Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
disruptor

Hiv

Recommended Posts

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

10387[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

10511[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I'd just post this link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6176209.stm

10535[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

: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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

11137[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AIDS requires either S@xual intercourse of an exchange of blood (fluid),

There is the association, but no proof of causation. Virtually 100% of AIDS cases are associated with illicit drug use. Thus, you cannot prove that it is the contact rather than the drugs that is causing AIDS.

 

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.

Yes, the association is documented. However, association does not necessarily prove cause.

 

But few disease remain contained forever, they breakout, they can and do get transmitted to females (prostitutes or not) and visa versa.

But AIDS is not "breaking out" into the non drug-using population. Don't confuse HIV seroconversion with AIDS. Yes, HIV is contagious. But HIV does not cause AIDS.

 

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!

You're confusing HIV seroconversion with AIDS. I don't know of one case of a full blown AIDS resulting from a blood transfusion to a healthy, previously non-immune suppressed individual.

 

 

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.

Are you suggesting that man's efforts are the reason AIDS has been

contained?" Realistically, do you think that the absence of AIDS in teenagers and female prostitutes can be attributed to condoms?

 

African AIDS is a totally different disease and should not be discussed with American/European AIDS. The vast majority of cases in AFrica aren't even tested for HIV.

 

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

It's been recognized for 25 years. It's been around as long as the lifestyle has existed. Cocaine addicts have been known for decades to succumb to immune deficiency.

 

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.

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

IF Kaposi's Sarcoma is due to an infectious agent, it should exist in female AIDS patients, non-G*y hemophiliacs with AIDS, and non-G*y IV drug users with AIDS. It is not. Therefore, there must be something in the G*y lifestyle that causes its emergence. That is simple logic. THis sort of deductive reasoning is used in medicine all the time to conclude causation of disease.

 

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

Other full blown infectious diseases, e.g., hepatitis, are manifest by numerous viral particles in late stages of diesease.

 

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.

You are again confusing AIDS with HIV. The chimps did in fact develop antibodies to HIV, but none developed any symptoms of AIDS.

 

 

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

re syphilis from the wiki

The comparison of AIDS to tertiary syphilis is invalid. In the first place, tertiary syphilis develops only after years of clinically apparent syphilis. The current thought is that tertiary syphilis is actually a hypersensitive/immune reaciton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chance>

AIDS requires either S@xual intercourse of an exchange of blood (fluid),

 

There is the association, but no proof of causation. Virtually 100% of AIDS cases are associated with illicit drug use. Thus, you cannot prove that it is the contact rather than the drugs that is causing AIDS.

This is getting a bit ridiculous illicit drugs are the misuse of legal drugs, if drugs were the cause, people who are proscribed high doses of morphine or whatever would also contract AIDS.

 

 

chance>

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.

 

Springer>

Yes, the association is documented. However, association does not necessarily prove cause.

Do you really believe that the only proof of AIDS is this association!

 

 

chance>

But few disease remain contained forever, they breakout, they can and do get transmitted to females (prostitutes or not) and visa versa.

 

Springer>

But AIDS is not "breaking out" into the non drug-using population. Don't confuse HIV seroconversion with AIDS. Yes, HIV is contagious. But HIV does not cause AIDS.

AIDS has broken out, and that breakout is commensurate with the local governments action (or inaction)

 

Show me some proof to back up your claim that HIV does not cause AIDS, because frankly what you state seems to come straight from an AIDS conspiracy website. I would like to see some reputable mainstream science.

 

 

chance>

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>

You're confusing HIV seroconversion with AIDS. I don't know of one case of a full blown AIDS resulting from a blood transfusion to a healthy, previously non-immune suppressed individual.

I am confusing nothing, the fact that I transpose AIDS and HIV is nothing more that assuming you know what is meant (AIDS=HIV), yes we can go through a long laundry list of which is the symptom which is the disease. I’m sure you know exactly what is what so lets get to the facts, i.e. if you are infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) retrovirus do you deny that you will (very likely) contract AIDS. If so:

 

a. what is causing AIDS, post evidence greater than some demographic correlations (I would like to se some actual medical science.

b. What does HIV do of not cause AIDS?

 

 

 

chance>

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.

 

Springer>

Are you suggesting that man's efforts are the reason AIDS has been

contained?" Realistically, do you think that the absence of AIDS in teenagers and female prostitutes can be attributed to condoms?

Yes, partly due to practicing safe s@x and partly due to who associates with who.

 

African AIDS is a totally different disease and should not be discussed with American/European AIDS. The vast majority of cases in AFrica aren't even tested for HIV.

Please provide a citation for this claim, I am assuming of corse that you mean it something greater than variation in the HIV, see the wiki

Three groups of HIV-1 have been identified on the basis of differences in env: M, N, and O.[67] Group M is the most prevalent and is subdivided into eight subtypes (or clades), based on the whole genome, which are geographically distinct.[68] The most prevalent are subtypes B (found mainly in North America and Europe), A and D (found mainly in Africa), and C (found mainly in Africa and Asia); these subtypes form branches in the phylogenetic tree representing the lineage of the M group of HIV-1. Coinfection with distinct subtypes gives rise to circulating recombinant forms (CRFs). In 2000, the last year in which an analysis of global subtype prevalence was made, 47.2% of infections worldwide were of subtype C, 26.7% were of subtype A/CRF02_AG, 12.3% were of subtype B, 5.3% were of subtype D, 3.2% were of CRF_AE, and the remaining 5.3% were composed of other subtypes and CRFs.[69] Most HIV-1 research is focused on subtype B; few laboratories focus on the other subtypes.[70]

 

The genetic sequence of HIV-2 is only partially homologous to HIV-1 and more closely resembles that of SIV than HIV-1.

 

 

chance>

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

 

Springer>

It's been recognized for 25 years. It's been around as long as the lifestyle has existed. Cocaine addicts have been known for decades to succumb to immune deficiency.

Can you back this claim up with some medical confirmation or is this speculation?

 

 

chance>

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.

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

 

Springer>

IF Kaposi's Sarcoma is due to an infectious agent, it should exist in female AIDS patients, non-G*y hemophiliacs with AIDS, and non-G*y IV drug users with AIDS. It is not. Therefore, there must be something in the G*y lifestyle that causes its emergence. That is simple logic. THis sort of deductive reasoning is used in medicine all the time to conclude causation of disease.

First, Kaposi's Sarcoma is rare it was that increasing manifestation in weakened immune systems that lead to investigations on the cause of AIDS. See this link http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-a...doc=kb-06-02-01

From the site

In 1981, the emergence of Kaposi sarcoma (KS) among young G*y men in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco heralded the beginning of the AIDS pandemic.(1,2) Previously recognized as an uncommon malignancy of elderly Mediterranean men, African children, and Ashkenazi Jews, KS became the most common neoplasm of AIDS patients. Nearly 40% of persons infected with HIV in the mid-1980s developed KS,(3) and the condition rapidly became associated with the "face of AIDS," portrayed in popular film, theater, and print media. By the end of that decade, the number of new KS cases began to decline, perhaps due to the introduction of antiretroviral therapy (ART). The widespread use of effective ART in the United States and Western Europe has resulted in a 3-fold decrease in the incidence of KS as compared with the early years of the HIV epidemic.(4,5) However, other AIDS-associated malignancies have declined, leaving KS the most common AIDS-associated malignancy.(6) Furthermore, KS continues to be a common affliction among persons with HIV worldwide. In 1994, Chang and Moore established that a novel human herpesvirus, human herpesvirus-8 (HHV-8), also known as KS-associated herpesvirus, was responsible for the development of KS.(7) This chapter includes a review of the virology and epidemiology of HHV-8 and its relationship to the development of KS and other AIDS-related neoplasms.

 

 

You are again confusing AIDS with HIV. The chimps did in fact develop antibodies to HIV, but none developed any symptoms of AIDS.

 

<moved> The comparison of AIDS to tertiary syphilis is invalid. In the first place, tertiary syphilis develops only after years of clinically apparent syphilis. The current thought is that tertiary syphilis is actually a hypersensitive/immune reaction.

So if one has an immunity or partial immunity to a disease, it that reason to claim the disease does not exist? Really Springer this is getting just a little too ‘twilight zone’ for my tastes, I would like to see you post some scientific evidence from established medical authorities to all these claims you have been posting over the last few days. I feel this is a little too close to the claims portrayed by AIDS or anti-vaccination conspiracies websites I’ve looked at in the past. If this is your agenda then I’ll ask you to honestly let me know now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... if drugs were the cause, people who are proscribed high doses of morphine or whatever would also contract AIDS.

No, they wouldn't. You don't get lung cancer by smoking a few cigarettes, but by smoking 2 packs per day x 20 years. You don't get AIDS by occasional drug use. This is why teenagers aren't getting AIDS... they haven't been using long enough.

 

 

 

Show me some proof to back up your claim that HIV does not cause AIDS, because frankly what you state seems to come straight from an AIDS conspiracy website.  I would like to see some reputable mainstream science.

Are you telling me that you won't believe anything that "mainstream science" doesn't agree with?

 

I am confusing nothing, the fact that I transpose AIDS and HIV is nothing more that assuming you know what is meant (AIDS=HIV), yes we can go through a long laundry list of which is the symptom which is the disease.  I’m sure you know exactly what is what so lets get to the facts, i.e. if you are infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) retrovirus do you deny that you will (very likely) contract AIDS.

Yes, HIV is appears to be harmless.

 

If so:

 

a. what is causing AIDS, post evidence greater than some demographic correlations (I would like to se some actual medical science.

Demographic correlations doconstitute science and form the basis for the determination of causataion of many diseases. What sort of "science" are you looking for. Can you show me one article or study that proves HIV causes AIDS?

 

b. What does HIV do of not cause AIDS?

It has not been demonstrated to be pathogenic.

 

Yes, partly due to practicing safe s@x and partly due to who associates with who.

If you think that teenagers and prostitutes are not getting AIDS because of practicing safe s@x, you're grossly mistaken. Syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydiae are on the rise.

 

 

Can you back this claim up with some medical confirmation or is this speculation?

First, Kaposi's Sarcoma is rare it was that increasing manifestation in weakened immune systems that lead to investigations on the cause of AIDS. See this link http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-a...doc=kb-06-02-01

From the site

In 1981, the emergence of Kaposi sarcoma (KS) among young G*y men in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco heralded the beginning of the AIDS pandemic.(1,2) Previously recognized as an uncommon malignancy of elderly Mediterranean men, African children, and Ashkenazi Jews, KS became the most common neoplasm of AIDS patients. Nearly 40% of persons infected with HIV in the mid-1980s developed KS,(3) and the condition rapidly became associated with the "face of AIDS," portrayed in popular film, theater, and print media. By the end of that decade, the number of new KS cases began to decline, perhaps due to the introduction of antiretroviral therapy (ART).

Kaposi's sarcoma, as I've before stated, is, in the context of AIDS, restricted almost exclusively to male h*m*sexuals.

Here is but one article I found for your perusal...

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epkaposi.htm

The fact that this disease is essentially restricted to only one lifestyle group should call into serious question the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.

 

So if one has an immunity or partial immunity to a disease, it that reason to claim the disease does not exist?  

Of course not. What is your point?

 

Really Springer this is getting just a little too ‘twilight zone’ for my tastes, I would like to see you post some scientific evidence from established medical authorities to all these claims you have been posting over the last few days.  I feel this is a little too close to the claims portrayed by AIDS or anti-vaccination conspiracies websites I’ve looked at in the past.  If this is your agenda then I’ll ask you to honestly let me know now.

I don't have an "agenda". I don't particularly care what the cause of AIDS is. I am interested in learning the truth. It seems to me that you're going to stick with whatever the majority of scientists believe. I'm only suggesting that you look at the facts and let them speak for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they wouldn't. You don't get lung cancer by smoking a few cigarettes, but by smoking 2 packs per day x 20 years. You don't get AIDS by occasional drug use. This is why teenagers aren't getting AIDS... they haven't been using long enough.

Oversimplification – you can and do (high probability), get AIDS from a single shared needle, even if you have only just begun a drug habit. That’s why authorities have instigated a needle exchange program!

 

 

Are you telling me that you won't believe anything that "mainstream science" doesn't agree with?

I want to see if there is any substance to the claims you have been posting, because this is going further than just personal opinion.

 

The link you provided does not qualify as medical science, just take a look at the opening paragraph

Is HIV - the AIDS virus - harmless?   Is AIDS not contagious?

Are the HIV/AIDS tests worthless?   Are AIDS medications killing patients?

Find out what the AIDS establishment and media do not want you to know...

 

 

 

 

This is why - The idea’s you have been posting if taken to hart by someone afflicted or at risk, could possibly cause them to ignore medical advise and contract AIDS when it could have been avoided with simple precautions.

 

 

 

So Springer, I must respectfully withdraw from this debate and will not participate further unless I see a link to a reputable medical website. PM me if you like, but I cannot bring myself to comment further on this topic in public, I’m having a moral dilemma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oversimplification – you can and do (high probability), get AIDS from a single shared needle, even if you have only just begun a drug habit.  That’s why authorities have instigated a needle exchange program!

If you have an example of such a patient I would be most interested to see it.

The kind of people getting AIDS (not HIV infection, but manifestations of AIDS), have been using drugs heavily for years. You never see AIDS in someone who had s@x one time with a prostitute, with someone who first tried using IV drugs, or with a blood transfusion.

 

 

 

 

This is why - The idea’s you have been posting if taken to hart by someone afflicted or at risk, could possibly cause them to ignore medical advise and contract AIDS when it could have been avoided with simple precautions.

