Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Aids/H.I.V. is a hoax ?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
it is a real disease and the reason people think it is curable is because if you have enough money and you are HIV positive they can give you expensive medication that can delay it turning into AIDS. That is how Magic Johnson is still HIV positive.

Bill Cooper once wrote that he believes that AIDS was introduced to us as a sort of population control. After the baby boom after WW2 our world began to significantly get over populated and he believes that this was introduced to the world through the "secret government" and was introduced to Africa through smallpox vaccines in I believe 1977. Then to the U.S. population in 1978 with the hepatitis B vaccine through the Centers for Disease Control. Pretty interesting. Happy hunting




posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Wow, you should go on a book and speaking tour in the developing world, as well as at all pediatric HIV clinics. I mean, obviously, just eating right and getting some exercise will cure a complex, lymphotropic lentivirus! That's just good, clean science!

Seriously, grow up and see the reality of the situation. I treat HIV/AIDS patients on a daily basis, and if it were as simple as "live healthy", I wouldn't see patients who are marathon runners, weight lifters, or fitness gurus coming in for HAART refills.


What alternatives exactly, did these fitness gurus try, before they started the drugs and traditional treatment? My guess is none. Once you start down the pharmaceutical path, it's so much harder to turn around, go back, and try an alternative. It can and is being done though.

The same goes for cancer.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
The problem is there really is no AIDS disease so to speak. It is all HIV. AIDS is just the term used to define Advanced HIV and is defined by opportunistic infections or CD4 count.

When the above poster says he/she cures Aids all she means is they get the CD4 count back to a non aids defining level, above 200 and or cure opportunistic infections or aids defining illnesses.

There is some controversy over what should count as an aids defining illness. For example invasive cervical cancer happens to the general public, but when a HIV patient develops invasive cervical cancer it is considered AIDs defining.

You should research Christine Maggiore. She was a big believer in this AIDS is a hoax non sense. She refused treatment and ARV's and passed the disease on to her child through birth and then 13-14 years after hiv diagnosis died of PCP - Pneumocyctis Pneumonia, which is an Aids defining illness. She wrote a book titled "What if everything you thought you knew about AIDs was wrong". Her denial ultimately ended in her death IMO.



[edit on 4-4-2010 by macaronicaesar]

[edit on 4-4-2010 by macaronicaesar]

[edit on 4-4-2010 by macaronicaesar]



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I'm 40 years old female from jersey. I hold true to certain conspiracies for sure but not this one. I am hiv. I'm white, intelligent and think, maybe I'm part of the great culling. But a hoax? ARe you kidding me. I havent read a lot of the various post so I'd stay objective to the article. I was raped by my ex who gave me hiv. In a 48 hour period I had herpes cold sores in my throat, mouth, and up my face. I was so effing sick. I was converting (as they call it.) It's no hoax. Tell parents and my now finance that it's a hoax. Tell CVS when they give me 3 meds that I have to take everyday that it's a hoax. Tell me when I get my cd4 count / percentage and viral it's a hoax. Do I believe this and that about it? I believe a lot of crazy stuff...But I know it's hoax, because i wake up every morning.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
There are 2 types of long term HIV survivors:

1. long term survivor dependent on medications like myself.
2. long tern non-progressors. Very few of them out there that take no medication.

Sometimes I just scratch my head at those people that think eating this way or living life another way is going to cure diseases. Sure, nutrition and exercise are important. But neither will cure HIV/AIDS (or many other diseases). I'm pretty certain your genes play a large role in longevity.

The med's totally suck, but there is no alternative. They sure have extended the lives of millions of people.

Medication saves lives. There is no conspiracy to that fact. Take your Gosh Darn medication or die.

Now as to the conspiracy of population control......who knows? But I like to think there are far more benign ways to control population (like China's one child rule).



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by brilab45
There are 2 types of long term HIV survivors:

1. long term survivor dependent on medications like myself.
2. long tern non-progressors. Very few of them out there that take no medication.

Sometimes I just scratch my head at those people that think eating this way or living life another way is going to cure diseases. Sure, nutrition and exercise are important. But neither will cure HIV/AIDS (or many other diseases). I'm pretty certain your genes play a large role in longevity.

The med's totally suck, but there is no alternative. They sure have extended the lives of millions of people.

Medication saves lives. There is no conspiracy to that fact. Take your Gosh Darn medication or die.

Now as to the conspiracy of population control......who knows? But I like to think there are far more benign ways to control population (like China's one child rule).



