Potential HIV Vaccine
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-11-2012, 07:10 AM
RE: Potential HIV Vaccine
(02-11-2012 07:01 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(02-11-2012 05:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I know how they do this stuff. I WORK in the field. I asked what your credentials are. They USED to have different tests. The video MAKES IT APPEAR thing are different, by purposefully, deceptively, inter-playing the quotes, taken out of context, from many many years ago.

I asked what your credentials are.
You have none.
You have not taken a science course in 50 years. as is obvious from your many deluded, ignorant postings.
You have no experience in the field, with which to make these preposterous bullshit assertions, and attempts at deception.

No one ever said Kaposi's Sarcoma was "caused" by HIV. A "Sarcoma" is a cancer. That particular cancer was observed in patients with very low CD4 counts. It does no longer happen when viral loads are controlled by the PRESENT meds.

The OLD meds WERE hard on people. The present ones "can" be, but the effects are monitored by monitoring circulating metrics, most commonly serum creatinine levels, which is a marker of kidney damage. If the creatinine level even begins to rise, the Infectious Disease MD's switch to another drug, AFTER testing for effectiveness.

The stuff in the video is from the 1980's. It was MADE recently, by assembling shit from 30 years ago. Much has happened since then.
You have no education in science. Therefore you lack the background necessary to critically evaluate this sort of thing, including watching this video, and taking what it says, without critical evaluation.
What parts are from the 80's? They have parts from the 80's to show the old idiotic assumptions about HIV and then they show new interviews with leading scientists to further prove that the old assumptions are idiotic.

In comparison with other STD's how difficult or easy is HIV to contact? is it one of the easiest or hardest to contract?
Credentials ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2012, 07:24 AM
RE: Potential HIV Vaccine
(02-11-2012 07:10 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(02-11-2012 07:01 AM)I and I Wrote:  What parts are from the 80's? They have parts from the 80's to show the old idiotic assumptions about HIV and then they show new interviews with leading scientists to further prove that the old assumptions are idiotic.

In comparison with other STD's how difficult or easy is HIV to contact? is it one of the easiest or hardest to contract?
Credentials ?
Credentials to do what?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2012, 07:25 AM
RE: Potential HIV Vaccine
(02-11-2012 07:24 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(02-11-2012 07:10 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Credentials ?
Credentials to do what?
never mind Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2012, 07:30 AM
RE: Potential HIV Vaccine
(02-11-2012 07:25 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(02-11-2012 07:24 AM)I and I Wrote:  Credentials to do what?
never mind Weeping
right, so in comparison to all other STD's is HIV one of the easiest or one of the more difficult ones to catch?

And do you even know how to look for an HIV virus in the lab?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2012, 09:53 AM
RE: Potential HIV Vaccine
(02-11-2012 07:30 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(02-11-2012 07:25 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  never mind Weeping
right, so in comparison to all other STD's is HIV one of the easiest or one of the more difficult ones to catch?

And do you even know how to look for an HIV virus in the lab?
"to catch" ?
By a person .. simple. Blood to blood contact with HIV infected blood, (ie person). One *could* be infected in the lab, or hospital by a needle, or poked by an instrument. This used to happen, but precautions are now such that this rarely happens. However it DOES still happen. These people take the drugs. Any exposure generally would result in HIV infection, unless, immediate treatment with anti-retrovirals began. There are studies about this, but unless the drugs are initiated IMMEDIATELY, the HIV infection would result.

"to catch" in terms of "pick up in lab test"
100 % effective tests

it's not a matter of "easy to catch".
If a partner has it, your gonna get it, depending on the sexual activity, and the protection used.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2012, 10:43 AM
RE: Potential HIV Vaccine
(02-11-2012 09:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(02-11-2012 07:30 AM)I and I Wrote:  right, so in comparison to all other STD's is HIV one of the easiest or one of the more difficult ones to catch?

And do you even know how to look for an HIV virus in the lab?
"to catch" ?
By a person .. simple. Blood to blood contact with HIV infected blood, (ie person). One *could* be infected in the lab, or hospital by a needle, or poked by an instrument. This used to happen, but precautions are now such that this rarely happens. However it DOES still happen. These people take the drugs. Any exposure generally would result in HIV infection, unless, immediate treatment with anti-retrovirals began. There are studies about this, but unless the drugs are initiated IMMEDIATELY, the HIV infection would result.

"to catch" in terms of "pick up in lab test"
100 % effective tests

it's not a matter of "easy to catch".
If a partner has it, your gonna get it, depending on the sexual activity, and the protection used.
Are there any studies of couples where one is diagnosed with HIV and one isn't that show whether or not HIV is easy or difficult to catch?

And does the Elisa test prove conclusively whether or not one has HIV? If not then why are they used, especially in poor areas of the world where exposure to other diseases could make their symptoms similar to HIV symptoms thus inflating the numbers of supposed HIV cases.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2012, 10:53 AM
RE: Potential HIV Vaccine
(02-11-2012 10:43 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(02-11-2012 09:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "to catch" ?
By a person .. simple. Blood to blood contact with HIV infected blood, (ie person). One *could* be infected in the lab, or hospital by a needle, or poked by an instrument. This used to happen, but precautions are now such that this rarely happens. However it DOES still happen. These people take the drugs. Any exposure generally would result in HIV infection, unless, immediate treatment with anti-retrovirals began. There are studies about this, but unless the drugs are initiated IMMEDIATELY, the HIV infection would result.

