If I were certain that I had HIV (and you can see from other posts here that a HIV positive diagnosis may not actually indicate that you are HIV positive), then colloidal silver is one item I would use in plentiful amounts.
If this were a bacterial infection then this may help. Silver has ben shown to kill bacteria, but does not work on viruses, which are not living microbes and do not respond the same.
Hveragerthi wrote:
---If this were a bacterial infection then this may help. Silver has ben shown to kill bacteria, but does not work on viruses, which are not living microbes and do not respond the same.---
There is ample evidence and legitimate research that conclusively proves "silver" (in various forms) to be effective against many viruses. The following link yields a compilation & overview of some of the research showing the virotoxicity of silver: http://www.scribd.com/doc/15038128/Colloidal-Silver-and-Viral-Infections
This is a sales type site for a particular silver product. I don't put credibility in such sites. Especially when they are discussing particular studies they never cite in order to 1. See if the study actually exists, 2. See how the study was done, 3. Find out how they came to their conclusion and if they interpreted the study properly and 4. Who was funding the study.
But let's say for a second that the study was independent and interpreted properly. There are still some issues. First of all, simply binding the receptors does not destroy the virus. Secondly the studies appear to have been done in culture, not the human body. This brings up a number of other issues. First of many things compete for receptors. Isolated silver has no competition. In the body it would have competition. In addition, we have no idea how long the binding is in culture or how long it would be in the body. Since the silver is not destroying the virus, even at concentrated levels in culture this means the virus still has the potential to cause problems if the receptor is freed up or the silver is displaced by a more reactive metal. Also keep in mind that the viral load may be more than the amount of silver that can be safely ingested can bind IF it can get to the virus. I will get the "IF" in a second. Something else that also needs to be mentioned is that again silver in Petri dish culture is not the same as ingested silver. How much of the "colloidal silver" reacts with things like stomach acid forming larger compounds such as salts? How do these new compounds affect the virus in the body? Getting back to the "IF" there is something else that is very important to keep in mind. The are testing the pure silver on isolated virus. The HIV virus though is not going to be out in the open somewhere in the blood. The virus hides within cells and vacuoles where even the immune system has a hard time finding it. So the obvious question would be can the silver get inside these cells and cell vacuoles to even bind the receptors.
As an analogy to this studies have shown that vitamin C will kill semen in culture. Does this mean that taking vitamin C will make a man sterile? Of course not. Again, there can be big differences between how something works in culture and how something works in the body.
As for their little statement about the viral load dropping, the "viral load" is a complete joke! Viral load (polymerase chain reaction, PCR) CANNOT prove neither the presence of any particular virus nor its activity. I have also posted in detail on why previously. As far as I am concerned the PCR is really nothing more than a sales tool since it is highly prone to error, but more importantly can be easily manipulated to obtain whatever desired result.
Finally, they also use a silver based antibiotic as "evidence" of silver being effective against viruses. If this study exists they still should not be using it as "evidence" to the effectiveness of silver. Simply being present does not mean something is the active component. All antibiotics contain carbon. This does not mean carbon will kill bacteria or destroy viruses.
The article above does appear to be an advertisement; the studies referenced are legitimate, regardless of rhetoric.
I take it you never actually read the studies they present. For example, one study is for silver nitrate, not colloidal silver. And the study states "AgNO3 did not affect the attachment of HSV to host cells". And at the beginning of the study they also make a list of viruses for which the silver nitrate was shown not to affect.
This is something I have brought up before. These sales sites like to reference studies that generally do not back their claims. They count on people being too lazy to read the studies or not being able to understand what is being said. People just see there are references and therefore assume the studies are backing their sales claims. Otherwise why would they reference these studies?
By the way, the last study was also done in culture and they specifically state effectiveness in a dose dependent manner. In other words there was some effect when concentrated silver was placed directly on the cultures. Unfortunately you cannot concentrate silver in the body. So this goes back to my earlier statement about culture studies not reflecting actual use in the body. How much colloidal silver would you have to ingest in one dose to reach the same concentrations of silver that were used in the culture studies to obtain any significant effect? And how safe is that concentration?
Here is another showing that silver nanoparticles inhibit hepatitis B virus replication:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18505176
You mean this cultured cell test again that tells us nothing about the effectiveness in the body? Again, how much of the silver would you have to ingest in a single dose to reduce the level of DNA? And what side effects would that dose cause?
This is why it is so important people actually read the studies they are using as "evidence". And why people should actually read these studies to see if they even apply if they are going to accept them as evidence. Again, several of the studies they are using as "evidence" for the efficacy of colloidal silver had nothing to do with colloidal silver in the first place. And the studies are culture studies, which really don't us much of anything. As I mentioned earlier these studies prove that the silver does not destroy the virus even in high concentrations. And the one study showed the silver had no effect on a number of viruses. This is why they are speculating that silver may be used as a treatment for some viral infections. Until they can show that high enough levels of silver can be safely ingested to bind the receptors, and that this a permanent binding, or that it can destroy the viruses in the body there is no real evidence of effectiveness.
