HIV/AIDS - How to "survive a Plague"?

a reply to: halfoldman
Putting that in perspective, not many old BBC programmes are available on Youtube if Auntie Beeb can help it. They must have a very strong copyright protection team. (Had this been a pre-1970 programme, the obvious answer would have been "It was wiped because they wanted to re-use the tape".)

originally posted by: bananashooter
How to survive: don’t be gay, don’t do needles.

Since when did HIV only effect gays and drug users? Are you still at a 1983 level of ignorance?

As a joke, I spit at him.
What you spit?

That's twenty-five years of prison.

a reply to: bananashooter

I know one heterosexual non-drug user who is positive, he unfortunately didn't believe in using a condom at his age and there you go. From what I've read it odds are at 0.82%, which from my math is still greater than zero. Don't be an idiot, wrap it up if you're cruising for tail these days.

Edit: On the plus side, he's got good coverage from military retirement so he's being treated properly. Not even detectable at this point, and as his doctor at the time told him, he's going to die of old age or some other illness before this causes any issues for him. Unfortunately he's just a lonely old guy now, as he refuses to risk passing it on to someone else.

originally posted by: halfoldman
AIDS - a cure in my time?
Nope.

Don't see why not. The advances in the last couple of decades in treatment has been astonishing. Life expectancy for someone diagnosed with HIV in the US has gone from 39 years old to 70 years old in the last 20 years. HIV related illness from 1988-1995 was cause of death for 78% of those infected. From 2005-2011 this dropped to 15%. This means that for 85% of those infected, HIV and related conditions will not be the cause of death. HIV is now regarded as a long term, controllable condition. Advances in antiretroviral treatments can reduce the levels to the extent that the virus cannot be detected in the blood or transmitted to another person. There are some promising ongoing studies in the UK which have put the infection into remission in animal tests, and have increased immunity.

With so many advances in such a short time, why would a cure be unimmaginable?

www.duesberg.com...

WHAT CAUSES AIDS?
IT'S AN OPEN QUESTION
By Charles A. Thomas Jr., Kary B. Mullis, & Phillip E. Johnson
Reason June 1994

Such displays of rage and ridicule are familiar to those who question the HIV theory of AIDS. Ever since 1984, when Gallo announced the discovery of what the newspapers call "HIV, the virus that causes AIDS," at a government press conference, the HIV theory has been the basis of all scientific work on AIDS. If the theory is mistaken, billions of dollars have been wasted-and immense harm has been done to persons who have tested positive for antibodies to HIV and therefore have been told to expect an early and painful death. The furious reactions to the suggestion that a colossal mistake may have been made are not surprising, given that the credibility of the biomedical establishment is at stake. It is time to think about the unthinkable, however, because there are at least three reasons for doubting the official theory that HIV causes AIDS.


First, after spending billions of dollars, HIV researchers are still unable to explain how HIV, a conventional retrovirus with a very simple genetic organization, damages the immune system, much less how to stop it. The present stalemate contrasts dramatically with the confidence expressed in 1984. At that time Gallo thought the virus killed cells directly by infecting them, and U.S. government officials predicted a vaccine would be available in two years. Ten years later no vaccine is in sight, and the certainty about how the virus destroys the immune system has dissolved in confusion.


Second, in the absence of any agreement about how HIV causes AIDS, the only evidence that HIV does cause AIDS is correlation. The correlation is imperfect at best, however. There are many cases of persons with all the symptoms of AIDS who do not have any HIV infection.There are also many cases of persons who have been infected by HIV for more than a decade and show no signs of illness.


Third, predictions based on the HIV theory have failed spectacularly. AIDS in the United States and Europe has not spread through the general population. Rather, it remains almost entirely confined to the original risk groups, mainly sexually promiscuous gay men and drug abusers. The number of HIV-infected Americans has remained constant for years instead of increasing rapidly as predicted, which suggests that HIV is an old virus that has been with us for centuries without causing an epidemic.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

The number of HIV-infected Americans has remained constant for years instead of increasing rapidly as predicted, which suggests that HIV is an old virus that has been with us for centuries without causing an epidemic.

Right. Because AIDS incidence has been constant. For centuries.

Because the US is a valid sample of the world.

a reply to: NthOther

Not really HIV leads to Aids and the virus targets one's immune system.

Whether or not you are gay, straight, or bisexual matters not in the slightest.

AIDs came out of nowhere and targets homosexuals.
It doesn't get much more suspicious than that.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

Was that not the "Gap"?

a reply to: Phage

Its funny how a group of diseases that show up when being treated for HIV infection turn out to be side effects of the drugs used to treat HIV.

Aids is what you end up when the doctors give you treatment. I read a long time ago that the "discovery" of Gallo linking HIV to AIDS has never been replicated. But your mileage may vary

Yeah the topic is always complex.

I'm not going to judge anyone's opinion.

Which ever way you look at it, they allowed a lot of people to needlessly die.

The hemophiliacs, for example - they knowingly sold them products where 8 000 people died.

The biggest scandal of the century!

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight



www.duesberg.com...

WHAT CAUSES AIDS?
IT'S AN OPEN QUESTION
By Charles A. Thomas Jr., Kary B. Mullis, & Phillip E. Johnson
Reason June 1994

Such displays of rage and ridicule are familiar to those who question the HIV theory of AIDS. Ever since 1984, when Gallo announced the discovery of what the newspapers call "HIV, the virus that causes AIDS," at a government press conference, the HIV theory has been the basis of all scientific work on AIDS. If the theory is mistaken, billions of dollars have been wasted-and immense harm has been done to persons who have tested positive for antibodies to HIV and therefore have been told to expect an early and painful death. The furious reactions to the suggestion that a colossal mistake may have been made are not surprising, given that the credibility of the biomedical establishment is at stake. It is time to think about the unthinkable, however, because there are at least three reasons for doubting the official theory that HIV causes AIDS.


First, after spending billions of dollars, HIV researchers are still unable to explain how HIV, a conventional retrovirus with a very simple genetic organization, damages the immune system, much less how to stop it. The present stalemate contrasts dramatically with the confidence expressed in 1984. At that time Gallo thought the virus killed cells directly by infecting them, and U.S. government officials predicted a vaccine would be available in two years. Ten years later no vaccine is in sight, and the certainty about how the virus destroys the immune system has dissolved in confusion.


Second, in the absence of any agreement about how HIV causes AIDS, the only evidence that HIV does cause AIDS is correlation. The correlation is imperfect at best, however. There are many cases of persons with all the symptoms of AIDS who do not have any HIV infection.There are also many cases of persons who have been infected by HIV for more than a decade and show no signs of illness.


Third, predictions based on the HIV theory have failed spectacularly. AIDS in the United States and Europe has not spread through the general population. Rather, it remains almost entirely confined to the original risk groups, mainly sexually promiscuous gay men and drug abusers. The number of HIV-infected Americans has remained constant for years instead of increasing rapidly as predicted, which suggests that HIV is an old virus that has been with us for centuries without causing an epidemic.

Whenever someone utilizes a citation that’s a quarter of a century out of date I have to wonder what the agenda is because the claims made in your source material are not at all true today. The mechanism for how HIV affects CD4/T cells and how the compromised immune system is depleted without the assistance of Antiretrovirals is actually well understood in 2018. In the 1980’s yes, the side effects of some of the early medications caused more harm than good. But after watching my uncle die in slow motion I can assure you that the type of pneumonia that ended up killing him wasn’t a side effect of meds. It was because his T Cell count was so low that his body couldn’t fight anything off. In a situation where you or I would end up with something as simple as a common cold, someone without a functioning immune system would end up hospitalized in the ICU. It happens to a friend of mine from grade school. He can’t afford the antiretroviral meds yet has all of the symptoms attributed to AIDS. So how does that work in your study from 1993 that wasn’t published until 1994? The claim you make about AIDS being the result of medication is pure hyperbolic Bulls# with no basis in modern science or medicine.

a reply to: sooth

Not strictly true. The HIV infection rate is much higher for gay men as it is 18x more transmissible through anal sex than vaginal (due to the nature of the mucosal cells in the anus). The gay community back in the day rarely used condoms as most other infections could be sorted with antibiotics and you're pretty unlikely to make a man pregnant. Hence the rapid initial spread in the male gay population.

The gay community is relatively small compared to the straight one, so a gay man is more likely to have a sexual encounter with an infected person. Despite the education, there are currently an estimated 600'000 gay men living with HIV in the US, and many gay men still have regular unprotected sex with other men. 1 in 6 infected men don't know they are infected. Therefore gay men are regarded as a high risk group.

The rate of infection in the gay population has levelled off since the 80s/90s, mostly due to education and greatly increased the use of barrier protection. Despite this, 70% of newly reported infections each year are from gay or bisexual men despite only making up an estimated 2% of the population.

So yes, the sexuality of a person is a significant factor.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

ummm no. Try something written in this century.