Is HIV Actually Harmless??

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 05:16 PM
link   



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 number of things to take into account here. Firstly I think you will fing he claims that drug use causes the symptoms of aids I think he would maintain that the prescence of HIV is merely coincidental. If you read on through other sites e.g. www.virusmyth.net the hypothersis presented is that i) poor diet and the ammount of other pathogens in Africa is one cause of depressed immune systems. ii) The statistics can be missleading as aids is charachterised by any the 29 marker deseases. Many of these (TB, Pneumania) have always been prevelant in Africa but if you die of pnumonia in Africa and you are HIV+ then it will get recorded as an AIDS death regardless of weather the patient was an AIDS suffrer. This is perfectly logical as it gets more aid into Africa if the statistitions report more AIDS deaths. In breif mortallity in Africa has always been high due to many of the AIDS marker deseases but now it gets recorded as aids.


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.


You rightly question his hypothersis but apply that to the widely accepted beleif that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS. There is no scientific paper which proves this - It is a hypothesis.
Also have you seen the number of signatories on www.virusmyth.net who are calling for new reaserch into the hypothersis which the medical profession base their treatment on? There are many professors of and doctors worldwide who have put their names to this list.




posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 06:39 PM
link   
The truth is, its just a correlating fact, its like saying the birds on the powerlines cause the powerlines to fall, but that just isn't true.. they just happen to be there when it happens..
This is the scorecard, money is stronger than truth.
The HIV test does not test for the virus but the antibody that has been generated to stop it (meaning your now immune to the virus)
Mre than 12 Years and Billions of Dollars developing a vaccine against HIV.
HIV is a retrovirus and retroviruses DO NOT kill cells.
HIV Acts NO differently than any other Retrovirus
HIV is OLDER than America

10 Reasons Why HIV Does NOT Cause AIDS

1. HIV (Like other viruses) is HARMLESS after the antibody immunity.

2. HIV Does not kill the T-Cells it infects.

3. HIV Does not infect enough T-Cells to cause AIDS.

4. HIV Has no AIDS causing Gene.

5. There is NO such thing as a slow Virus (it takes 4 weeks maximum for a virus to infect)

6. HIV is not a new virus, so it could not cause a "new" epidemic.
AIDS Cases in the US 1980-1995
1980: Zero '0' Cases
1981: 335 Cases
1984: 9,015 Cases
1988: 55,388 Cases
1992: 141,233 Cases
1995: 460.975 Cases and Rising

7. HIV Fails KOCH's Postulates... (Robert Koch, Father of Bacteriology)
The organism Must....
1. ..be found in ALL cases of the disease (actively growing in large amounts)
2. ..be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture
3. ..Cause the same disease when jnjected into a new healthy host
4. .. Must be found growing again in the newly-diseased host

Number 1 fails because 10-20% of AIDS Patients Have No HIV at ALL and when it is found its only tiny amounts and dormant at that.

Passes number 2 on a technicality, because it takes huge amounts of cell tissue to find HIV and requires a difficult chemically induced process to reactivate.

Number 3 fails because HIV Does NOT Cause AIDS in test animals like Chimpanzees and Healthcare workers accidentally infected rarely get AIDS unless they use recreational drugs ... and AZT.
Other diseases that FAILED Kochs Postulates and failed to be infectious.
.Scurvy
.Beri-Beri
.Pelegra
.SMON (Japan)
.Virus-Cancer

8. AIDS has remained in its original risk groups for over 12 years
(If a disease does not spread.. it Must be caused by something non-infectious)
AIDS in Risk Groups:
Homosexual Males - 62%
IV Drug Users - 32%
Hemophiliacs - 1%
Transfusion Patients - 2%
Total - 97%
If AIDS is Truly Caused by a Virus then AIDS patients not in a risk group should be growing above 3%

9. Infection must be evenly spread between male and female populations

10. AIDS Occurs without HIV infection
Most people with HIV NEVER develope AIDS


For one thing though, the "AIDS" that is known in africa isn't by nature at all the same as AIDS in the United States in the United States AIDS is 90% Male
in Africa it is 50-50 and is very explainable under the conditions they live, not to mention turning all known diseases they currently have into AIDS allows them to get financle help from WHO... Who gets help for diarrhea?

