It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Potential cure for HIV discovered

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
I did'nt mean just take some cells form person A and put them in person B,
but rather take the genetic coding that makes them immune and find a way to encode it
onto the other persons genome.

Let's just...will our DNA into their cells. I'll focus, you say the magic words!




posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I don't get any of you guys who are trying to find a conspiracy with the link between HIV and AIDS.

Is HIV the only immunodeficiency syndrome? NO. It is not. Can HIV cause immunodeficiency? YES. It can, and does.

This subject is pretty cut and dry. HIV is a virus. It attacks white T-Cells (You want proof go google image it) which help your body fight off infection. T-Cells go away, infection runs rampant (this is the AIDS part), and you die.

I fail to see where a conspiracy could be made about something so simple?



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   
No, you are just repeating stuff they want you to believe. It's not a conspiracy, its a truth, HIV is harmless. Watch the videos. We cannot have an argument with propaganda quotes.


[edit on 30-6-2007 by sb2012]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon

This subject is pretty cut and dry. HIV is a virus. It attacks white T-Cells (You want proof go google image it) which help your body fight off infection. T-Cells go away, infection runs rampant (this is the AIDS part), and you die.

I fail to see where a conspiracy could be made about something so simple?


It's a cancerous virus, if it were to kill it's hosts it would die itself. Infact labrotories use T-cells to grow retro viruses because they live quite well together, including HIV.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Did you fully read the links you provided?


Originally posted by Jazzerman
3. In reply to the virusmyth.net internet link: VirusMyth answer .


This link only deals with the high standards of the contest to prove and isolate the existence of HIV.

Does not answer any of the questions of an HIV/AIDS link.



Here is a good resource on how to spot fradulent websites that have little or no scientific basis behind them (referring to virusmyth of course): HIV/AIDS- How to spot fraud .


This link discusses how to spot fraudulent AIDS cures from false medical practitioners.

Not what you said it was, and doesn’t even touch the topic at hand.


On top of that lets take a look at the actual people involved in the virusmyth.net website: Survey of virusmyth.net .


Did you read this one?

I will sum it up for you: Science cannot say one way or the other, however Duesberg is one of the most respected scientists and retro virologists in the world. He is at an unfair advantage because those with a lot to loose if there is no HIV/AIDS connection are suppressing his research. The Editor in Chief of Science believes he is being treated unfairly and that he should be allowed the grants to prove his research.


Finally, check out this site: "AIDS Myth" Rebuttals . There is a complete index of resources attached to each rebuttal and a breakdown of each of the questions that people who deny the existance of the virus put forth. If you have any questions about any of this I would be happy to answer, however, in order to save time and space with my answer I am just linking everyone to the websites I have listed instead of quoting them.



OK, well here is a gem from that website

NIAID: By 12/31/94, "CDC had received reports of 42 health care workers in the United States with documented, occupationally acquired HIV infection, of whom 17 have developed AIDS in the absence of other risk factors .... These individuals all had evidence of HIV seroconversion following a discrete percutaneous or mucocutaneous exposure to blood, body fluids or other clinical laboratory specimens containing HIV." [CDC, "HIV/AIDS surveillance report, 1994 year-end edition," 1995a;6(no.2).]


Is this proof that HIV causes AIDS? NO

Is it a strong indicator that HIV can be passed from person to person? YES

So 42 got the HIV virus, 17 developed AIDS, and we have no idea the percentage of those 17 that were taking anti-AIDS drugs, but I would guess 100%. Maybe it was caused by a type of gum they all chew. The socks they wear? Who knows?

You cant provide PROOF that there is an HIV/AIDS link.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
Did you fully read the links you provided?


Absolutely. To be fair, I am not at work currently so I do not have all of my resources on hand that I would usually have. Those were just a few internet resources, and I frankly do not like to take any internet site at face value, but they were provided to show both sides of the argument, and inconsistencies in the debate. Perhaps I did not clearly state the purpose and intended use of the websites I linked to, so if you need further clarification of my intended use of those websites I would be happy to explain.

