 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / November 2007What if I were new to this group?
Dear reader, I don't know how many people are out there who are new to this group.I remember, when I was new to this group, I was trying to find some orientation. I heard or read about the dissidents opinions and I felt I could not judge what I was reading. Indeed I had a little hope, their opinions are not totally wrong. But it all sounded like strange conspiracy theories. After two years of studying the subject, I think I should start to inform and help other people. You should not be afraid of collecting information. Try to use your own brain. Try to gather as much information as possible. My opinion is, that there is much misinformation concerning the matter. One of the very first points is the defamation of the so called dissidents. Dissidents are considered 'scientific cranks'. This simply isn't true. You can inform yourself for example at http://www.visrumyth.org or http://www.suppressedscience.net/aids.html I will continue reporting on the matter in further posts. Max Max: When I first heard about Duesberg, I didn't give "dissidency" a second thought. It was only when I was wasting away that I ran into "AIDS wasting syndrome," and by then I had a stronger biomedical background, that I could understand what he was saying (and I was also much more interested in learning about such issues). What I would now like to see is the "orthodoxy" do some basic research. Collect fresh, non-"stimulated" blood from "high viral load" people and also people who are "HIV negative" but afflicted with RA and lupus, and also who are subjecting their bodies to powerful stressors, and take a look at these samples under the EM. I doubt there will be much if any difference, and "HIV" (the textbook descriptions of it) will either be in all of the samples or none. This would be a great way to demonstrate that the "dissidents" are wrong (as well as being cheap and easy to do), but it won't be done because it will likely do the opposite, and that would give the "dissidents" too much "ammunition," as well as jeopardizing profits, careers, etc. The "orthodoxy" might not be comprised of very good scientists, but they are smart enough to realize this much. > Max: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > not be comprised of very good scientists, but they are smart enough to > realize this much. Monty, have you seen http://www.duesberg.com/articles/Predictive%20Value%20of%20%20Plasma%20HIV%20RNA %20Level%20on%20Rate%20of%20CD4%20T-Cell%20Decline%20in%20Untreated%20HIV%20Infe ction.pdf a current 'orthodox' research project cited by Duesberg at http://www.duesberg.com/articles/index.html (s. first paper) OK, it is not the comparison you are talking about, but at least it shows that HIV level does not predict CD4 decline rate in untreated individuals. This currently seems to be huge problem in 'orthodox' understanding, leading to a new theorie presented by NIH fellow Dr. M. Lederman at the IAS 2007*. Now HIV is not capable of destroying CD4 cells anymore. Up to IAS 2007 I thought only 'scientific cranks' would utter such opinions**. Max * Conference held in Sydney, s. http://www.ias2007.org/ and 'How HIV Makes You Sick: Mechanisms of CD4 T Cell Loss and Recovery' which can be viewed at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/hcast_index.cfm?display=detail&hc=2229 ** It is an old 'dissident's' point that HIV cannot cause CD4 decline, basically because HIV level is too low. Scientists today are generally too "specialized," whereas I was taught to understand the issue at hand more comprehensively at first, and that is what I tried to do with "infectious disease." You can see some of the results on my research on my free site: http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum- Some key points: 1. Conditions make "germs" more "clingy" (not my term), prompting an inflammatory response. 2. The inflammatory response does the actual damage. 3. It is impossible for a viral infection to kill someone years after the initial encounter, unless something else is occurring. What this means is that if you are in ideal health and are infected by a virus, you will either die fairly soon or else the virus itself will not kill you. The body can compensate for the loss of some CD4 cells, assuming the person is healthy. 4. Real retroviruses ("HIV" is likely a lab artifact) are effects and not causes. When the "orthodoxy" sought actual "HIV" particles, they found microvesicles. A new study (cited on my site) has found that microvesicles/microparticles can generate PGE2 (if you have AA in your cells, which almost all "civilized" peoples now do, due to dietary changes beginning in the early 1960s in the USA, for example). PGE2 is highly immunosuppressive. 5. "Oxidizing agents," including some foods, can, especially over time, lead to the generation of "auto-antibodies," because the oxidized agents modify/damage all kinds of biomolecules, which the body then attacks as "foreign." If this continues, evidence suggests strongly that the body will down regulate Th1 response, in order to prevent an "auto-immune" response. This will result in what I call "classic AIDS" (as opposed to similar problems brought about by malnutrition, for example). There really isn't much mystery in "HIV/AIDS," scientifically. It is now of interest mostly in the socio-political context, and how things "play out" over time (also called "history"). <monty1945@lycos.com> wrote in message > now of interest mostly in the socio-political context, and how things > "play out" over time (also called "history"). http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1105072jenkem1.html in the morning, my friend's CD4 can go as high as 600, then some days, as low as 200 but i ask myself, why do still so many people die? some say, pneumonia, but do a lot of ppl get pneumonia in the west and die ? > <monty1...@lycos.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:1194306035.143512.229060@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > in the morning, my friend's CD4 can go as high as 600, then some days, > as low as 200 > but i ask myself, why do still so many people die? http://www.hivandhepatitis.com/hiv_aids.html > in the morning, my friend's CD4 can go as high as 600, then some days, > as low as 200 > but i ask myself, why do still so many people die? some say, > pneumonia, but do a lot of ppl get pneumonia in the west and die ? > ... Nick, where do many people die? All over the world as stated by WHO, while their error estimates clearly demonstrates, we cannot assume HIV incidence is raising faster than incline in world population and we cannot be sure we have an incline at all. Sorry, I am concerned most about Germany. Only very few people die here in Germany, about 500 per year, declining since 1998 by 1.5 percent per year. This is perfect endemic - as opposed to epi- or pandemic, marking the most uninportant disease in this country. I fear, cautiously estimating, that at least 12.5% die from *therapy*, but I find strong hints, this figure might be higher. Max "AIDS" is real, in that people can die of a Th1 to Th2 shift or other "immune system" dysfunctions. The question is why? Bobby G. and others claimed that non-specific markers they found could only mean a "retrovirus" was to blame, but now it's clear that "retroviruses" are effects and not causes, though presumably if you could get enough "retroviral" particles together and keep "infecting" someone or some thing, it would cause problems, just as drinking too much water could lead to death. This is not what happens in reality, since the best EM attempt to find "HIV" found mostly microvesicles. Nick Chan seems to be caught in the semantic trap of assuming that "experts" who make claims about cause of death are actually doing science. The reality is that they are just following local protocols, and not doing things like looking for actual "HIV" particles in those said to have died of "AIDS" (and of course this should be done in others, to see if it's true for everyone or if it's a lab artifact - that is, proper controls should be used). There is the "idiopathic" category of immune system failure/dysfunction in the USA, but ask some people and see if any of them has ever heard of it, which brings up the importance of the "mainstream media" in determining what people know and what people believe, when of course this should be a matter decided by the scientific method, not pundits or the "experts" they decide to interview on the subject. thanks for the reply im asking all these because of my serology it is personally comforting to "know" alternative theories, and at the same time, trying to be careful in what to believe, as it is matter of life & death to me. i'll need some time reading your reply monty, english not my mother tongue :-) On Nov 9, 2:44 pm, monty1...@lycos.com wrote: > "AIDS" is real, in that people can die of a Th1 to Th2 shift or other > "immune system" dysfunctions. The question is why? Bobby G. and [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > scientific method, not pundits or the "experts" they decide to > interview on the subject. Monty, thanks for your valuable hints. > "AIDS" is real, in that people can die of a Th1 to Th2 shift or other > "immune system" dysfunctions. The question is why? > ... I know that "AIDS" is real. It is a perfect misunderstanding if one thinks I doubt that. I just had a close look on German statistics, which was revealing. The figures show trends and rate changes which have consequences. The most remarkable finding is, we had an "AIDS epidemic*" and the "epidemic" is over since 1998 [1]. 'Orthodox' physicians now fear, there might be a second epidemic wave which might be more destructive and think we should be cautious [2]. The consequence of the "epidemic" being over is, we now have an endemic disease. We have no increasing problem here in Germany. The number of AIDS cases is roughly constant since 1998. Furthermore the number is slightly decreasing by 1.5 % each year. Meanwhile the german government publishes a plan [3] on how to deal with the AIDS matter, which suggests we have an increasing problem by looking at the global situation and not considering or talking about the German situation. This is misleading, it is misinformation and thus propaganda. Max * I quote the word epidemic because I think we should use it for an infectious disease. Indeed I doubt that the thing whichs looks like an epidemic is a infectious effect. I think it is a toxic effect that demonstrates the danger of (AZT) therapy. [1] s. WHO statistic web database, freely downloadable [2] "Oder droht 25 Jahre nach der ersten Epidemiewelle eine zweite Welle, die deutlich destruktiver wird?" (engl.: "Or are we threatened by a second epidemic wave 25 years after the first, which might be much more destructive?") From HIV.Net 2005 (unfortunately in 2007 revised and removed in HIV.Net 2007 - I can provide the old paper/pdf) www.hiv.net [3] Aktionsplan zur Umsetzung der HIV/AIDS Bekämpfungsstrategie der Bundesregierung http://www.bmg.bund.de/cln_040/nn_603390/SharedDocs/Publikationen/Praevention/ak tionsplan-aids,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/aktionsplan-aids.pdf |
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.