"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:16098ac15b4cb087befdfab72d0fa8f0@localhost.ta lkabouthealthnetwork.com...
Oh Paul were did you see anyone here on in the medical literature claim that
HIV is the etiologic cause of any opportunistic infection. You have been
told that HIV does destroy the bodies immune response thus leaving it's
victims susceptible to opportunistic infections. Why do you suppose they are
called opportunistic infections in the first place?

The OI's labeled as AIDS defining are those that are so rare as to be
non-existent in patients with functioning immune systems and many of them
even extremely rare in people (such as transplant and cancer patients) with
damaged immune systems. What is there about the above statement that bothers
you so much that you consistently misunderstand it or make false assumptions
as you do in your statements above?

Gary Stein

Put a thousand HIV- people on a standard ARV program what do you think
would happen to there mortality rate?
My point is we do not know how much less we can use ARV's and my
community pays for it.
My wife’s case alone raises serious questions to the test and the
T-Cell markers.
O risk group 0 risk behavior never felt sick (until HAART) with three
T-Cells her first HIV test. That was 10 years ago. Am I wrong to feel her
story is an example of making atleast part of our current theory suspect?
This long term ARV treatment for people not involved in risk behavior is
highly suspect to me. I am no scientist but I do promise to report my
story honestly as it unfolds.
At this point I am simply following my heart on a path to long life I
no longer care who is right or wrong.

"Fondoo" <dale601@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f9c99ee0041f77021c6049a11bebaa02@localhost.ta lkabouthealthnetwork.com...
Well I don't know are you? How do you define a risk group? If she was having
unprotected sex with you, and you have said you were HIV positive at the
time didn't you? If that is true then I don't know any doctor that would not
say she was a member of a risk group. Now I thought you said that she did
have health problems at the time of her diagnosis am I mistaken about that?
My memory is that she was experiencing some health issues that was why she
was at the doctor and why the HIV test and other lab work was done. So your
statement that she did not get sick until after taking ARV doesn't seem to
follow the facts as you have expressed them here on MHA. Maybe I am mistaken
please clarify the issues for me.
Well your wrong in that statement. Yes ARV does create liver disease in 'a
small number of patients' yes it does increase the risk of heart attacks by
about 5% above that of cohorts of the same age. Yes it does increase the
likely hood of diabetes in a number of patients.

But your claim that ARV is killing more Americans then does AIDS is flat
wrong. ARV is letting more HIV and AIDS patients live to an age where Heart
disease is a major cause of death and yes that is the cause of death for
some ARV patients. However that by no means indicates that ARV is the
primary cause of the majority of deaths in patients taking that therapy. If
ARV therapy was stopped today in the US there simply can be no doubt that
within months AIDS patients would start to die in increasing numbers and
within a year the mortality rates for AIDS would be right back were it was
in the early days of the epidemic.

There is ample evidence and frankly very simple logic that makes that
statement self evident. You have yet to explain the simple fact that prior
to the use of 2 drug ARV the number of deaths due to AIDS in the US was high
and rising each and every year. Yet once 2 drug ARV and then 3 drug ARV came
into use those numbers declined rapidly and only in 2003- 2004 did a very
small increase occur. Even though the numbers of people living with HIV in
the US has grown each and every year since they have been tracked by the
CDC.

So lets make this real simple for you each year since the CDC began tracking
HIV and AIDS the number of people living with HIV has increased. From the
start up to 1995 the number of deaths due to AIDS increased every year. 2
Drug ARV started in 1994-1995, Protease Inhibitors came on the scene in
1995-1996 thus 3 drug ARV started. The deaths due to adds dropped and showed
steady declines from 1995 to 2003. So what does that all tell us. It tells
us that prior to ARV the number of people dieing was high and the number of
people living with HIV was growing but not by a significant amount greater
then yearly deaths, just enough that the number of people living with HIV
did show growth during the periods 1980-1995. Then after effective ARV comes
on the scene what do we see. We see the deaths due to AIDS drop rapidly and
the number of people living with HIV increase at much higher rates that had
been the case prior to ARV.

To what else do you attribute these numbers to? How can you explain them if
ARV kills more then AIDS does? We are all waiting and if you could be so
kind do some thinking and research on these questions and provide us with
something other then your or others personal opinions when you answer them.

Gary Stein

In article <4ff9df19eb0fadb7eab87dd44d82b28d@localhost.talkab outhealthnetwork.com>,
Fondoo <dale601@hotmail.com> wrote:
This is what you're responding to: "Hmmm. Died at the age of 36
of complications of AIDS without having ever taken any AIDS drugs.
Certainly makes one think."

