Jump to content


Photo

Hiv


  • Please log in to reply
138 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 December 2006 - 06:11 AM

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?

View Post


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

#22 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 10 December 2006 - 07:30 AM

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

View Post


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.

#23 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 December 2006 - 10:14 AM

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.

View Post


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

#24 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 10 December 2006 - 12:55 PM

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

View Post


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.

#25 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 12 December 2006 - 11:01 PM

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

#26 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 13 December 2006 - 12:55 AM

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

View Post


Aids, and Hiv maybe something thought up to cover up a much bigger problem.

Example: The drug-medical industry has become the largest money making industry in the world. Now when you control that much money making, what will you do to cover up mistakes that can cost millions, or even billions of dollars? You will pay people to come up with ideas to cover up those mistakes.

So what do I believe happened? How many drugs on the market right now cause a desease? Several correct? Like some can give you several types of liver diseases. Heart disease. I heard there is even some out there that can give you TB.

So what if they came out with a drug that gave several people hiv, and aids? Problem was, they could not stop it. And it was something that could be passed from one person to another.

So the delima is this:
1) You tell the public what happened, and no one will ever trust the medical community again.
2) You come up with a feasible excuse, and everyone looks the other way.

So many drugs affect our immune system, who is to say they did not came out with one that totally destroys it? And by accident. After all, what does aids stand for?
Auto
Immune
Deficency
Syndrome

#27 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 13 December 2006 - 06:25 AM

Example: The drug-medical industry has become the largest money making industry in the world. Now when you control that much money making, what will you do to cover up mistakes that can cost millions, or even billions of dollars? You will pay people to come up with ideas to cover up those mistakes


I don't believe there is a huge conspiracy to cover up the HIV/AIDS issue. The corrolaries I see between HIV/AIDS and evolution are haunting. With AIDS, you have a lot of careers devoted to it. I've read statements by Robert Gallo, the co-discoverer of the HIV virus. When confronted by the evidence Peter Duesberg has presented against AIDS, he won't respond to any specific questions... he only appeals to the overall "overwhelming evidence" that HIV causes AIDS. He further states that the HIV/AIDS connection is more established than most infectious diseasees. (Does that sound familiar). In some of his interviews with the press, he has even made it clear beforehand that he will not answer any questions regarding Duesberg's skepticism. He thinks it's "beneath him" to even respond.
I'm really disappointed with the CDC. On their website, they portray those who question the HIV/AIDS hypothesis as a few fanatical cranks, drawing the comparison that "there are still those who think Elvis is still alive."
Evolution was the answer to a "need". The political climate was such that "science" needed to be independent from a higher power.
HIV fills a need. It absolves H*m*sexuals from lifestyle choices. It blames AIDS on a virus.

I'm sure there are a few that know they are covering things up. However, the vast majority of people involved in AIDS are unaware. It is a powerful paradigm, just as is evolution. Your average college biology professor actually believes in the evolution fairytale... he himself has been duped. The vast majority of physicians don't have time to do independent research on AIDS... there are about 25,000 research papers/year on the subject. Since no one seems to question it, things just slip through the cracks. Even infectioius disease specialists that work at clinics specializing in AIDS don't question it because that's the way they were trained. Unfortunately, there are relatively few people who can truely think for themselves and break out of the paradigm.

In 1993, when I first became aware of this controversy, I made a prediction that still stands. It will be a number of decades before this issue becomes resolved. What will happen is that gradually it will be realized that a "co-factor" will be required to produce AIDS, because it will become more and more obvious that HIV in and of itself does not cause disease. That co-factor will be drug use.
Gallo is now desperately looking for a co-factor. By blaming a co-factor, the AIDS establishment saves face without admitting that HIV is actually harmless.

There is are big difference between evolution and the HIV/AIDS dillema. First, the overwhelming majority of physicians are not emotionally attached to AIDS being infecitous. THey are interested in the truth and want to treat patients. Just about every physician I've talked with regarding this subject is open minded. Most, however, just stick to what they hear from the CDC because they can't imagine a huge conspiracy. Another difference between the HIV/AIDS issue and evolution is that the rightness or wrongness of evolution is far more difficult to prove, and whethert or not it's true does really have any direct bearing on anything as far as our knowlege of science... it is purely philosophical.

