Mutant HIV Wave Threatens Decades of Drug Progress, Study Finds

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
So, you can't "accidentally" catch HIV... You have to make an appointment to catch HIV. In short, you have to make a conscious decision to engage in high-risk behavior. You're just not going to catch HIV otherwise.

when you look at it, there are alot of instances in life where this is true.

in alot of ways, our suffering is directly caused by the bad decisions we make.

reply to post by miriam0566

I suppose just like people who engage in contact sports and get spinal injuries, or people who tan in the sun and get skin cancer, or people who swim in the ocean and get bitten by sharks...they all knew the risks.
Arguably our sexual drive is stonger than most others, and the post-HIV generation has an extra-burden. The worst that my parents could get from sex was herpes or an unwanted child (like me). Yet, we are so moralised as a generation - it's like "sin" suddenly became tangible.
But all we did was sow some wild oats, and even the older generation boasts about that. It's a big contradiction.
The fact is it only takes a minute or second to get HIV, and not necessarilly any sustained bad, imoral behaviour at all.

reply to post by miriam0566


Did you watch the video on the last page and see what methods they were using to diagnose AIDS? It isn't even an objective test.





Would you really leave an AIDS diagnosis to someone's best guess, based on information such as whether or not you're gay?

reply to post by bsbray11

I don't have sound on this pc, but I will watch it tomorrow on another. I did see the visuals but they don't mean anything. Unless there's a transcript I'll have to wait.
I hope it's not more "wisdom" from 1993. By the way, have you checked out the "Perth HIV school". They're pretty good and have posed some mind-boggling challenges to official medicine.
Well, these things were quite big at a stage, but many seem to have withdrawn leaving old sites.

reply to post by halfoldman


Maybe they got tired of it falling on deaf ears. You don't hear much about JFK anymore either but a significant size of the population still believes there was foul play involved in his murder beyond a lone nut gunman.

At any rate the thumbnail for the video above shows a 2008 Nobel Laureate so this isn't from 1993, no.

[edit on 19-1-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11

Yes, yes!
But just because foul play was involved does not mean there was no smoking gun and bullet. And let us not forget the murder(ed) victim(s), or maybe they all dropped dead from natural causes?
I think you'll enjoy www.theperthgroup.com...

Originally posted by bsbray11
Did you watch the video on the last page and see what methods they were using to diagnose AIDS? It isn't even an objective test.

Would you really leave an AIDS diagnosis to someone's best guess, based on information such as whether or not you're gay?

lets assume for a moment that you are right.

lets say the tests are bull (or preliminary).

did you notice that noone is denying the existence HIV? ok one doctor have a different opinion about treatment (which im 100% for investigating) but at the same time, people need to be careful. people should be careful about spreading this disease.

ok fine, detecting HIV strand may be impossible in a short test form. but seeing where the immune system stands is definately a start. alot of diseases are diagnosed this way. you list the symptoms and then asses the likelihood of the patient having this disease.

you think everyone who has ever had "swine flu" has had a test to confirm it? no, the doctor matches the symptoms and the diagnoses is made.

i agree that its sloppy. but it sounds almost as if people are suggesting that HIV doesnt even exist. that its just a misdiagnoses of a collection of other illnesses. with that point im sorry i disagree.

Originally posted by miriam0566
ok fine, detecting HIV strand may be impossible in a short test form. but seeing where the immune system stands is definately a start. alot of diseases are diagnosed this way. you list the symptoms and then asses the likelihood of the patient having this disease.

Like I asked, would YOU feel comfortable having your diagnosis of having AIDS rely on a "probably"?

you think everyone who has ever had "swine flu" has had a test to confirm it? no, the doctor matches the symptoms and the diagnoses is made.

Exactly, and for that reason alone many diagnoses are wrong, and this has been covered elsewhere though you will not see it if all you watch is MSM. Dr. Mercola on his website has done a lot to show that the risks of swine flu were enormously overblown and the vast majority of cases are common flu. Less than 1% of people tested for swine flu (suspected of having it in the first place) actually have swine flu. Most of the time it is just the common flu.

i agree that its sloppy. but it sounds almost as if people are suggesting that HIV doesnt even exist. that its just a misdiagnoses of a collection of other illnesses. with that point im sorry i disagree.

I don't have an opinion on whether or not HIV exists, but I can tell by what I have seen that there is no definitive link between HIV and AIDS. You don't have to test positive for HIV to be diagnosed with AIDS for one thing, so people say, oh, well there are all kinds of ways to kill your immune system. That is exactly right. And apparently 95% of people with HIV do not have AIDS. I would personally be more concerned with the "treatment" they give you for these diseases than the virus HIV itself.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Like I asked, would YOU feel comfortable having your diagnosis of having AIDS rely on a "probably"?

but its not completely "probably"

i looked up one of the links from the video you posted and it talked about the testing. but it only mentions the first round of testing. there are other tests that confirm the diagnoses based on other factors other than antibodies.

if people are just relying on the preliminary test results and arent following up, then of course they may be wrong. which i can see where that would be the case in africa where funding is scarce.

but i think its dangerous to tell people NOT to get tested

reply to post by bsbray11

One should also be aware when certain statements were made. As I stated before, at a stage (early 1990s) the official opinion was bending strongly towards the denialist/dissident theories, before it snapped right back with photos of the HI-virus and a plethora of new tests and treatments.
What did you think of the Perth group of dissidents in my link above? All very qualified people.

reply to post by miriam0566

There is no "probably", it's all nonsense, cut and selective footage (I suppose, I need to examine it with sound).
The science of HIV/Aids is proven (how it got here is maybe not). The tests are 99 percent accurate - even rapid antibody tests.
People with HIV progress to terrible Aids, and the ARV medicines do work. Even miraculously so (hence they call it the "Lazarus effect", literally people standing up from death).
So thank you for also providing some challenge to somebody who is hell-bent on picking up key phrases on a topic he knows little about, and it's all a jumble of semantics.
It's not even an option to tell such a person that he might be wrong, because he won't even read the opposing websites (while he dishes them out).
HIV is real and causes Aids - stay safe.

Originally posted by halfoldman
There is no "probably", it's all nonsense, cut and selective footage (I suppose, I need to examine it with sound).

Then why does the woman who is assessing him ask him whether or not he is gay or hemophiliac and then respond positively regarding whether the questions were important for the diagnosis?

The science of HIV/Aids is proven (how it got here is maybe not). The tests are 99 percent accurate - even rapid antibody tests.

Now you are suddenly lumping HIV and AIDS together again as if they are the same thing. There may be 99% accuracy antibody tests, but what are the "tests" for AIDS itself? It differs from region to region apparently according to the video doesn't it?

People with HIV progress to terrible Aids

Not always. And you don't always have to test positive for HIV to be diagnosed with AIDS.

So thank you for also providing some challenge to somebody who is hell-bent on picking up key phrases on a topic he knows little about, and it's all a jumble of semantics.

Can you point out some examples of how it's jumbled semantics?

It's not even an option to tell such a person that he might be wrong, because he won't even read the opposing websites (while he dishes them out).

Who are you talking about? The last thing you linked to was the Perth Group and before that I already told I looked up and read debunking arguments, and even gave you an example, and you had no response for that.

HIV is real and causes Aids - stay safe.

I never said HIV wasn't real, and whether or not it causes AIDS is exactly what we are talking about.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Then why does the woman who is assessing him ask him whether or not he is gay or hemophiliac and then respond positively regarding whether the questions were important for the diagnosis?

lol because that is part of assessing risk.

same reason a doctor may look deeper into a lung infection if the patient states that he smokes.

it sounds like you are assuming that a person who says "no im not gay" and "not hemophiliac" will get a negative on their test...

Originally posted by bsbray11
I never said HIV wasn't real, and whether or not it causes AIDS is exactly what we are talking about.

just because you have instances where aids is diagnosed without HIV doesnt mean the HIV wasnt there. thats an assumption

Whether HIV exists or not - is actually not the scope of the discussion - but I would say that the MSM and scientists have called upon the whole debacle themselves.
They -REFUSE- to have an open discussion with "the other side" - and as soon ass they are questioned - they are in denial (quite ironic).
If you really are interested in some more information - I will provide you with some interesting links:
First and most importantly - the papers on which HIV = AIDS are built upon.

www.cwbpi.com...
www.cwbpi.com...
www.cwbpi.com...
www.cwbpi.com...

Dr. Gallo - have been indicted for fraud / misconduct on several occations:

www.aidsindictment.com...

books.google.com... &ei=g-1WS-C6G8qGkAXD3KH1BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCIQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=gallo%20investigation&f=false

Once you see the scope of what goes on - you really start to wonder...

www.semmelweis.org...

Oh - and now with definitions changing daily - the whole autoimmune diseases have something in common.... Do you realize that the Herpes
virus 6a (HHV-6A) was proliferating in EVERY person with AIDS / GWS / CFS
Also if you're interested : lookup mycoplasma fermentans + HHV-6A = ???

I believe Montagnier is right - that HIV in itself can't bring along AIDS - but "co factors" such as HHV-6A + Mycoplasma Fermantans.

And to those on the drugs - actually a harmless drug was actually invented, which worked, but was rejected by yours truly - NIH and FDA : PEPTIDE-T ...
And read the WHOLE story about it and why it is not possible to find ANYWHERE...

If the science is SO sound as they claim - why will they not discuss it???

AIDS is not SCIENCE at all - but rather POLITICAL and FAITH syndrome.


[edit on 20-1-2010 by Angeldust1199]

reply to post by bsbray11

I just saw the video with sound and it is shockingly bad to gutter journalism.
The montage of selected and often decontextualized slogananeering begins with an illusion of fairness, and tit-for-tat slogans between the denialists and their critics.
What is unforgivable is the "reprorter's" attempt to verbally trick a South African HIV-councillor at a mass rapid testing site with tendencious and advanced medical questions. These people are not medically trained beyond administering a screening test, and advising further back-up tests and basic behaviour change and further counselling. Often they have liitle formal education and their mother-tongue isn't English.
The "journalist" con-man says he doesn't fall into any any of the Western high-risk groups in so many words (these Western groups like hemophilliacs and intravenous drug users are not the high risk heterosexual group in SA, and shooting drugs is rare to non-existent). The next shot has him asking her whether this influences the "diagnosis" (as if she were an MD) and we have no idea what was discussed between the shots. Indeed, why didn't he go to a Western MD, who would have told him differently - he knew exactly which people he could trick with his word games.
The final scene with the nobel laureate is taken form mid-discussion and is unclear. From what I gather he says that not all exposure leads to infection, Sero-conversion to HIV only happens a while after infection when the body builds up anti-HIV antibodies - that's all well known. The risk of infection from exposure can depend on several variables including genetics, the means of infection and amount of virus, immune strength, according to one Australian study even age. The body launches an immune response, but this is eventually unsuccessful.
I tried to respond to your lengthy quote and links. It is a dated. The Toronto link in your quote mentions "viral load tests" as a "recent innovation", and the quote in your post mentions a study from 1993. In terms of HIV-research you may as well as bring up stuff from the 18th Century. The claim in the quote that 12 years is the standard asymptomatic phase is just plain wrong. The denialsit debunking sites (which you said you won't read) address all those issues, so why should I repeat them all? I pointed you to the Perth group (which I hope you enjoyed) because it is at least more relevant and contemporary skeptisism.



[edit on 20-1-2010 by halfoldman]

This has been an interesting discussion. I particularly appreciated the words of halfoldman. He would seem to have the most insight from both personal experience and obviously much research/reading.

I know of at least one person locally who has survived at least 20 years on some sort of herbal concoction, but of course that is only anecdotal and proves nothing other than that some people apparently do not need the harder chemical drugs.

I am curious about one thing. In most other diseases, the presence of anti-bodies is usually an indicator of immunity. In HIV infection it is the opposite? The body responds to HIV by producing anti-bodies, but the person is nevertheless still considered to be ill?

I must admit this is one of the more controversial and puzzling conditions. There is lots yet to be learned for sure. I wish all of you who have this diagnosis the best of health, opportunity and treatments as needed. Be well.

Originally posted by miriam0566
lol because that is part of assessing risk.

same reason a doctor may look deeper into a lung infection if the patient states that he smokes.

But there's not much point if the whole reason you came to the doctor was for a lung scan in the first place, huh?

it sounds like you are assuming that a person who says "no im not gay" and "not hemophiliac" will get a negative on their test...

No, that's not where I'm going.

I'm saying if they really have an objective method here, like the antibody test, they should take your blood, and say "Well, there's the HIV antibody, so you have HIV." That's an objective test and it's simple enough.

However, while you can do that with HIV, you can't do that with AIDS. AIDS has no easy, objective diagnosis. So it BECOMES questions like "are you gay?" in these foreign countries, and the diagnosis is basically an "educated" guess. They will base diagnosis on simply having a few of a large number of symptoms, just like diagnosing schizophrenia, none of which are caused solely by AIDS, for example immune suppression. And some doctors readily admit as much: you don't have to have HIV to have AIDS and other forms of immune suppression can cause you to be diagnosed with it.

Originally posted by miriam0566
just because you have instances where aids is diagnosed without HIV doesnt mean the HIV wasnt there. thats an assumption

Not according to doctors I am reading:

“There are many people with AIDS but without HIV, and a great many people with HIV but without AIDS. These two facts mean that HIV=AIDS is much too simple. Plausible, alternative, testable causes of impairment of the immune system which may ultimately lead to AIDS should become part of regular AIDS research.”

Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994

— Dr. Henk Loman, PhD, Professor of Biophysical Chemistry at the Free University in Amsterdam.

Today the CDC diagnoses AIDS based on T-cell count alone. No HIV required.

Here are other quotes from various professionals:

IS “HIV” REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS?
ARE THERE REALLY ONLY “A FEW”
SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS?

Over 2,000 scientists, medical professionals, authors and academics are on record that the “Hiv-Aids” theories, routinely reported to the public as if they were facts, are dubious to say the least.

...

“As a scientist who has studied AIDS for 16 years, I have determined that AIDS has little to do with science and is not even primarily a medical issue. AIDS is a sociological phenomenon held together by fear, creating a kind of medical McCarthyism that has transgressed and collapsed all the rules of science, and has imposed a brew of belief and pseudoscience on a vulnerable public.”

Spin, June 1997

“Fifty percent of Africans have no sewage systems. Their drinking water mixes with animal and human waste. They have constant TB and malaria infections, the symptoms of which are diarrhea and weight loss, the very same criteria UNAIDS and the World Health Organization use to diagnose AIDS in Africa. These people need clean drinking water and treated mosquito nets [mosquitoes carry malaria], not condoms and lectures and deadly pharmaceuticals forced on pregnant mothers.”

Scheff, AIDS Debate, Boston Dig, 2003

“We’ve put 20 years and $118 billion into HIV. We’ve got no cure, no vaccine and no progress. Instead we have thousands of people made sick and even killed by toxic AIDS drugs. But we can’t just treat them for the diseases we know they have because if we do, we’re called ‘AIDS denialists.’ AIDS is a multi-billion dollar industry. There are 100,000 professional AIDS researchers in this country. It’s as hard to challenge as big tobacco at this point.”

Scheff

“Those damn [HIV] tests should be outlawed. They’re lethal. First of all, it’s a death sentence in South Africa. People commit suicide, they’ve been stoned to death, they’ve had their houses burned down, they’ve been murdered. Just for having antibodies to HIV. They have been ostracized. And in certain rural communities, ostracism is equivalent to death. So you’re scared to death, first of all. And then you start taking the anti-HIV drugs, which cause AIDS, and if you take them long enough they will kill you.”

New York Press, vol. 14, no. 16, 2002

“In 1990 at the San Francisco AIDS conference, [HIV co-discoverer Luc] Montagnier announced that HIV did not, after all, kill T-cells and could not be the cause of AIDS. Within hours of making this announcement, he was attacked by the very industry he’d helped to create.”

Scheff

“People can have a high viral load and be healthy and have a low viral load and be sick and everything in between. These guys [AIDS researchers] will admit this between themselves, they just don’t admit it publicly.”

Gear Magazine, March 2000

“The National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the Medical Research Council, and the World Health Organization are terrorizing hundreds of millions of people around the world by their reckless and absurd policy of equating sex with death. Linking sex to death has put these organizations in an impossible situation. It would be intolerably embarrassing for them to admit at this late date that they are wrong, that AIDS is not sexually transmitted. Such an admission could very well destroy these organizations or at the very least put their future credibility in jeopardy. Self preservation compels these institutions to not only maintain but to actually compound their errors, which adds to the fear, suffering, and misery of the world — the antithesis of their reason for being.”

British Medical Journal Rapid Response, 18 April 2003

— Dr. David Rasnick, PhD, Biochemist, Protease Inhibitor Developer, University of California


“HIV tests are meaningless. A person can react positive even though he or she is not infected with HIV. The tests are interpreted differently in different countries, which means that a person who is positive in Africa [or Thailand] can be negative when tested in Australia. There is no justification for the fact that most people have not been informed about the serious inaccuracy of the tests. The error has catastrophic repercussions on thousands of people. Since people are reacting positive on tests that are not specific for HIV, let’s please stop labeling them as ‘HIV positive.’”

Continuum Magazine, Mid-Winter 1999

— Dr. Roberto Giraldo, MD, specialist in internal medicine, infectious and tropical diseases, New York. Former Chairman of the Department of Microbiology and Parasitology, University of Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia. Author, Aids and Stressors


“I stopped going to AIDS meetings several years ago — I could no longer stand the stress of restraining myself from getting up and shouting, ‘Rubbish!’”

“From the outset I was never convinced that HIV had a role to play in AIDS, since the so-called evidence was unacceptable to me. However, I learned to keep my views to myself for a long time until I realized that there were many other ‘dissidents’ and doubters out there.”

“None of these investigators isolate actual viruses or viral genomes; all they do is add some primers to a PCR mixture and pretend that the printout represents HIV genomes. None of this has been proven, and furthermore the PCR technique was never conceived as a quantitative measure of anything. In view of this we should always qualify our usage of the term ‘viral load,’ otherwise we fall into the trap of subscribing to their hypothetical nonsense.”

“I do not believe there is an AIDS epidemic in Africa or Asia. People there are still dying from the combined effects of chronic infectious diseases plus malnutrition, poverty, and other factors, just as they always have.”

Virusmyth.net

— Dr. James Hudson, PhD, Professor of Pathology and Medicine, University of British Columbia, Canada


“There are too many shortcomings in the theory that HIV causes all signs of AIDS. We are seeing people HIV-infected for 9, 10, 12 years or more, and they are still in good shape, their immune system is still good. It is unlikely that these people will come down with AIDS later.”

“HIV is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause AIDS.”

VI Int’l AIDS Conference, Jun 24 1990

“We did not purify [isolate] ... We saw some particles but they did not have the morphology [shape] typical of retroviruses ... They were very different ... What we did not have, as I have always recognized it, is that it was truly the cause of AIDS.”

Interview with Djamel Tahi-1997

— Dr. Luc Montagnier, Virologist, co-discoverer of HIV, Pasteur Institute, Paris

“In 1994, (HIV co-discoverer) Robert Gallo quietly admitted that Kaposi’s Sarcoma (KS) — the major AIDS defining illness in gay men — could not be caused by HIV. But this was never reported in the mainstream press. Gallo told the audience of scientists and activists at the ‘94 NIDA meeting that HIV couldn’t cause KS and that he’d never even found it in T-cells, which HIV is supposed to kill. He said, ‘I don’t know if I made this point clear, but I think that everybody here knows — we never found HIV DNA in the tumor cells of KS. And, in fact, we’ve never found HIV DNA in T-cells. So in other words, we’ve never seen the role of HIV as transforming [cancer-causing] in any way.’”

“This was in complete opposition to everything Gallo had ever said about HIV or AIDS. But very few people paid attention to his retraction. The CDC ignored it, and continues to tell people KS is an AIDS disease. When Gallo was asked what, if not HIV, caused KS, he said, ‘The nitrites [poppers] could be the primary factor’ because ‘mutagenesis is the most important thing.’ It’s a very embarrassing situation for the AIDS establishment, and they’ve kept it quiet. One of the two hallmark diseases of AIDS is now clearly understood to be totally unrelated to AIDS or HIV.”

AIDS Debate, Boston Dig, 2003

— Liam Scheff, Journalist who exposed the forced drugging of orphans at the New York ‘Incarnation Children’s Center’


“[The evidence is] overwhelming that [Kaposi’s Sarcoma] is not caused by HIV.”

Spin, Nov 1994

— Dr. Marcus Conant, Clinical Professor of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco


“AZT (anti-viral AIDS medicine) has, in countless cases, brought about the inevitable and slow asphyxiation of the patient’s body cells, and death by poisoning. The doctors wrongly diagnose the fatal consequences of AZT medication as AIDS following a prior HIV infection. Treatment with AZT and allied toxic substances may be equivalent to joining a suicide squad with a time fuse.”

Continuum, July/Aug. 1996

— Dr. Alfred Hassig, MD, Professor in Immunology, University of Bern, former Director Swiss Red Cross blood banks;

— Dr. Heinrich Kremer, MD, Germany

— Dr. Stefan Lanka, PhD, German virologist

aras.ab.ca...

Originally posted by halfoldman
I just saw the video with sound and it is shockingly bad to gutter journalism.

And now as I read this post I find your reaction shockingly bad reactionism to information you don't like hearing.

What is unforgivable is the "reprorter's" attempt to verbally trick a South African HIV-councillor at a mass rapid testing site with tendencious and advanced medical questions. These people are not medically trained beyond administering a screening test, and advising further back-up tests and basic behaviour change and further counselling. Often they have liitle formal education and their mother-tongue isn't English.

Your complaint is irrelevant because it is a fact that the most "objective" test for AIDS is a T-cell count below 200, which can be caused by any sort of immune suppression and thus does not objectively prove AIDS in itself. The suggestion they were getting at is in fact true.

I tried to respond to your lengthy quote and links. It is a dated. The Toronto link in your quote mentions "viral load tests" as a "recent innovation", and the quote in your post mentions a study from 1993. In terms of HIV-research you may as well as bring up stuff from the 18th Century.

All I'm reading here is whining and excuses, nothing to prove HIV causes AIDS. Are you actually planning to show me that HIV causes AIDS or were you only planning on playing the defensive to what I post because you have no such case? Because please, if you are going to act like you have hard evidence that HIV causes AIDS, you should just go ahead and post it here now in response to this post.

The denialsit debunking sites (which you said you won't read)

Sorry, but either (1) you are lying, (2) your eyesight or reading comprehension is awful, or (3) your memory is gone.

Pay attention now because I am already having to RE-POST information to CORRECT YOU here, please don't make me keep posting it infinitely!:

Originally posted by bsbray11
I already told I looked up and read debunking arguments, and even gave you an example, and you had no response for that.

Even earlier than that:

Originally posted by bsbray11
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.

Continuing to claim I have refused to read opposing opinions will be LYING and against board rules because I have 3 times now corrected you and even given you an example and you continue to ignore me.

so why should I repeat them all?

A better question: why should I keep repeating myself simply because you refuse to read what I post?

I pointed you to the Perth group (which I hope you enjoyed) because it is at least more relevant and contemporary skeptisism.

I have my own mind and don't need organizations to make me feel special. Look at what all the professionals posted above are saying, as late as the 2000s. So far your best argument has been "this is old news," which you didn't even substantiate with facts.



Just prove that HIV causes AIDS, show the actual evidence here, and the debate will dry up just like that. Right? So far you haven't even attempted to show such a connection scientifically.