It's clear that Larry Farrell was discrediting one particular dissident
idea, not all of them. When you omit his words from your response,
misrepresent their intent, and try to stir up righteous anger based
on that misrepresentation, you are the one engaging in propaganda.

You are exploiting Leroy Whitfield's death for propaganda value just
as much as you have accused Larry Farrell of doing.

--
David Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber

On 16 Oct 2005 11:04:14 -0700, dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu wrote or
quoted :

The proof for me is that my energy level follows viral load. The
drugs to work to reduce viral load. If HIV is not the culprit, the
drugs that interfere with it also by some strange co-incidence
interfere with the real culprit.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 12:09:29 -0600, Larry Farrell <farrlarr@isu.edu>
wrote or quoted :

Either stubbornness or lack of money.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.

"Fondoo" <dale601@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d29d50794777abfe10e6edde870035b7@localhost.ta lkabouthealthnetwork.com...
Not much, have you actually done any research on ARV at all. Do you know
anything about how the drug approval process works in the US. Did you know
that in Phase 1 and some Phase 2 trials healthy people are in fact given
ARV?

Your community? Didn't you mean our community? And yes in fact we do know a
great deal about ARV dosing. Some studies actually monitor the levels of the
medication in a patients blood via multiple blood samples each day for
months. Some specialists actually advocate that this be done on there
patients for a week or so to fine tune there dosing of ARV.

My point is that you don't know and based on your mistrust you make wild
assumptions with little to no facts to back up your assumptions.

Well that's silly, of course you care or you wouldn't be thinking about it,
and you wouldn't be choosing to avoid ARV, and you wouldn't be posting here
on MHA. As to you wife see my other post regarding that issue.

Gary Stein

I did not post an unsubstantiated incomplete report on a persons death
to try to make a point

ARV?

Gary how F***ing long did the Phase 1 & 2 trials last? And how the hell
does that small amount of time apply to how long we have been on them? I
would have thought "long term" was assumed sorry I did not spell it out.
Why are you down playing the toxicity of the ARV's? Bro I know you are on
them but I hope you do everything in your power to use holistic medicine
to lower the damage of the ARV's


My point is I am searching for truth and do not care which side it
happens to be on.

thanks for the input bro

Fondoo wrote:

Not exactly, if she was having unprotected sex with you. But you've
been told this before also.

I think it's pretty clear. In your rush to prove all western medicine
"bad" you're throwing in one argument that has nothing to do with another.

You are like our pet farmboy that way. You make an argument and when
it's countered, you go on to slide something else in as a rebuttal to
that and it's not related.

Not at all, even though it's pretty funny. Think about it.

And apparently, you believe yours is the only story that's valid.

B/

Fondoo wrote:

Saying "I don't know" is the beginning of wisdom.

B/

Hi Gary, about my wife's story I need to talk to her when she wakes up
and get my facts straight. I can get forgetful and often post when I'm
tired. I will post what I know as her story and clear up ant details I'm
not sure about when she wakes up.

My zero risk is right on. At the time of her positive test well she was
a prude and very scared of AIDS from all the media coverage.
She had two boyfriends in high school that she always used a condom
with. She was married to her first husband at the time that remains HIV
negative today. That’s it, no blood transfusions no drugs na da. My wife
to this day is a total goody too shu as well as one of the most kind,
loyal, honest people I have ever known.
I am a little foggy on all the details surrounding her diagnoses. I do
know that things seemed to revolve around her building at work that was
deemed a "sick building" they found that fire proofing material had leaked
into the ventilation system and made a great many people sick including my
wife who had a strange rash on her face and possibly thrush. I need to
talk to her bro and get this straight. Back to you soon

Not at all, even though it's pretty funny. Think about it.

I get how that could be funny but are you saying you believe this?

I think it's pretty clear. In your rush to prove all western medicine
"bad" you're throwing in one argument that has nothing to do with
another.

I will see if I can work on that. I don't mean to purposely avoid or
confuse the argument. I do see some things as connected that you may not
or need to show you were I am coming from.

And apparently, you believe yours is the only story that's valid.

B/

I hope not, my views have changed by reading ARV stories, they have
taught me more caution. I do believe my story and other similar ones go
under represented. I could log onto 10 mainstream sites right now and read
100's of ARV and “my doctor says” stories but if I post mine I risk
moderation, banning, slander the works.

"Oh Paul were did you see anyone here on in the medical literature claim
that HIV is the etiologic cause of any opportunistic infection. You have
been told that HIV does destroy the bodies immune response thus leaving
it's victims susceptible to opportunistic infections. Why do you suppose
they are called opportunistic infections in the first place?"


