World 'losing fight against Aids'

Dear Budski

I think you are a little in error in your assertion that the number of viruses we have cured is 0. If by cure you mean to remove as a serious risk to health, then the number is quite substantial. If you mean to remove totally from the diseases seen in humans, I agree the number is small i.e. One...(smallpox)

But other viral diseases are no longer huge risks to human population (at least in the west that is). Polio, Measles, varicella infections (poxes) to name three. Histortically in the west and tragically still in underdeveloped countries, these are all killers.

I am old enough to have had measles, I was 4 yrs old and I was very very ill, believe me. I was in hospital with my parents sleeping by my bedside. Many people believe these days that it is a nothing disease, I am afraid they are victims of the success of western medicine to so believe.

Anyway hope that was informative. If not I am sure many people will say so .. Have a good one ..

Originally posted by budski
World losing fight against AIDS

I apologise in advance:

Of course it is and how bloody convenient!!

The world is completely over populated and what better way to depopulate by strategically assisted natural attrition?

Ever see Constant Gardener?



[edit on 31-7-2007 by NJE777]

Originally posted by Deharg
Dear Budski

I think you are a little in error in your assertion that the number of viruses we have cured is 0. If by cure you mean to remove as a serious risk to health, then the number is quite substantial. If you mean to remove totally from the diseases seen in humans, I agree the number is small i.e. One...(smallpox)

By cure, I don't mean be able to eradicate disease by the use of vaccines etc.

I mean be able to cure through intervention once a person has the disease, like a bacterial infection can be cured.

Sorry for any confusion, I hope this clarifies my meaning.

Originally posted by NJE777

Originally posted by budski
World losing fight against AIDS

The world is completely over populated and what better way to depopulate by strategically assisted natural attrition?

To allow whole continents to die out so as to reduce the population of the planet seems to me to be similar to ethnic cleansing.

I'm in favour of population control, but not through any means.

Again, I believe the key is education.

Originally posted by budski
Again, I believe the key is education.

yes and to be educated relies on the public being informed, didn't you suggest in your opening post that this issue is very quiet in the media?

I rest my case

Point taken, however it's not down to the media to educate - it's down to government and healthcare professionals, and specialists in HIV/AIDS and virologists who should be advising the governments and healthcare people.

Originally posted by Deharg
I am not personally in favour of mutilation for anything other than immediate medical grounds...could perhaps all be seen to have a single cause, and that is poor personal hygiene...

The practice of circumcision has been out of favour for many many decades in Europe. I would be very interested Jazzerman if you have comparative figures for Europe and US penile cancer rates. That is something that I was not aware of and I think if you have the figures it would be a great topic of huge importance.

I concur Deharg. A few of those I briefly mentioned were almost completely due to hygienic factors and I appreciate the clarification, which I should have stated in my original post. I for one, am completely for male circumcision at an early age due to factors such as HIV and the potential onset of penile cancer in adults.

While penile cancer does not make up a large percent of the total number of cancers worldwide, it does present a greater risk in uncircumcised men. However, it should be noted that removal of the foreskin is not the only risk factor associated with cancer of the penis as the onset of HPV, phimosis, poor hygiene, and even smoking can greatly increase the risk of developing cancer in that location. In the few studies I am aware of (I apologize that I cannot find links to these studies via the internet, so they are stricktly coming from memory) in the United States they measured the rate of patients with penile cancer with the number of them that were circumcised/uncircumcised. The study concluded that out of some 1,000 cases of reported penile cancer only 1 case involved an individual whom was circumcised. It should be noted, however, that the study was based on known cases of penile cancer and not focused on what led to their cancer. In other words, patients participating in this study could have been at risk for penile cancer due to poor hygiene or any of the other risk factors already listed.

I am aware of one other study in comparison with the previous conclusions that showed some 20% of males in the U.S. with penile cancer are circumcised, and the other 80% were uncircumcised. When one considers the fact that only around 10% of men worldwide are circumcised you can clearly see how this study interprets the results. Nevertheless, since this particular study was based on cases in the United States where the rates of male circumcision are greater than most parts of the world, the studies show a huge gap in the number of individuals with penile cancer between uncircumcised and circumcised males. Both studies I am aware of lend creedance to the fact the the foreskin promotes a number of factors which can lead to the onset of primary infection and from there a greater risk for cancer.

Onset of HIV infection is another risk factor for uncircumcised males. The foreskin is one of the few permeable layers of skin on the male body that interestingly enough contains a high concentration of CD4+ Langerhans cells, which HIV attacks. Not only that, but from the act of circumcision until the wound is healed the body is constantly building up a protein called Keratin, which once healed toughens the skin and promotes protection from secondary infection. This is not to say that circumcision is the only way to protect males from coming into contact with HIV, but it does greatly reduce the risk.

