Hiv

[disruptor 0]

HIV does not, in fact, exist. The so-called human immunodeficiency virus, HIV, is only an "externalization", to absolve the AIDS patient of responsibility for his/her disease.

 

Anyone doubting this should consider that HIV has never even been isolated. This simple and amazing fact in itself should make everyone suspicious about the entire AIDS industry.

 

When someone "tests positive" for HIV, they actually test positive for reverse transcriptase enzyme activity which is assumed to indicate the presence of HIV in the patient. There is in fact a total lack of evidence for the existence of HIV.

 

At the time, everyone was in a mad rush to find the "cause" of AIDS. Those who came up with something first would be assured of endless research funds, fame etc. The h*mosexual lobby seized on the first announcement to claim a viral cause, since then it would no longer be their own fault. It's always easier to blame a "virus" than one's own misbehavior.

 

Rom. 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

Some Quotes on the Non-Existence of HIV

 

"Kary Mullis, Nobel laureate in chemistry 1993 and inventor of the polymerase chain reaction, needed a reference for "the generally known fact" that HIV was the cause of AIDS. While working on a project he became aware that he didn´t know a scientific reference for the statement he had just written down: HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. So he asked the next virologist at the table after that basic paper. The virologist told Mullis, he wouldn´t need a reference in this case; after all, everyone knows that HIV leads to AIDS. Kary Mullis disagreed and thought such an important discovery should be published in some paper. He learnt soon that it was impossible to find such a paper." Claus Kohnlein.

 

"Whenever and wherever reverse transcriptase activity was detected it was rashly assumed that retroviruses were at work. This turned out to be a grave error, because it was later found that the enzyme occurred in all living matter, proving that reverse transcriptase activity had nothing to do with retroviruses per se.......It is incomprehensible that Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, a member of Montagnier's group, as well as Gallo's group itself in 1984, claimed to have discovered a new virus, when all they did was to demonstrate reverse transcriptase activity, and to publish photographs of cellular particles without proof that they were viruses. They could neither isolate them nor show that they were responsible for creating the observed reverse transcriptase activity nor the tissue abnormalities from which they were obtained. They concluded: "the role of the virus in the aetiology of AIDS remains to be determined". Stefan Lanka

 

http://www.whale.to/a/hivfraud.html

[ikester7579 19]

It works the same way with cancer. Do you actually think as long as cancer has been around that there is really no cure?

 

Cancer is a multi billion dollar industry for both the government, and industry. A cure would cause so many things to go obsolete, and so many jobs lost. That to actually present a cure, would cost more than allowing no cure to exist.

 

This is why some diseases, like the one you mention, seem kinda strange the way they catagorize it. And treat it. The treatment is always costly, and there is a reason for that.

 

And also, these treatments basically stay the same as well. And there is a reason for that.

 

In my life time I have seen about 50 different hopeful drugs, or treatment stratigies get announced on tv for cancer. Ever wonder why you never see a follow up on this? Hope make us never ask questions. For as long as in our minds we think a cure is being worked on, no one ever looks into it.

 

side note: This is my personal opinion, which may not be the opinion of forum owner.

[chance 1]

HIV does not, in fact, exist. The so-called human immunodeficiency virus, HIV, is only an "externalization",  to absolve the AIDS patient of responsibility for his/her disease.

 

<snip>

 

 

10062[/snapback]

So what, in your opinion, is killing (killed) the millions who have been 'diagnosed' with AID’s?

[ikester7579 19]

If I'm not mistaken. Hiv is determined when your T-cell count drops below a certain level. Which is way below normal. And then when it drops below another level, it is considered full blown aids.

 

But some people never die from this T-cell count drop. Which makes me wonder if more then one thing can make your T-cell count drop like that.

[thaiduykhang 0]

More on modern "science"

 

Some psychology "problems" are perfectly normal. If you're serious about religion, you're a maniac; If God gives you a vision, you're a schizo.

 

Some psychology "problems" are in fact demonic possessions. For example: H*m*s*xuality.

[D R 0]

So what, in your opinion, is killing (killed) the millions who have been 'diagnosed' with AID’s?