"to catch" in terms of "pick up in lab test"
100 % effective tests

it's not a matter of "easy to catch".
If a partner has it, your gonna get it, depending on the sexual activity, and the protection used.
1. Are there any studies of couples where one is diagnosed with HIV and one isn't that show whether or not HIV is easy or difficult to catch?

2. And does the Elisa test prove conclusively whether or not one has HIV? If not then why are they used, especially in poor areas of the world where exposure to other diseases could make their symptoms similar to HIV symptoms thus inflating the numbers of supposed HIV cases.
1. Yes.
2. Yes it does, if confirmed by Western Blot. It's always used in conjunction with one other test. The 2 are 100 % accurate. . If the first test, (2 in combo) done is HIV positive, then further testing, (which is MORE expensive) would be delayed, as it's the obvious, most frequent cause.
So they do ONE test. If it's negative, that's it. If it's positive they confirm it with another test.
If AFTER drug treatment, and AFTER CD4 counts rise, the symptoms remain, then they could do further testing, for other causes. It's the first and most obvious thing to rule out. It's not *always* the cause of the symptoms. But IF HIV is present, then that has to be treated. If the symptoms remain, they look further. You *could* have early HIV, (with no symptoms), and a *wasting disease* from ANOTHER cause. Then they BOTH would have to be treated. But they look first for HIV, as the test is so cheap.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2012, 04:16 PM
RE: Potential HIV Vaccine
(02-11-2012 10:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(02-11-2012 10:43 AM)I and I Wrote:  1. Are there any studies of couples where one is diagnosed with HIV and one isn't that show whether or not HIV is easy or difficult to catch?

2. And does the Elisa test prove conclusively whether or not one has HIV? If not then why are they used, especially in poor areas of the world where exposure to other diseases could make their symptoms similar to HIV symptoms thus inflating the numbers of supposed HIV cases.
1. Yes.
2. Yes it does, if confirmed by Western Blot. It's always used in conjunction with one other test. The 2 are 100 % accurate. . If the first test, (2 in combo) done is HIV positive, then further testing, (which is MORE expensive) would be delayed, as it's the obvious, most frequent cause.
So they do ONE test. If it's negative, that's it. If it's positive they confirm it with another test.
If AFTER drug treatment, and AFTER CD4 counts rise, the symptoms remain, then they could do further testing, for other causes. It's the first and most obvious thing to rule out. It's not *always* the cause of the symptoms. But IF HIV is present, then that has to be treated. If the symptoms remain, they look further. You *could* have early HIV, (with no symptoms), and a *wasting disease* from ANOTHER cause. Then they BOTH would have to be treated. But they look first for HIV, as the test is so cheap.
http://www.theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/biotek8.html

Why do you feel the two together are accurate if the western blot test is not reliable as shown in the link, and the original test before is even less reliable as it states in the pamphlet that comes with them and these tests are determined in conjunction with the questionnaire that comes with them.

What studies of partners show that if you have sex with your partner that has HIV one will get HIV?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2012, 04:24 PM
RE: Potential HIV Vaccine
(02-11-2012 04:16 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(02-11-2012 10:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  1. Yes.
2. Yes it does, if confirmed by Western Blot. It's always used in conjunction with one other test. The 2 are 100 % accurate. . If the first test, (2 in combo) done is HIV positive, then further testing, (which is MORE expensive) would be delayed, as it's the obvious, most frequent cause.
So they do ONE test. If it's negative, that's it. If it's positive they confirm it with another test.
If AFTER drug treatment, and AFTER CD4 counts rise, the symptoms remain, then they could do further testing, for other causes. It's the first and most obvious thing to rule out. It's not *always* the cause of the symptoms. But IF HIV is present, then that has to be treated. If the symptoms remain, they look further. You *could* have early HIV, (with no symptoms), and a *wasting disease* from ANOTHER cause. Then they BOTH would have to be treated. But they look first for HIV, as the test is so cheap.
http://www.theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/biotek8.html

Why do you feel the two together are accurate if the western blot test is not reliable as shown in the link, and the original test before is even less reliable as it states in the pamphlet that comes with them and these tests are determined in conjunction with the questionnaire that comes with them.

What studies of partners show that if you have sex with your partner that has HIV one will get HIV?
1993 ??? There is no "debate".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2012, 01:12 PM
RE: Potential HIV Vaccine
(02-11-2012 04:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(02-11-2012 04:16 PM)I and I Wrote:  http://www.theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/biotek8.html

Why do you feel the two together are accurate if the western blot test is not reliable as shown in the link, and the original test before is even less reliable as it states in the pamphlet that comes with them and these tests are determined in conjunction with the questionnaire that comes with them.

What studies of partners show that if you have sex with your partner that has HIV one will get HIV?
1993 ??? There is no "debate".
No comment on the content of the link?
The link shows the problems in the methods that are used to see or find the HIV virus in the lab.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: