You missed several key points I brought up. The infected cells are DESTROYED when the replicated viruses are released. And the viruses are readily destroyed by ozone as the ozone turns the lipid membrane of the viruses in to lipid peroxides. These peroxides as well as the hydrogen peroxides formed stimulate the immune system as well as help control other pathogens. Cytokine and SOD stimulation further stimulate the immune system. If you dig a little deeper you see that this is very important as studies have shown that HIV has a hard time infecting healthy cells. And as AIDS is a syndrome, not a disease, the ozone will also target other pathogens that lead to microbial induced AIDS.
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.
Response:
This is wrong on several points. HIV can be destroyed by ozone because of its lipid envelope. Ozone reacts with this lipid envelope forming a lipid peroxide, destroying the virus in the process.
As for it being the "best viruses nature can create" it was not nature that created it. It was man that created it. The request for the production of the HIV virus is public record. Look at the Senate Subcommittee Hearings for Chemical Biological Warfare Appropriations for 1970, Part 6, July 1, 1969 page 1 for the request for its production by the US government. For the information on introducing this and other deadly manmade viruses through vaccine programs starting in Africa in the late 70s, when and where this all began you will also need to read the Bull WHO 1972 and the Federation Proceedings 1972 (sponsored by the WHO). This is where they not only talk about specifically making synthetic viruses that will wipe out either T cell (CD4 cells), B cells or antibody production, but leaving the rest of the immune system intact, but also deliberately introducing these man-made viruses through routine vaccinations. These are their words, not mine. Also note that all the first cases of AIDS in Africa started when the WHO started their Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) and in the villages receiving the vaccines. The first cases in Haiti occurred in the 18,000 Haitians working on the vaccine program that were themselves immunized. The first cases in the US were all in homosexual and bisexual men recruited for experimental hepatitis vaccines starting in the late 70s. This was pointed out in several articles published in the medical journal Journal of the American Medical Association. Another interesting fact that can also be verified with a little research is that the men recruited for the experimental hepatitis vaccines had to be under the age of 40 to participate. And according to the ORIGINAL definition of AIDS set by the CDC, the CDC claimed that a person could not have AIDS if they were over the age of 40. Kind of interesting that they would say this being that they supposedly did not know much of anything about AIDS when it first appeared. This is just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much overwhelming evidence that HIV was not only produced by the US government, but we also played a major role in its introduction.
This is wrong on several points. HIV can be destroyed by ozone because of its lipid envelope. Ozone reacts with this lipid envelope forming a lipid peroxide, destroying the virus in the process.
Response:
You did not read what I wrote.
I never said that ozone can't kill the VIRUS, I said it cannot harm the HIV DNA thats already integrated with the host cell's DNA. The only way for it to do that is to kill the host cell, which would be rather detrimental to the host.
First of all the virus sets up a factory to generate copies of itself. The cell is then ruptured releasing the viruses to infect other cells. So the cells would be destroyed regardless. The free viruses can be destroyed before they have a chance to infect other cells. And would destruction of some CD4 cells be all that detrimental? Not really. People can have zero CD4 counts and still be healthy otherwise. This is because the CD4s are not the only immune cells and they do not govern the rest of the immune cells. This is why HIV cannot cause any diseases in man. It cannot collapse the immune system.
Very, very quickly (I need to get to work!) – if you’d like me to expound on this more later, I’m happy to do so.
Nope, people with severe CD4 deficiencies are actually very sick – you cannot live a healthy life and fight off most pathogens without CD4 cells (if you know of a single person with zero CD4 cells who is nevertheless perfectly healthy, please refer them to an immunologist and/or research physician, because that’s a journal article right there! It would contradict a lot of other experimental data, and require a re-thinking of certain aspects of immunology if such people turned out to exist).
There are some people who lack CD4+ T-cells in the periphery. One cause of this is due to a genetic deficiency in MHC-II (if you don’t understand why this is the case, you need to review your basic immunology. In short, without MHC-II, no CD4+ T-cells can develop in the thymus because they cannot be positively selected). These people are very sick and have poor prognoses:
For example, see: http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/83/4/356
You need to review your basic immunology on the functions of CD4+ T-cells. CD4+ T-cells truly are the generals of the adaptive immune response. People without them are unable to:
- have good antibody responses (CD4 co-stimulation is required to activate most B-cells, induce class switching and somatic hypermutation)
- have good CTL (CD8) responses to the majority of pathogens
- develop memory B-cells and CTLs
- sufficiently activate macrophages to kill off intracellular pathogens like tuberculosis.
I’d suggest either reading the literature on CD4 function or, at the very least, combing through a basic immunology text (Janeway’s Immunobiology is available for free in an earlier edition online). If you have any questions, please feel free to ask!
