HIV child rejected

Jenner's development of the smallpox vaccine (truly revolutionary) changed the course of history and saved countless lives. Anyone who denies this exhibits a stunning lack of knowledge of history.

I've read up on the National Vaccine Information Center before. IMO, they go too far the other direction. Like it or not, there are some vaccines--the Tetanus one comes to mind--that are unquestionably needed and useful, and the side effects/complications (if any) pale in comparison to the need for the vaccine.

These folks don't have any use for virtually any vaccine. I do believe caution is advisable, and being informed is wise. But these guys make two mistakes in my book:

• They don't stress the danger from the diseases as much as the vaccines. Nobody wants to have a reaction to a vaccine. But no one wants the disease the vaccine prevents either.
• They make claims that "vaccine X" is "linked to disorder X, Y, and Z," often with anecdotal proof, or no proof at all. Bad science.

There's room for caution. But there's room for common sense, too. My aunt (now in her late 80's) who was crippled in the 1930's polio epedimic would concur.

 

And yet again, HOG, please note the difference between virology and vaccination. There are risks taken any time one takes medication, and vaccines are not immune from these risks. Where has it been documented that HIV was spread through casual contact? For that matter, how many years has it been since the medical community fully acknowleded that HIV can be spread through blood transfusions? Do you think the strict regulations on blood donation were set up for the fun of it? C'mon.

Throughout the whole thread I keep thinking of Matthew 19:14. If we are excluding chidren, or any other church member adult or youth with HIV, we are essentially excluding them from the fellowship. We are in fact making them second class members, the lepers of the church. For what? Do you honestly believe Christ finds this acceptable? Here's an idea if your are so afraid that your child will catch HIV as easily as the common cold then keep your children out of the nursery, Sunday school, or youth group. In fact just keep them, and yourselves, in a bubble, because I'm sure they have already come in contact with HIV at some point in their lives as have you.

 

A lot of people don't hear well, or don't read for understanding. I have yet to read any official document that says flat out that you can't catch HIV from blood transfusions. In fact they all practically say there is no way to guarantee that an infection such as HIV or reaction to blood products will not occurr. Without shouting the risk, it is always quite clear in professional discussion that there is a risk which is considered negligible vs dying in need of blood and not accepting it: added to that the more intensive assays the labs do to check the purity of blood, even after they have put the donor through an intensive screening. I've given blood, and some of the questions the labs are required to ask repeatedly are embarassing, and some beyond my imagination! Nevertheless, notice the 'small' questions they are also concerned with: 'deep' kissing.....referring to mouth to mouth resusi....ok skip that, tatoos, body piercings, use of common needles or unsterilized needles for the injection of drugs and substances, and any recent surgery which may have require transfusion, use of human body substances, or transplantations. I've heard of cornea transplantation occurring and passing HIV, though rare. Theres one special little bit of info often neglected by people and that is a HIV negative test (if one suspects exposure) is only that, and without a repeat in about 6 months during which there's no exposure, another HIV negative test confirms no contagion with HIV. And even if positive, the risk with contact is relative to the 'bugs' available to commute to new host. A person who has a negative HIV test, is not likely to have enough 'bugs' in his system yet for the full potential of passing it on to another through normal contact before he tests positive....nevertheless there is always a possibility. Remember a pint of blood holds many cells and invasive (entrance to body required). Most minor injuries are superficial, skinned knee, a scratched misquitoe bite, which are easily covered and protected: and many of these that occur with children are not contact sports in the same way as basketball and football.

The problem with viralogy is that each type of virus acts differently in different circumstances. Before more is known about a new virus, much conjecture is built upon what characteristics the virus seems to have in common with those already known. When fighting a disease which is newly discovered, this is the best that even science can do, until enough tests are developed and enough data gathered to confirm or discard the science from the fiction. Unfortunately, this doesn't stop the progress of misinformation which got into the public rumour-mill to begin with, nor the profiteering by those who could make money by feeding the fear and ignorance.

Since the early 80's, the discovery of compromised immune system, with a pattern which suggested some contaigion involving contact and transmission, much was speculated in attempt to stir up leads as to what caused it, how it was transmitted, why some got it and others in the same 'community' did not, though having some common fellowship. I recall 'designer' drugs were suspect at one point. Because the disease was often in its full symptomology with the body compromised, and tuberculosis, and/or pneumonia, or other respiratory compromise was already being fought.... the first fears was that it was a new form of bacteria or virus that was transmitted in the air. Now, after 2 decades, we can be more current and confident or we can still live in the rumors and fears of former speculation and fantasy.

BTW: could the 'cocktail' given for HIV viral infection induce AIDS (someone asks)? My hunch is it is highly unlikely: First of all when these drugs were first discovered they were used only on people who already showed labarotory compromise in their immune system. That means many were carrying the virus but had not come down with 'AIDS' which is the symptom of its progression and destruction, and it wasn't until they became symptomatic that they sought help.

Needle sticks in hospitals occur less frequently under heighten precautions and new procedures for transporting filled syringes and discard procedures after use. Nevertheless, needle sticks are still too common an occurrance, yet it is still a rare event where nurses/doctors and technicians are not aware of the HIV status of patients, and even a rarer event where one has contracted HIV through a needle stick with an infected person, though many have documented needle sticks or bodily fluid exposure as occurring and were subjected to follow-up protocol. And, yes, in the event a member of the medical team shows positive for infection, they are then presented with options which may start them early on treatment meds.

Surface virocides and disinfectants are just that: They are effective if used properly..... and most directions regarding a cholrine solution or a lysol type product involve wetting the surface with the solution and allowing it to remain wet for a period of about 10 minutes..... (or read the directions and follow the time table on the container).

If someone proves this wrong, I am ammendable to correction..... but if we're going to be fearful children of God, doubting and not believing, lets at least strive towards facts and not fiction or fantasy.

 

As FP said, I'm sure we've all (including our children) have come in contact with HIV. I know for sure I have. I know for sure my family has - strike that - we've come in contact with the real deal. Maybe many people here have too. Some know it and some don't.

Let's forget that it's a hypothetical kid that began this discussion. Let's talk about human beings. We can sit next to a fornicator week after week after week in church and not think a thing about it because we are ignorant of his actions and can't see what that's doing to his/her soul. We can sit next to a gossip and maybe even join in a little and not think a thing a bout it. But we don't want to sit next to someone who's body is ravaged with some disease because we might get it. Are all their souls not valuable to God? Are they all not redeemable through Christ's blood? At some point is the Holy Spirit not drawing the all near? Parent, child, grandparent, single person. We are talking about people's bodies here which will turn to dust. I grant you some of these people have mistreated their bodies but others have not. Many good people in our churches have also mistreated their bodies and are paying serious consequences for this mistreatment.

 

Hi, I'm James. Nice to meet you.

 

:laugh: Yes, thanks, I started getting concerned based on the link you provided. It was a fairly compelling argument against HIV as being the cause of AIDS. I've studied microbiology some, but not enough to draw any firm conclusions from that video, so I'd love to find out more. The fact is, if HIV is not the cause of AIDS, then all this fuss about how HIV gets transmitted from one person to another is a red herring.

 

I went to be last night, and it struck me as funny that I was being castigated for the credentials of sources (medical doctors who all had to pass medical school) by non-doctors, simply because these doctors disagree with the mainstream. So, these non-doctors are able to pronounce judgment upon the credentials of doctors.

BTW, did you read the links provided on smallpox? One of them was from someone who did try to prove that it was contagious and could not do so.

Oh, BTW, he was also a doctor.

 

It would certainly prove to be the largest medical fraud ever perpetrated. It would go a long way toward explaining why there has been little to no progress against AIDS.

 

I'm waiting for the Conspiracy Theory that
"The HIV/AIDS attack directed against Blacks by the USGovernment
has gone amuck/backfired right in their face" is
about to rear it's ugly head.

BTW, shouldn't political conspiracy theories belong in
a politics forum?

