If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
HIV=AIDS?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
There isn’t much known about HIV/AIDS, however, very few people are willing to go against everything scientists and doctors have to say about it just because of the fact. Christine Maggiore is one of those few.
She questions everything, including the long established “fact” that HIV is the virus that causes AIDS because it has yet to be proven true. She says that evidence shows that AIDS is not fatal, not incurable, and not caused by HIV.
When Maggiore along with her boyfriend at the time first tested positive for HIV, she became a spokesperson educating the US about the dangers of AIDS. However, a year later, she had another test. Testing negative, she became skeptical and began to research the disease.
She came along a controversial study that proclaimed that HIV couldn’t cause AIDS and believed it full heartedly. According to her website, “AIDS is not a new disease. AIDS is a new name for an ever-expanding list of previously known and unrelated conditions that include yeast infections, diarrhea, tuberculosis, salmonella, certain pneumonias and cancers. These conditions are only called AIDS when a person tests HIV positive, but all of these also happen to people who test HIV negative, and all have well-known causes and treatments that are completely unrelated to HIV.” Mainstream scientists admit that they can’t disprove what she says.
Maggiore sees no reason to take toxic drugs to hinder the progression of the disease, has unprotected sex with her husband, had children without taking drugs that lessen the chances of her children being born with HIV, and even breastfed their son although doctors say that HIV can be transmitted that way.
Her husband sees no need to test for the disease and both haven’t tested their children because Maggiore sees the label (HIV positive) as being just a label that calls a person sick even when they aren’t.
Some doctors feel that Maggiore’s body may be progressing slowly which would explain her health and what she is doing is hurting the fight against HIV/AIDS because she spreads her views without doubting whether she may be wrong. Maggiore proclaims her beliefs through books, lectures, and also went to the AIDS Conference in South Africa. She tells people to stop taking toxic drugs and stop worrying about spreading the disease and has consequentially perked up the interests of many, including leaders in Africa. Her influence is growing.
What do you think?
She questions everything, including the long established “fact” that HIV is the virus that causes AIDS because it has yet to be proven true. She says that evidence shows that AIDS is not fatal, not incurable, and not caused by HIV.
When Maggiore along with her boyfriend at the time first tested positive for HIV, she became a spokesperson educating the US about the dangers of AIDS. However, a year later, she had another test. Testing negative, she became skeptical and began to research the disease.
She came along a controversial study that proclaimed that HIV couldn’t cause AIDS and believed it full heartedly. According to her website, “AIDS is not a new disease. AIDS is a new name for an ever-expanding list of previously known and unrelated conditions that include yeast infections, diarrhea, tuberculosis, salmonella, certain pneumonias and cancers. These conditions are only called AIDS when a person tests HIV positive, but all of these also happen to people who test HIV negative, and all have well-known causes and treatments that are completely unrelated to HIV.” Mainstream scientists admit that they can’t disprove what she says.
Maggiore sees no reason to take toxic drugs to hinder the progression of the disease, has unprotected sex with her husband, had children without taking drugs that lessen the chances of her children being born with HIV, and even breastfed their son although doctors say that HIV can be transmitted that way.
Her husband sees no need to test for the disease and both haven’t tested their children because Maggiore sees the label (HIV positive) as being just a label that calls a person sick even when they aren’t.
Some doctors feel that Maggiore’s body may be progressing slowly which would explain her health and what she is doing is hurting the fight against HIV/AIDS because she spreads her views without doubting whether she may be wrong. Maggiore proclaims her beliefs through books, lectures, and also went to the AIDS Conference in South Africa. She tells people to stop taking toxic drugs and stop worrying about spreading the disease and has consequentially perked up the interests of many, including leaders in Africa. Her influence is growing.
What do you think?
0
Comments
I don't care if she wants to infect her husband and children (then refuse to admit they're infected). But there are a lot of very committed and caring people who devote their lives to trying to spread warnings and precautions about HIV in Africa and elsewhere, based on the soundest medical knowledge known. It is simply not fair on the people she "educates", increasing their risk of infection and putting their entire life at risk, just because she, with no medical or scientific training, thinks she has an idea about it. In fact, its downright evil.
Someone has been given some sort of injection which includes some of the gene they think causes the change in the immune system. That will take ten years to find out whether it works.
Information courtesy of The Discovery Channel!!!
She may be right, however she may be wrong as well and I think that if she does want to continue touring, it would only be right for her to educate others on both possibilities.
I understand that she didn’t want to expose her children to drugs when she got pregnant, however, ethically, I can’t understand why she continues to live as if she has nothing. The breastfeeding— she may be right, but that is a gamble, why compromise the children’s health by adding in additional risk factors?
I believe that she and her husband should do what floats their boats, however don’t experiment with the children. Buy formula, get a wet nurse (if there is still such a thing)— but don’t play with their lives.
AIDS is an accelerated form of HIV, maybe it isn't caused by HIV, but they are definately related. Nobody realised what it was until the 70's because people died from other illnesses.
