I am proof that Covid is real

I've never heard or read anything about Covid not being real. I have heard people say we went overboard with the shutdowns...and that the focus should have been on the vulnerable and aged...not the healthy...as for most the virus came across as a bad flu or mild cold for healthy people.

Anyway I haven't got it yet. I got strong covid symptoms from the shot but my misery only lasted 4 days. Hopefully that experience means I have ultra immunity

I hope you are feeling better. Known people with no long term symptoms and some who are still dealing with loss of smell and brain fog months later. But those symptoms do eb in time.

Take care.

 

There is no such thing as alleged HIV. It has repeatedly been demonstrated that HIV exists and causes AIDS.

I mentioned Duesberg because I felt like debunking his crap and one of your links contained his name. Duesberg and the Perth Group agree on some things and diverge on others. Most of all, both of them have been totally and repeatedly debunked whether it’s Duesberg talking about ‘passenger’ viruses or the Perth Group denying HIV exists.

Are you kidding? There are not 3 theories about the causes of AIDS. There is one — AIDS is caused by HIV. There is overwhelming scientific consensus about this from thousands of independent sources as compared to your small group of HIV/AIDS illiterate idiots who call themselves the Perth Group.

Your blog is garbage, it’s totally regurgitating long debunked statements and beliefs made by the Perth Group. I read a whole page of their denialist crap and there wasn’t any resources listed after 1996. You aren’t using any credible sources. You don’t seem to include any current research. Anybody can blog about their beliefs and leave actual facts out as you have conveniently done. Stop posting your misinformation on a thread about COVID. As a random internet blogger who has just copy/pasted information from various HIV/AIDS denial sites, why should anybody take you seriously when there are thousands of studies and research to HIV causing AIDS? Your blog is erroneous and full of old statements that have been repeatedly debunked. If you don’t look at the actual research, you can’t even begin to understand why the Perth Group is full of poop.

The Perth Group claims the existence of HIV is not proven. It has been via the use of powerful microscopes that were not around when they started spouting their bullshit.

I understand the concept of changes in cellular redox blah blah blah. It’s total hogwash and that theory has been totally debunked.

The Perth Group has directly caused the death hundreds of thousands of people in South Africa because Thabo Mbeki believed their lies. You promote the same things. You need to stop. They are not experts and neither are you.

I saw on your blog that Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos passed away. I can’t say I feel anything but glad that there is one less HIV denier in the world. The hospital where she was a technician has stated that she did not work with AIDS patients or conduct any research. As opposed to the myriad of virologists who actually work with HIV and research it properly.

The Perth Group denies that AIDS is caused by HIV and like Duesberg blame it on drug use, poverty, medication used to treat AIDS and homosexual activities. They also deny AIDS is transmitted through heterosexual activity. Duesberg claims the virus exists but doesn’t cause AIDS.

I am still waiting for you to answer my questions related to HIV and drug use etc, you ignored all of them. How can the cause of AIDS not be infectious when people have developed AIDS from needle sticks and HIV infected blood products. Again, which reason can you give for a 5 year old hemophiliac dying from AIDS due to receiving HIV tainted blood products. Was it his use of recreational drugs, or his use of pharmaceutical drugs, or because he lived in poverty, or because of homosexual behaviour (claim by Perth Group)???? Explain it. How do heterosexual people get AIDS? How does a three month old baby test positive for HIV after being breast fed by his HIV positive mother? Stop telling me I don’t know anything about the Perth Group because I actually do and present a coherent up-to-date argument as to why HIV does not exist.

 

All I did was use your statistics to prove you had no leg to stand on with your assessment.
So, the fools would be those who use statistics and the statistics showed they aren't telling the truth.

 

I see you didn't refute cancer isn't an outcome of the shot.
So, you be sure to continue to make up stuff and pass on false, mis/disinformation.

Or your other option, the non fake option, is to show how the shot gave your girlfriend this cancer.
Cancer is in one's body for a long period of time before it's typically detected.

 

You have zero medical credentials. You can no more prove it was not the source then I can prove that it was.

Do you think the arm swelling up immediately like a baseball and immediately getting a sore throat is a normal reaction?

