Cure To HIV Discovered?

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
I’d like to see those of you who say “contracting it is highly unlikely” have sex with an infected partner without protection.

seriously, say this super hot girl was willing to put out yet she tells you she is infected. Are you really saying that it is so unlikely to catch it, that you would knowingly do it unprotected?

Dumb example.

I hugged an HIV positive guy a week ago. How is that?

how is that a dumb example. answer the question[/quote]

why can’t I quick run to the gas station and get a condom?

[quote]Geminspector wrote:
PonceDeLeon wrote:
Geminspector wrote:

To add to that note. I know a female who had unprotected sex with a man for 10 MONTHS!! He was “undetectable”. She did not get HIV. Amazing huh?

How do you know SHE isn’t just “undetectable” now, too?

Because it has been over 6 months since she was first tested. You do not aquire HIV at undetectable levels. It is the anti-viral meds that get the virus to that level.

[/quote]

yes you do. You’re supposed to get tested right away AND several months after any suspicious contant because it takes a while for there to be noticable evidence of the HIV in your system. The original test is usually for comparing against the later one.

Seen the great global warming scheme headhunter?

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Geminspector wrote:
PonceDeLeon wrote:
Geminspector wrote:

To add to that note. I know a female who had unprotected sex with a man for 10 MONTHS!! He was “undetectable”. She did not get HIV. Amazing huh?

How do you know SHE isn’t just “undetectable” now, too?

Because it has been over 6 months since she was first tested. You do not aquire HIV at undetectable levels. It is the anti-viral meds that get the virus to that level.

yes you do. You’re supposed to get tested right away AND several months after any suspicious contant because it takes a while for there to be noticable evidence of the HIV in your system. The original test is usually for comparing against the later one.[/quote]

um, K. This is what I hae been told. However, she is over 6 moths out with 3 tests and is OK. Thank God.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
This sounds like the ESC for paralysis to me. I hope it works, but HIV mutates pretty quickly. [/quote]

Obviously you didn’t read the report. The breakthrough of this research is they have found a part of the virus that does not change when the virus mutates.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
so, we don’t have to use condoms any more?

seriously though, those 2 docs would be remembered for ever if they can pull this off

You don’t have to use them now if you’re a heterosexual worried about contracting HIV. Other diseases are a different story. The odds of you getting HIV from heterosexual contact are vanishingly small. [/quote]

Not using a condom is risk taking behaviour. It might not be as big of a risk for the man but it is a risk for the woman. A girl that would take the chance of getting aids is also one who is a risk of giving you something else. Other STD’s like Herpes can give a pathway of infection BTW.

[quote]Geminspector wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Geminspector wrote:
PonceDeLeon wrote:
Geminspector wrote:

To add to that note. I know a female who had unprotected sex with a man for 10 MONTHS!! He was “undetectable”. She did not get HIV. Amazing huh?

How do you know SHE isn’t just “undetectable” now, too?

Because it has been over 6 months since she was first tested. You do not aquire HIV at undetectable levels. It is the anti-viral meds that get the virus to that level.

yes you do. You’re supposed to get tested right away AND several months after any suspicious contant because it takes a while for there to be noticable evidence of the HIV in your system. The original test is usually for comparing against the later one.

um, K. This is what I hae been told. However, she is over 6 moths out with 3 tests and is OK. Thank God.

[/quote]

You might be right, our health teacher told us you usually can’t tell until 6-12 months after the contact. If she had sex with him pretty quick wouldn’t it have been 16 months already? I’m glad she’s alright!

Apparantly the high prevalence of heterosexual people with AIDS in Africa, is from using anal sex as a form of birth control.

[quote]Dopa wrote:
Apparantly the high prevalence of heterosexual people with AIDS in Africa, is from using anal sex as a form of birth control.[/quote]

In several cultures their leaders also say that condoms is the reason they get HIV. Some sick places my sister went with red cross they believed if they had sex with a virgin they would get rid of their aids too. Faulty info kills quiet a few people there.

AIDS is a pretty interesting topic.
Epidemic? Nope. Doesn’t fit the definition. Hasn’t spread like epidemics do nor is it across different demographics equally like an epidemic.

African AIDS? Dysentery and the other real causes of rampant death in Africa doesn’t have the passion that AIDS does, hence less money. seen this more than once…I don’t know if I completely buy it but it does raise suspicion.
AIDS by HIV? I don’t think we’ve heard the last of this.

obesity, cancer…these should get more of the available dollars then they do.

After reading through all of this…I think I have decided that I will simply stop putting it in girl’s butts.

[quote]josh86 wrote:
After reading through all of this…I think I have decided that I will simply stop putting it in girl’s butts.[/quote]

no piitb?

blasphemy.

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
josh86 wrote:
After reading through all of this…I think I have decided that I will simply stop putting it in girl’s butts.

no piitb?

blasphemy.[/quote]

I’m freakin scared now!

[quote]dirtbag wrote:
tedro wrote:
Anyways, I say we forget about HIV. At some point we have to start letting natural selection run it’s course again, lest we continue this reverse evolution.

Thats a pretty cold thing to say for someone that is not infected with HIV. What happens if say you got infected. Your most likely a healthy guy.

You happen to fall or need blood for some reason or some chick passes HIV to you and she didn’t know she had it. And bang through what should have been an easy transfusion or healthy relationship. You now have HIV.

Wow, should we all say to you nature should take its course as the sores and the body wasting starts to happen(there goes your precious body you worked so hard for). The perm. colds or other various diseases start to take hold from your weaken body and immune system?

Grow up idiot. This effects us all.

[/quote]
+1

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Since intelligence is inherited, humans as a whole are getting dumber.

It’s only moderately heritable. But I do agree that we’re trending towards idiocracy here in the USA. [/quote]
Due to the type of society we live in today, we are actually smarter than back in the 1900.

[quote]molnes wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Since intelligence is inherited, humans as a whole are getting dumber.

It’s only moderately heritable. But I do agree that we’re trending towards idiocracy here in the USA.
Due to the type of society we live in today, we are actually smarter than back in the 1900.

[/quote]

Smarter or just better basis of education and knowledge?

[quote]Andyyboy wrote:
molnes wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Since intelligence is inherited, humans as a whole are getting dumber.

It’s only moderately heritable. But I do agree that we’re trending towards idiocracy here in the USA. Due to the type of society we live in today, we are actually smarter than back in the 1900.

Smarter or just better basis of education and knowledge? [/quote]

agreed, your IQ potential is inherited. ALthough malnutrition/good nutrition as a baby/fetus will affect it.

[quote]MrChief wrote:
http://www.kvue.com/news/state/stories/072908kvuehivbreakthrough-cb.14e217f8.html

"HOUSTON – There is real hope that what�??s happening in a Houston lab might lead to a cure for HIV.

�??We have found an innovative way to kill the virus by finding this small region of HIV that is unchangeable,�?? Dr. Sudhir Paul of the University of Texas Medical School at Houston said.

Dr. Paul and Dr. Miguel Escobar aren�??t talking about just suppressing HIV �?? they�??re talking about destroying it permanently by arming the immune system with a new weapon lab tests have shown to be effective.

Ford Stuart has been HIV positive for 15 years. He�??s on a powerful drug cocktail that keeps the disease in check.

�??I�??m on four different medications. Three of them are brand new, and it�??s the first time that I�??ve ever been non-detectable,�?? Stuart said. �??I�??m down to about �?? just for the HIV �?? about nine pills per day, five in the morning and four at night.�??

But Stuart knows HIV mutates, and eventually it will learn how to outsmart his medications.

�??The virus is truly complex and has many tricks up its sleeve,�?? Paul said.

But Dr. Paul thinks he�??s cracked a code.

�??We�??ve discovered the weak spot of HIV,�?? he said.

Paul and his team have zeroed in on a section of a key protein in HIV�??s structure that does not mutate.

�??The virus needs at least one constant region, and that is the essence of calling it the Achilles heel,�?? Paul said.

That Achilles heel is the doctors�?? way in. They take advantage of it with something called an abzyme.

It�??s naturally produced by people, like lupus patients. When they applied that abzyme to the HIV virus, it permanently disarmed it.

�??What we already have in our hand are the abzymes that we could be infusing into the human subjects with HIV infection, essentially to move the virus,�?? Paul said.

Basically, their idea could be used to control the disease for people who already have it and prevent infection for those at risk.

The theory has held up in lab and animal testing. The next step is human trials.

Meanwhile, every day in Houston, three people are diagnosed with HIV.

The doctors still need funding to launch human trials. In the world of HIV research, that�??s often where things fall apart.

�??Clinical trials are very expensive,�?? Paul said.

�??That is the worry of the researcher. This is what nightmares are made of �?? that after 30 years of work, you find it doesn�??t work,�?? Paul said.

But so far, it is working.

�??This is the holy grail of HIV research, to develop a preventative vaccine,�?? Paul said.

�??If we can get the viral loads down to a manageable level, that will preclude the need for these conventional drugs,�?? Escobar said.

Still, even if everything goes well, it�??s at least five years before the research could help people with HIV.

The doctors know people like Ford Stuart are waiting.

�??There are so many people struggling with the disease because it affects not only your body, but also your psyche, how you perceive yourself,�?? he said.

If nothing else, the research is promising for the tens of millions waiting for a cure."

Personally,
I think… the mass media is going to ignore this. Even if it turns out to be a 100% foolproof cure for HIV. It doesn’t help out the rich (pharmaceutical companies), because it makes them poorer.

Begin Discussion . . .[/quote]

In summary, just more pharmacuetical wet dreams. Your best bet is through natural methods of immune enhancement. Why people believe they can get better through pharmacuetical management (despite doing nothing to change their lifestyle/eating styles) is beyond pathetic.

HIV/AIDS is definetly not a death sentence, and pharmacueticals are not needed in its treatment if it can be treated cheaper and more effectively through other means (which it can.)

One product I would recommend however for anyone with HIV would be Oleander extract hands down. It has research to back up its usefullness (Bonus : Amazingly effective against all forms of cancer as well ^^) Another very knowledgeable man on the subject with quite a lot to say on the subject of HIV is Dr Rath

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/open_letters/img-nyt0506/speech_drrath.htm

Another intresting link in regards to using natural methods for treating AIDS (Big Pharma Free!!!)

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/nat_vit/PDF-Files/community_health_program.pdf

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
"Duesberg’s principal ally at the time was Harvey Bialy, the research editor of Bio/Technology, a sister publication of Nature, the revered medical journal. Bialy was completely disgusted with the rush to judgement that had accompanied Gallo’s unsubstantiated claims for HIV as the cause of AIDS.

Bialy was definitely not a man to tangle with in print. He was quite willing to do the one thing most career-minded researchers were loathe to engage in. Bialy would read a key paper on the subject of HIV all the way through and in detail, and then blast the arguments to smithereens. Point by point. Like Duesberg, he read the fine print and the methods sections, and he was brutal in his criticism. Bialy saw that, in a field (virology) that once rippled with extensive debate, AIDS was taking over as mush-science. Press-conference science. Bubble-head science. Science on behalf of gaining money grants to spout the favored line." — from the link

Just follow the millions, boys…just follow the millions…
[/quote]

Isnt it almost always about the money… true scienctif truth usually is relegated to the back seat.