AIDS and HIV have already been declared pandemics by the W.H.O, the fact that at anyone time millions of people worldwide are infected is not a comforting thought. By sayin that AIDS doesn't really exist is a futile attempt at trying to make yourself feel better. Having unprotected sex, and having children while you have the disease is VERY irresponisbile, and the chances are that the children will develop it too.
It is pretty much a hypothetical question, unfortunately, there is little to prevent her from holding her children at risk. I heard that people tried after she decided to breastfeed her son in front of people who don’t share her opinion, she says it was because he was hungry, but I think she was making a statement. Anyhow, she has lawyers, doctors, and scientists to back up her statements and those who don't agree with her have trouble holding up an argument against her cause. Actually, she has a program that protects people like her from getting their children taken away. However, IF God forbid, one of her children die, do you think the parents should criminally be held responsible?
This is a scientific fact. AIDS is caused by the killing of specific immune cells by HIV which make your body susceptible to many different diseases which ultimately kill you.
I can't believe there's a debate about this. Whoever this woman was, she has absolutely no proof to back up her "theory" and she's doing harm to the public by misleading people, as well as endangering her own family.
Stupid people.
[ 22-02-2002: Message edited by: USC Alex ]
Since then, many doctors and scientists have admitted that it is just a hypothesis—which not to get off of the subject, but this is probably the reason why hardly any legal action can be taken against her. The court would have to prove that she is endangering the welfare of her children, but how would they do that, battle her hypothesis with their own? Try to refute her argument which professionals have trouble refuting?
The debate concerning the disease isn’t likely to go away soon because her influence is growing worldwide.
She may be right, however, she may be wrong--I agree that she shouldn't be putting her children in danger.
According to 2 professors of immunology at my school this contention is shared by a very small part of the scientific community. The overwhelming majority believe that the evidence points to HIV as the cause of AIDS by killing the cells that trigger immune response.
It's nice that Peter Forsberg? (something like that), the Nobel Prize winner you talked about, believes in this theory, but it doesn't mean as much as what you would believe. Linus Pauling, one of the greatest scientists ever and a two time Nobel Prize winner, believed that the genetic material of humans was found in proteins, not DNA, long after Watson and Crick's famous discovery- even after the consensus of the international community. We now know he was wrong, just like I suspect this other Nobel Prize winner will be proven.
Billions of dollars are being spent on trying to find a cure for AIDS and the research has been ongoing for about 20 years. I doubt that with all the research that has been done if there were any truth to these ideas it would have been discovered long ago or at least supported by more researchers.
edited to add that its irresponsible to hold theories like this up independent of the scientific consensus because of the danger that someone might believe this and endanger his or her life, as well as others, because of misleading info.
[ 25-02-2002: Message edited by: USC Alex ]
Yes, the mainstream does share the opinion that HIV is the virus that causes AIDS, however it has not yet been proven as a fact.
Total complacency or another statement? She shouldn't be allowed to put her beliefs in front of the safety of her children like this.
Yes, she shouldn't be allowed to get away with using her family as a statement by putting them in great danger. If one of her children gets the disease she should be charged, but unfortunately she probably won't be.
But if her children become ill and her argument is refuted then that's the greatest punishment of all for her.
I believe in time her ignorance will show.
[ 26-02-2002: Message edited by: Stracha_Khan ]
I suggest you read the following article so you at least know where Maggiore and others like her are coming from.
Genetica
AZT can cause birth defects and spontaneous abortion. By saying that she should take these pills to "protect" her children, you are actually only offering her an alternate version and probability of death for her child.
She did the research. She made her choice. Sure it will be tragic if her children die from AIDS, but it would be equally as tragic if they had been spontaneously aborted or born with a cavity in their chest.
I don't know who is right and who is wrong. But neither do you. And neither do the doctors. Only through research will we find an answer; research that is not ignored because it defies modern concensus. By assuming that these people are wrong because they attempt to refute unproven "facts" is just as irresponsable as you claim Maggiore to be.
I would like to point out that following this view creates a huge social cost and danger. Suppose I have HIV and sleep with you, believing that I won't give you AIDS, and if I do, it won't kill you. Then you give it to someone else and so on and so forth. Well, pretty soon there are a bunch of people that have to hope that the educated opinions of a few people are more accurate than the educated opinions of the majority of the world's experts. There are no social costs that I can think of that would come from people believing in the worst case scenario, that HIV causes AIDS, other than less pleasurable sex, or maybe the cost of condoms.
Yeah, I probably shouldn't have used the word fact when putting forth the view that AIDS is caused by HIV. Sorry. Nothing is a certainty, that's for sure, but I would be willing to put money on the theory of the majority.
I can't support your contention that it would just be "a shame" if her children die of AIDS. It would be her responsibility and not like a congenital birth defect. Those are the result of chance for the most part. I would like to compare it to the decision of parents who carry the gene for a terrible disease, like Tay-Sachs or cystic fibrosis. They can't be sure that their children won't be healthy, they have to at least accept that chance that they might give birth to a child who will die a painful death. You at least have to take any steps possible to avoid this from happening, including deciding not to have children. Her decision not to take the drugs was negligent because she didn't give her children all of the protection she could.