The Church of HIV: Inventing the AIDS Virus

Originally posted by ozwest
A simple question. Statistically is the occurence of the illness more predominant in the gay community, and if so, why?

That's a locality issue. In the United States, it can be said that out of men, the disease is predominate in the gay society. In women, it's predominantly in heterosexual community. For some reason it's assumed that it's harder to catch it from a woman, as a man, but no barrier the other way around. This is a blood-born pathogen, as far as we can tell. There's a bit of blood in what males dispense and it stays inside a woman for quite a while, so the potential is there. For man on man, there's 2 blood barriers, from what the man dispenses and from blood vessels being too close to the surface in certain areas.

But this is only true when you stay in the USA, and most European societies. In Africa, it seems that little of the gay community (what does exist) doesn't have as many cases.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Myths and controversy.

Seems to me that full blown AIDS cannot truly be cured.

Why it became a epidemic,if it might have been around for so long,is also a mystery.

There are many "diseases" that I find susceptible,to big Pharma,and big money.

Cancer
Autism
MS

All of which,have big backing,and the scientific community,working on it,but NEVER a cure.

Is it because of the money the "drugs" actually generate,that a cure cant be found ?
Are there "cures",that have been suppressed ?


I question those who work on supposed "cures",because with a "fix" would we need scientific study,to continue in each relative field ?

AIDS hits close to me. I had an uncle who died because of it. Not because of his sexual lifestyle,but because of his addiction to a certain drug.


This thread, is a great thread to ponder the mystery's,of HIV,and AIDS.

The controversy,is there.


S&F

reply to post by sonnny1


There are very few diseases that modern Western science has managed to come up with a cure for. This is not necessarily a failing of Western science, particularly when it comes to chronic illness. At least the failure is not necessarily that they've not come up with a cure. Most Western doctors spend very little time studying nutrition. Chefs know more about nutrition than doctors do. I'm not saying chef's shouldn't know about nutrition. What I am saying is that doctors should, at the very least, know as much or more about nutrition as any chef does.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux



I wonder what diseases were held at bay,with primitive man,and their knowledge of the Earth,and its garden of cures.


As being a Conspiracy site,I find the lack of "finding" cures,with as much money being invested,a huge conspiracy.

I wonder how much knowledge,has been lost since the days of Hippocrates. That's not a conspiracy,unless you factor in those in Power,and what they wanted,withheld .

All in all,I have faith in Man,to conquer disease,although faith,is in question,when money is to be made........

Originally posted by SamKappler
AIDS is not a death sentence anymore, neither is treatment the unbearable burden it used to be 20 years ago. My wife is a beautiful woman who works, goes to the gym, teaches in the university, and together we raise our beautiful daughter, all thanks to three daily pills and a visit to the doctor every three months.

it's amazing how i ask a simple question and this fraud refuses to answer it. this guy claims aids isn't a death sentence anymore. i would like to see medical records of people that have aids having kids let alone surviving for years by just taking three simple pills. what amazes me more are all those that believe in this fraud. you could possibly suppress the virus but once you have aids, your life is over.

this guy claims that he's done research on the subject. really? anyone that has done research knows the way they handled hiv wasn't the right way. they didn't follow the scientific method with hiv. how can you say hiv causes aids when no one has ever isolated the virus itself. the way they handled hiv is just ludicrously careless.

reply to post by RealSpoke

Duesberg argued in 1989 that a significant number of AIDS victims had died without proof of HIV infection.[16] However, with the use of modern culture techniques and polymerase chain reaction testing, HIV can be demonstrated in virtually all patients with AIDS

This is the Deusberg paper [16] referenced by that Wikipedia article. I have read it twice now, which is why it has taken me so long to reply. I have been unable to find where Duesberg actually made the claim Wikipedia is saying he did. I will re-read it again tomorrow, but I had all ready read the paper once before the two times scouring it today to verify this claim made by Wikipedia. Maybe you could read through the paper and fish out this claim, if it exists.

Further, the PCR claim made by Wikipedia is somewhat disingenuous. Deusberg's paper was published in 1989, but consider this:

When she was studying HIV latency monocytes in the 1980s, biologists did not rely upon molecular-based detection methods in virology. They relied on culturing—which, for a retrovirus, is a complicated task even for expert biologists. “The first paper on the isolation of HIV was in 1982,” says Mikovits. “We didn’t have a single-copy assay of HIV by PCR until 1991.”

