On Feb 24, 6:54 am, GMCarter <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 23 Feb 2007 14:13:07 -0800, monty1...@lycos.com wrote:

TC:

People who are more likely to have immune system problems are those
who do have a lot of antibodies. The test are non-specific, so that
"positive" results make sense, but not for the phantom "HIV."

That's a completely ridiculous statement.

Nope, it is based on fact. Not faith, as you seem to base your beliefs
on.

These claims have been refuted or at least placed in a proper context.
SOME infectious diseases can cause a false antibody test in SOME small
percent of cases. This does not invalidate the HIV antibody test--it
merely indicates a limitation which is quite well characterized, your
conspiracy crazy nonsense notwithstanding.

The HIV tests are invalidated on more than just that. HIV tests are
non-specific to the point of being useless.

On Feb 24, 6:57 am, GMCarter <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:10:45 GMT, "Jeff" <n...@googlemail.com> wrote:

"GMCarter" <f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ijgtt2ddqrjia32mmtue2pivok288856ri@4ax.com...
...
In the case of HIV, like hepatitis B, hepatitis C, TB and other
infections, the antibody response does not control the infection. The
body mounts a response that can be deleterious.

Hepatitis B infection can be cleared. When it isn't cleared, it becomes
chronic hepatitis B. Infection results in chronic hepatitis B in 90% of kids
who get it at birth and 6% of people over 5. Hepatitis C results in chronic
infection about 3/4 of the time (CDC says 55%-85%).

That's right. I should have said "does not necessarily" control
infection.

In the case of HIV, this response results in a chronic, sustained
decline of CD+ T cells. This is AIDS.

Not necessarily. There are rare cases of HIV infection where the body is
able to beat it. With proper treatment, people are able to have 10+ disease
free years.

Also an important point--long term non-progressors who maintain high

"Non-progressors". That term refers to people with a positive HIV test
and no symptoms of AIDS for some extended period of time.

That should be a hint. A big fucking hint at that.

First they said that once you get the virus, you will be develop AIDS
symptoms within months. Then AIDS symptoms failed to occur for some
time for many HIV positive people.

So how do you explain away a virus that does not lead to the symptoms
of disease as predicted by basic virological principals? You come up
with a term that is completely new and unheard of in the field of
virology: "non-progressors".

First the latency period, ie. the period between infection of HIV and
the appearance of visible signs of disease, was measured in months.

Then, when non-progressors appeared, the latency period was extended
to years instead of months. Then more longer-term "non-progessors"
appeared. The latency period was extended to a decade and a half. Now
the latency period is in the single to multiple DECADES range.

On Feb 23, 4:34 am, GMCarter <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 22 Feb 2007 10:01:21 -0800, "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:





http://www.labtestsonline.org/understanding/analytes/hiv_antibody/tes...

Antibodies to the HIV virus can be detected by a screening test called
an ELISA. The ELISA test is repeated if positive.

OR

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/22/2286

Intradermal administration of antigens is expected to facilitate their
exposure to antigen-presenting cells, such as macrophages and
dendritic cells, which are present at higher levels in skin than in
muscle.1 Therefore, as compared with intramuscular vaccination,
intradermal vaccination may induce similar serum antibody responses
with a smaller quantity of antigen. The intradermal route has been
evaluated for influenza, rabies, and hepatitis B virus vaccines.
2,3,4,5 Brown et al. found that the intradermal administration of one
fifth of the standard dose of A/Swine/NJ/76 influenza vaccine produced
antibody titers similar to those elicited by the standard
intramuscular dose in healthy adults and resulted in fewer systemic
reactions.6 We evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of the
intradermal injection of a candidate influenza vaccine containing 6 µg
of hemagglutinin antigen per strain in two groups of adults, one 18 to
60 years of age and the other over 60 years of age. A U.S.-licensed
influenza vaccine administered intramuscularly at the standard dose
was used as the reference vaccine.

****

So.....

If you have HIV antibodies, you are a pervert, you have AIDS and will
die a miserable death.

Wrong. Numerous infections may elicit an antibody response that is
ineffective in clearing that infection. In the case of an acute
infection, this can result in massive inflammatory responses and
death.

In the case of HIV, like hepatitis B, hepatitis C, TB and other
infections, the antibody response does not control the infection. The
body mounts a response that can be deleterious.

In the case of HIV, this response results in a chronic, sustained
decline of CD+ T cells. This is AIDS.

And I have watched WAY too many friends die of AIDS.

You have NO fucking idea what you're babbling about with this
bullshit.

If you have influenza antibodies, that is a sign of immunity conferred
by a vaccination, given by a health professional, and you will live a
healthy life.

That's right, dearie. A vaccine that is EFFECTIVE stimulates immunity
so that the presence of the actual infecting agent is thwarted before
it gets a start. Undoubtedly, there is more to effective vaccination
than a humoral response and cell-mediated immune responses are also
key.

George M. Carter- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey DEARIE, I don't give a fuck how many of your bosom buddies died
from AIDS, it doen't make you right. Not by a long shot. You believe
the propaganda. Thats makes you a fool.

On 26 Feb 2007 07:24:13 -0800, "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:





On Feb 24, 6:57 am, GMCarter <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:10:45 GMT, "Jeff" <n...@googlemail.com> wrote:

"GMCarter" <f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ijgtt2ddqrjia32mmtue2pivok288856ri@4ax.com...
...
In the case of HIV, like hepatitis B, hepatitis C, TB and other
infections, the antibody response does not control the infection. The
body mounts a response that can be deleterious.

Hepatitis B infection can be cleared. When it isn't cleared, it becomes
chronic hepatitis B. Infection results in chronic hepatitis B in 90% of kids
who get it at birth and 6% of people over 5. Hepatitis C results in chronic
infection about 3/4 of the time (CDC says 55%-85%).

That's right. I should have said "does not necessarily" control
infection.

In the case of HIV, this response results in a chronic, sustained
decline of CD+ T cells. This is AIDS.

Not necessarily. There are rare cases of HIV infection where the body is
able to beat it. With proper treatment, people are able to have 10+ disease
free years.

Also an important point--long term non-progressors who maintain high

"Non-progressors". That term refers to people with a positive HIV test
and no symptoms of AIDS for some extended period of time.

That should be a hint. A big fucking hint at that.

LOL...why??? Do you think EVERY infectious agent that infects somebody
has the same exact clinical course?

First they said that once you get the virus, you will be develop AIDS
symptoms within months. Then AIDS symptoms failed to occur for some
time for many HIV positive people.

When did they say that???

So how do you explain away a virus that does not lead to the symptoms
of disease as predicted by basic virological principals? You come up
with a term that is completely new and unheard of in the field of
virology: "non-progressors".

Really? Amazine. Dengue virus exhibits the SAME behavior in every
infected individual. Ditto adenoviruses. Or herpes viruses....always
the same, ever eh? That's what you believe?

First the latency period, ie. the period between infection of HIV and
the appearance of visible signs of disease, was measured in months.

This is a false claim. People with HIV infection can be very rapid
progressors (within a year or two of infection) or long term slow or
possibly non-progressors. Most folks though, wind up with AIDS within
6-10 years.

Then, when non-progressors appeared, the latency period was extended
to years instead of months. Then more longer-term "non-progessors"
appeared. The latency period was extended to a decade and a half. Now
the latency period is in the single to multiple DECADES range.

You're just making this up.

George M. Carter- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mar 2, 8:07 am, GMCarter <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 26 Feb 2007 07:24:13 -0800, "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
snipping...

First they said that once you get the virus, you will be develop AIDS
symptoms within months. Then AIDS symptoms failed to occur for some
time for many HIV positive people.

When did they say that???

Initially it was 18 months max. Then several years. Then many years.
Then a decade or more. Now it is indefinite. Possibly as long a thirty
years. That is a lot of "non-progressing" if you ask me.

So how do you explain away a virus that does not lead to the symptoms
of disease as predicted by basic virological principals? You come up
with a term that is completely new and unheard of in the field of
virology: "non-progressors".

Really? Amazine. Dengue virus exhibits the SAME behavior in every
infected individual. Ditto adenoviruses. Or herpes viruses....always
the same, ever eh? That's what you believe?

Is this a new viral paradox?

First the latency period, ie. the period between infection of HIV and
the appearance of visible signs of disease, was measured in months.

This is a false claim. People with HIV infection can be very rapid
progressors (within a year or two of infection) or long term slow or
possibly non-progressors. Most folks though, wind up with AIDS within
6-10 years.

But some never show any symptoms ever. And many without HIV show all
the symptoms.

On 5 Mar 2007 07:33:27 -0800, "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:



On Mar 2, 8:07 am, GMCarter <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 26 Feb 2007 07:24:13 -0800, "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
snipping...

First they said that once you get the virus, you will be develop AIDS
symptoms within months. Then AIDS symptoms failed to occur for some
time for many HIV positive people.

When did they say that???

Initially it was 18 months max. Then several years. Then many years.
Then a decade or more. Now it is indefinite. Possibly as long a thirty
years. That is a lot of "non-progressing" if you ask me.

You are conflating numerous issues. The first issue is the time from
HIV infection to the development of AIDS. Within a few years of the
discovery of people living with AIDS, the hospitals saw the sickest
people. These are NOT long term non-progressors.

Since the late 80s, it has been widely recognized that the time from
HIV infection to AIDS is on average about 8-10 years. That is, the
VAST majority (probably 90-94%) of infected individuals will develop
AIDS.

As with any disease, some people are resistant and may have normal
lifespans despite HIV infection. The horrifying thing is how tiny the
percent is that have this course. Those few are long term
nonprogressors.



So how do you explain away a virus that does not lead to the symptoms
of disease as predicted by basic virological principals? You come up
with a term that is completely new and unheard of in the field of
virology: "non-progressors".

Really? Amazine. Dengue virus exhibits the SAME behavior in every
infected individual. Ditto adenoviruses. Or herpes viruses....always
the same, ever eh? That's what you believe?

Is this a new viral paradox?

Please clarify.



First the latency period, ie. the period between infection of HIV and
the appearance of visible signs of disease, was measured in months.

This is a false claim. People with HIV infection can be very rapid
progressors (within a year or two of infection) or long term slow or
possibly non-progressors. Most folks though, wind up with AIDS within
6-10 years.

But some never show any symptoms ever. And many without HIV show all
the symptoms.

Like any disease--and see above.

As to many without HIV show symptoms? Nonsense. Show me people who
have a persistent, chronic decline of CD4 counts. Show me people that
get PCP routinely who previously had been a normal setting.

I have worked with people with HIV for nearly two decades. I have
known hundreds of people who have been through this and are living
through it. It is horrible. Don't believe me? Get infected, by all
means. Find out for yourself.

Certainly, some infections HIV-negative are also prone to (unlike
PCP). TB is one. But the outcome with HIV disease and TB is a much
more serious clinical course than with TB alone and a higher fatality
rate among those with HIV and TB.

No, all the arguments you guys make are just nonsense. Drugs? Drugs
don't cause AIDS. They can certainly kill you or make you sick--but
they do NOT cause CD4 counts to plummet to zero.

Irrelevant sniping snipped!

George M. Carter

AZT side-effects mimic AIDS symptoms. Fact.