Possible Aids Cure?

[dutchie]

Just stumbled upon this article (http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,63441,00.html) . If it's true, why wasn't this on the frontpage of all newsmedia?!? This is friggin world news!!

Designer Virus Stalks HIV

By Kristen Philipkoski
02:00 AM May. 13, 2004 PT

BERKELEY, California -- It took Adam Arkin and David Schaffer just $200,000 and a grad student to develop a potential treatment for AIDS. And that scares them.

That's because the therapy itself is a virus. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory assistant professors created a virus altered to latch onto HIV and mute its ability to become AIDS. They've tested the theory in a computer model, and in cells in a dish. The results have been promising, and if they continue in that vein, the researchers could begin animal testing by the end of this year.

http://www.luc.edu/depts/biology/hiv.jpg
(schematics of HIV virus: source www.luc.edu)

Arkin said this week at the International Biotech Summit at the University of California at Berkeley that it was almost too easy for him and his colleagues (Schaffer and then-grad student Leor Weinberger) to build the anti-HIV virus.

"If I can do it, anyone can do it," Arkin said. "That's going to be a problem."

Well, maybe not anyone. After all, Arkin, Schaffer and Weinberger, who was lead author on their Journal of Virology paper (reg. required) outlining a mathematic model of the system, are not your run-of-the-mill lab jockeys.

Still, bad guys can be brilliant, too, which is even more reason for the good guys to understand new biotechnologies as thoroughly as possible.

"The genie is out of the bottle, so we might as well study these things in earnest," Arkin said in an interview.

Plus, the potential good could outweigh the bad. By using a computer model of what happens to the immune system when it's infected with HIV, Arkin and his colleagues have designed a potential AIDS treatment that would remain with the patient as long as he or she has HIV, meaning it would prevent AIDS from arising even in patients who otherwise would have developed the disease after a decade of latency. They also predict HIV would not become resistant to the virus.

The treatment is made of a gutted HIV virus. The harmful parts of the virus are removed, and in their place the researchers have inserted a DNA cargo that inhibits HIV's ability to kill immune cells. It latches onto the natural HIV and spreads along with it, even from person to person.

If this process sounds familiar, it's because it is essentially gene therapy, albeit a transmissible gene therapy. But the term "gene therapy" has fallen out of favor because of a handful of fatalities in clinical trials and, after nearly three decades of research, no gene therapy method has been proven to work consistently.

So Arkin and Schaffer are instead calling the process "synthetic biology." Despite appearances, it's not an arbitrary term: The researchers are synthesizing biological elements into machines to do their bidding.

"An artificial virus is one such product, since it is designed and constructed using molecular biology tools for a specific therapeutic application," Schaffer said. "As another example, Jay Keasling in our department engineers bacteria to produce small-molecule pharmaceutical drugs."

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, MIT and other institutions have established departments and courses dedicated to this manipulation of human molecules.

"All the capabilities are found in nature, just not in the right order to do what we want to do," Arkin said. "It's like changing the computer language. (Cells) perform amazing engineering feats under the control of complex cellular networks. We didn't design it, evolution did."

Computer modeling is key to figuring out what bacteria or viruses might do in a given situation. The computer model Arkin and Schaffer used showed that their therapy won't likely eliminate all HIV cells in a patient. But if the treatment inhibits HIV too much, the good virus won't be able to propogate.

"Maximal inhibition actually causes the therapy to extinguish itself," Schaffer said in an e-mail.

Without the computer model to guide them, the researchers may not have detected such subtleties. However, other labs like Virxsys (researchers there published work that gave Arkin et al. a foundation for their own work) are further along in developing a similar therapy (although the Berkeley researchers' method is unique in its piggyback effect) without the benefit of a computer model. Scientists there are already testing their treatment for safety in humans, and hope to test for efficacy by the end of this year, said Boro Dropulic, the company's founder and chief scientific officer.

Arkin and Schaffer's computer model will also help them foresee potential problems, which are plentiful when trying to treat a deadly disease with a manufactured virus. This is a virus that can be spread by having sex, just like HIV (although if it works, that could be a good thing). It's also possible that HIV and the therapeutic virus could mutate around each other and recombine to make an altogether new virus.

"I can't say now it won't make it worse," Arkin said.

[prezhorusin04]

Nice post Dutchie. I'll have to find it again, but i've actually got a link to the US patent number on the Aids vaccine..

In the meantime..
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=458af7ff503503e4bf6e2 03e68e45f29

[dutchie]

The second claim (tetrasilver "purifying" the blood, exactly like it does in a swimming pool, thus being a patented cure for HIV) of Dr. Boyd Graves for me sort of screws up his first claim - namely having found true evidence that HIV is man-made.

I can not believe that a simple agent like Ag4O4 would be the cure for HIV/AIDS, without it already being world news... I plan to send this link to one of the more reliable Dutch news agencies and see what they think of it.

Here's a quote from an interview between Sultan Muhammad (SM) and Dr. Boyd Graves. Judge for yourself...

SM: Were you diagnosed with AIDS?

BG: I had a diagnosis. There is some speculation that it might even have been false-positive. There are many conditions. One of the conditions that I had at that time allowed, for Black people in particular, to test false-positive for HIV/AIDS, whereby you were placed on medicines with tremendous side effects. These medicines led to liver failure that killed a number of persons.

In November 2001, I took the U.S. patented cure and, for the last 33 months from a physical standpoint, have been in the midst of rejuvenation.

Therefore, we do know that the cure is available; it works; we believe it is suppressed simply because not enough people have been killed yet.

SM: What is this cure called?

BG: Tetrasil. It has a second name, which is Imusil. The patent number is 5676977.

SM: Who has the patent on this drug?

BG: The patent was issued to Rabbi Dr. Marvin Antelman of Morantech Corporation in Providence, Rhode Island. In my research and contact with Rabbi Dr. Antelman, he told me he had a college relationship with Dr. Gallo, who had stolen something that he and others had been working on. That led me to think that perhaps Dr. Antelman was given the AIDS cure as a payback by Dr. Gallo. There is a connection between the AIDS invention and the AIDS cure patent program.

There is a tetra silver that is used in swimming pools. We found a similarity of the blood in your body with respect to the water in a swimming pool. If you put something in a disc in your swimming pool, then all the water becomes clear. The same is true with this one-time injection of purifying the blood in the body. The process is identical to how you purify the water in the swimming pool, and I believe that the swimming pool product is called tetra silver. Dr. Antelman changed the name from Tetrasil to Imusil.

SM: Who is Dr. Vincent Gammil?

BG: Dr. Gammil is a friend of mine who led me to the Tetrasil. He was also instrumental in supervising Dr. Roberto Munoz, of Mexico, when I received the injection in November 2001.

SM: Did you receive the injection in Mexico?

BG: No, I received it in Southern California.

SM: How were you able to get the drug?

BG: The chemical composition of the Tetrasil is Ag4O4 (Silver 4/Oxygen 4). It is a relatively simple compound to make.

We could flood Africa with it and bolster the individuals who are suffering and laboring under the throes of HIV and AIDS, so that we have a chance to save the continent. As we speak, the first trials of the cure, Tetrasil, have gotten underway, with only three individuals in Kinshasa taking the injection.

A recent report was that the individuals are doing well and are delighted to have had the AIDS cure. Therefore, we know it works and we know that it is suppressed.

SM: Thank you.

[Red Shift]

wow thats a great find dutchie, wonder why it isn't global news like you said, hmm

[VegasRonin]

I've done some research on this subject. Being of African descent, I have a vested interest in this topic. The Imusil/Tetrasil cure seems to be bogus. If you research these terms, you'll end up on Shamanic/Sorcery type websites, that smack a bit of scientology. Here's an example of one of these sites. http://www.youtopiainstitute.org/CURE%20for%20AIDS_HIV.html

Question:
I recently read some information that is supposedly from "The Global Health council "about Tetrasil/ Imusil which ( from what I can tell) is also known as tetrasilver tetroxide and it is supposed to be a cure for HIV and AIDS.
If this is really a possible cure why is there not more info available about it? Where can I find more info like clinical trials that may have been held using this and any other info about anyone that may have used this?
Another question is, do you know of a way for some of us to track down these Doctors who purport to have a cure so we may find out if they are really doctors?
Thank you very much,
A Long term servivor
Answer provided by:
John Barrow, M.D.