10070[/snapback]

AIDS itself DOES NOT kill the person. It only destroys the body’s immune system. Without an immune system the person is now far more susceptible to contracting an illness or disease. The common cold in a healthy individual is nothing to worry about. That same cold in a person infected with AIDS could be fatal.

 

The AIDS medications which have proven the most effective are those which help bolster the immune system and thus allow the body’s natural defenses to fight off illness and disease. Even with the medications the immune system is still weakened and a person with AIDS can still succumb to any contracted illness or disease. Unfortunately they’ve yet to find a medication which will eradicate the virus once contracted.

 

So to answer your question, they died of one of many possible illnesses people suffering from AIDS are susceptible to contracting.

[Springer 5]

AIDS is a result of drug use and has nothing to do with HIV. Here are some interesting facts...

1. nearly 90% of American AIDS cases are males. No known infectious disease discriminates on gender.

2. HIV has never been isolated from semen.

3. AIDS has never been transmitted by a needlestick injury. (compare several thousand cases of hepatitis/year).

4. AIDS has never been produced in laboratory animals. (50 chimpanzees inoculated with HIV 20 years ago...none have contracted AIDS)

5. An "incubation period" of 10+ years for an infectious disease is difficult to believe.

6. THere are numerous patients with all the symptoms and signs of classic AIDS that are HIV negative.

7. THere is a virtual 100% correlation between AIDS and drug use.

8. S@xual partners of male hemophiliacs are not getting AIDS.

9. AIDS is virtually unknown in teenagers. (A venereal disease that spares teenagers?)

10. AIDS is not prevalent in female prostitutes.

11. AIDS risk groups (h*m*sexuals, IV drug abusers, hemophiliacs), each have different manifestations of AIDS. For example, Kaposi's sarcoma is essentially non-existent in IV drug users that are not also h*mosexual. THis is consistent with a lifestyle disease rather than infectious, which would show no such discrimination.

12. HIV has never been proven to cause AIDS. HIV was announced as the cuprit at a press conference before the theory was ever subjected to peer review.

13. The positive correlation between AIDS cases and HIV positivity is artificial...

First, all AIDS patients have to be HIV positive by definition.

Second, the kind of patients that get AIDS are at risk for all kinds of other viral illnesses. You'll also find a very strong correlation between AIDS and hepatitis B, but that in no way implies causation.

 

I personally heard Peter Duesberg speak to a group of pathologists in 1993, and was intrigued by his theory. I have since seen that everything he said was true.

I see the AIDS paradigm similar to the evolutionary paradigm. Although accepted by a vast majority of researchers, the facts speak for themselves. This tragedy underscores the importance of nonbiased thinking in science. Regardless of how much "evidence" is out there supporting the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, the entire theory can be demonstrated to be false because of a few fatal flaws.

I was a pathology resident when AIDS was first described. Many of its predictions proved false. For example, it was predicted that AIDS would explode into the heterosexual population and teenagers. This has definitely not happened.

There are, by the way, a growing number of physicians that are seriously questioning the HIV/AIDS theory. There are numerous HIV positive patients that are not getting sick, and it is more and more apparent that AIDS is not infectious.

[Nominal 0]

....you're suggesting drug use as the sole factor?? I'd want to ask if only, exclusively "illegal; recreational" drugs cause AIDS?

 

I can't disagree with everything you're claiming here - but a few points seeming a little shaky....(IMHO)

1. nearly 90% of American AIDS cases are males. No known infectious disease discriminates on gender.

..but how about globally?? This claimed data appears a bit too specific. "Nearly" 90% could be.....78% maybe??

ALSO - you'd have to support this with data showing the vast majority of drug abusers to be male, I really, REALLY question that one, sorry.

3. AIDS has never been transmitted by a needlestick injury. (compare several thousand cases of hepatitis/year).

REALLY?? Is a "needlestick injury" any different from shared-needle multi-person usage?? One is intentional while the other is accidental, but I'm not seeing where the basic mechanics are any different. I've just heard otherwise on this one.

