bio company owns the rights to the discovery of their genes. (I saw this on a 20/20 or Dateline last year. I thought it was interesting b/c I had never heard of people having HIV with a gene that doesn't allow it to worsen and they act simply as carriers and remain unaffected by the disease).

 

[einstein1905]

There is not one single document that has been published that shows or proves how HIV kills cells. Not a single one.
--SS

I have to take offense to this. I do HIV vaccine research. First off, what I've quoted above shows who's being persuaded to believe what. This may come off as a bit harsh, but I'm just going to be blunt. Anyone that knows anything about viruses will tell you that viral replication and release will lyse the cycle in which the virions were propogated, thus killing the host cell. The standard HIV ELISA is the Perkin Elmer p24 test. It'll recognize, specifically, a portion of the gp120 antigen. You can throw the whole slew of other microbes mentioned above in your post that supposedly can give false positives, and they won't skew the results of this test. As with anything, I don't want you to believe what I say anymore than I want you to believe what that oh so prestigious group of HIV-causing AIDS hoax group has to say. The vast majority of researchers (CURRENT-this word is crucial) will tell you that there is no question as to the cause of AIDS. I could go into details all day, but I won't waste everyone's time. Feel free to email me with specific questions or discrepancies. I urge you to, impartially, search the scientific literature and make your own conclusions.

P.S. Don't put so much stock into the Nobel Prize....Kary Mullis won the Nobel toohe had one good idea during an acid trip....everything else since then has been lunacy.

 

[supersport]

Ummm...I'll take your word on the AIDS thing SS. I don't know too much about it but HIV or AIDS does have an effect on T-cell counts which in turn leads to a weakand immune system right? I've heard things like IL-5/15 have been studied to see if strengthening the immune system could help battle the efx of AIDS/HIV. Also, where did you hear that AZT causes AIDS?? Isn't AZT supposed to slow the progression of HIV to AIDS and if HIV isn't related to AIDS then why is it all HIV patients (with exception to the handful of people who have genes that will not allow the disease to progress or worsen into AIDS) eventually die of AIDS. One company even gathered the people with the genes that doesn't allow HIV to progress to AIDS, took blood samples and isolated the gene and patented it. Now the people with the genes can not donate blood anywhere for research purposes since the Bio company owns the rights to the discovery of their genes. (I saw this on a 20/20 or Dateline last year. I thought it was interesting b/c I had never heard of people having HIV with a gene that doesn't allow it to worsen and they act simply as carriers and remain unaffected by the disease).

Hey Proud-
The level of HIV infection is so small that even if it did cause patholigy (which it does not) it would have no effect whatsoever. Most all researchers agree-even the pro-HIV-AIDS mainstream-that at most 1 in 500 t-cells is infected by HIV. For AZT to kill the one infected T-cell it also kills the 499 uninfected t-cell. Even end stage AIDS patients show about 1 t-cell infected in about 40 or so-hardly enough to create any problems.
I do not have my research in front of me now-I am visiting my parents for a few days-my library is at home. But I can go off of memory about quite a few things, such as:
AZT is what is called a DNA Chain Terminator-it interferes with cell replication, killing the cell in the process. It does not differentiate between infected and non-infected cells. AZT was proposed in the early 1960's as a chemotherapuetic drug for cancer patients-it was denied by the FDA on grounds it was too toxic! Why is a drug that is too toxic in 1964 suddenly approved in 1985 for people with broken immune systems? (more on this some other time-VERY interesting!) Do a search on the Concorde study-a huge study, very well controlled, showed AZT does not prolong life.
Some of the sides from AZT-Anemia, dementia,wasting disease, hepatic disorder and about 9% of users report some type of cancer(don't have my notes with me-can post later if you want).
UCLA did a study on cocaine in mice-the injected group saw a 9 fold decrease in immune cells almost overnite-control group of course saw nothing. And of course cocaine causes weight loss whether an individual has HIV or not. And the homosexual underworld is dominated by rec drugs.....starting to see a pattern yet?
Post some more on the interleukins bro as you get the info...I am sure everyone would like to hear more , especially since you may have the inside track to info .

 

[supersport]

I have to take offense to this. I do HIV vaccine research. First off, what I've quoted above shows who's being persuaded to believe what. This may come off as a bit harsh, but I'm just going to be blunt. Anyone that knows anything about viruses will tell you that viral replication and release will lyse the cycle in which the virions were propogated, thus killing the host cell. The standard HIV ELISA is the Perkin Elmer p24 test. It'll recognize, specifically, a portion of the gp120 antigen. You can throw the whole slew of other microbes mentioned above in your post that supposedly can give false positives, and they won't skew the results of this test. As with anything, I don't want you to believe what I say anymore than I want you to believe what that oh so prestigious group of HIV-causing AIDS hoax group has to say. The vast majority of researchers (CURRENT-this word is crucial) will tell you that there is no question as to the cause of AIDS. I could go into details all day, but I won't waste everyone's time. Feel free to email me with specific questions or discrepancies. I urge you to, impartially, search the scientific literature and make your own conclusions.

P.S. Don't put so much stock into the Nobel Prize....Kary Mullis won the Nobel toohe had one good idea during an acid trip....everything else since then has been lunacy.

