TED Conversations

Lena Gorska

Translation | Communication, ATD - Le Quart Monde


This conversation is closed.

Should we support national legislations for mandatory, free of charge and confidential HIV testing of everyone who does blood test?

Considering the tragic magnitude and destructive power of AIDS and the general welfare of the society, as well as people who suffer from AIDS or who are HIV positive, should we support national legislations for mandatory, free of charge and confidential testing of everyone who does blood test?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jan 14 2013: Sorry for SHOUTING at everybody. I apologize. I get so worked up about wilful public deception.

    This is not about you nor me. And evidence is equally lacking for the official viewpoint. I am an individual concerned about the reality that people are dying. I am also concerned for my own personal safety which apparently is not the primary concern of the companies and agencies we depend on some of the time. This requires public scrutiny of both the information provided and the source. Is this not the purpose of TED.com?

    Similarly, anyone medical professional who opposes the now established and well-financed claim that HIV Causes AIDS is not commended for his "personal" research but is equally ridiculed and ostracized by his professional peers. Therefore no "respectable HIV/AIDS related institution" can be trusted for unbiased information anymore... at least not with so much money to go around whenever the "flu" is called "AIDS" instead.

    Here is the most compelling evidence to me so far: scientists are now finding people naturally immune to AIDS. Does this not break the HIV Test if it is the same antibodies that would get you tested "positive" are producing the immunity. And did they just become immune or weren't they immune all the time? I'll start with that.
    • Jan 16 2013: Antonio,

      Medical professionals or any scientist who opposes a well-established theory has to provide an alternative theory, and evidence that supports it. Otherwise indeed, they face the ridicule of their peers. Scientific research does not exist for everybody to give his personal opinion, but to try to determine what is the absolute truth. You think you are a hero defying the worldwide conspiration of big pharmas? What about the millions of researchers who have conducted research on HIV? They are all in the conspiracy? I have personally amplified HIV DNA and compared sequences from patients. I searched databases, draw conclusions from evidence gathered after long months of painful research. If there was bribe money, me and my colleagues did not see the color of it.

      For HIV to enter an immune cell, it needs to "hijack" one of two surface proteins: CCR5 or CxCR4 which are proteins your immune system normally uses to sense chemokines, a type of immune messenger. People who have a certain version of the CCR5 receptor (called delta-32 because it consist in a deletion of 32 amino acids in the protein sequence) are not immune to infection, but take much more time to progress to clinical AIDS. So much that they actually get old or die from something else before developping the disease. They have very low levels of virus in their blood, meaning they are unlikely to pass it to their partners. So yes, they were "immune" all the time (but not in the same sense that immune from a vaccine), and yes, they still develop antibodies that can be detected with a HIV test if they are infected. They do not develop these antibodies if they are not infected.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.