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.


AIDS Hoax: The truth behind the virus that never was

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:34 AM

Originally posted by lakesidepark
I have no problem with your response. You agree with me.

The theory i present is in accordance with the theory presented by the OP, in timeframe at least.

I'm saying nothing has changed, you're agreeing it hasn't changed, but you're demanding "new" evidence?

It's not your perspective i disagree with, it's your debating skills. Relax, i understand this is personal and emotive to you, but you're not presenting any evidence on the table, as i said, it is only hearsay.

Actual information is very scarce on the subject, or rather, plenty of info, not much knowledge. I find that curious too, despite billions spent over decades, there is this much conflicting information. Unfortunately, orthodox medical information IS tainted by big pharma and their lust for our money at any cost. AIDS patients are very profitable on the balance sheet, if you can keep them alive with curing them, same for most other diseases today.

peace to you also

posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 10:57 AM
reply to post by harryhaller

I think there is some confusion here.

The OP proposes that the virus does NOT exist, that the virus is a hoax. That AIDS is some collection of diseases and not a result of viral attack. And presents 'evidence' (theories, hypothesies, political sniping between jealous scientists that all wanted to be the first to claim they found the cause and cure, all part of this unusual disease) from over 20 years ago. I think we all can agree that much progress has been made since then.

You state as follows:
HIV is a virus that lowers cd count.
AIDS usually follows infection of HIV
Pharmaceuticals are the only accepted option for treatment of symptoms.
There is no cure.

And you state this is common knowledge since 10 years ago (a LOT of progress since 1990 - when they all were told they would die - and 2000 - when the second generation of drugs went into clinical trials under NIH study A5095).

That is a BIG difference in statement, and you are definitely NOT in agreement with the OP, but more in agreement with ME.

FYI, this is not so much emotion, as I am confident that after 12 years on the drugs and CD4 way above 1000, that I will continue to live and maybe 10 more years get rid of this shackle that sucks the life out of my bank account - if the big pharamaceutical companies and TPTB allow it.

I just hate to see people misled and placed in danger, have already seen one poster on ATS that came here to discuss their options with advanced HIV, and being misled by posters such as the OP into believing the drugs are not worth even trying. That's why I bother.

That is also why I haven't done the homework to present my evidence to contradict the OP. I came here to read, and only take the time to respond because the proliferation of these threads denying the existence of HIV, and denying that the drugs DO help millions to restore their lives, is DANGEROUS.

I won't be adding it to this thread anytime soon, hope it goes away, but I will be working on a comprehensive posting that will be added sometime in the near future that can be referenced here for all to see and use as real information from real and CURRENT sources. Not fables and hoaxes from the past. Sorry I can't provide sources from the best source I know (the records of my participation in two ongoing clinical trials) because that information identifies me. I will not do that. I will have to do some assembling of data to present a new post.

Meanwhile, I have work to do, as I am not just sitting around waiting to argue, but am a highly valued employee with responsibilities to attend to, and that is my major priority. It's not like I am a dedicated researcher, but I've spent my time in the past, even using pseudonyms to get access to university medical libraries prior to the advent of Internet research. I NEVER intended to be discussing this on a public forum, as this is STILL a condition misunderstood by the masses, and I don't wear a sign on my chest. If you met me you would never know it unless I told you. I like it that way. Took too many years to feel normal again and I'm happy that way. Not giving it up. No matter how many people tell me I'm being fed poison for a non-existent virus.

Now if there is a thread about the price gouging on these drugs, and the profiteering by big Pharma, or the suppression of cheaper cures or treatments, I'm all on board. Me and my wife personally make them rich all by ourselves, and I am tired of that part for sure!

Lunch over, back to work.

edit on 14-6-2012 by lakesidepark because: dyxlexic agnostic - someone that lays awake at night wondering if DOG really exists

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 03:04 AM
reply to post by lakesidepark

Let me try this again, as I figure you haven't bothered to look at my first post.

1) You can be HIV+ and live a normal life span, never taking a drug in your life
2) You can die of "AIDS" diseases while remaining HIV-

The simple fact remains that you may be affected by "AIDS diseases" WHILE being HIV+ WHILE the entire time, it's not HIV, but the "AIDS" diseases themselves!!! In other words, HIV could be completely friendly to your body!