#28 Nominal

Nominal

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Mansfield, Ohio

Posted 13 December 2006 - 10:46 AM

So many drugs affect our immune system, who is to say they did not came out with one that totally destroys it? And by accident. After all, what does aids stand for?
Auto
Immune
Deficency
Syndrome

View Post

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

It was first known as "Slim Disease" when first encountered in Africa, as far back as the early 70's, then "GRID" - G*y-Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome Then eventually AIDS, when the different avenues of contracting it were realized. :lol:

I think the consensus, is the very first clinical case of likely "AIDS" dating as far back as the late 1950's.

btw - I have also been told that some High School-level Biology & Health Ed. teachers were passing along a warning to students in the early & mid 1970's(!),that in their lifetimes they would be seeing the emergence of totally new viral & bacterial plague-like diseases (primarily off the African continent), spread largely thru international jet travel, and one of these, was in fact called "SLIM", being watched in tropical Africa at the time.

#29 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 13 December 2006 - 12:12 PM

I thought I'd just post this link http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/6176209.stm

#30 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 13 December 2006 - 12:29 PM

I thought I'd just post this link http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/6176209.stm

View Post


No one is disputing that HIV is transmissible. "HIV infection" in the literature only means HIV seroconversion and in no way implies sickness. By the way, a positive HIV test means they have antibodies to HIV... it's not the actual virus they're measuring. In other words, it's a measure of immunity. The question the article doesn't address is whether or not circumscision prevents AIDS.

#31 disruptor

disruptor

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Orkney, UK

Posted 12 January 2007 - 05:09 PM

If I may be permitted a few disparate comments on a few of the many issues raised in these replies.

Nominal wrote:

**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


No heh-heh I don't know what that can mean. And I do not have a website. I merely gave a reference (not a "promo" as you call it), as I should. Nor do I "shop" anything around. I put this info on ONE other Christian website, a) because I don't like being lied to (by the h*mosexual lobby and the medical authorities); and b) because it's a matter of life and death (people being given toxic AIDS-causing "treatments" such as AZT, as Deadlock observed).

Chance asked:

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


Not even the best alternative AIDS sites are willing to spell out the whole horrible truth. But here it is (as I personally see it):

AIDS is an immune deficiency. It is caused by immune burn-out. Amongst H*m*sexuals, this immune exhaustion is triggered by erroneous seminal fluid intake. Sperm in the vagina does not trigger an immune response. Nor does swallowed sperm (since the sperms are rapidly killed by the digestive juices). Immune responses are only triggered by sperm in the bloodstream. Since the fragile skin of the rectum is damaged by anal s@x allowing seminal fluid to "bleed through" into the bloodstream, rectal sperm intake does trigger immune responses. The immune system can't tell the difference between sperm cells and other micro-organisms in the bloodstream. This even explains why Kaposi's Sarcoma of the lower back region is the first sign of full-blown AIDS amongst H*m*sexuals (but not usually amongst IV drug users whose immune burn-out is mainly caused by contaminants in their IV drugs triggering immune responses - though there are plenty of prostitutes and H*m*sexuals as well in the IV drug-using community).

The immune system is finite. If it comes into operation periodically to combat stray infections, it lasts a lifetime (assuming it is given the opportunity to recover). However, it is not designed for the type of continuous abuse that H*m*sexuals and IV drug users demand of it. After a while the immune system simply gives up - and this results in full-blown AIDS.

To blame the HIV virus has less scientific value than blaming an "evil spirit", IMHO.

In the African case, many cases of AIDS are the result of immune burn-out caused by malnutrition, disease and IV drug use as well as erroneous seminal fluid intake and rape. Some people argue that the African AIDS figures are much exaggerated in any case for reasons of personal gain:

"My medical studies led me to believe that AIDS was devastating [Africa] and the people who showed me the situation here reinforced this belief. I jumped into this, and made others believe it. And now I know it was not true. But I know many more things that were not true. Nothing was true.... We have been shown false orphans since the beginning—children who have parents who never died, but who will not show up any more…Families just bring them as orphans, and if you ask how the parents died they will say AIDS. It is fashionable nowadays to say that, because it brings money and support.... If you say your father has died in a car accident it is bad luck, but if he has died from AIDS there is an agency to help you. The local people have seen so many agencies coming…that they want to join this group of victims. Everybody claims to be a victim of AIDS nowadays. And local people working for AIDS agencies have become rich. They have built homes in Dar es Salaam, they have their motorbikes; they have benefited a lot."

