Yesterday's Boston Globe had an obit about Leroy Whitfield,
a non-believer in HIV as the cause of AIDS. As he got closer
to dying his beliefs started changing--but not quickly
enough to save him.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/obi...ack_community/

dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu wrote:
Hmmm. Died at the age of 36 of complications of AIDS without having
ever taken any AIDS drugs. Certainly makes one think.

--
Larry D. Farrell, Ph.D.
Professor of Microbiology
Idaho State University

I do not deny that AIDS exists. I do whole heartedly appose tactics like
"Hit it hard, hit it early" and pushing western drugs as the one shining
hope.
Also the tactics of using a fellow human beings death as a propaganda
tool for discrediting all dissident ideas is an ugly and obviously corrupt
path. Are you sure you want to stay on it?
Are you HIV positive Larry? Have you had a child born from your HIV
positive wife and been threatened by doctors? And the threat of being
reported to child protection came after AZT at birth, six weeks of the
SHIT after birth and two F***ING negative tests. I simply told them I was
not going to test her the F***ING THIRD time till after we moved and would
let our new doctor take care of it. I had her case removed from that
hospital with the help of my MD friend thank God for that.
Being a dissident was forced upon me by this corrupt system. I would
rather not have to think about such things.
Don't you see how politics and corporate profit have limited our
research in AIDS?
Why the F*** do I have to be a dissident in the first place, science
is supposed to be unbiased. How F***ING long are we going to allow
ourselves to be poisoned by Big Pharma without equal money being spent in
non toxic non-patentable therapies.
Your death post is ugly and heartless

Fondoo wrote:

Good.

You have this way of exaggerating what hasn't been said to begin with.
Is it that, like the 'creationists' you're using the "let's have an
option' method of actually pushing alternatives out the window?

I do notice you haven't answered my question involving your statement
about the ARVs under "dire emergency" what would constitutate a dire
emergency to you?

The point is that some of you are saying that people aren't dying of
AIDS, they are dying from the ARVs. Here's a statement that someone
died of AIDS without the ARVs. And to think about that.

B/

"The point is that some of you are saying that people aren't dying of AIDS,
they are dying from the ARVs. Here's a statement that someone died of
AIDS without the ARVs. And to think about that."


Yes, but, what *really* killed him? What if he actually had one of the
"AIDS defining" illnesses, and it caused him to die, is that some kind of
"proof" that "HIV" exists?

If the “AIDS defining illnesses” have other causes besides “HIV” who is to
say that one of those *other causes* didn’t create the disease and not
“HIV.”

"But, but they tested positive for HIV!" the apologists will protest!

Yet ALL of the "AIDS defining" illnesses exist *without* HIV, and even if
someone tests "positive" for "HIV" and they die - regardless of what the
actual cause was, as we saw with EJ – the medical establishment proclaims
they died of "AIDS."

Poof! It’s circular logic. No one gets *in* or *out.*

And then the apologists can dance around that person’s grave crying "See,
see? We told you it was real!" That's what they did with EJ. They even
put it on the news!

And, then, they can *trick* others into buying into the bullshit about
these non-specific tests actually detecting something called “HIV.”

That's why "HIV" does *NOT* cause any NEW diseases (or, more specifically,
why it doesn’t cause its *own* disease) even though it's and
brand-spanking new virus!

“HIV” is NOT *differentiating.*

It’s NOT following the theory of evolution!

It’s NOT doing something NEW after evolving from something ELSE. If it
were a NEW virus, it would cause a NEW disease. That is the nature of the
universe: EVOLUTION.

And EVERYTHING is evolving! Even mountains evolve! Rivers evolve!

The whole GODDAMN Universe is evolving, but HIV is just mimicking what
others do.

It’s kind of like conformist thinkers… They don’t have any original
thoughts, so they rely on others to think creatively for them. They must
think like everyone else thinks.

They must “go along” with the crowd, which is why they are so bent on
belonging to a group and *believing* whatever the group believes, no
matter how ridiculous, or implausible, it may get...