The AIDS defining illnesses exist *without* HIV as their cause. If they
can occur *without* HIV being present, then whether these OIs are caused
by HIV - even in someone who's "HIV-positive" - is up to debate.

Who's to say the *other* known causes of these diseases are not actually
responsible for what is blamed on "HIV."

And with "treatments" like AZT, who's to say it is *not* the medication
actually causing the disease. All of us already know AZT is deadly.

You can't skirt around that one, boys.

So, if you're giving toxic meds to "save" someone who's "dying anyway,"
who's to say what *really* killed the person, huh?

It all looks so *terribly innocent* when someone has a "known terminal
illness" and dies.

One might have to think they're something else going on here.

One might have to question what we're being fed...

-Paul Whiting

Fondoo wrote:

Sure, it's a logical progression. Someone brings in an alternative
therapy. Some doctors try it, persuade others. Some get interested
enough to do a study and that shows it works. Others pick it up, and
voila... it's no longer 'alternative."

Kaiser Permanente San Francisco, to my understanding, now has
acupuncture provided for those that want it. Their commercials here
feature a bowl of blueberries and "we're pro-anti-oxidant." They show
an old woman having a merry moment and the voiceover is "we believe
laughter is the best medicine" as well as "fruit makes a wonderful
dessert." If that's not "holistic," then what is?

On a personal note, my own primary--who I will note here is ALSO the
head of Kaiser Research (SF) so you'd think he of all people would be
into 'western' medicine completely--has recommended I take fish oil and
folic acid as cardiac protectives, as well as niacin to lower my
cholesterol (which I can't do any more as a pre-diabetic). He's also
recommended a few glasses of red wine a week also (which I can't do
because the sulfites give me headaches).

I was just dealing with a diabetic ulcer on my foot for the past few
months, and at one point it got infected with one of those
antibiotic-resistant staph thingums (and I'm allergic to MANY meds
anyway) so the only way to treat it has been considered to be an IV med
that's rather challenging to the kidneys. The podiatrist I was seeing
for this recommended instead that I soak it in a hot
water-and-bleach-and-epsom-salt solution twice a day, followed with a
vinegar compress. I had a discussion with him that if THAT hadn't
worked to clear the infection, he would have gone on to recommend
binding the wound with maggots to clear out the dead tissue and
infection as long as wasn't spreading to the bone.

It comes back to "find a doctor YOU trust" not that "all doctors can't
be trusted."

Again, 'pharma' business has an overlap, but isn't, 'pharma' medicine
itself. I think anyone would rather (if it was necessary) take 1 small
pill of dapsone 3x a week instead of moving to Texas and finding some
armadillos to french-kiss for their spit (and yes, that's where they get
it).

Then you need to demonstrate the connections in a concrete fashion--not
to draw inferences and then act as if the inferences are substantive,
ok? Otherwise, it's only black helicopters. It's why so many people in
the US still believe Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 and
actually possessed nuclear weapons (as an example of what I'm talking
about, the process, I'm not wanting to discuss that *particular*).

NO ONE here says the ARVs are *the* solution. Remember, when you asked
the general "should I go on them" I did NOT answer "yes, of course"
automatically? And I gave you another course to think about/explore if
they were recommended? (i.e., ask for 'resistance testing')? And if you
can't get a second opinion you trust, to come here and ask one of the
'orthodox' you might trust a *little* bit with your numbers and get a
link to a document?

This is an unmoderated newsgroup. If you're reading from one of those
$(*#((*# kludgy web board interfaces that has someone 'moderating' get
yourself a real news reader.

B/

"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2752fc5f444e236a34dd21281150b3c4@localhost.ta lkabouthealthnetwork.com...
They all exist with out HIV as there cause because as I said above HIV does
not directly cause any of the AIDS defining illnesses what about that
statement do you not understand. That said will you provide us with a case
history of one person with a functioning immune system who had PCP?

Gary Stein

"Fondoo" <dale601@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ef8619e54313fe502d6542f557dce935@localhost.ta lkabouthealthnetwork.com...
say about her health I look forward to clearing that up, have a great day.

Gary Stein

Nothing will ever make you think, professor. Do you have any evidence he
died of "complications of AIDS"? Or is that what you'd like to believe?
Jazz musician Charlie Parker died at the age of 34. He didn't take AIDS
drugs either; they didn't exist yet. What do you think: Did he die of
AIDS-related complications too?

No, but then he didn't have AIDS, did he?