Some people may not be aware of this but the actual existence of HIV is a hot and controversial topic amongsts professionals in the scientific fields, including doctors and researchers around the globe. Meetings and conferneces are held frequently, lines in the sand are drawn, analytical shots are fired to take out one researcher or another... and year after year the war goes on.... but most common folks don't even know this war is going on. It is not reported in our US press, it is not discussed on Oprah, there are no 60 minute reports. It is a hidden war.... a secret war... yet the battle rages.... and certainly if you have HIV your AZT provider is not going to tell you about it.
Recently a conference on HIV met in Columbia, where famous and highly intelligent researchers gathered to discuss HIV from around the globe. This first group was of particular interest because the didn't accept the current HIV paradigm. Shorty after their departure a new group rushed into Columbia, those who support the conventional paradigm.
Here is one exerpt from one interview of a scientist that I thought was interesting. Actually the whole interivew was most informative but this single paragraph said a lot to me and got me to thinking about the HIV issues in a new light.
Conlan: One of the things that has struck me, regarding the use of protease inhibitors as an HIV treatment, is that they're saying that the limited effectiveness of the drugs is due to the virus mutating around them. Duesberg: They keep saying this, yes. They have no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. They have no evidence at all that there's a mutant that is resistant to the drugs in vitro. They just say that. And they said that with AZT. They said it with the other DNA chain terminators [ddI, ddC, d4T, 3TC]. When the people's bodies finally break down from the effects of these drugs, they say, "Now the virus has become resistant to it, and the drugs have lost their efficiency." What really is happening is the host is breaking down. The toxicity of the drugs builds up to a point where it cannot stand it anymore. And, of course, they say it was the virus -- rather than the entirely inevitable and predictable toxicity of these damned drugs.
__________________ "The nurse should be cheerful, orderly, punctual, patient, full of faith, - receptive to Truth and Love" Mary Baker Eddy
Visit www.HealthSalon.org
What I want to know is, if HIV is a harmless carrier virus, why does everyone who has AIDS have HIV? Are there people out there who get what is not identified as AIDS because they don't have HIV but essentially it is?
There was a guy on HSI who said that the reason a lot of men who had HIV died in the early 80's was because they also took poppers, a drug that lowered their immune system. But there's not always a drug connection. And did anyone who took poppers but didn't have HIV die?
Is there missing data or do I just not know it? What am I missing?
What I want to know is, if HIV is a harmless carrier virus, why does everyone who has AIDS have HIV? Are there people out there who get what is not identified as AIDS because they don't have HIV but essentially it is?
There was a guy on HSI who said that the reason a lot of men who had HIV died in the early 80's was because they also took poppers, a drug that lowered their immune system. But there's not always a drug connection. And did anyone who took poppers but didn't have HIV die?
Is there missing data or do I just not know it? What am I missing?
"Why does everyone who has AIDS have HIV" is one of your questions.
In 1991 at an International AIDS conference in Amsterdam several doctors described cases from their clinics of people that had AIDS with no 'HIV' detected. HIV negative AIDS.
This caused quite a stir especially at the CDC , and the powers that be decided to name this HIV negative AIDS thing Idiopathic T-cell Lymphocytopenia. ICL for short. And, of course, idiopathic means 'disease of unknown origin', which is exactly what they should call AIDS.
The gubment makes it simple for us-if no HIV is present then the patient can't have AIDS. See how easy that is?
Hey, it is junk 'science', but people choose to live in make believe nowadays so what should we expect?
Some people may not be aware of this but the actual existence of HIV is a hot and controversial topic amongsts professionals in the scientific fields, including doctors and researchers around the globe. Meetings and conferneces are held frequently, lines in the sand are drawn, analytical shots are fired to take out one researcher or another... and year after year the war goes on.... but most common folks don't even know this war is going on. It is not reported in our US press, it is not discussed on Oprah, there are no 60 minute reports. It is a hidden war.... a secret war... yet the battle rages.... and certainly if you have HIV your AZT provider is not going to tell you about it.
Recently a conference on HIV met in Columbia, where famous and highly intelligent researchers gathered to discuss HIV from around the globe. This first group was of particular interest because the didn't accept the current HIV paradigm. Shorty after their departure a new group rushed into Columbia, those who support the conventional paradigm.
Here is one exerpt from one interview of a scientist that I thought was interesting. Actually the whole interivew was most informative but this single paragraph said a lot to me and got me to thinking about the HIV issues in a new light.