Hey bro-my intent is not for anyone to take offense to what I write-it is for educational purposes only.
As for my statement that there is no document that proves how HIV causes AIDS-I stand by that my man. Please show me scientific proof that HIV causes AIDS. NO, do not show me proof of infection. Show me proof that HIV single handedly causes immune destuction. Please show me such a document-I will gladly pass it on to the scientific group I noted in my earlier post.
The ELISA test is extremely sensitive-so sensitive in fact (and with such a high percentage of false positives) that if a person tests positive then the MD requests a Western Blot test. So if ELISA is so specific, why another test? And Western Blot has a high degree of false positives also.
Then the Doc will do a PCR (invented by none other than Mullis-who you have accused of acid tripping to win the NObel Prize with an idea that is a mainstay in HIV technology) to determine viral load. PCR "amplifies " componets in the blood-I am sure you are familiar with that.
This is what I suggest you do. Go to your MD and say hey doc, I want to do a PCR for HIV with no antibody testing previously. He will tell you no. Know why? Because even if you are antibody negative you will STILL show presence of HIV particles, most notably gp 120, gp 41(?) and at least one other. Bro-I am tellin ya the testing is screwed. These proteins are not specific to HIV-they are contained in non HIV particles.
Mullis has said that pcr should not be used in HIV testing-mostly because of the non-specificity of these proteins in relation to HIV.
Researchers go where the money is bro-there is an assload of Federal and pharma grants for those that subscribe to the HIV-AIDS model. Thoise that take the desident view get their grants pulled, effectively putting them out of work. ASk Peter Duesberg. He secured a fed grant in 85 to study any entity of his choosing-he chose HIV. After all, he is a renouned retroviral expert. After studying HIV for 2 years under his own microscope at U-Cal Berkely (the whole microbiology dept has given him full support) he stated that HIV is a latent virus that is harmless-he is so sure of his findings that he is "willing to be injected with HIV". That is a quote from him. And since his findings the fed gov has turned him down foir more grants despite his hard scientific findings.
Luc. Montegneir-the real discoverer of HIV from the Pastuer Institute in France sent the original "AIDS" cultures to Gallo at NCI and went on record stating it was the "probable cause" even though not even half of the cultures had presence of HIV-not even all of them had antibody to HIV. And after 2 more years of study by Montegneir-the discoverer of HIV-he also says it does not cause AIDS!!!!
The group for the Scientific Reappraisal of Aids had a membership of about 600 in 1994-today that membership is near 2000. They all say HIV does not cause AIds. That speaks volumes bro-the group is getting larger. And these are not high school biology teachers. Professors from U. Cal-Berkely, Johns Hopkins, Harvard, etc.
The house of cards that says HIV-causes Aids is self imploding-it never was founded on any real science. All it is is a correlation. If correlation is all that is necessary then it could be stated herpesvirus or epstein-barr causes aids, as a high degree of AIds patients are positive for that.
Bro-scientists have been wrong throughout history. The earth was flat, earth was center of the universe, tomatoes were poosionous etc. Some medical blunders have occured-inclusding HIV-AIds.
You criticize Mullis-well lets talk about Gallo-the scientist that stole "the Aids virus". He tried for 20 years at NCI , spending millions of tax payer dollars, to prove cancer was cuased by retrovirus. This was his baby to take him to the Holy Grail-the Nobel Prize. Odd how you devalue the Nobel-I know of no scientist that wouldn't want that trophy. Wouldn't You??
Gallo knew he had lost his chance-until Montegnier sent his HIV samples across the pond. Gallo went full speed ahead. It should be noted Gallo has twice been found guilty of fradulent research also.
So one glorious day in 1984(?) Gallo stepped to a podium in DC at a news conference to declare he had found the cause of Aids-which was a R-virus later renamed HIV.
Some big problems here. First, only 41% of the cultures had presence of HIV. What caused Aids in the other 59%? Is it not fair to say what cuased AIDS in the 59% group did not also cause AIDS in the 41% group of HIV infected blood?
Also-since when do scientific breakthroughs get announced to the press? They always appear in scientific journals where the are subject to peer review. Do you really think a newspaper reporter knows the difference between a helper t-cell and gp120? I seriously doubt it. The whole AIDS model has violated every scientific process-and still does, especially regarding diagnosis and treatment.
Also, on the very day Gallo made his press conference, he also applied for and secured a patent for HIV antibody testing. Thats right-Gallo gets a cut on every antibody test performed. He has made millions of of this psuedo science. And where is Gallo now? He is tucked away by the NIH-no one can even ask him about his research. I'm sorry-have a stepped back in time to Nazi Germany in 1939? Since when can we not get some answers from our government?
I am sending Gallo some questions via registered mail-you and all members of MC will see the responses-(what do you want to bet I get no answers?).
I do medical investigations. Have done it as a hobby for several years, putting together research fo publication in the future. I have recently started my worldly voyages to discover methods of treatment and philosophies regarding disease. Most of my research has been geared towards AIDS.
Why is it that IV drug users get TB and pnuemonia with or without HIV?
Why is it that gay men with HIV or without HIV get Kaposi's sarcoma and pnuemonia?
Why is it that all of Africa has "slim disease" with or without HIV?
And regarding the gp120 antigen detected by ELISA-if this test is so accurate why is Western Blot a follow up test to confirm HIV infection? Why? I am not harrassing you or antagonizing you-I honestly just want to know.

 

[supersport]

Feel free to email me with specific questions or discrepancies. I urge you to, impartially, search the scientific literature and make your own conclusions.

I previously believed as you do that HIV caused aids. Then I did some open minded research and investigation of the scientific literature-from both the established piont of view and the dessident view-and I have made my own conclusions. Gallo and NIH and the HiV-Aids supporters are badly mistaken-and have too much pride (and making too much money) to say otherwise.

