Old "HIV/AIDS" hypothesis gone - now what is the claim?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

monty1945@lycos.com - 11 Sep 2007 22:06 GMT

QUOTE: ..after more than six years, we are sure that CD4 depletion by
itself does not necessarily result in progression to AIDS". UNQUOTE.

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070906145322.htm

Perhaps now we can all agree that "HIV" is not the cause of "AIDS,"
though what is considered "HIV" may indeed be an effect of certain
stressors (such as the PGE2 in semen, "popper" use, IV drug use,
excessive foreign antigen exposure, etc.).

Reply to this Message

Death - 11 Sep 2007 23:03 GMT

<monty1945@lycos.com> wrote in message

> QUOTE: ..after more than six years, we are sure that CD4 depletion by
> itself does not necessarily result in progression to AIDS". UNQUOTE.

Has anyone ever said CD4 depletion by itself does indeed constitute AIDS?

I'd dare say that HIV (CD4 depletion) plus an OI (which results in death)
has been made abundantly clear to constitute AIDS.

Reply to this Message

Maxwell Hamilton - 12 Sep 2007 00:27 GMT

> <monty1945@lycos.com> wrote in message
>
>> QUOTE: ..after more than six years, we are sure that CD4 depletion by
>> itself does not necessarily result in progression to AIDS". UNQUOTE.
>
> Has anyone ever said CD4 depletion by itself does indeed constitute AIDS?

Of course. Common theory says CD4 count is the distance between the
running train and the cliff. When the train reaches the cliff it will crash - period => AIDS

So the distance to the cliff must be held as high as possible. How do we achieve
this? Right, we keep viral load low, because the virus is responsible for directly
killing T-Cells (Only a scientific crank can doubt). How can we achive this?
We apply AZT. Oh no, sorry, doesn't really work convincingly - too toxic. So
we apply an NRTI. Oh no, sorry, doesn't really work - besides toxic. So, an
NNRTI - mmmh - only in rare cases and a bit toxic. How silly, since 1996 we
have the solution: PIs. Aaah, but wait, applied exclusively not really helpful
and - you might haved guessed - a bit toxic. But this is dumb history, today
everything is much better. We combine some of these substances and have
a modern HAART. Bingo - works fine - nearly digestible. Look - it is
not noxious. Unfortunately it show some mitochondrial toxic effect!?!

Who is the crank?

> I'd dare say that HIV (CD4 depletion) plus an OI (which results in death)
> has been made abundantly clear to constitute AIDS.

In what fantasy worl do you live?

Reply to this Message

Maxwell Hamilton - 12 Sep 2007 00:47 GMT

> QUOTE: ..after more than six years, we are sure that CD4 depletion by
> itself does not necessarily result in progression to AIDS". UNQUOTE.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> stressors (such as the PGE2 in semen, "popper" use, IV drug use,
> excessive foreign antigen exposure, etc.).

Thanks for the reference. Together with Mr. Ledermann's interesting talk at IAS2007

see

www.ias2007.org

or

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/player.cfm?id=3373&play=4

this is remarkably. So they now they admit essential 'dissident' notions!

Best Regards
Max

Reply to this Message

Rolf Martens - 12 Sep 2007 10:07 GMT

>QUOTE: ..after more than six years, we are sure that CD4 depletion by
>itself does not necessarily result in progression to AIDS". UNQUOTE.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>stressors (such as the PGE2 in semen, "popper" use, IV drug use,
>excessive foreign antigen exposure, etc.).

Yes. And there isn't even any "HIV", nor even any other
diseasecausing viruses. The "established" medicine is all
wrong on this.

As I wrote elsewhere too, check out my homepage,
for instance, on this. The guys to read are Stefan Lanka
and Ryke Geerd Hamer - I'm quoting from their quite
sensational stuff.

Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com

Reply to this Message

monty1945@lycos.com - 12 Sep 2007 22:12 GMT

Well, can someone please state "HIV/AIDS" as a formal, scientific
hypothesis? You can't have science without a clear hypothesis, so
that it can be tested. But since you won't find "HIV" in semen or the
milk of pregnant women who have "high viral loads," it should have
never gotten to the point of people making such claims about CD4
levels in the first place. However, the reason why OIs are said to
occur is because of the low CD4 counts - there would be no reason to
have OI problems if the CD4 counts were "normal," according to the
"orthodoxy." Now if you have a citation from the head of the CD or
someone like that, claiming that "HIV" causes OIs for some reason
other than low CD4 counts, then by all means go ahead and post it
here.

Reply to this Message

Rate this thread: