 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / May 2007Location, location, location
Here's an interesting video about how inaccurate the 'HIV test' is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi7wo2KTkaQ And a website with some more information: http://www.helpforhiv.com/ Oh, and I love this disclaimer: http://www.helpforhiv.com/insert.htm "SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood." We all know the virus can't be found, but now they can't even find the antibodies.  SignatureURL: http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ Moible: +447939991519 >Here's an interesting video about how inaccurate the 'HIV test' is: There's all kind of itneresting things on the web. There are also sites that talk about HIV testing specificity and sensitivity. As I recall, the claims made in the URLs you posted were shown to be disingenuous distortions. Bottom line: if the tests don't show evidence of HIV disease, no diagnostic tests work at all. Any genuinely interested person can do a google search. Anyone that's made his or her mind up to believe the denialist lies are entitled to believe whatever nonsense they wish. And if they are HIV+, they'll wind up dead of AIDS most likely. George M. Carter >>Here's an interesting video about how inaccurate the 'HIV test' is: >There's all kind of itneresting things on the web. There are also >sites that talk about HIV testing specificity and sensitivity. Yes there are. And the conscientious of opinion is that there is no test to detect the presence of HIV. And HIV antibody tests are non-specific and inaccurate. Not only that, the result of the test are interpreted differently throughout the world, which means someone in one country would be diagnosed HIV+ based on a particular result, but HIV- in another country. >As I recall, the claims made in the URLs you posted were shown to be >disingenuous distortions. In that they don't fit in with your view that HIV=AIDS=Death? >Bottom line: if the tests don't show evidence of HIV disease, no >diagnostic tests work at all. LOL. That's a very bold statement to make. Of course there's no evidence to back it up. >Any genuinely interested person can do a google search. Anyone that's >made his or her mind up to believe the denialist lies are entitled to >believe whatever nonsense they wish. And if they are HIV+, they'll >wind up dead of AIDS most likely. Oh well, at least you've still got an open mind. :) :) :) SignatureURL: http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ Moible: +447939991519 >>>Here's an interesting video about how inaccurate the 'HIV test' is: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >test to detect the presence of HIV. And HIV antibody tests are >non-specific and inaccurate. LOL...I think you were looking for "consensus" and the statements you have made are in fact NOT the consensus. ELISA and Western blot detect antibodies to HIV, the immunological response to infection. This is common for many diagnostic tests of infection. But you know--this has all been explained to you previously and clearly you are immune at the very least to the truth. You are quite entitled to believe the right wing ditherings of Duesberg or the Perth nut cases as you wish. I hope you don't die of AIDS too soon--but you probably will. I'm not saying that to be cruel or mean--but I've just seen it over and over and over again. The most recent and famous being David Pasquarelli. We all die. George M. Carter >>>>Here's an interesting video about how inaccurate the 'HIV test' is: >>>There's all kind of itneresting things on the web. There are also >>>sites that talk about HIV testing specificity and sensitivity. >>Yes there are. And the conscientious of opinion is that there is no >>test to detect the presence of HIV. And HIV antibody tests are >>non-specific and inaccurate. >LOL...I think you were looking for "consensus" and the statements you >have made are in fact NOT the consensus. LOL, LOL, LOL. I thought that looked odd, but I believed the spell checker probably knew what it was doing. LOL, LOL, LOL. >ELISA and Western blot detect antibodies to HIV, the immunological >response to infection. This is common for many diagnostic tests of >infection. It's a bit of a bold statement to say those test detect antibodies to HIV. We've already discussed how they return false positive results, and how ELISA is especially unreliable. Don't antibodies indicate immunity, rather than current infection? >But you know--this has all been explained to you previously and >clearly you are immune at the very least to the truth. I wouldn't call it true; a theory, but not truth. >I hope you don't die of AIDS too soon--but you probably will. I'm not >saying that to be cruel or mean--but I've just seen it over and over >and over again. The most recent and famous being David Pasquarelli. Don't worry: I'm sure I'll be around for a while longer. BTW, my CD4 count is now in double digits! >We all die. I know, and it's not a very pleasant experience. SignatureURL: http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ Moible: +447939991519 >>>>>Here's an interesting video about how inaccurate the 'HIV test' is: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >LOL, LOL, LOL. I thought that looked odd, but I believed the spell >checker probably knew what it was doing. LOL, LOL, LOL. Well, you didn't. It's absolutely not the consensus. >>ELISA and Western blot detect antibodies to HIV, the immunological >>response to infection. This is common for many diagnostic tests of >>infection. > >It's a bit of a bold statement to say those test detect antibodies to >HIV. OK, you're either being silly or you're rather dense. Many diagnostic tests for infections test for antibodies to those infections. Usually a variety of tools may be used to figure out what ails a person. Syphilis: http://www.aafp.org/afp/20030715/283.html Dark field microscopy can see something as big as a spirochete but is not a definitive test. Non-specific or specific antibody tests can be confirmatory of infection. Gonorrhea and syphilis: http://www.who.int/std_diagnostics/literature_reviews/Issue_9/issue9_sum_chan_18.htm Interesting set of diagnostic techniques for rhinoviruses: http://lib.bioinfo.pl/meid:68872 A variety of tests for influenza infection: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/labprocedures.htm H. pylori is more effectively diagnosed serologically (antibodies): http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1572-0241.1998.00411.x/abs/ Antibodies to H. pylori do not indicate a cleared infection, despite the deranghed rantings of Duesberg. Schistosomiasis: http://jcp.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/57/11/1193 >We've already discussed how they return false positive results, >and how ELISA is especially unreliable. No, it is not especially unreliable and the hysterical comments made by denialists that exaggerate the issue As discussed elsewhere: http://aidsmyth.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_archive.html http://aidsmyth.blogspot.com/2004/12/liam-scheff-sadly-misleads.html http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/09/pathetic_statistics_from_hivai.php >Don't antibodies indicate immunity, rather than current infection? They indicate an immune response. The battle is under way. That does not mean the immune system always wins. For Duesberg to make the claim that antibody production means you're "cured" is just breathtakingly idiotic. >>But you know--this has all been explained to you previously and >>clearly you are immune at the very least to the truth. > >I wouldn't call it true; a theory, but not truth. Darling, then the world not being flat could be called a "theory." That's an abuse of the term. >>I hope you don't die of AIDS too soon--but you probably will. I'm not >>saying that to be cruel or mean--but I've just seen it over and over >>and over again. The most recent and famous being David Pasquarelli. > >Don't worry: I'm sure I'll be around for a while longer. I'm not worried. >BTW, my CD4 count is now in double digits! If true, even if by that you mean 99, that puts you at risk for a variety of opportunistic infections that will be unpleasant at the least, lethal at the worst. >>We all die. > >I know, and it's not a very pleasant experience. Antiretroviral therapy will probably bring your CD4 count into the triple digits and provide a longer life. George M. Carter >Well, you didn't. It's absolutely not the consensus. Manufactures aren't as confident about their test kits as you are, see http://www.healtoronto.com/testkits.html. >>>ELISA and Western blot detect antibodies to HIV, the immunological >>>response to infection. This is common for many diagnostic tests of >>>infection. >>It's a bit of a bold statement to say those test detect antibodies to >>HIV. >OK, you're either being silly or you're rather dense. Many diagnostic >tests for infections test for antibodies to those infections. Usually >a variety of tools may be used to figure out what ails a person. We're discussing 'HIV,' not a carefully selected list of other medical problems. HIV test results are not repeatable, and are interpreted differently from one country to another. >Syphilis: >http://www.aafp.org/afp/20030715/283.html >Dark field microscopy can see something as big as a spirochete but >is not a definitive test. Non-specific or specific antibody tests can >be confirmatory of infection. >Gonorrhea and syphilis: >http://www.who.int/std_diagnostics/literature_reviews/Issue_9/issue9_sum_chan_18.htm At least there are other types of tests available for Gonorrhea and Syphilis, and non-specific antibody tests are not the only thing relied upon for diagnosis. >Interesting set of diagnostic techniques for rhinoviruses: >http://lib.bioinfo.pl/meid:68872 "The overall rate of pathogen identification in 159 swabs from adult asthmatics increased from 28% when only cell culture and serology were used to 57% when these methods were supplemented by PVnRT-PCR." Hardly impressive. >A variety of tests for influenza infection: >http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/labprocedures.htm "Routine serological testing for influenza requires paired acute and convalescent sera, does not provide results to help with clinical decision-making, is only available at a limited number of public health or research laboratories and is not generally recommended, except for research and public health investigations. Serological testing results for human influenza on a single serum specimen is not interpretable and is not recommended." "...not generally recommended..." >H. pylori is more effectively diagnosed serologically (antibodies): >http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1572-0241.1998.00411.x/abs/ "Conclusions: Serological evidence of H. pylori infection was consistently greater than the prevalence of infection documented by biopsy methods in this study, suggesting suppression or recent clearance of infection. Further studies are needed to examine the factors that may affect the detection of H. pylori infection." Note the part which reads "...suggesting suppression or recent clearance of infection." SignatureURL: http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ Moible: +447939991519 >>Well, you didn't. It's absolutely not the consensus. > >Manufactures aren't as confident about their test kits as you are, see >http://www.healtoronto. Yes...just keep looking only at the denialist bullshit. I've already been there, done that and find it bankrupt, dishonest and distorting. Your choice. >>>>ELISA and Western blot detect antibodies to HIV, the immunological >>>>response to infection. This is common for many diagnostic tests of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >We're discussing 'HIV,' not a carefully selected list of other medical >problems. We're discussing TESTING--and the tests used to diagnose a disease like HIV infection. >HIV test results are not repeatable, and are interpreted differently >from one country to another. That's true and perhaps in some rare cases a person could be found to be HIV+ in one country and HIV- in another by testing criteria--but the reality of whether that person is HIV infected will become evidence through other follow up tests. It's how diseases are diagnosed, dear. It's not perfect--but HIV tests have FAR fewer false positive or false negative tests than many other infectious disease diagnostics. Would you argue that somebody who has TB but happens to get a false negative test result on a first go around does not have TB because the test isn't perfect? Or that the Mycobacteria tuberculosis bacteria doesn't exist?? >>Syphilis: >>http://www.aafp.org/afp/20030715/283.html [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Syphilis, and non-specific antibody tests are not the only thing >relied upon for diagnosis. There are for HIV as well. >>Interesting set of diagnostic techniques for rhinoviruses: >>http://lib.bioinfo.pl/meid:68872 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Hardly impressive. That's the point--so why aren't you arguing that rhinoviruses don't exist? Or influenza? Or H. pylori?? George M. Carter > At least there are other types of tests available for Gonorrhea and > Syphilis, and non-specific antibody tests are not the only thing > relied upon for diagnosis. Just as there are for HIV. Let's see, there is Genotype testing, Phenotype testing, several different Viral Load testing methodologies, and over a dozen different test methodologies for HIV antibody testing, and last but not least HIV can be cultured in fact culture is required by both the Genotype and Phenotype tests. Gary Stein > Don't antibodies indicate immunity, rather than current infection? As with everything else you're writing, this is just one example of the lies you have been told by denialist propaganda. Celia Fibber repeated it in her Harper's article. Antibodies against herpes zoster don't prevent it causing shingles. Antibodies against dengue can enhance the infection on secondary exposure. Antibodies against hepatitis C do not necessarily protect against chronic infection and liver damage. People undergoing transplant-related immunosuppression (to prevent organ rejection) still have high levels of circulating antibodies against pathogens like CMV but are nevertheless at risk for CMV disease and other opportunistic infections. In fact, antibody tests are used to diagnose which opportunistic infections a person needing a transplant might be at risk for, it's called "pre-transplant serology" and you can look it up. Manto probably had this done recently, ironically. Why is this? It's because for many pathogens, antibodies are not the main mediator of immune protection, T cells are. Transplant-related immunosuppression depletes memory T cells, much as HIV infection compromises these memory T cell responses. That's why rare manifestations of immunosuppression like CMV retinitis, cerebral toxoplasmosis, disseminated MAC etc. only occur in people with advanced HIV, people receiving heavy-duty immunosuppressive regimens for transplantation or people receiving some combination anticancer chemotherapies. This is why, as of 1976, only 21 cases of CMV retinitis had been reported in the entire scientific literature. You've been lied to and I'm sincerely sorry about that. Jack Levine was once in a similar position, the reason the Virusmyth website no longer has a message board is that Jack used to post there but he began to doubt AIDS denial when he got sick. His fellow denialists turned on him so viciously that the website owner took the message board down so there was no record of what happened. http://web.archive.org/web/20060221022949/http://www.virusscience.org/hiv/aids/j ack_levine.htm >You've been lied to and I'm sincerely sorry about that. Jack Levine >was once in a similar position, the reason the Virusmyth website no [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >http://web.archive.org/web/20060221022949/http://www.virusscience.org/hiv/aids/j ack_levine.htm Yes, it is interesting how the two opposing camps have to be kept apart and seem unable to communicate without throwing insults at each other. You only have to read some of the replies to my messages here to see that. Unfortunately this has led to many of the HIV/AIDS forums and mailing lists being moderated and only allowing discussions of one view or the other. Despite what others might think, I don't have a totally closed mind, and I do subscribe and read information and literature from a variety of sources both for and against the HIV and AIDS theories Believe it or not I followed the HIV=AIDS=Death theory both before and after my diagnosis. I only began questioning it when my doctors started to lose interest in me because I wasn't getting ill. When I met other people who had been diagnosed HIV+ they looked so ill and rattled on endlessly about the various drugs they had been on or were about to start taking. And when the conversation got around to me they lost interest because I wasn't on any HIV medication and my blood results were pretty normal. I really felt as though I didn't fit in with these people: I wasn't one of them. Then my viral load suddenly jumped to 25,000 and within the course of a few months I went from being a 'long term non-progressor' to being pressured in to taking HIV meds. I wasn't too keen on that and asked for another viral