4. AIDS has never been produced in laboratory animals. (50 chimpanzees inoculated with HIV 20 years ago...none have contracted AIDS)

Aha! - But how about SIV - the simian immune deficiency virus - does it also "not exist"??

5. An "incubation period" of 10+ years for an infectious disease is difficult to believe.

...but that is the maximum potential time period - NOT necessarily the mean average. The bulk majority of observed AIDS cases do not require that length of time

6. THere are numerous patients with all the symptoms and signs of classic AIDS that are HIV negative.

7. THere is a virtual 100% correlation between AIDS and drug use.

6. Possible, but then again there are many cases of bacterial food poisoning that resemble "Flu"..

7. Quite possible, but maybe incomplete data. - One thing's for sure - persons who have AIDS, or HIV do certainly start taking a lot of drugs!!!

10. AIDS is not prevalent in female prostitutes.

Sorry, I find that highly questionable. I'd want to see some source info on that one.

13. The positive correlation between AIDS cases and HIV positivity is artificial...

I think theoretical might be the better term.

 

**OOPS - sidenote: I have to point out that the guy who originally started this thread has been shopping this around on a few different forum websites, also includes the promo for his own(?) site..and well heh-heh...you know what that can mean

[Fred Williams 0]

AIDS is a result of drug use and has nothing to do with HIV.

10354[/snapback]

This is very interesting. I read a book a while ago called 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science” (link) that touches on the politicism of AIDs and the drive, especially by the liberal Hollywood elite, to make it more “heterosexual”. For example, there is apparently a great deal of evidence that the number of so-called AIDs cases in Africa is hugely inflated since just about every disease with even remotely similar symptoms ends up being lumped in with the AIDs statistics.

 

So to help me better understand your post, is HIV not really a virus but some as yet understood anomaly? Is AIDS therefore a disease that we simply don’t yet know it’s cause?

 

Something else I don’t understand. There is a huge correlation between AIDS and H*mosexual males. Is your claim that those H*m*sexuals with AIDs likely contracted it due to drug use? I wouldn’t be completely surprised by this possibility, I seem to recall statistics that show drug use in the H*mosexual community to be rampant.

 

Fred

[Springer 5]

This is very interesting. I read a book a while ago called 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science†(link) that touches on the politicism of AIDs and the drive, especially by the liberal Hollywood elite, to make it more “heterosexualâ€ÂÂ. For example, there is apparently a great deal of evidence that the number of so-called AIDs cases in Africa is hugely inflated since just about every disease with even remotely similar symptoms ends up being lumped in with the AIDs statistics.

AIDS is a syndrome of immune deficiency, with various indicator diseases, such as Herpes, Kaposis Sarcoma, Pneumocystis pneumonia, lymphoma, TB and others. African "AIDS" is not the same as US or European AIDS. You are correct in suggesting that the numbers are inflated. Very few in Africa get an HIV test. Anyone with a debilitating disease, malnutrition, etc. is lumped into AIDS. African AIDS has different manifestations than US AIDS and is a totally different disease. The prevalence of AIDS in AFrica is 50% male, 50% femal.

 

So to help me better understand your post, is HIV not really a virus but some as yet understood anomaly? Is AIDS therefore a disease that we simply don’t yet know it’s cause?

Some are saying it's just a protein and not an actual virus. I don't have a strong opinion on that. Peter Duesberg, the first to map the genome of retroviruses, insists that retroviruses (HIV) cannot cause human disease. I do know that patients with full blown AIDS usually have little to no circulating HIV, in contrast to other viral illness such as disseminated Herpes or Hepatitis B, where the patients are loaded with virions. I have never seen an electron micrograph of the HIV virus. I think it is also significant that HIV does not cause any cytopathic effect histologically, in contrast to other known pathogenic viruses. In other words, when you look at a biopsy from a patient with AIDS, there's no morphologic evidence of a viral disease. Another interesting point is that the proposed mechanism of cytotoxicity of HIV is really difficult to swallow. Supposedly the virus is so virulent that it causes a terminal illness by infecting about one in 10,000 lymphocytes. This is incredible for a class of virus that has never been known to cause human disease.