 

[einstein1905]

Hey bro-my intent is not for anyone to take offense to what I write-it is for educational purposes only.
As for my statement that there is no document that proves how HIV causes AIDS-I stand by that my man. Please show me scientific proof that HIV causes AIDS. NO, do not show me proof of infection. Show me proof that HIV single handedly causes immune destuction. Please show me such a document-I will gladly pass it on to the scientific group I noted in my earlier post.
The ELISA test is extremely sensitive-so sensitive in fact (and with such a high percentage of false positives) that if a person tests positive then the MD requests a Western Blot test. So if ELISA is so specific, why another test? And Western Blot has a high degree of false positives also.
Then the Doc will do a PCR (invented by none other than Mullis-who you have accused of acid tripping to win the NObel Prize with an idea that is a mainstay in HIV technology) to determine viral load. PCR "amplifies " componets in the blood-I am sure you are familiar with that.
This is what I suggest you do. Go to your MD and say hey doc, I want to do a PCR for HIV with no antibody testing previously. He will tell you no. Know why? Because even if you are antibody negative you will STILL show presence of HIV particles, most notably gp 120, gp 41(?) and at least one other. Bro-I am tellin ya the testing is screwed. These proteins are not specific to HIV-they are contained in non HIV particles.
Mullis has said that pcr should not be used in HIV testing-mostly because of the non-specificity of these proteins in relation to HIV.
Researchers go where the money is bro-there is an assload of Federal and pharma grants for those that subscribe to the HIV-AIDS model. Thoise that take the desident view get their grants pulled, effectively putting them out of work. ASk Peter Duesberg. He secured a fed grant in 85 to study any entity of his choosing-he chose HIV. After all, he is a renouned retroviral expert. After studying HIV for 2 years under his own microscope at U-Cal Berkely (the whole microbiology dept has given him full support) he stated that HIV is a latent virus that is harmless-he is so sure of his findings that he is "willing to be injected with HIV". That is a quote from him. And since his findings the fed gov has turned him down foir more grants despite his hard scientific findings.
Luc. Montegneir-the real discoverer of HIV from the Pastuer Institute in France sent the original "AIDS" cultures to Gallo at NCI and went on record stating it was the "probable cause" even though not even half of the cultures had presence of HIV-not even all of them had antibody to HIV. And after 2 more years of study by Montegneir-the discoverer of HIV-he also says it does not cause AIDS!!!!
The group for the Scientific Reappraisal of Aids had a membership of about 600 in 1994-today that membership is near 2000. They all say HIV does not cause AIds. That speaks volumes bro-the group is getting larger. And these are not high school biology teachers. Professors from U. Cal-Berkely, Johns Hopkins, Harvard, etc.
The house of cards that says HIV-causes Aids is self imploding-it never was founded on any real science. All it is is a correlation. If correlation is all that is necessary then it could be stated herpesvirus or epstein-barr causes aids, as a high degree of AIds patients are positive for that.
Bro-scientists have been wrong throughout history. The earth was flat, earth was center of the universe, tomatoes were poosionous etc. Some medical blunders have occured-inclusding HIV-AIds.
You criticize Mullis-well lets talk about Gallo-the scientist that stole "the Aids virus". He tried for 20 years at NCI , spending millions of tax payer dollars, to prove cancer was cuased by retrovirus. This was his baby to take him to the Holy Grail-the Nobel Prize. Odd how you devalue the Nobel-I know of no scientist that wouldn't want that trophy. Wouldn't You??
Gallo knew he had lost his chance-until Montegnier sent his HIV samples across the pond. Gallo went full speed ahead. It should be noted Gallo has twice been found guilty of fradulent research also.
So one glorious day in 1984(?) Gallo stepped to a podium in DC at a news conference to declare he had found the cause of Aids-which was a R-virus later renamed HIV.
Some big problems here. First, only 41% of the cultures had presence of HIV. What caused Aids in the other 59%? Is it not fair to say what cuased AIDS in the 59% group did not also cause AIDS in the 41% group of HIV infected blood?
Also-since when do scientific breakthroughs get announced to the press? They always appear in scientific journals where the are subject to peer review. Do you really think a newspaper reporter knows the difference between a helper t-cell and gp120? I seriously doubt it. The whole AIDS model has violated every scientific process-and still does, especially regarding diagnosis and treatment.
Also, on the very day Gallo made his press conference, he also applied for and secured a patent for HIV antibody testing. Thats right-Gallo gets a cut on every antibody test performed. He has made millions of of this psuedo science. And where is Gallo now? He is tucked away by the NIH-no one can even ask him about his research. I'm sorry-have a stepped back in time to Nazi Germany in 1939? Since when can we not get some answers from our government?
I am sending Gallo some questions via registered mail-you and all members of MC will see the responses-(what do you want to bet I get no answers?).
I do medical investigations. Have done it as a hobby for several years, putting together research fo publication in the future. I have recently started my worldly voyages to discover methods of treatment and philosophies regarding disease. Most of my research has been geared towards AIDS.
Why is it that IV drug users get TB and pnuemonia with or without HIV?
Why is it that gay men with HIV or without HIV get Kaposi's sarcoma and pnuemonia?
Why is it that all of Africa has "slim disease" with or without HIV?
And regarding the gp120 antigen detected by ELISA-if this test is so accurate why is Western Blot a follow up test to confirm HIV infection? Why? I am not harrassing you or antagonizing you-I honestly just want to know.

