|
[ Aids Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
My husbands brother was diagnosed with HIV back in the late 80's, though you wouldn't know it. He contracted it through a blood transfusion. Since then his wife and child passed away. How is it possible that he is still strong and healthy?
In Reply to: brother in law with HIV posted by lyn [3468.10] on August 24, 2006 at 20:14:59:
Not everybody with HIV will get AIDS. It is most likely a genetic tendency, research is being done to isolate the gene that makes one prone to it.
In Reply to: brother in law with HIV posted by lyn [3468.10] on August 24, 2006 at 20:14:59:
not everyone believes the theory that HIV is the cause of AIDS.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by lissa [2032.8] on August 24, 2006 at 20:38:28:
Could it be the drugs?
I read somewhere that HIV or AIDS was mutating.
In Reply to: brother in law with HIV posted by lyn [3468.10] on August 24, 2006 at 20:14:59:
So sorry.
To be clear, did his wife and child die from aids?
I think Lissa is correct, but I forget the exact mechanism.
In Reply to: brother in law with HIV posted by lyn [3468.10] on August 24, 2006 at 20:14:59:
I agree with charles and lissa. HIV is a retrovirus which means the virus mutates everytime it replicates. Some mutation may be more virulent than others. It also depends on each individuals immune system. Some people that have no CCR-5 gene makes them immune to HIV.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by Sounder [1667.1399] on August 24, 2006 at 20:57:23:
They died from hiv or complications to it. I married my husband after they passed so I don't want to pry into an obvious painful past.
In Reply to: brother in law with HIV posted by lyn [3468.10] on August 24, 2006 at 20:14:59:
what did his wife and child pass from?
In Reply to: brother in law with HIV posted by lyn [3468.10] on August 24, 2006 at 20:14:59:
Lyn,
Individual differences in immunity are the most important factor in survival with HIV.
See the HIV archives and let us know what you learn.
Walt
In Reply to: brother in law with HIV posted by lyn [3468.10] on August 24, 2006 at 20:14:59:
As ANN says, there is actually a very serious debate as to the causes of "AIDS", and even whether there is actually a virus involved. I have spent a great deal of time this past year or so studying this and have come to the conclusion that "AIDS", or severe immunosuppression, has many causes including drug use (both recreational and prescription),and malnutrition. If you wonder how it is possible that this has gone so wrong for so long, I ask you to do some research on sites such as aliveandwell.org and virusmyth.net. There are many, many questions which are not answered by orthodox medicine, and things get more and more confusing the longer it goes on.
The "HIV" test is not a test for virus, but for antibodies supposedly specific to a virus. There is no gold standard for these tests, and blood must be diluted 400 times in order that EVERYONE not test positive. Oh, and about half the dogs tested test positive, too. This is a non-specific test that has done nothing good for anyone except Robert Gallo, who had it ready to go on the day the "probable cause of AIDS" was announced.
Do you wonder how a virus that is supposedly constantly mutating manages not to mutate itself to a harmless form? There is so much to be considered, and anyone interested enough to investigate what many very creditable scientists have been saying, and what has largely been kept from the general public, will surely begin to question the generally-held beliefs. The "epidemic" never really materialized, no matter how many more people are now supposedly "positive", and what's going on in Africa is merely a different name for all the same old diseases and the lack of good food and clean water. Nearly 70 conditions can cause a positive test, and these include TB, flu, flu shots and pregnancy. And tests are rarely done in Africa, anyway. Look up the Bangui definition, and you'll see that AIDS is a morass of circular definitions.
I could go on and on, but I feel research personally done is more rewarding. I am certainly far from a doctor, but I have certain credentials--namely a 2001 AIDS diagnosis when I ended up in the hospital after a serious emotional blow and a bad flu that never seemed to clear up. Because I was tested and was "positive", my pneumonia automatically was pneumocystis, and the rest is history. After 4 years on the "lifesaving drugs", things weren't seeming quite right, and I happened across the "dissident" websites. I haven't looked back since. I am not ill (though I think the drugs left me with LGS) and I'm not planning on dying anytime soon.