load test. I recall my doctor moaning about the cost, but reluctantly agreeing to one. Anyway, my next viral load test came back at about 4,000 (IIRC) so I was a 'long-term non-progressor' again. Thinking back on it I'm quite lucky I haven't spent the last seven years on unnecessary medication. Oh, and my disability benefit came up for review in 2000. Despite my health remaining the same since I was initially granted it in 1997, my application was declined. My doctor wrote that I was "asymptomatic" on the claim form. I have another claim being considered at the moment. It'll be interesting to see if I'm considered ill enough now to get disability benefit or not. And almost a year ago I was sat right here, where I am now, typing away on my computer's keyboard. Suddenly I felt a massive pain at the bottom of my rib cage and I found breathing difficult. For the first time in my life I asked for an ambulance to be called for me. My partner described my symptoms over the phone and a special car with a cardiac team was also sent to me. I thought it was wind and/or a muscle spasm: I'd had constipation for a couple of days, the ambulance crew smiled and thought the same but took me to hospital to be checked. The first nurse I saw at the hospital agreed it was probably constipation and said a doctor would probably give me something that would ease the problem. Anyway, doctor sees me and I disclose my HIV+ diagnosis. He decides I should stay in hospital for further tests. I had a chest x-ray done, gave various blood samples and spent the night hooked up to a machine monitoring my heart rate. All the tests came back okay; the x-ray showed nothing unusual. Oh, and the pain I felt had disappeared about an hour after I arrived at the hospital. The consultant pops around to see me the following morning with half a dozen trainee doctors. What do you think the diagnosis was? Go on, have a guess. Pleurisy. Yes, I can't believe it either. Apparently they thought I had Pleurisy that lasted for about three hours. I wonder if they'd have come to the same conclusion if I hadn't been diagnosed HIV+? I know what you're thinking: being rejected for disability benefit and some mistakes by a few doctors doesn't mean HIV doesn't exist. Well, that may be true. However I have to make a choice about whether I believe HIV exists or not and what its consequences are. There are many compelling arguments on both sides of the debate. After weighing up those arguments, drawing on what I've seen and experienced, and considering my personal health, I remain unconvinced about HIV. However, I am not in total denial. :) I do accept that people have died, and people are dying. But HIV? Yes, yes, yes. I know: I'm deluded. I do give this matter an awful lot of thought, but at the end of the day we must all go with what we believe is right. Over half the people on this planet believe in God. Personally I think it's more likely that HIV exists than God. Are those who believe in God deluded? For balance, I think I'll end with this quote from Jack Levine taken from the page you mentioned: "The Virus Myth webboard will not see my name on it for a long time, if ever. They repel me, these denialists. You don't know until you get ill." SignatureURL: http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ Moible: +447939991519 snip >Yes, it is interesting how the two opposing camps have to be kept >apart and seem unable to communicate without throwing insults at each >other. You mean the Perth group/"HIV doesn't exist" and the Duesberg "yes it does but it's the drugs, man" camps? >snip >>Yes, it is interesting how the two opposing camps have to be kept >>apart and seem unable to communicate without throwing insults at each >>other. >You mean the Perth group/"HIV doesn't exist" and the Duesberg "yes it >does but it's the drugs, man" camps? No, but comment did make me smile. :) SignatureURL: http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ Moible: +447939991519 snip... >Then my viral load suddenly jumped to 25,000 and within the course of >a few months I went from being a 'long term non-progressor' to being >pressured in to taking HIV meds. Ah, dearest, if you have less than 100 T cells, you are NOT a long term non-progressor. The HIV disease has progressed. >snip... >>Then my viral load suddenly jumped to 25,000 and within the course of >>a few months I went from being a 'long term non-progressor' to being >>pressured in to taking HIV meds. >Ah, dearest, if you have less than 100 T cells, you are NOT a long >term non-progressor. The HIV disease has progressed. I was referring back to about six years ago, or so. At that time my CD4 count was around the 500 to 600 mark. I was also having my CD4 count checked at another hospital because of something else I was involved in. The results there were even higher: 700 to 800. SignatureURL: http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ Moible: +447939991519 >>snip... >>>Then my viral load suddenly jumped to 25,000 and within the course of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I was referring back to about six years ago, or so. At that time my >CD4 count was around the 500 to 600 mark. And so in six years, it went from 500-600 to under 100. That's called progression. And you want to think "stress" did that? >I was also having my CD4 count checked at another hospital because of >something else I was involved in. The results there were even higher: >700 to 800. Diurnal variation might explain that--but that's not a big surprise. The issue is that your CD4 count is now at a very dangerous level. George M. Carter >And so in six years, it went from 500-600 to under 100. That's called >progression. I've only had two, very recent, tests during that period. And during the four week period between them my CD4 count dropped