Aids Babies

[chipmunk stew]

Governments do kill their own citizens for profit.

If this was the point you were making, you completely missed the mark--the Bayer case does not even remotely illustrate this. The US gov't intervened to prevent its own citizens from being killed. No gov't profited from the sale of the unsafe drugs--a German company did. (In fact, in cases where health care was socialized, gov'ts actually purchased and distributed the unsafe drugs at a loss.)

bs. Youre so * gullible. You are an apologist for devils. Are you aware of Bush senior being caught up in a child sex ring?

Explain to me how the Bayer case illustrates that governments kill their own people for profit.

And what does a child sex ring have to do with it?

[Mr-Bridger]

You're right it's the HIV virus. This destroys the immune system which leaves the body open to attack from other dieases. When the immune system has been destroyed it's called 'acute immune deficiency sydrome' - not a virus. So AIDS doesn't actually kill you, it's the diseases you catch when your immune system can't function Sad

What a load of tripe !!

I suggest you investigate the links between HIV and AIDS properly !

I recommend viewing the doc `The other side of AIDS`

Interesting fact : The HIV test doesnt actually test for the presence of HIV virus.

Its not possibly the cocktail of drugs (that was originally developed as a chemo treatment for cancer patients but found to be too potent) they give to HIV patients that kills the immune system ??

[jsut_peopel]

You're right it's the HIV virus. This destroys the immune system which leaves the body open to attack from other dieases. When the immune system has been destroyed it's called 'acute immune deficiency sydrome' - not a virus. So AIDS doesn't actually kill you, it's the diseases you catch when your immune system can't function Sad

What a load of tripe !!

Yeah, you're right it's actually acquired immuno-deficiency disorder, not acute. ;)

I suggest you investigate the links between HIV and AIDS properly !

How by watching videos on youtube?

I recommend viewing the doc `The other side of AIDS`

Oh, I see.

Interesting fact : The HIV test doesnt actually test for the presence of HIV virus.

I suppose it is kind of interesting that they test for the anti-body to the HIV-1 virus. I think it's pretty neat, I just wonder what you find interesting about it?

Its not possibly the cocktail of drugs (that was originally developed as a chemo treatment for cancer patients but found to be too potent) they give to HIV patients that kills the immune system ??

I don't know, I am sure there are plenty of peer reviewed papers I could look up to help me find out if I was so inclined to.

[Mr-Bridger]

I suppose it is kind of interesting that they test for the anti-body to the HIV-1 virus. I think it's pretty neat, I just wonder what you find interesting about it?

If your body has made anti-bodies wouldnt you say your are already immune ?????

You mentioned peer reviewed papers , did you know that when the HIV-AIDS link was announced back in the 80`s , Prof Gallos paper wasn`t released for peer review til after the announcment.

[jsut_peopel]

If your body has made anti-bodies wouldnt you say your are already immune ?????

Well I'm not a medical doctor but umm, no I don't see why that would make me immune. As far as I know the presence of antibodies does not mean that immunity is also present. If you'd like to present evidence that suggests otherwise, I'd be happy to give it consideration.

You mentioned peer reviewed papers , did you know that when the HIV-AIDS link was announced back in the 80`s , Prof Gallos paper wasn`t released for peer review til after the announcment.

I don't see what that has to do with whether or not his work was any good.

I am sure there must be some peer reviewed papers linking the "drug cocktail" you speak of, which is extremely vague btw, to immune system collapse. Right? It isn't as if people don't do research on HIV and AIDS. If you can show me evidence of your claims then, again, I'd be happy to give it consideration.

[Mr-Bridger]

Then i recommend reading the papers and work by Peter Duesberg

http://www.duesberg.com/

Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D. is a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley.

He isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970, and mapped the genetic structure of these viruses. This, and his subsequent work in the same field, resulted in his election to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986. He is also the recipient of a seven-year Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health.

[Johnny Pixels]

Then i recommend reading the papers and work by Peter Duesberg

http://www.duesberg.com/

Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D. is a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley.

He isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970, and mapped the genetic structure of these viruses. This, and his subsequent work in the same field, resulted in his election to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986. He is also the recipient of a seven-year Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health.

I would be concerned that Peter Duesberg is a professor of molecular and cell biology, not a virologist. If you think that's not a big deal, because he's still a biologist, then ask yourself if you'd be happy having your GP carry out brain surgery on you.

[Mr-Bridger]

Please do some research on Duesberg !

Duesberg is no amateur- a world-leading virologist who pioneered crucial advances in medical science. His perspicatity led him to raise pertinent questions in controversial territory - His courage and resolve led him to become the most feared heretic of the HIV-AIDS orthodoxy.

He isolated the first cancer gene from a virus at the age of 33, at 36 earned tenure at the University of California, Berkeley, and at 49 was invited to the National Academy of Sciences. He was also the recipient of a seven-year Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health. He has since been turned down for funding by the NIH; Duesberg alleges that this is due to his status as an AIDS dissident. He now funds his research from other sources, including charitable contributions and the sales of his books. He lives in Germany for part of the year.

On the basis of his experience with retroviruses, Duesberg has challenged the scientific consensus that HIV is the cause of AIDS by writing letters and commentary in journals as Cancer Research, Lancet, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science, Nature, Journal of AIDS, AIDS Forschung, Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapeutics, the New England Journal of Medicine and Research in Immunology. He has instead proposed the hypothesis that the various American and European diseases identified as AIDS are in fact caused by the long-term consumption of recreational drugs and/or AZT, a drug that is prescribed to prevent or treat AIDS.

[Ignatz]

If your body has made anti-bodies wouldnt you say your are already immune ?????

No. It doesn't mean that at all. It means you are or have been infected, or have been immunised. You could be stone cold dead from a disease and yet have your blood swarming with its antibodies.

You don't understand medicine, so why not go away and learn a little before posting this drivel?

[Mr-Bridger]

most AIDS patients have no active HIV in their systems, because the virus has been neutralized by antibodies. (With all other viral diseases, by the way, the presence of antibodies signals immunity from the disease. Why this is not the case with HIV has never been demonstrated.) Eugene W. Farber, Ph.D

[aggle-rithm]

most AIDS patients have no active HIV in their systems, because the virus has been neutralized by antibodies. (With all other viral diseases, by the way, the presence of antibodies signals immunity from the disease. Why this is not the case with HIV has never been demonstrated.) Eugene W. Farber, Ph.D

The blood test for prostate cancer looks for the antibody that appears when one has prostate cancer. It does not mean that person is immune to prostate cancer, it means he HAS prostate cancer.

The immune system is far more complicated than you seem to realize. Do you know the difference between antibodies, antigens, T-cells, and leukocytes? Do you know what causes allergies and why allergy shots work? Do you know what causes multiple organ failure? These questions are all related to the immune system.

The more important question would probably be: Do you know why any of this is relevant to 9/11?

[Mr-Bridger]

prostate cancer is not a viral infection.

[jsut_peopel]

Apparently Duesberg has been found cherry picking data to fit his hypothesis.

http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/cohen/cohen.dtl

Now I don't have the time, expertise, or inclination to go through and double check all of that. But considering his work was also dismissed pretty soon after it came out, it leads me to believe that the conventional interpretation of HIV -> AIDS is probably the correct one. Of course as is the way with such things (MMR for instance) the rebuttal didn't get as much media coverage as his initial press release.

I am still to find anywhere that agrees with this

With all other viral diseases, by the way, the presence of antibodies signals immunity from the disease. Why this is not the case with HIV has never been demonstrated.)

From google, (not terribly scientific I am afraid...if I didn't have actual work of my own to do I could probably go and check PubMed or something) It appears that immunity is conferred by Memory B Cells not antibodies. The presence of antibodies does not on its own signify immunity but testing for the presence of antibodies will let you know if a person has been exposed to whatever you are testing for.

I don't want to get too deep into all of this I am just vaguely curious about the HIV doesn't cause AIDS idea, I didn't know it's history until now, only having really come into contact with it from South Africa and Mbeki. I didn't realise there was a whole industry sprung up around it.

[aggle-rithm]

prostate cancer is not a viral infection.

Antibodies confer immunity in viral infections, but not in other types of bodily invasion? Can you explain the mechanism for this?

[Mr-Bridger]

jsut_peopel :

I do recommend reading up more on Duesbergs work and i wouldn`t just brush it off because alot of medical establishment disagree with his hypothesis.

I would also watch the film i suggested above, i found it very interesting especially as it features HIV and AIDS positive people who dont believe in the link themselves and also people who have been HIV postive some for at least 20 years who refuse to take the meds and are in perfect health.

You will also find in Duesbergs work that he states that there is a big difference in causes between AIDS as we know it and Africa AIDS hence why the people infected in Africa is a even 50/50 male, female

I will leave this alone now as it is off topic, i was just interested in what i found after investigating HIV/AIDS and the links. Not just believing what we are told is correct based on a 1980`s hypothesis by Prof Gallo. ( whos work before this was trying to prove cancer was caused by a retrovirus and failed)

Just finish off before i leave the subject alone :

Antibodies confer immunity in viral infections, but not in other types of bodily invasion? Can you explain the mechanism for this?

What are antibodies?
Antibodies are proteins made by the B cells. They have two ends. One end sticks to proteins on the outside of white blood cells. The other end sticks to and helps to kill the germ or damaged cell. The end of the antibody that sticks to the white blood cell is always the same. So it is called the constant end. The end of the antibody that recognises germs and damaged cells varies depending on the cell it is designed to recognise. So it is called the variable end. Each B cell makes antibodies with a different variable end from other B cells. Cancer cells are not normal cells. So there will be some antibodies with variable ends that recognise cancer cells and stick to them.

Can the immune system cure cancer?
Your immune system is very unlikely to be able to fight off an established cancer completely without help from conventional cancer treatment.

[chipmunk stew]

Looks like Bayer is off the hook! HIV is harmless! YAY!!!

Tell me, Mr Bridger: why is it that so many untreated HIV patients die of AIDS every year in Africa? Why is it that so many HIV patients in richer countries treated with HIV medications live relatively long and normal lives? Why is it that education about HIV-prevention provably leads to lower numbers of AIDS cases?

You are 100% wrong, and the bullsh-it you are promoting has been exploited by some African leaders to avoid addressing their AIDS crises--it's literally leading to further illness and death. Think about that.

[aggle-rithm]

Antibodies confer immunity in viral infections, but not in other types of bodily invasion? Can you explain the mechanism for this?

What are antibodies?
Antibodies are proteins made by the B cells. They have two ends. One end sticks to proteins on the outside of white blood cells. The other end sticks to and helps to kill the germ or damaged cell. The end of the antibody that sticks to the white blood cell is always the same. So it is called the constant end. The end of the antibody that recognises germs and damaged cells varies depending on the cell it is designed to recognise. So it is called the variable end. Each B cell makes antibodies with a different variable end from other B cells. Cancer cells are not normal cells. So there will be some antibodies with variable ends that recognise cancer cells and stick to them.

Can the immune system cure cancer?
Your immune system is very unlikely to be able to fight off an established cancer completely without help from conventional cancer treatment.

Thanks, but I wasn't asking for a copy & paste from cancerhelp.org on how antibodies work. I asked for you explanation for how antibodies work differently with cancer cells than they do with viruses, and how this explains that viral antibodies = immunity and cancer antibodies = cancer.

[Mr-Bridger]

I love this i said wouldnt but i couldnt help answer these stupid questions.


Tell me, Mr Bridger: why is it that so many untreated HIV patients die of AIDS every year in Africa?

The African AIDS epidemic has only one thing in common with the American/European AIDS epidemic - the name. African AIDS is caused by malnutrition, parasitic infection and poor sanitation. There are no risk groups in Africa, like drug addicts and homosexuals. It is for this reason that African AIDS is equally distributed between the sexes. Moreover, practically no African AIDS patients have pneumocystis pneumonia, dementia or Kaposi's sarcoma - the signal diseases of AIDS in the US and Europe. Above all, African AIDS is diagnosed without even attempting an HIV test, which is too expensive for Africa. Thus there is no scientific evidence for the correlation between HIV and African AIDS, only guesses.



Why is it that so many HIV patients in richer countries treated with HIV medications live relatively long and normal lives?

There is no evidence to support the claim that this is due to the new AIDS drug cocktails. Such evidence would have to show, that those who still get AIDS are not treated, and those who don't get AIDS are treated. But this is not the case in the US. Practically all American AIDS patients are treated with the new drug cocktails, but they continue to die.

You will find most HIV infected peoples decline start with the taking of AZT etc because it wipes out the immune system but you may find this interesting :

The WHO estimates that there are 17 million healthy seropositives in the world. many thousands are discovered every year in the American Army. 'When' and 'how' were they infected and 'why' most of them don't get sick?

HIV, like all other retroviruses in animals and humans, is perinatally transmitted from mother to child. All viruses and microbes that are perinatally transmitted in nature are harmless for the reasons.
Life is comparable to the law: it is based on logic and precedent. There >>>>is neither a precedent for a virus that consistently kills it's host, as is claimed for HIV, nor would it be logical for a virus to kill the host it needs for its survival.

The "intelligence of a virus" killing consistently its host, would be the same as that of a car that consistently kills its drivers because it does not have brakes. Thus those 17 million HIV positives who are healthy, are those who do not use recreational and/or anti-HIV drugs.




Why is it that education about HIV-prevention provably leads to lower numbers of AIDS cases?


The decrease in new AIDS cases in the US in corresponds exactly to a steady decline in recreational drug consumption. For example, in the US spending for recreational drugs peaked at $91 billion in 1988 and steadily dropped to $53.7 billion in 1995.

Likewise the rapid increase of AIDS in the 1980s corresponded to the emergence of the explosive epidemics of recreational drug use in the US and Europe in the 1980s




You are 100% wrong, and the bullsh-it you are promoting has been exploited by some African leaders to avoid addressing their AIDS crises--it's literally leading to further illness and death. Think about that.

Think about that please.

[jsut_peopel]

I will leave this alone now as it is off topic, i was just interested in what i found after investigating HIV/AIDS and the links. Not just believing what we are told is correct based on a 1980`s hypothesis by Prof Gallo. ( whos work before this was trying to prove cancer was caused by a retrovirus and failed)

OK, I am just going to pluck this point out, because well I can. This is quite an interesting point, and one that I was thinking about this afternoon. The thing is people aren't just believing what they are told based on a 1980s hypothesis. They are researching and doing experiments that have now pretty much figured out the mechanism for HIV -> AIDS. But what people do do, is they will take one result that agrees with their world view and then ignore any subsequent evidence that contradicts it. So we have people hanging on the words of, for example, Deusbergs 1987 paper and seemingly not noticing all the other work that has gone on in the meantime to try and understand what is actually happening. And to bring it back round on topic, we have CTers still trotting out the line about the hijackers being found alive, despite the evidence that, that was a case of mistaken identity. und so wieter...

-----

As regards your claims about the diffent diseases presented by AIDS patients in the western world and Africa the answer to the seeming paradox could well be extremely simple.

AIDS is acquired immuno-deficiency syndrome. It is called a syndrome because it isn't actually a disease in itself, rather it is an accumulation of other diseases made possible by a depleted immune system in the patient. If your immune system is not working properly then you are likely to pick up what ever illness is going around in your locale. So it seems quite possible to me that the difference in illnesses reported in different locations of the globe could quite easily be because of the different prevelencies of those diseases in those locations. I don't know if that is true I haven't checked it out, but it does seem to be at least one possible solution that doesn't involve any nefarious actions on behalf, of well anyone.

[aggle-rithm]

AIDS is acquired immuno-deficiency syndrome. It is called a syndrome because it isn't actually a disease in itself, rather it is an accumulation of other diseases made possible by a depleted immune system in the patient. If your immune system is not working properly then you are likely to pick up what ever illness is going around in your locale. So it seems quite possible to me that the difference in illnesses reported in different locations of the globe could quite easily be because of the different prevelencies of those diseases in those locations. I don't know if that is true I haven't checked it out, but it does seem to be at least one possible solution that doesn't involve any nefarious actions on behalf, of well anyone.