Conlan: One of the things that has struck me, regarding the use of protease inhibitors as an HIV treatment, is that they're saying that the limited effectiveness of the drugs is due to the virus mutating around them. Duesberg: They keep saying this, yes. They have no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. They have no evidence at all that there's a mutant that is resistant to the drugs in vitro. They just say that. And they said that with AZT. They said it with the other DNA chain terminators [ddI, ddC, d4T, 3TC]. When the people's bodies finally break down from the effects of these drugs, they say, "Now the virus has become resistant to it, and the drugs have lost their efficiency." What really is happening is the host is breaking down. The toxicity of the drugs builds up to a point where it cannot stand it anymore. And, of course, they say it was the virus -- rather than the entirely inevitable and predictable toxicity of these damned drugs.
To fully appreciate the 'science fictions' the HIV pundits spin you first must consider that viruses do not generally mutate into 'drug resistant' strains like bacteria do. True, viruses mutate but the mutation is random, thus it is not guaranteed to 'mutate' into a more deadly strain. Or mutate into a 'drug resistant' strain either. And, as small as a retrovirus is there isn't much room for it to play around if you will, like a flu virus can for instance.
Something to consider. Ask any infectious disease specialist what percentage of target cells must be infected within the host by a deadly virus. usually 40% or more of the cells must be infected for serious health problems to arise, including death.
In the case of 'HIV' only a maximum of 2% of the CD-4 lymphocytes are 'infected' even in someone that dies of 'AIDS', which means 98% are not infected. These cells have the capacity to multiply exponetially practically overnight.
Most researchers agree that on average in a somewhat 'typical' AIDS patient about 1 t-cell in 1000 is 'infected' with HIV. For a DNA terminator like AZT to destroy what is called 'HIV' it will kill the 999 uninfected cells.
So what is more dangerous? A ghost virus called HIV that kills the one cell in 1000 with so called 'HIV' or AZT and its cousins killing 999 t cells just to get the one 'infected' cell?
I like Peter Deusberg. But I don't think there is any evidence for the existence of 'HIV'. They can't find it in fresh uncultured sera. Only when oxidizing chemicals like pokeweed extract are added to the cultures does so called 'HIV' emerge.
A researcher by the name of Bernd Muschlien and the inventor of the Ergonom microscope both claim to have seen the HIV virus in a live state.
The Ergonom microscope is capable of magnifications far beyond a typical light microscope, but does not kill the specimen as does an electron microscope.
The virus research was performed at the institution in the link below in 1986.
I do not know much about this subject other than there is debate about it. Whether the claims of identifying the HIV virus were accurate in this case is unknown to me, but I do know the microscope is capable of seeing the virus, if it does exist.
In 1991 at an International AIDS conference in Amsterdam several doctors described cases from their clinics of people that had AIDS with no 'HIV' detected. HIV negative AIDS.
This caused quite a stir especially at the CDC , and the powers that be decided to name this HIV negative AIDS thing Idiopathic T-cell Lymphocytopenia. ICL for short. And, of course, idiopathic means 'disease of unknown origin', which is exactly what they should call AIDS.
Interesting. I looked up ICL and found that it appeared the same time as HIV and was thought to be HIV because it was similar though not the same, and said to be rare. They found no evidence of a transmissible cause. Also one source states that it doesn't progress over time. What do you think about these differences as compared to HIV/AIDS?
Quote:
INTRODUCTION
Idiopathic CD4+ T-cell lymphocytopenia (ICL) was first described at the beginning of the HIV epidemic, following the recognition that AIDS was caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1). A subset of patients suspected of having HIV because of profound CD4+ lymphopenia had no evidence of infection. Additional immunologic defects were present in a few of these patients, including CD8+ lymphocytopenia and/or low immunoglobulin levels.
Many of these individuals also had risk factors for HIV infection. However, a thorough search for an etiologic agent in subsequent years has failed to yield a pathogen. The syndrome of ICL describes the immunologic findings in these patients.
DEFINITION
ICL is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome that is defined by persistent CD4+ T-cell lymphopenia in the absence of infection with HIV-1 or any other cause of immunodeficiency [1-4]. CD4+ T cell counts should be below 300 cells/microL or less than 20 percent of total lymphocytes. Patients with ICL are usually symptomatic but some are asymptomatic [2]. (See 'Diagnosis' below.)
