HIV vaccines cause 50 percent false positive rate in HIV tests

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by minor007

 

You realise con·cede/kənˈsēd/ is a Verb:
Admit that something is true or valid after first denying or resisting it.
Admit (defeat) in a contest: "he conceded defeat".

So basically the guy who owns Quackwatch (Dr Barret) admitted in court he has ties with the MA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Now why would you trust anything he says?

edit on 7-1-2012 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)

I dont.... you do he is the one who runs quackwatch exposed

my bad he is the one who runs quackwatch my mistake misread the wording.
fair enough since I used quackwatch to discredit Joseph mecola. However Joseph Mecola has valid points in which I agree with most in his general view to live healthy a lot of his claims however are suspect and if you read the page on him on wiki you will see he has been caught out in a few lies.
en.wikipedia.org...

and one person who disagree with the vast majority of doctors and health physicians when it comes to HIV i would seriously take his words with a pinch of salt.

Provide links of an HIV/aids sufferer who has been cured and has documented proof that he was infected. I bet you cant. You talk about everything else and you have failed in that very important aspect of what you are claiming.

LOL i should practise what I preach and find some information about claims about someone being cured of aids and guess what I have

The Berlin patient

On 13 December, NAM’s website aidsmap.com published a news story1 which, thanks largely to circulation on social media like Facebook and Twitter, received 50 times the usual hits.

It concerned the ‘Berlin patient’, who we now know as Timothy Ray Brown, an American living in Berlin. He will go down in history as the first person ever to be cured of HIV. His doctors had already published two papers on his case2,3 (see HTU issues 182 and 192) but it was only in a third paper, summarising late results, that they allowed themselves to say: “It is reasonable to conclude that cure of HIV infection has been achieved in this patient.”4

The extraordinary explosion in interest hints that, however well we are doing on our antiretrovirals (ARVs), however normal a life people manage to live with HIV, most people still long to be rid of it.
Kill or cure

The cure Brown underwent was not one you’d wish on anyone, though. It only happened because he developed something else: leukaemia. This is cancer of the immune system, a wild overproliferation of the blood cells originating in the bone marrow. When Brown’s chemotherapy failed and his leukaemia returned, his doctors decided on the last resort - a bone marrow transplant.

To do this, doctors destroy a large part of the immune system to kill off the cancerous cells. They then introduce a graft of bone marrow from a healthy donor who’s as closely matched genetically as possible, so the host’s body doesn’t attack the new cells. These should then become the patient’s new immune system.

What this also means, in a person with HIV, is that if the original immune system is wiped out thoroughly enough, so are the CD4 cells that harbour the virus.

Brown’s doctor, Gero Hütter, had an idea. He knew that about 1% of Caucasians have a genetic mutation called the delta-32 double-delete mutation. ‘Double-delete’ means they inherited a copy of the same defective gene from both parents. In these people, certain classes of immune cell lack a cell-membrane protein called CCR5.

The majority of human immunodeficiency viruses, and 99% of those transmitted, need to grab on to a CCR5 molecule in order to infect a cell; indeed one of the newer HIV drugs, maraviroc (Celsentri), works by blocking the CCR5 molecule.

People with this mutation are almost completely resistant to HIV infection and, more importantly in this case, to HIV proliferation: no CCR5 means no new cells to infect. So what would happen if Brown’s immune system was replaced by one from a donor with no CCR5? Would his HIV disappear?

To cut to the chase, the answer was yes, and fast (for the full report, see www.aidsmap.com/page/1577949). Despite being taken off ARVs the day before his bone marrow transplant, Brown only had one more detectable viral load before it disappeared entirely. Two months after his first transplant, all his bone marrow cells had become CCR5-negative. Five months after, his CD4 cells were acting as if there was no HIV in his body. At this point, however, the researchers could still find CCR5-expressing cells in his gut, so they hesitated to announce a cure. Two years later, they could find none anywhere, and the antibody responses which define whether someone is ‘HIV-positive’ or not were dwindling away to near-zero.

They also found no HIV in Brown’s brain. They were certain of this because 17 months after his first transplant (he had to have a second at 13 months), Brown developed a brain impairment and had a brain biopsy. Hütter’s team can’t absolutely rule out this having been caused by a flare-up of HIV lurking in the brain, but the biopsy and analysis of Brown’s cerebrospinal fluid revealed no evidence of HIV. They suggest it was probably due to immune deficiency caused by the transplant procedures and the chemotherapy. He suffered temporary blindness, memory problems and loss of muscular co-ordination.

source

However this cure may not be to everyones cup of tea and finding a matching bone marrow donor is going to be a hit and miss and it wasnt healthy living that cured him either

These 'experts' quote studies with pseudo-science and 'parts' of real studies and dated work from monotherapy studies - but do not bother to reference what was happening to the patients at that time in the history of the disease. They harp on the inaccuracy of the testing as if the doctors had no idea. They ignore the other tests that are used to verify a 'false positive'. And finally, they IGNORE the SICK and the DEAD that DIDN"T participate in their selected studies they like to quote.

These 'experts' may even quote 'case studies' of patients they have read about on these sites.They like to give reports of people that sucessfully beat it using their alternative cures. But...where's the long-term followup? Where are these patients that are still alive? Can you find ANY of them? NO. They are DEAD too, just like the ones that did nothing.

For those that are defensive of alternate therapies, I don't knock them, I do seek them out. But I can't ignore the obvious. They can slow this down, but they WON"T stop it. They can make it easier to tolerate the drugs, but they cannot REPLACE them.

These 'experts' have NO EXPERIENCE with either the virus, or the victims of the virus. No motivation to learn the real facts. A lot of what they state about other conditions may be true. But MUCH of what they spout about HIV is completely FALSE, and dangerous. Yes, dangerous.

These 'experts' seem to deny death. And obviously they have never met anyone that has dealt with this for decades, or anyone that was not able to make it.

And WHY do denialists keep bring back the boogyman of the late 80s (AZT)? Is it because they don't understand that (at that time) the scientists still thought they might be able to eradicate the virus, and had not learned yet how successful it mutated? Sure a lot of these patients died. They volunteered because they were already dying. Only the ones that were able to hang on until 1997 and get the new combos were able to survive.

I know my truth - I was dying with about a year left, and no one had to convince me I was sick. I started the drugs in 2001. I am healthy and alive 11 years later.

I'll give you another truth - my case study counselor had 350 patients beginning in 1989. Only 48 of those survived until 1997, when the triple-therapy combos came out (1996 is when the scientists quit trying to kill the virus with mega-doses of single drugs and attempted to control it instead with smaller doses of multiple drugs).
After 1997, she had only TWO patients die of the remaining 48,
Those two refused to take the new combo drugs because of the 'boogyman' monotherapy they saw kill their friends.

This is not stuff I found on the 'net to support misguided beliefs and hidden agendas. This is my LIFE EXPERIENCE.

So for those that read this thread and began to believe this dangerous spiel, ask these 'debunkers' if they have any LIFE EXPERIENCE with the condition besides something they herard from a friend of a friend.

I believe most of these 'debunkers' have an agenda, and it is deadly.
It is definitely DEADLY for those that believe it and find later it was a big LIE.

The flags for knowing if the 'debunking' is full of crap:

1) Attack on the ELISA test - holdover from the 80's when it was the only game in town. False positives are eliminated by PCR and genotype assays that identify the virus,and CD4 counts that identify the damage, and viral load tests that tell exaclly how much is in the bloodstream. The newest test (used in a clinical trial now for patients that have been extremely successful on the drugs) can detect down to one copy of virus per mL of blood.

2) Any references to AZT - for one, this drug was the only thing they could find in 1989 that could slow it down, and people were dying. The trials with this drug were destined to fail because nonotherapy does not work with HIV. Yes it was toxic in the large amounts that were given. Same for the others that were tried prior to 1997. This is history, not the current condition of treatment.

3) any references to patients that have been 'sucessfully' treated by alternative medicine. I have yet to see a followup after 10 years on any single one. Sure in the reports they get better, there is no denial that alternative medicine can improve our condition....however their CD4 continue to drop and they eventually die. I have never met one, and I have met hundreds at conventions and seminars that live with this, and none of them know anyone that can do this. All of them know someone that is dead that tried it.

4) Studies of the drug trials showing high failure rate - Evey one posted in this thread, refer to 'monotherapy' studies. That is automatically the RED FLAG that tells you the study was not done with the current science of 'control' but the previous attempts at eradication. Therefore dated, and not applicable to the current crop of drugs.

Why do denialists want us to die? Ask THAT question.

reply to post by minor007


Yes that IS a cure. It also has a 25% success rate. They must KILL the remaining immune system, then do a blood-marrow transplant from a donor with compatible blood, AND two genetic mutations that remove the CCR5 receptor from the T-cells. Not practical cure, just a demonstration.

They would not have even tried this except the patient was dying of leukemia and HIV. At that point 25% is bettter than 0%.

FYI this also explains a small (around 10%) portion of the population that are naturally immune when exposed (that fact is also left out of all the denialist's studies that point out the 'exposed but uninfected'). The theory is that the Black Plague and smallpox epidemics caused preferential death to Caucasion populations of Europe that had the receptor, and many of the people with the two mutations survived the epidemics. (FYI there is another group of 'long-term' survivors that are not immune, but do sucessfully control it with no illness, because their bodies produce the correct antibodies to control it - and these antibodies were just isolated in clinical trials within the last year; they will eventually be made into drugs without the side effects of today's drugs - this will make this disease as dangerous as chickenpox - if you had chickenpox you still got it, it NEVER goes away, but it can't affect you and you can't transmit it because your body recognizes it immediately when it leaves the tissues).

If the drugs didn't work it MIGHT be worth the risk.

Now, when they get this method applied using gene therapy to modify T-cells to reproduce without the CCR5 receptor, then it will be a cure that uses the same principle as the Berlin patient without the risk of the blood-marrow transplant. Gotta wait a few years, this technique has been verified in-vitro, and is now being put into a Phase I trial. I'll let you know when it gets to Phase III. FYI this is the best hope I see, but there are at least two other trials I am following that are also good candidates to stop this disease.

reply to post by minor007


You do realize what you posted is that Dr. Stephen Barrett, who runs admitted to being a liar with a strong motive to silence people and label them "quacks". He also admitted to not passing the board exam, as well as filing 40 defamation lawsuits and losing every single one of them.

Edit: I saw you acknowledged this, good for you, I have a lot of respect for that.

Just so we are clear I am not a denialist, might as well deny the holocaust. Evidence. Is. Overwhelming.