 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / February 2006New compound proven to kill HIV
I'm amazed no one has posted about this yet: 2/7/06 - "A compound invented by BYU chemistry professor Paul D. Savage killed multiple strains of the virus that causes AIDS in early laboratory tests, according to statement from Ceragenix Pharmaceuticals on Monday..." You can read all about http://www.csa54.info/ Because the report is very premature and mostly meaningless. This report only states that they found a substance that killed HIV in a test tube. Well gee golly there are thousands of compounds that kill HIV in a test tube but sadly none of them so far have had the same effect in the human body. Additionally even if a compound is found that can kill HIV in the blood stream that still will not be a cure for HIV in that it would not address the viral reservoirs of HIV that are not in the blood stream. Gary Stein > I'm amazed no one has posted about this yet: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You can read all about http://www.csa54.info/ "Because the report is very premature and mostly meaningless. This report only states that they found a substance that killed HIV in a test tube." "Well gee golly there are thousands of compounds that kill HIV in a test tube but sadly none of them so far have had the same effect in the human body." What he really means...there are thousands of compounds...but HAPPILY none of them have had the same effect. Good job, Gary. Way to crush somebody's hopes! "Additionally even if a compound is found that can kill HIV in the blood stream that still will not be a cure for HIV in that it would not address the viral reservoirs of HIV that are not in the blood stream." Thank GOD for those "reservoirs"...almost as useful as "constant mutation"! Anybody smell the stench of hopelessness that Gary is creating? Hey there, regular forum readers! When are you going to finally "figure it out"? Well now, Wily, we can't expect them to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, now can we? A cure! Sounds like heresy to me. A nice chronic disease is so much better. With lots of hidden HIV in every nook or cranny of your body. Gallo is Gallo, and Gary Stein is his prohet. Make another leap forward in building a great prosperous powerful socialist nation on the strength of Songun! - 10 Feb 2006 22:07 GMT freedomworks wrote... > I'm amazed no one has posted about this yet: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You can read all about http://www.csa54.info/ Clorox does the same thing, the trick is to keep it from killing the human who ingests it. I've suggested heat sterilization, the virus can be completely killed by placing the infected person in a 2500C blast furnace and the heat will tranform the virus into liberated carbon and nitrogen. Did anyone actually READ the articles at the site I recommended earlier (before responding)? The testing done by Vanderbilt University showed that the chemical kills the virus without doing any damage to neighboring cells -- seems to me that's a mile or two past clorox and the incinerator. I'm sure it must be very discouraging to have a virus such as HIV and see many hopeful treatments come and go. My hats off to all who bear that burden. "freedomworks" <jfisher@webpromo.us> wrote in message > Did anyone actually READ the articles at the site I recommended earlier > (before responding)? > The testing done by Vanderbilt University showed that the chemical > kills the virus without doing any damage to neighboring cells -- LAS VEGAS SUN February 09, 2006 Drug Ends Spread of AIDS From Mom to Child By MIKE STOBBE ASSOCIATED PRESS ATLANTA (AP) - The drug nevirapine prevents the spread of the AIDS virus from mother to child time after time, a new study suggests, challenging earlier findings. The new research presented Wednesday at a scientific meeting in Denver found that in Ugandan women who received the drug during a first pregnancy, HIV transmission was prevented during second pregnancies as well. The research may ease concerns raised in previous studies that HIV develops resistance to the drug, said Dr. Michael Thigpen, a medical epidemiologist with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Based on these findings, we believe nevirapine in repeat pregnancies remains an effective option in these resource-limited countries," said Thigpen, who is part of the research team. The study looked at 198 women treated in 2004 and 2005 at a hospital in Kampala, Uganda. Nevirapine is an inexpensive and easy-to-take medication that has become a mainstay in the effort to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission in poor countries. Proponents say the drug cuts the transmission risk in half. Mothers receive a pill when they go into labor, and their newborns get the medication in a syrup within 72 hours of birth. The drug came into question in earlier studies done in South Africa and Uganda, which found that 20 percent to 40 percent of HIV-infected women developed resistance to nevirapine after taking one dose to protect their newborns from getting the infection. The new research found that the HIV infection rate was 14.6 percent for babies born to nevirapine-treated women who also took the drug during a previous pregnancy. The rate was 17.6 percent for nevirapine-treated women who were not given the drug during an earlier pregnancy. The research is good news, said Mark Isaac, a vice president for the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, which funds HIV/AIDS research and worldwide treatment programs. A study of multiple pregnancies in South Africa and Ivory Coast, also announced Wednesday, produced similar results. Three other studies showed low risks of nevirapine resistance in women who took the medicine more than a year after the initial dose. "It's fair to say we're breathing a sigh of relief," Isaac said. Thigpen said there