Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Will You Take the HIV/AIDS Vaccine?

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I also agree that in your post you mentioned that even water can pose toxicity, which is true. We typically find this problem amongst marathon runners who die of cerebral edema (swelling of the brain) due to excessive water intake. Water just flows right into the brain and causes increased pressure against the skull, and eventually patients begin to experience seizures and convulsions.

In regards to AIDS, there are many different enzymes (specialized proteins that catalyze reactions) the most important one being reverse transcriptase that constantly mutate and change themselves. This little guy pretty much takes the RNA from the virus and synthesizes DNA from it, which then integrates into the genome. It is a silent killer. Other mutations are also observed in proteins that are required for fusion with the cell known as fusion proteins, and also other proteins that break specific proteins down, known as proteases. This bastard is constantly changing itself. 1% of the population is genetically resistant to HIV 1 and 2 strains. Those are the people we need to test.
edit on 12-11-2011 by Unvarnished because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Yes, I've heard that some doctors have actually done that...

That is why it is so important for patients to be informed about things. This is what makes the internet so wonderful. Important information is right at your fingertips.


That is why I am here right now today. I am attempting to form a front line in this new battle, and it appears to me that the majority of ATS at least, is ready to speak out against this upcoming HIV Vaccine.

I am very worried about this particular vaccine for obvious reasons, and I want people to be aware of it and to know how extremely dangerous it really can be.

I am tired of reacting to things they are already doing and being two steps behind, and this time I want to preempt the enemy and start the battle before they are even ready to fight. I suppose I am utilizing the element of surprise.

The Pharmaceutical corporations are hoping we don't discuss this just yet, they haven't even buttered the public up to support it. But I believe they will...soon enough. Maybe we can force their hand to make some mistakes or something?



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
In a nutshell, hell NO.

First the government invents this monster (US Army Patent #5242820), then they let their Big Pharma friends try and make a vaccine for it.

If they don't kill you, they want to make money off you.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


No, just like they have never had a flu shot. Why give them something that MAY prevent a disease that they MAY come into contact with, when you can educate them? I don't agree with experimenting on children.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


A very rational response my friend.




posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
No,
I am not in a high risk crowd and I really have no worries about contracting the diesease. I would not allow my children to get one either. I think good parenting and information is all the vaccine they will need.

However, if they do ever create a vaccine for HIV/AIDS I am willing to bet that millions of people will blindly allow themselves and their children to be vaccinated based on nothing more than a doctors recommendation.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


This is a great thread by the way, S&F



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unvarnished
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I also agree that in your post you mentioned that even water can pose toxicity, which is true. We typically find this problem amongst marathon runners who die of cerebral edema (swelling of the brain) due to excessive water intake. Water just flows right into the brain and causes increased pressure against the skull, and eventually patients begin to experience seizures and convulsions.

In regards to AIDS, there are many different enzymes (specialized proteins that catalyze reactions) the most important one being reverse transcriptase that constantly mutate and change themselves. This little guy pretty much takes the RNA from the virus and synthesizes DNA from it, which then integrates into the genome. It is a silent killer. Other mutations are also observed in proteins that are required for fusion with the cell known as fusion proteins, and also other proteins that break specific proteins down, known as proteases. This bastard is constantly changing itself. 1% of the population is genetically resistant to HIV 1 and 2 strains. Those are the people we need to test.
edit on 12-11-2011 by Unvarnished because: (no reason given)


Awesome post!

I am so thankful to have a well educated individual such as yourself here to help guide us through the scientific minutia of this very sophisticated subject.

Just to make this reply to your post worthwhile, I will just toss out some basic research links for anyone following along and curious to do some further reading on the related subjects.

Protease
Reverse Transcriptase
Fusion Protein



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Thank you OP for bringing this to our attention and education us on this important manner. HIV was man made created in a lab to reduce the population just like cancer. The governments have cures but why release them and lose money and gain more people they figure. I think safe sex practice is one of the best ways to reduce the risk. S&F



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


After this gets approved by the FDA, Im getting it.
It will be cheaper than having to buy a box of condoms every couple weeks!
Im in the high risk group and having to ask "Do you have a STD?" is kinda akward.