DIARRHEA + NO HIV = DIARRHEA
DIARRHEA + HIV = AIDS...

pretty stupid if you ask me.. theres more behind it.. Like selling AZT the MOST toxic medicine known to man .. that randomly kills Liver, Lung, Brain cells..

[edit on 16/12/04 by dnero6911]



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 07:02 PM
link   
you can add to that list as well

11) It does not follow the bell shaped curve which all infectious deseases do. It more closely follows behavioural patterns i.e drug use etc.

12) There is no hard evidence of immunity (to 'AIDS') which there is for all other infectious deseases.


What amazes me is how emotive / irrational and unscientific those in the helthcare profession are. The other day I was at a VD clinic and I asked the Sister about the possibility that HIV is not responsible for 'AIDS' and she went mental. Basically reeled of a load of anecdotal evidence and ranted to me about how bad the situation in africa was. Told me that people need anti viral drugs to survive and the rest blah blah blah.... Absoloutley shocking level of just accepting the received wisdom of her superiors and the media and that is a microcosm of the entire healthcare system. Nobody ever questions anything.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Toneloke says:

"You rightly question his hypothersis but apply that to the widely accepted beleif that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS. There is no scientific paper which proves this - It is a hypothesis."

That's the way science works, Toneloke. Science does not come up with proofs; they come up with hypotheses which are tested by observations. I doubt if you'll ever see a "scientific paper" that "proves" anything; instead, it'll describe an experiment or a series of tests which validate (or maybe invalidate) a hypothesis.

The woloe point of scientific inquiry is to postulate something and see if observations or experiments -- properly designed, of course -- bear out the hypotheses.

It's like the "aether" or "phlogiston" or "geocentric" hypotheses of years ago. Scientists came up with these ideas because they thought that they explained the working of the Universe. As these hypotheses were tested, they did not explain properly how the univese woreked, and fell apart. Scientists then found hypothese which better explained the univese and they were adopter.

But they are being tested, too, and always will be, becaue that's the way science works.

We don't have "proof" that aether and pholgiston don't exist, but there is a preponderance of evidence that they don't. We don't have "proof" that things always work on einsteinian principles, but they explain things a lot better thanthte discarded aether and phlogiston hypotheses ever did, and have stood up to constant testing -- so far, anyway.

And that's all you'll ever get from science -- never any "proof" -- just changing and modifying our hypotheses as new observations are done.

"Also have you seen the number of signatories on www.virusmyth.net who are calling for new reaserch into the hypothersis which the medical profession base their treatment on? There are many professors of and doctors worldwide who have put their names to this list."

I'm not surprised; but why aren't they doing the research?

Toneloke, the bottom line is that, as far as I know, no one here is a health-care professional; and no one (again, as far as I know) has the background or expertise to wade through all the papers. I certainly don't know enought to critique anyone's scientific research; the only thing I have to go with is by listening to whom I trust.

I just hope neither of us has to bet our lives on which modality is the better one!



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   
i had a family member die from what some call hiv/aids, i call it drug poisoning myself. do you know the history behind some of the drugs used for hiv treatment? not too friendly to the human body to say the least.

the history of hiv is a joke to say the least, every read about how robert gallo "discovered" hiv? nevermind luc... funny how hiv was presented as fact from the beginning dispite the fact that robert gallos work was NEVER peer reviewed... did you ever wonder who holds the patent for the hiv test?

answer me this... when was the last time the hiv was observed "popping", a virus spreads by infecting a cell then changing the dna to rna in the cell and makes copies of itself, after so many copies are made the cell fills with copies and pop, there goes hundreds of other cells to infect health cells.

hiv may be a trigger, but nothing more... hiv is a weak virus at best, but when it comes into contact with other viruses ( mycoplasma ?) it becomes or makes the other virus become a little monster... did anyone mention that a large number of people with aids also have mycoplasma?



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 08:31 AM
link   
What's mycoplasma?