- Philippe Krynen, former director, Partage Tanzania, French Aids charity.


Job 13:4 But ye are forgers of lies, ye are all physicians of no value.

#32 Nominal

Nominal

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Mansfield, Ohio

Posted 13 January 2007 - 06:24 AM

If I may be permitted a few disparate comments on a few of the many issues raised in these replies.

Nominal wrote:
No heh-heh I don't know what that can mean. And I do not have a website. I merely gave a reference (not a "promo" as you call it), as I should. Nor do I "shop" anything around. I put this info on ONE other Christian website, a) because  I don't like being lied to (by the h*mosexual lobby and the medical authorities); and :) because it's a matter of life and death (people being given toxic AIDS-causing "treatments" such as AZT, as Deadlock observed).

Ok then....but from this response (& the assumption of "lies") it seems more politically oriented, than scientific.

Sure there are many claiming AZT causes AIDS, and it very well could be (1) one factor - but also keep in mind that persons accessing AZT have also....tested positive for HIV under current clinical methods, as well. :)

Chance asked:
Not even the best alternative AIDS sites are willing to spell out the whole horrible truth. But here it is (as I personally see it):

AIDS is an immune deficiency. It is caused by immune burn-out. Amongst H*m*sexuals, this immune exhaustion is triggered by erroneous seminal fluid intake. Sperm in the vagina does not trigger an immune response.

I don't think that last assertion is correct. The woman's body launches what could be called a reactive immune system response against the perceived "invading" sperm cells in the vicinity of the egg.


Nor does swallowed sperm (since the sperms are rapidly killed by the digestive juices). Immune responses are only triggered by sperm in the bloodstream.

I'd think "digested" seminal matter could still harbor viral toxins, that eventually find there way into the blood stream or vital organs.

btw - I just happened to think of some of the earliest attempts at "male birth control pills" that had a disastrous effect of introducing dead sperm cells into the bloodstream, causing a stroke risk - under your scenario this would have also been an AIDS risk, even considering it was one's own sperm?

I'm still not buying the "HIV is nonexistent" bit, tho. :)

#33 Nominal

Nominal

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Mansfield, Ohio

Posted 13 January 2007 - 06:44 AM

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

:) Ok I'll tweak it a bit....Your claim is that intoxicant usage is the sole cause of AIDS, correct?

Considering mankind's THOUSANDS of years history of intoxicant usage:

**Why has this condition only arisen "now" (late 20th century)??

<and/or>

** Has "AIDS" plagued previous ages and civilizations, unrecognized in this modern form, or perhaps been given a different name, or culturally viewed differently?

IMHO - My take on the first question would be a strong implication of a recently-introduced "viral catalyst" in there, somewhere. :)

#34 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 13 January 2007 - 08:25 PM

:lol:  Ok I'll tweak it a bit....Your claim is that intoxicant usage is the sole cause of  AIDS, correct?

Considering mankind's THOUSANDS of years history of intoxicant usage:

**Why has this condition only arisen "now" (late 20th century)??


IV drug users have long been known to succumb to diseases of immune deficiency. Although man has used intoxicating drugs for centures, the "outbreak" of AIDS beginning in the 1980's as a recognized entity paralleled a markedly increased prevalence of drug usage. Cocaine addiction, for example, is at least 100x more prevalent know than it was 40 years ago. Likewise, h*mosexual drug usage has dramatically increased in the last half of the 20th century.

#35 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 14 January 2007 - 02:05 PM

Chance asked:

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

disruptor>
Not even the best alternative AIDS sites are willing to spell out the whole horrible truth. But here it is (as I personally see it):

AIDS is an immune deficiency. It is caused by immune burn-out. Amongst H*m*sexuals, this immune exhaustion is triggered by erroneous seminal fluid intake. Sperm in the vagina does not trigger an immune response. Nor does swallowed sperm (since the sperms are rapidly killed by the digestive juices). Immune responses are only triggered by sperm in the bloodstream. Since the fragile skin of the rectum is damaged by anal s@x allowing seminal fluid to "bleed through" into the bloodstream, rectal sperm intake does trigger immune responses.