First, read what happyhealthygal says, she is 100% correct.
Second, to reply to these statements:
"First of all the virus sets up a factory to generate copies of itself. The cell is then ruptured releasing the viruses to infect other cells. So the cells would be destroyed regardless. The free viruses can be destroyed before they have a chance to infect other cells."
True, true, and true. However, you seem to think that means the destruction of the HIV virus DNA, which is does NOT. HIV integrates itself with the host DNA. If you can kill the viruses in the cell as they are being produced (assuming intracellular ozone will do this) it will NOT kill the host cell DNA, where the HIV DNA exists. Therefore the HIV will still be alive and functional. The ONLY way to kill HIV once it has integrated is to destroy the host cell.
"And would destruction of some CD4 cells be all that detrimental? Not really. People can have zero CD4 counts and still be healthy otherwise. This is because the CD4s are not the only immune cells and they do not govern the rest of the immune cells."
Again, read what happy wrote. The CD4 cells are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to a healthy immune system. You CANNOT be healthy without them. True, they are not the only immune cells, but all the immune cells function together in a synergistic relationship, losing one means losing the ability of many others to function correctly.
"This is why HIV cannot cause any diseases in man. It cannot collapse the immune system."
I am not sure where you get this insane opinion, but you obviously have had no experience in basic anatomy and immunology. As previously stated, the loss of CD4 cells will in essence shut down the entire immune system, which destroys the host ability to combat infections. You are correct that HIV itself cannot cause a "disease", it destroys the immune system such that any disease that the host gets will kill the host because it has no ability to combat the disease. HIV does not kill, it just allows every other disease kill the host in advanced cases(even simple problems like the common cold).
can some of you speak in plain terms for us with non medical lingo can understand. i have hiv and am not on meds due to an aqaintance of mine going into kidney failure from a reaction to the medications for "helping" hiv, i and am hoping that something natural will keep me healthy and possibly even eradicated this ridiculous judgemental disease. i come to this site for support and knowledge. english please! thanks
I can't help you with the medical lingo part, but have your heard of Sutherlandia OPC? It is being used in Southern Africa with very high success in treating HIV/AIDS. Let me leave you with an article on the subject.
>can some of you speak in plain terms for us with non medical lingo can understand
Sorry. What some people here are falsely claiming is that if immune cells called CD4 cells are destroyed the immune sytem will collapse allowing the development of oppotunistic infections. What they are unaware of is that the immune system is comprised of numerous compounds and cells that play a role in immunity. And that the immune system has back up systems in place in case one are of the immune system fails, such as the CD4 cells. Therefore, destuction of the CD4 cells will not cause the immune system to collapse, which is why people with low or zero CD4 cell counts can still be otherwise healthy.
>First, read what happyhealthygal says, she is 100% correct.
No she is not. I already addressed that.
>>"First of all the virus sets up a factory to generate copies of itself. The cell >>is then ruptured releasing the viruses to infect other cells. So the cells would >>be destroyed regardless. The free viruses can be destroyed before they have a >>chance to infect other cells."
>True, true, and true. However, you seem to think that means the destruction of the >HIV virus DNA, which is does NOT. HIV integrates itself with the host DNA. If you >can kill the viruses in the cell as they are being produced (assuming intracellular >ozone will do this) it will NOT kill the host cell DNA, where the HIV DNA exists. >Therefore the HIV will still be alive and functional. The ONLY way to kill HIV once >it has integrated is to destroy the host cell.
You need to learn how to read. Go back and read what I wrote again. The whole thing, not just the part you quoted. Read it slow enough so you will understand it this time.
>Again, read what happy wrote. The CD4 cells are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to a healthy >immune system. You CANNOT be healthy without them.
And you can be unhealthy with them. Again, they are not the only part of the immune system, and they do not govern what every other part of the immune system does.
>True, they are not the only immune cells, but all the immune cells function >together in a synergistic relationship, losing one means losing the ability of many >others to function correctly.
Again, you do not have to have 100% optimal function to have health. Most people have suboptimal functioning immune systems from stress, drugs, stimulants, etc. yet they are not dropping dead right and left. Why/ Because the immune system is not a singular thing, and the body has redundancies of the immune system to help support the immune system in case one area collapses or is suppressed. See my last post for evidence.
>>"This is why HIV cannot cause any diseases in man. It cannot collapse the immune >>system."
>I am not sure where you get this insane opinion, but you obviously have had no >experience in basic anatomy and immunology.
If you want to continue getting nasty then I can guarantee you that I can get just as nasty right back.
