A new possible way to prevent AIDS

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,63441,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

anyone has a good guess how good are the chances these two mutate into a new virus?
the method seems elegant, but it has that one danger

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You would have thought that this news would be plastered all over the internet and TVs. But no, this is the first I've heard of it. Maybe it's because it's not definite yet but they should at least let people know that there has been a potential breakthrough. AIDs seems to be the hot topic in the UK at the moment (imho) so this news would bring hope to many.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

maybe this is because there have been so many 'potential breakthroughs'.

How many have broken through?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have been looking closley at AIDS since 1985-6. Since that time I have made si some dramatic reassesments of the etiology of AIDS. My problem is reflected iKerry Mullis story of the first day on the job in some AIDS related project. He asked the casual question to a coeleague of "just exactly where is the proof tthat AIDS is caused by a virus?" He was told that the question is not on the table anymore. Everyone just assumes the truth of it it and get on with their research.

I have the same problem. Of all the places I looked for the proof as directed by those asserting the "HIV is equated to AIDS" thesis. I found none.

The seminal experiments by Luc Montaignier produced some "DNA matter he speculated might be the pathogen causing havovoc in 1981. The following yea Robert Gallo using some of Luc's sample. (some biomass taken from a "Gay" patient exhibiting "AIDS" syndrome). Gallo was not so timid as the next year n the steps of the Health and Human Servies Building Margaret Heckler, the n Secretery of Health made a statement in a news conference "that the virus causing AIIDS had been discovered" by Gallo who as at her side, and she -redicted a vaccine iwithin two years". Before the close of busines Gallo had filed a patent claim for the testing of the existence of antibodies to something or other, not confined to any one dsease.

The story goes on to where Reagan made a deal with President Charon of France that Gallo and Montaignier would share equally in the patent roaylties. Luc claimed Gallo's use of the material Luc sent him violated their agreement. Reagan and Charon were approached to minimize negative publicity between squabbling scientists as this would would harm the AIDS research programs.

Some tme later Luc was asked if he had found any HIV during the research project and he replied that they looked and looked but ididn't find any. When asked to explain the electron micrograph that accompanied his publication in "Science" that seemed to suggest a picture of some HIV wereebeing offerred Luc responded that the micrograph was inserted for educational effects.

Pesonally I do not consider AIDS a biologoical disease.Oh, yes this final note. Gallo's news conference was conducted before his papers had been published or peer reviewed. The next day the pwprld awioke to the existence of HIV = AIDS. The story is much more grim than I have outlined here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

but AIDS clearly is a virus that weakens or destroys immune system, no?
a disease? maybe no, because people die from diseases that get through the immune system, but it clearly is a damaging "body" that needs to be prevented from destroying immune system

 

I think HIV is clearly a virus and is associated with AIDS.

I don't think you can deny this.

 

even if the patient history would be the only proof

 

You are correct, the immune system gets savaged,but is it a virus? I claim that, No virus, HIV, or any other has been isolated to the exclusion af all bio-matter and that this stuff causes AIDS.

You are asking me the question is "AIDS is clearly is a virus which weakens the immune system". The claim is that HIV, 'human imunodefieciency virus' causes AIDS, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. If there is the proof, I would like to hear the refernces from some responsible government offical that uses the VIV = AIDS claim in creating and operating US AIDS policy.

If you believe that HIV causes AIDS then what is the scientific proof that can be scrutinized by anyone that convinces you?.

Prove it to me, is my answer to those believing or asserting that HIV causes AIDS, yeah prove it to me.

 

Listen to your own statement. What you "think" is not anywhere near sciuentific ally analyzed data with any useful parameters. When and where did HIV get on the table as the pathogen causing AIDS? When , where and how were yiou convinced in the virus theory of AIDS?

So you don't think I can deny this? You are in error here, because I most certainly do deny just what you are inferring.

 

Are you saying the patient history is the only "proof" that there exists a virus that causes AIDS, a unique virus, to the exclusion of all other viruses, or organisms?

"The enemies of truth. Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." Friedrich N.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm too lazy to do a pubmed search.

Do it yourself.

 

It would be fruitful at this point to mention that geistkiesel believes in psychic phenomena and homeopathic medicine. That is why he's being so pedantic about AIDS being caused by a specific, unique virus, when it's been demonstrated that viruses mutate over time and that some strains of a variety are more virulent than others.

 

Take a hypothetical person whose life style is the constant intake of any drug available, 300 -400 sex partners per yer, many cases of veneral disease requiring anti-biotics, a questionable diet and sanitary living conditions. After a few years of this does it not seem reasonable that a persons immune system could be corrupted by something other than a virus?

Since the getgo approximately 60% of "AIDS" cases fell into this catagory for male homosexuals between the ages of 20 and 45. Another 30% or so are introvenous drug users with simlar health and life style problems. Prostitutes were found to be no more susceptable to AIDS than any other group. Those prostitutes with the drug life described were the one acquiring AIDS. Do you believe the propaganda? Research the introduction of AZT the killer drug into the AIDS therapy packet.

Search the internet for AIDS/HIV controversey

 

If this is what you believe then that is what you believe. Can you prove it? Can you show th eunambiguous isolation of HIV, the virus, and then show that this virus causes AIDS?

WHo can point to a single electron micrograph of a picture of an HIV? I don't deny anything, I just maintain thagt there is no proof of the existence of the HIV or its casuitive potential.
Quite honestly, your individual or collective beliefs in thsik matte are tiotally insignificant in any determinetion fo the causes of AIDS.

This about it, with th assunmed HIV = AIDS scenario, who is looking for the cause of AIDS? Answer: no one who wants to keep their mainline research job that is.

In America, I have to be kidding don't I? Have any of you ever looked at the origins of AIDS with an open mind?

 

Another fraudulent scientist joins the fray. I, geistkiesel "believeing in psychic phenmomena" and "homeopathic " medicine is being pedantic? about the causes of AIDS.? What do you have to offer to the discussion other than insults and character assasination and the attempt to blunt what I g=have to say in this matter. I care not one wit about what you call me you ersatz scientist creep.What are you some kind of holier than thou mainline propagandist? All your crap about viruses have absolutely nothing to do with proving that HIV causes AIDS or not.

The suim totality of your post was to distract and to orient the converstaion along the prevailing propganda created line. I asked only that soem responsible governmemtn official state what he NIH uses as proof. They claim often enough like this dismal human failure here, bigblewhed, so just prove it, or keep yout mouth shut.

Did you know blue h=hed that more people die from using prescribed medicines than use some called "illegal drugs". Thee is no manufactured drug bthat safe for th e public, it is all a numbers game. The industry merely maintains a pool to pay off th eones they cripple. This is your medicine? The US Government has a massive nmedicare drug purchasing program where one can give their tax money to the drug comopanies to the tune of a trillion dollars over the next ten years to purchase questionably safe and useful drugs,
I cannot conceive that a human being in this country can adopt an attitude of corrupted conversation on a system of learning. I think someone pays you to be snide, condescending and stupid.
.

 

This might be a bit off topic, but this is what I've always wondered about Aids. Why doesn't it spread through mosquito bites? It's a blood disease right? Malaria is a blood disease as well, right? Why don't you get it the same as malaria? Is it possible that something in the mosquito kills the virus? I'm sure I'm not the first person to come up with this idea. Or maybe mosquitos do spread it, but there is no media coverage of it to prevent a panic. I don't know, just a thought.

 

Have there been cases where a patient has contracted AIDS yet has no trace of HIV in their system?

In the case of the above being yes, I'd think that geistkeisel might have something...

Buf if I recall correctly there have been studies showing that HIV does some nasty stuff to the immune system when it comes out of dormancy...

And for further info...
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm (cites some studies and some other stuff).

 

The difference, invert, is that malaria is caused by a parasite, not a virus. The parasite (a single celled flagellate of the genera Plasmodium) has to physically "swim" to the salivary glands of the mosquito, and requires the particular conditions found in the mosquito's gut for reproduction (the mosquito is the definitive host). HIV particles would be destroyed in the gut, and become useless.

 

I suppose if AIDS were a virus caused disease eventually some mosquito would infect someone. Here there are pradoxes. The HIV test is not a test for HIV, rather what is considered the antibody to HIV, or assumed so. The rational goes that if antibodies are present so must the virus be present. The catch 22 is that the presence of antibodies is evidence the body is properly defending itself.

Look at the statistics. AIDS is not an epidemic that ravages people with egalitarian zeal. AIDS is confined to a well defined set of social groups, GAy males between 20 and 45 with a life style of drugs, many sex partners, many trips to he VD clunic, massive doses of antibiotics , a dimal diet, high strress and you name it; and intranvenous drug users. Both these groups comprise approximately 90% of AIDS victims.

No wonder the immune system goes through the floor with the kind of activity described.

If you want an eye opener here is a little test you can conduct yourself. Ask any doctor MD,, what causes AIDS? She will more than likely respond that "HIV cause AIDS" . Next question, "What scientific evidence do you use doctor that proves to you that HIV causes AIDS?" You will always get either "BS hem hawing", or an honest answer "I don't know".

Ask yourself what scientific evidence do you use to prove to yourself that HIV causes AIDS? None, is my guess. We all have been educated by the hypnotic humm of our television sets. Have you ever noticed that the communication is one way with the boob tube? When you hear an "expert" discussing AIDS does he give conclusions or science and can you easily check the claimed science? Trust is the watch word. Trust me trust me truist me, and most of us do.

Here is a bet for anyone to grab. I will bet any sum that no responsible "scintifically competent person "employed by the NIH will everr stand before the public and list 10 or twenty or any number of published scientific documents that he claims proves the HIV = AIDS asumption. Remember, the HIV/AIDS connection has been discussed in the most certian of language, "No doubt at all", "the most researched disease in history". etc. Why then are there all the dismal " we don't know how HIV causes AIDS, but we are sure that HIV causes AIDS"

Listen to what people are saying when they are lying through their teeth .Now that's good advice.

 

Yes thereare inumerable cases where so called infections are null results. The dormaancy is another problem. In the earlly 80s it was a 2 year period, then 3m the 5 . Now it is up to 5 - 10 or something. Not a very informative statistical set is i? But again prove the existence of HIV, then prove HIV causes AIDS. This has not been done except by assumption.
You wan sadness in your life? Read up on he drug AZT designed to stop the separation of cells designed for cancer patients in the 50s and 60s. Tested on terminal patients the tests wee abandoned with the inventors not bothering to fikle for a patent the drug so ravaged the patients. Same stopry today. Poison by precription. Can you believe it? It is a little too horrible to think our government is either so stuipid or so brutally murderous. Hey they clean out he gay druggies. In Africa they purge the poor sick deprived blacks, not a social group that would be anything but a drag on efficient economic growth. Stupidity or murder?