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.

 

Mutant HIV Wave Threatens Decades of Drug Progress, Study Finds

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
i think mutating viruses are cool and that treatment derived from peoples "genetics" illegal.personally as a black man in "capitalistic society" its like i have aids just trying to "succeed".im not condoning eugenics but i also do not condone economic racism either.




posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Your question regarding viruses and bacteria becoming more resistant to the drugs used to combat them is very valid. MRSA, for example, is a penicillin resistant strain of NORMAL Staph that grows on everyone's bodies. VRE, vancomyacin resistant enterococus (sp) is another drug resistant NORMAL flora. It's sad when you have physicians who prescribe the Big Guns for a cold or simple infection just to get the all mighty dollar (Euro). It's the drug reps and big pharma who's caused the mutations.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Occy Anonymous
Good find mate, Seems like no good news on the horizon. So is this still contained to America? I hope it doesn't reach Africa... Wait does this mean that people who already have the original AIDS virus are immune to the new mutant strain?


No. It doesn't make a person immune. Even HIV positive people have to play safe for fear of contacting a different strain, thus making it twice as hard to combat.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Ausar
 

And isn't that what HIV does in the way that "information" is spread? It creates victims or pariahs (depending on how individuals read the facts) before they are even infected. And I think this causes resitance, denial, or even one affected group turning on others (see the rise of homphobia in Africa since the arrival of Aids in both Africa and Western gay populations - it is not co-incidence).
HIV is very tied up with issues of morality and pride, and it came at a time when people were reasserting their postcolonial pride.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
i see "scientists" as observers; if one has an observation this observation is true if it can be corroborated:according to western science.aids is no different in my mind as an earthquake or tsunami, in that i find the observation one of nature.the co-incidence is the incidence of it being a natural phenomenon that is only understood by its observation.the power to give to an acronym, observation understood from the above, DEATH; is strong. the ability to know death, by observation as seen below, is strength.the power to take ones own mind and supplicate it with death from sex is a miracle.the forces at work are fruits that ripen even outside peoples bodies, and seeds are fertilized without the need for sex.



[edit on 17-1-2010 by Ausar]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Ausar
 

True, or to use the fancy terms of Richard Dawkins, we can spread a gene (via procreative sex) and live on genetically through our off-spring and lineage. Or we can generate a "meme'. A meme is an infectious idea, that struggles for survival (like a gene) with other memes. So some memes survive or even combine in a "memeplex", while the weaker ones die out (for example, religions that are no longer practiced).
The problem is that we have invented machines (computers) that work much faster at spreading memes than the human mind and legs could once take them. So the question arises whether the meme may become independant and wipe the genetic human body out completely.
With HIV we have several memes or conflicting ideas, and only a few correspond to scientific proof. In that sense HIV is as much a mental virus of conflicting and spreading ideation, as it is a physical virus.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
while i would not consider one mans observation fact as i do not have his sight; i find it fascinating that "aids" is mutating.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Ausar
 

Yes, it's been mutating all along.
I tested positive for HIV 1 and 2. So the person who infected me was very active and so forth.
The monkeys and apes have the virus, but to them it is harmless now. So many authors cannot explain the sudden emergence of HIV in humans.
If I had to (God forbid) infect another person that could very well be a new mutation of HIV.
The ultimate science fiction nightmare is that the virus may merge with flu viruses and become airborne, or mosquito borne.
PS. I think the virus actually survives because of its long incubation period (6-12 years) where it has little symptoms, and most people don't know they have it. It even has a window period, where infectious people will test HIV-negative. Living with it, thinking about it, is really like having contact with a non-human intelligence. That is wierd and frightening to me: the virus can "think" through evolution. And yet they say it is dead and not alive until it combines with our RNA.



[edit on 17-1-2010 by halfoldman]

[edit on 17-1-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
viruses do not merge like that; and it is only the knowledge of the two viruses that brings your thought to mind. i do not believe viruses have the ability to learn from other viruses without the thought to do so, let alone scavenge what could/could not be; helpful for its own survival from the perspective of a host body.there is a disjunction between something that is allowing the human host to have reactions of this nature(death/life), and im sure there are closely guarded secrets pertaining harmony with what "scientist" call viruses and the functioning of complete "organisms".

