AIBU to remind everyone that the MMR vaccine does NOT cause autism?

[TheHodgeoftheHedge]

Seeing as this worry comes up so many times on MN and in wider life, I feel obliged to post this and remind everyone that MMR has not link to autism whatsoever, as yet another HUGE study has found.

www.independent.co.uk/news/health/mmr-vaccine-autism-antivax-measles-study-andrew-wakefield-a8808086.html

Thanks.

Why are you banging on about AZT when I'm asking about HAART?

Cool Jule
"I also think there is a lot of hysteria around measles in particular yet I don't know of anybody who had any major issues following contracting measles."
Now that is scary. You really need to find out a bit more about measles.
It is not hysteria. It is a horrible disease. My baby got it before there was a vaccine (40 years ago) I remember it to this day. Luckily she had no lasting damage. She was seriously distressed for over e week, it was absolutely horrible to see a baby suffer so much

Might be 2006 but still current info and in an easier to read format. They certainly are still giving it to pregnant women, and to their newborn babies.
So here’s the more comprehensive version...most current 2018 guidelines from BHIVA (British HIV Association
www.bhiva.org/file/5bfd30be95deb/BHIVA-guidelines-for-the-management-of-HIV-in-pregnancy.pdf
You need P77 for baby PEP and I’ll let you find the relevant pages for the Mum’s treatment options.

HTH

Still waiting for your answers to my other questions btw...I’ve proven my sources are up to date and basically yours are not to be trusted as they are old and full of misinformation.

I am more than happy to try to educate you on anything related to HIV and AIDS and current thinking from good sources. If I don’t know the answer I know abload of PLHIV who do, as they, like me, have a vested interest in knowing the facts.

Lweji i don’t believe in the HIV causing AIDS hypothesis therefore if less people are developing AIDS whilst taking HAART it’s because it is significantly less toxic than previous drugs such as AZT (which would have certainly caused AIDS type symptoms) and not becUse the drug is actually doing anything. The people still developing AIDS classified diseases and dying will be those who engage in risky activities and use drugs ...both of which cause immune suppression .... very basically .... but I don’t have all night x

A good example is KS... viewed as a HIV / AIDS disease ...except that not everyone who gets it is HIV+ and it’s virtually unknown in heterosexuals who are HIV+ with ‘AIDS’.... That’s because it is associated with long term and heavy amyl nitrite use and that is what is causing it... not being HIV+

HIVpos have you actually read this book? As opposed to skimming through it. It’s old but it’s still extremely relevant
paganpressbooks.com/jpl/POISON.PDF

The idea that AZT is still given to pregnant women is frankly horrifying

I’m not interested in changing your mind... I hope I’ve given you food for though as I’m sure you hope you have with me.

very basically

You got that one right. For once.

It's interesting, because I actually use KS as an example in my teaching.
KS existed mainly in Africa before the HIV epidemic and its initial distribution in the US was quite close to the HIV distribution. It's sexually transmitted, and it's probably more common in gay men by accident and because of how it's transmitted (mainly through saliva). And the association between a virus and KS has been clear, even in cohort studies.
KS decreased significantly in people with HAART too.

I really don't understand what your hypothesis is. Are you suggesting that AZT caused AIDS? That using drugs and having unprotected sex per se cause AIDS? What is a risky activity? Does skydiving count?

therefore if less people are developing AIDS whilst taking HAART it’s because it is significantly less toxic than previous drugs such as AZT (which would have certainly caused AIDS type symptoms) and not becUse the drug is actually doing anything.

There’s a pretty bold statement to present with zero evidence - reputable studies please?

How to account for people who do develop AIDS and get better with HAART?

I’m suggesting that using illegal drugs, and/or engaging in repeated anal sex with multiple partners whereby the use of antibiotics prior to sex is common, whilst using poppers long term is very likely to cause immune suppression. AZT also causes immune suppression and total destruction of the bone marrow.

Sink girl .... there are many reputable scientists that believe this including Nobel laureate Kary Mullis ... I’ve linked to a documentary on it already called a House of Numbers..

Can’t, Why are you still referring too old info? How is that relevant now?

I skimmed the book as quite frankly, as an option for me in using it as treatment it wouldn’t happen as there are better options. If you read back what I wrote I acknowledged it to be harmful for a lot of people with nasty side effects when first brought out. I also said why (And Lweji added the bit I omitted (forgot) about more than one drug being needed to prevent viral resistance).

