A Place of Safety
I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love.
Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving!
We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register













You are here: Home > Forum > A Place of Safety > General Talk > HIV = AIDS ?
HIV = AIDS ?  [message #73230] Sat, 19 August 2017 19:17 Go to next message
Root is currently offline  Root   United Kingdom

Getting started
Location: Hampshire UK
Registered: July 2017
Messages: 4



Can you believe that HIV has never been proven to cause AIDS?
No, I couldn't ether, I thought it was written in stone in fact I've seen it written in stone in the government adverts about AIDS that were on when i was a kid.
Well the fact is that no one can explain why or how HIV is meant to cause AIDS. and the fact once you've been found to carry the HIV retrovirus you get put on drugs like AZT witch in its self can cause AIDS.
Now alarm bells are ringing, how can you get a sexually transmitted disease by taking drugs? The fact these drugs are meant to slow down the HIV from developing into AIDS don't come into it.

Here is the best documentary I found on this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqjI-YiNliQ
icon13.gif Re: HIV = AIDS ?  [message #73231 is a reply to message #73230] Sat, 19 August 2017 19:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy   United Kingdom

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 12894



An interesting post, but what is the objectve behind posting it?
  • HIV is a virus.
  • AIDS is not, and never has been
  • HIV has by no means always led to AIDS, even in the early days when little was known
  • Various drug therapies exist that have given those with HIV a normal lifespan

The video is about material supposed circa 1995/1996, isn't it? So why post it here in 2017?

[Updated on: Sat, 19 August 2017 19:33]




Inconsistent use of capital letters is the difference between Bobby helping Uncle Jack off a horse, AND Bobby helping uncle jack off a horse!
Re: HIV = AIDS ?  [message #73232 is a reply to message #73231] Sat, 19 August 2017 20:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Root is currently offline  Root   United Kingdom

Getting started
Location: Hampshire UK
Registered: July 2017
Messages: 4



I posted the link for the purpose of education and information. 

Yes the video was released in 1996, i linked this one as i found it covered the subject in full and was easy to understand and was made with help of Doctors.
HIV and AIDS are still linked so shows nothing has chanced and the video is as relevant today as it was in 1996.

HIV don't always lead to AIDS true, if you watch the video the Doctors are calming HIV has never lead to AIDS, we have as humans have been carrying the HIV virus since time began and lived healthy lives,

[Updated on: Sat, 19 August 2017 20:20]

icon13.gif Re: HIV = AIDS ?  [message #73234 is a reply to message #73232] Sat, 19 August 2017 21:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy   United Kingdom

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 12894



"Root wrote on Sat, 19 August 2017 21:07"
I posted the link for the purpose of education and information. 

Yes the video was released in 1996, i linked this one as i found it covered the subject in full and was easy to understand and was made with help of Doctors.
HIV and AIDS are still linked so shows nothing has chanced and the video is as relevant today as it was in 1996.

HIV don't always lead to AIDS true, if you watch the video the Doctors are calming HIV has never lead to AIDS, we have as humans have been carrying the HIV virus since time began and lived healthy lives,

--
Human beings have carried many viruses (etc) their entire lives without becoming unwell from them. Such people are called 'carriers', and they infect others while remaining fit.

The huge HIV epidemic arrived prior to AZT (etc) and killed a huge number of people before anyone had even the remotest idea how to even attempt to help those folk. Any general statement that HIV is normal, natural and even (possibly) healthy is a statement which goes against safe sexual habits and practices. How did HIV spread so fast through the population and wipe out so many previously healthy people?

Doctors, eh? They were not even one page ahead in the manual in 1995/6. They had no idea, no clue. Today they have a bit of a clue. Today they provide HIV+ folk with hope, and with normal lifespans.

Education and information is not posting misiniformation and conspiracy theories to a forum as if they are facts. Please reconsider your approach.

[Updated on: Sat, 19 August 2017 21:50]




Inconsistent use of capital letters is the difference between Bobby helping Uncle Jack off a horse, AND Bobby helping uncle jack off a horse!
Re: HIV = AIDS ?  [message #73235 is a reply to message #73234] Sat, 19 August 2017 22:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Root is currently offline  Root   United Kingdom

Getting started
Location: Hampshire UK
Registered: July 2017
Messages: 4



Conspiracy theories this is not.

These are Doctors at the top of there game pointing out the Doctor that first linked HIV and AIDS broke medical protocol.
There evidence is based on fact.

Every thing you mentioned is in the video, how it spread, how healthy people died from it. Go watch it 
icon13.gif Re: HIV = AIDS ?  [message #73238 is a reply to message #73235] Sat, 19 August 2017 23:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy   United Kingdom

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 12894



I expect the entire HIV epidemic was started by the governments spraying the virus into ConTrails in order to get rid of homosexual men, too.

Ah wait, that is bullshit.

Hmm.

And the poster of the video thinks the Illuminati are behind some sort of great AIDS conspiracy.