Well said. Obviously I think some illnesses are created by lifestyle. Certain types of diabetes ect. Eating well while HIV certainly won't hurt, but I don't think it will buy you any extra years without medication. It will obviously make you feel better in your everyday life and promotes an overall better wellbeing, but that's about it.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Dear Sinter Klaas

“In which country is the orpanage where you are treating those kids ?”

We are in Thailand and the founder and director is an Italian Priest.

As far as I am concerned a misleading video etc, about a UFO can be looked on as a bit of fun. However when someone is giving out misleading information about a serious medical condition they need to be stopped.

Having said that it is good that you posted it here where it can be debunked.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Quazze
 


Dear Quazze

I too am not a friend of Big-Pharmacy and I sometimes wonder if they may have discovered a cure for HIV and not released it.

The point here is although they would make money out of the cure it would not be nearly as much as they are making from the ARV’s. I have no proof of this just what I suspect is possible.

However there is another thread about stem cells replacement and it is said that a guy was cured. I watched a documentary a while ago now about one of the boffins doing research into people who have both parents who are descendents of people who survived The Black Death. This group of people are said to be immune to HIV. I have heard nothing since till today. I thought it was a way to go when I saw the documentary and it would seam today that is being confirmed.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Let's hit the highlights of the original post, first. Sinter Klaas states that, among the uneducated HIV denialists, there are four claims: (1) AIDS is man made, (2) HIV tests are not reliable, (3) HIV has never been reliably identified, and (4) antiviral therapy given to HIV patients results in AIDS, not the virus itself.

I'll tackle these one by one. I will cite sources with the traditional brackted number system ( such as [1] ), which will link to a reference, should anyone wish to check my reference or read the studies I've cited.

MYTH 1: AIDS IS MAN-MADE
First, we should correct an error of notation in the original post. AIDS is a syndrome (hence the S in AIDS). It is simply the state of having acquired an immunodeficiency, and can be genetic, the result of an infection, or the result of environmental issues. That being said, the most common infectious cause of such a state is human immunodeficiency virus (the most common overall being malnutrition) [1]. What the original post was trying to suggest (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the human immunodeficiency virus was man-made.

Having established that it is the virus we're interested in, showing that it isn't man-made is rather simple. Historically, the story goes that HIV was first seen in the 1970s. While this was certainly when it gained prominence, scientists have since found HIV in samples dating back to 1959, all from Africa, suggesting a region of origin [2]. If you have access to the journal "Nature", the article (which is a wonderful read) is in the February 5, 1998 issue. Now, having established that HIV at least as far back as 1959, let's examine the scientific community at that time. In 1953, Watson, Crick and Franklin discovered the structure of DNA, though any sort of manipulation was still beyond the reach of then-modern science [3]. Though they were able to show the structure, the actual nature of DNA, that is, the basic hereditary unit of all human cells, was still unknown. It wasn't for another five years, until the Meselsohn-Stahl experiments [4], that the scientific world would realize what, exactly, DNA does. Now, couple this with the fact that HIV uses RNA, a related molecule whose role wasn't discovered until 1959 [5], and we're in a pickle.

Let's take these last two bits of information into consideration. If HIV were discovered to have existed in 1959 (or even 1970, if we're being generous), then that means scientists somehow managed to manipulate existing viruses (or novel proteins) with genetic material they had only discovered the nature of the year prior. Currently, we are still having difficulties manipulating viruses, and that's with fully-sequenced genomes, DNA sequenced to order, and libraries of previous genetic experiments to draw upon. How on earth would scientists in the 1950s have been able to perform such delicate work with DNA when they essentially only knew that it existed, and that it carried hereditary material? That's not even taking into account our limited knowledge of glycoproteins (the main reason HIV is so dangerous) in the 1950s. We also lacked the sequencers and enzyme-synthesis abilities necessary to grow personalized viruses in culture in the 1950s.

MYTH 2: HIV tests are not reliable
Again, we have an error, either of notation or omission, by the original poster. There are many types of HIV tests, some more precise than others. The type of test used depends entirely on the setting, as well as whether the patient has had a previous positive or negative result previously. We also need to establish two terms: sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity is defined as the number of true positives divided by the sum of true positives and false negatives, thus negative results in a highly sensitive test will efficiently rule OUT a disease. Specificity is defined as the number of true negatives divided by the sum of true negatives and false positives, thus a highly specific test will identify all truly negative results and positive results can role IN a disease.