(conjecture)
"if" what science calls virus, was a functioning part within the human process of existence would it prolong "life"; or is "its" function misunderstood and death is a resultant factor.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Ausar
 

Traditionally, according to science HIV-1 breaks out into Aids much faster, while HIV-2 takes longer, but is just as lethal when it turns to Aids. HIV-2 was the type more typical to the West coast of Africa.
I cannot say what will happen to me.
But just like they bring out a new flu vaccine and treatment every year, so the HI-virus mutates and finds its way around the treatments.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
you mentioned hiv being sentient; kind of.

hiv is not something felt like a wart on ones finger(or is it); how do you detect personally its presence within your body? is this detection conscious by yourself?

the way science has explained away hiv; is that it changes what "they" deem as the building blocks for communication in a generation prior cellular and dictates these changes to be instituted on a cellular level.is this true; is your mind changed prior to body changes?

off topic; and does the mind then exist at the level of peoples observation of hiv; and these changes then produce changes on the exterior.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
AIDS as a virus is total BS.

First of all, HIV is a retro-virus and every human being has hundreds of retro-viruses and they are no longer harmful to the human body, which is why they are "retro." They are artifacts of our genetic past. It is even widely admitted that HIV itself is not the threat, but the condition it "becomes" which is known as AIDS.


When I was in high school I was taught that the "AIDS virus" mutates so much that we can't even reliably say what it looks like. I have no idea how reliable such a statement is but I can't seem to find images of the actual "AIDS virus" or what it looks like anywhere online. Only HIV. Maybe someone can help me?


Here's the kicker:


YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE HIV TO BE DIAGNOSED WITH AIDS!

AIDS is diagnosed simply by T-cell counts being below a certain number. If you don't have HIV, no problem, you still have AIDS if you T-cell count is too low. Automatically. And no, they never actually look for an actual virus specimen in your body, except HIV, which again, you don't have to have.

If I recall correctly it was during the 1990s that scientists/doctors decided to double the number of T-cells per sample one could have and still be diagnosed with AIDS. The number of people with the "AIDS virus" doubled practically over night as an obvious result.


There are doctors and scientists who say this same stuff if you guys look it up, including a man considered the foremost retrovirologist in the country or even in the world. It's been a while since I've seen the information myself so I would have to go back and do reading to give a whole lot of details, but the bottom line is that the "AIDS virus" is a total lie and the medicine they give for HIV is probably what actually kills your immune system and T-cells, which is why so many people with harmless HIV suddenly develop the "AIDS virus." It's disturbing but this is still the conclusion I have been forced to consider.

All I'm saying is that if anyone ever told me I have HIV, I wouldn't personally do a damned thing about it. I am more afraid of the medicine they give for this stuff than I am the "AIDS virus" itself.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Ausar
 

Yes I think you can feel it shortly after infection and sero-conversion. At this stage I went through what is called HIV-sickness with a very fever for two weeks. The thought of HIV was actually nagging me at that point, but everybody was telling me I was paranoid. Even when one recovers from that and enters the asymptomatic phase there is a kind of fatigue and not feeling quite right. There were also those nagging mental moments...
Of course I only speak for myself here.



[edit on 17-1-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
AIDS as a virus is total BS.

First of all, HIV is a retro-virus and every human being has hundreds of retro-viruses and they are no longer harmful to the human body, which is why they are "retro." They are artifacts of our genetic past. It is even widely admitted that HIV itself is not the threat, but the condition it "becomes" which is known as AIDS.


When I was in high school I was taught that the "AIDS virus" mutates so much that we can't even reliably say what it looks like. I have no idea how reliable such a statement is but I can't seem to find images of the actual "AIDS virus" or what it looks like anywhere online. Only HIV. Maybe someone can help me?


Here's the kicker:


YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE HIV TO BE DIAGNOSED WITH AIDS!

AIDS is diagnosed simply by T-cell counts being below a certain number. If you don't have HIV, no problem, you still have AIDS if you T-cell count is too low. Automatically. And no, they never actually look for an actual virus specimen in your body, except HIV, which again, you don't have to have.

