i am on this site because everyone seems to be so knowledgable but does anyone know of anyone or anything than can kick this virus out of your system completely? thanks.. ~ megan
Again HIV is not the only cause of AIDS. And HIV cannot even cause AIDS under the original definition of AIDS. The definition of AIDS was changed to fit the virus after Robert Gallo lied to the world again by claiming that HIV was the cause of AIDS all because he held the patent rights on the HIV antibody test. HIV cannot cause ANY disease in man, and it cannot collapse the immune system.
Also keep in mind that the HIV antibody tests are notoriously inaccurate. There are over 65 known causes for false positives. The people that have gotten better and tested HIV negative after getting off their AIDS meds never had HIV to begin with. It was the AZT collapsing the immune system that lead to the AIDS symptoms. The AMA calls these cases "spontaneous remissions", but the fact is that these were cases of drug induced AIDS.
I have seen full blown AIDS (a syndrome, not a disease) patients recover very quickly from their symptoms with alternatives such as ozone therapy and herbs, in particular pau d' arco.
I have never seen anyone try pau d' arco topically, but I doubt if it would work. There is a viral form of KS and a bacterial form of KS. Either way the microbe has to be dealt with internally.
If you want to try something topically though to speed things up I think poke root poultices would likley be the most effective. I have seen it work on toehr types of tumors.
Nope - nobody has yet figured out how to remove HIV from a cell after it has been integrated into your DNA. Current therapies can stop the virus from replicating or infecting new cells, but cannot eliminate it from your body completely. The difficulty is that HIV establishes reservoirs of infection in long-lived cells.
In the news recently was a single individual who may have been cured of HIV with a bone marrow transplant where the donor marrow was from a person who had the CCR5-delta-32 mutation (a mutation that confers resistance to CCR5-tropic HIV). Thus far, it's unknown whether the HIV has actually been permanently removed from his body. It's also not something anyone would go through unless they needed a bone marrow transplant anyway (30-50% mortality from the procedure itself). It will also not be possible for most people to find a bone marrow match from a donor who also harbors the CCR5d32 mutation. However, there's hope in the future for gene therapies that could do something similar.
Actually ozone is extremely effective in destroying the HIV virus. The problem with AIDS though is that it IS NOT a disease. It is a syndrome with multiple causes. HIV cannot cause AIDS under the original definition. The definition was changed to fit the virus after Gallo lied to the world again when he claimed HIV was the cause of AIDS. The government knew he lied and had to find a way to cover that lie up to prevent him from embarrassing the US government again. The first time occurred when he was busted for scientific fraud. He lied the second time for financial reasons. He held the patent rights on the HIV antibody test. So he was going to make tons of money as long as he could keep convincing people of his lie.
And as far as HIV goes, neither antibody tests nor PCR (polymerase chain reaction, viral load) can confirm the presence of HIV. So these test results are worthless for diagnosis. They only help promote the prescribing of dangerous and unnecessary drugs.
Hveragerthi is correct in suggesting the use of ozone.
I my opinion I believe complete viral eradication is completely plausible with the use of combining ozone and DMSO.
Unfortunately this will require money and clinical trials(unless a cooperative of some kind can be established to experiment on themselves) which will never get permission of a western goverment due to money and politics. No sane scientist would even think of starting the study as too many oxygen/ozone doctors have been murdered and jailed already.
Velio Bocci(considered one of the world authorities on ozone)in his classic work "Ozone, a New Medical Drug" laid out his case AGAINST IV ozone because most of the virus is actually INTRACELLULAR and ironically is very well protected by our own antioxidant system. This means free floating virions are destroyed but the intracellular ones are not.
Now, step in DMSO - once this gets in the blood, lymph fluid and other tissues it WILL make ozone penetrate cells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT I HAVE JUST DESCRIBED IS SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT. THIS INFORMATION CAN EASILY BE VERIFIED BY INTERNET.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading "Flood your body with oxygen" is a good introduction for the layman on ozone therapy.
Now if your not already doing so take 10-20 grams of vitamin c daily. Linus Pauling PROVED in his 1991 study that saturating the tissues with this amount daily inhibited reverse transcriptase BY THE MAGNITUDE OF GREATER THAN 99% AND OUTPERFORMED AZT which paled in comparison to vitamin c.
SHAME ON THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD FOR NOT SHOUTING THIS TO THE ROOFTOPS.
Slight correction it was a 1990 study titled:
Suppression of human immunodeficiency virus replication by ascorbate in chronically and acutely infected cells.
Now if this has the power of antiviral meds without any side effects and with resistance not becoming a problem that must be good news to somebody.
I wonder if big pharma held a party the day the good man died.
With your semantics, yes "viral elimination" is possible. However, HIV does not live as a virus in the body until just before it breaks from the cell and is released. HIV lives as an integrated part of your DNA in infected cells.
If ozone works (not saying it does or does not), and if you can get it into the cell, it can kill the viruses that the cell is making. This does NOT mean you are killing the HIV though, because the Ozone will not destroy the cell's DNA (which is where the HIV lives). This is the problem and beauty with HIV and other RT parasites. They can integrate themselves with a host, without killing the host for long periods of time, leading to better chances of infecting another host and survival of the virus. And since they are integrated with the host DNA, the only way of killing the virus is to kill the host as well. In evolutionary terms, HIV is one of the best viruses nature can create, which is what makes it so problematic.
Now, many things can be done to keep your viral load low and your disease under control, but HIV can never be "cured". This is not to be all doom and gloom, you can live an almost normal life with HIV if you treat it correctly. However, the ONLY way to live without HIV is to never have gotten it in the first place.
Let me just state that I am fully aware that HIV is an endogenous retrovirus that integrates its DNA into the germ line cells which then is passed vertically from parent to offspring entwined with our very own DNA.
However think of this - does the HIV DNA encoding itself onto ours really matter? Let me explain:
BTW up to 10% of all human DNA consists of retroviral code from endogenous retroviruses.
A child born to HIV+ parents who luckily does not get any infective virus particles in its body during gestation or during child birth and that tests HIV negative is considered by all doctors of the world of every single government to be ok even though it has HIV DNA somewhere embedded with the childs own DNA. This HIV DNA is doing no harm and is not producing new viruses.
It is the actuall viruses that replicate in our various immune cells that cause the immune cell depletion not the DNA footprint they leave with our own.
Destroy all the virus particles in the whole body and you are effectively cured, yes you will have some HIV DNA as part of yours but it doesn't mean that now new copies of viruses are being manufactured in your immune cells any longer.
Let me first of all say that I am glad someone who talks about this subject actually knows something about what they are talking about. Too many people try to discuss a topic without any good background or information.
You mentioned two good points:
1. Parent vs. Child
First, one needs to realize how important the placental barrier is: most bacteria and viruses do NOT cross it. As long as you can keep your viral load low, the fetus has a 95% chance of NOT being exposed to the virus at all. This means not only do they not have viral particles being created, they also do NOT have ANY HIV in their DNA.
Second, Germ cells (reproductive cells) are also rather segregated from the rest of the body. Unless you have had HIV your whole life, or have a high viral load, your germ cells will not have the HIV encoding in their DNA. This means you can have a HIV free child (free from the HIV DNA, not just the virus). HIV tends to target immune cells first, blood cells second, and cells outside the bloodstream last. If you can keep your viral load low, the HIV may never leave the bloodsteam and enter the germ cells.
When a child is tested and concidered "free" from the HIV virus, its because they usually are completely free of it. There is NO HIV in the DNA. This does not mean that HIV is harmless.
2. We have many retroviruses in our DNA.
You are absolutely right, but most of those DNA fragments do not replicate on their own, they are just random DNA. Most of those that do self-replicate, have no other function. HIV is completely different from these other retroviral fragments because it has other functions. HIV aggressively replicates, takes over the infected cell, produces more HIV, and destroys the cell as the new HIV are released. Since HIV preferrential targets immune cells, this is what causes the AIDS syndrome of an immunocompromised patient. None of the other DNA viral fragments do this. One cannot claim that since these other viral fragments are dormant, that HIV will ever be dormant either.
If you are infected with HIV, there is NO CURE. Cure being defined as "no more viral DNA or viral particles in the system". Again, I did mention that you can live a relatively normal life with HIV if you can keep your CD4 up and your viral load down.
One cannot call a lack of symptoms or a low viral load to be a cure. Because if the body is weakened again, or you fall off your treatments the HIV will come back. The HIV does not come back because you are reinfected, it comes back because the HIV you were already infected with are allowed to gain control again.
The DNA footprint can never be removed, and as I said before, this is the reason HIV is so dangerous and such an evolutionarily perfect disease. The ONLY possible way to be HIV free is to never have been infected in the first place.
>The ONLY possible way to be HIV free is to never have been infected in the first >place.
A few things to keep in mind:
HIV infection CANNOT cause any diseases in man.
AIDS is not a disease.
HIV antibody testing is notoriously inaccurate having over 65 known causes for false positives. Therefore, the prevalence of HIV is not near as high as we have been led to believe. By the way, the confirmation test is an even less accurate antibody test. And viral load (PCR, polymerase chain reaction) is a joke. It cannot confirm the presence of a particular virus, nor viral activity as is being claimed.
>Let me first of all say that I am glad someone who talks about this subject >actually knows something about what they are talking about. Too many people try to >discuss a topic without any good background or information.
And you consider yourself some type of expert? I have yet to see you get much of anything right. A lot of assumptions, but that is about it.
Again, since you think of yourself as an AIDS expert then let's see you answer a few basic questions:
1. What is the primary reason for false positives in HIV antibody testing? I am asking about the principle that makes these tests so inaccurate. And yes, there is a medical term for it and it is very well known.
2. Why is AIDS not a disease?
3. Name at least 5 of the most common causes of AIDS.
4. Why is it impossible for HIV to cause AIDS under the ORIGINAL definition of AIDS that led the government to change the definition to fit the virus?