I know a few people that are infected with HIV. And yes, now they test your blood for cd-4 T cell count and a viral load count. The local area doctor (that is known in the HIV community to be one of the best in the DC area) does NOT prescribe HIV drugs for people until their T-cell count goes below 200 (full blown AIDS) or their viral load becomes very high (like 1,000,000 in a drop of blood). He has NOT lost a patient in the past 5 years since these drugs have been on the market.

So, my question is how are all these people with HIV getting their T-cells down to 200....take the medication and become healthy again?

By the way....after a year of therapy, the doctor takes the patients off the medication if their T-cell count goes up again....to stop the toxic build up. You may say that doesn't work because the virus will become immune to the drugs but he has to be doing something right to not have lost an HIV patient in the last 5 years.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

That's the way science works, Toneloke. Science does not come up with proofs; they come up with hypotheses which are tested by observations. I doubt if you'll ever see a "scientific paper" that "proves" anything; instead, it'll describe an experiment or a series of tests which validate (or maybe invalidate) a hypothesis.

The woloe point of scientific inquiry is to postulate something and see if observations or experiments -- properly designed, of course -- bear out the hypotheses.


Yes I am well aware of this but there are different burdens of proof. If you look at one of my earlier posts ,I wrote that there should at be a paper that proves it AT LEAST TO A HIGH PROBABILITY. But there is no such paper.

As far as hypothersising goes you are right but the point is that scientists also attempt to prove their hypothersese wrong. This hasnt been done.



It's like the "aether" or "phlogiston" or "geocentric" hypotheses of years ago. Scientists came up with these ideas because they thought that they explained the working of the Universe. As these hypotheses were tested, they did not explain properly how the univese woreked, and fell apart. Scientists then found hypothese which better explained the univese and they were adopter.


This is true. My objection however is that these hypotherses are presented as fact to the general population. For instance an earlier poster said 'I cant beleive people are still arguing that HIV dosnt cause AIDS. Its common knowladge' He wasnt aware that its a hypothersis.


But they are being tested, too, and always will be, becaue that's the way science works.


Only if those who fund the research see fit and not in this case it would appear




And that's all you'll ever get from science -- never any "proof" -- just changing and modifying our hypotheses as new observations are done.


You can prove things to a greater or lesser extent. i.e. to a lower or higher probability. The HIV hypothersis has not been proven to a high enough probability.


"Also have you seen the number of signatories on www.virusmyth.net who are calling for new reaserch into the hypothersis which the medical profession base their treatment on? There are many professors of and doctors worldwide who have put their names to this list." I'm not surprised; but why aren't they doing the research?

Money is the simple reason. The AIDS 'establishment' (those working on the premmise that HIV causes AIDS get all the cash for research. That is the point of the sites like duesbugs - to reinvestigate the initial hypothersis.



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Has anyone ever heard of olive leaf extract? It is a natural anti viral and antibiotic. I dont know if its true but i read if that is the only medicine you use when u have hiv it can decrease the viral load so low that hiv is not detectable anymore.



www.risingstarlc.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
With all respect due to Duesberg, Mullis, etc. In my opinion these guys are quite probably barking up the wrong tree. I am not saying that Duesberg shouldn't be free to do his research and test his own hypothesis, but other scientists shouldn't be criticized for pursuing what they believe to be a valid hypothesis.


I wrote that there should at be a paper that proves it AT LEAST TO A HIGH PROBABILITY. But there is no such paper.

I wonder if you have personally searched pubmed re: this issue. I am certainly aware that Duesberg doesn't believe that HIV causes AIDS, but have YOU read:

Darby SC, Ewart DW, Giangrande PLF, Dolin PJ, et al. Mortality before and after HIV infection in the complete UK population of hemophiliacs. Nature 1995; 377: 792-8.

Reitz MS Jr, Hall L, Robert-Guroff M, et al. Viral variability and serum antibody response in a laboratory worker infected with HIV-1 (HTLV-IIIB). AIDS 1994; 10: 1143-55.

Palca J. The case of the Florida dentist. Science 1992; 255: 392-4.

Ou CY, Ciesielski CA, Myers G, Bandea CI, Luo CC, et al. Molecular epidemiology of HIV transmission in a dental practice. Science 1992; 256: 1165-71.

Hillis DM, Huelsenbeck J. Support for dental HIV transmission. Nature 1994; 369: 24-5?

How about these:

Smith TF, Waterman MS. The continuing case of the Florida dentist. Science 1992; 256: 1155-6.

DeBry RW, Abele LG, Weiss SH, Hill MD, et al. Dental HIV transmission? Nature 1993; 361: 691.

I would take a look at these refs. before I wholeheartedly supported Duesbergs hypothesis.


As far as hypothersising goes you are right but the point is that scientists also attempt to prove their hypothersese wrong. This hasnt been done.

Scientists, ideally, neither attempt to prove or disprove ANY hypothesis, it's a matter of TESTING certain hypotheses and moving on. Hypotheses surrounding HIV as the cause of AIDS have been tested to the satisfaction of many, if not most scientists within the field. Admittedly, consensus opinion does not make something correct, but needs to be considered.


This is true. My objection however is that these hypotherses are presented as fact to the general population. For instance an earlier poster said 'I cant beleive people are still arguing that HIV dosnt cause AIDS. Its common knowladge' He wasnt aware that its a hypothersis.

I sympathize with you 100% on this particular point. I would beg to differ with you however, the overwhelming amount of evidence suggests that HIV is in fact the cause of AIDS. There may be isolated pieces of evidence that argue otherwise. Admittedly, I myself have not performed an exhaustive literature search on the topic in quite some time, however if you know of some cases, I would be happy to discuss them here with you in this forum.


Only if those who fund the research see fit and not in this case it would appear

This is admittedly a problem with science, but it's not limited to HIV and AIDS. For example, changes in diet, lifestyle, etc. have been hypothesized with good reason to affect cancer incidence and mortality. However these projects get almost no funding. Why not? Because molecular funding is currently what's 'in.' This bias pervades every level of biological research funding I am aware of. Certain ideas, concepts, technologies are promoted and funded more heavily than others. What can you do? If you've got a solution, I've got some colleagues who'd love to hear it. People that fund research have a limited amount of funds that they have to distribute in the manner in which they perceive the most potential for success. In a world of unlimited funds, Duesberg probably would be able to get funding. It's not like this whole thing started out as a vendetta against Duesberg, even though he percieved it that way.



You can prove things to a greater or lesser extent. i.e. to a lower or higher probability. The HIV hypothersis has not been proven to a high enough probability.

Please see my above refs. and get back to me. What is this burden of proof that you require?


Money is the simple reason. The AIDS 'establishment' (those working on the premmise that HIV causes AIDS get all the cash for research. That is the point of the sites like duesbugs - to reinvestigate the initial hypothersis.

Sigh.... Yes this is true, but it's not like its a conspiracy. To imply that the scientists working on these problems don't actually care about the problem, but only the money is quite frankly, insulting. For a scientist to prove or discover that HIV doesn't cause AIDS would be a 'career-maker.' They aren't evil people trying to hide this information. Do you know any scientists doing HIV research? I know plenty. Yes they want their research to get funded. Why? Because they believe it's important, and they believe it can help people. Furthermore the progress that has been made as a result of HIV research in other related areas in undeniable. Research on HIV has spawned new classes of anti-viral drugs, a much better understanding of viral genomics and viral mechanisms, and lots of other stuff I am either not mentioning or am unaware of. Even if scientists are barking up the wrong tree, people ARE benefiting from the knowledge, and according to the literature people with HIV are benefiting from the knowledge.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
another interesting article on the topic of whether or not HIV actually causes AIDS (and the consensus seems to be, per this article, that no, it doesn't):

www.nexusmagazine.com...