You're not understanding the science behind the tests you speak of. An ELISA can utilize any number of antibodies specific to many different epitopes of HIV proteins/glycoproteins. Depending on the antibodies employed, the specificity/sensitivity will vary. The p24 ELISA is the standard in research. To follow it up with a Western blot is doing the same thing. Western blots use anti HIV antibodies to detect HIV, and the colorimetric final step can be identical to the final step in an ELISA. It's all in how you prepare your samples. For a higher signal in the ELISA, you can simply ultracentrifuge the serum to concentrate it.
Yeah, Mullis does get credit for "inventing" PCR, but like I said, he's a lunatic....that was his one moment, and it was while tripping (read his autobiography). PCR is as specific as you design the primers to be. All of the sets of primers I use have absolute specificity for regions of the HIV genome and have NO specificity for any part of the entire human genome, i.e. I never get background products. It's clear your "research" entails reading the ideas of others and being prematurely convinced/persuaded before allowing yourself to see the endless data that are being put forth daily to support the obvious....HIV is the causative agent regarding AIDS.
You mention the same group of "scientists" repeatedly, including 3 Nobel winners. However, ask all the rest of the nobel winners and any other scientists their opinions on the matter....that's what's called the silent majority. People don't continue to prove that the world is round---it's obvious, but if a group of "scientists" were to claim the world to be flat, that would get some big press....same idea with your anti-HIV group.
By the way, there are retroviruses that cause cancer.

The numbers you quote are from archaic studies where sensitivity in detection was suboptimal. Read the full body of HIV research literature, which means the other 99.99%, the stuff not put out by the special interest group you seem to support so arduently. I welcome anyone from that group to step up and agree to be infected with HIV...you have to love the beauty of natural selection.

 

[supersport]

Bro-the special interest group is the ones that are selling the HIV-AIDS model to the public. They make huge money off of it-huge. The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of AIDS makes virtually nothing-a small, very small, nuber have written books. They have also been driven out of federal and pharma research because they stand behind their findings. They would be better off financially and professionally to side with the pro HIV mainstream group.

 

[proud13]

:dizzy: Thanks guys for making me feel like a real idiot. I'm outta the loop on the HIV/AIDS stuff nor did I intend for this thread to lead that way. I'm not arguing any which way b/c I've never really looked into in that detail.

I simply was trying to show a study of cytokines which happened to be done on patients with the disease.

Anyway, here is an interesting study below....AND....I will have the follistatin tomorrow so NASA, it's a go. Testing will begin Monday along with syd. deca, syd. cyp, naposim dbol, letrozole, propecia and possibly IL-15 and/or IGF R3.

I will keep a daily log of everything and keep everyone abreast of anything interesting. I'm esp hoping my willy shrinks from 15 inches to a normal 8 inches or so. I can only hope though.....lol.

 

[Koevoet]

So SS, are you then agreeing to be infected with HIV?

 

[supersport]

Sure-there are retroviruses that cause cancer...but my statement was that Gallo could not prove it.
In the early 1990s-please forgive me as I do not have my rtesearch with me-Gallo was found by A federal Office to have commited scientific misconduct. This is at least twice he had been found guity of such-one for his stealing of HIV from the french and he also did something similair with Japanese scientists regarding Leukemia viruses.
Yes , I do investigate others research. That does make up a good portion of my "research".
I also meet with and interview MD's, naturopaths, practitioners of all sorts. And I especially meet with patients.
I have talked with many AIDS patients-in person, via telephone and or net. I especially enjoy clinical research-interaction with patients and practioners. Sometimes what is proven in a culture dish is much different than what a patient experiences. In short-there is a big difference in dead gelatin and a human body.
Concerning the tests I do have some questions for you. I would like to ask your opinion because apparantly you work with such tests on a daily basis. I can possibly get info from you much quicker than I can from the net or a book.
Are HIV tests, using ELISA Assay and or Western Blot 100% accurate?
And I am curious of the research being done on HIV vaccines-is there any promise of possible vaccination of HIV in the future (I would think it will be difficult to get people to participate in a trial-any comments?)

Looking forward to your corresponence,
SS

 

[proud13]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12761853&dopt=Abstract

Basically this article is saying myostatin BAD, follistatin GOOD!! It also leads into how follistatin helps inhibit myostatin and lends to the process of differentiation of skeletal muscle (hyperplasia or inclusion of satellite cells).

Koevet STOP...don't instigate or lead this on...j/k (kinda)

 

[proud13]

SS,
If I'm correct einstein was saying they aren't 100% accurate but the PCR is better b/c it can isolate specific parts of the virus...or something like that. I'll stay outta this now.

 

[supersport]

:dizzy: Thanks guys for making me feel like a real idiot. I'm outta the loop on the HIV/AIDS stuff nor did I intend for this thread to lead that way. I'm not arguing any which way b/c I've never really looked into in that detail.

I simply was trying to show a study of cytokines which happened to be done on patients with the disease.

Anyway, here is an interesting study below....AND....I will have the follistatin tomorrow so NASA, it's a go. Testing will begin Monday along with syd. deca, syd. cyp, naposim dbol, letrozole, propecia and possibly IL-15 and/or IGF R3.

I will keep a daily log of everything and keep everyone abreast of anything interesting. I'm esp hoping my willy shrinks from 15 inches to a normal 8 inches or so. I can only hope though.....lol.

Bro-the last thing I want to do is make you feel like an idiot! LOL! I enjoy reading your posts-I have read a little about the interleukins a year or so ago-and homonunculus had an interesting post about IL-15 also-I really wanna hear what you are finding at the University and self adminastration of the gear you have mentioned-not exactly the everyday cycle ya know!
Good luck on the willy shrinkage bro-I think 15 inches would be hard to conceal in posing trunks!!!lol!

 

[supersport]

SS,
If I'm correct einstein was saying they aren't 100% accurate but the PCR is better b/c it can isolate specific parts of the virus...or something like that. I'll stay outta this now.