Let's be clear: The bullshit you are peddling here is dangerous crap almost certainly intended by the originator to misinform, and perhaps to increase the spread of HIV for some perverted goal. That you have found crap on the internet is not a surprise. That you are attempting to peddle this noxious tissue of lies and half truths here is.... unusual.

This first post has not endeared you to me.

[Updated on: Sat, 02 September 2017 08:54]




Inconsistent use of capital letters is the difference between Bobby helping Uncle Jack off a horse, AND Bobby helping uncle jack off a horse!
Re: HIV = AIDS ?  [message #73239 is a reply to message #73238] Sun, 20 August 2017 00:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Root is currently offline  Root   United Kingdom

Getting started
Location: Hampshire UK
Registered: July 2017
Messages: 4



You are clearly a closed book and not willing to take on board professionals points of view,

you stated HIV is a virus it is not it is a retrovirus, there different things. I'll let you look into this your self as I'm so full of shit!

The "Bullshit I'm peddling here"  is based on research, fact and studies,  Unlike what your peddling conjecture, here say and misinformation.

The Telegraph and The Time have run stories on this, The Times said this could be the biggest medical blunder of the century.

I really don't care how you personally feel about me, I'm not warming to you ether, Your personal attacks and the fact you won't allow others to make up there own minds concerns me.

A Place Of Safety? for who? just you or only them who agree with everything you say and think?
Re: HIV = AIDS ?  [message #73240 is a reply to message #73239] Sun, 20 August 2017 01:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
NW is currently offline  NW   United Kingdom

On fire!
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1483



I have followed the progress of research into HIV/AIDS since the start of the 80s, back before the (retro)virus was identified, and when it was still tentatively named HTLV1, through organs such as "New Scientist". A number of good friends died in the 80s.

Modern research and drug treatment, based on the fact that HIV infection causes the syndrome formerly known as AIDS (and now more normally referred to as third-stage HIV infection), actually works. That's utterly remarkable if HIV is not the causative agent! My last partner was born with the virus, contracted from his mother. He"s now 26, and alive purely due to antiretrovirals and protease inhibitors developed on the premise that the agent responsible for AIDS is the HIV virus.

The use of Truvada as both pre-exposure amd post-exposure prophylaxis is based on an understanding of the structure of the HIV virus. It works, and has been massively successful both in preventing HIV infections (ie transmission of the virus), and in reducing the ability of the virus to replicate within an infected individual and so preventing the onset of immunodeficiency amd the associated opportunistic infections which taken together constitute "AIDS".

oh, amd by the way, although HIV is technically a retrovirus, all the specialist HIV nurses I know, and all the consultants I've dealt with, tend just to refer to it as a virus. When they take blood to check the activity of HIV in the body, the number of particles in the blood is called "viral load", not "retroviral load".Just so as you know ....

The suggestion that HIV Is not the causative agent for the collections of symptoms know as AIDS is not merely "bullshit": it is highly dangerous and grossly misinformed bullshit.

<disclosure: I am not HIV+ myself, but have taken an active interest in research for decades, and have close friends who work as specialst HIV nurses amd technicians>



"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
Re: HIV = AIDS ?  [message #73242 is a reply to message #73239] Sun, 20 August 2017 06:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy   United Kingdom

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 12894



"Root wrote on Sun, 20 August 2017 01:00"
You are clearly a closed book and not willing to take on board professionals points of view,

you stated HIV is a virus it is not it is a retrovirus, there different things. I'll let you look into this your self as I'm so full of shit!

The "Bullshit I'm peddling here"  is based on research, fact and studies,  Unlike what your peddling conjecture, here say and misinformation.

The Telegraph and The Time have run stories on this, The Times said this could be the biggest medical blunder of the century.

I really don't care how you personally feel about me, I'm not warming to you ether, Your personal attacks and the fact you won't allow others to make up there own minds concerns me.

A Place Of Safety? for who? just you or only them who agree with everything you say and think?

--

There have been no ad hominem attacks. I attack the dangerous bullshit you have peddled here with your first ever post. Note that  your first post was moderated, and that it was accepted despite being heartily disagreed with.  This is despite the very much 'marketing feel' of the post, which is very much like that of a spam email.

The petulance you display having been disagreed with and guided towards a better path is a familair petulance displayed by those who love controversy. They pretend that they have been attacked whereas it is their views and behaviour that have been challenged. Broadly, this is termed 'trolling'. Your stated age suggests that you have sufficient wisdom powered by life experience to know what you are doing, so I am forced to conclude, the more so after your repetitions, that you are doing it on purpose.

If you bother then you will see many areas where folk here disagree widely. One view pretty much never prevails. You imply censorship here, yet there is none of your initial post, nor of those that have followed.

Why are you here? Are you here to peddle this kind of material? Or do you have a need to be here that we can work with you on?

[Updated on: Sun, 20 August 2017 12:40]




Inconsistent use of capital letters is the difference between Bobby helping Uncle Jack off a horse, AND Bobby helping uncle jack off a horse!
Re: HIV = AIDS ?  [message #73246 is a reply to message #73242] Sun, 20 August 2017 21:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark   United States

Really getting into it
Location: Earth
Registered: April 2013
Messages: 764



Root,

Anyone who reads all the posts around here since I formally opened an account on the site knows that Timmy and I don't always see eye to eye on everything.  At the same time, I find it absurd that this is supposedly a place only for those who agree with Timmy and that he supposedly forces those of us who are here to not be able to make up own minds.