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   
My friend (AD5673, a banned member from ATS), he says that the government made up AID and HIV to kill off gays and blacks. And some people and ATS also agree with that. Why do people think that...thats just...wrong. I for one, do not think that the government made AIDS and HIV. My friend also says, that he saw something in the news (or something like that) that said that an Armenian guy made up a cure for HIV and AIDS, and the next day he was killed.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   
funny how a lot here say that hiv/aids only infects/kills gays/drugusers/people that sleep around but heterosexual women are up there with those getting the most infected and a lot of them are or were married.

hiv is real and it doesnt care who you are or what you do if it finds a way inside its going to get inside and do its thing.

I have talked face to face with many denyalists and asked them all of they were willing to get exposed to hiv infected blood not 1 said yes.

show me 1 denyalist willing to do that then maybe I will consider their word over the top scientists.

its also interesting africa didnt beleive in it eather but now look at them they sing a different tune now.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mongoose

Some interesting points about this.. Duesberg wrote a book on this topic, called "Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS".. The Feds banned the book(!) In fact, to the best of anyone's knowledge, this appears to be the first time in history that the Feds have EVER banned a book.. which I suppose goes to show that the content contained therein is pretty explosive..


I was just curious about "the FED's banning this book"??? How does the FED ban a book? I searched on Amazon.com for this book and it appears for sale. I figured if it was banned it would be pulled from every bookstore shelf\warehouse. Also, the book doesnt appear to be written by Duesberg. The author of the book is Bryan J. Ellison.

Just pointing out a few things I noticed that didnt' make much sense. I didn't bother reading through the rest of the posts to see if anyone else caught this.

IronMan



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by dnero6911
The truth is, its just a correlating fact, its like saying the birds on the powerlines cause the powerlines to fall, but that just isn't true.. they just happen to be there when it happens..
This is the scorecard, money is stronger than truth.
The HIV test does not test for the virus but the antibody that has been generated to stop it (meaning your now immune to the virus)
Mre than 12 Years and Billions of Dollars developing a vaccine against HIV.
HIV is a retrovirus and retroviruses DO NOT kill cells.
HIV Acts NO differently than any other Retrovirus
HIV is OLDER than America

10 Reasons Why HIV Does NOT Cause AIDS

1. HIV (Like other viruses) is HARMLESS after the antibody immunity.

2. HIV Does not kill the T-Cells it infects.

3. HIV Does not infect enough T-Cells to cause AIDS.

4. HIV Has no AIDS causing Gene.

5. There is NO such thing as a slow Virus (it takes 4 weeks maximum for a virus to infect)

6. HIV is not a new virus, so it could not cause a "new" epidemic.
AIDS Cases in the US 1980-1995
1980: Zero '0' Cases
1981: 335 Cases
1984: 9,015 Cases
1988: 55,388 Cases
1992: 141,233 Cases
1995: 460.975 Cases and Rising

7. HIV Fails KOCH's Postulates... (Robert Koch, Father of Bacteriology)
The organism Must....
1. ..be found in ALL cases of the disease (actively growing in large amounts)
2. ..be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture
3. ..Cause the same disease when jnjected into a new healthy host
4. .. Must be found growing again in the newly-diseased host

Number 1 fails because 10-20% of AIDS Patients Have No HIV at ALL and when it is found its only tiny amounts and dormant at that.

Passes number 2 on a technicality, because it takes huge amounts of cell tissue to find HIV and requires a difficult chemically induced process to reactivate.

Number 3 fails because HIV Does NOT Cause AIDS in test animals like Chimpanzees and Healthcare workers accidentally infected rarely get AIDS unless they use recreational drugs ... and AZT.
Other diseases that FAILED Kochs Postulates and failed to be infectious.
.Scurvy
.Beri-Beri
.Pelegra
.SMON (Japan)
.Virus-Cancer

8. AIDS has remained in its original risk groups for over 12 years
(If a disease does not spread.. it Must be caused by something non-infectious)
AIDS in Risk Groups:
Homosexual Males - 62%
IV Drug Users - 32%
Hemophiliacs - 1%
Transfusion Patients - 2%
Total - 97%
If AIDS is Truly Caused by a Virus then AIDS patients not in a risk group should be growing above 3%

9. Infection must be evenly spread between male and female populations

10. AIDS Occurs without HIV infection
Most people with HIV NEVER develope AIDS


For one thing though, the "AIDS" that is known in africa isn't by nature at all the same as AIDS in the United States in the United States AIDS is 90% Male
in Africa it is 50-50 and is very explainable under the conditions they live, not to mention turning all known diseases they currently have into AIDS allows them to get financle help from WHO... Who gets help for diarrhea?