C'mon bro -join in-the more the merrier!!
Besides, I believe it is through controversy and investigating ideas that results are found. Hey , maybe Einstein can sway me into believing the mainstream AIDS ideas. I did used to believe that. But all of what I have found in the past 3-4 years paints a different picture.
Yes, PCR should be able to detect viral particles better than most tests. But Mullis, the inventor of PCR, says it should not be used in HIV technology. Also-the FDA has not approved PCR for HIV testing.

 

[proud13]

I thought I would add this since I posted it as a reply in the PGF/IGF section....

I don't want to say anything about LabCorp or their procedures or products. I understand they are a paying sponsor for this site but I have already posted a huge informative piece on IGF and the usage or activation with BA and why it is a bad and destructive use. If I had a choice however I would not personally order IGF in BA nor reconstitute it in it b/c of degradation if not destruction of the rather expensive growth factor and extreme fragility.

Also I recently got this from a CSO (chief scientific officer) of a large biological sciences manufacturere.

"Dr. XXXXX,

In response to your question; The reason folks use 10mM HCl or acetic acid, namely a slightly
acidic solution, is for initial dissolution of IGF-1.

I recommend using a phosphoric acid buffering system for initial dissolution then, subsequently, bringing working aliquots up to physiological pH for direct injection.

I know of several bodybuilding sites that are selling the IMMUNOGENIC Long [Arg3] IGF-1, whilst reconstituting in 100% benzoyl alcohol. I've seen several studies that show that circular dichromism (CD) plots reveal that IGF-1 native structure is disrupted by benzoyl alcohol (PMID: 9165531 ).

More importantly, I do not think bodybuilders realize that LR3 IGF-1 is immunogenic due to the pig growth hormone N-terminal leader sequence, hence Long in the name. If they continue to take LR3 IGF-1, they will invariably develop antibodies against their endogenous IGF-1. This would effectively
attenuate the anabolic effects of IGF-1!!!

Has anyone spoken out against LR3 IGF-1? Why are these bodybuilders diluting LR3 in 100% Benzoyl alcohol. Why are they using an immunogenic variant too?"

 

[einstein1905]

Sure-there are retroviruses that cause cancer...but my statement was that Gallo could not prove it.
In the early 1990s-please forgive me as I do not have my rtesearch with me-Gallo was found by A federal Office to have commited scientific conduct. This is at least twice he had been found guity of such-one for his stealing of HIV from the french and he also did something similair with Japanese scientists regarding Leukemia viruses.
Yes , I do investigate others research. That does make up a good portion of my "research".
I also meet with and interview MD's, naturopaths, practitioners of all sorts. And I especially meet with patients.
I have talked with many AIDS patients-in person, via telephone and or net. I especially enjoy clinical research-interaction with patients and practioners. Sometimes what is proven in a culture dish is much different than what a patient experiences. In short-there is a big difference in dead gelatin and a human body.
Concerning the tests I do have some questions for you. I would like to ask your opinion because apparantly you work with such tests on a daily basis. I can possibly get info from you much quicker than I can from the net or a book.
Are HIV tests, using ELISA Assay and or Western Blot 100% accurate?
And I am curious of the research being done on HIV vaccines-is there any promise of possible vaccination of HIV in the future (I would think it will be difficult to get people to participate in a trial-any comments?)

Looking forward to your corresponence,
SS

I really do love discussions like this. I agree completely that it is this type of exchange that leads to a better understanding (of everything) on both sides.
I am fortunate enough to be at a university that has the largest group of clinical AIDS trials in the country. As an MD/PhD student, I get to interact with AIDS patients all the time. As painful as it may be at times, it's also a great motivation for my work in the lab.
To answer your question, no, neither ELISAs or Westerns are 100% accurate, nor are any clinical tests. The greatest, and most significant inaccuracy is in false negatives...too high of a sensitivity threshhold. This is all too common early in infection when viral titers are very low. It is also very common after a long bout of HAART, highly active antiretroviral therapy, which can, in many cases, get viral titers down to clinically undetectable levels. The problem is that there are viral reservoirs, probably memory T cells and or microglia, that can harbor virus that is not actively replicating. This does not allow the proteases or antireversetranscriptases which are a part of HAART to affect these latent viruses. Once HAART is ceased, inevitably these latent viruses will be stimulated to again begin replication.
There have been many promising directions as far as HIV vaccines go. Natural immunity due to missing portions of CCR5, a receptor critical for HIV binding to our cells, have shown, when homozygous, to confer immunity to HIV. So, many vaccines have targeted the initial gp120/CCR5/CD4 complex to prevent initial entry into host cells. Other vaccines are targeting integral proteins required for any actively replicating HIV virus. Most of the clinical trials aren't to try vaccines to see if they confer immunity, that would be unethical at this point, but they are vaccines meant to be used in conjunction with HAART on people that are already infected. These vaccines are meant to go after the virus in its reservoirs so as to prevent recurrence of viremia after cessation of HAART.. There are many later stage vaccine trials using nonhuman primates (macaques) that have had great success. there will have to be many more preliminary tests before any preventative vaccine can be tested in humans.
You mentioned the FDA not having approved PCR to test for HIV, which is right. However, in all the clinical trials here where ultrasensitivity is required, PCR will be used...it far exceeds and antibody-based test. This is the same FDA that banned ephedrine and doesn't ban cigarettes we're talking about.
Again, I apologize for wasting bandwidth to the mods or for anyone this doesn't interest. I'd be happy to continue this via email, if it's a problem for anyone that I'm wasting space on this board .

P.S. Proud,
I'd much prefer GASP-1 over follistatin due to its specificity.