If true such a simple cause could easily be proven, indeed such a cause would not behave like a disease at all, you would catch it by practicing h*mosexual acts, the effect would be seen globally and instantaneously and would have been prevalent throughout history. AID/HIV behaves like a disease, i.e. you have to catch from someone who is infected.


Also there are numerous statements that seem to deny that AIDS is a virus, if so then what is this Posted Image? fromLINK I googled on “AIDS virus” and get hundres of pictures of the virus (this one caught my eye) How is this explained if AIDS is not a disease?

#36 Nominal

Nominal

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Mansfield, Ohio

Posted 14 January 2007 - 04:48 PM

WOW! Is that an HIV virus I see up there??? :lol:

IV drug users have long been known to succumb to diseases of immune deficiency.

Whew! Ok...So If I want to ingest a little cannabis that I have cultivated in my back yard, with a glass of wine, I'm safe. Correct? I won't contract AIDS?? :lol:

Although man has used intoxicating drugs for centures, the "outbreak" of AIDS beginning in the 1980's as a recognized entity paralleled a markedly increased prevalence of drug usage.  Cocaine addiction, for example, is at least 100x more prevalent know than it was 40 years ago.  Likewise, h*mosexual drug usage has dramatically increased in the last half of the 20th century.

...all in line with exploding world population numbers as the 20th century progresses ...???....greater numbers produce greater opportunities for microbial /viral developments and interaction with human individuals.

Right?

Because - keep in mind that cocaine was LEGAL until the early 20th century.

Coca-Cola would'nt even exist were it not for the "Coca" part. People would soak rags in it, drape them over heated surfaces of ovens, or lighted incandescent bulbs and inhale the fumes, yet AIDS was yet unknown...

#37 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 14 January 2007 - 07:59 PM

If true such a simple cause could easily be proven, indeed such a cause would not behave like a disease at all, you would catch it by practicing h*mosexual acts, the effect would be seen globally and instantaneously and would have been prevalent throughout history. AID/HIV behaves like a disease, i.e. you have to catch from someone who is infected.


Immune deficiency has been prevalent throughout history.
AIDS does not behave like an infectious disease...
...essentially nonexistent in teenagers
... essentially nonexistent in female prostitutes not using drugs
... essentially nonexistent in wives of male hemophiliacs
... cannot be produced in laboratory animals
... predominantly affects males in USA and Europe... no other infectious disease discriminates based on gender.
... requires 10 to 20 years after "exposure" to produce disease.

All of the above indicators point to a lifestyle disease, NOT an infectious disease.

#38 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 January 2007 - 02:08 PM

Immune deficiency has been prevalent throughout history.
AIDS does not behave like an infectious disease...
...essentially nonexistent in teenagers
... essentially nonexistent in female prostitutes not using drugs
... essentially nonexistent in wives of male hemophiliacs
... cannot be produced in laboratory animals
... predominantly affects males in USA and Europe... no other infectious disease discriminates based on gender.
... requires 10 to 20 years after "exposure" to produce disease.

All of the above indicators point to a lifestyle disease, NOT an infectious disease.

View Post


If true [AIDS not a disease] such a simple cause could easily be proven, indeed such a cause would not behave like a disease at all, you would catch it by practicing h*mosexual acts, the effect would be seen globally and instantaneously and would have been prevalent throughout history. AID/HIV behaves like a disease, i.e. you have to catch from someone who is infected.


Immune deficiency has been prevalent throughout history.


I would challenge that claim – How far back in history are you talking about? Remember AIDS was not even diagnosed until the early 80’s!
If you are reading an old death certificate which claims the person died of ‘consumption’ are you going to attribute that report to a case of Tuberculosis, or AIDS?