are different subtypes of HIV, and one that circulates in southern Africa appears especially resistant to nevirapine. "In Uganda, there are a couple of different subtypes. That (fact) may limit our ability to associate these findings with other areas of Africa," Thigpen said, referring to his study's findings. Now that we read Thigpen's propaganda, it's not unreasonable to introduce another piece of required readings. You don't even need a degree in biomedical science to understand it. It's crystal clear: <A href="http://www.tig.org.za/pdf-files/trouble_nevirapine.pdf#50> the trouble with nevirapine</A> I am sorry if I sounded flip in my first reply, but I am so tired of press reports out of Utah claiming new miracle cures for HIV there has been about 2 per year for the last decade. Sadly the press is so clueless that they don't know what questions to ask before they print there stories and to the uneducated they appear to be reporting real important news. Sadly all they are reporting is very perliminary work that is years if ever away from actual medications that have an effect on HIV. Something about Salt Lake City seems to do this often. It has been the site of more stock promotions for magical AIDS drugs than any city I can think of. You don't need an expert to see what's wrong with this claim. First, there's nothing unusual about "killing" the AIDS virus. A rather wide range of compounds can do it. More significantly, there are several treatments already in existence which can sterilize an infected culture, effectively killing off the entire lineage of HIV infecting the culture without damaging other cells in the culture. But none of them have any such effect in the human body. The description of the activity of this class of compound bears the same false thinking that has been attached to numerous alternative "cures" for HIV, ranging from oxygenation therapies to hyperthermia and disinfectants. Killing off every single virion of HIV floating around in the body wouldn't have much affect on HIV infected person at all. Free copies of the virus are but a small percentage of the problem. The thing that keeps HIV going year after year, decade after decade, is the integration of the virus into the host cell's DNA, where it no longer exists as a separate entity that can be "killed." HIV and the host are, for practical purposes, one and the same. You'd have to kill every single cell in the body which harbors integrated virus. Good luck, Many have tried, all have failed. There is no reason to think his would be any different. But, AHA, thinks the genius from BYU, my drug will stop every possible new copy of virus from infecting a new cell - it's just a matter of taking the time to make sure every new free virion created is destroyed, then BINGO, it's the cure! Pullleeeze. David Ho, 1996. All this proves is that one more character who doesn't understand squat about HIV and its pathogenesis has been allowed to play with his chemistry set too long. Gary Stein > Did anyone actually READ the articles at the site I recommended earlier > (before responding)? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > My hats off to all who bear that burden. "I'm sure it must be very discouraging to have a virus such as HIV and see many hopeful treatments come and go." "Freedomworks", how many hundreds and hundreds of reports of "hopeful treatments" have we heard of over the past twenty years? They "come and go", you're correct. Ever wonder about that? Did you noticed you QUICK Gary was to sh.t on this report? And with a snotty tone as well. Wake up, buddy, and see how these guys keep you and others from ANY sense of hope, other than the pharmaceutical route. Their "job" is to keep us all on track. "HIV" is deadly. Only pharmaceuticals can REALLY help keep "HIV" "in check". Anything that strays from this path will quickly be refuted and/or the mental health of the messengers of the information will be questioned. "I'm sure it must be very discouraging to have a virus such as HIV and see many hopeful treatments come and go." "Freedomworks", how many hundreds and hundreds of reports of "hopeful treatments" have we heard of over the past twenty years? They "come and go", you're correct. Ever wonder about that? Did you noticed you QUICK Gary was to sh.t on this report? And with a snotty tone as well. Wake up, buddy, and see how these guys keep you and others from ANY sense of hope, other than the pharmaceutical route. Their "job" is to keep us all on track. "HIV" is deadly. Only pharmaceuticals can REALLY help keep "HIV" "in check". Anything that strays from this path will quickly be refuted and/or the mental health of the messengers of the information will be questioned. Gary Stein wrote the following: 'The thing that keeps HIV going year after year, decade after decade, is the integration of the virus into the host cell's DNA, where it no longer exists as a separate entity that can be "killed." HIV and the host are, for practical purposes, one and the same. You'd have to kill every single cell in the body which harbors integrated virus." Gary, I have a question. Why does anyone take antiretrovirals to treat HIV infection when antiretrovirals cannot come close--according to your description of the way HIV is manifested in the body--to doing what is necessary to eradicate HIV ? Who, except the most foolish person, would put himself through all those nasty side effects? Oh yes, we did! That's another fine mess they got us into. This is a steroid with amino acid side branches. Maybe it doesn't do any direct damage to neigboring cells, but nobody knows what it does in the totality of the human metabolism. "Killing the virus"? There's nothing to kill. A virus is a dead nucleoprotein that is able to replicate inside a host cell. It's possible to design a chemical that attaches itself to a virus, but, once inside, the virus has to uncoat anyway to be able to