by 60. CD4 counts do bounce around a bit. I've asked you twice what your CD4 count is, and I notice you've ducked the question. If you don't know what it is I think you'd just say that; or if it was average or good you'd give details to prove how poor my counts are. You've previously mentioned you have Hepatitis C and you haven't been diagnosed HIV+. And you've also mentioned most of your friends have been diagnosed HIV+ and died. Are you worried you might be HIV+ yourself? Your replies to me seem very personal, and I wonder if you're really aiming them at yourself. >And you want to think "stress" did that? I think there are a few other factors too, but I'm not able to go into them. Sorry that's a bit of a cop out. If a lowering of CD4 is progression, would it be regression if my next CD4 count was higher than the previous one? :) SignatureURL: http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ Moible: +447939991519 >>And so in six years, it went from 500-600 to under 100. That's called >>progression. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >CD4 counts do bounce around a bit. Not that much bounce. >I've asked you twice what your CD4 count is, and I notice you've >ducked the question. I don't have health care--I'd be curious to know my CD4 count but it is costly and not indicated with Hep C. >If you don't know what it is I think you'd just say that; or if it was >average or good you'd give details to prove how poor my counts are. LOL...that's just stupid, dear. If you think having around 100 CD4 T cells is a sign of health...well... >You've previously mentioned you have Hepatitis C and you haven't been >diagnosed HIV+. And you've also mentioned most of your friends have >been diagnosed HIV+ and died. Are you worried you might be HIV+ >yourself? Your replies to me seem very personal, and I wonder if >you're really aiming them at yourself. Nope. I'm not projecting my life onto yours. I get tested for HIV as needed. The last one was negative and I have not engaged in behaviors that put me at risk. But humans are vulnerable creatures. You have a serious infection that you're pretending is caused by a cop out of some kind. >>And you want to think "stress" did that? > >I think there are a few other factors too, but I'm not able to go into >them. Sorry that's a bit of a cop out. It certainly is. >If a lowering of CD4 is progression, would it be regression if my next >CD4 count was higher than the previous one? :) It's a matter of the course over time and the rate of change. Your CD4 count has been steadily eroding. If it went up over the next few months or a year to above 500 without any intervention, that would be remarkable. Based on the data among thousands of people with HIV, this is very unlikely to happen. What is far more probable is that you will develop a serious OI which may kill you. Your choice. George M. Carter >It's a matter of the course over time and the rate of change. Your CD4 >count has been steadily eroding. Erm, not really. From 1995 until around 2001 my CD4 counts were pretty static and considered 'normal.' For the reasons I outlined earlier I stopped going for the tests after 2001 until recently. Now, five years later, I've had two more CD4 counts done about one month apart. The first result was about 160 and the second about 100. There is no data about me that shows a steady erosion of CD4. It could have been a very quick drop. There are many things that affect CD4 count results. Between 1997 and 1999 I was able to increase my count by at least 200 by jumping on a train and traveling to London! >If it went up over the next few months or a year to above 500 without >any intervention, that would be remarkable. Why 500? Since I was diagnosed HIV+ the target for CD4 has been dropping. A CD4 count of less than 650 and an HIV+ diagnosis used to be enough to get disability benefit here in the UK. That's been shelved because it's now known that people can carry on as normal with much lower CD4 levels. Here in the UK someone with a CD4 count over 350 wouldn't even be consider for ART unless there were exceptional circumstances. And unless the patient was keen for the drugs, many doctors would probably be quite happy for the figure to drop to 200. 200 does seem to be considered the danger level now, but a few years ago the danger level was a lot higher. Prognosis based on CD4 count is little more than guess work. Anyway, it's an interesting challenge you've set me: to get my CD4 count above the 500 mark within a year without ART. To be honest I don't think it's a very realistic target, but I'll give it a go. This is assuming your other prediction that I'll be dead within 12 months doesn't come true. :) SignatureURL: http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ Moible: +447939991519 >>It's a matter of the course over time and the rate of change. Your CD4 >>count has been steadily eroding. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >For the reasons I outlined earlier I stopped going for the tests after >2001 until recently. So you don't know how the CD4 count declined. >Now, five years later, I've had two more CD4 counts done about one >month apart. The first result was about 160 and the second about 100. They declined--perhaps suddenly, perhaps gradually. The point is they went down to what has ALWAYS been considered a dangerous level. Your other information about CD4 count levels is somewhat inaccurate. George M. Carter >>>It's a matter of the course over time and the rate of change. Your CD4 >>>count has been steadily eroding. >>Erm, not really. From 1995 until around 2001 my CD4 counts were >>pretty static and considered 'normal.' >> >>For the reasons I outlined earlier I stopped going for the tests after >>2001 until recently. >So you don't know how the CD4 count declined. As I've