AIDS does not behave like an infectious disease...
...essentially nonexistent in teenagers
... essentially nonexistent in female prostitutes not using drugs
... essentially nonexistent in wives of male hemophiliacs...
predominantly affects males in USA and Europe... no other infectious disease discriminates based on gender.


That demography is consistent with those who were first contracted i.e. male h*m*sexuals, and the limited ‘break-out’ (at least in the west) into the general population. Nothing unusual about those things you have listed.

cannot be produced in laboratory animals


I disagree, chimpanzee’s have now been positively identified is the source of this disease, indeed the original strain has been isolated to an area of the Congo and the cross over to humans reckoned to have happened in the 50’s!


... requires 10 to 20 years after "exposure" to produce disease.


means nothing – syphilis also has a long incubation period.
Plus it’s not the AIDS that kills (directly) it’s the next disease you catch that does the killing after you ability to fight it off has been damaged.

All of the above indicators point to a lifestyle disease, NOT an infectious disease.


Not so – if it were life style anyone could/will succumb in an isolated community, and there would be outbreaks in jails in places like Iceland, Arabia, outer Siberia, or any number of isolated places you can think of. But this is most certainly not the case, AIDS has/is being spread by individuals that carry the disease.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV

HIV primarily infects vital cells in the human immune system such as helper T cells (specifically CD4+ T cells), macrophages and dendritic cells. HIV infection leads to low levels of CD4+ T cells through three main mechanisms: firstly, direct viral killing of infected cells; secondly, increased rates of apoptosis in infected cells; and thirdly, killing of infected CD4+ T cells by CD8 cytotoxic lymphocytes that recognize infected cells. When CD4+ T cell numbers decline below a critical level, cell-mediated immunity is lost, and the body becomes progressively more susceptible to opportunistic infections.



#39 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 16 January 2007 - 06:56 AM

The demographics of AIDS is not suggestive of infectious etiology. How can you suppose that the absence of AIDS in teenagers and female prostitutes is consistent with a venereal disease? AIDS has been around for at least 25 years. In the early 1980’s, the CDC was predicting the explosion of AIDS into teenagers and into the heterosexual population in general. What happened? Their predictions were false. There are currently over 2 million people in the US that are HIV positive. This number has been stable for over 20 years. Isn’t that a large enough reservoir of virions? Why, then, does AIDS remain confined to lifestyle groups? Why do individuals who are HIV positive but are not using drugs and are not taking AZT not contract AIDS? There are numerous patients (thousands) who have been HIV positive for many years and are disease-free. This is a far cry from the CDC’s outlandish statements 20 years ago, proclaiming HIV to be 100% fatal.

Another problem… if AIDS is infectious, why do only male H*m*sexuals get Kaposi’s sarcoma? KS is virtually unknown in all other AIDS risk groups. Why would specific manifestations of an infectious disease discriminate between one lifestyle and another? If AIDS is a venereal disease, why has HIV never been isolated from semen? If AIDS is infectious, why do full blown AIDS patients have so few viral particles in their system?

As far as AIDS in chimpanzees, no case of AIDS has been produced. AIDS has failed Koch’s postulates for proof of infectious disease.

Concerning the long incubation period of AIDS, your example of syphilis begs the question. Syphilis has an average incubation period of about 3 weeks to a maximum of 3 months. AIDS has an “incubation period” of many years. If HIV has the cytotoxic affect on T lymphocytes that is claimed, then what is the virus doing for the first one to two decades? If T cells are destroyed, then the patient should immediately become susceptible to all AIDS indicator diseases.

#40 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 January 2007 - 02:11 PM

The demographics of AIDS is not suggestive of infectious etiology. How can you suppose that the absence of AIDS in teenagers and female prostitutes is consistent with a venereal disease?


AIDS requires either S@xual intercourse of an exchange of blood (fluid), therefore since it was first and prominently a male h*mosexual transmitted disease it precludes the s*xually inactive or non needle sharing drug habits. This is well documented. But few disease remain contained forever, they breakout, they can and do get transmitted to females (prostitutes or not) and visa versa.

If AIDS is not a disease then how come you can be infected with AIDS if you have a blood transfusion from an infected person if you practice a healthy lifestyle??? By your reasoning if AIDS is a lifestyle affliction there is nothing to transmit!