All of us living with HIV would like to have a safe, simple, and effective cure for AIDS. So would the US government, various state and city governments, and all of the insurance companies in the USA who are stuck with the very high bill for treating this disease. Then, there's the rest of the world that struggles to pay for medications that work- they'd much rather have cheaper alternatives, too.
No such remedy exists.
While web sites show paragraphs of long words describing silver compounds abound, there is no evidence to suggest that these work, and from what I've seen, the proposed mechanism of action makes absolutely no sense. Silver ions do not "fire electric charges" at anything, and to state that is to fail to understand the most basic principles of general chemistry, much less physics, pharmacology, and medicine.
There is no evidence to suggest that these silver compounds have any effect on HIV, and no theoretical reason to suggest that investing research time and dollars is likely to produce any advances in the treatment of HIV. SOURCE (http://www.aegis.com/askdoc/ASKD040205.html)
Since we're on the AIDS topic. Here's some food for thought. SCARY STUFF (http://www.naturalsolutionsradio.com/articles/article.html?id=4931&filter=)

[dutchie]

Hate to quote myself, VR, but...


The second claim (tetrasilver "purifying" the blood, exactly like it does in a swimming pool, thus being a patented cure for HIV) of Dr. Boyd Graves for me sort of screws up his first claim - namely having found true evidence that HIV is man-made.

I can not believe that a simple agent like Ag4O4 would be the cure for HIV/AIDS, without it already being world news... I plan to send this link to one of the more reliable Dutch news agencies and see what they think of it.


I already thought this miracle cure was complete BS...

[dutchie]

Yeah... HIV was designed to wipe out the black Americans, by selectively attacking only those with a genome that is different from the Caucasian type...

Just imagine this were true... This would make Hitler look like an amateur...

[VegasRonin]

Drug Might Become First for Specific Race
Tuesday, November 09, 2004

NEW ORLEANS — The largest study ever done solely on blacks with heart failure raises the controversial prospect of the first drug that might be marketed to a specific racial group.

The experimental drug, BiDil (search), dramatically improved survival and cut hospitalizations for heart failure, a problem that affects 5 million Americans, blacks 2 1/2 times more often than whites.

Its maker, NitroMed, plans to seek federal approval for the two-drug combination pill by year's end.

"It's a delight to see a trial that clearly shows a benefit of therapy in a particular racial group," said Dr. Augustus Grant, past president of the Association of Black Cardiologists (search), which supported the study.

However, some specialists believe the pill also would help whites and say it should have been tested among them but wasn't for business reasons.

The study's results were reported Monday at an American Heart Association (search) meeting in New Orleans, and will be published Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Heart failure occurs when the heart is too weak to pump effectively, causing fluid to back up in the lungs — leaving people weak and short of breath. Half die within five years of diagnosis. SOURCE (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137965,00.html) Maybe I'm paranoid but the thought of a drug designed for a specific ethnic type scares me. I'll never take such medication willingly.

[dutchie]

Yes, I can imagine that... But fact remains that ethnic groups all DO differ in the genome. It might well be true that some drugs DO actually work better for some groups than for others. On the other hand, I can understand your trust in this is not quite a 100%... I'd be reluctant too... But I would be too when it concerned drugs solely designed for whites...

[substand]

I also wonder why this wouldn't have been reported. If HIV causes AIDS, I suspect it may be because there has been an entire industry that would be killed if it were to find a cure, especially such an easy one. I don't think its a concerted effort on their part, but just something they are not likely to embrace, given all the research and dollars supporting the "traditional approach" (which I don't think is correct).

I'm still in denial about HIV causing aids though... I don't think it does, and the evidence certainly doesn't support the assumption. It has yet to be scientifically proven than HIV causes AIDS. If you can find a scientific article that proves it, I'd love to see it (but you can't, because no such article or study exists). Most AIDS cases today in western culture are one of:

1) homosexuals, particularly those who use a lot of drugs which are known to be immunosuppressive
2) heavy drug users
3) hemophiliacs, who are known to be immunodeficient anyway
4) after the AIDS "epidemic" did not rise to the levels that they thought it would be, the AIDS establishment started redefining other diseases, calling them AIDS for anyone with such a disease that also had HIV. (and still it does not observe the pattern of infection than infectious diseases follow)

in Africa, it is hard to tell who has AIDS or not, and it is quite common to report ANY death (even if by say, an automobile accident) as being from AIDS, in order to get money from it.

I refer you to the work of Dr. Peter Duesburg (spelling might be wrong). Look him up.

Also, I wonder if this discussion is not more suited to another thread besides politics.

[DontBeAfraid]

Seriously subs.... while many things might lead to aids, a syndrome; hiv, a virus(something transmittable) is the leading cause....

The Virus,hiv, is transmitted through body fluids which the replicates and attacks t-cells which in turn effectively kills a persons immune system.... AIDS(aquired immune difficiency syndrome) is just an acronym used to describe a person whose immune system has been destroyed by the hiv virus.

Sex does not break down your immune system, whether its gay or straight, unless one party passes immune system killing agents to the other party.

Hemophiliacs dont "aquire" anything and therefore dont have aids.

[substand]

about the whole "But fact remains that ethnic groups all DO differ in the genome. " this is true- in fact, the only genetic way to determine "race" stems from dna that is more prone to certain infections (or respond better to certain drugs)... so that "race" is best described by what continent we come from, which can be described by the diseases and drugs we are most susceptible to or work best.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00055DC8-3BAA-1FA8-BBAA83414B7F0000

[substand]

you both may think me stupid, but i stand by the fact that there is not one single study (or even multiple studies) that prove that HIV leads to or causes AIDS. In most scientific endeavors, we seek to prove things. In the case of AIDS, we have not done so. They came up with the "HIV causes aids" theory (in fact, the same virus beforehand was thought to cause cancer) and no one proved it. And it became so entrenched that by the time they realized that not enough people were dying of AIDS for HIV to be considered communicable and the cause of it, they started calling many other diseases AIDS if someone had HIV. And it still doesnt add up.

As for the straight or gay sex, I am not saying that homos get aids because of some curse of God, or that sex (or the type of) even causes it. What I am saying is that the majority of AIDS cases include to a large extent homosexuals who use such drugs (like amyl nitrite) on a regular basis that leads to immunodeficiency. Straight people dont overuse this drug to near the extent homosexuals do, and this in part accounts for the difference in "infection" rates. Most "straight" people who get aids fall into the category of heavy drug use, or those found to be "infected" with HIV who use drugs to fight it like AZT, which themselves kill the body and its immune system. (again, all this only applies to "western" cases.)

Seriously though, find the scientific study that proves HIV causes AIDS, and then I will beleive it. Until then, there are way too many holes to make me a beleiver in a supernatural magic virus, which has at least the possibility to be PROVEN as a cause (ie- if it does cause it, then it can be proven).

[DontBeAfraid]

AIDS is not a disease, and many diseases can cause AIDS. The hiv virus directly attacks and destroys the immune system thereby causeing AIDS... I get the feeling our arguments are symantic.


Straight people dont overuse this drug to near the extent homosexuals do

That statement should require more proof than this "hiv/AIDS conspiracy" you seem to have already accepted.

Please show me the scientific study that has proven this.

[substand]

could be symantic... my only point is that HIV does not cause AIDS, and I feel like continued research there by EVERYONE is a bad idea, and causes more deaths that prevents... I only wish that we would be more open to other ideas, and by doing so perhaps we could prevent many deaths.

And perhaps we should continue to research it, but at least we should PROVE it is a precursor to AIDS if we are to continue to put 99% of research dollars in a cure for AIDS based on HIV.

As for the "gay people use nitrite more than straight people" thing, it may not be proven. I dont know if it is or isn't, but its use in the gay community is abundant, and many there are trying to get the word out.

For example, http://www.gayhealth.com/templates/1100582826108605351764/common/drug.html?record=41&trycookie=1 says that "Poppers are mostly sold in sex shops and gay nightclubs"... it is a major concern for the gay community, much more so than the straight community.... at least I've seen much more concern about it on gay websites than straight ones.

[dutchie]

Here (http://www2.niaid.nih.gov/newsroom/focuson/hiv00/default.htm) is an article about this subject.
Although I might agree that there is no 100% conclusive evidence that HIV causes AIDS, the evidence that it COULD cause AIDS is too much present to be ignored.

[DontBeAfraid]

Maybe the gays are just more open and out of the closet about drug abuse than their straight countersparts.....

[DontBeAfraid]

I used the word diesease wrong in my post... Apparently disease is used to refer to many different kinds of afflictions... So what I should have posted is:
AIDS is not the cause of a sickness but a condition of a sickness. That sickness being prolonged hiv infection.

Subs this is for you... combined with dutchies link there should be no more confusion, be it scientific or symantic, hiv cause aids.
http://www.aegis.com/topics/definition.html

Websites that arent openly gay are assumed to be straight... At least thats how it is with B.E.T. ... If you compare the stats to std/sti/vd websites it might be a little more even.... Or if you could point me in the direction of a "straight website" I might have some reference as to what you are talking about.... I mean other than porn(which obviously isnt going make a big deal about drug abuse) I cant think of any kind of web site that can be defined as straight.