If I recall correctly it was during the 1990s that scientists/doctors decided to double the number of T-cells per sample one could have and still be diagnosed with AIDS. The number of people with the "AIDS virus" doubled practically over night as an obvious result.


There are doctors and scientists who say this same stuff if you guys look it up, including a man considered the foremost retrovirologist in the country or even in the world. It's been a while since I've seen the information myself so I would have to go back and do reading to give a whole lot of details, but the bottom line is that the "AIDS virus" is a total lie and the medicine they give for HIV is probably what actually kills your immune system and T-cells, which is why so many people with harmless HIV suddenly develop the "AIDS virus." It's disturbing but this is still the conclusion I have been forced to consider.

All I'm saying is that if anyone ever told me I have HIV, I wouldn't personally do a damned thing about it. I am more afraid of the medicine they give for this stuff than I am the "AIDS virus" itself.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by bsbray11]

HIV is a retro-virus, because it enters and manipulates the human RNA (it has nothing to do with "retro" fashions). HIV is a threat because it leads to Aids in almost all the people who have been exposed to HIV. Well consider the Aids denialists, I also did at a stage (also check out our main Aids-skeptic, Antony Brink). At one stage it even seemed plausible. The HIV virus has been photographed since then.
If they really believe HIV is all so harmless, I'm waiting for one them to publically inject themselves with HIV-serum, or blood from an otherwise healthy HIV-poz person. Not surprisingly, no contenders yet.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
HIV cannot be transmitted casually, but only through contact with blood, semen or vaginal fluid.


That is what they claim.

However, while I was still living in Virginia, a girl was diagnosed with HIV. They had no idea how she contracted it. None of her relatives tested positive. Her doctors didn't have it. They did a story on it, and then it disappeared from the news soon after. I never heard anymore about it.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
HIV is a retro-virus, because it enters and manipulates the human RNA (it has nothing to do with "retro" fashions).


Did I say anything at all about fashion in my post? If so I missed it.


HIV is a threat because it leads to Aids in almost all the people who have been exposed to HIV. Well consider the Aids denialists, I also did at a stage (also check out our main Aids-skeptic, Antony Brink). At one stage it even seemed plausible. The HIV virus has been photographed since then.


Yeah, I have seen the HIV virus, and said as much in the post you are responding to. Do you have a picture of AIDS itself though?


If they really believe HIV is all so harmless, I'm waiting for one them to publically inject themselves with HIV-serum, or blood from an otherwise healthy HIV-poz person. Not surprisingly, no contenders yet.


What, will you actually send me some HIV blood? I'm all up for it, go ahead and try.
What a ridiculous challenge.

Btw if you actually read my post, I have nothing against the existence of HIV. But look at the way AIDS is diagnosed. It has nothing to do with HIV. It is all about T-cell count.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Here we go again eh?

This is like the third virus to pop up in like the last 6 months.

Population control? I think so....



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   
maybe illuminated scientist observed something in a man that can be controlled through ignorance; whatever hiv is its mutation is a fascinating subject.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

I was replying in general and not to you personally. Many people don't know what "retro-virus" means, and I added the key fact to your post that it refers to RNA.
Aids is simply the final stage of HIV, so you don't get a photo of a seperate "Aids virus". What you do get is a sudden massive proliferation of HIV particles (a rise in viral load) and the death of the immune cells they hijack to become HIV factories (a reduction of the CD4 count).
HIV is a threat without Aids (defined here as a CD4 count under 250). People can become very sick with "HIV sickness" after their initial infection, and a percentage require hospitalization to avoid death.
The challange to inject themselves with HIV has been put to members of the denialist school several times in South Africa - it is not something I sucked out of my thumb to put to you personally. Their cottage industry had a disatrous effect on South Africa when they convinced President Thabo Mbeiki of their theories. They argue that HIV is harmless, so injecting themselves with HIV shouldn't be a problem for them. What is ridiculous about that?



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
bsbray;

since you feel the way the post of your suggests;

how do you feel about hiv mutating: is this phenom a natural one, the product of hiv or what are labeled viri a part of the human body adapting, a process that is due to the medicines.

you dont think the "virus" is mutating because you dont believe it has relation to the percieved cause of death? or is it in relation to death and is mutating?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join