I also know for a fact that, despite what you wrote, there are many people still alive today who took AZT. I met a lot of them at a conference last year. It certainly wasn’t for everyone, but, I repeat, what was the alternative back then?

I also know Mums who are HIV+ and their babies were given AZT with no problem. As I said, science moves on.

Not sure about you, but I work on learning the facts from current sources....not so much interested in a history lesson.

Lweji I’m guessing that if they have an AIDS defining disease like tuberculosis for instance, that they are treated for that and then get better

Tuberculosis drugs + token HAART (not super toxic) = reasonable chance of recovery
Tuberculosis drugs + AZT = High likelyhood of death

So, you're saying that illegal drugs and antibiotics prior to sex cause AIDS? And that AZT caused AIDS? So, scientists invented a drug to cause AIDS in people with HIV? Even better, in people already with AIDS? Which improved AIDS?

But drug users who don't share syringes and people who use condoms don't seem to get AIDS. Or people who just use antibiotics, even though they have unprotected sex, but without HIV. By that reasoning many people who've been treated for Chlamydia or syphilis (but no HIV) would be likely to develop AIDS.

I’m guessing

Well, I can't argue with that. Fuck proper research.

Show me the peer review paper showing association between antibiotic use and AIDS (in the absence of HIV).

There are no new diseases under the AIDS umbrella...

There are around 30 AIDS defining illnesses all of which existed for many years before HIV

Prior to HIV if you had tb then you just had tb and were treated accordingly. If you’re HIV + and you get tb then you have aids etc etc

And yes you’re more likely to develop something like Tb if you’re immune suppressed. Poppers, coke, heroin, meth, repeated antibiotic use, tearing of the anal passage during sex introducing all kinds of bacteria and foreign protein into the blood stream, repeated transfusions etc etc etc all cause immune suppression and make these ilnesses far more likely

Why the fuck would I think someone who got treated for chlamydia would get AIDS

And yes repeated and continual use of antibiotics suppress the immune system making opportunistic infection far more likely

AIDS isn’t a disease in and of itself ... it’s a collection of ilnesses related to immune suppression.
In every single case of so called ‘AIDS’ there will be a co factor that would have caused the immune suppression

cathmidson stop claiming Kary Mullis as a reputable source. He's an absolute crank who believed he'd been visited by aliens (nothing to do with the fact he openly admitted taking LSD 🙄) and claims molecules don't exist. He also believes Aids is caused by gay orgies.....he is not a reputable source on this particular subject.

And here’s a little study ... though your responses-are so ignorant that this is becoming a bit pointless
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170817141523.htm

Kary is referring to the ‘fast line lifestyle’ and absolutely it would have had a devastating effect in the immune system after a length of time

Am now wondering what you mean by token HAART Cath? Should these people stop taking it after the treatment has worked for the TB?

What about me? Do I qualify for AIDS? What criteria do you apply...am happy to answer any questions...(I did do a solo parachute jump when younger )

I am actually wondering if you understand how HIV affects the immune system and if untreated can cause other illnesses (ie AIDS)?

You have said correctly that AIDS is a collection of illnesses. These are caused by the immune system being suppressed. So if HIV has supressed the immune system, so causing an AIDS defining illness, that illness is then treated. Great. But doesn’t that still leave the compromised immune system if treatment for the virus isn’t started? What happens then? Might there not be another AIDS defining illness?

Yes, granted, this set of illnesses can happen to anyone with a compromised immune system, so surely addressing what is causing this (Ie HIV) will help prevent other infections?

I didn’t know KS could be passed on during sex Lweji...thanks for that, will research further.

I agree with you point about antibiotics...relevance?

I know exactly what the hypothesis for HIV is thanks and exactly what it’s claimed to do... I just don’t believe it.

I’m assuming you’re reasonably fit, don’t engage in the fast line gay lifestyle and were unfortunate enough to be given a meaningless HIV test after becoming unwell (as people do from time to time) for which you tested positive for some random proteins that are supposed to be but not exclusively related to HIV?

Damn no, I take that back...your link was good, but your description of too many antibiotics not...where does it say too many suppress the immune system? It doesn’t - it says it makes them less effective and interferes with the immune system..