[substand]

Although I might agree that there is no 100% conclusive evidence that HIV causes AIDS, the evidence that it COULD cause AIDS is too much present to be ignored.

You are right, there is no 100% conclusive evidence that HIV causes AIDS. There is a statistically irrelevant correlation between the two. (again see Duesberg as the most prominent). I'm not saying that we should ignore HIV as the cause- just that until it can be proven as the cause or not (which is possible) we should not use almost 100% of research funding in that area. We should be open to spending money on alternatives, and currently we are not.


combined with dutchies link there should be no more confusion, be it scientific or symantic, hiv cause aids.

There may be no more symantic differences between us, but there are certainly scientific ones. I would be happy if we could find a cure. But I dont think that will happen until we open other avenues of research.

It's been close to 25 years of research and billions and billions of dollars have been spent researching HIV as the cause- yet no cure. Maybe it is that hard to find a cure. But to me, it seems equally probable that there is no cure yet because we are researching the wrong stuff.

I don't think it would be too much to ask scientists to prove HIV causes AIDS if they are to devote 99% of our research dollars to finding a cure based on that hypothesis. However, they have not proved it so, even though it should be possible to prove it so (if it is the cause).

Perhaps its time to look at other avenues. To me, if we look at this nonscientifically- it is much like the War on Drugs. Billions have been spent on an inneffective campaign (neglect the personal choice arguments in that example and focus on the years of blood and treasure wasted). Perhaps its time to change directions. Not only could we open the way to a cure, and thus save money- surely morality demands it of us.

[lotrfan55345]

http://www.gayhealth.com/templates/1100582826108605351764/common/drug.html?record=41&trycookie=1 says that "Poppers are mostly sold in sex shops and gay nightclubs"... it is a major concern for the gay community, much more so than the straight community.... at least I've seen much more concern about it on gay websites than straight ones.

Wha? Just search for a drug on google like "mescaline" or "extacy" and none of the results on the first page are "gay related". Is there a "scientific study" done where one's sexual orientaiton (caused by the pituitary gland) can somehow affect ones craving for drugs.

Another reason why (maybe) that it seems that gay people "seem" to use drugs more is that most of US society looks down upon gay people are usually bullied. They resort to drugs to resort to drug use to escape their problem like the stereotypical "bullied" kid/person. That is the only reason I can think of in my head that would make it seem like gay people take drugs more often.

(BTW welcome back subs, its been awhile!)

[substand]

Wha? Just search for a drug on google like "mescaline" or "extacy" and none of the results on the first page are "gay related". Is there a "scientific study" done where one's sexual orientaiton (caused by the pituitary gland) can somehow affect ones craving for drugs.

I wasn't speaking of all drugs, but those widely recognized as the worst for immune systems, specifically amyl nitrite. Sorry for the confusion.

[DontBeAfraid]

Subs hiv is a virus..... aids is a term used to describe a condition..... We dont have a cure for any virus' yet, we only treat the symptoms..... hiv uses T-cells, the workhorse cells of our IMMUNE systems, to reproduce. When the virus has killed enough of your T-cells you are then classified as having aids.

Please explain what you think isnt adding up here. hiv kills your t-cells when it reproduces, this is not a guess, this is what hiv does.....

We have spent billions on cancer research and yet people still get cancer..... Thats your argument?

[dutchie]

Yeah, DBA.. I'm puzzled too... The gay community has more HIV cases, because they have a greater risc of getting the virus through blood contacts. You don't contract HIV from having a diminished immunity through drug abuse or whatever. The condition where your immune system is toast (because the HIV destroyed your T-cells) is called AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) and can lead to rare types of skin cancer and dangerous types of pneumonia.

[substand]

Subs hiv is a virus..... aids is a term used to describe a condition..... We dont have a cure for any virus' yet, we only treat the symptoms..... hiv uses T-cells, the workhorse cells of our IMMUNE systems, to reproduce. When the virus has killed enough of your T-cells you are then classified as having aids.

Please explain what you think isnt adding up here. hiv kills your t-cells when it reproduces, this is not a guess, this is what hiv does.....