 

[supersport]

So SS, are you then agreeing to be infected with HIV?

I have been patiently waiting for this question...thanks for finally asking.
If someone were to be purposely infected with HIV there are some ramifications that should be considered.
#1-so much for your social life-especially dating women. I think most people shudder at the thought of having sex with an HIV infected person. And no, regardless of what you have been told-condoms do not prevent transmission of HIV. Hiv is anywhere from 50-450 times smaller than a sperm cell, and can penetrate latex with no problem. Yeah I know what the condom manufactures say-but they want to sell condoms.And I do believe there is a legality issue involved in disclosing your HIV status to a partner-kinda iffy on this though.
#2-good luck in securing health and or life insurance. Insureres avoid HIV infected people like the plague-no pun intended. May be able to purchase insurance, but the premium will be sky high and I am sure if you have a problem the insurer will try to hang it on HIV-so they will not have to pay for it.
#3 If there ever is a truly catastrophic event-nuclear war, terrorism such as anthrax in the water supply-whatever-you can believe HIV infected people will be the last in line for treatment. Prior to 9-11 this would be laughed at-we now know how real it can be. And the USA does have a history of quarantine-lots of Japanese were quarantined during WW2.
If I was absolutely 100% guaranteed that items 1-3 would not apply to me-yes I would do it. There has never been any pathology associated with HIV. It is merely a correlation-and a very poor one at that. Gallo never had proof-and still has none today. Before I get any responses to that-please-I ask you to present proof of HIV causing complete immune destruction. I am very familiar with the proof of infection. We are walking bags of tissue infected with viruses. Hepatitis, epstein-barr, herpesvirus. These viruses only cause problems when immunity is low. In the case of HIV-AIDS-the cells(being T-helper cells) are depleted, the damge is done to the immune system, and HIV is at the scene of the crime.
Aids is not a viral disease-it is a lifestyle disease. Go find some patients (as I have) that are antibody positive, do not use drugs (rec or pharma), do not get blood transfusions, and guess what you will find. Afdter 20 years in some cases these people are perfectly healthy.
Now-go find some gay men that live in the gay underworld of rec drug abuse, pharmaceutical use (antibiotics, AZT, etc) and you will see a bunch of sick people that are dying.
I know of at least one white male from my MD's office-heterosexual, non drug user of any sort (rec or pharma) does nothing special for health-been pos since 1991-and is perfecly healthy. Einstein-he is willing to talk to you on your dime. I called him this afternoon-I frequently have newly diagnosed HIV pos people call him. Guy is as healthy as you and me. He is the only patient I have spoken with that is willing to talk to you or anyone else. Just pm me if you would like.
Early on in my investigations I was under the assumption that HIV causes AIDS. After meeting many patients, and reading much literature I came to the conclusion that the entrenched medical establishment is wrong. And Einstein, I do agree with you concerning the FDA.
One of the turning points of my decision came when I was introduced to Linda at my MD's office. Beautiful female, 41 years old-infected with HIV since the beginning-before HIV was even discovered. She got it from her husband-a hemophiliac-contaminated blood-started antiviral therapy-died around 1989. Linda goes to Duke Medical Center-yep-Duke University-for testing. She offered to take me one day so I could see the real side of aids-probably similair to what einstein sees frequently.
What I saw was horrific. A whole AIDS ward-maybe 70-80 pateints-some knocking on deaths door. I spoke to Linda's doc for a short while-nothing big. She got here test results back-no problems. She is perfectly healthy. Never any meds, no drugs whatso ever, a healthy lifestyle.
Also in my investigations I have spoken with many gay males with HIV and full blown AIDS. Each and every one has used drugs-either rec drugs, pharma drugs (AZT) among others.
I recalled the many Dessident Organizations I have read about, -the ones that say AIDS is not a viral disease, but a lifestyle disease. My experience in dealing with patients mimics what they say. Drugs cause AIDS.
I would like to see a study done on subjects with HIV that live a healthy lifestyle versus ones that use rec drugs and antivirals. I can tell you the outcome. The drug group will die off.
UCLA did a study-around FEB 2002 I believe. Used some mice, shot them up with cocaine and the control group had no cocaine. The cocaine group saw a 9 fold decrease in immune cells overnight. AIDS is on the way.Are you seeing a pattern yet?
One of my best friends-a girl I worked with at a gym in the early 1990's-has a brother with ICL. Idiopathic T-cell Lymphocytopenia. Idiopathic means "disease of unknown origin". This is AIDS when no HIV is present. Circa 1994 there was at least 6000 of such patients in the US.
He is openly gay, has abused antibiotics (another immune suppressor) and every rec drug under the sun-and has developed AIDS. Has Kaposi's Sarcoma-a very rare skin cancer found predominantly in gay men. It is directly related to use of Amyl Nitrates-"poppers". The gays have a history of popper abuse for sexual excitation-it relaxes the sphincter for anal facilitation-at least according to gay males I have spoken to. My friend told me her brother has been a chronic abuser of poppers for a very long time.
So even if a vaccine is found it will not stop AIDS. May prevent HIV transmission, but the real cause of AIDS will prevail. Cocaine. Extasy. Antibiotics. Poppers. These drugs cause classic AIDS-immune dysfunction, weight loss, dementia and more.
HIV is a scapegoat-just too many HIV pos people that live a healthy lifestyle are beating this "disease". Yeah, anacdotal cases. I can hear it now. Do like I did-I met one hetero female with HIV that showed me on her computer-several HIV dating websites. A lot of the ads read like this-SWF-30's-pos for 8 years, no meds, very healthy. HHHMMMM.
As for the bandwidth-well I will PM presser and let him know I will pay for the bandwidth myself so we can continue posting in the open. I think many of the members would enjoy reading our posts.
SS