1 is definitely true. 2 is definitely true.

So, let's say you got one of those "AIDS" diseases and it began to kill you first. THEN you got HIV. Doctors assume it is HIV causing it. But, what came first, the disease(s) or the HIV?

I am not saying this happens to everyone. I'm saying it's possible, and the doctors first line of defense would be hiv meds. They would not say, "Hmm, you know the hiv may not be the problem in your case, since some people remain infected without ever being 'hit hard' by the virus at all." Do you see the problem? These people would then be given medication for HIV, when in reality, their bodies may be hit by the other diseases themselves. They're possibly getting the wrong treatment.

In other words, we have no idea of telling WHAT is causing someone's immune system to be compromised. If we knew with 100% certainty that the only issue the person had was HIV, it'd be simple. It's NOT.

What if someone has lupus and their unique body handles that by purposely weakening their immune system, thereby saving themselves from the immune system?

There are thousands of possibilities. I am not saying people should go off their medication. If it works, great! If you suspect something else, maybe try to figure out what else may be the cause. There ARE also cases of self-healing of HIV. These are people who were positive over and over, then through their own efforts reversed it to become negative.

I cannot make it any simpler or nicer than this.
edit on 15-6-2012 by daynight42 because: typo

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 05:35 AM
Number 1 does have some truth in it. There are those whose bodies have the ability to develop the immunity to the HIV and deals with it without treatment. There are the 'long term non-progressors' that develop natural immunity. Some of these people are in studies now. And antibodies have been isolated.

Building Better HIV Antibodies: Biologists Create Neutralizing Antibody That Shows Increased Potency

ScienceDaily (Oct. 27, 2011) — Using highly potent antibodies isolated from HIV-positive people, researchers have recently begun to identify ways to broadly neutralize the many possible subtypes of HIV. Now, a team led by biologists at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) has built upon one of these naturally occurring antibodies to create a stronger version they believe is a better candidate for clinical applications.

Current advances in isolating antibodies from HIV-infected individuals have allowed for the discovery of a large number of new, broadly neutralizing anti-HIV antibodies directed against the host receptor (CD4) binding site -- a functional site on the surface of the virus that allows for cell entry and infection. Using a technique known as structure-based rational design, the team modified one already-known and particularly potent antibody -- NIH45-46 -- so that it can target the binding site in a different and more powerful way. A study outlining their process was published in the Oct. 27 issue of Science Express.

There are also those that have the missing CCR5 mutation that cannot get infected. Both of those groups constitute about 1-2% of the population.

Number 2 does also contain some truth. There are other immune conditions that can cause the 'AIDS defining illnesses'. Now a person testing positive, but being sickened by these other causes, is a rare (and unlucky) person indeed (i.e. HIV and leukemia as an example).

That only means that a person should not depend on the ELISA test to determine if they are HIV+ or if it is time to start the drugs. That should only happen after PCR assays, and genotype analysis to measure the amount of virus, and to determine the genotype (this is also important to make sure the patient does not have a genetic variation that is already resistant to some of the drugs). These test are expensive. I won't post my bills to prove it. So I can see that many places in the world this is NOT done.

I wll call the truce with you, as your statements are NOT the statements of the OP. You state there can be other reasons for the illnesses, or that in some cases a natural immunity exists. And those points are true, but not in enough percentages to negate the larger problem. And it does not fully attack the premise of the OP, and that premise is the dangerous and misleading part of this thread.

The OP claims the virus does not exist. That is NOT true. The virus DOES exist, it DOES kill people. And the drugs DO work for the vast majority of people that use them correctly. THAT IS THE FALLACY OF THIS THREAD,and the issue I was most concerned with, and the issue I intended to address.

But as everything in life, there are no 100%. Exceptions exist. And I fervently hope the researchers continue to study them to find a way to apply it to the rest of us that deal with it. And in that case, I have to keep supporting the 'profiteering apes' because I don't have the technology or resources to do it myself.

edit on 15-6-2012 by lakesidepark because: (no reason given)

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in