I think it's safe to say that everyone on this planet knows by now that AIDS is spread through unprotected sex (generally that's how people catch it). If everyone abstained from sex (except truly monogamous married people) AIDS would have died out and disappeared off the face of the earth years ago.......

but no, instead we breed and **** like animals, without any cares or worries about consequence. Then we whine and cry when we come down with a disease.

....if you live loosely, prepare for the worse. If you become HIV+ in this day and age it's your fault and your stupidity....deal with it.

Well, I don't think it's safe to say that at all - that would be saying that everyone on the planet has access to TV and other popular forms of media - and that's just not true.

You also have to remember the level of understanding and education in countries where hiv/aids is most prevalent - not very high for the most part.

I also think that it's wrong to turn this into a moral crusade based on your own viewpoints - I mean you're entirely entitled to your view, but the argument is lacking coherence as it's not based on fact - it's more based on belief.

BTW, ever heard of hiv infections occurring through infected blood transfusions?
or through infected needles (not necessarily IV drug users either), or through surgical instruments that have been improperly sterilised?

The use of the acronym AIDS rather than HIV also shows a lack of understanding of the issue.

If you'd care to read through the previous posts, you may gain more awareness.



[edit on 31/7/2007 by budski]

Something else that I've been wondering about is this:

Given the mutation rate of the virus, is there any way it could ever become airborne?

Perhaps Jazzerman could answer this one?

[edit on 31/7/2007 by budski]

Good question, but unfortunately that’s not an easy one to answer. Biologically speaking it would be next to impossible for a virus like HIV to mutate in such a way as to infect people as an airborne pathogen. This of course is not to say that it couldn’t happen, but the likelihood of such radical mutations occurring spontaneously is very slim and would depend upon a number of factors. HIV is specifically known as a Lentivirus, which is included in the family of Retroviruses that use reverse transcriptase enzymes to convert viral RNA into cellular DNA that can amalgamate itself with the host. Currently, HIV only attacks and replicates through specific white blood cells known as CD4+ (T4) Lymphocytes and this is the key to understanding its potential to become airborne. For HIV to have any efficiency as an airborne virus it would need to attach to or infect cells in the respiratory tract, and also be able to use at least some of the nine separate genes coded into its viral RNA to infect the cellular DNA. The mechanisms for this method of replication would then resemble the ways in which viruses like the cold virus are transmitted. Some Rhinoviruses like the cold virus attach themselves to the back of the nasal passage using ICAM-1 receptors and act as “docking stations” for entry of the rhinovirus into the cell where primary infection can begin. They can also live outside of the body for a little longer than HIV because they are primarily transmitted through aerosol. For clarification, aerosol refers to particles that have the ability to survive and be suspended in fluids such as sneezing or coughing, which produce a tremendous amount aerosol. In comparison, HIV typically cannot survive outside of the body for more than a couple of hours at most as it essentially needs a warm and moist environment to survive. The genetic mutations that would have to occur in HIV for this to become a reality are almost an infinite number, and because different viruses have evolved to suit their own needs it would be unlikely a retrovirus would take on the characteristics of something like a rhinovirus or the Influenza virus.

You can also compare this to the Orthomyxoviridae family of RNA viruses which typically compose viruses of the Influenza group that includes H5N1 (Bird Flu), H2N2 (Asian Flu), and others. Influenza viruses enter the nasal and respiratory passages by binding and replicating with Epithelial cells through Hemagglutinin receptors on the cells surface. Just like the Rhinoviruses mentioned earlier they are primarily transmitted by aerosol when they become airborne. This is once again where the difference arises between airborne viruses and viruses found in human fluids. HIV does not care about any cells besides CD4+ Lymphocytes and this is the primary reason why it has no evolutionary “will” to be transmitted by air. CD4+ cells are primarily developed inside bone marrow until they migrate to the Thymus gland where they are assigned to their primary function in the human body. For HIV infection to occur by airborne factors it would have to have a direct route to bind with these cells in the respiratory tract, and because these particular T-cells are normally not found on the surface of the throat or nasal passage it would have nothing to bind with upon entering the body. Again, I’m not saying it’s impossible for this to happen…just nearly impossible.

I hope this is clear, as I have a tendency to be a little long winded. If you need clarification about anything please ask and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 1/8/2007 by Mirthful Me]

You posted this in another thread, and frankly, I think it's nonsense.

I've had HIV for over 16 years, my doctors have kept me alive when friends have died terrible deaths in their primes, and I'm not going in for the quack theories going around that it isn't the cause of AIDS.

Tell that to the millions of dead people around the world, and their orphans.

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
You posted this in another thread, and frankly, I think it's nonsense.

I've had HIV for over 16 years, my doctors have kept me alive when friends have died terrible deaths in their primes, and I'm not going in for the quack theories going around that it isn't the cause of AIDS.

Tell that to the millions of dead people around the world, and their orphans.

Man, have you even WATCHED those documentaries? or read those 2 books? or read all the articles on that Wiki?
No? I rest my case. Yes, I posted in other thread cuz people need to see these documentaries and then make up their own minds about the subject.

HIV has NEVER been proven scientifically to cause AIDS. There are numerous AIDS patient that test HIV-... explain that one to me. NO proof whatsoever. If you have that proof, oh please bring it forward, there's a website offering 50000$ to the person that will bring this evidence.

A) Not a dude.

B) Do you have HIV? If you do, then it's your choice to treat yourself or not. But if you do not, you have no right to tell me that I'm wrong about my own choice of medical treatment.

If you're not, put your money where your mouth is, contrive to get an HIV infection, and then come back so we can see if you'll sing a different tune.

I've been living with this and watching people die around me for 16 years and counting. What is your direct personal experience with it, if you don't mind enlightening us?

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
A) Not a dude.

B) Do you have HIV? If you do, then it's your choice to treat yourself or not. But if you do not, you have no right to tell me that I'm wrong about my own choice of medical treatment.

If you're not, put your money where your mouth is, contrive to get an HIV infection, and then come back so we can see if you'll sing a different tune.

I've been living with this and watching people die around me for 16 years and counting. What is your direct personal experience with it, if you don't mind enlightening us?

I feel really sorry for you that you talk without having watched any of what I posted. You havent explained to me how is it possible that there are thousands of people with AIDS that test HIV-... please, explain?
The fact that you watched people die from AIDS (those 30+ diseases that are called AIDS IF you test HIV+ are really real but arent caused by HIV) doesnt make your opinion better than mine. I've researched the Scientific FACTS, not the bull fed to us through the controlled media and pharmaceutical industry that rakes in millions of $.

Originally posted by Funkat
Man, have you even WATCHED those documentaries? or read those 2 books? or read all the articles on that Wiki?
No? I rest my case.

HIV has NEVER been proven scientifically to cause AIDS. There are numerous AIDS patient that test HIV-... explain that one to me....If you have that proof, oh please bring it forward, there's a website offering 50000$ to the person that will bring this evidence.

1. What books and documentaries are you referring to?
2. Wikipedia articles? - Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. Do you realize who writes articles on Wikipedia?
3. HIV has been proven to cause AIDS. I have written numerous posts on this subject here on ATS, please feel free to browse through them instead of bringing up this tiring argument.
4. If you are referring to the www.virusmyth.net website...Peter Duesberg, the main author, has been proven time and time again to be wrong in is assertions. In fact, unless you haven't reviewed the medical literature and studied this subject since around 1994 you would see Duesberg has lost a lot of credibility by denying factual and clinically verifiable evidence.

Here is one of the past conversations we had about this issue. I would advise reading through it:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 1-8-2007 by Jazzerman]

Originally posted by Jazzerman

1. What books and documentaries are you referring to?
2. Wikipedia articles? - Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. Do you realize who writes articles on Wikipedia?
3. HIV has been proven to cause AIDS. I have written numerous posts on this subject here on ATS, please feel free to browse through them instead of bringing up this tiring argument.
4. If you are referring to the www.virusmyth.net website...Peter Duesberg, the main author, has been proven time and time again to be wrong in is assertions. In fact, unless you haven't reviewed the medical literature and studied this subject since around 1994 you would see Duesberg has lost a lot of credibility by denying factual and clinically verifiable evidence.

1) from 2007

The Origins, Persistence and Failings of the HIV/AIDS

2) www.reviewingaids.org...
newaidsreview.com...

3) Wrong. HIV has never been scientifically proven. It doesnt even pass Koch's Postulates. But I repeat, if you do have that proof, I'll gladly direct you to the website that will give you 50,000$ for that evidence. of course VirusMyth would put down Peter Duesberg, if the Truth gets out, they'll all be out of a job. Duesberg has "lost" credibility only for going against the Empire that is now the AIDS indu$try. Ring a bell? History repeating itself. When somebody is too close for comfort in exposing a HUGE Lie, he/she gets shunned and ridiculed. Typical.


[edit on 1-8-2007 by Funkat]

Originally posted by Funkat
I've researched the Scientific FACTS, not the bull fed to us through the controlled media and pharmaceutical industry that rakes in millions of $.

Scientific facts? Please inform me what these "facts" are and where you obtained them. I love a good debate about the validity of HIV/AIDS, or for that matter, virology and immunology in general.