What about all the harm that is being done to unsuspecting drug users who think that if they use clean needles they won't get AIDS... or g*ys who think that safe s@x will prevent AIDS when what they really need to do is stop using nitrite inhalants that are the real cause of Kaposi's sarcoma and other AIDS manifestations! If AIDS is a lifestyle disease, then it is entirely preventable.

 

So Springer, I must respectfully withdraw from this debate and will not participate further unless I see a link to a reputable medical website.  PM me if you like, but I cannot bring myself to comment further on this topic in public, I’m having a moral dilemma.

I can understand how you feel in that you must trust much of what you hear. None of us can be an expert in all fields... so we must rely on experts. However, I'm sure you can appreciate that "mainstream science" can be dead wrong. I would further add that there are numerous reputable physicians (thousands) who agree with me. A nobel prize winner in chemistry (his name evades me at the moment) who invented the polymerase chain reaction, was asked to develop the test for HIV. Before doing so, he asked to see the research documenting that HIV causes AIDS. When none could be provided, he did further research into the matter and was unable on his own to convince himself that HIV in fact caused AIDS. He now has risked his career because of his stance on the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. I'll try to get more information on this if you're interested.

 

A final note... when I was a resident in pathology in the early 1980's, I recall the announcement that HIV was the cause of AIDS. Before that announcement, there was much speculation. I think it was appauling that the announcement came before a single article appeared in any scientific journal evaluating the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. It was announced at a press conference... nothing was submitted for peer review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A nobel prize winner in chemistry (his name evades me at the moment)

I think you're talking about Kary Mullis.

 

A final note... when I was a resident in pathology in the early 1980's, I recall the announcement that HIV was the cause of AIDS.  Before that announcement, there was much speculation.  I think it was appauling that the announcement came before a single article appeared in any scientific journal evaluating the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.  It was announced at a press conference... nothing was submitted for peer review.

11208[/snapback]

There has been a lot of peer reviewed material on the subject since however. There's even been a lot from your side of the argument.

 

Just to clarify though, are you saying that HIV doesn't destroy CD4+ T Lymphocytes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Springer, do you know any case of AIDS which the patient shows the symptoms but he has not the HIV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're talking about Kary Mullis.

Yes, thanks

There has been a lot of peer reviewed material on the subject since however.  There's even been a lot from your side of the argument.

Yes, but my point is that the announcement of HIV as the culprit before peer review resulted in a widespread belief that the cause-effect had been proven, which greatly subsequent skewed interpretation of data.

 

Just to clarify though, are you saying that HIV doesn't destroy CD4+ T Lymphocytes?

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Springer, do you know any case of AIDS which the patient shows the symptoms but he has not the HIV?

11214[/snapback]

There are lots of examples in the literature.

 

Here is one link showing a small series of male h*m*sexuals with Kaposi's sarcoma who are HIV-negative.

 

http://www.aegis.org/news/ads/1990/AD901784.html

 

Kaposi's sarcoma in h*m*sexuals is the most specific AIDS-indicator disease. The other manifestations such as pneumocystis pneumonia, candidiasis, herpes, lymphoma, dementia, TB, etc., are less specific. All of these diseases exist in HIV-negative patients. They're not labeled "AIDS" because they are HIV-negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but my point is that the announcement of HIV as the culprit before peer review resulted in a widespread belief that the cause-effect had been proven, which greatly subsequent skewed interpretation of data.

It certainly does seem a bit odd. Although I'm not sure how true it is: HIV/AIDS

 

"In early 1983, French researchers isolated a previously unknown retrovirus from the lymph nodes of a person with early symptoms of AIDS, although they did not yet have enough data to prove the virus was the cause of AIDS. In the spring of 1984, Gallo and his team of U.S. researchers submitted a comprehensive series of four scientific papers to the journal Science, papers that were fully peer reviewed (and later subject to one the most intensive review processes ever given to scientific articles).2,3,4,5 The four papers described how the virus was routinely found in people with various symptoms associated with AIDS and was absent in those who lacked either symptoms or AIDS-associated risk factors. The papers concluded to the satisfaction of most scientists that HIV was the cause of AIDS and went on to describe new methods for growing the virus in large quantities and for creating a blood test to detect the presence of antibodies to the virus."

 

That was pre the 1987 announcement (which itself was prompted by a journo threatening to blow the story according to that link).

 

 

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

11218[/snapback]

Difficult to assess this kind of thing with AIDS isn't it? AIDS is pretty much a symptom of a poorly operating immune system is it not? It's difficult to say whether HIV causes the drop in T cells or if the drop in T cells is allowed by the depressed nervous system. I think the above link states a pretty good case. As does the defection back to the mainstream science view by the likes of Sonnabend and Gilbert...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms