AIDS: A Second Opinion

Epicurus said:
You guys are too stupid for words.

hiv_2005.jpg


It is not an exclusively "gay disease". Heterosexuals constitute a huge proportion of new diagnoses every year.

Which, as I said, might concern you morons if anyone cared to fuck you.
Click to expand...

What I posted was a joke, guess it went over many heads here :rolleyes: and yes heterosexuals can get aids threw non protected sex also, but tell me, where this shit started spreading, threw queers and junkies, ooo let me explain junkies = people shooting dope, LOL
 
Epicurus said:
You guys are too stupid for words.

hiv_2005.jpg


It is not an exclusively "gay disease". Heterosexuals constitute a huge proportion of new diagnoses every year.

Which, as I said, might concern you morons if anyone cared to fuck you.
Click to expand...
Sometimes people scare me with their lack of compassion and their unwillingness to not judge others whose lifestyles differ from theirs.

There are actually ignorant people that would not give me the time of day because I smoke pot.

I just don't understand dysfunction like this and hatred like this.
 
Jeff said:
What I posted was a joke, guess it went over many heads here :rolleyes: and yes heterosexuals can get aids threw non protected sex also, but tell me, where this shit started spreading, threw queers and junkies, ooo let me explain junkies = people shooting dope, LOL
Click to expand...

You almost redeemed yourself, but then you continued after, What I posted was a joke...
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I know this is nit picky but actually the acronym HIV wasn't coined in 1984. It came later. At first "HTLV III Virus" was used (Human Type Lymphotropic type three virus"
Click to expand...

I use to think so to... but the discovery was in 1983....the application to the intial cases in America was used by scientists, although "AIDS" was the official monicker...it eventually caught onto the general media later.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
There's some weaknesses in that post. First, HIV it has never been claimed in scientific circles that HIV is certain to cause AIDS. AIDS only occurs in a certain percentage of those infected with the HIV virus. Some people infected with HIV develop natural immunity (not suprising there, that's what antibodies are for) while in others there may be a correalation between HIV and a previously existing state of immune suppression that leads to full blown aids.

That is not true.....intially you had the leaders in the scientific community making a DIRECT cause & effect of HIV= AIDS. HIV was treated as a major risk factor to AIDS...but as the years progressed and the "indicators" grew or were subtracted, and people were developing AIDS WITHOUT having HIV in their systems, the official mantra changed from = to "leading" or HIV-AIDS.

Secondly, the argument about HIV not having been isolated is nothing new. That argument relates to most viruses in which applying Koch's postulate to demonstrate that virus is the cause of a disease is problematic. Koch's postulates states that to determine if a microorganism causes a disease first, the microorganism must be found in all persons who exhibit that disease, then the microorganism must be isolated from one of these organisms and then grown in a pure culture. That microorganism must then be reintroduced into another organism and cause that disease. Sounds like a very reasonable broad based approach, right?

Many feel that this is a universal approach to determining if a microorganism causes a disease. However, that's not the case. Koch's postulates works fine in the cases where bacteria and fungi which cause disease can be isolated and replicated but it falls apart where viruses are concerned because a virus must share another living cell with the host animal in order to replicate. It's also problematic with certain "L-forms" of bacteria are very difficult to isolate and grow in pure culture but that does not mean that they don't cause disease.


What I'm saying is that Koch's postulate doesn't always work because and cannot always be fulfilled because there are way to many variables involved in disease expression. A good example of the are mycobacterium leprae and treponema pallidum which are known to cause leprosy and syphilis neither of which can be grown in pure culture and thus cannot fulfill Koch's postulate.

The problem with the argument that HIV has never been isolated (meaning isolated in pure form in culture) is that it doesn't take into account gene transfer in which microorganisms transfer their genetic material to others. This is a direct challenge to Koch's postulate. For example, it's been shown in studies of HIV that the genes of intestinal bacteria of patients with HIV were 90% homologous to the corresponding sequence in HIV. Strong evidence that gene transfer had occurred. This not only would make meeting Koch's postulate impossible because it would be impossible to isolate any virus or bacteria in which gene transfer occurs but for all intents and purposes it invalidates Koch's postulate as a universal principle. So therefore, the fact that HIV has not been isolated, in pure form in a culture medium, is not a valid criticism. The second argument, that HIV can't "Be all that it claims to be" also does not account for gene transfer but when you do evuluate HIV by modeling it through the phenomena of gene transfer, it does indeed become the primary culprit as much of the voluminous body of scientific literature has indicted.
Click to expand...