”HIV” DOESN'T CAUSE ITS VERY OWN DISEASE.

“HIV” DOESN'T BEHAVE LIKE A VIRUS.

IT BEHAVES LIKE A *CONSTRUCT*

-Paul Whiting

"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:63019608b68e0ad6ebd8caf08b23cd86@localhost.ta lkabouthealthnetwork.com...
Yeah, and, and, what if cows are really horses, and horses are really cows.
I mean gee who would know?

Gary Stein

Each virus causes a new disease?

Could you tell that to adenoviruses, coronaviruses and rhinoviruses?

Adenovirus: This nose ain't big enough for the three of us.

Rhinovirus: Everyone knows that I cause the common cold you two get out
of here.

Coronavirus: According to the dissident rules of viral pathogenesis
only one of us can cause the common cold therefore it's me.

Adenovirus: Hang on, why do we care what some guy called Paulee says.
Why can't we all get along. We can all cause the same symptoms.

Rhinovirus: Yeah, I'm sick of these dissident types telling us what we
can and can't do. I'll share my disease with you.

Coronavirus: I like sharing!

Chris Noble

I see this as an obvious reality in nearly all western medicine. With
AIDS is seems even more criminal to focus 99% of research funds on killing
a "slow" virus and not spending SH** on things like managing oxidative
stress in people dying FAST from AIDS

emergency to you?

Dire emergency would be apparent life threatening illness like the many
OI's they have shown effectiveness in treating. I believe there are
naturopathic solutions but we will not find or prove them until big pharma
can profit from them or we can rise as a nation and enforce spending on
non-patenable (low profit to pharma) solutions.

I hate this dissident/orthodox line we seem to fall into It creates an
atmosphere of us and them when actually we all want the same thing, for
people to not die of AIDS.
ARV's will kill you we all know that. It's are current style in
medicine to list cause of death as the bug and not the therapy even when
the therapy is highly suspect. It distorts the numbers and misleads people
and funding.
Using a statement from mass media that is corrupt and backed by drug
company sponsors is a poor source for facts. I would be more interested in
real life accounts from people without drug company ties or personnel
profit on how the facts are presented.
Personally I don't remember anyone stating that a person cannot die of
an AIDS defining illness without being on ARV's. Although “complications”
is a rather vague description in this statement of AIDS defining.

I am interested in science and it seems to me that the evidence of
HIV is overwhelming. And actually HIV research has pushed immune
system knowledge to new heights. Now thousands of scientists are
working on immune system issues from university people to
pharmacological employees. And it seems rather simple to me. AIDS
virus eats (to simplify things) your white blood cells specifically
your cd4 cells. So whatever cd4 cells do for you is impaired. Like if
I have liver cancer and my liver is destroyed my blood is not
detoxified and my glucose is not converted to glycogen.. So I die. So
whatever your white blood cells do you lose their function, so if you
lose them, you lose part of your immune system so you are not protected
and suffer the consequence. And from looking at children born without
functioning cd4 cells (which is rare but happens) they will die without
being injected with blood from healthy people. The body is full of
vital systems that we cannot live long without, like heart, liver,
kidney, red blood cells or white blood cells. So why is it so hard to
see HIV virus eats cd4 cells and really exists, I live in Los Angeles
as a landlord and seen over the last 10 years Aids come into the
neighborhood and infect many of my neighbors and tenants, and chew them
up, they shrink in height, lose weight, cough, vomit, bloat up with
medication and steadily go down hill, while I just get fatter and
slower in my old age. I have seen it infect old men, men, women,
children babies and others and am scared shitless of getting it, but
stay faithfull to one old lady only, don't use drugs, and try to eat
good. I would gladly die of heart attack and not go through suffeing.

If they could add hiv to a test tube full of T-Cells and watch those
cells become infected and die it could be just that simple.
It aint that simple...

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 02:53:46 -0400, "Fondoo" <dale601@hotmail.com>
wrote:

snip
Your knowledge is flawed.

Good advertisement. Who taught you the lesson ?

pauleewhiting wrote:

(snip)

Ya know... if you were dipped in clue musk, and dropped into a field of
horny clues during clue mating season--you STILL wouldn't be able to
attract one.

B/

Fondoo wrote:

Your experience isn't someone else's experience and possibly neither is
reality, much less "obvious" reality.

Why with you is it always "either/or" and never "and?" And who says
that hasn't happened? Look it up, there are studies done on exactly that.

Uh... no. By the time an OI hits, you have to manage the OI, not the
condition that leads to it (i.e., depletion of cd4 cells). In other
words, by the time an OI(s) hit, it's too late for the ARVs to have any
effect on the current condition.

Possibly, sure. Your arguments are conflated, though, and no one is
arguing the meds are fairly priced. I do a see a consistency in your
POV, (western medicine bad, eastern medicine good), but in order to
prove that 'traditional' medicine doesn't work with HIV/AIDS you're
pitching ALL your points into the kitchen sink.

Someone once asked the guy who does the med segment on the local news
"Why can't you use alternative medicines?" His response? "Well, they
don't work. If they worked, we'd be using them and then they wouldn't
be alternative."

Cool. This is true.

No, YOU know that. "We" know they help in defined circumstances. You
keep sayint that. Remember... arsenic is natural, belladonna is
natural, strychnine is natural, mercury is natural... to show you what
you sound like to me (not to be poking fun at you): "well, the obvious
reality, is that we all know that natural substances are poisonous!"

See? It's much more nuanced than that.

It's are current style in
Passive voice can be a killer. YOU suspect "the therapy."

No, that's not what I wrote.

B/

"Fondoo" <dale601@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:13e27127a16335e7fd8a65565f5b57f5@localhost.ta lkabouthealthnetwork.com...

Ever read any of the research on the culturing of HIV, or the use of
modified HIV as a means of implementing genetic therapies?

Gary Stein

If they could add hiv to a test tube full of T-Cells and watch those




You confer my point very well Gary

P.S. I have little understanding why mainstream thinking has not
admitted plausible doubt on this HIV/AIDS theory but I will continue to
learn the science and hope my understanding grows.
I must admit to having difficulty reading piles of mainstream data but
I do my best. Mostly I have read the case that Perth groups makes for
plausible doubt in virtually the entire theory.

"Adenovirus: This nose ain't big enough for the three of us.

Rhinovirus: Everyone knows that I cause the common cold you two get out of
here.

Coronavirus: According to the dissident rules of viral pathogenesis only
one of us can cause the common cold therefore it's me.

Adenovirus: Hang on, why do we care what some guy called Paulee says. Why
can't we all get along. We can all cause the same symptoms.

Rhinovirus: Yeah, I'm sick of these dissident types telling us what we can
and can't do. I'll share my disease with you.

Coronavirus: I like sharing!"


I have taught you *well*, my young apprentice!

That was freakin' funny, Chris!

Yet, all of these viruses (according to the definitions I looked up) cause
a certain "grouping" of diseases. They don’t cause one type, or grouping,
of diseases and *also* cause another type, or grouping, of disease caused
by another microbe!

Are any other viruses out there, besides "HIV," which are thought to cause
*known diseases* that all have *other known causes*?

In other words, are there other viruses, besides "HIV," that can literally
*mimic* diseases that other microbes cause *so precisely* that the only
way to tell the difference between them is to compare them to their gold
standard of isolation?

And is there any other virus out there, besides “HIV,” that can accomplish
this feat of perfect imitation with such a wide, and varied, grouping of
diseases?

HIV: always imitated, never isolated!

-Paul Whiting

I see this as an obvious reality in nearly all western medicine.


There are a great many books published on this horrible corruption with
many whistle blowers that have come out of top positions.