Springer> AIDS has been around for at least 25 years. In the early 1980’s, the CDC was predicting the explosion of AIDS into teenagers and into the heterosexual population in general. What happened? Their predictions were false.

Forewarned is forearmed, the medical authorities have not been sitting on their hands, massive public education programs on the problem has worked in the west, contrast that with Africa where the predictions have largely come true.

Why should AIDS only have been around for 25years if it is a lifestyle affliction?

There are currently over 2 million people in the US that are HIV positive. This number has been stable for over 20 years. Isn’t that a large enough reservoir of virions? Why, then, does AIDS remain confined to lifestyle groups? Why do individuals who are HIV positive but are not using drugs and are not taking AZT not contract AIDS? There are numerous patients (thousands) who have been HIV positive for many years and are disease-free. This is a far cry from the CDC’s outlandish statements 20 years ago, proclaiming HIV to be 100% fatal.


There is more than one strain of AIDS, and some individuals can cope with the affliction better than others (good evolutionary analogy there), Small pox, Bubonic plague, all have their survivors, what you are stating is to be expected.


Another problem… if AIDS is infectious, why do only male h*m*sexuals get Kaposi’s sarcoma? KS is virtually unknown in all other AIDS risk groups. Why would specific manifestations of an infectious disease discriminate between one lifestyle and another?


Please expand upon this and why you think it relevant, because the Wiki’s explination seems most convincing

Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) is a kind of sarcoma caused by Human Herpes Virus 8 (HHV8) in which cancerous cells, as well as abnormally growing blood vessels, form solid lesions in connective tissue. KS was historically very rare and found mainly in older men of Mediterranean, Jewish or African origin[1] (classic KS), or patients with severely weakened immune systems, such as after an organ transplant (immunosuppressive treatment related KS). In the early 1980s KS began to be seen in AIDS patients. This lead to the belief that AIDS weakened the immune system. The infectious agent responsible for all forms of the disease is known as Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV).



If AIDS is a venereal disease, why has HIV never been isolated from semen? If AIDS is infectious, why do full blown AIDS patients have so few viral particles in their system?


Assuming this is true, this is possibly just how AIDS manifests itself, how many viral particals would you expect?

As far as AIDS in chimpanzees, no case of AIDS has been produced.


Sorry but your way out of date here, the actual progenitor AIDS strain has been identified and isolated to a particular area of Congo Chimps.


AIDS has failed Koch’s postulates for proof of infectious disease.


Has it indeed. From the wiki

Koch's postulates are:

a. The organism must be found in all animals suffering from the disease, but not in healthy animals.
b. The organism must be isolated from a diseased animal and grown in pure culture.
c. The cultured organism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy animal.
d. The organism must be reisolated from the experimentally infected animal.

However, it must be noted that Koch abandoned the second part of the first postulate altogether when he discovered asymptomatic carriers of cholera (Koch, 1893) and later, Typhoid Mary. Indeed, asymptomatic carriers of many diseases have since been found, especially viruses such as polio, herpes simplex, HIV and hepatitis C. As a specific example, all doctors and virologists agree that poliovirus causes paralysis in just a few infected subjects, and the success of the polio vaccine in preventing disease supports the conviction that the poliovirus is the causative agent.

The third postulate does not always happen, as Koch himself discovered and stated in regard to both tuberculosis and cholera (Koch, 1884). Indeed, we see this today with diseases such as HIV, where CCR5 Δ32 deletion individuals seem to be resistant to infection with HIV.


Can’t see how you can claim that when the experts have somewhat modified the postulate to fit the facts, eh!


Concerning the long incubation period of AIDS, your example of syphilis begs the question. Syphilis has an average incubation period of about 3 weeks to a maximum of 3 months. AIDS has an “incubation period” of many years. If HIV has the cytotoxic affect on T lymphocytes that is claimed, then what is the virus doing for the first one to two decades? If T cells are destroyed, then the patient should immediately become susceptible to all AIDS indicator diseases.


re syphilis from the wiki

Tertiary syphilis occurs from as early as one year after the initial infection but can take up to ten years to manifest - though cases have been reported where this stage has occurred fifty years after initial infection.


re what is the virus doing – it’s being dormant.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users