But remember, Koch's postulate was used to verify the HIV-AIDS scenario (ie, Gallo)...and when the HIV-AIDS scenario DID NOT fit the equation, suddenly the equation is called into question. So a time tested method that has been successful in identifying/tracking viruses in the past is suddenly thrown out. If what you say is 100% true, then now all viruses that have been successfully tracked and identified are now in question....and that includes the very basis for the AIDS epidemic

And also remember, the basis for the whole HIV-AIDS hoopla is identifying anti-bodies....this means that a virus entered the system, went through the whole gambit, and is now present in genes. And yet....you have patients tested positive at one point suddenly become HIV free...and patients who develop the EXACT same indicating diseases attributed to HIV-AIDS patients with NO HIV in their systems.

The information/proof is out there...but if it's automatically rejected and ignored, no one will know otherwise.
 
Epicurus said:
You guys are too stupid for words.

hiv_2005.jpg


It is not an exclusively "gay disease". Heterosexuals constitute a huge proportion of new diagnoses every year.

Which, as I said, might concern you morons if anyone cared to fuck you.
Click to expand...

Here's the bottom line:

junkies have for years contracted AIDS because they destroy their immune systems.

The initial cases of AIDS among the gay community were those who killed their immune systems via long work hours, poor diet, specific "recreational" drug use, little sleep and unprotected sex with random partners.

Intially, Karposi Sarcoma was a key indicator of AIDS...this was exactly what happened to junkies. As the years went by, more and more diseases that were among the general population for decades (and non-fatal for the most part) were added (and then later subtracted) as "AIDS indicators".

When HIV was announced as the pre-cursor to AIDS, being typed for HIV anti-bodies was considered an eventual/inevitable AIDS development. However over the years, you've had people who were NOT HIV positive develop aids...people who were HIV positive, stopped or took no medication and NEVER developed AIDS.

The HIV test for Africans is different from that of Europe and North America. Odd, since every other type of virus can be identified with one type of test world wide.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Look. Gay sex is riskier because it involves tearing asses open and the resulting bleedout.
Click to expand...

I'd also like to add that AssHatZombie is our resident expert in tearing gay ass. His opinions on the matter hold a little extra weight, like when Thorn chimes in on microbiology or some other scientific topic. Same thing. He's very close to the subject matter, so pay attention folks.
 
LadyT said:
I'd just like to gratuitously point out that he's a conservative.

That's all.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

He and the other two stooges are just willfully ignorant (or just plain ignorant...take your pick). They miss the entire point of the posts/thread.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Here's the bottom line:

junkies have for years contracted AIDS because they destroy their immune systems.

The initial cases of AIDS among the gay community were those who killed their immune systems via long work hours, poor diet, specific "recreational" drug use, little sleep and unprotected sex with random partners.

Intially, Karposi Sarcoma was a key indicator of AIDS...this was exactly what happened to junkies. As the years went by, more and more diseases that were among the general population for decades (and non-fatal for the most part) were added (and then later subtracted) as "AIDS indicators".

When HIV was announced as the pre-cursor to AIDS, being typed for HIV anti-bodies was considered an eventual/inevitable AIDS development. However over the years, you've had people who were NOT HIV positive develop aids...people who were HIV positive, stopped or took no medication and NEVER developed AIDS.

The HIV test for Africans is different from that of Europe and North America. Odd, since every other type of virus can be identified with one type of test world wide.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to that?
 
LadyT said:
I'd also like to add that AssHatZombie is our resident expert in tearing gay ass. His opinions on the matter hold a little extra weight, like when Thorn chimes in on microbiology or some other scientific topic. Same thing. He's very close to the subject matter, so pay attention folks.
Click to expand...

It is evident, but thanks for the confirmation.
 
Taichiliberal said:
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/chjtests4.htm

hope this helps!
Click to expand...

Taichi, we've been all over this before. Your link is not to a peer-reviewed, scientific study or study review. The links that I provided to you at that time were both to original source scientific studies and to the NIH consumer/patient information sources about HIV and AIDS.

There has not been a single documented case where AIDS was not preceded by HIV infection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top