EPIDEMIOLOGY
ICL is a rare condition. The prevalence of ICL was addressed in a review of 230,179 cases referred to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) AIDS Reporting System during the 1980s and early 1990s because of CD4+ lymphocytopenia or illnesses indicative of immunodeficiency; 47 (0.02 percent) had ICL [2]. Among these 47 patients, 40 percent had AIDS-defining illnesses, 53 percent had conditions that were not AIDS-defining, and 6 percent were asymptomatic.
In 1992, a study was initiated to follow this cohort of patients prospectively and define the natural history of ICL. The study ended in 2006, and reported on the outcomes of 39 of the 47 patients, which represents the largest series of patients with ICL [5]. The results are presented throughout this topic.[have to subscribe to get results so see below for another site publishing the results]
Idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia (ICL) is a rare non–HIV-related syndrome with unclear natural history and prognosis. This prospective natural history cohort study describes the clinical course, CD4 T lymphocyte kinetics, outcome, and prognostic factors of ICL. Thirty-nine patients (17 men, 22 women) 25 to 85 years old with ICL were evaluated between 1992 and 2006, and 36 were followed for a median of 49.5 months. Cryptococcal and nontuberculous mycobacterial infections were the major presenting opportunistic infections. Seven patients presented with no infection. In 32, CD4 T-cell counts remained less than 300/mm3 throughout the study period and in 7 normalized after an average of 31 months. Overall, 15 (41.6%) developed an opportunistic infection in follow-up, 5 (13.8%) of which were "AIDS-defining clinical conditions," and 4 (11.1%) developed autoimmune diseases. Seven patients died, 4 from ICL-related opportunistic infections, within 42 months after diagnosis. Immunologic analyses revealed increased activation and turnover in CD4 but not CD8 T lymphocytes. CD8 T lymphocytopenia (< 180/mm3) and the degree of CD4 T cell activation (measured by HLA-DR expression) at presentation were associated with adverse outcome (opportunistic infection-related death; P = .003 and .02, respectively). This trial is registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00001319 [ClinicalTrials.gov]
Idiopathic CD4+ T lymphocytopenia should be considered in HIV-negative patients with skin lesions commonly associated with HIV infection. Patients with idiopathic CD4+ T lymphocytopenia are presumably rare, often have dermatologic lesions, always have low CD4+ T lymphocyte counts, and lack all evidence of HIV-1 infection. We describe a young man with verrucae, basal cell carcinomas, chronic tinea corporis, and laboratory evidence supporting a diagnosis of idiopathic CD4+ T lymphocytopenia. (J Am Acad Dermatol 1994 Nov;31(5 Pt 2):889-91)
Background Although patients with idiopathic CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia and serious opportunistic infections have been described previously, the clinical and immunologic features of this condition have not been well defined. Methods We studied in detail five patients with idiopathic CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia. The studies included serologic testing, culture, and polymerase chain reaction for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) types 1 and 2, serologic testing for the human T-cell lymphotropic virus (HTLV) types I and II, lymphocyte phenotyping, immunoglobulin quantitation, and lymphocyte-transformation assays, as well as attempts to isolate a retroviral agent. The results were compared with those in HIV-infected persons matched for CD4+ T-cell counts and with those in normal controls. We also studied the spouses of patients and the blood donors for one patient. Results In these five patients, there was no evidence of either HIV or HTLV infection. All the patients had both low percentages and low counts of CD4+ T cells, with relative increases in percentages, but not counts, of CD8+ cells. Numbers of B cells and natural killer cells were generally normal. As compared with HIV-infected persons, our patients had lower percentages and counts of CD8+ cells and more lymphopenia. CD4+ counts were relatively stable over time. Instead of the high immunoglobulin levels seen in HIV infection, these patients had normal or slightly low levels of immunoglobulins. The lymphocyte-transformation response to mitogens and antigens was depressed. Results in spouses and blood donors were normal. Conclusions Idiopathic CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia differs from HIV infection in its immunologic characteristics and in its apparent lack of progression over time. Nothing about the immunologic or viral-culture studies performed in these patients or about their family members or blood donors suggests that a transmissible agent causes this condition.
A researcher by the name of Bernd Muschlien and the inventor of the Ergonom microscope both claim to have seen the HIV virus in a live state.
