HIV & AIDS: Is this guy on CRACK?

Yes Matt, it appears so.

Jesus what a fucking idiot.

Just an ignoramus...

Many people subscribe to the same theory

http://www.aliveandwell.org

more proof that too much drugs fuck you up

He's not on crack... he snorts coke all day on the set of his 28 hour shoots. Get it straight Matt!!! Damn.

so where does this fool think aids comes from?? the general store?

"The person with a positive result has at one point been exposed to HIV, but fought back by creating "antibodies" against the virus. It means in fact that the person is healthy: Good news!"

... after 25 years of AIDS research we have reached a crutial turning point. thank you so much Dr. Kris Kramski.

true from what I heard.

crack's a good call ... what a tit

Unfortunately he is not on crack.

He is saying nothing new than what I and many others with college degrees said in the late 80's.
The HIV hypothesis of AIDS is the modern day equivalent to "the earth is flat". All who challenge it will be labeled fools by an ignorant public and politicans who bought their way into power.

AIDS is in fact a primarily chemically induced desease. It is the "agent orange syndrome" of our time. These chemicals are all know to cause immuno-suppresion which causes AIDS. In adittion the ingestion of "super" bacteria that has developed on this planet from over use of antibiotics and chemical agents that seeped into water supplies.

*Hemophiliac drugs taken to reduce blood antigen rejection
*Cocaine especially crack
*Dirty/rusty needles with bacteria (not sharing)
*Poppers/amyl nitrate: caused the "gay cancer" or Karposi sarcoma
*"Loading" : taking loads of antibiotics before unprotected sex
...
And so on.

The HIV test is the biggest crock of shit ever invented. It detects an antibody; but 9th grade level biology shows that an antibody is not unique to a desease, so the antib o d y can be created by flu and other non-lethal illness instead of HIV.

In all other cases the presence of an antib o d y means you can't get the illness. That's how a vaccine works, you get a small dose of a virus/similar virus and develop an antibody to ward of the serious virus.(Small pox cured with Cow pox exposure)

AZT kills a normal healthy person in 10 years with the same symptoms of AIDS. AZT killed more patients then HIV.



Magic aint dead because he didn't take the bullshit cure and he doesn't have AIDS, yes he has HIV which is nothing but a fucking harmless retro virus that causes flu like symptoms.

In the 1980's it was projected that 40 million africans would die of AIDS but they haven't and they don't have HIV drugs either.
Many are dying from "slim desease" which looks like AIDS but it's been around for 100's of years in Africa and is caused by unsanitry water, malaria and other problems that eventaully add up to kill.




But, Ill stop here because it is absolutely impossible to put real science in the heads of hysterical people who are afraid of dying.


How can the government be wrong? The same way they were wrong about many health issues in the past.

Yes, I'm the fool, but you will be the dead motherfucker taking a drug that actually killed more AIDS patients then HIV ever will.

One thing in that article that is true; condoms are not 100% effective.

where is the double anal bukkake gangbang that he speaks of?

That guy is an idiot...

i would say

You are right... crack & coke & some other shit too.

But, I wouldn't take AZT, nor would I fuck anyone with HIV cuz I don't want any potentially harmful retro-virusses.

And, if Kris really believes this, then he'll stop all the unsafe behavior that he does every day. HE USED TO BE the best director this biz ever saw by leaps & bounds. But, he has gone way off the deep end lately... hopefully he'll come back - his shit was shot on film and like nothing that you have ever seen. Picture Andrew Blake meets Jules Jordan meets Quinton Tarentino.

"AIDS meds" are labled with a skull & crossbones. Pure Poison.
My grandmother was HIV positive for many years until she passed away a few months ago. I watched the effect that those medications had on her, and how they destroyed her quality of life.

An interesting and controversial subject and not one which I would engage in currently. Got a few I am currently still fighting.

I will say that true sexual information which is scientifically based and not religiously or politically motivated - is VERY rare.

The truth is probably somewhere in between both "realities". One day though - I will investigate this HIV / AIDS "connection theory".

This thread from a few days ago has a bit more of a balanced view.

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...hreadid=270979

Looks like monster has been quite diligent in reading all the
conspiracy theory sites.

Antibodies tell the tester if the virus has existed in the body. Each
antibody is designed with a "key" which only fits the type of virus
it is designed to attack. The reason antibodies are used as the
indicator is because virii are *tiny*. Very fuckin tiny. So small you
need an electron microscope to see their structure. This is a
standard way of testing for any virus because size makes any
other means of testing unaccessible.

Some would say that people being HIV+ who go on to survive is
proof that HIV isn't connected. This is an assumption for the
uneducated. Having antibodies can mean you have the virus, or
have successfully fought it off. Being HIV+ doesn't mean you have
developed a life threatening immune problem. It just means you
have been in contact with HIV (the virus), which the best science
at this stage says goes on to cause AIDS (the disease).

ok then..... show me one.... just one.... any one.... just a single
link to a single study that backs up any of what you've said. Not
one of these sites run by infected people in denial who don't
want it to be true. Some "real science" as you put it.

