20$ to the first person who finds an actual picture of an AIDS virus particle.

Have you ever seen one? No you haven't because they don't exist.

Here is an illustration of an AIDS virus particle. www.rkm.com.au...


Do you want to see some pictures of viruses that do exist?

Rabies:
pathmicro.med.sc.edu...

Ebola:
upload.wikimedia.org...

Flu:
upload.wikimedia.org...

HPV:
www.urmc.rochester.edu...

Marburg:
images.google.com...://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/spb/images/pathimag/Marburg-emb.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/spb /mnpages/dispages/filoimg.htm&usg=__dFNwKruPIsCEdB5ZxijcFoxN9c8=&h=397&w=500&sz=19&hl=en&start=5&um=1&tbnid=DbE4wXQOMepxlM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=130&prev=/im ages%3Fq%3DMarburg%2Bvirus%2Bparticle%2Bpicture%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dcom.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

Yellow Fever:
www.popsci.com...

Dengue Fever:
beamicrobkidnow.files.wordpress.com...

Hanta Virus:
www.stanford.edu...

I could go on but I think you are getting the point by now.

Interesting if true. But what are you trying to say? what does this mean? That AIDS does not exist? Or that there is something more to aids than meets the eye?

I'm not sure what it means, but I'm pretty sure people are dying of AIDS or something similar.



[edit on 25-6-2009 by _Phoenix_]

Hey, I discuss this in my thread AIDS - We've Been lied to. The documentary included practically shows that it is all a great farce.

There is no known retrovirus that takes longer than a month or two to start devastating its host. Yet aids takes upto 10 years to start killing, and even then, its not one specific disease, the person eventually dies due to a multitude of diseases which are destroying the person thanks to their damaged immune system. Additionally, theres tremendous evidence that AZT the drug designed to "fight" aids, does more harm than good. And all this is thanks to the inaccurate assumption that HIV = AIDS, which has a variety of reasons why that isn't the case. Namely the fact that HIV was around for many, many decades, even centuries before the actual AIDS epidemic.

In a rush to quell public outcry, the HIV - AIDS hypothesis was agreed upon before the report was even peer reviewed. And ever since, they've been fighting the battle on incorrect assumptions and poor logic.

Eventually, hopefully the truth will come out, so that this can officially be revealed as one of the largest medical blunders of all time.

reply to post by downtown436


It's my understanding, that there is not an AIDS virus. AIDS is a syndrome, not a virus. HIV is the virus that causes AIDS. Symantics aside, here are some pics of HIV1 and HIV2 from Stanford University:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/281cb8aa7066.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b77318243b99.jpg[/atsimg]

Stanford

This took me all of about two seconds to find...

Also, the poster above is correct, there is no AIDS virus. It is the HIV virus you are asking about. Thanks for clearing that up Cameoii. You may also find it interesting that my image strongly resembles your top image and adds to the idea that these are the real photographs of the actual virus. Nice find.

A gallery of falsely colored transmission electron micrograph images captures the presumed order of events when the HIV virus buds from the surface of a T-lymphocyte white blood cell. The virus particles attack T-lymphocytes, stealing their genetic machinery, thereby forcing them to produce more copies of the virus. The new virus particles then erupt from the cell to infect other T-lymphocytes. As these are a vital part of the immune system, the disease severely weakens immunity, making victims susceptible to seemingly harmless infections.

science.nationalgeographic.com...


[edit on 6/25/2009 by deadline527]

Darn it, ya'll beat me to it. It also took me just moments to find HIV virus particle images.

So do they still not exist?

reply to post by downtown436


that picture of "HIV", not AIDS, looks like it was taken with an electron microscope.

To my knowledge..AIDS was never a virus..byitslef.Aids is reffered or used when someones imune system has almsot completely broken down, and are probably months form their deathbed..they get so many infections form the HIV damage, thier bodys and defense system becomes literally over run. It is called AIDS at that point..thier never was an actual AIDS cell.

There is no such thing as an AIDS particle.

ZOMG ITS A GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY.

No. It's a syndrome. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

It has no particle. That's like asking for a Head Ache particle.

OHNOES Head Aches are a government conspiracy!

THEY'RE PUTTING CHEMICALS IN MY RAINBOW LAWN WATER.

No but seriously, I do believe that HIV was created by the gov't for population control.
I just wanted to make it a point that if you did 10 seconds of research on AIDS you would know it's not possible to have a particle of a syndrome.

Picture of HIV virus

Learn science, DENY IGNORANCE!

AIDS stands for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. When HIV infection becomes advanced it often is referred to as AIDS. It generally occurs when the CD4 count is below 200/mL and is characterized by the appearance of opportunistic infections. These are infections that take advantage of a weakened immune system and include:

Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia
Toxoplasmosis
Tuberculosis
Extreme weight loss and wasting; exacerbated by diarrhea which can be experienced in up to 90% of HIV patients worldwide
Meningitis and other brain infections
Fungal infections
Syphilis
Malignancies such as lymphoma, cervical cancer, and
Kaposi's Sarcoma
Today we know that Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is a disease and not a syndrome. A syndrome is commonly used to refer to collections of symptoms that do not have an easily identifiable cause. This name was more appropriate 13 years ago, when doctors were only aware of the late stages of the disease and did not fully understand its mechanisms. A more current name for the condition, regardless of an AIDS diagnosis, is HIV Disease. This name is more accurate because it refers to the pathogen that causes AIDS and encompasses all the condition’s stages, from infection to the deterioration of the immune system and the onset of opportunistic diseases. However, AIDS is still the name that most people use to refer to the immune deficiency caused by HIV.

www.stopaids.org...

Forgot the Link for the above article.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by finemanm]

looks like everyone bet me to it...

but yeah...you need to research some more before doing this.



i wonder how many major conspiracy theories have been spawned like this?

Did any of you who put up pics of the HIV virus or commented on the difference between HIV and aids watch the video posted by King9072? I find it quite interesting, perhaps everyone interested in this topic should take a look at all of them and then speak.

Originally posted by king9072

There is no known retrovirus that takes longer than a month or two to start devastating its host. Yet aids takes upto 10 years to start killing, and even then, its not one specific disease, the person eventually dies due to a multitude of diseases which are destroying the person thanks to their damaged immune system.

You might want to consider HCV (Hepatitis C Virus) as another virus that usually takes much more than 10 years to kill its victim.

reply to post by

cancerian42


I am watching this series now. I am on part 10. It is an interesting series and I do remember a

lot of this from my high school and college advanced biology studies. I thought all of this was settled,

but I guess not.

Here is the basic scoop that the videos are telling:

1) There have never been any direct evidence linking HIV to AIDS -- Only correllating evidence.
2) HIV has never been shown to destroy T-Cells, thus it cannot be the cause of the catastrophic loss of

immune efficacy.
3) The diseases comprising AIDS in the seperate primary risk groups (IV Drug users and Gay men) are the

same diseases that are already present in those risk groups. These diseases and/or the behaviors

associated with these risk groups often have a negative impact on immunity in and of themselves
4) There were fundemental flaws in the procedures followed by the scientists claiming to have linked HIV

to AIDS, including a lack of peer review prior to public announcement of the discovery.
5) HIV has never been confirmed to spread sexually.
6) HIV Antibody tests are not reliable and often have false positives.
7) HIV therapies including AZT and protease inhibitors can devestate the body as a whole, including the

immune system, opening the body to the same diseases attributed to AIDS.


I do not endorse or validate any of these statements based just on the videos. I know some of these

points have some merit in the scientific community, but I do encourage ya'll to do your own research. I

am still on the fence about it myself for various reasons.

I will say that these videos have some issues that make me cringe. They make just be poor decisions on

the part of the script writers, but claiming that people believe that the HIV virus CAUSES the diseases associated with AIDS is an example of something that made me cringe.

Regardless, as a family member of someone with a chronic "managable" disease (Type I Diabetes), I am rather sensative to Big Pharma making tons of money off of selling cheap drugs at high prices just because they can. AZT costs $5/unit to make and they sell it for $50/unit at the very least. Similarly, Lantus insulin costs just a couple of dollars per vial to make, but without insurance, it can cost up to $120/bottle.

Originally posted by Bunny-chan

Originally posted by king9072

There is no known retrovirus that takes longer than a month or two to start devastating its host. Yet aids takes upto 10 years to start killing, and even then, its not one specific disease, the person eventually dies due to a multitude of diseases which are destroying the person thanks to their damaged immune system.

You might want to consider HCV (Hepatitis C Virus) as another virus that usually takes much more than 10 years to kill its victim.

You might want to consider that I wrote "Retrovirus" and the fact that Hep is a Virus.

And thank you cancerian, your right, anyone bothering to post here needs to seriously look at the video. Cause I am aware people are lazy, ill embed. Watch the video, the evidence presented will change your viewpoint. And as usual, it's all about the money.

reply to post by cancerian42


Since I was one of the first to reply in this manner and with pics, I feel I should give you an answer. No I did not watch the video, because I was not replying to the post containing the video. As a matter of fact, it was posted as I was constructing my post. I hope that the respect I showed to the OP was appearant, as I was simply trying to provide him/her with the information I thought they would appreciate.

On to the subject at hand... I do believe that there is more to AIDS than the public is aware of, although I don't claim to have any theories of my own. The video was informative, as there were parts I had never heard before. I, too, believe that money is the motive behind the disease, whatever the cause may be.

reply to post by Cameoii


If those are real pictures, which they look like I guess I owe you 20$.

at least the OP poster can rest assured he will never have to pay out the $20

reply to post by downtown436


Nah, just help me find something the next time I need another pair of eyes and we'll call it even!

Just ask magic johnson how he is still alive, not sure how true this is as it is just a blog but i found it interesting.. Natrol extract

As for a picture of it i have seen those before by the above posters, don't bet 20 bones on the internet, especially here..haha