With those definitions in mind, let's look at the two main types of HIV tests used in clinical practice: ELISA and Rapid Test. The Rapid Test is typically used in "minute clinics" and general practitioner settings. It can be performed orally, and measures the presence of anti-HIV antibodies. The drawback to this test is that it requires the person to have been infected for 3-4 months, as your body needs to have mounted some level of an immune response. This test is 99.5% sensitive (meaning few, if any, false negatives) and over 99.9& specific (meaning very few, if any, false positives). This data has been demonstrated both by clinical trials, as well as by the CDC and FDA [6]. Any positive result in a Rapid Test is follwed by a MANDATORY second test using a different method. This protocol MUST be followed by federal regulations to ensure a positive diagnosis. The second test, ELISA, is the most common "second test" used to confirm a Rapid Test. This test again relies on anti-HIV antibodies to be present, though alternative PCR methodologies can be employed if early-infection state is suspected in the patient. Blood is drawn and then cross-reacted with known samples of HIV, as well as diseases known to cause a false-positive (such as lupus and syphilis). If a positive result is produced, the sample is analyzed via Western blot to confirm the identify of the antibody, to ensure it is specifically anti-HIV [7].

As shown above, HIV testing is a multi-level and multi-platform process. It isn't one, single test, and it isn't something done haphazardly. To suggest that the testing is inaccurate or unreliable shows a clear misunderstanding of how a patient is tested following an initial positive result. In all clinical experiences where I have had a patient test positive by OraQuick Rapid Test, they have had no less than two further testing methods (typically ELISA and Western blot) before I felt comfortable telling them they have formally been diagnosed with HIV. This is not my personal standard, it is the federal standard that ALL physicians are required to follow before tendering such a diagnosis.


[edit on 4/9/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   
There is no money in cures.

The system thrives off of treating individual symptoms for maximum profit. Even if someone found a cure for HIV, do you think the sick bastards that run the insurance, pharma and other such companies would be interested?

I would think not.

Money is in treatment of symptoms, and sadly, only a little is invested in preventative care.. which is the 'real' cure.


[edit on 9-4-2010 by SyphonX]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   
MYTH 3: HIV has never been reliably identified
This myth is perhaps the most easily debunked. There are multitude of electron micrographs in the public domain showing HIV. Here are a few: [8], [9], [10]. Perhaps the most interesting of these three pictures (in my opinion, at least), is the third. It shows a mature HIV particle budding from a human lymphocyte, which is clearly distinguishable by the nature of the granules inside the cell plasma. This picture not only provides a glimpse into the microstructure of the virus, but it clearly demonstrates the virus's ability to infect and reproduce within lymphocytes. This reproduction is a common mechanism used among virsues, and often leads to the destruction of the host cell, which in this case is usually a CD4 Helper T-cell. This destruction is the reason AIDS is defined as a CD4-count below 200. The virus targets CD4 cells for destruction (as demonstrated in this picture, as well as in the studies accompanying those pictures), which eventually leads to a immunodeficient state, or AIDS.

MYTH 4: ANTIVIRAL THERAPY CAUSES AIDS, NOT HIV
This section, unfortunately, I have to use my drug reference manual as a reference. I'm unable to find a resource as thorough and accesible online. If you have any issue with the information provided, PLEASE reply or send a U2U, and I will do my best to find an online source for you, I promise!

Examining the nature of antiretroviral drugs (those specifically given for HIV) very clearly demonstrates that such an adverse effect is simply not possible. There are several classes of these drugs [11], and I'll do my best to explain each one succintly, as well as why it could not produce an immunodeficient state:
(1) Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs): nucleosides are DNa bases that lack the functional group necessary for elongation. The NRTIs are made specific to the sequence of the HIV genome, thus they can incorporate into the newly synthesized DNA, made while HIV is trying to integrate into C4 T-cells, and interrupt the elongation of that DNA. As the HIV genome sequence does not exist in human genomes in any form, cross-reaction between human DNA and the nucleosides is unlikely.
(2)Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs): rather than inserting into the viral DNA and preventing elongation, these drugs bind specifically to the viral reverse transcriptase enzyme and stop it's function. This enzyme does not exist in the human genome, nor does any homologous enzyme, so cross-reaction is impossible and cannot cause immunodeficiency.
(3)Protease Inhibitors (PIs): protease inhibitors target the viral machinery used to clip and shape proteins (specifically, glycoproteins) into the form used to create the viral capsid. Without protease, mature HIV cannot be formed, and spread of infection is not possible. The proteases are specific to HIV, and thus, cross-reaction with human proteases is not possible.
(4)Fusion Inhibitors (FIs): fusion inhibitors interfere with the proteins/receptors used by HIV to fuse to CD4 cells prior to entry into the cell. These receptors are specific to HIv and do not interefere with normal CD4 or CD8 function, thus no immunodeficiency is possible due to this drug class's action.
(5)Integrase inhibitors: integrase inibitors target the viral machinery (other than reverse transcriptase) that allows the viral cDNA to insert into the host cell's genomic DNA. Preventing this integration stalls the replication of the virus. As there is no machinery for such an integration in the native human cell, no cross-reaction is possible.