I do have one question for those that seem to have an opinion on this subject and believe that HIV/AIDS does not exist or can be transmitted by other means. How long have you been studying HIV, virology, immunolugy, medical science and research? I am just curious, because all of the videos and internet sites that have been provided are based on one sided arguments that have not been peer reviewed by independant sources, and the one's that have been reviewed are by the same "fringe pseudo-scientists" and not independant researchers. In fact, whenever this topic comes up on ATS there are a few people that seem to have strong desire to promote their own hypothesis about the issue, but lack the basic medical understanding behind virology, and cannot converse using correct medical terminology on the most basic level. It would like myself telling someone how to build a house properly, but knowing absolutely nothing about architecture.

An opinion on any issue is fine, and I strongly encourage people to have one, however, having said that it is always a good thing to look at both sides of any argument. Just because someone has viewed a couple of internet videos and a couple of dubious websites, does not negate the thousands upon thousands of other resources that show absolute proof to the contrary of their opinion...in this case...HIV. I have made many, many posts on this subject here on ATS and if you want the information I presented in them just look for HIV/AIDS related subjects and see my observations. I do not feel the need to constantly repeat myself over and over again to people that cannot and will not believe anything but their own opinion.

Lets face it...I can take someone that denies the existance of HIV into our lab and show them thousands of case studies in our records, let them actually look at HIV on electron microscopes, show them peer reviewed medical journals, and other various things. Are they going to believe any of it? Probably not.

If you do not believe this disease exists, then why not do your own experiments...like have unprotected sex with people who have HIV, share dirty needles, or drink infected breast milk. Go do any of these various things and then lets just see if you still believe HIV does not exist and that it does not lead to AIDS. I apologize for my "frank-ness" on this issue, but after researching and studying virology for so long I get a little preturbed when I hear someone come along and say such things with absolutely no medical documents or knowledge on the subject to back up what they are saying. On the other side of the issue, some people talk about HIV medications and drug therapy adherance like HAART and don't seem to know the first thing about how and why they actually work the way they do. Someone on this thread even reccommended that the best thing for an HIV infected individual to do is to stop taking medication. Do you know how serious a matter this is, and what kind of information you are giving out? Do you know the implications of dropping medications after you start taking them? HIV medications are not for everyone, and there are some people that do not need to take them. People with strong immune systems are totally different than someone with an already weakend immune system, and drug therapy will be totally different for the two set of individuals. Due to the nature of the virus, HIV is not like any other infection known to man, and treatment will vary greatly from individual to individual on a case by case basis.

[edit on 30-6-2007 by Jazzerman]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
i'll make it simple (link on last page)



HIV does not infect enough T cells to cause AIDS.
HIV never infects more than 1 out of 1000 T cells; commonly just 1 out of 10,000 T cells.* People replace 5% of their T cells per day. Simple math shows that HIV cannot infect enough T cells to cause them to die off and bring down the whole immune system. Even supporters of the HIV/AIDS theory admit that this low level of T cell infection is a challenge to explain.




please explain how infecting 1/1000th of the available T cells can significantly diminish their number until the immunoresponse collapses? if this claim is false, just say so, but if it's true it's pretty hard to ignore, isn't it?



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
You cant provide PROOF that there is an HIV/AIDS link.


Really? Ever heard of Koch's Postulates?

Koch: HIV and AIDS link

One fact about the disease: HIV has been found in every instance of people that have an AIDS diagnosis, and AIDS has never been found in people who do not have a current HIV infection.

Still don't believe? Let's take a look at a few government resources (NIAID for one) and their activities with independant researchers:

NIAID: Factsheet, HIV causes AIDS

NIAID again

If you have the time to read through it: NIAID: How HIV infection leads to AIDS

Or these, and I quote from one of these resources:



There is no single scientific paper that proves HIV causes AIDS. Instead there are tens of thousands of papers containing a wide range of evidence that, taken together, make the case overwhelming.
Avert

Historical perspective on HIV from one of the original researchers, Dr. Gallo: Gallo, 1984

Or, another of the now historic documents: Montagnier



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   
No such things as HIV...WTF...
Come on there is common sense and wahtever it takes to believe that crapola. Conspiracy...Yeah tell that to someone with sores on their body, chills, and barfing every 20min...jeesh..idiot



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
i'll make it simple (link on last page)



HIV does not infect enough T cells to cause AIDS.
HIV never infects more than 1 out of 1000 T cells; commonly just 1 out of 10,000 T cells.* People replace 5% of their T cells per day. Simple math shows that HIV cannot infect enough T cells to cause them to die off and bring down the whole immune system. Even supporters of the HIV/AIDS theory admit that this low level of T cell infection is a challenge to explain.




please explain how infecting 1/1000th of the available T cells can significantly diminish their number until the immunoresponse collapses? if this claim is false, just say so, but if it's true it's pretty hard to ignore, isn't it?


Good question. HIV essentially outruns the body's own immune system response by sheer number of HIV particles observed in positive individuals at high viral loads. There are many forms of immune system cells and they all perform different different functions in the body. HIV only attacks lymphocyte cells, which in turn make up a small fraction of the total number of immune cells, as you alluded to. The distinction comes where this is concerned, because Lymphocyte cells in particular known as T4 or CD4+ in some circles are solely responsible in the regulation of the body's responce to invaders. These are the cells that HIV attacks, and other such immune cells such at the T8 cell perform entirely different functions. The T8 cell, for instance, is responsible for helping the immune system recognize the tissue, organ, and blood cells in your body and does not actually attack it (just recognizes it)...so essentially without these cells your body would destroy itself and recognize every cell in your own body as foreign. HIV has in some instances even been known to attack Macrophages and another form of lymphatic cells called B-Cells, but usually does not result in the complete damage it does when it invades CD4+ lymphocytes.

Here is where your question comes into play. We now know that HIV attacks specific immune system cells designed to attack foreign intruders in the body. Per CD4+ cell that is attacked there are millions and millions of viral particles building up in the nucleus of each of those cells so that when HIV has run its course in a cell the cell will be destroyed and release all those millions and millions of viruses out into your body to start the entire replication process over again. Simply put, HIV out numbers the body's own immunological responce to it by replicating in mass numbers.

The human body is constantly building up and reproducing more CD4+ cells in the Thymus gland throughout this process, but it is not able to produce a large enough amount to have any sufficient impact on the number of HIV in the body at the same time. Thus, even with the low numbers of Immune system cells being infected at a time it is possible for HIV to outnumber your response. Due to the fact that not every type of cell produced by the immune system is used as a "killer" it is very easy for HIV to focus it's attention on that one particular cell. Here is where we go back to the T8 cell I mentioned earlier...it's primary function is simply recognition...not actually "killing".

So here is the basics of what happens-

1. Virus invades the body
2. seeks out CD4+ cell and invades it for reproductin
3. T8 cell seeks out and responds to the invader
4. Virus destroys CD4+ cell and uses cell DNA to "mask" itself from T8 cell seeking it out, thus creating a "camouflage" with cellular DNA and viral RNA
5. T8 cell cannot recognize newly mutated virus strain
6. Newly created virus mutation enters another CD4+ cell and starts this process over again, multiplying in the millions

It's a game of cat and mouse, and the mouse always wins in the end.

[edit on 30-6-2007 by Jazzerman]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Let's just...will our DNA into their cells. I'll focus, you say the magic words!


There is a certain part of a person whom is immune to HIV/AIDS genetic code that codes
for the cellular function that makes them immune.

I am simply suggesting finding that part(s) and than finding a way to encode it into
other peoples genomes so that they to can become immune to it.

It would'nt happen instantly of course, but, if I'm remembering my cellular biology correctly,
in a period of 7 years after the initial genetic transplants, and assuming that the genetic
code addition was able to infect all cells, the person would be totally immune to it.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   
You can't just do that, it's hard to put DNA into a cell. You can use a modified virus but then the immune system will fight it.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   
I realize it's not as simple as a genetic cut and paste, but given research into it and
the creation of sufficient enough patch and strong enough malevolent retrovirus
it is possible.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   
jazzerman, you're awesome...it is clearly exactly what you said. you're a trained dude and a few guys on here have probably read some stuff and think they're in the know....they're the ones soaking up the propoganda...

stop taking meds? thats insane..

and to sb saying you're willing to get injected with it, i don't know you but i have to say it's getting deep in here. nobody in their right mind would do that cause deep down, in your heart of hearts you know exactly what jazzerman is saying is true. you'd be insane to get infected willingly. are you insane?

so you'd only infect yourself if you can get in the media? call up a couple local stations and tell them you're about to infect yourself on purpose...you'll get some kind of coverage.....then, in 10 years or whatver you'll be all jacked up realizing you were wrong.

jazzerman, keep brining it...



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzerman

Originally posted by cavscout
You cant provide PROOF that there is an HIV/AIDS link.


Really? Ever heard of Koch's Postulates?

Koch: HIV and AIDS link

One fact about the disease: HIV has been found in every instance of people that have an AIDS diagnosis, and AIDS has never been found in people who do not have a current HIV infection.


Wait just a minute. Koch's Postulates are NOT MET. An AIDS diagnosis REQUIRES (according to the CDC) that the subject be infected with HIV.

So a subject who would otherwise be given an AIDS diagnosis based on symptoms and immunodeficiency will go undiagnosed because of the lack of HIV antibodies in the subject's system. In fact, the subject would probably be misdiagnosed with whatever ailments were actually defeating his immune system without other tests that would otherwise indicate AIDS, test that would not be ordered unless a positive test for HIV antibodies was performed.

Absurdity to make the claim that Koch's Postulates have been met when the FIRST has not.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   
And just so we are clear, I am not saying there is no HIV/AIDS connection, I am just arguing that none has been proven. I can’t disprove it anymore than you can prove it.

Do I think HIV is the likely cause of AIDS? NOPE

Would I inject myself with HIV? NOT FOR A MILLION DOLLARS.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
Wait just a minute. Koch's Postulates are NOT MET. An AIDS diagnosis REQUIRES (according to the CDC) that the subject be infected with HIV.

So a subject who would otherwise be given an AIDS diagnosis based on symptoms and immunodeficiency will go undiagnosed because of the lack of HIV antibodies in the subject's system. In fact, the subject would probably be misdiagnosed with whatever ailments were actually defeating his immune system without other tests that would otherwise indicate AIDS, test that would not be ordered unless a positive test for HIV antibodies was performed.


Koch's postulates are easily met through different testing methods which is where I assume you are going with this. There are many HIV testing methods currently avaliable. If I am adminsitering a test to an incoming client I will usually give them one of the few rapid tests currently on the market. Currently in my state we are using the UniGold Recombigen test developed by Trinity Biotech, which is a quick 10-12 minute rapid test for detecting HIV antibodies. We also currently have a supply of OraQuick and OraSure tests that take around 20 minutes for results. Now, having said that, any physician will tell you to never trust a first positive HIV test result...that is common procedure in any clinic. Rapid tests and Antibody tests in general are good ways to determine if a primary infection is present, but they often skew results if another infection other than HIV is potentially present as well. I have seen a number of positive results given with these tests and as it later turned out the person was infected with Hepatitis C or something similar. So, the rapid tests are good to detect a possible infection, but positive result received through antibody testing is then followed up with a highly accurate Western Blot test, and many times further testing is also done beyond that point.

The Western blot test is specifically used for detection of a certain protein within the infected cell. In fact, suspected infected CD4+ cells are actually "opened up" to find the HIV inside the cell. The efficiency rate of the Western blot is excellent and indeterminate results only appear at a rate of 1 in 5,000. If we cannot determine the cause of infection in someone it is then followed up with other testing methods...one of which seeks out specific Antigens. There is one particular protein strand that is only found in the HIV virus, and it is generally referred to as a P24 protein which when mixed with monoclonal antibodies (not from the test subject) begin to draw out of the blood stream and attach to the added antibody. Testing can be done to see if these proteins match the HIV specific proteins, and they usually do.

If none of these testing methods show verifiable results that there is an infection of HIV present there is yet another test that is used. It is generally called a Nucleic Acid Based Test, and Blood Donation centers the world over having been using this test to confirm the presence of HIV in a potentially infected individual. I'm not going to explain this test in great detail because it is very hard to describe without using medical jargon. If you want a better explanation I would suggest just googling "Nucleic Acid Based HIV test" or something similar.

Side note- With the advancement of the Nucleic Acid Based Test in Blood Centers there have been a sharp (well, almost complete) decline in the amount of people infected through blood donations. If this test was not an accurate indicator of HIV infection in the blood supply, then people would still become infected by this means. Blood donations are currently not even considered a risk factor for HIV infection since the advent of the Nucleic Acid Based Test, and earlier testing methods.

So, with the various testing methods avaliable physicians are easily able to isolate the HIV virus, study it, takes astounding photographs of it, etc. By doing so they are able to directly link all cases of known HIV infection to known cases of AIDS. However, having said that, it is a common misconception that all people with an HIV infection will develop the syndrome 10-15 years later commonly known as AIDS. In fact, if a person with HIV remains healthy, does not pollute their body with alcohol and drugs, and rarely gets secondary infections it is completely possible to live a long life. Currently, we do not know how long a person can actually live with HIV because some of the very first people diagnosed with the infection back in the early part of the 1980's are still living. Time will tell...

Koch's postulates can be easily fulfilled when you cross reference the number of known infected individuals and compare them with deaths due to AIDS. The first postulate according to the website is:

"1. The microorganism must be found in all cases of the disease."

Due to new developments in testing methods it becomes very easy to trace the development of the infection from the moment they are tested to their AIDS diagnosis. This postulate is fulfilled as we trace the quantity of viral load in a persons body in relation to the number of Lymphocyte cells that are currently active whenever cultures are obtained.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
And just so we are clear, I am not saying there is no HIV/AIDS connection, I am just arguing that none has been proven. I can’t disprove it anymore than you can prove it.


Fair play. I do believe I can easily prove that HIV both exists and is the cause of AIDS...that is if my fingers don't fall off from typing so much! However, I do believe taking a rational approach to any subject is a good thing and I cannot fault you for that. I believe the good discourse we have here on ATS provides a good environment to do just that, and get some good dialogue opened up on subjects like this.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
Wait just a minute. Koch's Postulates are NOT MET. An AIDS diagnosis REQUIRES (according to the CDC) that the subject be infected with HIV.

So a subject who would otherwise be given an AIDS diagnosis based on symptoms and immunodeficiency will go undiagnosed because of the lack of HIV antibodies in the subject's system. In fact, the subject would probably be misdiagnosed with whatever ailments were actually defeating his immune system without other tests that would otherwise indicate AIDS, test that would not be ordered unless a positive test for HIV antibodies was performed.

Absurdity to make the claim that Koch's Postulates have been met when the FIRST has not.


I think you're under a bit of a misapprehension here cavscout. When a person is infected by the HIV virus their immune system is initially able to mount response. However as with all viruses(and HIV is particularly adept at this)it quickly mutates to over come whatever resistance the body has made to it. You're body fights back whatever way it can with anti-bodies, t-cells but its a battle of attrition as the virus-slowly in many cases quickly in others-overwhelms the immune system. And all this time as your immune system is fighting the HIV infection you are being exposed to other pathogens whether they be bacteria or other viruses.

In short your immune system is never completely destroyed and is fighting back until the very moment of your death. So yes simply put Koch's Postulates are met, everyone ever diagnosed with AIDS has been proven to have been infected by the Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus. We know this by the simple testing for the calling card HIV leaves behind in every person it infects-the anti-bodies.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:25 AM
link   
I remember when Magic Johnson first announced he had AIDS. I couldn't believe it and thought he would be dead in a few years. Now I see him on TV and he looks more healthy now than he did before he had AIDS.

I think that Cancer and AIDS are another way of Population control. The companys that make money of DRUGS to TREAT the symptoms are making HUGE profits on both these so called deaseses.

The people in this country need to wake up and understand that the Corporations that are in it for Profits only are the real culprits in the Cancer and AIDS epidemic that are rampant in this world.

Just think of the young girls that are pressured to go to the Gynacologist and think of all the people who are prescribed POISONS to treat something that MAYBE we have had in us forever.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join