vixstile

AIDs isn't some abstract theory, it isn't something you have to accept on faith. It's a scientific theory based on scientific data, that overwhelmingly verifies current AIDs theories, with very little data indicating otherwise

Thats what all the data points to.

You worked in a hospital? As a doctor? Did you conduct scientific research on AIDs?

MortalWombat

Those "bunch of theories rushed through during the early eighties" have been tested over the past 20 years by hundreds of thousands of scientists all over the world, and those theories have stood up to the actual evidence. Since I doubt you took a look at the links I provided earlier, here is a summary of the evidence that HIV is the cause of AIDS, taken from <a href="http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/hivaids/29.htm" target="_blank">here</a>:

I would also add this to the list:

- Studies of people who have been multiply exposed to HIV but have not been infected or come down with AIDS all have one thing in common: a defective mutation in the CCR5 gene, which just so happens to code for a cellular co-receptor needed by HIV for efficient entry into white blood cells.

If you consider almost 100% of people who die from AIDS to be "some," then yes.

Remind me not to check into any of those hospitals.

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: MortalWombat ]</p>

Dr Rick

You've told us what you don't believe AIDS is; please tell us what you think it really is?

Rick

Coragyps

Amen-Moses stated:
I am relying on memory, and don't really relish trying to find the citation, but there was a paper in Science a couple of years ago that made a very persuasive case for the HIV virus having originated in the 1930's or so. This was based on tracing back the "phylogenies" of all the known subtypes of HIV and using its fairly well-known rate of mutation to constrain the time-to-origin of the viruses that infect humans. Also, some work has been done on preserved tissues from victims of the 1918 flu - I have no idea if they looked for HIV, but they've sure looked for it in lots of other archived tissues. That's how they found the 1950's case in an English sailor (who had been to West Africa.)

nogods4me

Well obviously it is a conspiracy to obtain government funding to further some one world government, trilateral commission, illuminati backed world control plan, just like global warming.

RoddyM

I don't think I'm kooky and I'm not trying to annoy people. A few have asked what I think it is.

It's easy to find people that fit the criteria for HIV infection. Anomalies, cases that might cause a person to wonder about the paradigm are just brushed aside as false positives, long term non progressors etc.

I think it's nothing. I think the diagnosis is way more lethal than so called HIV.

Dr Rick

...doesn't your response just sidestep the issues you first brought up?

Last year, 3,000, 000 people died of something that doesn't fit any of our other "usually worthless and incorrect" diagnosises; why did they die?

I treat patients who have strange gastrointestinal (my specialty) infections that do not occure in healthy people.These people also have HIV in their blood; If they don't have AIDS, what's wrong with them?

Rick

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Amen-Moses

Just a bit of a update which backs up my earlier posts, I just saw a documentary about FID which is the cat version of Aids.

Apparently they have now tested wild cat species for FID and found that they ALL carry the virus but only domesticated cats are showing the disease, they date the origin of the virus to at least 1 MYA.

The connection with AIDs is that this suggests that HIV may very well have been an ancient virus in humans (in fact the DNA similarities between it and a similar virus in other primates already suggested as much) but for some reason (possibly connected to the ease of worldwide travel) it has now mutated into a variant which affects previously isolated races much more readily than others.

What this may explain is the many people in Eupope who test positive for HIV but never show AIDs symptoms nor can explain how they could have got it (i.e they are not in any of the high risk categories).

Amen-Moses

Dr Rick

The majority of people that test postive for HIV in the year 2002 do not show AIDS symptoms, yet, as the nasty little infection has a latency period that can extend beyond a decade.

It is anticipated that all of these people, unless they die prematurely from other causes, will eventually become symptomatic and develop AIDS.

Is there an HIV variant or clade infection that has been shown to never cause AIDS?

BTW, I am often amazed at the number of young women that can't explain how they got pregnant.

Rick

Amen-Moses

Did you read my earlier posts?

The HIV that some Europeans are testing positive for is NOT the same variant that is causing AIDs in the US (or China or India) but seems to be closely related to the variant in Africa. Note that they are not exactly the same but that the tests so far cannot easily differentiate between different variants.

The hypothesis here is that these HIV+ people have always had HIV but are resistant to AIDs itself (like Lions and Tigers), this indicates that northern Europe may have been the origin of the HIV virus (from some far earlier epidemic) but evolved resitance to it.

The only way to prove or disprove the hypothesis is to initiate a policy of global testing for HIV variants and map the pattern worldwide.

The problem at present is that only people who are "at risk" (or those who panicked) have asked for HIV tests so we are not really working with a decent level of data, high profile AIDs deaths (like that of Freddy Mercury) often ignore racial background (Freddy was half Indian).

Amen-Moses