BF2S Forums HIV does NOT cause AIDS

Pubic wrote:

Sheesh...doesn't anyone know, Ronald Reagan and god caused AIDS...

Ronald Reagan caused Crack fiends in the inner city not AIDS. <--Everyone knows that.

AudioAtomica wrote:

For all of you that don't bother to watch the Videos. They pretty much say that Dr. Gallo, after failing to prove that retro-virus's cause cancer, altzhiemers and other common diseases, that he jumped at the opprutinity and said it causes AIDS and in the panick of protests (all the gays angry when AIDS was known as GRID (gay-related-infeciontary-disease or something.)the Goverment began funding research which put thousands of doctors back to work. etc etc. They're saying all pretty much saying we should be fighting AIDS not HIV, because there is NO PROOF that HIV directly causes AIDS since HIV has been aorund for a long as time and AIDS hasn't. There's also a highly toxic medicine known as AZT that might cause AIDS. AZT is used to fight HIV.

For the love of God, please tell me you're joking. Please.

First off, doctors don't do research. Scientists do. Doctors treat patients. And contrary to your statement, there is no such thing as an out of work doctor. There is ALWAYS a job for a physician.

Now, on to the link between HIV and AIDS.... The human immunodeficiency virus (it's a virus, that attacks humans, by weakening their immune systems [specifically by inhibiting the growth and replication of the "T" cell]) causes a disease called AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome). AIDS itself is not a specific disease in the same way as, say, appendicitis. It is a term that refers to the collection of symptoms and infections that are specific to inhibited T cell reproduction.

This leaves the body open to other, opportunistic, infections that are what eventually kills you. No one dies from AIDS. You die from pneumonia, or a cold, or the flu, or bronchitis, or anything else.

The drug you refer to, AZT (azidothymidine) is not the first line treatment for someone infected with HIV. It is an antiretroviral drug, one that inhibits the growth of viruses. This one is tailored for HIV, but no longer used in the "triple cocktail."

AZT is used for prophylactic treatment if you are the victim of HIV exposure (needle stick, mucous membrane contact with blood or other bodily fluids from an HIV-positive person, etc), and is used to decrease the chance of an HIV-positive mother passing HIV on to her child through pregnancy or breastfeeding.

The treatment regimen for someone who is HIV positive is highly active antiretroviral therapy, or HAART. This is a combination of at least three drugs from at least two classes of antiretrovirals. Usually, you take  two nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NARTIs or NRTIs) plus either a protease inhibitor or a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI). The goal of this treatment is to keep the HIV viral load as low as possible, while denying the virus the ability to develop a resistance to treatment (hence the reliance on reverse transcriptase inhibitors).

And I'll be honest with you. For me, a health professional, your denying the link between HIV and AIDS is akin to denying the holocaust. It is people like you, who spread misinformation, that are responsible for the pandemic. I don't care if your intentions are good, you are causing harm.

I majored in Molecular Biology and Biochemistry.  I've done HIV research.  HIV causes AIDS.

HIV is a bitch because it mutates very rapidly and gives the immune system a tough time in keeping up with what it looks like.  Your body adapts and kills off the virus but not as quickly as the virus can change its appearance and continue attacking the immune system.  That's why it takes many years to kill you.  Anti HIV meds can keep the disease in check indefinitely (see magic johnson) by slowing down the virus just enough so that your immune system can keep HIV in check.  Of course this is also based on the health of the individual and how potent the HIV strain is.

AudioAtomica wrote:

Did you all even watch any of the videos?

Or did any of you even notice in my FIRST POST I said it could be a possibility. <---Key word.

And I know what HIV is and does same with AIDS my aunt and Uncle both died from TB because they were diagnosed with AIDS. Wether or not they were ever diagnosed with HIV is a mystery to me, because they never told anyone, and no one likes to talk about it. I'm not fucking seven bro I know exactly waht it is and does.

And to the guy that said "doctors don't do blah blah" When you get your Doctorate you are a 'Dr.". For example, A security guard way back at middle school had his Doctorate in black history, so we had to call him Dr. Monogol, so stfu.

First and formost, this is the Debate and Serious Talk section. Welcome. Your well-rationed (and not, in this case) arguments and observations are welcome here. Comments like "so stfu" are not welcome here. You want to talk like a child, go somewhere else. Profanity is the sign of a simple mind.

Now, one of the diagnostic critera for AIDS is an HIV viral load, along with a decrease in your T cells. Therefore, if you have AIDS, you have HIV. You cannot have one without the other. It's not possible.

And no, when you recieve a doctorate, you are not a doctor. A person with a PhD in philsophy, when asked what he or she does for a living, does not answer, "I'm a doctor." You calling someone a doctor is a sign of respect for his or her academic rank.

Last edited by blisteringsilence (2007-03-29 23:13:43)

blisteringsilence wrote:

AudioAtomica wrote:

Did you all even watch any of the videos?

Or did any of you even notice in my FIRST POST I said it could be a possibility. <---Key word.

And I know what HIV is and does same with AIDS my aunt and Uncle both died from TB because they were diagnosed with AIDS. Wether or not they were ever diagnosed with HIV is a mystery to me, because they never told anyone, and no one likes to talk about it. I'm not fucking seven bro I know exactly waht it is and does.

And to the guy that said "doctors don't do blah blah" When you get your Doctorate you are a 'Dr.". For example, A security guard way back at middle school had his Doctorate in black history, so we had to call him Dr. Monogol, so stfu.

First and formost, this is the Debate and Serious Talk section. Welcome. Your well-rationed (and not, in this case) arguments and observations are welcome here. Comments like "so stfu" are not welcome here. You want to talk like a child, go somewhere else. Profanity is the sign of a simple mind.

Now, one of the diagnostic critera for AIDS is an HIV viral load, along with a decrease in your T cells. Therefore, if you have AIDS, you have HIV. You cannot have one without the other. It's not possible.

And no, when you recieve a doctorate, you are not a doctor. A person with a PhD in philsophy, when asked what he or she does for a living, does not answer, "I'm a doctor." You calling someone a doctor is a sign of respect for his or her academic rank.

I didn't say when you get a doctorate you are a 'doctor' I said you are a 'Dr.', I figured the quotes would make sure that it wouldn't be misleading. And you proved my point, that one guy (I don't konw who it was, for I haven't bothered to look.) said "Doctors don't do research.." When I never said Doctors do anything, I stated that 'Dr. Gallo' <--the man that 'discovered HIV, claimed it causes AIDS shortly after he failed to prove it caused cancer.

And profanity is not the sign of a simple mind, although in some cases that maybe. Profanity is a sign that that particular person has taken up certain behavioural patterns, and habits, or expressions of anger, I.E. Somone talking to me like I'm five, about a particular subject that has caused a great deal of problems in my own life. Something like that might cause me to become upset and use said 'profanity'.

But I thank you for clearing up that one can not have AIDS without having HIV.

superfly_cox wrote:

Incredible what is going on in Africa...

Unfortunate for them that their relatives weren't sold into slavery like Magic's and can't now afford the drugs to prolong their lives.
Capitalism FTW!!!! /Sarcasm

Aids was the Global warming of the 1980s in America. Its everyones problem. It will become Rampent in the Hetero sexual communities ...what happend ?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

HIV does not ALWAYS cause AIDs.  There you go.

But on the flipside, you cannot contract AIDs without contracting HIV first.

so to recap: You can contract HIV and not get AIDs. You cannot contract AIDs without having HIV.

Exactly, HIV lowers your immune system, it allows AIDs to happen to your body.

Last edited by Vilham (2007-03-31 09:19:16)

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

SteikeTa wrote:

AudioAtomica wrote:

Finally someone replied with something useful. Thanks for that, you wouldn't happen to now what the medication is called?

Hmmmmm..... maybe something in the line of Reprico.... something. I'm not sure. I am probably way off. Long time since I read it. Illustrated Science Magazine. Love reading it. Some months ago that I read about it. It is very interesting stuff to read about in my opinion.

Edit: usage of the word "read" is over used in this post!!

You better go back and read your science mag again.  The reason that we can't stop viri is because we haven't yet found a way to kill a virus, within the host, without killing or severely damaging the host as well.

Now to the OP.  If HIV doesn't cause AIDs, then prove this.  Show me one person that got AIDs that didn't first have HIV, and then I'll believe your statement has some credibility.

Ehm... isn't that what I have written? When I read my post, that's what it says. They have not found out how to kill the virus. Just lower it's virus count. Because nothing is effective against it when it becomes inactive...........

I would guess once they get nano tech rolling they will program the little buggers to identify the virus and destroy it with wireless virus definition updates.  Just wait till we each have our own internal robot army to kill infection.  Then symantec can release a bad update and destroy the world.

I'm going out on a limb here and suggest the extremely low rate in countries like Egypt, Lybia, Mongolia, Japan etc is more about recorded cases and the ability to get reliable data than an actual head count of the population (although Japan surprises me if it is data collection issues). Of course, it could well be that the people in those countries are a lot more careful and have therefore managed to curtail the spread.

FeedUsYourFetus wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Exactly, HIV lowers your immune system, it allows AIDs in to your body.

This is an inaccurate assessment.  AIDS is not something you CATCH because you have HIV.  It is simply a descriptive term for what you happens when HIV has depressed your immune system to the point of having less than 200 CD4 T-cells per mL in your blood.  Basically, the relationship between HIV and AIDS is like the relationship between having a cold, and having a really bad cold.  If you get a cold, it might not get really bad, especially if you treat it.  But, you can't have a really bad cold whithout first getting a cold.  Get it?  Granted, this is a bit of an oversimplification, but it makes the point.

KiL

I understand how it works already... thanks for being a dick. You just basically repeated exactly what i said.

Vilham wrote:

I understand how it works already... thanks for being a dick. You just basically repeated exactly what i said.

No, I DIDN'T.  Just keep reading what you wrote until you understand that you're wrong.  It doesn't "allow AIDS into your body."  That doesn't even make sense.  AIDS is not a tangible thing like HIV.  HIV is a virus.  AIDS is a state of health. 

KiL