Citing one 21 year old video is not proof positive of something as serious as this issue.  Plus, YouTube is not exactly the most reliable source of information out there.  I could spend 10 minutes there and produce a variety of videos claiming that 9/11 was in inside job, that the Moon landings were hoaxed, and even that the Earth is flat.  Just because they're there does not automatically make them true.  There's an old saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and so far, I have seen no evidence that HIV does not eventually leads to AIDS.

Also, think of it this way - any researcher out there worth their salt is going to open up their research to peer review, to make sure that they didn't make a mistake or that their findings aren't a coincidental fluke.  It seems to me that if these doctors really were on to something, others would have long since verified their results (21 years is a long time, especially in a constantly evolving field like medicine), and if that were the case, then this discussion wouldn't be occurring, because we'd have all heard about it by now.

AS NW has pointed out, "AIDS" is really just the fancy medical term for the third stage of HIV infection.  Why are you so determined to claim otherwise?
Re: HIV = AIDS ?  [message #73252 is a reply to message #73239] Mon, 21 August 2017 17:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy   United Kingdom

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 12894



"Root wrote on Sun, 20 August 2017 01:00"
You are clearly a closed book and not willing to take on board professionals points of view,

you stated HIV is a virus it is not it is a retrovirus, there different things. I'll let you look into this your self as I'm so full of shit!

The "Bullshit I'm peddling here"  is based on research, fact and studies,  Unlike what your peddling conjecture, here say and misinformation.

The Telegraph and The Time have run stories on this, The Times said this could be the biggest medical blunder of the century.

I really don't care how you personally feel about me, I'm not warming to you ether, Your personal attacks and the fact you won't allow others to make up there own minds concerns me.

A Place Of Safety? for who? just you or only them who agree with everything you say and think?

--

I prefer to take my facts from reliable sources. I suggest you look at Avert. The material is copyright and I will thereofre not reproduce it here. This aritlce on HIV/AIDS has a swathe of reliable sources.

I have a perfectly open mind. I have allowed the posting of the dangerous bullshit you have shown us. I do not have to accept it, support it, nor let it go unchallenged. So I challenge it. Others have made up their minds about this stuff too.

Your first post was a serious example of WTF. You are welcome here provided you participate well.

[Updated on: Sat, 02 September 2017 08:57]




Inconsistent use of capital letters is the difference between Bobby helping Uncle Jack off a horse, AND Bobby helping uncle jack off a horse!
Re: HIV = AIDS ?  [message #73271 is a reply to message #73230] Thu, 24 August 2017 07:47 Go to previous message
dgt224 is currently offline  dgt224   United States

Toe is in the water
Location: USA
Registered: May 2011
Messages: 75



"Root wrote on Sat, 19 August 2017 15:17"
... Here is the best documentary I found on this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqjI-YiNliQ


--
I gave up on this "documentary" when I reached the point where it began to champion Peter Duesberg's HIV denialism as an indication of the weakness of the work of Robert Gallo on the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Robert Gallo may well be no saint, but his work has been widely cited; he has published nearly 1300 papers. During the decade from 1980 to 1990 he was the most cited scientist in the world. Duesberg, on the other hand, is widely regarded as argumentative and unscientific in his approach to the subject. In 1993 the journal Nature declined to publish Duesberg's further criticisms of AIDS research saying "[Duesberg] forfeited the right to expect answers by his rhetorical technique..." and "Evidence that contradicts his alternative drug hypothesis is on the other hand brushed aside..."

The evidence that HIV causes AIDS is overwhelming, both at the level of correlation and at the level of microbiology. Much progress has been made in understanding how HIV interferes with the functioning of the human immune system, but the fundamental argument is still that HIV infection is the only phenomenon that is consistently predictive for the onset of AIDS. None of the other mechanisms proposed by Duesberg, such as exposure to specific drugs, shows a consistent correlation with development of AIDS.

And, of course, we have the evidence provided by the success of anti-retroviral therapies in preventing HIV infection from proceding to AIDS. If HIV does not cause AIDS, providing anti-retroviral drugs to patients infected with HIV should have no impact on their chances of developing AIDS. But we know from experience that such drugs can prevent the onset of AIDS entirely.

And for the record, "retrovirus" is the name of a class of viruses that carries its genetic information on a single strand of RNA, which is translated into DNA using a reverse transcriptase enzyme; that DNA is then incorporated into the host cell's genome. "Retro" in the name refers to the generation of DNA from RNA, which is the reverse of the usual pattern, hence retro (backwards). So the "Virus" in "Human Immunodeficiency Virus" is not an error and it is not a mistake to call it a virus, just as it is not a mistake to call a human being a mammal.
Previous Topic: July 1967 was a momentous year for the UK
Next Topic: A couple of T topics
Goto Forum: