Potential cure for HIV discovered

Magic Johnson is fat and healthy with AIDS because he is famous and wealthy and for no other reason.

Question for the people who believe AIDS is caused by the medications.

1. How did AIDS come about in the first place when no one was taking the AIDS medications?

2. I know for a fact that when you are diagnosed as HIV+, they don't automatically put you on meds until your counts go below 350. Now, how are these peoples immune systems being destroyed without medications?

Originally posted by grover
Magic Johnson is fat and healthy with AIDS because he is famous and wealthy and for no other reason.

exactly right....with that kind of cash/clout, you get all the best.

just cause he 'looks' healthy too don't mean he is.

i have to say again this thread is almost laughable with the people trying to discount this and telling people to stop taking their meds....that is absolutely insane...again, jazzerman, great word duder.

Originally posted by Jazzerman

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.
...

d'uh i almost considered the case lost until i stumbled upon the following:

some cases, in order to help understand changes in your absolute CD4 count, your doctor may also assess what proportion of all lymphocytes are CD4 cells. This is called the CD4 percentage. In HIV-negative people a normal result is around 40%. A CD4 percentage which falls below about 15% is understood to reflect a risk of serious infections.

www.aidsmap.com...

if we are talking about double digit percentages here, then it's painfully obvious that one infected cell in a thousand or ten thousand will leave plenty of T4 lymphocytes intact, reinforcing the point.


tbh, i have no idea which data to trust, all i see is that a) i can never keep up with first-hand data without spending my entire time reading scientific journals and b) contradictions exist.

the worst of all is that AIDS patients seem to die of more exotic ailments, like fungal infections and Karposi's sarcoma. why not catch the flu and die within a day? why not the common cold? perhaps it's just being mis- and underreported, though.

Originally posted by hoochymama
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.

And guess what? Magic is still alive and looking healthy because he began taking AIDS drugs as soon as they were available. He hasn't died of the meds yet...

My best friend was recently diagnosed with AIDS. He came close to dying when he first started meds. THe meds enable him to feel better and achieve some degree of health, enough so that he can continue living.
Meds haven't killed him, at least not yet.

It's a very bad idea to tell people not to take their AIDS meds. You're not a doctor and it's actually illegal for anyone but a doctor to dispense medical advice. Especially when the meds actually save many AIDS sufferer's lives.

As someone who's been HIV+ for over 16 years, I would not stop taking my meds just because some people who don't live with the disease believe that it doesn't cause AIDS.

I've seen too many friends die over the years because they didn't have meds, refused to take them, or became resistant to the only ones available at the time.

If you nay-sayers don't believe HIV causes AIDS, then by all means put your money where your mouth is and go get infected. Then don't take your meds and let's see how long you last.

HIV and AIDS is a very complex issue. Some people progress from HIV to AIDS and some don't. It has to do with individual biochemistry more than anything, and probably genetic factors. But the meds save many more lives than they don't, which is why HIV infected individuals in the US live for decades, and HIV infected individuals in Africa die in much shorter periods of time.

Spare me the garbage, please. I've heard all sorts of wild claims about cures over the years and to date, the only thing I have confidence in, is that my meds are keeping me alive and healthy, and because I took my meds during my pregnancies that my children are both HIV negative. Which is more than most children in the African Subcontinent can say.

If you don't have HIV and don't work in the industry, you don't know what you're talking about and to those of us who do live with the virus the statement that HIV has nothing to do with AIDS is not only laughable but ignorant.

your first hand experience does not invalidate the issues surrounding the HIV/AIDS link, does it?

medication helped you, that's wonderful, too bad the underlying mechanism is not always clear and you should understand that all those who were not helped by meds are now unable to convey their experience via forum....

to get a feeling what i'm talking about, read www.guardian.co.uk... . if scientists working on AIDS and HIV knew exactly what they are doing, the results would have been better.

for the record: in the past, medication used to treat AIDS was extremely toxic and, ironically, triggered the same symptoms. it does not take a genius to figure out the results, which consisted of uncounted poisoned patients and a loss of trust in pharmacology. some people go overboard and tell everyone to get off their meds. not surprising, really.

www.oldamericancentury.org...

Where in my post did I say I was a doctor or gave any medical device?? Also, I never said anything about not taking your meds. I would, if I were you, read someones post before posting your drivel about "its illegal to give medical advice, your not a doctor" crap.

Thanks.

Anyone can go on the internet and find some crackpot sites that support disinformation. The trick is knowing how to use critical thinking.

Straight from the CDC

HIV destroys a certain kind of blood cell (CD4+ T cells) which is crucial to the normal function of the human immune system. In fact, loss of these cells in people with HIV is an extremely powerful predictor of the development of AIDS. Studies of thousands of people have revealed that most people infected with HIV carry the virus for years before enough damage is done to the immune system for AIDS to develop. However, sensitive tests have shown a strong connection between the amount of HIV in the blood and the decline in CD4+ T cells and the development of AIDS. Reducing the amount of virus in the body with anti-retroviral therapies can dramatically slow the destruction of a person’s immune system.

As much as I dislike and distrust segments of the federal government, I'm going to trust my doctor -- who has been keeping me alive since 1993, when they said I'd die by 1995 when first tested, the CDC and people I know who attend the various world AIDS conferences over any crackpot theory on the web.

In 1992 I was told I had three years to live. THREE. I was given AZT which I don't tolerate well. That was all there was at the time. I have had a great deal of problems with medicine regimes, including being hospitalized with allergic reactions to some of the prescribed courses. I am now on a three way cocktail of meds I've been on for five years that has kept me stable.

One of my very best friends refused meds. She died. Several of my neighbors over the years have experienced the same thing.

Again, I say, if you don't live with HIV and deal with it on a daily basis, you really don't know what you're talking about, with all due respect.

Hoochymama, sorry I should have been more clear I was talking to sb2012 with that comment about not dispensing medical advice if you're not a doctor. My apologies.

I love forest lady, she is so gracious and polite. Bet she's pretty too.

[edit on 1-7-2007 by grover]

No problem. No harm no foul.

Originally posted by cavscout

Really. Just provide the proof then.

Oh, that’s right, it doesn’t exist.

is the whole medical community, Scientific community, every hospitol, Every sick person, and CDC all in on this one you say? WOW that would be a trick.

Yes. Unless you count these people:

long list of people that make your statement foolish


The list is so long that I fear getting a warn if I quote it.

A list sponsored by a government, which has a vested interest in seeing Aids debunked. Please.....


www.albany.edu...

freespace.virgin.net...

www.nlm.nih.gov...

Ill also add a link which has some info on the origin of aids as well.

If you search the web you can find a ton of verifiable sources which say aids is real. What more proof do you need, I really dont think everyone is hoaxing aids. Come on millions of doctors and medical people are lieing? OK ..... Id say the people on that list of yours have axes to grind. Maybe didnt get that grant or position in the field.

www.avert.org...

Take care

look, no-one ever disputed that AIDS exists, the question is whether it's caused by HIV and HIV only. there are good reasons to doubt that HIV = AIDS is the whole story, that's all.

such a mistake would nicely explain why nothing actually cures the disease, just delays it, among other things. don't give me the consenus card, it's been shown over and over gain throughout history, that a prevailing paradigm remains afloat until it becomes absolutely untenable. f-ex. there was a time when cave paintings were ALL considered forgergies, and not so long ago, plate tectonics was on the lunatic fringe, while today, they pretend it never was in dispute if they mention its inception and the accompanying resistance at all, that is.

so far, the results are not good. no cure, some people die quickly while on meds, others do not, but the same applies to people who refuse to take them, of course. the opnmindedness of researchers does not strike me as particularly well developed, seeing as the correlation of geographic region and susceptibility of its inhabitants: www.newmediaexplorer.org...

And still no member provides proof.

Shocker!

Done with thread, it’s going nowhere. Logic has failed; or rather members have failed logic.

You all just keep believing what others tell you is true without seeing proof, just like your doctors do.

As for me, I have found a way to prevent AIDS even if we don’t know for sure if a virus causes it.

I don’t stick needles in my toes and I don’t stick my parts where the Bible says they don’t belong. Problem solved, at least for me. I don’t think I have ever even met anybody with AIDS, my lifestyle doesn’t bring me close to them.

Other than the billions of tax dollars spent on finding a cure for a possibly harmless virus, I guess it isn’t my problem.

To those of you who do deal with AIDS in your community, however, I would think you would be willing to devote just a small percentage of the allocated resources to look into the possibility that something else may be causing it.

After all, if you don’t figure out the cause you will just keep spending billions with no cure like we have for the last couple of decades.

Scouts out.


[edit on 2-7-2007 by cavscout]

I was thinking the other day.

What if the scientists that are saying HIV doesn't cause AIDS are the same scientists who created it in the first place secretly? What if they are trying to cover up by saying HIV doesn't cause AIDS? Just a thought from my CT mind.

Originally posted by cavscout
And still no member provides proof.

...Logic has failed; or rather members have failed logic.

1. Proof has been provided, if it does not fit in with your brand of scientific thinking then I and others cannot help you with that. Let's face it, I and other people here can keep providing you with verifiable information, but it does no good if the person receiving the information does not even take into account the "other side" of the argument. If you need further proof I would be happy to provide it...but what would be the point if you don't even take it into consideration?

2. Members have failed Logic?...

What kind of logic do you mean? I guess I'm used to the kind of logic that is supported by peer reviewed information presented in a coherent manner. The definition of logic is as follows: "Logic is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration. As a formal science, logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language." Logic

You have been provided with scientifically proven information and even the theories behind their thinking methods. Whatever kind of logic you are using...I exclude myself forthwith.

Still don't believe there is any reliable proof for the theory that HIV causes AIDS...HIV Causes AIDS: Answers to Duesberg, Perth Group and others. I have already given the link to this information in another post, but I suggest everyone read it thoroughly.

[edit on 2-7-2007 by Jazzerman]

Originally posted by geemony
...Id say the people on that list of yours have axes to grind. Maybe didnt get that grant or position in the field.

Interesting that you mention this. Duesberg himself has lost nearly all of his federal and state funding, starting with the depletion in funding from the NIH back in the early 1990's. As we know everyone loves a good conspiracy theory, and Duesberg has been riding this ticket ever since. What is better than riding the controversial bandwagon of "Scientist loses funding but still strives on in the face of the establishment" instead of "Scientist pays attention to all evidence post-1994 and comes to realize that his previous theories have been proven totally inaccurate by thousands upon thousands of others worldwide." No one wants to admit their mistakes...least of all a controversial virologist.

Some scientists unjustifiably ignore evidence presented to the contrary of their hypothesis...it's called selective reasoning...and I believe Duesberg and others have been doing this for years. Real science takes into account all factors presented with no opinions or conclusions made before the observations under trial. If someone has made a conclusion before the results are observed then it skews the trial and the entire reasoning for the scientific method becomes invalid.

Unless a scientist has been living under a rock since around 1994, with the advent of better testing methods and better research into HIV and AIDS, they will see that conclusions about the disease have been changed greatly since the early research. Duesberg apparently has ignored all information contrary to that of his own opinion and all newer research that has proven that HIV causes AIDS. Scientists are generally known to be hard headed and stubborn when it comes to their conclusions, and Duesberg appears to be leading the pack on this matter.

Originally posted by sb2012
About injecting HIV, yes i am ready to do it to prove it is harmless. But i am sure they would never give me media coverage and they would always say 'it's probably in dormant stage' which is a bull, no virus is dormant for more than a few months.

I trust scientists more than corporations and their propaganda.

you would really inject the virus? well I am infected and it can be arranged I wouldnt advise it though, its almost killed me if it wasnt for the meds I would be dead.

Originally posted by noctu

Originally posted by sb2012
About injecting HIV, yes i am ready to do it to prove it is harmless. But i am sure they would never give me media coverage and they would always say 'it's probably in dormant stage' which is a bull, no virus is dormant for more than a few months.

I trust scientists more than corporations and their propaganda.

you would really inject the virus? well I am infected and it can be arranged I wouldnt advise it though, its almost killed me if it wasnt for the meds I would be dead.

you cannot inject 'a virus' you'd inject blood or lymph (or any other injectable body liquid), which would be contaminated by a range of pathogens in the case of AIDS.

this means such a 'test' would prove nothing, you'd have to purify the virus before use, something which would be very hard becaus a virus requires a host for replication.

it's not that easy, AIDS still kills.