But since you want to present yourself as such an expert then answer this simple question for all of us. Why is the drug AZT and its analogues a primary CAUSE of AIDS? Hint: to answer this simple question you have to be smart enough to know what AIDS is.
"But since you want to present yourself as such an expert then answer this simple question for all of us. Why is the drug AZT and its analogues a primary CAUSE of AIDS? Hint: to answer this simple question you have to be smart enough to know what AIDS is."
Lets not get off topic. I never mentioned AZT or aids.
The topic has been the fact that HIV is not curable, because the only way to "cure" it is to destroy every cell in which it exists. HIV becomes a part of the host DNA. Explain then how anything can cure HIV without killing the host.
Yes yes, you mentioned ozone, but that would only have the ability to kill the replicated viruses, not the integrated DNA. This would function to manage the disease, not stop the source.
Yes, I think it is curable. I have seen people go from HIV+ and sick to HIV- and healthy. The real question though is were they really sick from HIV or was their AIDS due to other causes such as other immune suppressing microbes or their AZT or AZT analogues?
So to prove one way or the other you would have to first prove that the HIV is actually present, which is next to impossible to do. HIV antibody tests are notoriously inaccurate, and PCR (viral load) is nowhere near as accurate as they claim. In fact PCR can neither prove the presence of a particular virus, nor can it show viral activity. It is a sales tool ONLY!!!
This is why I mentioned the AZT. Again AIDS is NOT a disease, it is a syndrome. If you understand the definition of a syndrome then you would also know that this means it can have more than one cause. This includes the primary cause of AIDS in the US, which is AZT, not a virus.
In fact, as a definition of AIDS as a syndrome we can include a host of other microbes as causes of AIDS. These include the PCP bacteria, the KS microbes, the MAC bacterium.....
>Nope, people with severe CD4 deficiencies are actually very sick
What people learn in textbooks often is in contradiction with the facts. I have been working with AIDS patients since AIDS appeared. We used to see people all the time with zero to near zero CD4 counts that showed no ill effects. Why? Because there are numerous components to the immune system, and CD4s do not govern all of them. The immune system is comprised of various white blood cells, various cytokines (some of which are also generated by B cells), antibodies, monokines, peroxide, SOD, adrenal steroids, the intestinal flora, etc. To think that CD4s are going to govern the immune system is like saying that removing one kidney is going to kill the person because they will no longer be able to remove water and waste. IN such as case the other kidney will enlarge and the body will continue to remove water and waste through sweating, stool, the other kidney, etc. The body has redundancies built in just in case one system fails.
"CD8+ T cells can respond to antigen in the absence of CD4+ T cell help (21, 37–40)."
"Our data support the previous studies showing that CD8 cells can generate a strong response in the absence of CD4+ T cells, but we have determined that the CD4 molecule is required for this to occur optimally."
The cells do not have to function optimally to do their job well enough. Just like our stomachs do not produce optimal levels of stomach acid as we age, but we do not starve to death from it. Just because CD4s are destroyed this does not mean the immune system collapses. And HIV does not collapse the immune system. In fact many AIDS patients, around 30%, have been found to be HIV free. Apparently there is something else causing the immune collapse. Unfortunately they have not looked beyond HIV because too many ignorant scientists still falsely believe presence of means cause of.
Some of you may have heard about this some of you may have not.
For all intents and purposes I regard this as a verified cure anyone that thinks otherwise is quite frankly being pedantic. The patient has been undetectable for two years. Obviously a bone marrow transplant isn't without risks but this represents a cure nonetheless.
Some of you might say yes but it still might be in his system SOMEWHERE but if he's undetectable lives a normal lifespan in laymans terms HE IS CURED!!!
See, now that is an interesting article, and not supported by some lousy unsupported claim that "the immune system is fully functional without CD4 cells".
The first article is less interesting than the second one. No one is going to agree to do a bone marrow replacement to treat HIV. However, stem cell research to create an HIV resistant CD4 cell is a possible future treatment.
For everyone, this is proof that stem cell research IS NECESSARY. Leave behind the old notion that its wrong to use dead fetuses for research. Those previously dead fetuses can SAVE LIVES. If this research is going to pan out, we need to fight to lift the ban on stem cell research in the US and other countries.
IMO there are no ethical arguments to stem cell research especially with HIV. Only trouble is if powerful interests have a genocidal policy regarding Africa they will take decades to roll out CCR5 gene therapy anyway and people in the west will also have to wait that long(I'm a right cynic I know).
>See, now that is an interesting article, and not supported by some lousy >unsupported claim that "the immune system is fully functional without CD4 cells".