mentioned before, there are many things that cause CD4 results to rise and fall, sometimes by a reading of several hundred. I don't know what specifically causes each of these fluctuations, but I am aware of things in general and specific to me which could be the cause. When you've been diagnosed with am illness or condition it becomes easy to blame it for every heath problem that hits you. I wrote earlier about the absurd Pleurisy diagnosis I was given last year. Often an HIV+ diagnosis can get in the way of looking for what's at the root of a certain condition, and symptoms are ignored in favour of an HIV related diagnosis. >>Now, five years later, I've had two more CD4 counts done about one >>month apart. The first result was about 160 and the second about 100. >They declined--perhaps suddenly, perhaps gradually. The point is they >went down to what has ALWAYS been considered a dangerous level. But less dangerous than it would have been considered a few years ago. Anyway, perhaps a count of 100 is all I need at the moment. You're going to have problems explaining things if the results I get back next week show an increase in my CD4 level. :) >Your other information about CD4 count levels is somewhat inaccurate. In what way? SignatureURL: http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ Moible: +447939991519 > >>>It's a matter of the course over time and the rate of change. Your CD4 > >>>count has been steadily eroding. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > URL:http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ > Moible: +447939991519 Some info about CD$ variability: In the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS), 4000 serum samples were sent to research laboratories participating in a rigorous quality control program. The 95 percent confidence ranges were 297 to 841/mm3 for a true count of 500/mm3, and 118 to 337/mm3 for a count of 200/ mm3 (Hoover, DR. Would confirmatory retesting of CD4+ cells to verify AIDS status be too expensive? J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1993; 6:537.) There are seasonal or month-to-month changes in the CD4 cell count in healthy adults. Month-related variability in immunological test results; implications for immunological follow-up studies. (van Rood Y; Goulmy E; Blokland E; Pool J; van Rood J; van Houwelingen H. Clin Exp Immunol 1991 Nov;86(2):349-54.) There are also diurnal changes with the lowest levels at around midday and peak values at 8:30 pm. (Sources of variability in repeated T-helper lymphocyte counts from human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected patients: total lymphocyte count fluctuations and diurnal cycle are important. Malone JL; Simms TE; Gray GC; Wagner KF; Burge JR; Burke DS. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1990;3(2):144-51) Modest decreases in the CD4 cell count have been noted in acute cytomegalovirus infection, hepatitis B virus infection, tuberculosis, some bacterial infections, histoplasmosis, and after major surgery. Acute intravenous corticosteroid administration can decrease the CD4 cell count from 900/mm3 to less than 300/mm3 ( but not to profoundly low levels below 100) and chronic administration of steroids has a less pronounced effect. However, the following conditions do NOT have a significant influence on the CD4 cell count: Gender, Age in adults, Risk category, Psychologic or Physical stress, and Pregnancy. ( T-cell subsets in health, infectious disease, and idiopathic CD4+ T lymphocytopenia. Laurence J. Ann Intern Med 1993 Jul 1;119(1):55-62.) The bottom line is that a persistently low CD4 count such as yours should not be dismissed lightly or attributed to things other than HIV. If you do, you are risking your life, just like Jack Levine, who sadly went on to lose his. >The bottom line is that a persistently low CD4 count such as yours >should not be dismissed lightly or attributed to things other than >HIV. If you do, you are risking your life, just like Jack Levine, who >sadly went on to lose his. Has your research thrown up any long-term studies of the changes in CD4 counts for 'healthy' people? HIV patients have their counts measured regularly over long periods of time, usually several years. It would be interesting to compare the results with an 'HIV-' sample from similar environments. SignatureURL: http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ Moible: +447939991519 snip >As I've mentioned before, there are many things that cause CD4 results >to rise and fall, sometimes by a reading of several hundred. What are those things then? And which are applicable to you? >I don't know what specifically causes each of these fluctuations, but >I am aware of things in general and specific to me which could be the >cause. Really? Remarkable! Do tell. snip.. >But less dangerous than it would have been considered a few years ago. Bullshit. Utter raving bullshit. >Anyway, perhaps a count of 100 is all I need at the moment. Perhaps. >You're going to have problems explaining things if the results I get >back next week show an increase in my CD4 level. :) Perhaps you'll have an explanation? George M. Carter >snip >>As I've mentioned before, there are many things that cause CD4 results >>to rise and fall, sometimes by a reading of several hundred. >What are those things then? And which are applicable to you? >>I don't know what specifically causes each of these fluctuations, but >>I am aware of things in general and specific to me which could be the >>cause. >Really? Remarkable! Do tell. I'm going to be unfair and duck those questions for a while. However, there are details of the things that can cause a change in CD4 counts available on Internet. There have been some dramatic changes in my life since 2001, however the details are rather personal and I'm not willing to discuss them here. Well, not yet. >>But less dangerous than it would have been considered a few years ago. >Bullshit. Utter raving bullshit. That's not the way I see things. Doctors seem willing to let CD4 levels slide lower now before pushing patients to commit to a lifetime on HIV drugs. Maybe things are different in the US. I recall that in the late 1990s there was a 'hit it fast, hit it hard' approach to HIV there. Newly diagnosed HIV patients were prescribed drugs immediately regardless of their CD4 and viral load counts. There was a feeling here amongst some people I knew that the 'wait and see' approach of our health care system was based on cost rather than what was best for the patient. I note the 'hit it fast, hit it hard' approach seems to have been abandoned now. SignatureURL: http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ Moible: +447939991519 >>snip >>>As I've mentioned before, there are many things that cause CD4 results [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >I'm going to be unfair and duck those questions for a while. Well then end of conversation. Best of luck. George M. Carter > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:54:37 +0100, "HIVPositive" > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > - Show quoted text - http://www.aidsfraudvideo.com/ HIV=AIDS: Fact or Fraud? One of the most powerful video documentaries of our time boldly reveals the modern medical-industrial complex's dire descent into utter corruption. This feature-length expose explains exactly how the 300-Billion-dollar AID$ fraud began, why HIV can NOT be the cause of AIDS, what the real causes could be, and who manipulates the public's good intentions while poisoning hundreds of thousands with toxic drugs that cause the very disease they are supposed to prevent. This is a systematic dissection of the HIV/AID$ machine and how they hijacked a program designed to fight a worldwide plight of human suffering and drove it down the road to hell. Yet this program offers hope, inspired by the courage and articulate arguments of a group of growing voices internationally challenging the HIV=AIDS=DEATH hysteria. A MUST SEE for anyone interested in truly understanding the facts about HIV/AID$. You will meet a number of highly reputable scientists who all agree that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, including Dr. Peter Duesberg, who was the first scientist to map the genetic structure of retroviruses. He is joined by Nobel Prize winners Dr. Kary Mullis and Dr.Walter Gilbert, along with Dr. David Rasnick, an expert in the field of protease inhibitors Is HIV/AIDS the golden idol of junk science? Judge for yourself. Professionally produced, written and researched, acclaimed by physicians, scientists, journalists and humanitarians internationally, this is the video encyclopedia of HIV/AIDS dissident movement! THE defining documentary on the HIV/AIDS fraud rocketscience "rocketscience" <rocketscience13579@gmail.com> wrote in message > HIV=AIDS: Fact or Fraud? Fraud. HIV + an OI= AIDS, Fact. > "rocketscience" <rocketscience13...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > HIV+ an OI=AIDS, Fact. Sorry to disturb you, however, as shocking as it sounds, HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS. Important video relating to HIV and AIDS. http://www.aidsfraudvideo.com http://aidsmyth.addr.com/enteraidsmyth.htm http://www.amazon.com/Science-Sold-Out-Really-Cause/dp/1556436424 http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-AIDS-Virus-Peter-Duesberg/dp/0895263998 http://aras.ab.ca/rethinkers.php http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/culshaw1.html http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1430/is_n9_v14/ai_12508167 http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aids/chap6.htm http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com/producer.htm another good video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=yVcxP0wTOCo# Its not rocket science >> "rocketscience" <rocketscience13...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Sorry to disturb you, however, as shocking as it sounds, HIV is NOT >the cause of AIDS. The only thing that's disturbing about the comment is its delusional nature. And it's disturbing that HIV+ people may believe it and die prematurely as a result. > >> "rocketscience" <rocketscience13...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > And it's disturbing that HIV+ people may believe it and die > prematurely as a result. This one is a spam troller and a shill for the drug industry peddling toxic anti HIV drugs on the internet. How much did they pay you last year to sell your deadly pills? HIV people may die prematurely if they believe the lies from the drug companies. HIV drugs are poisons and cannot prolong life. HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS and the drugs are highly toxic. Important video relating to HIV and AIDS. http://www.aidsfraudvideo.com http://aidsmyth.addr.com/enteraidsmyth.htm http://www.amazon.com/Science-Sold-Out-Really-Cause/dp/1556436424 http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-AIDS-Virus-Peter-Duesberg/dp/0895263998 THE AIDS INDUSTRY AND MEDIA WANT YOU TO THINK THERE ARE ONLY A HANDFUL OF SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THE HIV-AIDS THEORY. HERE'S THE REALITY. 2,454 doubters: http://aras.ab.ca/rethinkers.php http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/culshaw1.html http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1430/is_n9_v14/ai_12508167 http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aids/chap6.htm http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com/producer.htm another good video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=yVcxP0wTOCo# snip >This one is a spam troller and a shill for the drug industry peddling >toxic anti HIV drugs on the internet. Unsupported comments from an anonymous coward. This one is Frodlet, the chicken sh.t DNCB maven of madness who no longer has the guts to sign his ex-parole officer name! Now getting his share of the pharma pie playing the Swift Boat game. I was hoping you'd find healing, dear, but looks like you're just seeing more rapid deterioration. Sad, but no surprise. George M. Carter > THE AIDS INDUSTRY AND MEDIA WANT YOU TO THINK THERE ARE > ONLY A HANDFUL OF SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THE HIV-AIDS THEORY. > HERE'S THE REALITY. 2,454 doubters: > > http://aras.ab.ca/rethinkers.php Nobel Prize winner Walter Gilbert is still on that list. When asked what he thinks these days via email, he responded: "I am afraid that those comments go back to the late 80's. At that time I was a skeptic--the argument based on Koch's postulates to try to distinguish between cause and association. However, even during that time we had several AIDS projects going within Biogen--one to try to stimulate T-independent B-cell activation (a pet approach of mine), another to develop soluble CD4--to use as an antiviral agent. That second project got to clinical trials (and failed because the virus in patients didn't have the high affinity for CD4 that the lab-grown virus had.) Today I would regard the success of the many antiviral agents which lower the virus titers (to be expected) and also resolve the failure of the immune system (only expected if the virus is the cause of the failure) as a reasonable proof of the causation argument. yours truly Walter Gilbert" Joe Sonnabend is also on that list. Here's a recent interview where he discusses his history of treating people with HIV: http://www.gmhc.org/health/treatment/ti/ti1911.html#3 So much for the accuracy of that list, which also includes cranks like Hulda Clarke and intellligent design proponents like Phillip Johnson. > > Don't antibodies indicate immunity, rather than current infection? > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > turned on him so viciously that the website owner took the message > board down so there was no record of what happened. CMV, MAC and ALL other "AIDS" diseases effect everyone prone to immune problems, and in some case not even the immune suppressed. Not just HIV 'ONLY" people. Do you not realize that EVERY AIDS disease is much older than HIV is supposed to be? If there are true "denialists" they have to be people who keep trying to prop up the HIV=AIDS lie, in spite of 25 years of CDC data that proves otherwise. They like to split hairs and grasp at straws to prove worthless points. This sort of self delusion happened with Scurvy, Pellagra and Beri beri too. These people continually ignore clinical evidence and perpetuate bad "germ theories" for decades, if not centuries and move science backwards while people suffer and take toxic drugs. They have a LONG LONG history of doing this with phony germ theories. http://www.aidsfraudvideo.com http://www.help4hiv.com > http://web.archive.org/web/20060221022949/http://www.virusscience.org/hiv/aids/j ack_levine.htm snip >CMV, MAC and ALL other "AIDS" diseases effect everyone prone to immune >problems,,,, An interesting claim! Share the data that supports it. But you know what? You're completely full of sh.t. George M. Carter > On 29 Apr 2007 16:40:33 -0700, Truth PLEASE! > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > George M. Carter Carter = Drug Company Shill >> On 29 Apr 2007 16:40:33 -0700, Truth PLEASE! >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> George M. Carter Frod = Drug Company Shill > CMV, MAC and ALL other "AIDS" diseases effect everyone prone to immune > problems, and in some case not even the immune suppressed. Not just > HIV 'ONLY" people. > Do you not realize that EVERY AIDS disease is much older than HIV is > supposed to be? http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1689089&pageindex=1 The letter at the bottom right describes all 21 cases of CMV retinitis that had occurred as of 1976. Immunological memory is very resilient, and it is incredibly difficult to deplete CMV-specific memory to the extent that CMV can reactivate and causes blindness via retinitis or disseminated infection (which is what David Pasquarelli died from). Recreational drug use cannot to it. Malnutrition cannot do it. If you don't believe me, find a study that shows that either of these things can cause someone to develop CMV disease and post it. Suddenly when HIV came along, a virus which compromises immunogical memory (cellular or T cell memory particularly), cases of CMV retinitis and disseminated CMV exploded. This is why there are no immunologists supporting AIDS denial - they know how stupid these claims are. > Here's an interesting video about how inaccurate the 'HIV test' is:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi7wo2KTkaQ > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > URL:http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ > Moible: +447939991519 I am an Ayurveda Vaidyan from Kerala State treating many difficult conditions of afflictions. My main focus is leukemia. I have treated a few cases of AIDS which were in advanced stages. After few years now all of them are living normal, with out any medication currently. I am very eager to associate with genuine research institutes in India or abroad who may probe in to the therapeutic efficacy of this treatment, which may in turn become beneficial to the whole humanity. Any wise people of goodwill who may go through these words are requested to please advocate a useful direction. Vaidyan, Kochi, India. www.jamesvaidyanhealing.com |
Reply to this Message |
 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.