Aids Babies

[jsut_peopel]

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.

I was going to ask for cites from him to see where this stuff was coming from, but at a guess I would think most of it can be found here...

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/

I really can't see the motivation for this stuff beyond the "lifestyle choice" causes AIDS demonisation of people that they seem to go in for.

[jsut_peopel]

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.

Still trying to win hearts and minds I see. Well done you. Bravo!

[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.

I was going to ask for cites from him to see where this stuff was coming from, but at a guess I would think most of it can be found here...

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/

I really can't see the motivation for this stuff beyond the "lifestyle choice" causes AIDS demonisation of people that they seem to go in for.

That's the only possible motivation. They want to believe that the disease does not affect the morally upright. They want to believe that people with AIDS deserve it, that the disease is an intentional punishment (from God?) They want to believe that there is strict order in the world, and that any appearance of chaos is actually part of a greater plan by some powerful force (God? The Zionists?)

[aggle-rithm]

That's the only possible motivation. They want to believe that the disease does not affect the morally upright. They want to believe that people with AIDS deserve it, that the disease is an intentional punishment (from God?) They want to believe that there is strict order in the world, and that any appearance of chaos is actually part of a greater plan by some powerful force (God? The Zionists?)

Bayer? Major League Baseball?

[chipmunk stew]

Major League Baseball?

You know, too? How did you find out? We HAVE to do something!!!

[aggle-rithm]

Major League Baseball?

You know, too? How did you find out? We HAVE to do something!!!

Great episode. "No more experimental drugs for my boy. From now on, it's fresh air, plenty of exercise, and good, old-fashioned Ritalin!"