It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is HIV Actually Harmless??

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 08:36 PM
Doesn't explain why millions of Africans and Indians with HIV and no access to medicine. Simple as that.

posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Asia Minor
Doesn't explain why millions of Africans and Indians with HIV and no access to medicine. Simple as that.

.. and the last time you went to Africa and India to examine these patients was in.............??

posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 02:51 PM
The ones that die are the ones that can't get medication. Don't know?

posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 12:29 PM

Originally posted by mongoose

If you catch the common cold, you're going to carry antibodies against that virus for the rest of your life. Same w/ HIV. If you're infected w/ HIV, and you come down w/ the mild flu-like symptoms, your immune system will fight it off, and you'll carry antibodies against HIV for the rest of your life. THAT'S WHAT YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO DO!! This explains these "miraculous survivors" who are somehow able to live for 10 years, 15 years w/ HIV "infection" and somehow "magically" never develop symptoms of full blown AIDS.

I thought HIV was a ever changing virus. How can your body fight off a virus that changes throughout it's victims?

posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 05:13 PM
I can't say I agree with Duesberg when I know for a fact that AIDS and or the HIV virus killed my two younger brothers. One was gay the other got it in a blood transfusion in'82. Both had severe really severe K.Sarcoma At the thime of their deaths, they basically had no descerning human features. Their skin had a hollow sound if you tapped on it. My brother who was gay, lived with it for almost 16 yrs. and the younger from '82 to 96. They died 6 months apart and were not put on any major antiviral meds. only pot which seemed to help with the pain and undernurishment problem. My little bro. who by nature was a practical joker asked me if I wanted to see a football and I said o.k. He lifted the sheet that was covering him and he exposed his nads and they had fused together and were the actuall size of a pony league ft.ball. After I finished puking, I kissed him on the cheek and he told me if he did not see me again, that he loved me. I told him the same. I left for the drive home which was 15 min. away and when I got there my answering mach. was blinking and it was a call from my mom telling me Richard had died just mins. after I left. This crap is real and people need to be better educated on the subject. I can tell you this stuff is in people you would never think had done anything wrong. Pillars of the community type. I also feel that everyone should be tested regardless of age.

posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 06:07 PM
Well you see when you have the United States telling you that normal conditional diseases and illnesses are not subject to the States help, AIDS and HIV becomes a very easy way to "extort' money. If you have Diarreah and you're going to die, To Bad!.. but if you have Diarreah and HIV then Africa gets money for you. Its a political virus as much as it is a virus. It is indeed a factual problem, although he is correct in saying that HIV does NOT cause AIDS, its simply a correlating fact. There needs to be more work done on it, Just because birds happen to be on the power lines when the power goes out doesn't mean it's the birds fault. Although the AIDS problem in Africa can be linked to the Innoculation given by the WHO. Indeed what we have is a conspiracy.. the problem is, is that we're too busy discussing it and not doing anything about it.
I would also like to comment on the fact that Peter Duesberg is a professional, and that perhaps you're misunderstanding his points of view...
And NO HIV does not meet Kochs Postulates... that is, if you know what Kochs Postulates are.

EDIT: ... Not to mention that AZT randomly kills, Lung, Liver, Heart, Brain, and Kidney cells...

The way AZT works is similar to alcohol...
We inhibit alcohol and it increases our Adrenaline and other chemicals in respondse to the incoming poison we're ingesting..
AZT is such a violent TOXIN it increases a person T-Cells because it kills so many of them, ... in the same way... creating a pleasant feeling until it no longer works.. than because of the internal cell damage caused by AZT you end up unable to produce T-Cells.

[edit on 19/2/05 by dnero6911]

posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 10:04 AM
reply to post by FLYIN HIGH

I know it's an old topic but could you possibly give some more information about your brothers' lifestyles. Their nightlife/sexual activities, their medication, their nutritional habits... Or like if they were drug users?

posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 10:50 AM
After reading this thread i tend to agree with the non drug approch,As we are very poor at drug useage,look at all the new drugs coming out ever year,meaning we are just trying and failing and trying again.
As to those who say the OP information is wrong im not sure how you can make that statment in full honesty,unless you have a cure wich means you know how aids works.As for siting the reasearch as the reason why you do not belive the OP,once again if the Reasearchers kne wthe answers there would be a cure,if in fact its even a disease.
As far as i can see noone has the Cure,so how can u say this is wrong?
Its like being someguy on teh side of the road that dont know how to fix a car,but likes tellign teh guy trying to fix teh car how to do it.
I belive more then anything its better to look at all options,and make no hasty conclustion.Our science is ever changeing and whats "right" today will be "wrong" tommoro,its provin time and time again.SO be open and explore possiblitys,Dont close your mind or you my find yourself alone.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 08:16 PM
reply to post by Nygdan

may i just PLEASE point out that you CAN'T have an "immunity" to something that COMPROMISES your IMMUNE system. that doesn't even begin to make sense buddy. and also, look, just because this happens to not be the popular, accepted theory, doesn't make it untrue. i could rattle off A THOUSAND things that were "just plain crazy" for hundreds of years, even up to VERY modern times, only to be completely proven not more than 5 or 10 years ago. there is a lot of validity to some of what is being said here. so get off your high horse for # sake. by legal definition, it only takes 5 people to commit conspiracy.

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:58 PM
I did not read the whole thread, but read the first and last pages and did not see any discussion about the Bob Beck Protocol for eradication of HIV using blood electrifcation and some other treatments that clean the body of all microbes, including HIV, in just a few weeks.

Another question I have is: if the virus mutates continually and eventually exhausts the immune system, why are there no more symptioms of sero-conversion after the initial infection? It seems to me, that as the virus mutates, and until new antibodies are produced to match the new mutation, you have a new infection and should have symptoms of sero-conversion all over again. Why are people not continually sick from the moment they are infected until they die?

Any thoughts?


posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 09:08 PM
I see here in several posts, the "official" story as taken from the CDC and NIH websites. Would they lie to you? Yes, they would ... and they do. Why? AIDS is BIG BUSINESS ... a huge industry for medical researchers, the medical establishment, the pharmaceutical companies, HIV tests, all the way down to your family doctor. A lot of money at stake. It's more important to learn who heads the CDC, NIH and the FDA, They are all ex-pharmaceutical company big shots with a lot at stake for their former (and in many cases) employers. Why do you think they want to prolong this myth and kill us? It's not just about money, it's about genocide ... a plan by the global elite to rid the earth of 80% of the earth's population. why don't we hear any of this on the mainstream media? That's because the mass media is owned and controlled by the global elite. They are not allowed to discuss or write about many things from HIV being harmless, to how the Federal Reserve is not federal, nor is it a reserve, 9-11 being an inside job, the North American Union (except Lou Dobbs) and many other topics that are taboo topics as per the global elite.

Since the government banned Duesberg's earlier book, he has written several others including "Inventing The AIDS Virus." For those of you that don't have patience to read such a large volume, google: virusmyth and youtube: "The Other Side Of AIDS" and "AIDS Inc" and watch these great documentaries (you can watch them in their entirety on a site called moviesfoundonline). Also watch a movie called "End Game" (Alex Jones) and learn more about the plan for global enslavement and mass genocide. Then if you still want to believe the CDC, the NIC and the FDA then so be it. Some people can't be educated (unless the information comes from Fox News). The bottom line is many people for centuries have lived perfectly normal lives having HIV. It is harmless.

posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 05:56 PM

Originally posted by charlie1
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.

Charlie- did you have a c-section? I have heard that pregnant HIV+ women are usually forced to take the meds. The doctors will inform child protectiive services and create drama like a court order tot ake the antiviral cocktails- or is that a myth? I would think a c-section would prevent transmission during childbirth.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:30 AM

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 02:52 AM
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.

Ive researched online SO much about this... I was watcing history channel, and many times i wa watching abuot '___'...and even the history cahnnel said, '___' was used in the early 1950's as a truth serum, per the CIA...a man they tested it on, was injected, hallucinated madly, and jumped out a 4 sotry window to his death...funny how it ends up fromt he clutches of the CIA onto our streets...makes ya wonder how it got thier..
I too, heard this as a kid...aids was desined to kill african americans, and gays..could be for all i k now, but in reality it dosnt discriminate at all..All you need, is a HIV+ partner, and a tear in your skin..transmisson must take place immediatly, otherwise hiv is so fragile, it dies in the air in a second. Transmission must be immediatly into the body, via an open soar, or cut.
It starts as HIV, but IF yuor immune ssytem has completly collapsed or disappeared, th yuo get AIDS...Aids really means, the next any infection, whatevers in the air, is yuor death sentence at this point, because yuo have not enough or no more white blood cells. Thats what aids means. Hiv infected, means yuor white cells are being reduced, as the hiv replicates and multipys.
I too years ago, mid 90's had hear that AZT? is nasty toxic stuff....
from what ive learned, azt is like getting chemo for cancer... without the chemo you prob could lived a year longer at most..with chemo in a few months, yuor dead...depending on what stage the cancer was in , of course.

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 03:03 AM
For what its worth too..i had read online, in south africa, a self proclaimed doctor sells cocntrated chlorine...and claims 400 full blown AIDS patients were given cocnentrated chlorine in thier IV lines...a month later they were cured. Most look at this as snake oil, and theirs no real medical documentation to back his findings up, just a book yuo can buy form him, of course.

Citric aid, wa also an idea..a very good one, but thiers no way to have it introduced directly intoo yuor bloodstream in vast amounts...afterall, your veins and body hold blood, not citric acid, but theoretically, it should work, adn citiric acid and chlorine, are both disinfectants.
for those who choose to take an hiv test( oraswab) thier 99.9999% accurate, the window i 3 months, not 6. CDC never updated it. It checks for antibodys, not the virus. You can have a virus count, but its mad expensive, and takes god knows how many weeks, and those tests, may not be accurate at all, thier are false positives...
thats when yuor immune ssytem is weakened, IV/drug users, chemo patients can easily skew an hiv test, becasue of the chemicals in thier system.
I wish Big pharma would stop screwin around. and take things like this serious. Not just hiv, but everything, cancer, plagues and even the comon cold...find a cure, and help those who need it..not profit off of it.. Moraly and disgustingly wrong

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 12:01 AM
i think that to say HIV is harmless is absolutely silly and misleading

I think that to lack the ability to understand why a pharmacutical company's BOD's (who's goal is profit) would have it be in their interest to biasedly look at study's showing cheaper or natural alternative treatments which may be strong preventative measures or outright cure's and try and downplay or reject them would be willful ignorance or congative dissonance and absolutely irresponsible no matter how well intented

I have read about many support groups and doctors who are seemingly well intentioned promoting the Transfer Factor peptides fight off numerous immune system disorder's INC. HIV.....some of these transfer factors appear to be more generic in nature (yet help transfer immunity for several diseases) while other transfer factors appear to be available specifically..for HIV.........with some patients effectively so emotionally charged by their remission that they dedicate their lives to promoting the information ..............AS far as Dr. Beck's therapy i have not looked into that but one would be wise to keep and open mind and remember that Big Pharma has some very good people working for them (who maybe more closeminded toward alternative treatments) as well as realize their are many sociopaths that rise to the cream of the crop in many fields (due to being intelligent as well as cold and calculating ...which helps them focus on the bottom line) don't think they wouldn't down play cures that would bankrupt their company.......remember this next time someone here try's to display a hollier than thou attitude to a poster who has good intentions and has not made up his mind on a theory......especially when people are dying

also the reliability of the ELISA HIV tests seem to produce false positives at a rate this is inconsistent enough to require another Western Blot test...however there are concerns this test is not dependable enough (for some Dr's to put much faith in it due to many supposed flaws discussed here...

It is currently accepted that a positive Western blot (WB) HIV antibody test is synonymous with HIV infection and the attendant risk of developing and dying from AIDS. In this communication we present a critical evaluation of the presently available data on HIV isolation and antibody testing. The available evidence indicates that: (I) the antibody tests are not standardised; (II) the antibody tests are not reproducible; (III) the WB proteins (bands) which are considered to be coded by the HIV genome and to be specific to HIV may not be coded by the HIV genome and may in fact represent normal cellular proteins; (IV) even if the proteins are specific to HIV, because no gold standard has been used and may not even exist to determine specificity, a positive WB may represent nothing more than cross-reactivity with the many non-HIV antibodies present in AIDS patients and those at risk, and thus be unrelated to the presence of HIV. We conclude that the use of the HIV antibody tests as a diagnostic and epidemiological tool for HIV infection needs to be reappraised

the jury is out for me on the reliabilty of the WB test but i would not put enough stock in it to believe i would be getting sick from a postive reading. a lack of funding for alternative measure's or tests which may lose $ for big pharma as well as certain unproven test's being "etched in required book's which become etched in belief system's' of Dr's...may make open mindedness to debating this quite the hurdle......

[edit on 5-4-2009 by cpdaman]

posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 08:50 AM
This is my first ATS post, and one of the only times I've felt compelled to join a forum so I could join the discussion [even if I'm 7 years late]. Last week I went to dinner with the President of the Non-Profit group Rethinking AIDS. For 8 years I taught Family Life classes (Sex Ed) in schools, and studied Biology in University before taking a semester of Nursing. Everything I'd ever known about HIV and AIDS is that HIV causes AIDS. Despite my initial reaction of "These people exist?" When my friend invited me to dinner I was very intrigued to hear what he had to say. I left dinner with more questions than answers, and have spent every spare moment since reading as much as I can from opinions on both sides of the argument.

On the side that says HIV is a contagious virus contracted through Semen, Vaginal Fluid, Breast Milk, or Blood that destroys T4 cells, causing a weakened immune system that eventually becomes AIDS. Every single website I've come across has no scientific backing for most of their claims. It's nearly impossible to find legitimately useful statistics. The statistics available are how many people are infected with HIV, how many people have AIDS, how many Africans have HIV, etc. That doesn't tell us much. Those are just numbers. We don't have comparisons or how many people were diagnosed with AIDS without being tested for HIV, How many people tested positive for HIV and developed AIDS after taking anti-retroviral drugs? or how many people tested positive for HIV and developed AIDS after not taking anti-retroviral drugs?? How many people tested positive for HIV and developed AIDS who had no history of drug use, high-risk behaviour, or other strains on their immune system? etc. We have a theory that was widely accepted in the 80's based on desperate research to explain why so many homosexual men were dying of AIDS. African AIDS and US AIDS are different. The are diagnosed differently and treated differently.

On the side that argues that HIV is a harmless retrovirus that human have had for hundreds of years, that is present in AIDS patients, but not the cause of the weakened immune system I do find research. I do find studies, and stats, and examples to back their theories. I also see countless examples of big pharma, mass media, and the government going to great lengths to silence these advocates. Professor Duesberg is one of the most brilliant researchers in modern medicine. He was an early researcher of retroviruses, because retroviruses were thought to be the cause of cancer. Cancer isn't a disease caused by the death of cells, it is caused by excessive growth of cells. AZT was created to kill cells, and was used for cancer research. Chemo therapy is designed to kill cells in an effort to kill the cancer cells, hoping your body survives so it can repair itself and become healthy without the cancer cells. Those drugs aren't meant to be taken long term. Professor Duesberg also wrote to Magic Johnson in the 90's warning him of his certain death sentence if he takes AZT. The very fact that 90% of HIV positive men don't have HIV in their semen goes to show you the concept of HIV being a sexually transmitted disease is propaganda to promote safer sex practices and in a country that still believes Abstinence Only classes are the best form of sexual education, that doesn't surprise me. Every time new research came out that contradicted previous claims about AIDS, the supporters of those theories just changed the parameters. It was first believed if someone contracted HIV they only had 6 months to live, then those numbers changed and changed because people lived even without drugs. People were dying of AIDS related conditions without the presence of HIV so they came up with a name for the disease instead of calling it AIDS.

If you want to know what kind of scientist, researcher, contributor to medicine, and human being Duesberg is "He was a candidate for the Nobel Prize for his work in discovering oncogenes, thought to be a cause of cancer, in viruses. But he derailed his chances of winning when he cautioned that his findings did not prove that there were cancer genes in cells, as was popularly theorized at the time (and still an unproven theory). An insane move for a scientist's career but an exemplary act of ethics."

This is an exceptional article that challenges most major claims about HIV/AIDS and answers most of the questions you have been asking and many more. The entire website is a well of information to help you come to your own conclusion. I'm still not convinced 100% one way or the other, but the more I read the more I have to say I'm leaning toward Duesberg's theories. Everyone thought the world was flat and told anyone who said otherwise that they were crazy.
edit on 22-6-2016 by myless because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in