 |
 | 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 2007Definition of AIDS?
In 1993 the definition of AIDS was changed in the U.S. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7DB133EF930A35751C0A963958260 Does anybody know where I can find information on such points of redefinition. I am especially interested in Europe/Germany. Max Maxwell Hamilton wrote... > In 1993 the definition of AIDS was changed in the U.S. > > http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7DB133EF930A35751C0A963958260 > > Does anybody know where I can find information on such points of redefinition. I am > especially interested in Europe/Germany. Nobody really cares how "AIDS" is defined anymore, because whether someone is infected with HIV is much more important than whether they show the terminal symptoms of the infection that is described as AIDS. It is the symptom-free HIV carriers who are the most dangerous, while AIDS patients tend to look sickly and can be avoided. > Maxwell Hamilton wrote... >> In 1993 the definition of AIDS was changed in the U.S. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Nobody really cares how "AIDS" is defined anymore ... Yes, this is the problem. So most people blindly accept the still unproven "HIV causes AIDS" hypothesis. Thanks for your informative post. Max > > Maxwell Hamilton wrote... > >> In 1993 the definition of AIDS was changed in the U.S. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7DB133EF930A35751C0A963958260 > >> Does anybody know where I can find information on such points of redefinition. I am > >> especially interested in Europe/Germany. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yes, this is the problem. So most people blindly accept the still > unproven "HIV causes AIDS" hypothesis. I disagree with HIV causes AIDS as well. That is as silly as saying the common cold causes pneumonia. Maxwell Hamilton wrote... > "dank" <dank@nugget.org> escribió las palabras brillentes... >>Nobody really cares how "AIDS" is defined anymore ... > > Yes, this is the problem. So most people blindly accept the still > unproven "HIV causes AIDS" hypothesis. Even you blindly follow the "HIV causes AIDS" hypothesis unless you are willing to inject yourself with the virus to prove how harmless it is. >Maxwell Hamilton wrote... >> "dank" <dank@nugget.org> escribió las palabras brillentes... >>>Nobody really cares how "AIDS" is defined anymore ... >> Yes, this is the problem. So most people blindly accept the still >> unproven "HIV causes AIDS" hypothesis. >Even you blindly follow the "HIV causes AIDS" hypothesis unless you are >willing to inject yourself with the virus to prove how harmless it is. Been there, done that. Whatever this stuff you call HIV is, it's harmless.  Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 >> Nobody really cares how "AIDS" is defined anymore ... >Yes, this is the problem. So most people blindly accept the still >unproven "HIV causes AIDS" hypothesis. Yes, they do. However I have a feeling that is about to change. To go back to your original point, a patient diagnosed 'HIV antibody positive' and with a CD4 count lower than 200 has AIDS in the US. But here in the UK and elsewhere in the world the definition of AIDS is different. Take my case, for example. I was diagnosed HIV+ almost thirteen years ago and my last CD4 count, done on the 29 March, was 100. A month before that it was 97, and a month previous to that it was 155. Based on these figures I would be diagnosed with AIDS in the US, however here in the UK I'm simply HIV+. How can that be? Earlier this year, after disclosing my CD4 count, one regular here predicted I'd be dead before the end of Summer. Well, I'm still here and I'm still not ill. Fortunately I don't live in the US, so I don't have AIDS. Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 >>> Nobody really cares how "AIDS" is defined anymore ... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yes, they do. However I have a feeling that is about to change. > ... I hope so and think the web might be very helpful. It is a new aera of information exchange. In this regard YouTube and Google Video might be our friends :) > To go back to your original point, a patient diagnosed 'HIV antibody > positive' and with a CD4 count lower than 200 has AIDS in the US. But [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Based on these figures I would be diagnosed with AIDS in the US, > however here in the UK I'm simply HIV+. How can that be? Yes, I know this below 200 category. In Germany you also would be HIV+ 'only'. This is the last redefinition I know of which took place in 1993 in US. I wanted to exclude, that a redefinition effect caused an artifact in the figures. I see a very bad development for of the mortality between 1995 and 1998, the time HAART was introduced. I see this as hint that HAART may have caused this development and thus still is dangerous. Well, who wonders. Here in Germany first therapy suggestions still recommend the use of AZT!? > Earlier this year, after disclosing my CD4 count, one regular here > predicted I'd be dead before the end of Summer. Well, I'm still here > and I'm still not ill. Fortunately I don't live in the US, so I don't > have AIDS. The german dissident physician Dr. Juliane Sacher said, she has patients with CD4 of zero living healthy since years. Max P.S. I'd have some little private questions. Are you concerned by your low CD4 count? Do you consider alternative therapies? Are there dissident physicians in UK? >> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:36:24 +0100, "Maxwell Hamilton" >> Take my case, for example. I was diagnosed HIV+ almost thirteen years [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Well, who wonders. Here in Germany first therapy suggestions still >recommend the use of AZT!? Yes, the figures do suggest that what we call HIV/AIDS was in decline before AZT was resurrected from the poisons cabinet of the 1960s. Presumably you know AZT was developed to treat cancer in the 1960s, but was shelved because it was toxic and dangerous. AZT killed a lot of people, and dramatically inflated AIDS death figures. HIV-2 was invented to explain why people in rich countries who took AZT were dying faster than their counterparts in Africa who didn't have access to it. And, of course more and more people were being encouraged to go for "the