I appreciate what you are doing, my friend. There needs to be someone who offers intelligent counterpoint to what I have posted. Thus far, the brunt of that responsibility has seemed to fall upon you. However, by citing the Wikipedia article what you have done is create work for the both of us. Hard work. Because of this, I only have time to respond to the first of the paragraphs you cited of that Wikipedia article. I will try tomorrow, as time permits to address the other points, and again, I will try one more time to give that Wikipedia article the benefit of the doubt on the summarized paper of Deusberg, but it appears to me that they've taken his claim that "correlation does not prove causation" and have misrepresented that claim.

If I am wrong about that, I am sure between the two of us, we will discover that.

Another interesting thing I have heard, but was wondering if anyone had some wicked solid sources for reading...

Are O negatives completely immune to HIV? Is it true their blood has been used in transfusions to slow the onset of AIDS?

And other rh- bloodtypes are very, VERY unlikely to ever develop AIDS?

I really appreciate all the *information* posted on this thread, it makes for some excellent and informative reading...

hmmmm.

Maurice Ralph Hilleman (August 30, 1919 – April 11, 2005) was an American microbiologist who specialized in vaccinology and developed over three dozen vaccines, more than any other scientist. Of the fourteen vaccines routinely recommended in current vaccine schedules, he developed eight: those for measles, mumps, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, chickenpox, meningitis, pneumonia and Haemophilus influenzae bacteria.He also played a role in the discovery of the cold-producing adenoviruses, the hepatitis viruses, and the cancer-causing virus SV40. He is credited with saving more lives than any other scientist of the 20th century.

Robert Gallo described him as "the most successful vaccinologist in history".

Maurice Hilleman

Has anyone seen this before,and can clarify if this is legitimate?

www.avert.org... this info is backed up at the bottum of the article by 135 clickable references.

the proportion of scientists who doubt that HIV causes AIDS is tiny, and shows no sign of increasing. Interest in dissident views appears to have dwindled after the excitement surrounding Thabo Mbeki's AIDS panel and the Durban Declaration in 2000. It seems likely that new and better evidence, including the obvious benefits of modern drug treatments, has caused many former dissidents to change their minds.

Nevertheless, some dissidents have tried to dismiss the association between AIDS and HIV by claiming that many of those who test positive are not really infected with HIV. In particular, Christine Johnson has listed dozens of conditions reported to have produced false positive reactions on at least one occasion (under particular circumstances, using particular test kits).23

It is true that no test is perfect. However, what the dissidents usually don't mention is how rare the reports of false positive results have been, especially in recent years. Nor do they mention that every person who uses a test kit is trained to spot the telltale signs of a suspicious result, and to keep testing by various methods until no doubt remains. The conditions that cause false positive results are not only very uncommon, but are also typically short-lived, whereas HIV infection does not go away.24 25

the pert group only has 2 active members , According to the Perth Group's rules, nobody has isolated or proven the existence of the viruses said to cause small pox, influenza, measles, mumps and yellow fever.

how ridiculous is that ^ we know all those exist so that is so so wrong.

stop spreading ignorance.

I dont want aids....

Strap it up before you slap it up

reply to post by Stryc9nine


Once again, I suggest you get caught up and stop repeating claims that were only true in the 90's. The Virus most certainly has been isolated.

Deny Ignorance.

The conspiracy is that everyone is prone or vulnerable to this disease, including straight males, which simply isn't entirely true. There are instances, however, it is still a disease predominant in the gay community.

There was a Sexual Disease Dr in my city who has stated in 30 years of practice he hasn't once encountered someone who acquired HIV through a 1 time heterosexual bout. Not to say, it can't happen, it does, but not nearly as high of a rate as homosexuals.

The above poster who is posting how no one has every survived long term on HIV drugs, you are off your rocker. Go to thebody.com. Tell them, they are all dead and that the drugs that have kept them alive aren't really helping. Lets see how far you get.

It wouldn't go over well if the government pinned this entirely on gays, so instead they tell everyone to use protection, you're at risk, ect ect. When the instances of 1 night heterosexual transmission is rather low. Something like 1 in 1-1000 or 1-2000, if the male is circumsized, those numbers drop even further. Viral load is believed to be a significant contributor to risk of transmission. The higher the load, the more likely you are to give it to some1, if you're undetectable, you won't likely pass it on.

These papers were all written when viral loads, isolation of the virus ect hadn't yet occurred, these points of contention that Duesberg had have now been satisfied, although Duesberg is still unchanged, most of his peers that once sided with him no longer do.