I dont buy into the whole " Dont use them! They're bad for you!!" crap. (Vaccines not condoms LOL)
edit on 12-11-2011 by darkredfish because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-11-2011 by darkredfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Please read that carefully, it's a bold faced lie. No adverse effects or safety risk? It's unheard of! There is no medication in existence which has no adverse side effects or risks involved. Everyone is different and reacts differently. Even plain water has an adverse side effect or risk - drowning. So to say this HIV-AIDS vaccine is safe is well, illogical and irrational. (And immoral!)


BUT WAIT!
It said ANIMAL tests, so maybe in animals it didn't do anything, but in humans it will.
Humans are a lot more fragile to things than animals are.
edit on 12-11-2011 by darkredfish because: (no reason given)


Wtf is up with the falsequote? 0_o
edit on 12-11-2011 by darkredfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkredfish
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


After this gets approved by the FDA, Im getting it.
It will be cheaper than having to buy a box of condoms every couple weeks!
Im in the high risk group and having to ask "Do you have a STD?" is kinda akward.

I dont buy into the whole " Dont use them! They're bad for you!!" crap. (Vaccines not condoms LOL)
edit on 12-11-2011 by darkredfish because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-11-2011 by darkredfish because: (no reason given)


Did you even read the information presented?

Just because the FDA approves something, doesn't mean it's safe.

How many FDA approved medications in the last decade or two turned out to be harmful after further testing on the public and then had to have a Black-Label Warning posted on it (or removed from the shelf entirely)? How many lawsuits are seeking compensation for these mistakes?

And yet all you require to put something totally unknown and dangerous into your body is that the FDA says it's ok to do so? Even though history proves their track record is dismal at best?

Could you at least elaborate and explain to us why the past history of the FDA is not applicable or serious enough to cause you to reconsider this decision?



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Absolutely not, and I doubt any of my children will.

Too dangerous.....



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by darkredfish
 


Please let's recap here.

1) The body does not form immunity from an inactive 'dead' HIV virus.

2) Those infected with 'live' HIV virus rarely ever recover from it.

How does the FDA approving something eliminate or counter-act these two basic facts?

Are you serious that you would infect yourself with HIV in hopes that it may prevent infection in the future? How does this make any sense?



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I never said that the FDA is always right, but I don't think they have ever had a VACCINE that did not work or was bad for you. Also, I would not be the first guy in line, I think I would wait a year or so, to see if things happened, and to also wait untill the price came down xD

Also, Im spending about 20 bucks on condoms a month.
It would just be cheaper to get a vaccine for like.. $200.
Also, would medical care cover this?



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkredfish

Wtf is up with the falsequote? 0_o


Check the quote and /quote boxes, you may have gotten them mixed up when you deleted part of the post you were quoting. Happens to me a lot as well. A simple adjustment after inspection will fix it.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkredfish
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I never said that the FDA is always right, but I don't think they have ever had a VACCINE that did not work or was bad for you. Also, I would not be the first guy in line, I think I would wait a year or so, to see if things happened, and to also wait untill the price came down xD

Also, Im spending about 20 bucks on condoms a month.
It would just be cheaper to get a vaccine for like.. $200.
Also, would medical care cover this?


Well I appreciate your comments, forgive me for prying and seeking to know more of your point of view. I am just curious as to your position and reasoning about this subject.

Also, I assume medical will probably cover it to some extent, but we will have to wait and see exactly how this issue begins to take shape.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
No. I would not get this vaccine or any other vaccine for that matter.

One reason: we never know the long term eventualities. Having something unnatural germinating in my body over months and years doesn't sound good to me.

Besides, I don't and never did trust the pharmaceutical domain. No trust. Whatsoever.

Good thread btw.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I dont know how they did it, but did it ever occur to you that it may NOT be a TRUE vaccine?
What if it is some chemical?
If you look it up we already have a cure for aids, so maybe this is just that, rediscovered.
Of course if it is it is going to get buried like it did the first time....



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

I'm not in a high risk group, but the consequences of getting the virus are so profoundly life-altering that I would not hesitate to get a safe and effective vaccine if one were available.






top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join