DIARRHEA + NO HIV = DIARRHEA
DIARRHEA + HIV = AIDS...

pretty stupid if you ask me.. theres more behind it.. Like selling AZT the MOST toxic medicine known to man .. that randomly kills Liver, Lung, Brain cells..

[edit on 16/12/04 by dnero6911]


that was debunked aeons ago have a look
www.all-science-fair-projects.com...



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by IamIronMan

Originally posted by mongoose

Some interesting points about this.. Duesberg wrote a book on this topic, called "Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS".. The Feds banned the book(!) In fact, to the best of anyone's knowledge, this appears to be the first time in history that the Feds have EVER banned a book.. which I suppose goes to show that the content contained therein is pretty explosive..


I was just curious about "the FED's banning this book"??? How does the FED ban a book? I searched on Amazon.com for this book and it appears for sale. I figured if it was banned it would be pulled from every bookstore shelf\warehouse. Also, the book doesnt appear to be written by Duesberg. The author of the book is Bryan J. Ellison.

Just pointing out a few things I noticed that didnt' make much sense. I didn't bother reading through the rest of the posts to see if anyone else caught this.

IronMan

I think that circa 1995 or 96 (or so) there was some drama involving the publication of the book, and a federal judge decided to halt the publication. It's not completely clear why he did this, whether it was related to the content of the book itself, or whether it was related to copyright issues..

Since that time, I believe the book has gone to press, although in modified form, and it's possible that Duesberg's contributions may have been rescinded.. I was not aware of the fact that the book had actually wound up going to publication when I posted the original post on this thread..



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   
i say the governemnt is bhind all this! people get sick, they want the cure, they'd be willing to pay, am i rite?



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   
if magic johnson comes down with "AIDS" would he get that sarcoma thing or would he get african slim wasting disease?



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Just about every post you make states that Duesburg wrote a book which was banned by the government.

Where is your evidence that such an act took place?



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DraconianDevil1
My friend (AD5673, a banned member from ATS), he says that the government made up AID and HIV to kill off gays and blacks. And some people and ATS also agree with that. Why do people think that...thats just...wrong. I for one, do not think that the government made AIDS and HIV.



Originally posted by Noctu
funny how a lot here say that hiv/aids only infects/kills gays/drugusers/people that sleep around but heterosexual women are up there with those getting the most infected and a lot of them are or were married.


I think you have it wrong. People aren't saying that nowadays the only people that get HIV are blacks, gays and drug users. They're saying that the Government started it in those groups and didn't realize how many men are on the "down low" (down low means "straight" men who have sex with other men behind thier wife's or girlfriends back) and gave HIV to thier respective wife or girlfriend.....and in turn these wives and girlfriends spread it to the real straight men that they were sleeping with and so on and so forth. That's how it became a straight white man's disease....not soley just gay, black, drug user disease. Understand?

edit: to add second quote.....I ment to quote both originally.

[edit on 31-1-2005 by MacMerdin]



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yeticha
if magic johnson comes down with "AIDS" would he get that sarcoma thing or would he get african slim wasting disease?


hiv/aids effects everyone differntly that sarcoma thing doesnt happen much anymore and for wasteing they got steroids and HGH just to name a couple treatments.

and as far as comeing down with aids it doesnt mean its all over eather as I know many people who have had full blown aids for years and are still doing well.

all aids means is the tcells count went below 200 and once that happens its called aids even if your tcells go back up yup once you are diagnosed with aids your allways going to have that diagnoses.

really this means you could be walking around with full blown aids not feeling sick and not knowing your infected in a lot of cases these people find out by getting an OI opertuneistic infection like MAC,CMV,PCP pnemonia which means they have to take meds for the OI along with the hiv meds and the meds for the OI's tend to have more side effects then the HIV meds.

this is why getting tested is so important





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join