BTW, about 80% of current LONG TERM SUCCESSFUL
anti-cancer treatments came from AIDS research
NOT from anti-cancer research. My sister had
lymphoma and the USFederalGovernment cured
her - because of their AIDS research. So don't expect
my help in this witch hunt.

BTW, I still think CONSPIRACY THEORIES is not
a proper topic for open Baptist Board discussion

 

Maybe, but I'm not suggesting there's any conspiracy. I don't even know if the claim that HIV does not cause AIDS is true. The arguments against HIV as being the cause are very convincing, though.

And how does that saying go? Something like, "Don't look for conspiracy as an explanation where stupidity would suffice." If HIV doesn't cause AIDS, I'm more likely to think we got the wrong idea thanks to stupidity.

Now -- continuing to perpetuate the idea against all evidence is closer to conspiracy. But even that isn't conspiracy, per se. It's just a lot of groups who got fat on AIDS research funding and don't want to give up their steady inflow of money. So if HIV isn't the cause, they simply don't want to know about it.

It's also going to be really hard to sort out. Remember, you don't die of AIDS. You die of a disease that you ostensibly couldn't fight off because you have AIDS. So the way things get reported now, if you die of pneumonia and you have HIV, then you "died of AIDS". But if you die of pneumonia and you don't have HIV, then you died of pneumonia. That kind of reporting is based on the a-priori assumption that HIV causes AIDS.

It is automatically assumed that the first person died because AIDS prevented them from fighting off the infection. The second person died because... well ... something else prevented them from fighting off the infection, I guess. After all, it couldn't have been AIDS because the second person tested negative for HIV. Do you see the problem with this reasoning?

.

 

Look up FIV (Feline immunodeficiency virus).
It causes AIDS in cats. Have fun reading all
3 million hits

God's message for those who reject a child with AIDS:

Luke 17:2 (KJV1611 Edition):
It were better for him that a milstone
were hanged about his necke,
and he cast into the Sea,
then that he should offend
one of these little ones.

 

I never castigated you. I called a source into question. Big difference.

Keep in mind...it's possible to be very knowledgable about medical matters and not be an MD. I'd like to think I am. I read medical and pharmacological journals for enjoyment. I have a couple of close friends who are doctors who allow me to sit and learn (as long as I promise not to practice!) :laugh: I would never claim to be a medical professional, but I am absolutely no slouch--and I enjoy researching immunology and oncology, being as one of my friends is a specialist in both fields (his enthusiasm is catching...get it? Catching? Ah, nevermind...)

Likewise, it's also possible to be quite ignorant about said matters and have the initials "M.D." after your name. The site that I called into question gave second-hand anecdotal accounts as medical fact. That doesn't make for reliable medical information.

It had nothing to do with you, but with one of your sources...particularly, Dr. Day. IMO she has a pre-determined viewpoint, and she looks for anecdotal evidence to support it. That works great if you're an editor for the "Weekly World News" tabloid...if you're a doctor, not so much.

But hey, I've been wrong before...once...maybe....nah, I was mistaken about that.

 

I wasn't actually talking about you; you're not the one who brought up accreditation rules, and IMO, a doctor is pretty much accredited to talk about medical stuff.

But, the web site that was linked is anecdotal and full of blurbs. The idea is to get you to buy the book. The book uses many more references, experts, etc. In fact, Dr. Day was considered one of the foremost authorities on AIDS at one point in thime, but she became politically incorrect when she started using here "space suit" to perform surgeries.

Ironically, she has the support of many homosexuals who want to do the right thing when it comes to AIDS (please not my qualification with "do the right thing", since what they're doing overall cannot be the right thing) and think that the precautions are warranted.

Warning: There are some explicit references in this book in regard to extremely bizarre behavior of homosexual individuals, and how this behavior, even bizarre by the standards of the homosexual community has contributed greatly to the spread of AIDS.

 

Then there's the HIV positive husband who was impotent who infected his wife through kissing. Now, the CDC downplays it because they both had gum disease, so it was probably passed because of that, not the saliva itself, but HIV is present in saliva, and even so, if they didn't know the kid had HIV... "May I have a bite of your candy bar?"

They need to at least know, so they can make an informed decision.