Please tell me oh faithful one of the vaccine.

 

Almost all of your post (except the last paragraph): alleged HIV propaganda, dogmatic and rude too.

Last paragraph: I repeat, shows you know very little about the Perth Group and what they assert. Have you clicked this link of my blog?:

https://hiv-probably-does-not-exist.blogspot.com/2016/03/technical-information.html

There you have the basic technical information to start, and to learn.

Afterwards, you could study some Perth Group's full documents, and all your doubts will finally be resolved. For example:

"HIV" in haemophiliacs:

http://theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/HaemophiliaHIVAIDS.pdf

(Hint: Factor VIII compound is the cause to obtain a positive "HIV" status, not alleged HIV)


Mother to child "transmission of HIV":

http://theperthgroup.com/MONOGRAPH/MTCTAugust2008.pdf


Alleged "accidents involving transmission of HIV":

https://web.archive.org/web/20101205064620/http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/vtpat2pat.htm
(original link broken, obtained from archive.org)


The definitive proof you have little idea of this subject:

Do you know what the Padian study is and what it says?

 

You have no degree. So what qualifies you to claim a vaccine shot gave your girlfriend cancer. When cancer cells feather in one's body for a long time before it's detected.

So, you have no medical credentials either. How about a HS diploma?

Since when is arm swelling and sore throat, cancer? And yes, arm swelling is sometimes a side effect.

I don't need medical credentials. I can read respected medical sources.

...
OVID-19 vaccines can cause mild side effects after the first or second dose, including:

• Pain, redness or swelling where the shot was given
• Fever
• Fatigue
• Headache
• Muscle pain
• Chills
• Joint pain
• Nausea and vomiting
• Swollen lymph nodes
• Feeling unwell

https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine-side-effects

 

Pulling someone's words out of their full context to giggle simply reflects on your political agenda and use of the Covid 19 virus to engage in your agenda, nothing else.

Before the words you cherry picked Biden also said:

" Ten thousand people have recently died; 9,950 of them, thereabouts, are people who hadn’t been vaccinated.

There’s a simple, basic proposition: If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in an ICU unit, and you’re not going to die.

So it’s gigantically important that you act like — we all act like Americans that care about our — our fellow Americans. To get — there’s legitimate questions people can ask — that they worry about getting vaccinated — but the questions should be asked, answered, and people should get vaccinated. "

You also ignored these words:

" And so, what I say to people who are worried about a new pandemic is: Get vaccinated. If you’re vaccinated, even if you do catch the “virus,” quote, unquote — like people talk about it in normal terms — you’re in overwhelm- — not many people do. If you do, you’re not likely to get sick. You’re probably going to be symptomless. You’re not going to be in a position where you — where your life is in danger.

Run along your giggling does not establish you are in the position to mock anyone.

 

Well, if I was you I too would be embarrassed as to the “lie” you stated above, but I have scruples; and would never use such an obvious and weak deflection as you did in the above post in order to try and side track the lie you told....

By the way I really don’t give a sh as to what ridiculous lies Pedo-Joe told his brainwashed legions of mental midgets in order to get them to jab themselves multiple times with a miracle pseudo vaccine for a CON-cocted FAKE pandemic.

 

I know you believe that I don’t know anything about ‘this subject’ even though I do. Why don’t you respond to my questions? Link to present research, not sites that match your beliefs. Present some FACTS not BELIEFS. Present SCIENCE rather than PSEUDOSCIENCE.

Is it really rude to state the truth that is derived from research and science? You are spreading misinformation related to HIV and AIDS. Your blog is a regurgitation of HIV/AIDS denier sites. You seem to cherry pick articles that match your own beliefs and ignore thousands upon thousands of research studies, articles that are completed by knowledgeable and competent researchers. You are choosing to cling to the false beliefs of a fringe group of deniers over thousands of scientists. You also are presenting your blog as a meaningful explanation of facts when it is really repeating the debunked beliefs of a few.

Why don’t you address the questions I presented to you instead of just repeatedly telling me I don’t know anything about HIV/AIDS deniers? Can you present coherent answers to my questions in your own words? I know enough about present research into HIV/AIDS as well as research that dates back to the beginning when the virus was first identified. I work in the medical field and I am not going to dwell on the massively ridiculous notion that HIV does not exist or it is a harmless passenger virus.