Yet there remain many many cases where HIV does not kill TCells or damage the immune system enough to say a person has AIDS. There are many people who live fine with HIV for the rest of their long lives. Yet there are many who take the poison AZT who have HIV that were perfectly healthy before taking it, and then only AFTER taking AZT got "AIDS." There are many cases where someone stopped taking AZT early enough to make a recovery from it.

Perhaps the reason is that HIV might not be the cause or precursor or anything related to AIDS except by the definition that "anyone with X disease and HIV has AIDS, and anyone who has these diseases without HIV does not have AIDS." There is a TON of evidence that points to HIV having nothing to do with it besides the way they defined it. The precise problem, IMO, is the definition. If we are to find a cure, we should find another definition, because there are plenty of people dying with "AIDS" that do not have the virus, but it cannot be called that precisely BECAUSE they do not have the virus. On the other hand, there are plenty of people living full long lives who DO have the virus.

There is absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that PROVES HIV CAUSES AIDS. We should fund other areas of research, or demand that evidence be provided before we continue to provide lackluster treatment based on that hypothesis.


We have spent billions on cancer research and yet people still get cancer..... Thats your argument?

No, Cancer is another case entirely, because from what I've read (which, of course, could be all wrong too) it is not caused by a virus (or rather, we are not providing treatment for it based on a hypothesis that X virus causes it). We provide treatment based on the assumption that "HIV causes AIDS" is a fact. If indeed that "fact" is wrong, then we are wasting tons of money... and when it is possible to prove that a virus causes a disease and it has not been proven so, then we should question the continued almost-exclusive funding of that reseach.


The gay community has more HIV cases, because they have a greater risc of getting the virus through blood contacts. You don't contract HIV from having a diminished immunity through drug abuse or whatever.

I don't see how the gay community has a greater risk of getting it through blood contacts, especially since we've been told that anyone can get it through sex or sharing needles. My point wasn't that you get the virus through using drugs, my point is that you get the disease from doing things (or having conditions) that lead to very low immune systems. My point is that I don't think the virus has anything to do with it. There are very many people with all the symptoms and risk factors of AIDS who are not deemed as having AIDS simply because they do not have HIV. And there are many people who don't have AIDS who have few of the risk factors for it that have HIV.

[DontBeAfraid]

because there are plenty of people dying with "AIDS" that do not have the virus actually there are NONE.... We could call everything that results in a diminished immune system but that wouldnt help us to solve the hiv factor, which is the biggest factor.... There are SOME cases of people being fine carriers of hiv and living normal lives with it but in MOST cases it results in aids..... Its good to keep an open mind like you are saying but this stuff would seem to be very well documented and agreed upon, its not political pressure.... why would it be?

I don't see how the gay community has a greater risk of getting it through blood contacts, especially since we've been told that anyone can get it through sex or sharing needles.
Gay sex is a better transmitter of the hiv virus because assholes get torn up and bleed.... So more body fluids gets transfered.... anal sex is a rarity amoung the straight population because, well, females have two holes and most prefer not to take it in the ass.....

Were you educated about this subject in a private school?

[substand]

actually there are NONE.... We could call everything that results in a diminished immune system but that wouldnt help us to solve the hiv factor, which is the biggest factor.... There are SOME cases of people being fine carriers of hiv and living normal lives with it but in MOST cases it results in aids..... Its good to keep an open mind like you are saying but this stuff would seem to be very well documented and agreed upon, its not political pressure.... why would it be?

You are right... there are NONE- simply because AIDS is defined as only being AIDS if you have the virus. And yes, HIV is the biggest factor- BECAUSE THE DEFINITION OF AIDS IS THAT THE PATIENT MUST HAVE HIV FOR IT TO BE CALLED AIDS. That is precisely my point- that we are overlooking the real cause for this disease because we've labelled it improperly.

There are more than "SOME cases of people being ... carriers of HIV" and "living normail lives." The problem is that not anywhere NEAR all of them contract "AIDS," especially if you take into account the AZT factor. And its not MOST cases that it results in AIDS. If HIV was the cause of AIDS and HIV was communicable- most of us would be dead (if both cases held true). But neither one of them hold, and science has yet to prove either one as true.

And yes, it is good to keep an open mind, and yes it is all "documented and agreed upon..." Yet it doesn't seem to work how they say it does. the reason I say it is "political pressure" is because of the fact that it is "agreed upon." Anyone who disagrees is a "nut." So I don't mean political pressure as in President SoAndSo tells us its so and threatens to execute or disembowel those who disagree- i mean it in the sense that everyone has been basically told it is truth without any direct proof whatsoever. But since we have all been told it is truth by our schools and such, (and we dont study it in depth), then most everyone beleives it is true.


