Is HIV Actually Harmless??

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   
very interesting...however i still think it was a weapon designed by the govt to prevent over-population

and i dont think they have a cure for it...maybe for the original strain..but over the years its mutated into somthign that not even they can fix


of course..this is all speculation on my part...and what i believe..based on nothing....




posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by agent lead
very interesting...however i still think it was a weapon designed by the govt to prevent over-population

Ok, well, when you beleive that the authorities are doing something in secret and don't have any evidence or reason to think so then thats called 'paranoia'

On another note
Why is it that the guy who claims to have been born HIV positive but never took any AZT or anythign else and to be fine hasn't reappeared? Granted, its only been a few days, but since I am posting a response already, I figure I might as well ask. Why hasn't the doctor who diagnosed him with HIV followed up on him? ALso, why didn't he mention if his mother took azt or not and if she is alive or not? Why wasn't this infant put on azt treatment also, obviously he didn't make the decision himself?



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 05:36 PM
link   
i get tested, or should i say get a viral load count every three months.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I wasnt born with it, i was born premature and had to have a blood transfusion (the blood they gave me was contaminated) My mother never put me on medication, because she figured i was fine without it. Also she has seen many kids die from taking the meds (mostly AZT) Me however, ive never been "sick" well i have gotten pnuemonia twice, but so have many people in my neighborhood, i live in the dessert..and its really cold during the winter. Otherwise im fine..and so is my child..No meds while pregnant either.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 08:57 AM
link   
ummm, yeh my friend has was born with HIV and he is fine, gets the odd infection but as far as i know he hasnt been in the hospital for anything major. hes healthier than me lol



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by charlie1
i get tested, or should i say get a viral load count every three months.


And what exactly does your doctor say about this? I haven't heard of people getting 'viral load counts' only wbc counts. What are your viral load counts?

Listen, you are claiming to be infected with HIV and not be taking medication for it and to not be suffering from AIDS. Youngin is also claiming the same thing. Your doctors should really be contacting AIDS researchers and the like, as should you. I don't understand how a person can say that they have HIV and say that they've seen other people die merely from taking AZT and the like and not do anything about it. Also, what exactly was supposed to be giving peopele AIDS symptoms before AZT was in use?



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 06:36 AM
link   
German Federal Court rules that HIV does not cause AIDS (or, better said, there's no proof of HIV causing AIDS), and the medical establishment has recklessly endangered the lives of thousands of otherwise healthy people by forcing them onto AIDS cocktails just b/c they test positive for HIV:

www.la.indymedia.org...



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I cant believe that people are still arguing that HIV doesnt cause AIDS. I say that everyone who believes that should volunteer to get injected with HIV and refuse all anti-viral medications. Hey couldnt hurt huh?
If HIV isnt the cause of AIDS, then why are 100% of those afflicted with AIDS test to be HIV positive?
If AIDS is caused by anti-HIV medicines, then why are millions of africans, who recieve no medication for AIDS, dying of the disease?



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 11:33 AM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Oh yeah.... contracting HIV and AIDS as a newborn as the immune system is developing is quite different from someone who contracts it as an adult or older child. Many newborns exposed to the virus never becomg HIV positive, or contract AIDS, and those cases are being researched to find possible treatments or cures in the future. I'm glad you all are doing so well, and continue to do well, but I don't think it's time to write off drug therapies just yet...

We could be using them incorrectly, at too high a dose, or they may not be the right drug for all strains, but they are still helping many. We still have a long way to go.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedBalloon

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.

Do you have any statistics or studies to back up these claims?



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mongoose

Originally posted by RedBalloon

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.

Do you have any statistics or studies to back up these claims?


Does he really need to? The fact that HIV causes AIDS, and that anti-viral drugs are effective in treating it is common knowledge, and virtually every reputable scientist agrees. Therefore, the burden of proof falls on whoever challenges this idea. The question should be "What reputable statistics and studies back up the idea that HIV doesnt cause AIDS?" Good luck in finding one.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by apw100

Originally posted by mongoose

Originally posted by RedBalloon

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.

Do you have any statistics or studies to back up these claims?


Does he really need to? The fact that HIV causes AIDS, and that anti-viral drugs are effective in treating it is common knowledge, and virtually every reputable scientist agrees. Therefore, the burden of proof falls on whoever challenges this idea. The question should be "What reputable statistics and studies back up the idea that HIV doesnt cause AIDS?" Good luck in finding one.

What if Everything You Thought you Knew about AIDS was Wrong?
www.duesberg.com...
www.virusmyth.net...
www.libertybookshop.us...

There are 5 Nobel Prize winners who have come forth to support Duesberg, but I've having trouble finding that link...

AID$ research is just about generating cash for big pharma.. it's not about trying to save lives.. (as if big pharma companies actually wanted you to be healthy! ha!!)



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedBalloon
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


the early cases of 'aids' were in the homosexual community or heamopheliacs. A large percentage of who either were: i) Long term recreational drug users whid depresses the immune system. ii) Used amynl nitrates (poppers) which also depress the immune system. iii) Suffered from multiple stds for which they had received many courses of antibiotics= depressed immune system.


  • 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?


  • People in africa generally have depressesed immune systems due to poor nutrition. People in africa have always been dying from the marker deseases for 'aids' such as tb, pneumonia etc. Also 1 in 300 hiv cases in africa develope 'aids' In the US it is 1 in 20


  • What explains the extremely virulent HIV-O present in Saharan Africa that is not able to be tested for and causes rapid death?


  • I dunno



    [edit on 16-12-2004 by toneloke]

    [edit on 16-12-2004 by toneloke]



    posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 03:20 PM
    link   
    sorry cant get the hang of the quoting system on this site.

    Consider this: If it is true that HIV is the sole cause of 'aids' then there should be a scientific paper that proves this at least to a high probability. If you can find such a paper then you can claim 1000 prize (the jody wells memorial prize)



    posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 03:29 PM
    link   
    I went through Deusberg's site and did not see anywhere where the "feds have banned his book".

    As a matter of fact, you can read all his papers on links from his website. Furthermore, he gives links from which all his books can be ordered!

    So....

    Where did you get that information about a "ban" on Deusberg?



    posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 03:33 PM
    link   
    well weather his book was banned or not is neither here nor there.



    posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 03:37 PM
    link   
    toneloke says:

    "well weather [sic] his book was banned or not is neither here nor there."

    It is to me. If someone makes false claims about a federal book ban, then that tells me he's not to be trusted as a researcher -- or he has an agenda we don't know about.



    posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 03:47 PM
    link   
    The poster probably just got his facts wrong. Scince you cant find anything on the Duesberg site then it doesnt look like Duesdurg is making such a claim. Did you read the content of the site? Any thoughts?



    posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 04:44 PM
    link   
    I read the site and i skimmed a couple of the juried papers, but, since I'm not a physician, the latter don't make much sense to me.

    The reason I don't buy Duesberg's assertions, though, are:

    1. He claims recreational drugs can cause HIV infection, but he gives no mechanism whatsoever for it doing so -- none that I saw, anyway -- and doesn't explain to my satisfaction why there's a high incidence of HIV in places like sub-Saharan Africa and Haiti without evidence of large-scale recreational drug use among the patients.

    There are a couple hundred people with similar credentials as he who say tht HIV and AIDS are interrelated. Now I know that out of a hundred people, 99 can be wrong and one right, but I prefer -- especially when I have no expertise in the matter -- to go with the majority view.





    new topics
     
    1
    << 1  2    4  5 >>

    log in

    join