So either answer my questions or don’t. I would enjoy an explanation of how a 5 years old hemophiliac died of AIDS in your view and in your own words. If an HIV positive mother breast feeds their child and that child starts to show symptoms of HIV infection — how does that work without the presence of a transmissible virus? How do heterosexual people become HIV positive because according to the Perth Group, they don’t? How do lab technicians become HIV positive after a needle stick of a sample containing purified HIV? Can you explain all of this using research and science rather than linking me to ‘belief’ sites.

Thank you.

 

If you work in the medical field you should be interested in reading the 2003-2005 AIDS debate (not Perth Group's papers, which you should read too, but a debate between qualified HIV supporters and qualified dissidents, including Perth Group). I put here the link again:

http://bmj.rethinkers.net/bmj_debate.html

Sorted out can be accessed here:

http://bmj.rethinkers.net

Read it and tell me why, in your opinion, the Perth Group allegedly "lost" that debate. Most important, tell me why the debate was finally unilaterally closed, if Perth Group was allegedly losing.

Yes, again, you know very little about the Perth Group and what they say. The fact that you compared them to Duesberg is a good proof, when they are very different. Duesberg does not contemplate oxidation at molecular level as the probable cause of AIDS (in fact I suspect he doesn't understand oxidation), Duesberg asserts HIV exists, Duesberg even laughed about Perth Group's claim that semen deposited into the rectum is a factor in AIDS. The only thing in common between Duesberg and the Perth Group is that both affirm drugs (recreative drugs and certain medicine drugs) have a role in AIDS, but again, the Perth Group explains that role by their oxidative nature, and Duesberg not.

You only need to go to Perth Group's home page, and read:

Due to irreconcilable scientific and ethical differences we disassociate ourselves from the Rethinking AIDS Group (i.e. the group that follows Duesberg's theory).

Other facts are illuminating that you know little of this subject, for example, the fact that you asked for an explanation of heterosexual transmission of alleged HIV, when in the Padian study (the best study done ever) can be read that there were no seroconversions. In the AIDS debate (link above) you can read about that study, just search "Padian".

So yes, you should, better you MUST carefully read that debate if you belong to the medical field. But I am afraid you won't.

 

You probably just had a run-of-the-mill common cold.

 

I agree with every word, except I have yet to see any serious science that suggest that many cases have been traced through the eye mucus membrane. I have heard the theory which produced the need to wear goggles or face masks in SNF's for over a year, but I never saw case studies... and the goggle requirement I believe has been dropped from the covid protocal.

 

Thanks for posting the quality links above that absolutely clear up all the lies surrounding the governments and their hand-picked medical puppets pushing the AIDS myth lies and brainwashing misinformation.

By the way, anything that the government and their hand-picked medical puppets label a medical state with the word "syndrome" is total pseudo science horse-shit designed "to include all common illnesses" people self inflict on themselves by food toxicity; and medical suicide from the governments very own blessed pharmaceutical and agricultural giants that are poisoning them slowly with prescription drugs and harmful chemicals.

syn·drome
/ˈsinˌdrōm/

Learn to pronounce


noun
noun: syndrome; plural noun: syndromes
a group of symptoms which consistently occur together, or a condition characterized by a set of associated symptoms.
a characteristic combination of opinions, emotions, or behavior.

 

Do you truly believe that your argument is actually strengthened by stating I know nothing about the Perth Group etc. Even if I knew everything there is to know related to the Perth Group, it wouldn't mean they are right in their contention that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

I am not interested in reading links that an HIV denier provides to me because they are automatically biased. As a medical person, I actually read real research and not the opinions of some fringe group that have been repeatedly debunked. I am not interested in 16 year old debates because that's all they are -- old outdated irrelevant debates.

I asked you some pointed questions which you are refusing to answer. Why is that?

Here are some facts for you -- Globally, 38.4 million [33.9-43.8 million] people were living with HIV at the end of 2021.
-- Today 3,094 people died of HIV/AIDS worldwide.
-- So far this year, 233,357 people have died of HIV/AIDS

There is no rational basis for disputing that HIV causes AIDS.

