On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:11:36 GMT, Linda R <moonchild492000@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Dismissed

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:11:36 GMT, Linda R <moonchild492000@yahoo.com>
wrote:

I'm talking about "those gay guys" i know who did NOT do any of that
and died of AIDS anyway. Some at horribly young ages. 24. 27.

"GMCarter" wrote:
Was this before or after AZT monotherapy? And maybe there's a point of
no return, immune-wise.

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

"Linda R" <moonchild492000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vma8f.1584$xJ5.4866@news.uswest.net...
Yes the EuroSIDA data tracks tens of thousands of European HIV and AIDS
patients complete medical history from there first HIV diagnosis up to the
present. This data shows with out question that those who take ARV for the
most part live for decades (yes around 10% do not live that long due to
AIDS, non AIDS related illnesses, accidents or side effects from ARV) while
those who go untreated after an AIDS diagnosis have an average life span of
less then 24 months (yes around 1% of untreated people live for decades they
are called long term non-progressors and have been studied extensively).

The only effect any of the above can have is that if your partners have had
multiple STD's then that means they are having unprotected sex and thus are
more likely to try and convince you to have unprotected sex thus increasing
the odds of your being infected by HIV

Gary Stein

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:30:30 GMT, Linda R <moonchild492000@yahoo.com>
wrote:

snip
Yes. In the 80s. LOTS of my friends died.

And guess what? AZT SAVED some of my friends (after the dose dropped
and they used it in combination). Guess what? AZT is OVERPRICED. It is
toxic. It works.

And it does NOT cause T cells to go away. In fact, people taking it in
combination can see an INCREASE in T cells.

Anemia? Not uncommon. Mitochondrial myopathy? A possibility!
Neutrophils declining--less common but can happen. But T cells? They
go up.

But at least now it's a generic drug. And it still sucks in many ways.
Yet it's still useful for many.

George M. Carter

George,

I read a little on another thread and see a bit more where you are
coming from. I respect your opinion and I do believe the drugs can help
for a limited period of time. I'm not so sure about long term.

After being in a clinical trial for almost 4 years, I opted to go off
the drugs 5 months ago. I tolerated the drugs amazingly well, but when
I got a rash in late May, I started getting nervous. My numbers were
great, but I am not sure that surrogate markers are true indicators of
health. the ID doc had no problem with my decision at the time.

I have been torn between continuing to follow the numbers and just
trusting how I feel. For now, I think I'll keep checking them. Though I
have very little faith in the "viral load". Should I become extremely
ill, I would do all I could to come out of it. I would treat any OI
first and see what happened. I believe I had a bad case of flu along
with great physical and emotional stress and that is what screwed up my
immune system. (I had PCP.)

So most of what the dissident people say really rings true with me. I
am not committed to following them no matter what happens. I honestly
am interested in the truth. I'm unconvinced that HIV can do all that's
attributed to it. I am not in denial--I'm just not convinced, and will
continue to investigate all possibilities. I am angry that I never
found out there might be alternatives until a few months ago. I think
people should be trusted with all the options and allowed to make up
their own minds. I think there should be studies investigating
alternative theories, though I have no idea who'll fund them! sure
won't be the drug companies!

So this is where I'm coming from, and the stake I have in this. It's
quite literally my life that is on the line. We'll see what happens.
Maybe clean living, good food and good supplements will do it, maybe
not.

Linda

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

I'd be interested in seeing what other factors might be involved. I've
seen compelling evidence for this not being sexually transmitted(at
least heterosexually), like the Padian study and personal experience. I
will continue to research, as the truth is what I am interested in.

Linda

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

Linda R wrote:

And what will happen if you are presented with convincing evidence?

B/

Depends on how convincing it is and what else I've learned in the
meantime. The hard part is figuring out what is true evidence and what
has been skewed to fit the premise. I figure in the long run I'm my own
best experiment. I'm tired of words like "presumptive". Very possibly
neither side is totally correct. The truth may lie somewhere in the
middle.

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

Linda R wrote:

Ah, so the qualifiers to the statement begin. I'll assume for the time
being that you're one of those who make the claim to be 'open-minded'
but when presented with proper evidence will immediately deny it and
move the goal post for further proof.

Either the world is flat or it isn't. There's no 'middle.'

B/

Okay then, let me put it like this--it's gonna take one hell of a lot of
convincing for me to believe HIV is capable of all that's attributed to
it. Maybe it exists, maybe it even makes you a little sick. But it
doesn't cause cell destruction as well as proliferation of cells. You
got something that can convince me of that, I'd be very surprised.

Linda

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

Linda R wrote:

Me too. Not that there's convincing evidence, but that you would be
convinced.

Ever.

B/

I guess you meant "not that there's not convincing evidence", huh?
Maybe you're right about that. Meanwhile, since we don't seem to be
accomplishing anything here, I'm gonna concentrate on investigating
several alternatives to allopathic medicine and see if I can keep my
immune system healthy. I have some intriguing ideas about what will
work.

Maybe I'll pop back in from time to time to keep you informed. That is,
if anyone's interested.

Linda

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

"Linda R" <moonchild492000@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Linda R wrote:

I meant that it's the usual routine that the orthodox need to somehow
compromise, and the dissidents don't.

I meant that it's the usual routine to question the orthodox and accept
the dissident cant hook line and sinker.

Sure. Of course we're interested. We're interested in finding out *what
works.*

Then alternative becomes mainstream and those with an agenda to the
'alternative' will bitch that no one pays attention to alternatives... LOL.

B/

Ah, Mr. Noble! I knew you had put up this post, but I have been searching
for hours in all the threads I've been participating in. Now I've found
out you were hiding it in a new thread, hoping I wouldn't find it.

infectious. If you introduce DNA in any cell, it will replicate. That's
what DNA does."

That's what I wrote (in a different thread, mind you)


That's what you wrote - in an unexpected new thread.

But indeed it doesn't then go and insert... etc. etc. You're absolutely
right: IT DOESN'T.
But are you in any way suggesting that the nicely packaged pieces of junk
DNA that you are imagining really do that? Or that there is any relation
to "HIV"?
You've gotta have balls to propagate such an enormous piece of eh...
fiction. But let me enlighten you about what really happens:

They take some crappy piece of DNA that the cat dragged in, and package it
in a plasmid. With this product of craftsmanship, they infect cells...
No, not of a person, of course, but cells belonging to an immortal cell
line in the lab.
Now let's assume the DNA succeeds in entering a cell. What will it do?
Well, among the things DNA can do is: replication, coding for an m-RNA,
which in turn can code for one of more proteins. But the DNA can also be
integrated into the host genome. And it will sit there, until the cell
divides. Note that the cell culture is well-supplied with PHA, a
mitogenic agent. A Rapid sequence of cell divisions will then result in a
multitude of daughter cells carrying the same piece of "street DNA" in its
genome.
Mitogenic agents are also known to cause apoptosis of cells. The end
result will be an amplification of the DNA the experiment started with.
Does this mean it "Packaged itself in viral proteins, to infect additional
cells"? Of course not! What a ridiculous flight of fancy!

Iconoclaster wrote:
Did you read the paper?

Did you read the paper?
Where were the cells from?


Did you read the paper?
The study used controls that were also treated with PHA.

Read the paper before you make up more bullshit.

Chris Noble

"Brian Mailman" <bmailman@sfo.invalid> wrote in message

We? Would that be you and your other socks
or
you and the gerbil up your ass ?

Since the "establishment" loves to cite anecdotal evidence, such as
this poor soul's death, I have repeatedly offered to take the "Duesberg
challenge." Just pay me what the drugs cost each year and I will take
"pure virus" at regular intervals (once every two months should do).
Since it's never been isolated, it will be interesting to see exactly
what you would give me. However, since the estab. knows they will make
a fool of themselves AND cost themselves money, nobody has, nor will
take me up on my offer. If I die within 15 years of what is classified
as "AIDS," I will give you all my assets. Great deal, right? Take me
up on it then.

As to the "study" that was cited:
"...this molecular clone is infectious in vitro and causes marked
cytopathic effects on T-cell cultures." Now this looks very nice in a
lab, and if it were true (in terms of the "HIV/AIDS" nonsense, it would
take a couple of weeks to kill someone, and they would feel it
horrible. People would not be able to live more than a decade feeling
fine. Use some common sense here people - you don't even need to be an
"expert." In fact, "experts" can talk themselves into believing all
kinds of ludicrous claims. This "study" was from 1985, and if anything
is clear at this point, it's that the idea behind it is not correct.
This was written at a time when it was thought that people died
quickly, within a year or so, after infection. This "study" is strong
evidence that the "HIV/AIDS" nonsense should simply be discarded.

As to "AIDS:" There are numerous ways you can prematurely age your
immune system. Old people have immune problems with similar
characteristics as "AIDS," as do others who have abused their bodies.
Since we don't know what any one person who died of "AIDS" did to
his/her body over the course of a lifetime, there is no way to control
for it in a manner that meets the standards of the scientific method.
Many viruses that are within us can become activated due to various
stressors (such as toxins) and become dangerous. This is not new or
unusual. Without such stressors, viruses will either kill quickly
(which is very rare, especially for a retrovirus) or remain in a
non-active, non-dangerous state. The "HIV/AIDS" idea is beyond science
fiction - it is more like science comedy.

"montygram" wrote:
Yeah--what he said! It's the only explanation for my own case.
Assuming I got "aids" in 2001 and was in a monogamous relationship for 6
years beforehand, I could only have been "infected" in the years
previous to the relationship. Only trouble is there's no one in my past
who has ever tested positive. I've never done drugs of any kind. I've
never had a transfusion. I have absolutely no risk factors.

So what I've come up with is that flu struck the first blow and was
complicated by extreme emotional (breakup of relationship I was really
invested in) and physical (trying to virtually single-handedly run a
restaurant)stress, plus possible exposure to toxic chemicals used for
cleaning various things (like the grill).

Somewhere in there I lost my appetite and just dragged along while
developing rather alarming respiratory symptoms. So I ended up in the
hospital with PCP and thrush. Decimated immune system? No doubt.
Caused by a little retrovirus? A lot of doubt. Was there a virus that
took advantage of the situation? Possibly. Maybe even probably. Is
there a killer virus circulating in my bloodstream? After examining
both sides, I doubt it highly.

I'm not saying categorically that hiv doesn't exist. Lately I'm leaning
toward existence and possible cofactorial status. So I'll do what I
think can help me maintain good health and I'll see where it goes.

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com