In addition to these, there are a few lesser-used classes that are rarely used alone, more often being supplmental to the classes above.

Now, as a final note about these drugs, I think it should be noted that HIV is now considered a chronic disease by medical professionals. It is viewed in the same way as diabetes: through careful management, you can live a long and (relatively) healthy life. The life expectancy for HIV patients has SKY-ROCKETED since the intoduction of combination anti-retroviral therapy. If these drugs were the cause of AIDS, wouldn't we see the opposite? Wouldn't HIV patients be seeing a constant DECREASE in life span as new drugs are produced and higher/tougher regimens are prescibed? The fact is, we don't see this effect, so suggesting these drugs cause AIDS is illogical and without merit.

Closing Remarks

I apologize for a post (or two) of such length, but as you can see, I've put quite a bit of time, effort, and research into this topic, partially from a person/professional interest, and partially because I am absolutely exhausted from repeating this information ad infinitum on these boards in piece-meal format. I have saved the entirety of these two posts, and will use them as constant references in future threads on the topic.

If anyone has ANY questions regarding the information in these posts, or if a reference is broken/missing, please post a reply or send a U2U. I will be more than happy to answer anything that is not a personal attack on myself or my profession. Any such attack will warrant an immediate ALERT as a violation of the ATS terms and conditions. I've done it before, and I'll do it again, I promise you.


[edit on 4/9/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


I want to thank you for the time and effort you made.


I like to first make clear that these claims are not mine. I was just confronted with them for several times and I didn't find a discussion here on it.
My reason for posting it was to shine a light on these claims and I was even hoping for someone to debunk them.

I will read your replies again but you made some convincing posts.
I'd like to applaud you for it. It's rare that I see such an effort taking place.

Of course you have my blessing to use this info everywhere you can. Even if I hated your guts and disagreed with everything I would not have caused any problems for you. ( I don't hate anyone or anything so.
)

So again. Thank you really very much. Great job !



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Thank you very much for the kind words! I should clarify, I didn't necessarily mean the points I was debating were yours, per se, just the claims in the original post, which I understand you found in several links and videos.

I absolutely don't mind spending the time to create my reply. Hopefully, the post will serve as a good jumping-off point for any future HIV hoax responses.

Again, if you have any questions at all or want more information about anything I've posted, feel free to ask here or in a U2U.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Thanks for the info i was a little confused at first by the OP i was always under the impression that HIV was a virus and AIDS was a condition caused by it. Kinda like diabetes there is no diabetes cell that causes diabetes.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Thanks


The videos and links I posted were not even the most convincing I've seen but I didn't find the others. They are just the tip of the iceberg.

Almost all I've seen were on the subjects you just replied on.

Please do understand that I lack any medical knowledge more complex then first aid. So I can only rely on how logical an argument sounds and if I can confirm any of it.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 



Please do understand that I lack any medical knowledge more complex then first aid. So I can only rely on how logical an argument sounds and if I can confirm any of it.


Honestly, that's the best way to go about it. Even with a medical degree, there are plenty of patients whose diagnosis boils down to what seems most logical, despite a few inconsistencies. So, you're on the right track =)



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I reckon that HIV/AIDS is a big hoax, a big scam. Former South African President Thabo Mbeki also believed that. That’s also a reason why he’s a former. The scam originally came out as a way of bullying gays. It is also now a big money-making scam in the medical world. A pharmacist once said that they don’t cure anything; otherwise they’d be out of business. A good book is 'The Great Aids Hoax' by T.C. Fry.
A virus, or bacteria, wouldn't sit dormant in the body, but attack immediately. The soil of a gardener who supposedly died of Aids was found to have a fungus that does the same as Aids. In some cases, Aids is overblown Syphilis. Many people supposedly died of Aids were drug addicts. What does that tell you? In the supposedly HIV testing, blood sample is mixed with 99 others. So, if one supposedly is positive, then all 100 obviously would also be. The test is also for a high count of a certain protein, not for any virus. That high count could be for many reasons. Someone who is supposedly HIV Positive could get another test somewhere else, and be HIV Negative. The patients get antiretroviral AZT, which kills them. The Aids virus supposedly does not affect animals. How does that occur?
Some people, who are very adamant about it being a hoax, have even said “Inject me with the Aids virus.” The supposed Aids epidemic also isn’t that, and affects less than 1% of the population.
Also, a lot of supposed illnesses are just natural detoxifying processes. There are even those who reckon that there’s no such a thing as a virus.

This world is full of crooks and misinformation. We need to keep our critical faculties open, and cross question things.
edit on 4-8-2011 by Aquarius1011 because: Add opinion.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Aquarius1011
 


Wow... have you not read any of the personal testimonies, in this thread, of people living with HIV?




A virus, or bacteria, wouldn't sit dormant in the body, but attack immediately.


Where did you get this information??

Many Viruses’ lay dormant (known as Virus latency) in the body and can activate at any time. Some virus's lay dormant in a career and do not activate until they have transferred to another host. This goes on all the time with many different viruses. Herpes, for example, can lay dormant in the body for many years before activating.

Sources

www.genital-herpes-simplex.com...

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

en.wikipedia.org...





The soil of a gardener who supposedly died of Aids was found to have a fungus that does the same as Aids.


Source please?

And even if this is a true story... it is ONE story. One victim of a fungal infection that was mistaken for AIDS does not mean the other 30 Million people living with HIV/AIDS are part of some elaborate hoax.




In some cases, Aids is overblown Syphilis.


Source?




Many people supposedly died of Aids were drug addicts. What does that tell you?


It tells me that people who share needles stand a high chance of passing on virus's that are carried in the blood.




In the supposedly HIV testing, blood sample is mixed with 99 others. So, if one supposedly is positive, then all 100 obviously would also be. The test is also for a high count of a certain protein, not for any virus. That high count could be for many reasons. Someone who is supposedly HIV Positive could get another test somewhere else, and be HIV Negative.


Where do you get this stuff??

I knew somebody who was tested positive a few years ago. He refused to believe it and went for 5 separate tests until he accepted it. All five tests were positive!!

You think no one out of the 30 million people living with HIV/AIDS ever went for a few re-tests?




The patients get antiretroviral AZT, which kills them. The Aids virus supposedly does not affect animals. How does that occur?


There are many viruses’ that do not cross species. Remember avian flu and swine flu... both of these are example of viruses that managed to mutate and cross the species boundary. Many do not.

However, there is a feline variant of HIV and it has also been found in some primates.




Some people, who are very adamant about it being a hoax, have even said “Inject me with the Aids virus.”


And what was the result of this ignorant bravado?




The supposed Aids epidemic also isn’t that, and affects less than 1% of the population


30 million sounds pretty big to me.




Also, a lot of supposed illnesses are just natural detoxifying processes. There are even those who reckon that there’s no such a thing as a virus.


Yes, and some people still think the world is flat and others even think it rides on the back of a giant space tortoise. Doesn’t make it so...




This world is full of crooks and misinformation. We need to keep our critical faculties open, and cross question things.


Yep... that’s the most truth i could find in your post. If you want crooks i would look no further than the youtube "experts" who claim that AIDS is a hoax and cancer can be cured with lemonade and rhubarb.

Peace



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I still think HIV/Aids is a hoax. A lot of those responses are splitting hairs and sarcasm.
Asking about source - I mentioned 'The Great Aids hoax' by T.C. Fry. (There are other similar ones also.) Another is 'The Healing of Cancer' by Barry Lynes.
The result of that 'ignorant bravado' is that they never were injected.

A lot of those who were retested, and still found to be HIV positive, could have just done so at the next nearest clinic. That's instead of, e.g. in the USA done so in another state.

With Avian Flu and Swine Flu - one hardly ever hears anything about them nowadays. Almost like they've faded out, or something.

edit on 5-8-2011 by Aquarius1011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I certainly get hammered by 'Muckster' just because of having viewpoints which agree with the title of this thread.






top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join