5. Why does AZT shorten the lives of people taking it?
We will start with this real simple and basic questions. Anyone that has studied AIDS for a while or even immunology should be able to answer these questions with no problem.
It has been many years since I took genetics (never my area of interest) in grad school, but I'll do my best to handle this one:
If HIV were an endogenous retrovirus, it would have infected germ cells (sperm or egg) by definition - HIV DNA would then be in the DNA of every nucleated somatic cell in the body (barring some mutation post-birth that somehow excised it), not just in a random cell here or there that could be difficult to find.
There is no good evidence that HIV is able to get into the germline in vivo under natural conditions. For example, there has yet to be an HIV+ baby born to an HIV+ father and an HIV- mother. One can't rule out that this may happen at some point in the future, but the chances seem pretty remote.
The reason why quiescent cells that have integrated HIV into their DNA are problematic is because they can be reactivated and the virus can start replicating again. This happens in T-cells that HIV has latently infected: so long as the cell is quiescent, there's little if any viral replication. As soon as the T-cell is activated (by, for example, a virus), replication can crank back up again (this is because HIV depends for replication on the same transcription factors that are necessary for T-cell activation). This is the reason why even therapies that remove every viral particle from the body do not actually represent a cure.
You are correct with HIV it is only termed as endogenous once passed on a generation via germline cells.
If you have it could you please provide me with some information. This is getting interesting. All I need to know is: What cells does hiv have the ability to replicate in?
Obviously white cells are a given I'm more interested in other types of cells.
Hi! Sorry I just noticed this question (I wasn't ignoring you!)
Here's my quickie shot at an answer (one which I had to look up, because unlike the questions I usually respond to, I really didn't know!)
If there is a list somewhere of all the cells HIV has been shown to be able to replicate in (either in vitro or in vivo), I’ve never seen it.
The most important sites of HIV infection are indeed certain white blood cell types – CD4+ T-cells (which are not necessarily all T-helper cells; other T cells can and do express CD4 under certain circumstances), CD4+ macrophages, and dendritic cells.
Other cells have been shown to be able support HIV replication either in vivo or in vitro, but it’s not always clear what importance this has to the natural course of HIV infection. In the lab, you can transfect HIV into many cell types, and under certain conditions, induce replication, but it’s not always clear that this is indeed what happens under natural conditions of HIV infection.
HIV can damage even those cells that are not HIV-infected, and the fact that HIV can replicate in certain cell types does not necessarily mean that infection of/replication in these cell types are particularly important to disease pathogenesis.
Some cells that may, at least under certain circumstances, be able to support HIV replication (although perhaps only at low levels or under certain conditions) include:
Thankyou for your reply, being the xmas period I will have delays in replying also.
Once I have an exhastive list of various cell types that HIV replicates in I am going to propose a very generalized hypothesis for a cure using ozone therapy.
I would like you to try and disprove any aspect of it if your interested. It is only by assaulting my hypothesis in every way conceivable that I will(may) find faults with it.
Even if my hypothesis is blasted to pieces at least it may show ozone has value in treatment.
If your hypothesis is that ozone can cure HIV/AIDS in humans, the only way to prove (or disprove) it will be to test it.
There may be no visible flaws with your "head work" but the hypothesis still may turn out to be wrong - that's the way Science goes. It's not always possible to predict what will happen in the amazingly complex human body. On the other hand, sometimes things do work as predicted, but not for the reasons predicted (i.e. the head theory is wrong, but the results are right) - many drugs known to work remain poorly understood for very long times.
I'm afraid nobody is going to be able to prove or disprove your hypothesis for you - you actually do have to test it (e.g. in a double-blind randomized controlled trial). Your understanding of ozone and why it should work could be completely correct, and yet, it may not actually work. Or your understanding of ozone and why it should work may be completely wrong, and yet, it may work.
In biology, proof is in the pudding: real-world results. For those who prefer "head theories", theoretical mathematics or physics may be more appropriate.
Unfortunately you are right. The reasons and method of delivery I think is valid as a potential cure would have to be done in a clinical setting.
However when I have a little more time in the next week I'll present my "head work" and reasoning behind it. It is a simple approach one that could off easily been tried by goverments with their limitless AIDS funding.
If anyone is interested heres a link on the history of ozone(by Ed McCabe):
Notice under 1989 - FIRST MODERN U.S. HOSPITAL TEST OF OZONE ON HUMANS STOPPED gives details on another halted ozone study. Details of another study that was stopped can be found here:
The testing has been done, and it has been proven. I mentioned the study already done at the SF Veteran's Hospital that was done a while back. There was a 100% remission of symptoms in all cases. When they tried to do a larger study here in the US the FDA stopped it before it even got started.
Germany has done a lot more with ozone for AIDS, cancer, and numerous other conditions. I think it was Dr. Preuss that claims to have cured over 600AIDS patients using hyperbaric ozone therapy.
Home
do you think anything can cure completely? 
Re: nope, CD4+ T-cells are 100% vital to good health 