If you ever read "The Dressing Station" by Dr. Jonathan Kaplan, it will convince you to STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM AFRICA! They have what must be the scariest diseases in history there. Never mind AIDS, a healthy immune system can be easily overwhelmed by the various nasty bugs and parasites commonly found there, especially in the rural areas.

Also, it doesn't help that AIDS education is abysmal in Africa. They prefer to believe in folk medicine and incantations than prophylactic or medical intervention, with predictable results.

[chipmunk stew]

Tell me, Mr Bridger: why is it that so many untreated HIV patients die of AIDS every year in Africa?

The African AIDS epidemic has only one thing in common with the American/European AIDS epidemic - the name. African AIDS is caused by malnutrition, parasitic infection and poor sanitation. There are no risk groups in Africa, like drug addicts and homosexuals. It is for this reason that African AIDS is equally distributed between the sexes. Moreover, practically no African AIDS patients have pneumocystis pneumonia, dementia or Kaposi's sarcoma - the signal diseases of AIDS in the US and Europe. Above all, African AIDS is diagnosed without even attempting an HIV test, which is too expensive for Africa. Thus there is no scientific evidence for the correlation between HIV and African AIDS, only guesses.

There is no drug addiction or homosexuality in Africa? False. But moreover, HIV is deeply entrenched in the heterosexual population. Sexual contact is one of the easiest ways to spread the virus. The fastest-growing HIV-positive population in the US is heterosexual African American women. AIDS is diagnosed without an HIV test? False. In many cases perhaps, but there are reams of hard data collected by health organizations and non-profits. Also, the spread of HIV correlates precisely with the spread of the African AIDS epidemic. If African AIDS is caused by the factors you listed, why was there no epidemic until the spread of HIV?

Why is it that so many HIV patients in richer countries treated with HIV medications live relatively long and normal lives?

There is no evidence to support the claim that this is due to the new AIDS drug cocktails. Such evidence would have to show, that those who still get AIDS are not treated, and those who don't get AIDS are treated. But this is not the case in the US. Practically all American AIDS patients are treated with the new drug cocktails, but they continue to die.

You will find most HIV infected peoples decline start with the taking of AZT etc because it wipes out the immune system but you may find this interesting :

The WHO estimates that there are 17 million healthy seropositives in the world. many thousands are discovered every year in the American Army. 'When' and 'how' were they infected and 'why' most of them don't get sick?

HIV, like all other retroviruses in animals and humans, is perinatally transmitted from mother to child. All viruses and microbes that are perinatally transmitted in nature are harmless for the reasons.
Life is comparable to the law: it is based on logic and precedent. There >>>>is neither a precedent for a virus that consistently kills it's host, as is claimed for HIV, nor would it be logical for a virus to kill the host it needs for its survival.

The "intelligence of a virus" killing consistently its host, would be the same as that of a car that consistently kills its drivers because it does not have brakes. Thus those 17 million HIV positives who are healthy, are those who do not use recreational and/or anti-HIV drugs.

Viruses are not intelligent. They do not plot their strategy. Those that survive, survive. Those that die out, die out. There are many examples of viruses and bacteria that kill their hosts. They only need the host to survive long enough to be passed on to another host. HIV kills slowly and indirectly. Here are some other examples of germs that kill: plague, TB, Ebola, SARS, to name a few.

AIDS patients demonstrably live longer now than they did before HIV drug treatments were developed. People continue to die because HIV continues to evolve, making it a moving target.

Why is it that education about HIV-prevention provably leads to lower numbers of AIDS cases?


The decrease in new AIDS cases in the US in corresponds exactly to a steady decline in recreational drug consumption. For example, in the US spending for recreational drugs peaked at $91 billion in 1988 and steadily dropped to $53.7 billion in 1995.

Likewise the rapid increase of AIDS in the 1980s corresponded to the emergence of the explosive epidemics of recreational drug use in the US and Europe in the 1980s

Correlation is not causation. High instances of recreational drug use also correlates with high risk of blood-transmitted disease, of which HIV is one.