HIV test," and this lead to more diagnosed cases. A theory I share with others is that what triggers the so-called HIV antibody response (HIV+ test) is something that's naturally found in all of us. Some people just have higher quantities of it. This is proved by the fact that EVERYONE tests HIV+. It's just that those with a result above a certain threshold are labeled HIV+ and those below it are HIV-. >> Earlier this year, after disclosing my CD4 count, one regular here >> predicted I'd be dead before the end of Summer. Well, I'm still here >> and I'm still not ill. Fortunately I don't live in the US, so I don't >> have AIDS. >The german dissident physician Dr. Juliane Sacher said, she has patients >with CD4 of zero living healthy since years. And who's to say a CD4 count of zero isn't perfectly normal? The discovery of CD4 came after HIV and AIDS. And CD4's history only goes back as far as the late 1970s - we've discussed that here before. CD4, HIV and AIDS have been bonded together in history. Virtually all studies involving CD4 also focuses on HIV and AIDS. As far as I'm aware there isn't any research that tell us what an average CD4 count should be. And I argue that a low CD4 count is a sign of someone who's immune system is in good health. >P.S. I'd have some little private questions. Are you concerned by your low >CD4 count? Do you consider alternative therapies? Are there dissident >physicians in UK? No, I'm not concerned about my CD4 count at all. Some people who read my messages here probably picture me as being very thin and weak, and constantly sat on the toilet dealing with a stream of diarrhea. The reality is completely different to that. I don't use any alternative therapies. The only medication I take is Prozac for depression and Zopiclone to ease my problem sleeping. Millions of people in the UK take Prozac, and it wouldn't surprise me if Zopiclone was prescribed to several hundred thousand people at a time here. I've been away from the 'dissident' mailing lists for a while, so I'm not totally up to speed concerning dissident physicians here, but I believe there are some. Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 >Maxwell Hamilton wrote... >> In 1993 the definition of AIDS was changed in the U.S. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Does anybody know where I can find information on such points of redefinition. I am >> especially interested in Europe/Germany. >Nobody really cares how "AIDS" is defined anymore, because whether someone >is infected with HIV is much more important than whether they show the >terminal symptoms of the infection that is described as AIDS. It is the >symptom-free HIV carriers who are the most dangerous, while AIDS patients >tend to look sickly and can be avoided. I suggest that in these cases "AIDS," or more accurately IDS (Immune Deficiency Syndrome), is caused by something other than "HIV." Perhaps being told you're going to die prematurely and being pumped full of dangerous drugs has something to do with it? Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >Maxwell Hamilton wrote... > >> In 1993 the definition of AIDS was changed in the U.S. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7DB133EF930A35751C0A963958260 > >> Does anybody know where I can find information on such points of redefinition. I am > >> especially interested in Europe/Germany. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > being told you're going to die prematurely and being pumped full of > dangerous drugs has something to do with it? Death from AIDS happened years before the drugs showed up so that statement doesn't have legs. If anything, the damn drugs are allowing faggots to live longer and infected more of the population. The number of AIDS cases for the het population was just reduced. It wasn't bad numbers, it was PC numbers. The faggot lobby wanted everyone to think they were at risk just like the real risk of behavior that invites HIV. If indeed the number of cases are millions less, then I expect to see money allocated for that millions returned to the kitty. I expect that to happen just about the time pigs fly. >> I suggest that in these cases "AIDS," or more accurately IDS (Immune >> Deficiency Syndrome), is caused by something other than "HIV." Perhaps [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >If anything, the damn drugs are allowing faggots to live longer >and infected more of the population. The HIV wonder drugs have directly killed lots of people, it's just that they take longer to do their job now. I suppose drug companies were concerned about killing off their profitable customers early, when they could stretch their deaths out over years, or decades. And I suppose it got a bit embarrassing for doctors when patients on the HIV wonder drugs were dropping like flies, while patients who didn't take the drugs continued to live. >The number of AIDS cases for the het population was just reduced. >It wasn't bad numbers, it was PC numbers. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >If indeed the number of cases are millions less, then I expect to see >money allocated for that millions returned to the kitty. Gay activists have managed to kill more people than the Nazi's could ever have dreamed of. I think governments, the medical establishment and drug companies have all been willing to go along with the ruse for various reasons, often naivety. Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 Martin wrote... > I suggest that in these cases "AIDS," or more accurately IDS (Immune > Deficiency Syndrome), is caused by something other than "HIV." Perhaps > being told you're going to die prematurely and being pumped full of > dangerous drugs has something to do with it? I know a loser with HIV who has been kept "alive" for over 10 years with the "dangerous" drugs. He was quite ill before, and unfortunately he now appears healthy and poses a risk to anyone dumb enough to let him f.ck them in the a.s. I do wonder what environmental factor or pathogen other than HIV that accounts for AIDS if not HIV. It is true that the immune system can be damaged by chemical exposure, but it just seems like an odd coincidence that so many exposures to Chemical X occur in people who carry the harmless HIV virus. A more logical and scientific explanation is that you are insane.
|
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.