posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 11:33 AM
If HIV does not bring about AIDS, and drugs like AZT are responsible, then I have a few questions:
- What explains the death of those early on that did not receive the benefit of the drugs?
- When drug trials for AIDS were first begining and there was a placebo and a real drug, what caused the turn around for those on the real drug and
not for those on the placebo? Many trials ended when it was found that those on the real drug knew it, and were splitting their medications with those
on the placebo. It became easy to figure out who was on what, and even the participants saw the effect the drugs had. Trials ended because of the
ethical implications of having one group certain to die without therapy and the complications of participants themselves sharing drugs.
- What explains the death rate of the people with HIV and eventually full blown AIDS in Africa where drug therapy is often not available?
- What explains the extremely virulent HIV-O present in Saharan Africa that is not able to be tested for and causes rapid death?
There is a lot yet we don't know about HIV and AIDS, but there is clearly a connection between the two. Those not on drug therapy are dying much
sooner than those that are not. The results are in the blood - more immune response from those on the medications.
Yes, the tests for HIV are for the antibodies - same with most diseases that we test for including Hepatitis, Syphillis...... Thats how the disease is
shown to be present by measuring the immune response.
While HIV itself is not what kills people, the effects of the disease on the immune system and the oppourtunistic infections that take hold as a
result are what does people in. Those with already weakened immune systems may fall fatally ill faster than those that were otherwise healthy at the
onset of the disease process as they are even more vulnerable to ordinary illnesses.
I agree with you on the fact that *someone* is making a lot of money off of drug therapies and the paranoia that we have about contracting AIDS or
living with it. Drug companies are making a mint, and I'm sure Trojan and Durex are raking in the cash also, but I don't think the risk and reality
are fabricated to the point that this is a government conspiracy to keep us all in fear. I also don't think this theory of conspiracy explains the
epidemic deaths in Africa and now in China caused by the virus. Some believe it's natures way of controling population, and while I do believe that a
balance is always found via nature, I don't think this is a punishment for certain populations handed down by 'god' or doled out to wipe out those
not 'wanted' on the earth.
As for health care workers not developing the disease, it's probably more likely that one single needle stick from an HIV+ patient does not guarantee
that the stick introduced HIV to that persons blood. Response to a needle stick is immediate and there are proceedures to be followed from the moment
the stick occurs through the results of several blood tests. Those exposed through other ways do not have that kind of health care response. Also,
it's worth considering that the immune systems of health care workers are probably top-notch after repeated exposures and immune response for just
about every illness. Health care workers also have health insurance. Good medical care goes a long way to good health.
At any rate, we have a lot to learn about the progression of HIV to AIDS and how its treated and fought off by some. We have a lot to learn about the
drugs that treat both conditions, and a lot to learn about how to prevent the spread of the diseases. Using caution in choosing sexual partners, using
fresh needles and clean instruments, high standards for tattoo parlors and piercing parlors, and practicing safe sex isn't going to do anyone any
harm for the time being - conspiracy or not.