It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:40 PM
Everytime someone catches a virus from someone else, it mutates.

Everytime HIV is passed onto someone else it mutates.

Everyones body is different and reacts to everything differently, so when someone catches a virus it will mutate.

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Ausar
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.

I really don't know but I'm suspicious of it anyway just because of the way I have seen governments handle this whole illness, and cancer, and schizophrenia, and many other diseases. As far as I know they could have re-engineered HIV in a lab and released it as a completely new virus.

reply to post by halfoldman

It's interesting that the South African president was also convinced that HIV is unrelated to AIDS deaths. That's the first I've heard of that.

I'm skeptical of HIV itself causing an illness, and the doctor not simply making a mis-diagnosis upon detecting the presence of HIV. The medical industry is in a mess for a large number of reasons, one of which being the methods they use to diagnose these illnesses in the first place. Like I said, you don't even have to have HIV to be diagnosed with AIDS. It is only based on your T-cell count. If ANYTHING kills off your T-cells, they tell you that you have AIDS. It could be chemicals in pills they give or any number of things that could cause the actual killing off of so much immune system.

HIV itself does not automatically start doing this. That is why there are people who have had HIV for decades and still have not developed AIDS. I would like to see more studies done into all these people who have HIV for so long but never develop AIDS. Is it because they are not taking "medication" for their HIV? What's the big commonality? Would be interesting research for all interested parties, wouldn't you say?

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 04:16 PM
reply to post by Quickfix

Wasn't there supposed to have been a British Sailor who died of AIDS in 1959 and a Black male prostitute who died of it in 1966? I think HIV-AIDS goes back farther than the experts say it does.

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 04:53 PM
reply to post by MDSJR1967

I wouldn't know anything about the cases of the dates you gave. I do know that some of the first cases started poping up in 1978 in the gay community.

Here is a link to a site that may not seem legitimate, but the doctors and the science of it makes sense.

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 04:56 PM
reply to post by Quickfix

How accurate was the book "And the Band played on"? I thought the Book was much better than the movie.

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 04:59 PM
reply to post by MDSJR1967

I haven't seen the movie or read the book. I have done some independent research on the subject and know that the U.S. Corporate Government made the virus. They made it to control the population and make money while doing it.

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 05:01 PM

Originally posted by MDSJR1967
Wasn't there supposed to have been a British Sailor who died of AIDS in 1959 and a Black male prostitute who died of it in 1966? I think HIV-AIDS goes back farther than the experts say it does.

If so then that should make you question the veracity of these claims even more.

"AIDS" was not even identified until the early 1980s. So how in the hell can they look back and tell what these people died from in 1959 or 1966? I really would like to know how this was determined.

Imo this is just evidence of the disinfo going around about this disease, which is not logical.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by bsbray11]

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 05:05 PM
reply to post by Quickfix

The movie said there was a San Francisco Public Health department study about Guardiasis in Gay Men in 1976 and over(I think) 80 percent of those who took part in the study died of Aids by the mid 80s.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by MDSJR1967]

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 06:31 PM
reply to post by MDSJR1967

Well, all I know is that HIV and AIDS are effective killers, so the elite don't mind them at all.

It seems all to convenient for a bunch of viruses to suddenly spring up and start mutating.

Something fishy in my honest opinion.

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 06:38 PM
reply to post by bsbray11

I heard a person on the radio say flesh samples from the 1959 and the 1966 Men were given an HIV test in the 1990s and tested positive. It was said the 1966 Man had really agresive(excuse spelling)caposi sarcoma and The 1959 Man died of pneumonia(probably pneumocystis).

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 11:23 PM
reply to post by MDSJR1967

According to John Ilifee's "The African Aids Epidemic: A History" the first proven HIV-positive blood came from a man in Kinshasa in 1959.
An American researcher took 672 blood samples that year to sudy Malaria.
The stored blood was tested in the mid-1980s, later by Western Blot, and the results were confirmed by 3 laboritories. More disputed is the methodology of tracing the original M group of HIV back to when it jumped species by the rate of mutation (Ilifee 2006: pp 3-9). It has been traced back to about 1931, but that's disputed.
Interestingly a Norwegian sailor is believed to have contracted HIV in the Cameroon in 1961 and he, as well as his wife and child's blood tested positive.
Just to add on the topic in general: genotype and phenotype tests have been available for a while that expose the HIV in a patient's blood to various ARVs. The patient will then know which specific drug his virus has muted resitance to. However, the last I've read the tests were quite expensive and not covered by insurence. Last I heard there were 150 mutations of drug-resitance that the genotype test looked for.
I've been told that it's very important for HIV-positive people to use condoms amongst each other, since they can re-infect each other with drug-resistant strains, particularly if one partner is on treatment and the other is not, or on a different regiment.
Treatment non-compliance is also a big risk for mutation, not only for HIV, but TB has mutated into drug-resistant strains like XDR-TB, and that is airborne.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by halfoldman]

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 11:53 PM
reply to post by MDSJR1967

I notice those deaths had other causes listed, and I guess the assumption is that HIV was to do with it. HIV will not necessarily put you in any worse health at all when you have it, as many people have it and are NOT adversely affected and have not yet developed AIDS.

posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 09:37 AM
reply to post by bsbray11

HIV is not the only condition to destroy the immune system. There are related rare viruses, cancers and even chemo treatments that are similar in effect. In fact AIDS was a term coined before HIV was isolated and discovered as the cause. "Gay" cancer" or "GRID" were once used.
Some activists today argue that AIDS should be replaced with "HIV-disease" and the early symptoms of HIV as "sero-conversion disease".
So these are merely arguments about semantics, rather than medical substance. AIDS is the the lowering of the immune system caused by a sudden highly activated viral load of HIV particles, and lowering of CD4 count.
AIDS is diagnosed in an HIV-positive person when:
- CD4 count falls under 200
- the HIV viral load becomes detectable into astronomical figures
- one of 24 conditions recognized by the CDC as "Aids defining" infects the immuno-suppressed patient.
Most of these conditions like Pneumocytis carinii and Karposi's sarcoma were so unusual in young, otherwise-healthy adults that they drew attention to the disease. Even in other cases of immuno-suppresion they were not common.
We've had a big influence of the HIV/Aids-skeptics in South Africa, and this is described in many factual and fictional/autobiographical accounts.
Most of these skeptics are not even united on what alternatively causes Aids, or whether HIV has some relevance to it: some say "poverty"; some say drugs like poppers! Here they even opened "alternative clinics" with active to tacit government approval, while even donated ARVs were blocked. This carried on from 1998 to the end of 2008 when Mbeki and his "Dr Garlic and Beetroot" health minister, Manto Tshabalala Msimang were toppled by their own party. Now there are calls to hold Mbeki accountable for 350 000 preventable deaths (Manto passed away before her second liver transplant - she was a known alcoholic).
The denialists peddled all kinds of "alternative cures" to the HIV-positive desperate, ranging from so-called "immune boosters" (including the infamous "African Solutions" concoction) to industrial solvents (Virodene).
And the people kept dying, even the fans of these multiple theories and untested concotions (see Liz McGregor's "Khabzela"). "Khabzela" tells the story of Fana Khaba, a radio DJ who won respect for being openly HIV-poz. He was given the financial means for ARV treatment, but eventually fell under the sway of the denialists, mostly westerners with lip-service to "indigenous knowledge", including some who encouraged a mixture of liquidized breakfast cereal, lemon juice and olive leaf instead of ARVs. The results were an unecassary and harrowing death for Khaba.
Yet the people who wrote the first medical treatment success autobiographies like Adam Levin ("Aidsafari", 2005) and Edwin Cameron ("Witness to Aids", 2005) are alive and well, and sporting.
Gee, the denialists were so right. NOT. Bunch of quacks.
They can't even answer why mothers who have two babies, one infected (by the mother in child-birth), and another that was born before she was infected (and is hence negative) will see the HIV-positive baby go on to develop Aids, and the HIV-negative baby will not. If it was poverty and HIV was harmless, surely they should both thrive, or they should both die from the secondary infections of immuno-suppresion. And yet this is proven over and over again: the HIV-positive baby WILL develop Aids.
Well each to their own, if the denialists float anyone's boat, then good luck to them. Nobody is forced to take anything, and now people have choice in their behavior and treatments.

PS. Things got quite heated in SA about this, and this whole official support for denialists discredited in their own countries now seems like some bizarre nightmare. In this climate challenges were made by frustrated medical workers (who had to deal with the catastrophic results) for some of the key denialist figures to inject themesleves with what they themselves claimed was "harmelss" HIV. I would never give my blood or allow anyone to do this. It was seen as the business of the denialists to jump at the opportunity to prove their arguments (assuming the more educated amongst them ever really beleived it themselves ... well?). Some of them had access to laboritories, and most to HIV-positive people, so they could have chosen a sample themselves.
According to Edward Hooper nobody should attempt this. The "needle-stick" injury infection allegedly has a quick (6 years) progression to Aids.

Personally I still read some denialist literature, and there were truths there. For example, many now agree in the medical community that hitting the virus "hard" and "early" with ARVS was misguided. Medical science does not know everything, and it has ethical problems and victims. Many indigenous treatments are now being studied in clinical trials, and some have potential for symptomatic relief. However, it's nice to theorize against a very powerful medical system, and quite another when unproven, unsound pseudo-scientific conspiracy becomes the imposed power.

[edit on 19-1-2010 by halfoldman]

posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 12:44 PM
reply to post by halfoldman

You know when you use words like "denialist" you are sending me a message that you have divided clear lines here and are intent on sticking to yours.