Yes I have read a few and the results showed promise. I am fine with
"and" but we are trapped in a nation to profit driven solutions to health
so I believe thats why un patentable therapy is criminally understudied
and well it's my body at stake here.


Not true, a great many have told there stories of recovering from AIDS
and OI's with and without ARV's. I live with one of those stories my
friend. At the time of my wifes first HIV test she was diagnosed with AIDS
and had three T-Cells she was in 0 risk groups with 0 risk behaviors.
Besides a wierd rash she felt perfectly fine and had always been in
perfect health. She did not feel sick until she started a trail of ARV's
then the horror started. The current AIDS theory does a very poor job
explaining this, am I wrong in that conclusion?


I don't understand this statement


Is that a joke?

No, YOU know that. "We" know they help in defined circumstances. You
keep sayint that. Remember... arsenic is natural, belladonna is
natural, strychnine is natural, mercury is natural... to show you what
you sound like to me (not to be poking fun at you): "well, the obvious
reality, is that we all know that natural substances are poisonous!"

See? It's much more nuanced than that.

If you are comparing toxicity between traditional natural therapies and
current western medicine that’s not much of a nuance

It's are current style in
Passive voice can be a killer. YOU suspect "the therapy."

Until they can come up with a way to stop ARV's killing our liver and
lower there risk of causing heart attack and stroke ARV's account for more
AIDS death now than the disease itself in this country at this time. I
state this only to keep it intimately in the front of our thoughts and
drive home the important need for alternate solutions.
My contribution in this regard will be my own story as it unfolds

"Fondoo" <dale601@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3d2a334521be5fd194017717876006d@localhost.ta lkabouthealthnetwork.com...
experts with a lay audience in mind. The Perth group knows very well that
what they say and how they say it will have an impact orders of magnitude
greater on a lay reader then it does on someone with even a modest
understanding of the science they purportedly are criticizing. In the 15
years they have been making there statements the recent debate on the BMJ
and one panel discussion at an AIDS conference are the only times that any
member of the Perth group has had the courage to face real experts in HIV
and AIDS and engage in debate. In both cases they were not credible nor did
they manage to provide a single paragraph of data that supports there
statements about HIV and AIDS. They are very skillful as writers of personal
opinion but when it comes down to science they fail utterly and completely
when it comes to providing experimental results that back up there
statements and that is what science is about.

Did you follow the debate the Perth group attempted to have with real
scientists on the BMJ? If you did can you honestly say they were able to
back up a single one of there contentions with actual experimental data?
They are the most dishonest group of charlatans it has been my misfortune to
see published on the web. They know that they have nothing to say to real
scientists so they couch there comments in ways that will appeal to the
uneducated audience of HIV positive people who are desperately looking for
someone to tell them they have nothing to worry about. This is despicable
and if they were American's they would most likely find them selves in court
facing lawsuits for slander and potentially a few other charges. I
understand why they are attractive to those who believe they have reasons to
mistrust the medical and pharmaceutical institutions of the western world
but I find it inexcusable that they knowingly tell those folks blatant lies
and disguise those lies as scientific debate.

The Perth Group has to date made not a single attempt to back up there
contentions with anything other then there personal opinions. Don't you
think if they are the scientists they claim to be that they could do more
then that? Just one experiment, just one piece of original thinking, just
one actual argument that has data to back it up, but no they seem unable to
do any of the things I have just mentioned. This should make anyone mistrust
them and there statements, I fail to understand how you can think otherwise.

Gary Stein

Fondoo wrote:
What other hope is there?
Given that hope is not actually a cure.
I hope I win the lottery.
It hasn't happened yet.
Not gonna hold my breath.


That statement in itself makes
a serious logical mistake.
All dissent theories?
How about the dissident theory that
AIDS is caused by leprechauns?
Does this story disprove that?
And it doesn't actualy "prove" anything.
It's a single data point.
Anybody that would imagine it would prove anything
is an idiot and knows nothing about real science.


What does this remark refer to? the path? HIV antiviral
drugs?