There are many HIV-positive people without AIDS. But the number of AIDS patients without HIV approaches zero.

HIV does not always cause AIDS. But AIDS is almost always caused by HIV.

You are 100% wrong, and the bullsh-it you are promoting has been exploited by some African leaders to avoid addressing their AIDS crises--it's literally leading to further illness and death. Think about that.

Think about that please.

God help you if your child ever gets HIV.

[prole art threat]

Tell me, Mr Bridger: why is it that so many untreated HIV patients die of AIDS every year in Africa?

The African AIDS epidemic has only one thing in common with the American/European AIDS epidemic - the name. African AIDS is caused by malnutrition, parasitic infection and poor sanitation. There are no risk groups in Africa, like drug addicts and homosexuals. It is for this reason that African AIDS is equally distributed between the sexes. Moreover, practically no African AIDS patients have pneumocystis pneumonia, dementia or Kaposi's sarcoma - the signal diseases of AIDS in the US and Europe. Above all, African AIDS is diagnosed without even attempting an HIV test, which is too expensive for Africa. Thus there is no scientific evidence for the correlation between HIV and African AIDS, only guesses.

There is no drug addiction or homosexuality in Africa? False. But moreover, HIV is deeply entrenched in the heterosexual population. Sexual contact is one of the easiest ways to spread the virus. The fastest-growing HIV-positive population in the US is heterosexual African American women. AIDS is diagnosed without an HIV test? False. In many cases perhaps, but there are reams of hard data collected by health organizations and non-profits. Also, the spread of HIV correlates precisely with the spread of the African AIDS epidemic. If African AIDS is caused by the factors you listed, why was there no epidemic until the spread of HIV?

Why is it that so many HIV patients in richer countries treated with HIV medications live relatively long and normal lives?

There is no evidence to support the claim that this is due to the new AIDS drug cocktails. Such evidence would have to show, that those who still get AIDS are not treated, and those who don't get AIDS are treated. But this is not the case in the US. Practically all American AIDS patients are treated with the new drug cocktails, but they continue to die.

You will find most HIV infected peoples decline start with the taking of AZT etc because it wipes out the immune system but you may find this interesting :

The WHO estimates that there are 17 million healthy seropositives in the world. many thousands are discovered every year in the American Army. 'When' and 'how' were they infected and 'why' most of them don't get sick?

HIV, like all other retroviruses in animals and humans, is perinatally transmitted from mother to child. All viruses and microbes that are perinatally transmitted in nature are harmless for the reasons.
Life is comparable to the law: it is based on logic and precedent. There >>>>is neither a precedent for a virus that consistently kills it's host, as is claimed for HIV, nor would it be logical for a virus to kill the host it needs for its survival.

The "intelligence of a virus" killing consistently its host, would be the same as that of a car that consistently kills its drivers because it does not have brakes. Thus those 17 million HIV positives who are healthy, are those who do not use recreational and/or anti-HIV drugs.

Viruses are not intelligent. They do not plot their strategy. Those that survive, survive. Those that die out, die out. There are many examples of viruses and bacteria that kill their hosts. They only need the host to survive long enough to be passed on to another host. HIV kills slowly and indirectly. Here are some other examples of germs that kill: plague, TB, Ebola, SARS, to name a few.

AIDS patients demonstrably live longer now than they did before HIV drug treatments were developed. People continue to die because HIV continues to evolve, making it a moving target.

Why is it that education about HIV-prevention provably leads to lower numbers of AIDS cases?


The decrease in new AIDS cases in the US in corresponds exactly to a steady decline in recreational drug consumption. For example, in the US spending for recreational drugs peaked at $91 billion in 1988 and steadily dropped to $53.7 billion in 1995.

Likewise the rapid increase of AIDS in the 1980s corresponded to the emergence of the explosive epidemics of recreational drug use in the US and Europe in the 1980s

Correlation is not causation. High instances of recreational drug use also correlates with high risk of blood-transmitted disease, of which HIV is one.

There are many HIV-positive people without AIDS. But the number of AIDS patients without HIV approaches zero.

HIV does not always cause AIDS. But AIDS is almost always caused by HIV.

You are 100% wrong, and the bullsh-it you are promoting has been exploited by some African leaders to avoid addressing their AIDS crises--it's literally leading to further illness and death. Think about that.

Think about that please.

God help you if your child ever gets HIV.

I hope you get AIDS from your weirdo mate, Mark 'basket case' Roberts.

[chipmunk stew]

I hope you get AIDS from your weirdo mate, Mark 'basket case' Roberts.

prole art threat, he of the beautiful movement, he who never hates:

Are you in agreement with Mr Bridger about HIV?

If so, then Bayer is off the hook. If not, then why are you letting him hijack your thread with misinformation that kills babies?

[prole art threat]

I hope you get AIDS from your weirdo mate, Mark 'basket case' Roberts.

prole art threat, he of the beautiful movement, he who never hates:

Are you in agreement with Mr Bridger about HIV?

If so, then Bayer is off the hook. If not, then why are you letting him hijack your thread with misinformation that kills babies?

AIDS is a man made virus. It is found in CLASS A drugs largely cocaine and it is also found in the educations that treat people with HIV.

Every dipstick and his deaf and dumb mother knows that.

[Ignatz]

AIDS is a man made virus. It is found in CLASS A drugs largely cocaine and it is also found in the nedications that treat people with HIV.

Every dipstick and his deaf and dumb mother knows that.

Either trolling or ignorance at a truly Olympian level.
My vote is for the former.

[Mr-Bridger]

If African AIDS is caused by the factors you listed, why was there no epidemic until the spread of HIV?

AIDS encapsulates any number of infections and diseases, they were in Africa before the term AIDS was unleashed upon us, only since then have they been pidgeon holed as AIDS.

AIDS patients demonstrably live longer now than they did before HIV drug treatments were developed. People continue to die because HIV continues to evolve, making it a moving target.

Makes no sense as its AIDS that kills you not HIV


There are many HIV-positive people without AIDS. But the number of AIDS patients without HIV approaches zero.

you have that the wrong way around i`m afraid only a tiny amount of people with AIDS still test positive for HIV

HIV does not always cause AIDS. But AIDS is almost always caused by HIV

Again makes no sense


God help you if your child ever gets HIV.

If my children do i will make sure they aren`t put on the immune system killer ( AIDS causing) cocktail of drugs.

I wont also ask god for help


I believe both HIV and AIDS exist, its just the link between them.

[chipmunk stew]

I hope you get AIDS from your weirdo mate, Mark 'basket case' Roberts.

prole art threat, he of the beautiful movement, he who never hates:

Are you in agreement with Mr Bridger about HIV?

If so, then Bayer is off the hook. If not, then why are you letting him hijack your thread with misinformation that kills babies?

AIDS is a man made virus. It is found in CLASS A drugs largely cocaine and it is also found in the educations that treat people with HIV.

Every dipstick and his deaf and dumb mother knows that.

Well, since the Bayer drugs were tainted with HIV, I guess you have no case against them, then. The people now dying of AIDS who claim it was Bayer's fault must be lying.

You should take this video to Bayer and help defend them against these money-grubbing subhumans lying about HIV.

[chipmunk stew]

If African AIDS is caused by the factors you listed, why was there no epidemic until the spread of HIV?

AIDS encapsulates any number of infections and diseases, they were in Africa before the term AIDS was unleashed upon us, only since then have they been pidgeon holed as AIDS.

AIDS patients demonstrably live longer now than they did before HIV drug treatments were developed. People continue to die because HIV continues to evolve, making it a moving target.

Makes no sense as its AIDS that kills you not HIV


There are many HIV-positive people without AIDS. But the number of AIDS patients without HIV approaches zero.

you have that the wrong way around i`m afraid only a tiny amount of people with AIDS still test positive for HIV

HIV does not always cause AIDS. But AIDS is almost always caused by HIV

Again makes no sense


God help you if your child ever gets HIV.