There is nothing to debate even though you are desperately trying to assert there is.

Back in the 80's, legitimate scientists disagreed about AIDS. HIV/AIDS deniers rely on selected research findings from the early days when not much was known about HIV/AIDS. Now there are thousands upon thousands pieces of research and they all come to the same conclusion. Do you know what 'scientific consensus' is?

There are still debates in medical science about how HIV causes AIDS but there is no longer a debate about WHETHER HIV causes AIDS. You are relying on outdated scientific literature.

Countless laboratory, clinical, and epidemiological studies have all come to the same conclusion after years and years of investigation -- HIV causes AIDS. Evidence obviously means nothing to you.

Since you obviously can't even answer my questions, there is no point in further conversation. You are trying to create the impression that there is still something to debate related to HIV causing AIDS, there isn't.

How can the Perth Group claim HIV does not cause AIDS and basically deny the existence of the virus.

• The virus has been isolated in laboratories
• There are very sensitive blood tests that can determine viral load in a person
• Scientists have taken pictures of HIV
• Does anybody in the Perth Group actually conduct any research? Have they clinically proven that HIV does not exist with their research.
• Has anybody in the Perth Group had first hand experience with AIDS patients or any medical training related to AIDS?

Regarding your comments regarding the Padian study. You are obviously calling it the best study ever because it supports your outlandish belief that HIV isn't transmitted through heterosexual intercourse -- or does it support your beliefs?

It's totally illogical for you to support the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, yet at the same time claim that HIV isn't transmitted heterosexually. Padian definitely supports the fact that HIV causes AIDS. You just said it was the best study ever, yet it directly is stating something you deny -- Padian is talking about a real virus, not some alleged virus. Have you actually read the study or are you relying on the words of others?

The following commentary is from Dr Padian herself and discusses what her 1997 paper does actually say:

https://aidstruth.org/misuse-of-studies/padian/

Because you state that Nancy Padian published the 'best study done ever', then you must agree with her words above. If you would stop cherry-picking links that adhere to your beliefs, you might come closer to reality. The truth is above, not what your beloved HIV deniers state.

I am not interested in reading cherry picked links. Why don't you answer some of my questions rather than just provide further links to old outdated data, debunked beliefs, and outright misinformation.

 

So your declaration is somehow a proof? Interesting...

So a couple of declared "covid tests" came out positive? Okay.

... typical of any cold/flu, especially in people more susceptible to bronchitis.

"Had" asthma? I assume you meant "have" asthma, as I assume that asthma is a condition that you still deal with.

A common complaint relating to this particular Big Harma drug.

The key thing that you listed here is rest.

Nah. For sake of discussion I'll assume covid to be real.

The tests are most definitely real. They can be held in one's hand. Whether or not they are useful or accurate or even testing for covid in the first place is a whole different story.

Indeed. I've held them in my hand before and have looked at them. They are in fact real.

I am not jabbed nor am I a jab junkie (the covid jabs are NOT vaccines).

Key words: "firmly believe"

... and my anecdotes differ significantly from yours.

...and people likewise died and got very very sick "with covid" AFTER the jabs came out (and still do to this very day, in fact).

My personal life experience shows that Christianity is very real.

Seems like the masks don't work then... hmm.

 

If you don't want to read the debate from that link I put because is "provided by deniers" (what is simply ludicrous), you can read it directly from the British Medical Journal site:

https://www.bmj.com/content/326/7387/495

Click there on "Responses" to see all the debate, and you can check that the content there is exactly the same that the content at the link I put in my previous post.

So you don't have more excuses to not reading the debate, moreover if you're a medical person.