Gay sex is a better transmitter of the hiv virus because assholes get torn up and bleed.... So more body fluids gets transfered.... anal sex is a rarity amoung the straight population because, well, females have two holes and most prefer not to take it in the ass.....

Asses to get torn up and bleed, to be sure... and I was going to offer evidence that "virgin vaginas" do as well, but as it turns out, anal sex is much "worse" in that, in the case of infection rates for Gonorrhea, "Vaginal rate is 1 in 1000 acts, anal is 5 to 30 per 1000 acts." according to a study at http://www.arthurhu.com/index/aids.htm#analsex.

However, http://e-crap.com/sex_crap/sex0925.html cites the women's magazine Redbook when it says "And more statistics...100,000 married women were surveyed. Of them, 43% had tried anal sex. 40% found it enjoyable, while 49% did not enjoy the experience. The rest were indifferent." I don't know how scientific the poll was, but through my own anecdotal experience, I would say that around 35% of the women I've talked to about it have had anal sex or were open to the idea of it. And thats probably more women than there are gay men...


Were you educated about this subject in a private school?

Never attended private school, so no.

[DontBeAfraid]

If HIV was the cause of AIDS and HIV was communicable- most of us would be dead (if both cases held true). But neither one of them hold, and science has yet to prove either one as true. Im certain the second one is true.... hiv is transmittable.

Subs all gay sex is anal.... and guys like to fuck a lot more than women.... So even if 100% of wives let thier husbands take a shot at the crack once in a blue moon I would still bet there is a about 1000 times more gay ass fucking going on...

Now subs, why in the world would there be some big conspiracy to keep us from redifining aids if new research proved current thought wrong?..... That is science..... That is progress... We left the dark ages a long time ago.... When and if your theory is proven correct things will change.... But for now we are going off of documented evidence(tests) that prove that hiv attacks and kills the immune system by using t-cells to replicate....

btw you dont contract aids you develope it.

[VegasRonin]

Now subs, why in the world would there be some big conspiracy to keep us from redifining aids if new research proved current thought wrong?..... To answer that question DBA, just look at the demographic of the victims (For the most part).

ALSO...

On April 23, 1984 Dr. Robert Gallo announced that he had discovered "the probable cause of AIDS", a new retrovirus, later named HIV. ...less than half of the AIDS patients he had used in his study were infected with HIV.

Gallo's statement was made at an international press conference, circumventing essential rules of the scientific process; he presented no evidence for his hypothesis that HIV caused AIDS--he had not published his research findings in any scientific or medical journal where they would be subject to the normal process of peer review prior to being announced to the public.

The same day of his infamous press conference, Gallo filed a patent application for an HIV antibody test (now known as the "AIDS test") and all federally funded research examining other possible causes of AIDS came to an abrupt halt.

The evidence Gallo proposed for his HIV hypothesis was published several weeks after his April 24 press conference. The research described in this paper revealed that less than half of the AIDS patients he had used in his study were infected with HIV. A congressional investigation later determined that Gallo had not discovered HIV: The virus Gallo claimed to have found had actually been taken from a sample sent to him by a French virologist, Luc Montagnier, who had isolated retroviral particles from the lymph nodes of male homosexual without AIDS. At the 1993 International AIDS Conference, Dr. Montagnier stated that "HIV may be benign."

[DontBeAfraid]

The conspiracy makes more sense now... Money is the source of a lot of bad intentions...

[Defiant Noquisi]

Im not in the know regarding this subject but here is a link that might be helpful;

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases - scroll down for quite an extensive list of websites on the correlation of HIV and AIDS including scientific trials and research

http://www2.niaid.nih.gov/newsroom/focuson/hiv00/default.htm

[substand]

Thanks VR... I was going to try and look through and find something, but that pretty much sums it up. We have created an entire industry on this hypothesis, and it is not likely to just come down because of a handful of researchers, who happen to be nutty enough to put their careers on the line- thus adding to the idea they are nuts to begin with and that their theory is nuts.


