"Linda R" <moonchild492000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
It sounds like one of your sexual partners was a bi-faggot.
When he went out with the boys, he went out with the boys.

Mayhaps the flu was an OI. Perhaps you mentioned that and I skipped over it.
All that I have read says aids comes from an asshole not an Ajax container.

So I didn't read "the paper". *What* paper anyway? I never saw you cite a
paper on this subject. The reason is that, every time you answer one of
my posts, you start a new thread. Is this a form of "hit and run"?
Anyhow, if you actually did quote a paper, please do so again, so I get
the chance to read it.

In article <3db9b8d2c38d2d783ea86c8c8d7bfb2d@localhost.talkab outhealthnetwork.com>,
Iconoclaster <wgods@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Talkabout's article threading is buggy. Other news software and web
sites correctly show Chris's article as a followups to yours.

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

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:33:28 GMT, Linda R <moonchild492000@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Depends what one means by long term.

Surrogate markers are an indication of risk. CD4 below 200 means a
MUCH higher risk of certain, potentially lethal infections--generally
much nastier than a rash!

But meantime, a drug holiday is not necessarily a bad thing. I'd say,
monitor your situation. If the CD4 count goes below 200, DEFINITELY
strongly consider starting again. If it plummets rapidly. If the CD4
percentage slips below 17%.

If you feel the need to go back on drugs, do it.

Meantime, take care of your health in all other ways. Eat well, sleep
enough, take a good, potent multivitamin. You might consider other
botanical interventions.


Neither do I actually. Although generally if it is REALLY high, the
CD4 count will drop with it. And sometimes it can mean other troubles.

Be careful there. Some OIs just are VERY hard to treat and they're NOT
fun. CMV retinitis or colitis is nasty, for example.

PCP is NOT the same as the flu--so you know what it can be like.

That's fair enough.

There are some and i agree we need more investigation into HOW HIV
causes AIDS. And it certainly wouldn't hurt to have more investigation
into areas routinely ignored. E.g., the syphilis connection is
certainly important to look at, if for no other reason than we need
better treatments for it. The role of oxidative stress. The issue of
autoimmune disease--all these are important as much for what they tell
us about AIDS as for the impact they can have for other disease
states.

Probably not but they are an important help, in my view!!

George M. Carter

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 01:49:24 GMT, Linda R <moonchild492000@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Here there are data that show that HIV infection is associated with
depletion of CD4 cells. It IS directly cytopathic. Particularly to
certain kinds of CD4 cells (memory).

And it USES the body's response of inducing the proliferation of cells
to provide more target cells for it to infect. This is not a strange
tactic for infectious diseases. This can include increased expression
of globulins by B cells (hypergammaglobulinemia).

So yes, it can cause destruction (direct and indirect means) of cells,
while other cells may proliferate.

George M. Carter

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:39:23 -0600, "Death" <Death@yourdoor.net>
wrote:

It sounds like you need a great, big hot throbbing latin cock in your
manhole.

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message

That is precisely what is spreading aids.
Bi-faggots have carried aids into the straight population.
Luckily, woman to man transmission is almost nil.

You and your little buttbuddies can sit on your infected asses
and yap about the meds, but deep down you know it was an
infected asshole that brought you to your knees, pun intended.

The part that is hilarious is, for a quarter you may have been
spared the aids, you cheap bastards.
Now you want the grubment to spend millions on your infected asses, literally.

"GMCarter" wrote:
I'm talking anything in excess of 5 years, and especially for the rest
of one's life, which I feel is very likely to be shortened by such
powerful and toxic drugs. I'm not arguing that there is evidence the
drugs may help in the short term if one is very ill.



had another cause. After the trial was over and I started getting the
drugs mailed to me, I finally got to read the package inserts. They
were very disturbing. Soon after this, I found, totally by chance, my
first dissident website. I read for hours a day until I felt all my
questions were answered, including some nagging ones I'd had since
diagnosis.


I think monitoring might be wise for the time being. So far, things
seem to be hanging pretty tough. This is why I'm going to do all I can
to shore up my immune system so it can fight off whatever comes along.


antibiotics and chemicals. I'm taking a ridiculous number of
supplements, some aimed at increasing glutathione, which seems to be
important, and a few potent antioxidants.


At what point would you consider it to be "really high"?


Yes, I know. I was very sick and there's no doubt my immune system was
in really bad shape. Exactly how it got there is what we're disagreeing
about. whether it's possible tha HIV is actually an OI is one of the
considerations.



The role of oxidative stress. The issue of
autoimmune disease--all these are important as much for what they tell

I am very interested in the effects of oxidative stress. I'm also
intrigued by the possible correlation between having taken the drugs and
developing Grave's disease (currently in remission). In all fairness,
it may not actually have been Grave's (which is autoimmune)--the
diagnosis was by process of elimination--but I was definitely
hyperthyroid. Apparently there are many possible triggers for this. So
if I do have an autoimmune disease, I need to be a little careful about
stimulating (but not supporting) my immune system. Or so the
conventional wisdom says, anyway. All very confusing.

So I'm continuing to do my research and I'm investigating possible
treatments and supplements. I don't want to wait till it's possibly too
late to do any good.

I appreciate your willingness to address my concerns in a fair and
understanding manner and not to belittle or ridicule my views.

Linda







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

"GMCarter" wrote:
don't see them? Where, exactly? Is there a link?

Linda


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

"Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3db9b8d2c38d2d783ea86c8c8d7bfb2d@localhost.ta lkabouthealthnetwork.com...
hell Outlook Express does a better job then most web based Usenet sites. If
you must use a web based newsreader then use Google it at least does decent
threading.

Gary Stein

"Linda R" <moonchild492000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9tL9f.11$PR1.6102@news.uswest.net...
very much.
dissident sites?

Gary Stein

The Padian study does not show HIV cannot be transmitted sexually.
Padian herself has gone on record to refute this "dissident
misinterpretation".
It clearly shows HIV can be transmitted, albeit inefficiently.

Several reasons exist as to why transmission rates were (falsely) low.

a). This was an ongoing study of couples who had already failed to have
any prior transmission. This is important. Couples in the Padian study
had been sero-discordant for many months prior to entry. If
transmission has not occured to a negative partner bewtween say months
0 and 60 of a relationship, what are the chances that it will suddenly
occur between months 60 and 72? So there is a substantial bias against
the chance of new transmissions in Padian study participants - some
people will always be "less infectious" or "less susceptible" to HIV
transmission, and the Padian methodology actively recruited these
patients.

b). The maximal infectiousness of HIV is when the newly infected
individual has a high HIV viraemia in the first few months after
acquisition. In other words, people usually become less infectious over
time. There were no couples in the Padian study in whom there was a
recent acquisition of HIV in the seropositive partner under study,
creating a bias against transmission.

c). Most of the couples continued to use condoms/barrier contraception.

d). All couples in the study were counselled as to means to reduce
transmission and encouraged to take safer sex measures.

e) There was a low incidence of cofactors for transmission - genital
ulceration, other STDs - all of which increase susceptibility to
transmission and are significant factors in other heterosexual
populations such as in Africa.

Put in another way, let us say you decided to see in a study if having
sex caused pregnancy. Pick couples who have been having rampant
unprotected sex for some months prior to entering your study, but have
so far failed to become pregnant (some may not be doing it right, some
may well be "subfertile" (less susceptible to "pregnancy"). Then
encourage them all to use condoms and safer sex methods in addition.
After a year or so, would the finding that not many women had become
pregnant make you conclude categorically that sex does not cause
pregnancy? The "pregnancy dissidents" would say just that. They would
be wrong.

"Gary Stein" wrote:

what kind of numbers he started with, but he had never had an OI, and
now he's having buffalo humps removed for the second time. He is a
former IV drug user, which explains his status. He's had a heart attack
and is diabetic. These may or may not be drug-related, but these are
things the drugs sure don't help. More power to you if they're working
for you. I'm not taking the chance.
Perhaps not equal, but certainly a good deal. I've also read (in fact,
am reading now)about how bad and dishonest many of the trials were. I
am truly embarrassed that my son-in-law works for Glaxo. I think it is
nearly impossible to get a fair and unbiased trial of anything these
days.

This is unbearably distressing to me. Meanwhile,I will try the things I
think will work and see what happens. I am in no immediate danger.







Linda

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

I don't really know enough to comment on what you say. It may well be
true. I do know that figures bear out that there is no epidemic among
prostitutes. I do know that not one healthcare worker has contracted
AIDS after a needle stick, while they have contracted other diseases in
large numbers. Yes, a few have tested positive, but there could be
other reasons for that. If HIV is the culprit, it is not likely
transmissable through blood or sex. I, for one, consider that good
news.

Linda

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

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 08:43:21 -0600, "Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote:

But you want it.

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 15:09:22 GMT, Linda R <moonchild492000@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Well, you can go to PubMed. Douek has some pretty good articles on T
cell turnover rates. Best would be to do a search on "pathogenesis,
HIV" and look at the review articles. There's lots.

George M. Carter

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 15:03:33 GMT, Linda R <moonchild492000@yahoo.com>
wrote:

I think it can be done continuously OK...if your T cells are high, it
is possible to stop until they drop to a lower level.


snip
Dissidents or denialists sometimes lie or get things wrong, just like
any other lot. Drug inserts are always scary!

Viral load over around 100,000 or so.

HIV is NOT an OI. It causes immune dysregulation, including CD4 loss.
THEN a distinct disease like PCP can arise where it wouldn't in
someone with a normal level of T cells.

snip
Good idea to do. Don't sacrifice the ARVs for a bad theory if your T
cells drop too low tho, please!!

George M. Carter

"GMCarter" wrote:
Everything I've just read contradicts this quite emphatically. Granted,
it's Gary Null, who's a very alternative type, but his book is very
comprehensive and cites many studies, etc. What Glaxo, in all its
incarnations, has done to keep AZT alive (and its major cash cow) is
nothing short of criminal.

I'll have to give you that--it's natural to promote your own side as
much as possible. I don't think they lie or distort any more than the
orthodoxy--probably less. And yes, drug inserts are scary. The problem
was I never got to see them till the trial was over. If they gave me
any of that info, I wasn't seeing it. There is much to lose by many
companies and people if the hiv/aids paradigm is proven wrong. It will
be protected at all costs. It's like hospital infections that are
killing so many people--only 6 states require reporting of them, so
cover-ups are rampant.

That seems reasonable--I'm a long way from there.
I'll need to do some research there. I'm not convinced this has been
proven. I think it's possible that immune suppression could have other
causes which lead to OIs. The problem is knowing which studies you can
believe--so many are just plain wrong.


That would be easier to promise if I thought the drugs were really any
good. But I will exhaust all possibilties if things start looking grim.






Linda

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

Okay, I'll check things out.

Linda

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

"Linda R" <moonchild492000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZfP9f.43$PR1.11646@news.uswest.net...
Health care workers have indeed become infected with HIV from needle stick
accidents were do you get information to the contrary? As to the question of
have any of those so infected progressed to full blown AIDS my memory says
that yes that to has occurred but I would have to do some research to be
absolutely sure on that point.

There most assuredly is an HIV epidemic effecting sex workers what makes you
say otherwise. The majority of HIV in Thailand, Laos, and other Asian
countries are sex workers and it is very prevalent in that population in
Africa and becoming so in the US.

Gary Stein