I talked to a man personaly online that said he cured his HIV taking colloidal silver, he said he has been undetectable for 6 years now and he is not taking any meds.
People test false positive all the time then test negative later on. This is due to the high rate of false positives on the HIV test. There are over 65 known causes for false positives on these tests. This is mostly due to serological cross reactivity. When the antibody levels that are cross reacting drop the person tests HIV negative. In allopathic medicine they call these "spontaneous remissions" rather than to admit how inaccurate these antibody tests really are.
As I have mentioned in the past there are no common lab tests that can confirm the presence of any particular virus.
Therefore, testing positive first then negative later is nothing new and happens more than people are being told even though these people did not take anything in treatment.
There was one case reported by the AMA where the guy tested positive on an HIV test. He started on the AIDS meds, including AZT that causes AIDS. Of course he developed full blown AIDS for 10 years. He finally decided to quit the AIDS drugs and his symptoms gradually disappeared and he tested HIV negative. Again, his first tests were false positives and it was the AZT causing his AIDS. When he got off the AZT his bone marrow repaired so his symptoms disappeared. His cross reacting antibody load had also dropped within that time so he tested HIV negative. But again they called it a "spontaneous remission" instead of admitting to the high false positive rate of the tests and the fact that AZT is known to cause AIDS.
I disagree. I believe that there is ample evidence that silver nanoparticles do in fact kill viruses as well as prevent them from multiplying. To cite just a few examples:
*In a 2005 study, scientists tested three different silver nanoparticle preparations in vitro against cultured HIV-1 cells. After only 3 hours, 0% of the cells were living.
*In the book "Use of Colloids in Health and Disease", author Dr. Henry Crooks stated that colloidal silver is highly anti-viral. In laboratory tests he found that "all fungus, virii, bacterium, streptococcus, staphylococcus, and other pathogenic organisms are killed in three or four minutes".
*In 2010, scientists found that silver nanoparticles were able to destroy viruses such as those responsible for the common cold.
*Colloidal silver has also been used very effectively to kill canine parvo - one can find numerous testimonials, including here at CureZone, and I personally know of kennels who eliminated recurring parvo outbreaks by simply adding colloidal silver to the dogs drinking water.
i just post this for a critique from hv/others on the subject.
this guy (kary mullis inventor of pcr) says HIV has never even been isolated....
I find that hard to believe being that they have taken electron microscope pictures of the virus. I would consider that a form of isolating the virus. For example, these images:
http://www.virology.net/big_virology/BVretro.html
Then there are studies like this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8811341
Los Angeles Center of the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study, Department of Epidemiology, UCLA School of Public Health, USA.
Studies in both monkeys and humans have suggested that transient infection with HIV-1 can occur without provoking a measurable humoral immune response. The objective of this study was to look for genetic and immunologic correlates of transient HIV-1 infection in antibody-negative men from whom HIV-1 had been isolated. The distributions of MHC class I, class II, and TAP (transporter protein associated with antigen processing) region genes were compared between 23 persistently seronegative men from whom HIV-1 was isolated at least once (isol+/Ab-) and 137 men who seroconverted. A subset of 13 of the 23 isol+/Ab- men were compared to 27 seronegative men for distribution of CD25+CD4+ and CD25+CD8+ cells in the absence of exogenous immunologic stimulation. The prevalences of the TAP1.4, and a combination of TAP1.4, and TAP2.3 variants were significantly higher in the isol+/Ab- men. The proportion of CD8+ cells that expressed CD25+ antigen was also significantly higher in the isol+/Ab- men than in the seronegative men. We conclude that isol+/Ab- men may be genetically and immunologically distinct from HIV-1 susceptible men. We hypothesize that activated CD8+ cells may have cleared HIV-1 infection in these men through genetically mediated influences of the TAP genes on the presentation of peptides by HLA class I molecules.
Therefore HIV has been isolated but presence of does not mean cause. HIV can only cause AIDS under the expanded definition, which was done to cover up Gallo's second big scientific fraud when he claimed HIV was the cause of AIDS. Under the original definition, when he made this claim for personal financial gain, HIV could not cause AIDS. So the government expanded the definition of AIDS to fit the HIV virus so they could honestly claim that HIV could cause AIDS.
In many AIDS patients though they have never found any evidence showing infection or potential infection by HIV.
I have posted on this, and AIDS, in detail a number of times. You can run a search on my forum with key words such as "AIDS", "Gallo", "HIV testing", etc.
about those pictures too.. hang on i will find the link...8 are actual images the others are worthless... i will try find a link
I know some of them are not actual images. But I did not feel like pulling up a bunch of links to actual images so I decided this one was good since it offered a number of actual images showing that the virus had been isolated, which was the point.
hv do you have (or link citation) for the original montagnier and gallo paper where they lied/claimed to have isolated "hiv"....?.i will find it soon just seeing
No, I have never seen it.