Stem Cells Cure Man's HIV!!

reply to post by TheFallOfRa


Your absolutely correct.
SADLY---> Nobody will ever even make an attempt to chime in on what you said regarding H.I.V..

Originally posted by alpha68
reply to post by TheFallOfRa

 

Your absolutely correct.

SADLY---> Nobody will ever even make an attempt to chime in on what you said regarding H.I.V..

There is another similar thread currently ongoing www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by TheFallOfRa




I seen the reply you recieved regarding your post on that thread, talk about being par for the course.

I think I will step in and chat it up with the person who mentioned to you the "African A.I.D.S." train wreck.

I'm a virologist / microbiologist, by the way.

These threads all need merging imho.

An important topic which ATS is surprisingly doing its best to ignore!

And no debunkers anywhere in sight! Could it be that they're plotting their attack carefully, in light of this being GENUINE good news about the issues surrounding this terrible illness/ big pharma playground?



Fight the good fight.

*HIV ASSUMED TO KILL T-CELLS*



Based on early observation by Gallo et al., HIV is assumed to cause immunodeficiency by spcifically killing T-cells (Gallo et al., 1984; Weiss and Jaffe, 1990). Gallo observation was restricted to primary T-cells (Gallo et al., 1984) but not established T-cell lines (Rubinstien, 1990) However, according to Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV, "In a search for a direct cytopathic effect of the virus on (primary) T-lymphocytes, no gross changes could be seen in virus producing cultures, with regard to cell lysis or impairment of cell growth" (Montagnier et al., 1984). Others have confirmed that HIV does not kill infected, primary T-cells in vitro (Hoxie et al., 1985 Anand et al., 1987 Langhoff et al., 1989 Duesberg, 1989c). Moreover, HIV-infected primary T-cells are concidered the natural "reservior" of HIV in vivo (Schnittman et al., 1989)
Thus, Gallo's controversial observation probably reflects the notorious difficulties experienced by his labratory in maintaining primary blood cells alive in culture insted of a genuine cytociadal function of HIV (Crewdson, 1989; Culliton, 1990 Rubinstien, 1990, Hamilton, 1991).
Gallo showed in a later study from his labratory that about 50% of the uninfected T-cells died within twelve days in culture (Gallo, 1990). Indeed the assumption that HIV is cytocidal is incompatable with generic properties of retroviruses and with specific properties of HIV:
1.) The hallmark of retrovirus replication is to convert the viral RNA into DNA and to deliberately intergrate thisDNA as a parasitic gene into the cellular DNA (Weiss et al., 1985). This process of integration depends on mitosis to succeed, rather than on cell death (Rubin and Temin, 1958; Duesberg, 1989c). The resulting genetic parasite can then be either active or passive just like other cellular genes (Duesberg, 1987). Transcription of viral RNA from chromosomally integrated proviral DNA also works only if the T-cell survives infection, because dying cells are not transcriptionally active. Thus, this strategy of replication depends entirely on the survivival of the infected cell (Duesberg, 1987)
Noncytocidal replication is the reason that retroviruses were all concidered potential carcinogens before AIDS (Weiss et al.,1985; Duesberg, 1987)
Alternatively, it has been proposed that HIV protiens are directly toxic because of stuctural similarites with scorpion and snake poisons (Gallo, 1991; Garry et al., 1991, Garry and Koch, 1992). However, no such toxicity is observed in millions of asymptomatic HIV carriers, and there is no reason why it should occur, if it did, only after latent periods of ten years.
2.) The propagation of HIV in indefinitely growing T-cells for the "AIDS test" was patented by Gallo et al. in 1984 (Rubinstien, 1990) and was confirmed by Montagnier (Lemaitre et al., 1990). It is totally incompatable with Gallo's claim HIV kills T-cells. Such HIV producing T-cells have been growing in many labratories and companies since 1984 producing viruses at titers of up to 10-6 virus particals per. mL, which is many orders of magnitude more than is observed in humans with or without AIDS (Duesberg, 1989c, 1991a).
In view of this, Gallo postulates that T-cell lines in culture have all aquired resistance to HIV killing (Gallo, 1991).
However there is no precedent for this ad hoc hypothesis, as no other cytocidal virus has ever been observed that is cytocidal in vivo and in primary cells in vitro, but is noncytocidal in cell lines in culture. It is also implausable that a potentally life saving cellular mutation, such as resistance to the hypothetical "AIDS virus," would be restricted just to cell lines in culture, particularly if these mutations occur so readily that they are found in all T-cell lines. (Duesberg, 1991) HIV, like all other retroviruses, does not specifically infect T-cells. It also infects monocytes, epithelial cells, glial cells, and macrophages, ect., and none of these are killed by HIV (Levy, 1988; Duesberg, 1991a)
Most other retroviruses also infect T-cells, which is why so many of them are suspected "T-cell leukemia" viruses (Weiss et al., 1985; Duesberg, 1987; Blattener, 1990).
Thus the assumption that HIV causes AIDS by killing T-cells is not tenable (Duesberg 1991)

ANY QUESTIONS ?

Some more info, this research (or variation thereof) has been going on for some time:
medgadget.com...

Its more about practicality and feasibility and success rates, not some sort of conspiracy to hide the therapy.

reply to post by TheFallOfRa


Another uneducated person responds with misconceptions. HIV does disable T-cells and kills them. It continues to do so for many years. When the number of T-cells fall below 200 then the person gets a cold and DIES. When the HIV is stopped from replicating and cannot continue to infect T-cells, the person gets stronger and lives.

While they wait to get stronger and get on the drugs (integrase inhibitors, non-nucucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, nucleoside transcriptase inhibitors, or protease inhibitors, or maybe the new fusion inhibitors), they study everything they can to find a way out, and they read all the CRAP out there from the AIDS debunkers, and some of them try these ideas, and they die. Some of the others see them die and go for the drugs and live, and they see reduced viral load and increased T-cells. Hmmm. Sounds real to me.

Some wonder why they got it, it being supposedly some 'gay' disease that should not be their problem. And those poor people have to deal with all kinds of CRAP in their lives from others that still believe that garbage. And a few (a very few - especially the heterosexuals who are accused of all kinds of things) have the nerve to risk their privacy and fight the CRAP.

If God has a reason for me to be the unlucky one, then that reason must be to educate and save someone's life from misguided CRAP.

After 23 years, and after having to wade thru all this CRAP to get what I needed to live, and having to fight to keep my job and my life, I have the nerve to stand up and say BULLCRAP to some of this misinformation.

Now, back to the topic. This stem cell cure (as applied to the Berlin patient) is not a cure, it is a control. Further, he wento thru a procedure with a 75% death rate to get this 'cure'. The 'cure' is that he now has T-cells that cannot become infected, therefore he has no detectable viral load. His body now controls the HIV, not the drugs. But I assure you he still has HIV, in his tissues. But it will no longer bother his T-cells so he lives.

Much like chickenpox. If you were ever infected with chickenpox, you still HAVE chickenpox. It is also buried in your tissues. When old age weakens your immune system, you will get shingles, and it won't be a new disease, it will be the chickenpox of childhood rearing its ugly head.

Is this a breakthrough? Hell yeah. But not the 'blood marrow transplant' part. No one would give up successful drugs for a procedure with a 75% DEATH RATE.

But a gene therapy concept is in Phase 2 trials now, and they use the patients own blood marrow stem cells, remove the CCR5 receptor, and infuse them back into the body, where they populate and overtake the existing non-resistant T-cells. If this works and makes it to Phase 3, I am in line.

I'll let you know when it is a real cure. And I'll let anyone know when they are full of CRAP so I don't have to see any more people die from stupidity.

reply to post by alpha68


And as for you, 1991 research is old and plenty debunked elsewhere. At that time they didn't even have the tests to measure viral load and could not examine the interaction under the electron microscope. At that time they couldn't even identify the two receptors the retrovirus clings to, and the GP120 hook that latches into the cell.

I won't waste my time with the empirical evidence, as I live the concrete reality.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater


Yet another medical breakthrough for stem cells. I cannot understand why anyone would still be opposed to stem cell research. This is an amazing discovery!

Another win for Adult Stem Cell Research.......still nothing for Embryonic Stem Cells.

No research arm of any private company will put money into failed science, so we need to get the government to do it?

I wanted to bump this thread since it is a super interesting subject and I also wanted to tell tater that aborted fetuses are not the only way to obtain embryonic stem cells..

They are also present in cord blood which I believe is harvested every time. They either send it off for research or if a person has a lot of money they can opt to save them for future use for their family.