If we knew everything there is to know about HIV/AIDS then
we'd have a vaccine already. However we don't. As always the
gaps provide room for other theories. Some creditable, some
unfounded dribble. Saying it is all a lie made up by big companies
without any statistics or science to back up that theory is just a
waste of everyones time.

Maybe the meds aren't the best. Maybe doctors are a little too
keen to get people on them ASAP in the hope of pushing the
disease back. However I don't think this adds up to it all being BS
from drug companies.

-Ben

I agree.

This is usually the case with most infections.
They seemed to have told us that AIDS was not like that though.

Yes is does - that is the definition of HIV+.

NO - it means you have a life changing medical situation. You're HIV+ and should adjust your behaviours.

The purpose of science is to explain. Sexual science is failing as the population grows exponentially and pandemics occur.

My personal opinion is until laws are changed and a cap is put on the amount a class action lawsuit can get in compensation, there will be no 'cure' nor will any consortium of qualified scientists prove that HIV does not cause AIDS.

Government depends on the money Pharmaceutical companies 'donate' + their tax dollars + the way it stimulates the economy. If pharmaceutical companies become cash strapped - less research, less donations, less tax dollars.......

If a consortium of scientists should announce proof of any of those revelations, they will never get funding for research from a pharmaceutical company again much less have a pharma company that will hire them.

?

Hes really out there.. hes trying to play scientist I guess... when in actuality lets think.. all those people with aids who die.. had first this supposed harmless.. HIV virus.. and the antibodys..so I guess its just coincidence.. right? Pleaseeeee , get a clue pal.
You dont need to be a scientist to figure that one out.

AIDS is no longer a single country's problem.
AIDS is not a legislative one.

The enemy's weakness is it can not hide.
The only way to kill AIDS is to give it enough resources.

The only reason the world has NOT already terminated AIDS is because we live in a sexual dark ages.

If this disease had not initated "sexually" - it would have been terminated globally - like we have done with other global infections.

HIV/AIDS aside....

Having an antibody in your body means your body has developed
that antibody in response to something. This antibody will remain
even if what it was designed to defeat has long since been
destroyed in your body. This is why you can't catch the same
strain of flu twice. Once you have the antibody it protects you
from future infections of the same virus.

Having the HIV antibody does not mean you currently have either
the HIV virus or the AIDS disease. Being HIV+ just means you
have tested positive for the antibody. It's been said the test
covers other non-related antibodies as well so that's one point
for the conspircy theorists, however in general a positive tests
means contact with HIV, not that you have anything or are in any
way infectious.

That's right, even if HIV doesn't cause AIDS, even if you've tested
positive but not developed symptoms. No matter what the case...
Do the right thing and don't risk other peoples lives just because
of some denial issue and a few conspiracy sites.

This is the major thing that gets me going on this. I don't care
about this whole debate.. I just can't stand seeing webmasters
in the middle of a crisis like this giving ammo to those that would
say we are part of the problem and not the solution.

-Ben

I would agree AND expand on your statement. Antibodies attack a specific protein molecule on an organism containing potentially millions.

You're assumption is that the infectant is not adapting and evolving to the human immune system defences.

Evolving.

It is a scientific fact that a person will carry anti-bodies for the rest of their lives for a particular infection - even though the infection has been fought and won. AND - it is a scientifice fact that you may have infections you have NOT won and are still currently fighting.

If you're assuming that a large percentage of genetically unique people can come in contact with HIV - and without "current treatment" survive biologically & normally, THEN you must also agree there is a LARGE percentagte of genetically unique people THAT CAN NOT contact this virus and therefore it is eveyone's concern.

The term "HIV+" must be left to mean you have a life long infection where your behaviour MUST change.

Seems you got me a little wrong back there is all.... Just
semantics on what "HIV+" means as far as the inside of the body
and the outside behaviour are 2 different things.

I'm just saying that a HIV+ test means you had the antibody and
doesn't mean you have any kind of life threatening illness or are
in any way contagious. Of course, If you have tested positive
then there is no way to tell if you actually have virus protein in
your body. Only that you have antibodies. Meaning that the
term "HIV+" means "Don't fuck me". Regardless of what is
actually happening in their body.

So I'd say.... The term "HIV+" must be left to mean you have a life
long infection where your behaviour MUST change..... However
the actual term "HIV+" means you have tested postive to HIV
antibodies.

However as I said b4.... All this doesn't interest me at all. I just
can't believe this guy actually shared his view in an
interview. "It's a horrible development that affects our whole
industry" would have been much better than "fuck it, it's all a lie
anyway".

-Ben

HIV+ is a life threatening disease.
Yep - I agree.

Hehe I can't resist! Gotta hit the semantics again! :-)

HIV is a virus.

AIDS is a disease.

HIV+ is a positive test result for the antibody.

-Ben

I don't really want to get into this debate, but this dude presents a non-absusd argument. And he is PhD research scientist:

http://www.duesberg.com/

He seemed to be a little unhappy his research funding was cut off. Probably moved on to 'Cold Fusion' research or something.