If my children do i will make sure they aren`t put on the immune system killer ( AIDS causing) cocktail of drugs.

I wont also ask god for help


I believe both HIV and AIDS exist, its just the link between them.

Do you believe that HIV invades white blood cells, as has been observed by medical scientists thousands of times? Do you believe that white blood cells are the cornerstone of a healthy immune system, as has been thoroughly demonstrated in the scientific literature?

[Mr-Bridger]

First, after spending billions of dollars, HIV researchers are still unable to explain how HIV, a conventional retrovirus with a very simple genetic organization, damages the immune system, much less how to stop it. The present stalemate contrasts dramatically with the confidence expressed in 1984. At that time Gallo thought the virus killed cells directly by infecting them, and U.S. government officials predicted a vaccine would be available in two years.years later no vaccine is in sight, and the certainty about how the virus destroys the immune system has dissolved in confusion.

Second, in the absence of any agreement about how HIV causes AIDS, the only evidence that HIV does cause AIDS is correlation. The correlation is imperfect at best, however. There are many cases of persons with all the symptoms of AIDS who do not have any HIV infection. There are also many cases of persons who have been infected by HIV for more than a decade and show no signs of illness.

Third, predictions based on the HIV theory have failed spectacularly. AIDS in the United States and Europe has not spread through the general population. Rather, it remains almost entirely confined to the original risk groups, mainly sexually promiscuous gay men and drug abusers. The number of HIV-infected Americans has remained constant for years instead of increasing rapidly as predicted, which suggests that HIV is an old virus that has been with us for centuries without causing an epidemic.

No one disputes what happens in the early stages of HIV infection. As other viruses do, HIV multiplies rapidly, and it sometimes is accompanied by a mild, flulike illness. At this stage, while the virus is present in great quantity and causing at most mild illness in the ordinary way, it does no observable damage to the immune system. On the contrary, the immune system rallies as it is supposed to do and speedily reduces the virus to negligible levels. Once this happens, the primary infection is over. If HIV does destroy the immune system, it does so years after the immune system has virtually destroyed it. By then the virus typically infects very few of the immune system' s T-cells.


This is my last post on the subject and i apologise for hijacking the thread

[chipmunk stew]

First, after spending billions of dollars, HIV researchers are still unable to explain how HIV, a conventional retrovirus with a very simple genetic organization, damages the immune system, much less how to stop it. The present stalemate contrasts dramatically with the confidence expressed in 1984. At that time Gallo thought the virus killed cells directly by infecting them, and U.S. government officials predicted a vaccine would be available in two years.years later no vaccine is in sight, and the certainty about how the virus destroys the immune system has dissolved in confusion.

Second, in the absence of any agreement about how HIV causes AIDS, the only evidence that HIV does cause AIDS is correlation. The correlation is imperfect at best, however. There are many cases of persons with all the symptoms of AIDS who do not have any HIV infection. There are also many cases of persons who have been infected by HIV for more than a decade and show no signs of illness.

Third, predictions based on the HIV theory have failed spectacularly. AIDS in the United States and Europe has not spread through the general population. Rather, it remains almost entirely confined to the original risk groups, mainly sexually promiscuous gay men and drug abusers. The number of HIV-infected Americans has remained constant for years instead of increasing rapidly as predicted, which suggests that HIV is an old virus that has been with us for centuries without causing an epidemic.

No one disputes what happens in the early stages of HIV infection. As other viruses do, HIV multiplies rapidly, and it sometimes is accompanied by a mild, flulike illness. At this stage, while the virus is present in great quantity and causing at most mild illness in the ordinary way, it does no observable damage to the immune system. On the contrary, the immune system rallies as it is supposed to do and speedily reduces the virus to negligible levels. Once this happens, the primary infection is over. If HIV does destroy the immune system, it does so years after the immune system has virtually destroyed it. By then the virus typically infects very few of the immune system' s T-cells.


This is my last post on the subject and i apologise for hijacking the thread

You are absolutely wrong on every count. Where are you getting this schlock? If you wish, I will produce reams of studies that squarely contradict everything you've just said about how the virus operates and how we know.