Regarding Padian, the prospective part of the study says:

Prospective results
We followed 175 HIV-discordant couples over time, for a total of approximately 282 couple-years of follow-up (table 3). Because of deaths as well as the break-up of couples, attrition was severe; only 175 couples are represented in table 3. The longest duration of follow-up was 12 visits (6 years). We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study. Table 3 summarizes behavior change over time, comparing behaviors at the entry visit with those reported at the last follow-up visit for that couple. A detailed report of behavior change at each follow-up visit is available elsewhere. However, approximately 97 percent of behavior change was reported between baseline and the first follow-up visit. At last follow-up, couples were much more likely to be abstinent or to use condoms consistently, and were much less likely to practice anal intercourse (p < 0.0005 for all). Nevertheless, only 75 percent reported consistent condom use in the 6 months prior to their final follow-up visit. Forty-seven couples who remained in follow-up for 3 months to 6 years used condoms intermittently, and no seroconversions occurred among exposed partners. (bold mine)

Padian NS, Shiboski SC, Glass SO, Vittinghoff E. (1997). Heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in northern California: results from a ten-year study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 146:350-357

The rest of your post: more propaganda and demonstration that your knowledge is little, and little will remain if you don't read the debate, a serious thing to a person who denominates herself as a "medical person".

I won't answer your "questions" because the responses are in that debate (and in Perth Group's papers, of course). Despite that, I gave you a hint about "HIV" in haemophiliacs (Factor VIII is oxidative and could lead to a "HIV" positive status).

 

In regards to HIV exposing hemophiliacs to AIDS:

https://www.hemophiliafed.org/questions-and-answers/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917149/

https://www1.wfh.org/publications/files/pdf-1269.pdf

https://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/p0000356/p0000356.asp

https://www.hemophilia.ca/commemoration-of-the-tainted-blood-tragedy/

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/16/us/hemophilia-and-aids-silent-suffering.html

To come on any forum and exploit the death of people from aids as a result of being exposed to hiv in contaminated blood is an insult to those who died.

 

The fact is that a person with HIV is considered to have progressed to AIDS when:

1-the number of their CD4 cells falls below 200 cells per cubic millimeter of blood (200 cells/mm3) (note:In a healthy immune system, CD4 counts are between 500 and 1,600 cells/mm3)

OR

2-they develop one or more opportunistic infections regardless of their CD4 count.

HIV is a virus that may cause an infection. AIDS ( acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) is a condition. Contracting HIV can lead to the development of AIDS. The fact it may not with some does not mean it will not with others.

AIDS id in fact stage 3 HIV, and s develops when HIV has caused serious damage to the immune system.

Symptoms of stage 3 HIV are related to the infections a person may develop as a result of having a damaged immune system that can’t fight them.

So people then get opportunistic infections which then can kill them like certain kinds of cancer, tuberculosis, pneumonia, and other viral, bacterial and fungal infections.

The bottom line is a person can have HIV without developing AIDS, but it is not possible to have AIDS without first having HIV.

Furthermore the fact that HIV infection and AIDS are not the same condition, and are not the same diagnosis does not mean they are not linked.

Yes it is true you could get HIV but not yet have AIDS. Most people with HIV delay getting aids because of taking medication now. To say there is no link between the two at all because some do not develop aids makes no sense. People with AIDS will always have had HIV. It doesn't just spontaneously appear.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/ar... a syndrome, or,AIDS without first having HIV.

If you feel ill speak to a nurse or doctor. Avoid the self proclaimed experts on this forum.

 

You hinted? What the hell does that mean? You come on a forum to deny AIDS is the final stage of HIV and you question others? You now want to exploit the death of hemophiliacs from aids they obtained from transfusions contaminated with hiv? You want to claim others know less than you?

Ditch the attitude and posturing.

 

Whether or not I read the debate you linked to has absolutely no bearing on whether HIV causes AIDS or anything else you are attempting to claim. I am not an expert in HIV/AIDS. I don't claim to be either. There are thousands of researchers/scientists with the appropriate credentials to claim they are experts and it's what they say counts, not some random person on the internet. There are thousands upon thousands research studies and scientific articles that demonstrate what you are trying to contend is absolutely false.

Do you know what a logical fallacy is? It's reasoning that is logically invalid or that undermines the logical validity of an argument. Whether or not I am a medical person is a moot point. Whether or not I read a debate is not relevant as to whether HIV causes AIDS.

Regarding the Padian — do you understand what you have done? You have cherry picked one phrase from Padian’s study and misrepresented the whole study as meaning something else. In the words of Padian "misuse of these results is misleading, irresponsible, and potentially injurious to the public".

Did you actually read the study in its entirety?

The study actually states the following:

• 47 couples used condoms intermittently and no seroconversions occurred among these 47 couples during the time of follow-up 3 months to six years.

Was the Padian study designed to demonstrate that HIV doesn't cause AIDS? No, the fundamental design was to compare couples where transmission had occurred with those who remained discordant for HIV infections. The purpose of the study was to examine rates of and risk factors for heterosexual transmission of HIV. Their results suggested that a history of STD's was most strongly associated with transmission. Male-to-female transmission was approximately eight times more efficient than female-to-male transmission. The authors correlated increased condom use with no new infections. They stated in their study that infectivity via heterosexual transmission is low with STD's maybe being the most important cofactor in transmission. The observed significant behaviour changes over time with the couples.

The study authors did not say anywhere in the study that there is no Heterosexual transmission of HIV. What it said was that were no seroconversions among 47 couples (as stated in the Prospective), yet the study was following 174 couples. They witnessed no HIV transmissions after the intervention in these 47 couples which Padian states documents the success of the interventions in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV.

It is extremely dishonest and disingenuous to take one sentence from a study and misrepresent it's meaning.
It is extremely dishonest and disingenuous to change the conclusions of a study to support misinformation.

Again, Padian herself claimed that heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV transmissions worldwide, yet you are trying to claim that the study showed no heterosexual transmission of HIV by cherry-picking one sentence and changing its meaning.

Padian cites evidence that specifically documents the heterosexual transmission of HIV comes from studies of HIV-discordant couples (i.e., couples in a stable, monogamous relationship where one partner is infected and the other is not); over time, HIV transmission occurs (Ellerbock TV, Lieb S, Harrington PE, et al. Heterosexually transmitted human immunodeficiency virus infection among pregnant women in a rural Florida community. N Engl J Med 1992;327:1704-9.). Yet, you conveniently ignore this.

Padian referred to other studies that address heterosexual transmission of HIV.

1. Hunter DJ. AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa: the epidemiology of heterosexual transmission and the prospects for prevention. Epidemiology. 1993 Jan;4(1):63-72. Review.
   
2. Venkataramana CB, Sarada PV. Extent and speed of spread of HIV infection in India through the commercial sex networks: a perspective. Trop Med Int Health. 2001 Dec;6(12):1040-61.
   
3. Adimora AA, Schoenbach VJ, Doherty IA. HIV and African Americans in the southern United States: sexual networks and social context. Sex Transm Dis. 2006 Jul;33(7 Suppl):S39-45.

Yet you ignore this.

Padian states:

In short, the evidence for the sexual transmission of HIV is well documented, conclusive, and based on the standard, uncontroversial methods and practices of medical science. Individuals who cite the 1997 Padian et al. publication (1) or data from other studies by our research group in an attempt to substantiate the myth that HIV is not transmitted sexually are ill informed, at best.

and

Their misuse of these results is misleading, irresponsible, and potentially injurious to the public.

and

A common practice is to quote out of context a sentence from the Abstract of the 1997 paper: “Infectivity for HIV through heterosexual transmission is low”. Anyone who takes the trouble to read and understand the paper should appreciate that it reports on a study of behavioural interventions such as those mentioned above: Specifically, discordant couples were strongly counseled to use condoms and practice safe sex That we witnessed no HIV transmissions after the intervention documents the success of the interventions in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV. The sentence in the Abstract reflects this success – nothing more, nothing less. Any attempt to refer to this or other of our publications and studies to bolster the fallacy that HIV is not transmitted heterosexually or homosexually is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and a travesty of the research that I have been involved in for more than a decade.

You are doing what she states -- quoting one sentence out of context, making the study appear to be about something it isn't, and grossly misrepresenting the facts.

You are not demonstrating anything with your 'proof', other that you can cherry-pick one sentence from a study and abuse it to mean something else.

Again, it doesn't matter how much I know or don't know. It's a moot and meaningless point. My knowledge related to HIV/AIDS doesn't matter when you consider the existence of thousand upon thousands or research studies and scientific articles that demonstrate everything you are saying is BS.

Oh some random internet user gave me a hint about HIV in haemophiliacs. Sorry but your denial that HIV tainted blood in the past caused the deaths of hemophiliacs is based on nothing but erroneous beliefs and bad faulty pseudoscience.

You are relying on the late Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her denialist buddies from the Perth Group for your information. Do you honestly believe a 'review' actually demonstrates anything?

In this review, the association between the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and haemophilia has been carefully examined, especially the data that have been interpreted as indicating transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to the recipients of purportedly contaminated factor VIII preparations. In our view, the published data do not prove the hypothesis that such transmission occurs, and therefore HIV cannot account for AIDS in haemophiliacs.

I am seriously dumbfounded that a review, rather than actual clinical research can actually end in statements about causation. It might be in their view but they aren't credible scientists.

Information to the tainted blood tragedy --

In the 1970s and 1980s 4,689 people with haemophilia and other bleeding disorders were infected with HIV and hepatitis viruses through the use of contaminated clotting factors. Some of those unintentionally infected their partners, often because they were unaware of their own infection. Since then more than 3,000 people have died and of the 1,243 people infected with HIV less than 250 are still alive. We now know that 380 children with bleeding disorders were infected with HIV.

Many people who did not have a bleeding disorder were infected with hepatitis C as a result of blood transfusions during that period. A large number were unaware of their infection for many years before diagnosis. It is not known how many were infected.

It is 2023, not 1995, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Hemophiliacs died from HIV tainted blood and/or living with Hepatitis C. To deny this is disgusting especially when it flies in the face of 99.9 percent of the research and scientific knowledge.

Please don't respond with your usual 'You don't know anything'. I don't have to know anything. HIV causes AIDS. I am not an expert and neither are you, obviously.

 

Covid can make you sick absolutely, but I question why doctors are not more aggressive with covid medications? It took one visit to the emergency room then finally getting admitted into the hospital, before they gave me anything. So after being sick and not eating for three weeks was put on an 8v and within 6 hours I was feeling better and eating. Only stayed in the hospital for that one night.

 

So you won't read the debate, because you say that "don't have to know anything". But you put here that very long speech, full of silly things, lies and propaganda, indeed, and trying to debate here with me, a person (you) admitting that don't have knowledge of the issue. No, I will stop this, and I will only clarify some stupid things you said about the Padian study.

I put the prospective part of the Padian study, textual and entire, and I expected you underlying or objecting something of that paragraph, or saying there is a cross-sectional part too. But you preferred to say lies and silly things. If you read the AIDS debate I was trying you to read, then you would see that HIV supporters there fully admit that the prospective study reported zero seroconversions. To deny this is ludicrous.

Regarding the cross-sectional part, and according to the Perth Group, is less reliable that the prospective part, a fact admitted by Padian. Besides, in the cross-sectional part, in 10 years they reported only two cases of female-to-male transmission, but the authenticity of both was questioned by the authors themselves. There were more cases of male-to-female seroconversions and in these cases "Anal intercourse significantly discriminated between seronegative and seropositive women" and "…only the practice of anal intercourse (p = .003) and non-white race (p = .015) were significantly associated with infection". (bold mine)

Note: those phrases in quotation do not appear in the main paper, but the Padian study is not one paper. In her study, Padian published several papers and presented her data at several meetings. Unfortunately I can access to those papers, but I completely trust on Perth Group and their quotations.

So the male-to-female seroconversions in the cross-sectional part could have been because they practiced anal intercourse, not only vaginal intercourse.

So the alleged "heterosexual trasmission of HIV" by vaginal intercourse is not proven from that study.

 

"underlining" is the correct word, my excuses.

Please remember English is not my mother tongue, and I am making an effort to write these responses correctly.

 

I overlooked one thing of your post:

That they witnessed "no HIV transmissions" in the prospective part documents only one thing: there were no "transmissions" (i.e., no one got a positive HIV test because of his/her partner allegedly transmitting "HIV"). And that occurred despite "only 75 percent (of couples) reported consistent condom use in the 6 months prior to their final follow-up visit".

If there were no seroconversions then the "transmission of HIV" is not proven from that prospective part, period.