You really like acting like a jerk don't you? You keep coming back with your snide remarks rather than facts. What I said was supported. The fact that ignore the evidence is your problem. You did not even know that there is more to the immune system than the CD4 cells and a few other white blood cells. So I am not going to put a whole lot of faith in to much of anything you have to say.
Scientists are being careful about labeling this a "cure" simply because they don't know whether a few years down the road, if there is HIV remaining in his system, it could reactivate and perhaps even switch tropism and he could become ill again (the likelihood of this seems low). However, at this point, it seems like he has been functionally cured. Only time will tell.
Nevertheless, bone marrow transplants are not a viable option for the vast majority of patients with HIV.
- the mortality risk is enormous
- the patients have to be on immunosuppressive drugs for life
- the likelihood of finding a match that contains the CCR5d32 mutation is very low. Only about 1% of people of European ancestry are homozygous for this mutation – it doesn’t seem to be found much (if at all) among other populations. It’s often difficult to find ANY match when a patient needs a bone marrow transplant; once you restrict the list of potential donors to less than 1% of the population, the chance decreases greatly. Since you’re most likely to find a match among people of your own ethnicity, the chance of finding a match with the CCR5d32 mutation will be extremely low for people from populations where the CCR5d32 mutation is rare or nonexistent.
It’s also worth remembering that for many people with HIV, even a successful transplant using matched bone marrow with the mutation will not represent a cure.
For those who don’t already know, in order for HIV to enter a cell, it needs both CD4 and an appropriate chemokine receptor (ever wonder how when you have an infection, your white blood cells know how to get to the right place? Chemokines are the substances that attract them, and they have chemokine receptors for those chemokines that help their cell types home to the right places). HIV can use a variety of chemokine receptors, but the most important ones are CCR5 and CXCR4. Knocking out or blocking CCR5 can confer resistance to HIV infection only for those strains of HIV that use CCR5 to enter cells (these strains are called “CCR5-tropic” or just “R5” – previously, they were referred to as M-tropic, because in test tubes they preferentially infected macrophages, but this is an outdated usage. Still, it’s worth knowing it because you may see it in the literature sometimes). R5 viruses are the ones that transmit most efficiently through sexual contact, and the vast majority (I believe around 80%) of newly infected people have CCR5-tropic viruses. However, in the later stages of infection, only about 50% of people continue to harbor exclusively CCR5-tropic virus. The CCR5d32 mutation (which confers resistance because people homozygous for the mutation do not express CCR5 on the cell surface, therefore denying R5 viruses the receptor they need in order to enter cells) can only protect against R5 viruses, and there have been cases where people homozygous for the mutation nevertheless became infected with HIV (with CXCR4-tropic strains).
Currently, there are drugs available for HIV patients that work by blocking CCR5 (maraviroc, brand name Selzentry). There is also work being done on monoclonal antibodies that perform the same function but could be administered perhaps on a monthly or bi-monthly basis. This could theoretically be used as a prevention strategy for people putting themselves at high risk of infection (i.e. as a sort-of short-term vaccine, but it would not provide perfect protection, since these people would still be subject to infection with non-R5 strains. However, for individuals taking huge risks – i.e. young prostitutes who don’t use protection, young gay men having a lot of unprotected sex with multiple partners – such a preventative strategy could still save a lot of lives). Before a person with HIV begins a CCR5-blocking drug, they have to have a “tropism test” to make sure that their viruses are primarily R5. Many people cannot take the drug because some of the virus in their bodies is not R5 (nearly always because it is CXCR4-tropic, aka X4), and blocking CCR5 just leads through natural selection to the X4 virus becoming predominant.
Although even gene therapy involving CCR5 wouldn’t represent a cure for a whole lot of people who’ve been living with the virus for a long time, it could finally offer a chance to curb the epidemic.
Gene therapy offers real promise though, since the bone marrow transplant “cure” will never occur in most people with HIV (although rest assured: in the future when people with HIV require bone marrow transplants, they will do everything in their power to try to find a match who is homozygous for the CCR5d32 mutation).
This bone marrow transplant was surely fascinating, but in order for it truly to offer hope to large numbers of people with HIV, a lot more work needs to be done. We can only hope that in the future, it will be done.
>Scientists are being careful about labeling this a "cure" simply because they don't >know whether a few years down the road, if there is HIV remaining in his system, it >could reactivate and perhaps even switch tropism and he could become ill again (the >likelihood of this seems low).
They still have to prove that the virus is even present in the first place, which is next to impossible to do without extremely difficult and expensive tests. HIV antibody tests and PCR (viral load) DO NOT prove the presence of the virus.
Home
do you think anything can cure completely? 
Re: nope, CD4+ T-cells are 100% vital to good health 