The official definition of AIDS creates a 100% correlation between the virus [HIV] and AIDS. This "correlation" is not objective or scientific, but is artificial and deceptively self-fulfilling.

Estimated total HIV infected worldwide: 28,000,000 ?
Total of reported AIDS cases worldwide: 1,400,000

95% percent of people with HIV do not have AIDS.

Those are probably the kinds of facts you were talking about.

Others on that page:

HIV is neutralized by antibody immunity.

When a person tests "positive" to HIV, it means they carry antibodies to the virus. Which means that they have immunity. This is clear from the fact that there is so little virus to be found in HIV antibody positive people.* The antibodies have done their job and the virus is well under control. There are no known viruses that cause illness in every case only long after antibodies appear, which is how AIDS is defined.

One has to question why 12 years and billions of dollars have been spent developing a vaccine against HIV when the best vaccine possible already exists when a person tests positive. ...

HIV does not kill the T cells it infects.

HIV can only kill T cells under rare laboratory conditions. In fact, HIV researchers use T cells to grow the virus because T cells live quite compatibly with HIV.

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. ...

There is no such thing as a "slow virus".

HIV is claimed to take 10 to 20 years (the "latency period") after infection to cause AIDS. The only way to explain this is to give HIV magical abilities to reactivate, mutate, migrate and hibernate. These slow virus hypotheses were devised by scientists who used them to buy time when their viruses failed to perform. The slow virus proponents point to examples like the herpes viruses that smolder and hide and then reemerge in persons when they have suppressed immunity and cannot generate a sufficient defense. These differ greatly from HIV because large amounts of active virus can be found causing specific symptoms. By contrast, a slow virus is an invention credited with the ability to cause disease only years after infection - termed the latency period - in previously healthy persons, regardless of their state of immunity. Such a concept allows scientists to blame a long-neutralized virus for any disease that appears decades after infection. HIV is inactive, then is said to cause 30 different diseases 10 years later. None of which are specific to HIV itself.

AIDS occurs without HIV Infection and most people with HIV never develop AIDS.

The evidence for the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is based solely on correlation. Because the virus is found in most AIDS patients, it is thought to cause AIDS. But the logic of that assumption is flawed because CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION.

The common presence of HIV in AIDS patients is no more proof that HIV causes AIDS than the presence of birds on power lines is proof that birds cause power failures.

So, if HIV and AIDS are only correlated, we should find AIDS without HIV and healthy people who have HIV and never get AIDS. That is exactly what is happening.

In Africa studies have shown over 65% of AIDS patients are not HIV positive. In Africa a positive HIV antibody test result is not necessary for reporting AIDS cases; prolonged symptoms are enough.

4621 cases of AIDS without HIV were found in the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports up to 1993. And the number could be much larger but the official definition of AIDS is designed to eliminate AIDS cases without HIV.

AIDS is distinguished from virtually every other disease in history by the fact that it has no constant specific symptoms. AIDS is an umbrella term for 29 old diseases and one non-disease (a T4 cell count of less than 200/ul of blood) when a person has an HIV-positive antibody test result. The official CDC definition of AIDS excludes HIV-negative AIDS by definition.

posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Feeling Frisky
I never understood why we let people with a deadly disease with no known cure have drugs to extend their life.

would it make you feel better if i threw myself off a bridge?

posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 01:10 PM
reply to post by bsbray11

The info on the "toronto" site ranges from dated (it speaks of "recent viral-load tests"!) to just plain and ridiculously wrong.
At least for the sake of fairness, read the sites on

For our South African impact please try to get hold of "Side Effects: The Story of Aids in South Africa" (Double Storey, 2008). It is actually quite fair and balanced as far as possible.

Yes, things here became very polarized, you are correct, and apologies if that showed, but I assumed everyone was well familiar with our HIV history.

posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 01:12 PM

More info on documentary

posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 01:17 PM
reply to post by halfoldman

I have read a few "debunking" sites already and find them vague and not satisfactory at all in rebutting the information. For example when confronting the fact that HIV only affects typically 1 in 10,000 T-cells, one site simply said it may be able to cause symptoms in other T-cells which it does not infect. Sorry, but these websites are going to have to be more specific than that with numbers and specific symptoms. I have seen enough bickering back and forth to know the difference between a real rebuttal and just the appearance of one.

If HIV and AIDS were NOT correlated, would you even want to know at this point?

posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 02:00 PM
reply to post by bsbray11

That's OK, you have seen the bickering to-and-fro on the Internet, and some of the big denialist polemics. That's OK.
I've seen what AIDS does, so I know what I know too.
And I don't have to go back to 1993 to explain what I know either.

[edit on 19-1-2010 by halfoldman]

posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 03:53 PM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

That was a great clip, thanks for sharing that MA.

It's ridiculous that whether or not the guy was gay or hemophiliac was actually an important part of that diagnosis. That alone is enough to tell you that the diagnosis is total nonsense, and not based on anything objective.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in