 

[einstein1905]

I have been patiently waiting for this question...thanks for finally asking.
If someone were to be purposely infected with HIV there are some ramifications that should be considered.
#1-so much for your social life-especially dating women. I think most people shudder at the thought of having sex with an HIV infected person. And no, regardless of what you have been told-condoms do not prevent transmission of HIV. Hiv is anywhere from 50-450 times smaller than a sperm cell, and can penetrate latex with no problem. Yeah I know what the condom manufactures say-but they want to sell condoms.And I do believe there is a legality issue involved in disclosing your HIV status to a partner-kinda iffy on this though.
#2-good luck in securing health and or life insurance. Insureres avoid HIV infected people like the plague-no pun intended. May be able to purchase insurance, but the premium will be sky high and I am sure if you have a problem the insurer will try to hang it on HIV-so they will not have to pay for it.
#3 If there ever is a truly catastrophic event-nuclear war, terrorism such as anthrax in the water supply-whatever-you can believe HIV infected people will be the last in line for treatment. Prior to 9-11 this would be laughed at-we now know how real it can be. And the USA does have a history of quarantine-lots of Japanese were quarantined during WW2.
If I was absolutely 100% guaranteed that items 1-3 would not apply to me-yes I would do it. There has never been any pathology associated with HIV. It is merely a correlation-and a very poor one at that. Gallo never had proof-and still has none today. Before I get any responses to that-please-I ask you to present proof of HIV causing complete immune destruction. I am very familiar with the proof of infection. We are walking bags of tissue infected with viruses. Hepatitis, epstein-barr, herpesvirus. These viruses only cause problems when immunity is low. In the case of HIV-AIDS-the cells(being T-helper cells) are depleted, the damge is done to the immune system, and HIV is at the scene of the crime.
Aids is not a viral disease-it is a lifestyle disease. Go find some patients (as I have) that are antibody positive, do not use drugs (rec or pharma), do not get blood transfusions, and guess what you will find. Afdter 20 years in some cases these people are perfectly healthy.
Now-go find some gay men that live in the gay underworld of rec drug abuse, pharmaceutical use (antibiotics, AZT, etc) and you will see a bunch of sick people that are dying.
I know of at least one white male from my MD's office-heterosexual, non drug user of any sort (rec or pharma) does nothing special for health-been pos since 1991-and is perfecly healthy. Einstein-he is willing to talk to you on your dime. I called him this afternoon-I frequently have newly diagnosed HIV pos people call him. Guy is as healthy as you and me. He is the only patient I have spoken with that is willing to talk to you or anyone else. Just pm me if you would like.
Early on in my investigations I was under the assumption that HIV causes AIDS. After meeting many patients, and reading much literature I came to the conclusion that the entrenched medical establishment is wrong. And Einstein, I do agree with you concerning the FDA.
One of the turning points of my decision came when I was introduced to Linda at my MD's office. Beautiful female, 41 years old-infected with HIV since the beginning-before HIV was even discovered. She got it from her husband-a hemophiliac-contaminated blood-started antiviral therapy-died around 1989. Linda goes to Duke Medical Center-yep-Duke University-for testing. She offered to take me one day so I could see the real side of aids-probably similair to what einstein sees frequently.
What I saw was horrific. A whole AIDS ward-maybe 70-80 pateints-some knocking on deaths door. I spoke to Linda's doc for a short while-nothing big. She got here test results back-no problems. She is perfectly healthy. Never any meds, no drugs whatso ever, a healthy lifestyle.
Also in my investigations I have spoken with many gay males with HIV and full blown AIDS. Each and every one has used drugs-either rec drugs, pharma drugs (AZT) among others.
I recalled the many Dessident Organizations I have read about, -the ones that say AIDS is not a viral disease, but a lifestyle disease. My experience in dealing with patients mimics what they say. Drugs cause AIDS.
I would like to see a study done on subjects with HIV that live a healthy lifestyle versus ones that use rec drugs and antivirals. I can tell you the outcome. The drug group will die off.
UCLA did a study-around FEB 2002 I believe. Used some mice, shot them up with cocaine and the control group had no cocaine. The cocaine group saw a 9 fold decrease in immune cells overnight. AIDS is on the way.Are you seeing a pattern yet?
One of my best friends-a girl I worked with at a gym in the early 1990's-has a brother with ICL. Idiopathic T-cell Lydnopathy. Idiopathic means "disease of unknown origin". This is AIDS when no HIV is present. Circa 1994 there was at least 6000 of such patients in the US.
He is openly gay, has abused antibiotics (another immune suppressor) and every rec drug under the sun-and has developed AIDS. Has Kaposi's Sarcoma-a very rare skin cancer found predominantly in gay men. It is directly related to use of Amyl Nitrates-"poppers". The gays have a history of popper abuse for sexual excitation-it relaxes the sphincter for anal facilitation-at least according to gay males I have spoken to. My friend told me her brother has been a chronic abuser of poppers for a very long time.
So even if a vaccine is found it will not stop AIDS. May prevent HIV transmission, but the real cause of AIDS will prevail. Cocaine. Extasy. Antibiotics. Poppers. These drugs cause classic AIDS-immune dysfunction, weight loss, dementia and more.
HIV is a scapegoat-just too many HIV pos people that live a healthy lifestyle are beating this "disease". Yeah, anacdotal cases. I can hear it now. Do like I did-I met one hetero female with HIV that showed me on her computer-several HIV dating websites. A lot of the ads read like this-SWF-30's-pos for 8 years, no meds, very healthy. HHHMMMM.
As for the bandwidth-well I will PM presser and let him know I will pay for the bandwidth myself so we can continue posting in the open. I think many of the members would enjoy reading our posts.
SS

