Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / November 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

WARNING: Do not have anal sex even if you don't believe in "HIV."

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
montygram - 31 Oct 2005 08:27 GMT
The Perth Group agrees with the "establishment" that there appears to
be a valid correlation here (with "receptive" anal sex, that is), and I
agree, but it has nothing to do with a retrovirus, or any other
pathogen in particular.  It has to do with the fact that semen is rich
in PGE2 if you are consuming a large amount of omega 6 PUFAs, which
most Americans now are, and this has been the case since the 1970s (now
there's a good correlation too).  PGE2 is very immunosuppressive, and
if you are getting large doses of it on a regular basis in what amounts
to a suppository form, your immune system will suffer.  And then you
will be "HIV positive," your "viral load" will increase, and your "T
Cell count" will plummet.  This could certainly explain why
"dissidents" who do nothing more than have receptive anal intercourse
on a regular basis (no drug abuse, no "anti-viral cocktail") still die
of "AIDS."  In science, all reasonable possibilities need to be
explored, because two hypotheses can explain the same phenomena - that
is why properly controlled experiments must be done AND repeated.  With
"HIV/AIDS," this was not done.  An announcement was made, then they
tried to cobble together something that sounded scientific, for the
media to feed the masses.  Whatever it was, it wasn't science.
Fortunately, there is enough evidence now to explain all the phenomena
that "AIDS" is supposed to encompass (without the ludicrous claim that
a retrovirus, for no reason and over a decade later, becomes deadly and
kills in 30 different ways, which differ from one social group and one
nation to another).
Chris Noble - 31 Oct 2005 09:53 GMT
> The Perth Group agrees with the "establishment" that there appears to
> be a valid correlation here (with "receptive" anal sex, that is), and I
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> if you are getting large doses of it on a regular basis in what amounts
> to a suppository form, your immune system will suffer.

>  And then you will be "HIV positive,"

Can you explain how PGE2 causes an antibody test to test positive? Does
it also cause other antibody tests to test positive or is it only those
for HIV? Go ahead make a testable prediction.

> your "viral load" will increase,

Can you explain why viral load measurements would increase? Does this
just apply to HIV viral loads or does it apply to all RNA sequences? Go
ahead make a testable prediction.

> and your "T Cell count" will plummet.

Can you explain why it is that CD4 cells are depleted and not all
T-cells?

<snip>

Chris Noble
montygram - 31 Oct 2005 22:57 GMT
Yes, if you pay me what the establishment has been apid to investigate
the matter thoroughly.  It was known within the first few years of the
"epidemic," yet it was not investigated properly, because they made
their minds up before actually doing the science.  What appears to be
happening is that the "immune system" is being rerouted, in a sense.
Read Kremer's book, if you can read German, for a technical discussion
of the mechanisms involved.   My sense is that first comes the
immunosuppression, then the pathogens become problematic, and that
damages the body in a way that Kremer describes, leading to the
"markers" used to tell people that they "have AIDS."

Here's the first study that mentioned PGE2 in this context.  They had
the mechanism from nearly the beginning, but instead wanted to act like
they were great scientific geniuses, making "great discoveries."  PGE2
in semen was not something that would play well with the media, and no
profits could be made by just telling people to avoid it.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1986 May;83(10):3487-90.    Related Articles,
Links

Prostaglandin E2, a seminal constituent, facilitates the replication of
acquired immune deficiency syndrome virus in vitro.

Kuno S, Ueno R, Hayaishi O, Nakashima H, Harada S, Yamamoto N.

Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)-associated virus is thought
to be transmitted effectively through semen during sexual activities
from male to male or from male to female. Prostaglandin (PG) E2 is one
of the immunosuppressive compounds present in high concentrations in
human semen. We, therefore, investigated direct effects of PGE2 and
other PGs on AIDS-associated virus infection and replication in vitro.
First, type III human T-lymphotropic virus (HTLV-III) was used to
infect a T-cell line (MT-4) in culture. PGE2 (10 nM to 10 microM) added
to the culture medium enhanced the production of infectious virus in a
dose-dependent fashion. In the presence of 5 microM PGE2, 2.5-fold more
virus were released from the infected MT-4 cells as compared to
untreated control cells on day 3 after infection. Second, when we used
an HTLV-III continuous-producer cell line (Molt-4/HTLV-III), PGE2 and
PGD2 added to the culture medium increased the number of viruses
released from Molt-4/HTLV-III cells. Other PGs such as PGF2 alpha and
13,14-dihydro-15-keto PGE2 did not affect the replication of HTLV-III
in this system. These results indicate that some PGs including seminal
PGs enhance the AIDS-associated virus replication in vitro. We propose
that PGE2 in human semen might directly facilitate the infection of
AIDS-associated virus and cause the efficient transmission of the virus
during sexual activities.
Chris Noble - 02 Nov 2005 01:03 GMT
> Yes, if you pay me what the establishment has been apid to investigate
> the matter thoroughly.

You claim that other people have an alternative hypothesis for AIDS. I
am simply asking for a clear and coherent explanation of this
hypothesis and the predictions it makes. You are incapable of doing
this.

Chris Noble
montygram - 02 Nov 2005 04:51 GMT
Your reading comprehension skills appear to be wanting.  It is not my
hypothesis.  It could have been tested nearly 20 years ago.  A
suppository containing more PGE2 than most semen does would be given to
volunteers, and then you would test them a few months later to see if
they "test positive for HIV."  The volunteers should be people who
engage in the same activities as many of those who got "AIDS" in the
early days, that is, they should use antibiotics often, use common
"recreational drugs" regularly, etc., but they should not engage in any
activities that are said to "spread the virus," such as "unprotected
sex."

And then you, and anyone else who understands the scientific method,
would know.
Chris Noble - 02 Nov 2005 05:31 GMT
> Your reading comprehension skills appear to be wanting.  It is not my
> hypothesis.

But you are supporting it and making statements based on the
hypothesis.

> It could have been tested nearly 20 years ago.

It could be tested by looking at data that we have now.

> A suppository containing more PGE2 than most semen does would be given to
> volunteers, and then you would test them a few months later to see if
> they "test positive for HIV."

Why don't we take the cohort of porn actors. They regularly get
suppositories containing PGE2. Do they test HIV positive?

> The volunteers should be people who
> engage in the same activities as many of those who got "AIDS" in the
> early days, that is, they should use antibiotics often, use common
> "recreational drugs" regularly, etc., but they should not engage in any
> activities that are said to "spread the virus," such as "unprotected
> sex."

So what is it? Is it PGE2 or antibiotics or recreational drugs?
Can you come up with a coherent hypothesis?

Does PGE2 cause other antibody tests to go positive or is it just the
HIV test? If you stop your intake of PGE2 do you revert to HIV
negative?

I am simply asking for a coherent hypothesis.

> And then you, and anyone else who understands the scientific method,
> would know.

I know that if you are going to test a hypothesis you have to have a
coherent one. Despite what you might claim it is the responsibility of
the dissidents to do this. They have not done so.


Chris Noble
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.