 

Something else I don’t understand. There is a huge correlation between AIDS and h*mosexual males. Is your claim that those H*m*sexuals with AIDs likely contracted it due to drug use? I wouldn’t be completely surprised by this possibility, I seem to recall statistics that show drug use in the h*mosexual community to be rampant.

One article I read stated that 98% of active male H*m*sexuals use drugs. Given that so many addicts lie about their use, I think you can assume 100%. A very common drug of abuse among G*ys is nitrite inhalants, which causes smooth muscle relaxation and facilitate anal intercourse. It's significant that all AIDS patients that get Kaposi's sarcoma are male H*m*sexuals... it never occurs in females, hemophiliacs, or IV drug users that aren't h*mosexual. This is consistent with the fact that H*m*sexuals have different drugs of abuse than others. How an infectious disease would select out populations with certain lifestyles to get different manifestations of the same disease is baffling. I think it's also interesting that Kaposi's sarcoma is a very rare malignancy of small blood vessels. It makes sense that the use of a drug which affects smooth muscle would cause such a malignancy.

[Springer 5]

....you're suggesting drug use as the sole factor??

Yes, drugs alone can and do cause AIDS.

I'd want to ask if only, exclusively "illegal; recreational" drugs cause AIDS?

Mostly recreational drugs. AZT, used to treat AIDS, is very cytotoxic and can cause AIDS.

 

 

 

..but how about globally?? This claimed data appears a bit too specific. "Nearly" 90% could be.....78% maybe??

ALSO - you'd have to support this with data showing the vast majority of drug abusers to be male, I really, REALLY question that one, sorry.

African "AIDS" is an entirely different disease than US or European AIDS. In the US, 88% of AIDS patients are males. In Europe, the number is slightly less but still much greater than 50%. These figures have remained stable for many years.

 

REALLY??  Is a "needlestick injury" any different from shared-needle multi-person usage??  One is intentional while the other is accidental, but I'm  not seeing where the basic mechanics are any different. I've just heard otherwise on this one.

The reason IV drug users are getting AIDS is because of the drugs they're using, not because of sharing needles. If AIDS were infectious and causing disease by that mechanism in IV drug users, then you'd expect to see AIDS in accidental injuries.

 

By needlestick injuries, I'm referring to accidental punctures among healthcare workers. There are thousands of these every year in US hospitals, and not a single case of AIDS has been proven to have resulted from this. This is in contrast to Hepatitis B, which is seen in at least a couple of thousand needlestick injuries annually.

 

Aha! - But how about SIV - the simian immune deficiency virus - does it also "not exist"??

I'm not saying HIV doesn't exist. I'm saying it's harmless. The fact that AIDS cannot be produced in chimpanzees doesn't prove it's not pathogenic to humans. However, the gold standard of proving that an organism is infectious to to fulfill Koch's postulates, which requires that the culprit be isolated, injected into a laboratory animal, and produce disease in that animal. This has never been demonstrated in the case of HIV.

 

...but that is the maximum potential time period - NOT necessarily the mean average.  The bulk majority  of observed AIDS cases do not require that length of time

Yes, they do. This is why teenagers are not getting AIDS. It's not that they don't use drugs... it's that they haven't been using them long enough. This is entirely consistent with a disease of toxic etiology. Look at smoking and alcohol... years of abuses prior to eventual disease.

 

6. Possible, but then again there are many cases of bacterial food poisoning that resemble "Flu".. 

flu or food poisoning would not be confused with AIDS.

 

7. Quite possible, but maybe incomplete data. - One thing's for sure - persons who have AIDS, or HIV do certainly start taking a lot of drugs!!!

A tragedy is the use of AZT, which causes AIDS in unsuspecting HIV positive patients. AZT is a very toxic drug which was originally banned by the FDA in the 1960's because of its toxicity

[deadlock 3]

Yes, drugs alone can and do cause AIDS. 

Mostly recreational drugs.  AZT, used to treat AIDS, is very cytotoxic and can cause AIDS. 