replicate. And another little complicating matter... HIV has never been shown to exist. Even if HIV existed as an infectious agent, nobody in the orthodoxy would want a cure for it. As long as they can sell it as a chronic disease,the money will keep rolling in. >"Clorox does the same thing, the trick is to keep it from killing the human who ingests it." Hey, finally somebody who makes sense! Believe me, that's a rarity here. I've been looking for someone sensible, as Diogenes did a long time ago. I have recommended intravenous sulfuric acid for this purpose before, but Clorox would also do it. I don't expect anybody will take up the idea, though (too many obvious deaths). But they may try some organic mercury compound. These substances also destroy viruses in the test tube. They are already being used as a desinfectant in vaccines (thimerosal), so they won't raise much suspicion. The compound mentioned in the ref. mentioned is a steroid with amino acid chains attached to it. Sounds yummy... And so healthful. > I'm amazed no one has posted about this yet: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You can read all about http://www.csa54.info/ That is great if it pans out, but... whatever happened to "Frog Peptides"? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050930080923.htm Frog Peptides Block HIV In Lab Study A new weapon in the battle against HIV may come from an unusual source -- a small tropical frog. Frog Venom Could Be Vital Weapon In Combatting Cancer And Heart Disease (September 21, 2001) -- Researchers at the University of Ulster have uncovered a vital weapon in the fight against killer conditions like cancer and heart... Clorox kills HIV, too, it just happens to kill the host as well. Hundreds of drugs have been found to kill the virus, the only problem with almost all of them is that they kill the host too. > I'm amazed no one has posted about this yet: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You can read all about http://www.csa54.info/ >Clorox kills HIV, too, it just happens to kill the host as well. >Hundreds of drugs have been found to kill the virus, the only problem >with almost all of them is that they kill the host too. A statement backed up by nothing and further, utterly refuted by data. Therefore, clearly, a demonstrable lie. George M Carter UNITED STATES: Comparisons of Causes of Death and Mortality Rates Among HIV-Infected Persons: Analysis of the Pre-, Early, and Late HAART (Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy) Eras Nancy F. Crum, MD, MPH; Robert H. Riffenburgh, PhD; Scott Wegner, MD; Brian K. Agan, MD; Sybil A. Tasker, MD; Katherine M. Spooner, MD; Adam W. Armstrong, DO; Susan Fraser, MD; Mark R. Wallace, MD Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (02.01.06) Vol. 41; No. 2: P. 194-200 (02.01.06) - Friday, February 17, 2006 HIV mortality rates have declined dramatically in the HAART era. In the current study, researchers evaluated HIV- infected US military beneficiaries, a population with open access to medical care and low drug use and hepatitis C coinfection rates, to assess causes of death and mortality rates during the pre-, early, and late HAART eras (1990-96, 1997-1999 and 2000-2003, respectively). The number of deaths declined over the period of study, with 987 deaths in the pre-HAART era, 159 deaths in the early HAART era and 78 deaths in the late HAART era (P<0.01). The annual mortality rate peaked in 1995, at 10.3/100 patients, and then declined to less than 2 deaths/100 patients in the late HAART era (P<0.01). The proportion of deaths attributable to infection decreased though it remained the top cause of death in the cohort, followed by cancer. In comparing post-HAART to pre-HAART eras, an increasing proportion of deaths were non-HIV related (32 percent vs. 9 percent; P<0.01), including cardiac disease (22 percent vs. 8 percent; P<0.01) and trauma (8 percent vs. 2 percent; P=0.01). An increasing proportion was also related to liver disease, although the numbers were small. "Despite increasing concerns regarding antiretroviral resistance, the death rate among HIV-infected persons in our cohort continues to decline," concluded researchers. "Our data show a lower death rate than that reported among many other US HIV-infected populations; this may be the result of open access to health care. A shift in the causes of death toward non-HIV-related causes suggests that a more comprehensive health care approach may be needed for optimal life expectancy; this may include enhanced screening for malignancy and heart disease as well as preventive measures for liver disease and accidents." It will be interesting to see how Claster tries to spin this one...... If ARV is so deadly how does he explain this data I wonder? Most likely it will be the number of authors that he will claim is the reason, and that the data is unreliable simply due to that alone. Of course he has no evidence to back up such a simplistic analysis. But hey that's just him, the less data there is on his side of the argument the happier he is. Because with out data that agrees with his preconceived ideas he can continue to claim infallibility with no opportunity for anyone to show him were his data is wrong. Gary Stein > UNITED STATES: Comparisons of Causes of Death and Mortality Rates > Among HIV-Infected Persons: Analysis of the Pre-, Early, and Late [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > heart disease as well as preventive measures for liver disease and > accidents." >It will be interesting to see how Claster tries to spin this one...... > >If ARV is so deadly how does he explain this data I wonder? By waving his hands, making pronouncements, uttering comments that might seem sceintific but upon further scrutiny are merely gibberish. Sorta like Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld. George M. Carter
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.