I honestly thought that we were getting somewhere.
You agree that HIV infection is real and that HIV predominantly infects CD4 T helper cells and macrophages. Infection, viral replication, and release cause the lysing (killing) of the host cell in which they were replicated, thus killing each T cell infected with HIV. As the number of virions increases, more cells becomeinfected, which leads to more T cells being host to viral replication and subsequent death of those T cells. Where am I losing you here? As viral replication occurs, your T helper population is diminishing. Without an adequate amount of T cells, you have no adaptive immunity. This means you have very weak (if any) antibody-mediated or cell-mediated protection against pathogens. Things as simple as staph, pseudomonas, or common viral infections can kill you. ANY pathogen now is deadly, with no adaptive immunity intact.The pathology you seem to be missing yet acknowledging is the actual act of viral infection and replication...this, in and of itself, is depleting your T cells.
Now about your having spoken to many AIDS patients to gather info, Having AIDS does not give one any esoteric insight into the mechanisms of the disease from which they suffer..i.e. they have no more idea of what's going on inside of them than any other person with equal education regarding the disease. So, AIDS patients theories as to the cause of their disease are irrelevant.


You repeatedly ask for data to support HIV causing AIDS. You're right, there is only correlation. This is the case with every bit of scientific data. There is no PROOF of anything, only disproof. Correlation is all there is. We've come to agree that extremely high correlations are significant. There is no absolute proof of anything (ask David Hume). I could, once again, point you to the huge body of literature on HIV research (that which isn't written on papyrus...Gallo means nothing...he's one man). It'll take lifetimes to go through all of the HIV-AIDS papers in Medline.

Your theory implicates drug use and the "gay" lifestyle as causing AIDS. You stated cocaine reduces lymphocytes...yes, it does. I could give you 100's of other compounds that'll do the same. The correlation of homosexuality and drug use to AIDS victims is antiquated and only true in isolated regions of large cities. Since you are so hell bent on my showing the pathology of HIV-AIDS, I'd ask that you direct me to the drug or particular lifestyle characteristic that is causing AIDS. You also implicate AZT as being responsible (honestly, you're going to have to narrow down your list of suspects) for AIDS as well. SubSaharan Africa has about 35 million people with AIDS. The amount of those AIDS victims that receive any retroviral treatment is minute. Clearly, one of the poorest regions in the world, these people aren't snorting cocaine, despite their appearance. They have no recreational drugs nor is there any appreciable amount of AZT treatment. Homosexuality is shunned in this region maybe moreso than anywhere else, so we can't blame the "gays" either. Hmmmmm. Ironically enough, there is an amazing correlation between thier AIDS victims and infection with HIV.
I'm not going to go further with this until you better acclimate yourself with the data. You can repeat numbers from a few isolated studies all day, but don't ignore the voluminous amounts of data suggesting the contrary.
As for people doing HIV research because of the money, if we were doing it for money, we'd hop on the SARS bandwagon...the government hands out SARS and anthrax research grants like Shawn Kemp hands out child support checks.

 

[supersport]

HelloEinstein, I will respond to your post in the next day or two-I am on a computer that kicks me off line as I am typing (slowly of course) my response-and of course I lose my post. LOL! But I do have a little science project for ya if you care to give it a shot.

I recall that you work in a lab-quite familiar with the ELISA assay, right? Here is the project.
I believe in HIV testing using ELISA that the subjects serum has to be diluted-a 1:400 ratio, correct? Now-certainly do not use HIV POS serum because it certainly will be positive. Use some people in the labs serum-yes, some co-workers and maybe yourself too. I would believe you all are HIV negative. Do a test at the 1:400 ratio. Then do a test with no dilution-a 1:1 ratio. If you would please post the results. I understand it may take a few days, but that is okay-I can wait patiently. I think you will be very suprised.
Thanks Bro,

SS

 

[einstein1905]

HelloEinstein, I will respond to your post in the next day or two-I am on a computer that kicks me off line as I am typing (slowly of course) my response-and of course I lose my post. LOL! But I do have a little science project for ya if you care to give it a shot.

I recall that you work in a lab-quite familiar with the ELISA assay, right? Here is the project.
I believe in HIV testing using ELISA that the subjects serum has to be diluted-a 1:400 ratio, correct? Now-certainly do not use HIV POS serum because it certainly will be positive. Use some people in the labs serum-yes, some co-workers and maybe yourself too. I would believe you all are HIV negative. Do a test at the 1:400 ratio. Then do a test with no dilution-a 1:1 ratio. If you would please post the results. I understand it may take a few days, but that is okay-I can wait patiently. I think you will be very suprised.
Thanks Bro,

SS

I can't thank you enough for suggesting that. I'm an idiot for not bringing that up in the first place. With every HIV ELISA we run in the lab, we serially dilute the serum (undiluted, 1/5, 1/50, 1/100, 1/250, 1/500, qnd 1/1000). We always have a negative control, which is diluted the exact same. The negative control IS my serum or that of any one of a couple of my coworkers. The only time the negative control sera has ever shown a hint of a positive signal is when all the wells show elevated signal i.e. there was contamination in the diluent, but that is very rare and means the assay is redone. The same is true for a negative control for any PCR reaction run. This serves two purposes: 1) to serve as a negative control 2) to actually test ourselves, since we are always working with HIV and HIV infected animals and people.