 

But, why do hemophilics contract AIDS if they don´t use drugs ?

[Nominal 0]

Yeah, some of the DRUGS = AIDS position is a little compelling, but still some questions...

Yes, drugs alone can and do cause AIDS. 

Mostly recreational drugs.  AZT, used to treat AIDS, is very cytotoxic and can cause AIDS.

 

....Yes, they do. This is why teenagers are not getting AIDS.  It's not that they don't use drugs... it's that they haven't been using them long enough.  This is entirely consistent with a disease of toxic etiology.  Look at smoking and alcohol... years of abuses prior to eventual disease.

OK, let's considere those elements a minute –

 

1.)Smoking = nicotine as the primary active ingredient, in a matrix of a bunch of other elements

2.)“Alcohol†– ethyl alcohol w/ various fruit/vegetable by-products & water

 

Lets throw in another popular alcohol – 3.)**Cannabinol(s) Cannabis & other elements associated w/ “pot†usage.

 

These are classified as “drugsâ€ÂÂ.

 

In the context of the position you’re proposing , these also eventually cause AIDS?!?

...or are you saying it's strictly limited to IV injection??

 

African "AIDS" is an entirely different disease than US or European AIDS.  In the US, 88% of AIDS patients are males.  In Europe, the number is slightly less but still much greater than 50%.  These figures have remained stable for many years.

Ok a little discrepancy that I'm seeing -

70 PERCENT MALES / 30 percent females (June 2000)

(Duplicate info source) New infections rate – 70 PERCENT males/ 30 percent females

Here’s an estimated 73 PERCENT MALES per 2004

 

We're approximate/close - still seems to be a majority, but not quite as overwhelming as your claim.

 

...and still a question... MALES(?) are the overwhelming majority of drug abusers??? Would that be included in the DRUGS = AIDS position?

 

Yes, they do. This is why teenagers are not getting AIDS.  It's not that they don't use drugs... it's that they haven't been using them long enough.

Could possibly be some validity to this but they're not totally out of the woods.

from the last link source looks like about 1.6% of the total cumulative numbers (in bold) up to 2004.

Age Estimated # of AIDS Cases in 2004 Cumulative Estimated # of AIDS Cases, Through 2004*

 

Under 13: 48 9,443

Ages 13 to 14: 60 959

Ages 15 to 19: 326 4,936

Ages 20 to 24: 1,788 34,164

Ages 25 to 29: 3,576 114,642

Ages 30 to 34: 5,786 195,404

Ages 35 to 39: 8,031 208,199

Ages 40 to 44: 8,747 161,964

Ages 45 to 49: 6,245 99,644

Ages 50 to 54: 3,932 54,869

Ages 55 to 59: 2,079 29,553

Ages 60 to 64: 996 16,119

Ages 65 or older: 901 14,410

[Springer 5]

But, why do hemophilics contract AIDS if they don´t use drugs ?

10387[/snapback]

Hemophiliacs have always been suceptible to diseases of immune deficiency because of multiple transfusions of foreign proteins (blood products). Their HIV positivity is also the result of transfusions, because factor VIII is obtained by concentrating plasma from multiple donors, although the HIV per se is a harmless passenger virus. Because of this long history of multiple transfusios, most hemophiliacs are HIV positive. Thus, if a hemophiliac develops pneumocystis pneumonia and is HIV positive, he fits the established definition of AIDS. According to AIDS/HIV predictions in the 1980's, essentially all hemophiliacs should have succumbed to AIDS by now. The fact is, the average life span of a hemophiliac in the US is longer today than it was during the pre-AIDS era. Furthermore, I don't think there's a single case of the wife of a hemophiliac contracting AIDS.

[Springer 5]

Yeah, some of the DRUGS = AIDS position is a little compelling, but still some questions...

 

OK, let's considere those elements a minute –

 

1.)Smoking = nicotine as the primary active ingredient, in a matrix of a bunch of other elements

2.)“Alcohol†– ethyl alcohol w/ various fruit/vegetable by-products & water

 

Lets throw in another popular alcohol – 3.)**Cannabinol(s)  Cannabis & other elements associated w/ “pot†usage.

 

These are classified as “drugsâ€ÂÂ.

 

In the context of the position you’re proposing , these also eventually cause AIDS?!? 

...or are you saying it's strictly limited to  IV injection??

I don't know specifically which drugs are the culprits. You can show epidemiologically, though, that those who use multiple recreational drugs get AIDS. The drugs do not have to be IV. Nitrite inhalants are believed to cause AIDS in male h*m*sexuals and have been specificlly linked to Kaposi's sarcoma. It has been known for decades that cocaine addicts die young of immune deficiency diseases.

 

Ok a little discrepancy that I'm seeing -

70 PERCENT MALES / 30 percent females (June 2000)

(Duplicate info source) New infections rate – 70 PERCENT males/ 30 percent females

Here’s an estimated 73 PERCENT MALES per 2004

 

We're approximate/close - still seems to be a majority, but not quite as overwhelming as your claim.

Make sure your talking about US AIDS cases only. The figure I've read several times is 88%. I can look into this. Even so, with thousands of AIDS cases, that is still a very skewed percentage. After 25 years, the percentage should be 50-50 by now for an infectious disease.

 

...and still a question... MALES(?) are the overwhelming majority of drug abusers??? Would that be included in the DRUGS = AIDS position?

I'm not sure what the percentages are. There are a lot of women who use recreational drugs. But, yes, a male preponderance of drugs would result in more AIDS cases initially. Remember that the vast majority of these male IV drug users practice promiscuous s@x. If AIDS is infectious, then why aren't their S@xual partners getting AIDS, ie, why is AIDS still, after 25 years, a predominantly male disease?

 

 

from the last link source looks like about 1.6% of the total cumulative numbers (in bold) up to 2004.

Age    Estimated # of AIDS Cases in 2004  Cumulative Estimated # of AIDS Cases, Through 2004*

 

Under 13:    48  9,443

Ages 13 to 14:  60  959

Ages 15 to 19:  326  4,936

Ages 20 to 24:  1,788  34,164

Ages 25 to 29:  3,576  114,642

Ages 30 to 34:  5,786  195,404

Ages 35 to 39:  8,031  208,199

Ages 40 to 44:  8,747  161,964

Ages 45 to 49:  6,245  99,644

Ages 50 to 54:  3,932  54,869

Ages 55 to 59:  2,079  29,553

Ages 60 to 64:  996  16,119

Ages 65 or older: 901  14,410

10388[/snapback]

 

Remember that in recent years the definition of AIDS has become watered down. My understanding is that the CDC is now including HIV positive females with cervical cancer as having AIDS. Thus, the figures in recent years have become skewed toward more females and younger patients because of a change in criteria for diagnosis. Even so, a viral illness typically causes the greates morbidity and mortality on the very young and the very old. This is not the case with AIDS.

[Guest 92g]

Has the use of contraceptives had any affect?

 

Terry

[jason78 0]

I'd just like to raise a point about the hiv and cancer issue.

 

Over here we get free medical treatment. Why would doctors waste their time prescribing dangerous drugs if they were expensive and didn't do any good? There is no financial incentive there, (all prescription drugs cost £6.50, or free if you are on welfare) so what other possible reason could there be?

[Nominal 0]

I don't know specifically which drugs are the culprits.

Ok.That clears it a bit.

 

So, then - Drug use = AIDS is a subjective, personal viewpoint, ultimately.

 

Mankind gropes about wildly for answers, when faced with a nemesis that threatens its' demise.

 

...it's part of the adaptation/survival strategy.

You can show epidemiologically, though, that those who use multiple recreational drugs get AIDS.  The drugs do not have to be IV.  Nitrite inhalants are believed to cause  AIDS in male h*m*sexuals and have been specificlly linked to Kaposi's sarcoma.  It has been known for decades that cocaine addicts die young of immune deficiency diseases.

OOPS - No, sorry "I" personally can't - I'm not a part of the Scientific Research & Clinical Test establishment.

 

The part about nitrate inhalants being connected to venereal AIDS has been around since the 1980's.