I agree that the community acted unfairly and unkindly to Duesberg in trying to silence his dissent, but the mountain of evidence leads to HIV causing AIDS. I find dissenters work valuable as well, but his gig is up. He can't explain the low T cells in HIV + people alone, and why it isn't true for the drug users he claims that lifestyle lead to their aids diagnosis. He has no proof, AZT isn't even used anymore, but yet he still claims this toxic drug leads to AIDS. Simply put, he is out of touch and so are all these claims from the 90's. Very few scientists, researchers, chemists still hold those views today. Twenty years ago he was quite right to question what was going on, but since that time it has been proven undeniably that HIV eventually leads to AIDS.

To hear people still spewing this nonsense is disheartening and unfortunate.

reply to post by SamKappler


Please the type of nonsense you are writing at best only impresses the type of armchair warriors that frequent our precious ATS venue.

To anyone that has been in the trenches dealing with 'modern' 'medicine', your marketing glossy accounts of fighting the good fight are just a more sophisticated type of ad hominem and your supposed indignation...

Whatever...

The problem is that the Tenets of Science were thrown away a long time ago by the Big Pharma/mainstream MDs cartel.

My role in this conversation is to both highlight the REAL WORLD success of alternative medicine approaches and to hammer on the apparent abandonment of anything approaching REAL SCIENCE by said MDs and also to highlight the fact that we have been here before in every single malady group.

The fact that anyone even refuses to touch upon the Pink Disease debacle is only slightly amusing.



The fact that the major 'treatment' of HIV STILL centers on AZT...

What part of it's EXTREME TOXICITY is not registering in your 'thought' processes?

And the claims that the 'virus' has been isolated... So some type of threshold event has occurred... and the 'CURE' must surely be just around the corner...



Let's have a parade... with color coordinated ribbons... and let's put the most gorgeous children, with the mandatory shaved heads at the head of the parade... Open up your purse strings folks and make stern yet brave faces... we are going to team up and win this fight!... Any decade now!



The fact that the 'medical' 'scientists' live in a FAIRY TALE world...

Where they have practically ZERO understanding of the true nature of the 'pathogens' that preoccupies them...

Where a brilliant man... has yet ONCE AGAIN invented a technology... that actually allows you to see the TRUE OCCUPANTS that populate the slides...

(Gaston Naessens! Gaston Naessens! Gaston Naessens!)

Yet no one can be bothered...

Instead you settle for idiotic explanations for their activities...

And call it BROWNIAN MOTION...



I think we understand each other.

here from the mayo clinic, this has been and is the treatment for aids stop relying on outdated information. Show us AZT in this list, you can't, it's not there

Treatments and drugs
By Mayo Clinic staff
There is no cure for HIV/AIDS, but a variety of drugs can be used in combination to control the virus. Each of the classes of anti-HIV drugs blocks the virus in different ways. It's best to combine at least three drugs from two different classes to avoid creating strains of HIV that are immune to single drugs. The classes of anti-HIV drugs include:

Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs). NNRTIs disable a protein needed by HIV to make copies of itself. Examples include efavirenz (Sustiva), etravirine (Intelence) and nevirapine (Viramune).
Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). NRTIs are faulty versions of building blocks that HIV needs to make copies of itself. Examples include Abacavir (Ziagen), and the combination drugs emtricitabine and tenofovir (Truvada), and lamivudine and zidovudine (Combivir).
Protease inhibitors (PIs). PIs disable protease, another protein that HIV needs to make copies of itself. Examples include atazanavir (Reyataz), darunavir (Prezista), fosamprenavir (Lexiva) and ritonavir (Norvir).
Entry or fusion inhibitors. These drugs block HIV's entry into CD4 cells. Examples include enfuvirtide (Fuzeon) and maraviroc (Selzentry).
Integrase inhibitors. Raltegravir (Isentress) works by disabling integrase, a protein that HIV uses to insert its genetic material into CD4 cells.

reply to post by research100


Don't bother, most would rather post outdated information from the 90's to support their unsubstantiated claims. AZT hasn't been used for treatment in forever, yet people continually develops AIDS, many have never touched AZT, the only thing they have in common is that every single person who has developed AIDS, also has HIV, all of them. Those who don't have HIV don't develop AIDS, ever, period. There is zero doubt.

.

Can anyone find anything that states that they can isolate the actual HIV virus? I ask because I remember reading a few years ago that it's never actually been found. They can only find an anti-virus which is produced by one's body in an attempt to fight the virus. This is what they look for in tests... they aren't searching for a virus as they do in rare flu cases for instance.

But like I said... this is just something I read and could be false. Then again I've never seen anything that states someone saying "yep... that's the little bug right there" as they can in other animals with their types of HIV.

Originally posted by research100
here from the mayo clinic, this has been and is the treatment for aids stop relying on outdated information. Show us AZT in this list, you can't, it's not there

Treatments and drugs
By Mayo Clinic staff
There is no cure for HIV/AIDS, but a variety of drugs can be used in combination to control the virus. Each of the classes of anti-HIV drugs blocks the virus in different ways. It's best to combine at least three drugs from two different classes to avoid creating strains of HIV that are immune to single drugs. The classes of anti-HIV drugs include:

Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs). NNRTIs disable a protein needed by HIV to make copies of itself. Examples include efavirenz (Sustiva), etravirine (Intelence) and nevirapine (Viramune).
Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). NRTIs are faulty versions of building blocks that HIV needs to make copies of itself. Examples include Abacavir (Ziagen), and the combination drugs emtricitabine and tenofovir (Truvada), and lamivudine and zidovudine (Combivir).
Protease inhibitors (PIs). PIs disable protease, another protein that HIV needs to make copies of itself. Examples include atazanavir (Reyataz), darunavir (Prezista), fosamprenavir (Lexiva) and ritonavir (Norvir).
Entry or fusion inhibitors. These drugs block HIV's entry into CD4 cells. Examples include enfuvirtide (Fuzeon) and maraviroc (Selzentry).
Integrase inhibitors. Raltegravir (Isentress) works by disabling integrase, a protein that HIV uses to insert its genetic material into CD4 cells.

edit on 22-5-2012 by research100 because: add a sentence

edit on 22-5-2012 by research100 because: add a sentence

Very impressive... Just an excellent cut-n-paste job Research100!

One tiny little problem...

Who wants the honor of pointing out where Research100 and apparently his cohort MacaroniCaesar, took a wrong turn?

You have just got to love armchair warriors...

reply to post by theblain


Sorry, porous holes in latex is larger than the HIV virus, so no guarantees that would work.

Originally posted by golemina

Very impressive... Just an excellent cut-n-paste job Research100!

One tiny little problem...

Who wants the honor of pointing out where Research100 and apparently his cohort MacaroniCaesar, took a wrong turn?

You have just got to love armchair warriors...

I apologize for 'quoting' myself... It just kind of comes off as tacky.

I think it's fair to say we've given the you "would rather post outdated information from the 90's" brigade long enough time...

The answer to my question is...

Zidovudine...

Zidovudine is AZT!

And OUCH... (I'm sure )

So you were saying Research100? (or MacaroniCaesar?)

AZT hasn't been used for treatment in forever...

Can you define 'forever'?

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
reply to post by Stryc9nine

 

The above poster who is posting how no one has every survived long term on HIV drugs, you are off your rocker. Go to thebody.com. Tell them, they are all dead and that the drugs that have kept them alive aren't really helping. Lets see how far you get.

It wouldn't go over well if the government pinned this entirely on gays, so instead they tell everyone to use protection, you're at risk, ect ect. When the instances of 1 night heterosexual transmission is rather low. Something like 1 in 1-1000 or 1-2000, if the male is circumsized, those numbers drop even further. Viral load is believed to be a significant contributor to risk of transmission. The higher the load, the more likely you are to give it to some1, if you're undetectable, you won't likely pass it on.

I think the above poster meant AIDS, not being HIV positive. You are grouping HIV and AIDS together which is a no no. Do you even know the difference or are you just regurgitating what you have heard? Once you have AIDS, I doubt taking pills will prolong your life for years. I don't think anyone can find stories of success even in the website you posted.

Also, what does being circumcised have anything to do with it? It's like saying people that have big testicles have less chance of catching the virus. One thing though, gay people are more prone to transmitting HIV since they have anal intercourse. I don't want to get graphic but anal intercourse often cause tears in your rectum which results in HIV and other viruses being able to enter the blood system.

Hmmmm... what is this it wouldn't go well with the government if they pinned this entirely on gays nonsense? Is it really that hard to fathom? Let's see, heterosexuals engage in vaginal sex (yes in the non-porn world straight people have vaginal sex 99.9% of the time) and homosexuals engage in anal sex.

reply to post by golemina


You would think someone that claims to know so much about HIV treatments would know Zidovudine is AZT. Most people that claim to know about HIV and AIDS have no idea. They probably don't even know how HIV tests work. Just ignore them and read the OP.