When and if your theory is proven correct things will change....

this is where it gets tricky. My "side" has to prove a negative, but the "establishment" does not have to prove they are correct. Normally in science, when one comes up with a theory, it needs to be proven correct before it becomes scientific law.

to add to the trickiness, because it has been ingrained into everyone's head that "HIV causes AIDS"- it makes it difficult for anyone to get funding for the alternative research I am talking about. There IS a special grant (from the NIH I beleive) that it given to researchers in various fields that look at alternative hypothesis. Peter Duesberg used to have it, but it was stripped by the same Gallo VR is talking about (who headed or heads the NIH I beleive)


This did not happen with the HIV causes AIDS theory (it being proven to become "law"). Further, in my own view, the lack of a proof that HIV causes AIDS is proof enough that it doesn't (or at least that it is worth investigating other theories). Further examination of facts like those I have presented (IE, people with AIDS (before the definition was changed to say a person MUST have HIV for it be called AIDS) that dont have HIV, people with HIV who never gets AIDS, etc) would seem to be another thorn in the "establishment" side.

The truth is, this message board cannot due justice to the arguments, but I will present them to the best of my ability- as I remember more of the book (which I read like 5 years ago and don't have a personal copy of), and read up more when asked certain questions.

As another example of poor scientific procedure, let us look at the drug AZT, and most AIDS drugs since then. When doing testing for the FDA to release the drug, the patients with the AZT had increased Tcell counts... this was taken as such a great thing at the time, so great in fact, that the double blind study was never allowed to complete. It was said that it would be immoral to allow those with placebo to not have the AZT treatment ASAP. How wrong they were. Now AZT is used a lot of times in place of a placebo in trials for new AIDS drugs.

AZT is poison- as such, its ingestion caused the body to temporarily produce more T-Cells. The rise was only temporary, and now we can see a lot of evidence that it kills otherwise healthy people who happen to have HIV.


Under intense pressure to do something - anything - the FDA in 1987 approved the nation's first AIDS drug, cutting off clinical trials in midstride because the results were so dramatic.

AZT seemed a miracle drug.

But studies after it already was on the market never confirmed the dramatic results. And some recent studies have concluded AZT has only transitory benefit for those infected with HIV, the virus that somehow causes AIDS.

quote from http://www.sumeria.net/aids/aztt.html ... but you can find similar things (ie, the quick release part) on the FDA's site itself (including them quickly releasing other AIDS drugs and proudly boasting they were the first in the world to allow them for patients... and always, you can check Peter Duesberg's site for the most glaring evidence.

More from Duesberg this time @ http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdmegaproj.htm .... about the "establishment"


* Luc Montagnier became a global leader in AIDS research when HIV, which he discovered, was accepted as the cause of AIDS by Robert Gallo in the United States and Robin Weiss in the United Kingdom. But when he concluded in 1990 that HIV would not be a sufficient cause of AIDS, he was thrown out of his own temple. No paper on his current AIDS hypothesis has yet appeared in the leading journals.

About the stripped funding:


Do you suppose a proposal by Peter Duesberg, to test the drug-hypothesis for some kinds of AIDS diseases, would survive before a committee composed of research workers who are making a living from studying the molecular biology of HIV? We know the answer to that: he was defunded.

that quote is from http://www.duesberg.com/media/jlaaas-2.html though Duesberg did not write it... It was from:

The Truth Is Bustin' Out All Over HIV
By John Lauritsen

New York Native 18 July 1994

[DontBeAfraid]

OFF TOPIC


the lack of a proof that HIV causes AIDS is proof enough that it doesn't (or at least that it is worth investigating other theories).

And you are a christian?

[substand]

Yes, and I've sent you a private message on that so as to not further influence off topic discussion.

[MetalMilitia]

http://www.drudgereport.com/

FRENCH RESEARCHERS HERALD AIDS VACCINE... DEVELOPING...

No links yet, but this could be major....

[dutchie]

Ummm, did you actually read the article at the beginning of this thread, MM? http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,63441,00.html

[RavenWhitefang]

German Team Finds New Way to Block HIV Replication
Tue Jan 4,11:44 AM ET By Philip Blenkinsop

BERLIN (Reuters) - German scientists have found a new way to prevent the HIV virus (news - web sites) from replicating, offering hope in the face of the virus's increasing resistance to existing drugs.
Joachim Hauber, a professor at the Heinrich-Pette Institute in Hamburg, told Reuters on Tuesday his team had identified a protein in human cells that the HIV virus uses to reproduce and run tests on a chemical that blocks this protein's action.

Full Story Here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&ncid=753&e=3&u=/nm/20050104/sc_nm/health_hiv_germany_dc)