 

My take on this ?

 

1.) SIV---->HIV establishes itself amongst s*xually active G*y men

2.) G*y men get really hyped-up dancing to 80's Techno & snorting "poppers", as well as cocaine.

3.) They have energetic anal s@x.

4.) Some are bis*xual & have s@x w/ their GIRLfriends

5.) The HIV is transmitted, and a percentage contract AIDS.

6.) ANY QUESTIONS? ( remember this one from the 80's?? )

 

Make sure your talking about US AIDS cases only.  The figure I've read several times is 88%.  I can look into this.  Even so, with thousands of AIDS cases, that is still a very skewed percentage.  After 25 years, the percentage should be 50-50 by now for an infectious disease.

I'm not sure what the percentages are.  There are a lot of women who use recreational drugs.  But, yes, a male preponderance of drugs would result in more AIDS cases initially.  Remember that the vast majority of these male IV drug users practice promiscuous s@x.  If AIDS is infectious, then why aren't their S@xual partners getting AIDS, ie, why is AIDS still, after 25 years, a predominantly male disease?

Remember that in recent years the definition of AIDS has become watered down.  My understanding is that the CDC is now including HIV positive females with cervical cancer as having AIDS.  Thus, the figures in recent years have become skewed toward more females and younger patients because of a change in criteria for diagnosis.  Even so, a viral illness typically causes the greates morbidity and mortality on the very young and the very old.  This is not the case with AIDS.

 

No argument w/ me on some of these, Springer. Scary stuff. Incidentally, I've heard - another virus - bird flu, tends to target the lower and upper ends of the generational scalel, neglecting, at least, middle-aged population

 

My question to you is this:

 

1.) Do you think, ultimately, that mankind is capable of bringing such a mess upon himself, by merely deciding "I wanna get high!"..and then conveniently REALIZING & isolating its' own behavior & consequences, to the point of theoretically taking radical action that would correct the situation? (Man as God)??

 

<or>

 

2.) We are part of a larger dynamic, a cosmic SNOWSTORM of viral bits, and organized lifeforms, interacting in a partially organized wave of semi-chaos, in a sea of matter, moving "outward". (God as a transcendent entity)??

 

 

**btw - #1 would indeed fall in line with a Biblical "forbidden fruit" scenario, I'm thinking. ...but not to get overly theological w/ this...

[Springer 5]

So, then - Drug use = AIDS is a subjective, personal viewpoint, ultimately.

I'm arguing that the epidemiology is far more consistent with a toxic disease than an infectious disease.

 

The part about nitrate inhalants being connected to venereal AIDS has been around since the 1980's.

AIDS is not a venereal disease. It's true that nitrite inhalents have been connected to AIDS since the 80's/

 

My take on this ?

 

1.) SIV---->HIV establishes itself amongst s*xually active G*y men

2.) G*y men get really hyped-up dancing to 80's Techno & snorting "poppers", as well as cocaine.

3.) They have energetic anal s@x.

4.) Some are bis*xual & have s@x w/ their GIRLfriends

5.) The HIV is transmitted, and a percentage contract AIDS.

6.) ANY QUESTIONS? ( remember this one from the 80's??    )

Then why aren't female contacts of G*y men getting AIDS? (remember, don't confuse HIV seroconversion with AIDS). The vast majority of HIV positive people are not sick.) My point is that if AIDS were infectious it would spread into the female population that's not using drugs... and it is clearly not doing that.

 

No argument w/ me on some of these, Springer. Scary stuff. Incidentally, I've heard - another virus - bird flu, tends to target the lower and upper ends of the generational scalel, neglecting, at least,  middle-aged population

Yes, that is what I'm trying to say. Viral illness tend to cause the greatest morbity and mortality among the very young and old. AIDS affects primarily ~ages 20-45.

 

My question to you is this:

 

1.) Do you think, ultimately, that mankind is capable of bringing such a mess upon himself, by merely deciding "I wanna get high!"..and then conveniently REALIZING & isolating its' own behavior & consequences, to the point of theoretically  taking radical action that would correct the situation? (Man as God)??