The Ergonom microscope is capable of magnifications far beyond a typical light microscope, but does not kill the specimen as does an electron microscope.
The virus research was performed at the institution in the link below in 1986.
I do not know much about this subject other than there is debate about it. Whether the claims of identifying the HIV virus were accurate in this case is unknown to me, but I do know the microscope is capable of seeing the virus, if it does exist.
The real question to be asked to Muschlien would be -What makes you think that this stretch of genetic code is a virus, and what makes you think it is of unique retroviral origin and the causative agent in AIDS?
These are questions that make the AIDS pundits and orthodoxy stumble and stammer.
The scope may be the best thing since sliced bread-there have certainly been more useful scopes invented decades before the big electron varieties..
Interesting. I looked up ICL and found that it appeared the same time as HIV and was thought to be HIV because it was similar though not the same, and said to be rare. They found no evidence of a transmissible cause. Also one source states that it doesn't progress over time. What do you think about these differences as compared to HIV/AIDS?
Here is something to ponder. The HIV Pundits exclaim that in HIV/AIDS patients there is a homicidal ghost virus munching on the cd-4's and that aggressive antiretroviral therapies is the only savior to bring these cell counts up or keep them stable or to even use these drugs prophylatically to prevent infection. The AIDS patients and their docs live and breathe cd-4 counts. It is almost all that matters to them in the entire world.
Then in ICL patients, many who present no symptoms other than a low cd-4 count and what is done for them?
Nothing.
More food for thought. There is no evidence that suggests 'HIV' or AIDS is sexually transmissible. Plenty of studies show that discordant couples (one HIV pos, the other HIV neg) having lots of unprotected sex do not transmit anything other than a good time to the partner.
You sorta asked me what I think about this HIV thing and ICL and stuff. So here goes.
HIV has never been isolated and thus has never been proven to exist. It has been classified as a retrovirus mainly because a certain protien-reverse transcriptase- has been identified in some of the early 'AIDS' cultures. Never mind that RT is not specific to retroviruses.
Even if HIV were to exist and was a retrovirus who really cares? Retroviruses are not cytocidal, they do not kill cells.
Hans Gelderbloom (sp) has done more electron microscope work with so called HIV than anyone in the world. What he describes as seeing in these cell cultures is anything but retroviral protiens. All he found was 'microvesicles and cellular debris' which is a hell of a long way from being a virus.
There are specific rules of isolation in virology. Without such rules and classification guidelines any scientist can extract any ol' mish mash of RNA or DNA and proclaim it to be 'viral'. In this new age of 'virology' isolation no longer matters-now it is acceptable to use 'markers' instead. These are techniques used by second rate scientists and we should not be suprised to be deluged with such idiocy as a HI Virus, Hep C virus, or HPV virus and on and on and on.
If you walked through the woods and saw a huge footprint could you claim that Big Foot exists? Or would it be better to actually find Big Foot?
AIDS is a lifestyle disease. It is a condition produced by oxidative stress. It should come as no small wonder that all AIDS patients are low in glutathione and other antioxidants such as selenium among others.
PCR is of no real value in so called 'HIV'. Without knowing for certain what one is looking for, and no guarantee that this genetic code is specific for anything, PCR is worthless although it is a fantastic tool in genetics labs everywhere.
In 1972 Nixon started 'The War on Cancer'. There was huge money pumped into the biomedical technical industry trying to link cancer to being caused by viruses. After rolling snake eyes for many years some ambitious scientists (namely Bob Gallo) found a new money train called 'AIDS' and needed to sustain their careers. So they made a very casual link to HIV positivity and 'AIDS'. Although it was a weak correlation a good old fear campaign is hard to beat.
And so here we are now, surrounded by junk science.
I still am curious about the comparisons between ICL and HIV/AIDS or what is called HIV/AIDS because if ICL is just AIDS without HIV it would be important to note the similarities and differences, causes and effects. It seems like this would bring attention to just what AIDS is. Not being able to isolate HIV or even determine that it is a virus is important but it still doesn't answer the questions of what is causing people to get sick with AIDS if HIV is present in all those cases. But if ICL could be studied more and determined that they have AIDS without HIV this would get peoples' attention. But you mention:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thee Phenom
AIDS is a lifestyle disease. It is a condition produced by oxidative stress. It should come as no small wonder that all AIDS patients are low in glutathione and other antioxidants such as selenium among others.
This is also noteworthy because if it can be determined that HIV is not the cause, but rather lifestyle or perhaps environmental causes it can be added to the list of all the other new conditions which are probably caused by or contributed to by lifestyle/environmental issues which include lifestyle stress and toxins and nutritional deficiencies and oxidative stress and that affect the immune system such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia, Auto-Immune Diseases such as Rheumatoid Arthritis, Lupus, Colitis; Autism, ADHD, Crohns, MS, etc., etc.
AIDS was originally named "GRID" for Gay Related Immune Dysfunction. The cause was attributed to the heavy drug use among homosexuals in the west back in the disco era. There was thought to be a transmissible contagion since the disease, at least in the west, was restricted to gay men and IV drug users.
Makes you wonder if the modern day scientists were around a couple hundred years ago what would they have said about scurvy? Think they would have said it was a contagious virus among those dirty sailors? You betcha.
AIDS in Africa is a collection of diseases that have been around for a century or more. Dysentery, malaria, dengue fever, etc are now just relabeled as 'AIDS'.
AIDS in Africa is evenly distributed among the sexes, while in the west it was and still is pretty much a gay male or drug using male disease.
I wonder how a virus can determine which continent it is on. But I digress.
Generally speaking when scientists don't understand a disease they just claim it is caused by a virus or is an auto immune condition.
Makes you wonder if the modern day scientists were around a couple hundred years ago what would they have said about scurvy? Think they would have said it was a contagious virus among those dirty sailors? You betcha.
Well, we know it's not because they're 'dirty'.
Quote:
AIDS in Africa is a collection of diseases that have been around for a century or more. Dysentery, malaria, dengue fever, etc are now just relabeled as 'AIDS'.
They did initially say that AIDS in Africa was from prostitutes and males having sex with virgins and because the numbers in Africa are so high it somehow intimates that Africans are 'dirtier' than Americans or Europeans which I thought was repugnant, instead of saying that it was from their weakened immune systems due to disease and malnutrion. (There was that book in the 80's called The P*A--L* E Horse which said that AIDS was engineered to kill blacks and gays. The book disappeared. I don't know if it's true or just whackiness.)
Do you have statistics for AIDS still being mostly a gay male or drug using male disease? Why a drug-using male disease versus female drug-using? I remember when AIDS came out in the early 1980's a doctor wrote a book about how anal sex causes tears which makes one more susceptible to HIV or STDs. I see that Wikipedia states that the risk for transmission of AIDS is higher with anal sex. Drug use would lower the immune system and heavy drug use would cause other problems such as malnutrition from the lack of desire to eat.
Quote:
Generally speaking when scientists don't understand a disease they just claim it is caused by a virus or is an auto immune condition.
This is true, but we're not any closer to determining just what is causing AIDS if it is not HIV. I guess you don't have any more information about ICL. Do you know who might?
They did initially say that AIDS in Africa was from prostitutes and males having sex with virgins and because the numbers in Africa are so high it somehow intimates that Africans are 'dirtier' than Americans or Europeans which I thought was repugnant, instead of saying that it was from their weakened immune systems due to disease and malnutrion. (There was that book in the 80's called The P*A--L* E Horse which said that AIDS was engineered to kill blacks and gays. The book disappeared. I don't know if it's true or just whackiness.)
Do you have statistics for AIDS still being mostly a gay male or drug using male disease? Why a drug-using male disease versus female drug-using? I remember when AIDS came out in the early 1980's a doctor wrote a book about how anal sex causes tears which makes one more susceptible to HIV or STDs. I see that Wikipedia states that the risk for transmission of AIDS is higher with anal sex. Drug use would lower the immune system and heavy drug use would cause other problems such as malnutrition from the lack of desire to eat.
This is true, but we're not any closer to determining just what is causing AIDS if it is not HIV. I guess you don't have any more information about ICL. Do you know who might?
If you have a basic understanding of antibody testing you won't be suprised to see why there is-on the surface anyway-a high prevelence of 'AIDS' in Africa.
There is no such thing as a 'HIV' test for the simple reason that no one has actually found this HIV thing in a person. The way a person is deemed to be 'HIV positive' is by antibody testing and nothing else.
Antibody testing is not a 'yes' or 'no' test. It is 'maybe'. The teasts are not 'black and white' , they are grey. The problem is that in antibody testing there has to be a threshold which when met or exceeded the diagnosis is 'positive'. This threshold is arbitrary, and thus, not very scientific. This threshold is sometimes referred to as a 'cut off'.
Luc Montegnier's group at the pastuer Institute in Paris were the ones to discover so called HIV. Luc sent some samples to Bob Gallo at the NIH and he promptly told everyone that he discovered so called HIV which led to a big mess with Gallo having egg on his face after a contaminant was found in his samples which matched perfectly with Luc's.
Anyway, I digress.
Luc Montegneir has made very interesting statements about HIV that somehow don't make it into the mainstream media. When he sent the samples to Gallo he made it clear that he did not find this genetic stuff called HIV (originally called HTLV-3) in all of the samples. He also said from day one until the present that HIV was 'neither necessary nor sufficient' to cause AIDS and that there 'must be cofactors involved'.
He also stated in an interview circa 1997 when he was asked if his group isolated and purified so called HIV that 'we did not purify and it was a Roman effort'.
He was also asked in the same interview if Gallo had purified the 'virus' and he said 'no, I don't think so'.
Anyway, back to antibody testing, in regards to this HIV thing. Montegneir cited in some of the early AIDS research that Africans have a higher level of circulating antibodies and immune factors than do caucasions.
This, if you have an understanding of how antibody tests work, it should come as no suprise that a higher percentage of Africans will meet the threshold than do whites when given the same test.
Also note that no two tests give the same result, and if you send the same blood sample to 2 different labs you will get two different results.
See how scientific all of this HIV nonsense is?
The tests are not authorized by the FDA to determine if someone is HIV positive or not, yet docs do this all the time. The tsts are approved for blood screening for donors.
Then you have an even more bizarre situation regarding how the tests are interpreted and what the criteria is in different countries.
I am not kidding when I say your HIV status could very well depend on what country you are standing in.
Seriously.
There are different types of antibody tests. When you go to the doc to get an 'HIV test' they should, if using the gov't stnadards, give you an ELISA test. If that test reacts 'positive' then you are given a second Elisa and if that is 'positive' then a Western Blot which is used, at least in the US, as a confirmatory test.
In 1992 the lancet published that in Russia for every 66 true positives there were 30,000 false positives.
What determines a false positive? Good question. More questioning, testing, and arbitration.
Did you know that ozzy Osbourne tested HIV positive via the ELISA in the mid eighties? Then a follow up Western Blot cleared him of those charges.
But then there was Africa. In Africa they only get one crappy ELISA. No follow up WB as a confirmatory test. And we already know-one of the major players in all things HIV (Luc Montegneir) has acknoledged this fact-that Africans have a higher state of antibodies than do others.
And it gets better. Or worse I should say.
There are at least 66 reasons for a false positive HIV antibody test, all documented in the medical literature. Most of which fall under the ELISA column. You might be suprised to read what some of them are. Flu viruses. Vaccinations. Some foods. Pregnancy. Ageing.
Now, take a WAG at what kind of clinics the relative handful of Africans were tested at to determine what the HIV positivity is of the whole population. Take a Wild A$$ Guess.
Pregnancy clinics.
That's right. Take a junk ELISA antibody test designed to identify non specific protiens for a yet to be discovered virus for a condition presented by symptoms of well established diseases and conditions not influenced by this new 'virus' and give it to people who are in a state of hypergammaglobulinemia who on top of that are pregnant and should you be suprised that many of them percentage wise are 'positive'?
It gets more bizarre. The testing criteria varies from country to country. A HIV positive person in Africa could come to the US and test HIV negative. A HIV positive person in the US could go to Australia and be verified HIV negative. Why? Because the criteria for being HIV positive is different from country to country.
So, a person's HIV status could be dtermined by which country they are standing in.
How scientific is that???
The reason AIDS was partly refined to drug using males is because there were not-30 years ago-many drug using females. Obviously that has changed in the past decade or so, but consider that it takes about 10-20 years of a rotten lifestyle to finally degrade into 'AIDS'.
No doubt the tearing of the anal lining is significant. Nice way for bacteria and crud to get into the bloodstream, and don't discount the effects of semen in the blood. Just imagiune the immune response to all of that. Perhaps the only significant research Bob Gallo ever offered in this HIV stuff is that the passive 'bottoms' in the male homosexual underworld were the ones developing AIDS.
The Case For And Against HIV
Linear Mode
