An interesting report on sciencedaily.com made the following reports about a virus that can cause symptoms but is often latent for long periods of time.
"Infected for life: How the Herpes Simplex Virus Uses MicroRNA to Hide Out in Cells
Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine have discovered part of the reason why cold sores, caused by a herpes virus, come back again and again. The new study, published online last month in Nature, points to a small RNA molecule, called a microRNA (miRNA) as the culprit that keeps the latent virus-infected cell alive. These findings could one day lead to a new way to fight the virus and offers the first target for intervention in the latent infection.
A research team led by Nigel W. Fraser, PhD, Professor of
Microbiology, has found that
herpes simplex virus-1 (HSV-1), the virus that causes cold sores and ocular keratitis, produces an miRNA molecule. This miRNA is encoded by the Latency-Associated Transcript gene (LAT) in the viral genome and works through a process called RNA interference to prevent normal cell death or apoptosis. Thus, the latent viral infection is maintained for the lifetime of the individual because the latently infected cell does not die."
“Although miRNAs encoded by cellular genes are known to be an important mechanism for controlling gene expression, this is one of the first miRNA found to be encoded by a viral genome,�?says Fraser. “Our study helps show how HSV-1 can maintain a latent infection for the lifetime of an infected individual.�?/P>
The LAT gene was discovered by Fraser and colleagues in 1984, but a protein product from this gene has never been found. This caused Fraser and his research team to hypothesize that LAT may work through an miRNA molecule, which is a small piece of the LAT gene. It interferes with the translation of two cell proteins that are required for cell death: TGF-b and SMAD-3. The LAT miRNA binds to specific sequences of messenger RNA from these two genes and causes them to be degraded. Thus, the amount of TGF-b and SMAD-3 protein is reduced in the cell and apoptosis is prevented. Because the latent virus is not producing any viral proteins the immune system of the infected individual cannot detect the infected cell.
Latent HSV-1 infections form in neuronal cells of the peripheral nervous system. When a latent infection is reactivated (by stress of many kinds), HSV-1 proteins are synthesized and new infectious virus particles are formed. These virus particles migrate along the neuronal axons to the epithelial cells of the skin. Viral growth in the skin, or other mucous membranes where nerves are found, causes cell damage and an immune reaction that results in a painful sore. Although the latency-to-reactivation process is not fully understood, it is known to involve stress, such as physical damage, ultraviolet light, hormones, or even fever.
Fraser is currently testing whether HSV-2, a relative of HSV-1 that causes genital herpes, also encodes an miRNA molecule in its LAT gene. “MiRNA may be a more general mechanism that latent viruses use to remain alive in the host cell,�?suggests Fraser.
Present treatments of HSV-1 rely on acyclovir-based drugs that target the viral polymerase and inhibit viral DNA replication during the acute infection. However, they do not target the latent infection, and thus cold sores return throughout the lifetime of the infected individual..."
Note that they explicitly point out that stress is the key to reactivation, and also that they have a good understanding of what is occurring at the molecular level. They may be unaware of how much stress certain diets can produce, relative to others, but there are simple tests that can be done to demonstrate this (such as ORAC and the Rancimat). Notice that the "medicine" is used to control the symptoms temporarily, and does nothing to prevent them. In fact, if used too often, such medication will cause so much stress that it will become a contributor to the underlying problem. This report is useful because it demonstrates how "far off the mark" the "HIV/AIDS" claims are. If "HIV" exists in latent form and causes "disease" many years later, this would be the way it would happen. On the hand, the body can compensate wioth minor disruptions easily, such as a small loss of certain T cells. On the other hand, if the following claim was true, "HIV infected" people would experience pronounced symptoms, at the very least:
"People infected are quickly swarmed by a virus that replicates at warp speed by hijacking its host genes... HIV is a retrovirus, an insidious pathogen... Because of HIV's tendency to swarm, a mind-boggling number of viruses are continuously produced. Nabel estimates there can be more AIDS viruses in an infected individual than there are influenze viruses in global circulation at the height of the flu season."
Source: Page A41 of Newsday newspaper (6/4/06).
Even a science fiction writer would realize that if you are going to make such a claim of there being more "HI" viruses in a sinlge individual than there are flu viruses in the entire world's human population at the height of flu season, there would have to be symptoms present in that individual. In actuality, such a quantity of active virus would prevent life from being possible. I challenge any scientist to load up an animal with this amount of active virus (any virus, that is) and keep that animal alive for more than a few days (though I doubt it could live for more than a few minutes).
So, what the "HIV/AIDS" claimants are telling us is that, despite their inability to demonstrate exactly how "HIV" kills years later, after many years of no symptoms, even though the technology is available to determine this "pathogenicity" issue, we should simply believe their notions, even though these assertions are based only on older models and assumptions about how "germs" kill which have been demonstrated to be incorrect. They talk about "swarming" at "warp speed" and about a "wiley retrovirus" that "mutates rapidly," and yet such phenomena would produce pronounced symptoms and probably a quick death, but instead it takes years for problems to occur? And of course anyone who questions this is deemed a "quack!"
Clearly, for any latent virus to cause symptoms, stress needs to occur that will reactivate it. At the very least, if the "HIV/AIDS" claimants are correct about "HIV infection," deadly symptoms will only occur if certain cellular stressors are in play, and one can certainly avoid these stressors, and therefore, disease. Apparently, the "HIV/AIDS" claimants do not realize how inconsistent their notions are with what is now known about how viruses and other "pathogens" actually cause "disease" - once again, excessive specialization appears to be a major factor in this sad chapter of medical history.
Interestingly, these "experts" sometimes make the same point I am making, for example:
"Soon after the introduction of antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection, some patients may develop an inflammatory immune reconstitution syndrome..."
Source: Rev Mal Respir. 2006 Feb;23(1):69-72.
In some cases, the "experts" appear to be in some sort of intellectual fog, for example:
"Clinical deterioration after initiation of antiretroviral therapy may result from restored immunity."
Source: Clin Infect Dis. 2006 Jun 1;42(11):1639-46.
If the "disease" causes a failure of the "immune system," then how can restoring it lead to deterioration? They freely admit:
"There is no standard clinical definition for immune reconstitution syndrome."
This is quite an admission, and one could certainly say the same thing about "AIDS" itself. But how can you investigate something that has no standard definition without at least putting forth a definition that you intend to use in your study? What, exactly, are they studying? Basically, their conclusion is something like; people who are the most ill are more likely to be afflicted with this unknown entity, which seems to be like saying that sick people are more likely than healthy people to be sick a year from now than heathy people. But if you read the entire study, you can judge for yourself.
One important point I would make is that you can't "restore" an "immune system," though you can do particular things, such as enhance the production of certain molecules (or even provide those molecules from exogenous sources). "AIDS patients" do not become ill with all kinds of "diseases," but with particular ones. This seems to happen after an excessive amount of antigenic exposure, and may also be related to fatty acids in the body, high levels of oxidative or other stressors, and perhaps a few other "co-factors," such as high iron levels.
The "anti-retroviral therapy" may indeed "kill bugs" or prevent the reproduction of some of them, but if "germs" are not the issue, which the evidence suggests (especially in "diseases" that are supposed to take several years to develop), then such an approach will not work, though it may be that more conscientious people take the "medicines" and live a little longer, providing the tiniest of fig leaves with which such "experts" use to clothe the ugly, naked reality. However, the fact that the difference is so small, and the side effects often terrible, is a clear demonstration that the "HIV/AIDS" claim is incorrect - when something is right in science, it works, and when it is wrong, it does not. With "HIV/AIDS," those with alternative ideas - ones that actually fit the data - are not permitted (or do not have the funding) to demonstrate that a healthy, but "HIV infected" person has nothing to fear from a particular "germ" that appears to be a figment of certain "experts'" imaginations, but does have to worry about changing his or her "immune system" in a way that can lead to major health problems within a period of several years, especially if he/she continues to engage in behavior that results in a great deal of antigenic exposure.
Now here's something really puzzling, from an "HIV expert:"
QUOTE
"A strong immune response can be good in the short term, but if sustained for a long time as in those with HIV, it can exhaust the immune system," he said. "If you could somehow dampen the response, it might effectively convert the condition to the more chronic, asymptomatic infection seen in monkeys." UNQUOTE
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060616091615.htm
I agree, if it were in fact the case, but a strong inflammatory resonse is something a person feels, especially if it is supposed to be ongoing for many years, as in "HIV/AIDS." But this is not (or rarely) the case. Moreover, this notion is not related to the "mainstream" claims about "HIV" depleting particular T cells over time, which the body could certainly compensate for, assuming the person was eating well, etc. With "HIV/AIDS," it is like a religion in which if you agree with a main theological point, you can then go off and make up all kinds of stories that you can say are central to that religion - even if the stories actually contradict the main theological point itself!
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