 

<or>

 

2.) We are part of a larger dynamic, a cosmic SNOWSTORM of viral bits, and organized lifeforms, interacting in a partially organized wave of semi-chaos, in a sea of matter, moving "outward". (God as a transcendent entity)??

**btw - #1 would indeed fall in line with a Biblical "forbidden fruit" scenario, I'm thinking. ...but not to get overly theological w/ this...

10404[/snapback]

Perhaps you could rephrase the question... I'm not understanding what you're asking...

[Springer 5]

Has the use of contraceptives had any affect?

 

Terry

10393[/snapback]

I don't know of any research that documents a reduction in AIDS by the use of condoms. If someone has any data, I'd be interested in seeing it. I think it's curious that condoms are used to prevent AIDS, considering the fact that HIV has never been isolated from semen.

[Guest 92g]

I'd just like to raise a point about the hiv and cancer issue.

 

Over here we get free medical treatment.  Why would doctors waste their time prescribing dangerous drugs if they were expensive and didn't do any good?  There is no financial incentive there, (all prescription drugs cost £6.50, or free if you are on welfare) so what other possible reason could there be?

10399[/snapback]

That's quite simple.

 

1) They are trained to do it.

2) They get paid allot of money to do it, at least in the states.

3) In the US, Drug Company Representatives are always in doctor's offices trying to get them to prescribe their drugs. You don't think there is a little financial incentive going on there?

 

Modern medical treatment is in many ways a joke. About the best thing you can do is stay away from doctors any more. They charge you allot of money, prescribe you expensive medication that does not work, and in some cased perform invasive medical operations that are not necesary.

 

Terry

[jason78 0]

That's quite simple.

 

1) They are trained to do it.

2) They get paid allot of money to do it, at least in the states.

3) In the US, Drug Company Representatives are always in doctor's offices trying to get them to prescribe their drugs.  You don't think there is a little financial incentive going on there?

 

Modern medical treatment is in many ways a joke.  About the best thing you can do is stay away from doctors any more.  They charge you allot of money, prescribe you expensive medication that does not work, and in some cased perform invasive medical operations that are not necesary.

 

Terry

10416[/snapback]

Over here in the UK you have the right to see a doctor for free. The NHS provides free drugs, or at least drugs at such a small price they are practicly free. The doctors at the NHS follow the guidelines set out by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence, this ensures that a consistant quality of care is provided to all patients.

 

It's a bit difficult to believe that modern medicine is a big scam to fleece the public and every nurse, doctor, and hospital is in on it.

[Guest 92g]

Over here in the UK you have the right to see a doctor for free.  The NHS provides free drugs, or at least drugs at such a small price they are practicly free.  The doctors at the NHS follow the guidelines set out by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence, this ensures that a consistant quality of care is provided to all patients.

 

It's a bit difficult to believe that modern medicine is a big scam to fleece the public and every nurse, doctor, and hospital is in on it.

10419[/snapback]

You don't see them for free. You pay taxes to see a doctor, and get prescriptions.

 

I said it wa s joke, not a scam, although I suppose there is some of what's going on that is. Its just a bad system with people involed in it, and much of it has to do with money more than anything else.

 

Terry

[jason78 0]

You don't see them for free.  You pay taxes to see a doctor, and get prescriptions.

 

I said it wa s joke, not a scam, although I suppose there is some of what's going on that is.  Its just a bad system with people involed in it, and much of it has to do with money more than anything else.

 

Terry

10421[/snapback]

I get your point. It doesn't matter if it's a free healthcare system or not. There is always a large amount of money coming into the system from somewhere. Some people will always get into medicine for the money, or the power. But you have to admit, there are some good people that got into medicine to just help people, and it is likely that these people would blow the whistle on anyone practicing unethicly.

[Fred Williams 0]

A "Best of EFT" candidate...

 

Sometime down the road (maybe while I'm off for Christmas) I'm thinking of opening an extra forum here as a place to put our "Best of Evolution Fairytale Forum" discussions. I think this one qualifies, so for the time being I've pinned the topic.

 

Fred