Since this is a place where the orthodoxy is usually questioned, I'm hoping at least a few of you will do some investigating. Let me know if I can help guide you. And by the way, there are thousands of people who are "positive", some for 20 years or so, who have never developed AIDS or been ill at all. And they don't have some special gene that protects them.
Linda
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by moonchild [1815.2803] on August 26, 2006 at 13:42:44:
I saw Peter Deusberg on 60Min in 89, and have questioned HIV/AIDS ever since.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by moonchild [1815.2803] on August 26, 2006 at 13:42:44:
Apparently whatever it is that is causing Lyn's bil to test positive, has killed his wife and child...not HIV?
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by lissa [2571.8] on August 26, 2006 at 14:50:30:
It's not apparent at all. What is apparent is that they are dead (well, if Lyn knows and said the truth, of course).
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by moonchild [1815.2803] on August 26, 2006 at 13:42:44:
Linda, I'd like to ask you to actually go on :) Share all you know. Some of us have also researched this in various degrees. We'll ask Dr. Stoll to archive this, and we'd be able to refer other people to this thread in the future.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by Charles [854.74] on August 24, 2006 at 20:48:31:
AIDS isn't an organism and can't mutate.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by Opti77 [1232.1351] on August 24, 2006 at 21:11:57:
Speaking of retroviruses... Dr. Peter Duesberg, Ph.D., a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, who's considered to be one of the world's leading experts on retroviruses, doesn't believe that HIV causes AIDS.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by R. [1213.2826] on August 26, 2006 at 15:38:23:
It's apparent that they were HIV positive and dead.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by R. [1213.2826] on August 26, 2006 at 15:48:23:
Ask Dr. Peter Duesberg, Ph.D if we can inject an HIV+ blood into his veins. It is possible that the current theory may be wrong. It is also true that no one has ever seen an HIV. But one reason for having theories is so we can rationalize disease prevention. Does he have a better way of preventing AIDS other than condom use, clean needle use, and abstinence?
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by Opti77 [1232.1351] on August 26, 2006 at 17:28:53:
Duesberg believes that drugs, street And legal ones can weaken the immune system, as can malnutrition. Multiple infections like from promiscous sex, and antibiotics to treat them.
I have read that a multi vitamin had cut AIDS in half in wemen in africa. There malnutrition is common along with rape and many STD infections.
With the way the CDC Declared HIV as the Cause of AIDS, I don't believe them. If you are Not HIV+, the MANY infections they Call AIDS, they call what they are.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by Vince F [4572.20] on August 26, 2006 at 17:43:08:
Of course those things can weaken the immune system, so can a whole lot of stress, but they don't normally weaken it to the point of being unable to fight off the smallest thing and kill you...they sure can but not usually.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by lissa [2032.8] on August 26, 2006 at 16:02:41:
Yes they were HIV positive and they have both passed away in the 90's. They were on medication. My BIL hardly ever takes his pills. He drinks, smokes, drives his harley and still lives like he's in his 20's. He told me once that he decided that he was going to live his life as if he was cured and it has seemed to work for him. I figured it was mind over matter that keeps him alive and healthy.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by Lyn [5481.10] on August 26, 2006 at 20:48:42:
Yes, well there is the controversy ANN and Linda, Vince and R. were talking, but I don't think the fact that many people don't get sick and die proves that there's no connection between HIV and AIDS. Anyone can have a false positive test too. I don't know why a virus would mutate into a harmless strain...maybe it DOES but only in some people.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by R. [1213.2826] on August 26, 2006 at 15:43:41:
LOL...
My uncle had AIDS he "acquired" it from chemotherapy.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by lissa [2032.8] on August 26, 2006 at 19:29:41:
they don't normally weaken it to the point of being unable to fight off the smallest thing and kill you
How do you know that? Say, there's no amount of "poppers" (used by gays, who, by the way, are known to be leaders of the AIDS pack) that will "normally" cause immunosuppression?
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by lissa [2032.8] on August 26, 2006 at 23:48:59:
There you go!
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by R. [1213.2803] on August 26, 2006 at 23:51:43:
If it was usual for:
"drugs, street And legal ones malnutrition. Multiple infections like from promiscous sex, and antibiotics to treat them".
to kill people, most of us would be dead by now.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by lissa [2032.8] on August 26, 2006 at 16:02:41:
To be more accurate, it's apparent that the test showed they were HIV positive and that they died. And here's another common element -- they took medications for AIDS. And, possibly, confirmed Dr. Duesberg's claim that anti-HIV drugs can cause AIDS.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by R. [1213.2803] on August 26, 2006 at 23:52:42:
Yes, but I don't know if I buy that all people HIV positive, who develop illness are sick from something other than the HIV. But I have a question...is HIV normally treated with drugs initially or is it only done after symptoms develop?
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by Lyn [5481.10] on August 26, 2006 at 20:48:42:
Perhaps, it's not mind over matter that keeps him alive and healthy but not taking the drugs, which, according to Dr. Duesberg can cause AIDS. Of course, the decision not to take the medications was made by his mind.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by lissa [2032.8] on August 26, 2006 at 23:59:03:
is HIV normally treated with drugs initially or is it only done after symptoms develop
As far as I know, both options are exercised. I remember reading Christine Maggiore's story in some newspaper, and she said the doctors (and Child Protective Service monsters, if I remember correctly) wanted her to take medications to "prevent infection" of her baby that she was pregnant with -- while she was healthy.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by lissa [2032.8] on August 26, 2006 at 23:56:03:
You're not taking into account the amount used and frequency, and degree of malnutrition. We all know sleep deprivation is harmful, but it can actually kill everybody if it's severe enough.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by R. [1213.2803] on August 26, 2006 at 23:59:57:
"Perhaps, it's not mind over matter that keeps him alive and healthy but not taking the drugs"
Or maybe it's both? The mind certainly plays a strong role, as you know, in one's health. A positive attitude strengthens and maintains the immune system, and visualization, especially visualizing the good cells destroying the bad ones is supposed to be very effective, particularly for cancer patients.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by lissa [2032.8] on August 26, 2006 at 23:48:59:
they only called it AIDS if he was HIV+. When not they call it the disease that it is.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by lissa [2032.8] on August 26, 2006 at 23:59:03:
No one dies from HIV. They die from the oppurtunistic infections that are Claimed to be caused by HIV weakening the immune system. I believe they are supposed to give the AIDS drugs when helper T cells get low.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by lissa [2032.8] on August 26, 2006 at 19:29:41:
I don't think the 30 or so oppurtunistic infections that they Call AIDS are small things. They are pretty serious. It might be the right combination of things that will weaken you, make you suceptable.
People here will say that not eating organic, for your blood type, or your ancestors will cause malnutrition, but what about drugs causing malabsorption problems? Antibiotics can affect the flora in our intestines, and in some creatures they Make nutrients they don't have to consume, so maybe they do more than we know, and maybe help us absorb neuts from foods, no matter what we eat. I have wondered how we didn't kill off all the flora in our intestines when we take antibiotics, but it doesn't seem like we do. Maybe with infection after infection, drugs, and other things, we do kill them all, or enough they can't help us absorb neuts, and it snowballs.
Since HIV is not said to have been proven to cause AIDS, just theorized, I don't think they really know what causes the problem.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by lissa [2032.8] on August 26, 2006 at 23:56:03:
you know a Lot of people that do all those things?
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by R. [1213.2803] on August 27, 2006 at 00:12:01:
It was after the clinical trial was over that I really got to see the lovely package inserts that listed the side effects of the drugs I was on. Talk about scary! So I did some more research and decided that DNA chain terminators and things that mess with your very mitochondria were things I'd rather not put in my body. I also developed a rash at about this time which may or may not have been related. I had come to a point where I just didn't feel like I "needed" these powerful chemotherapy agents. And is everyone aware that AZT is a failed chemo drug from the '60's that was dusted off by Burroughs Wellcome because of its ability to kill EVERYTHING? Think of the billions they've made off it and consider how much this poison costs.
Basically, if you want to know how we got where we are, simply follow the money. Why are there no studies to investigate causes other than HIV? There's no money in it. When Robert Gallo stole the "virus" from the French, it was just the beginning. There are some very good books on these subjects, and you can find them at virusmyth.net, and Amazon.com carries many of them. Celia Farber, who's been writing on this subject, has a good new one out called "Serious Adverse Effects", and she wrote an article for last March's Harper's magazine that caused a great deal of controversy and raised awareness in many people. It's available several places on the net.
A young mathematician named Rebecca Culshaw wrote an essay a few months ago called "Why I quit HIV". She was working with HIV models, and things just weren't adding up. This is also available in several places including rethinkaids.info, where many of the more brilliant minds in this fight congregate.
Check out a few of these references before declaring that the HIV=AIDS=death bandwagon is the place to be. Don't necessarily agree with me, but look at the evidence. All we ask is that it comes to light that there is a controversy going on and that people be allowed to see all the evidence. Yes, there are still people dying, and yes, many of them test positive for "HIV". The problem is that antibodies aren't all that specific, and they don't really know what they're testing for.
Lyn, your brother-in-law has my utmost sympathy. What I would really like to know is exactly what his wife and child died of. I'm not talking "AIDS-related complications" or the like. I'm saying was it liver failure, pneumonia, or what? R. mentioned that if you die of X (say TB) in absence of a poz test, you just die of TB, whereas in the presence of said test, you die of AIDS. This is just one example of the circular definitions that rule this mess--you just can't win.
And let's not forget the psychological mayhem that's being perpetrated on all these people. It doesn't feel good to be ostracized for having "deadly" blood. It's patently unfair to be excluded from going to another country on the basis of a blood test that really doesn't mean anything. There can't even be an AIDS conference in this country because we won't even admit anyone who we know is positive. What have we come to?
Enough for now. Go to virusmyth.net, hit "find" at the bottom of the page, and you will be presented with columns of subjects and authors. Read what concerns you most there, and please read some of Celia Farber's articles, most of which chronicle some very bad things that were done to innocent people. Read about the various whistleblowers and how they reached their conclusions. No one set out to prove the HIV hypothesis wrong, they just kept coming up with questions that had no answers.
Happy investigating!
Linda
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by Lyn [5481.10] on August 26, 2006 at 20:48:42:
there is a concept called the 'nocebo effect' that, if you believe something bad will happen, it will. Some people, when diagnosed with cancer, for example, basically give up and decide they are going to die (even if they take treatment). If you believe you are going to die, your chances of doing so are greater (IMHO).
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by two bits [2065.890] on August 27, 2006 at 02:59:45:
That's surely possible, but because of the evidence against the HIV-AIDS theory, I tend to believe he's alive and healthy because he decided to avoid the drugs.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by R. [1213.2803] on August 27, 2006 at 12:14:45:
Yes, it's probably a major factor, especially if he's living a healthy lifestyle.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by ANN [1003.516] on August 27, 2006 at 10:24:38:
Yes, we call this the voodoo hex, also. There's a great article about it by Matt Irwin on virusmyth.net. Matt is an MD practicing in Alexandria, VA. He uses homeopathy and natural methods as much as possible and practices about half time so he can do hospice work, which he finds very rewarding. He has several other good essays, too. Great guy.
Linda
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by two bits [2065.890] on August 27, 2006 at 12:23:49:
The greatest cause of death in the "HIV positive" today is liver failure. I don't have to tell you that this is not an opportunistic infection, do I? It's the killer drugs. Granted, some people seem to do well on them in the beginning, since they kill off everything, and it's thought they have some antioxidant effective. Of course, there are much cheaper and safer ways to get your antioxidants. And it never ceases to amaze me that people put up with the horribly disfiguring lipodystrophy that accompanies the use of protease inhibitors without even questioning whether these drugs are really keeping them alive. the infectious disease doctors scare the living daylights out of you by saying if you don't take the drugs everyday, the virus will become resistant. It never occurs to them that this "resistance" is the drugs simply ceasing to work, if they ever did.
Linda
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by Vince F [4572.20] on August 26, 2006 at 13:57:37:
Hey, another Philly native with good sense! Unfortunately, Duesberg's stand has virtually cost him his career at Berkeley. Oh, he's still there, but they don't give him much to do these days besides planning the department picnic! Ay 69, he's probably about ready to retire, anyway, but the treatment he has received is nothing short of criminal. He was not even allowed to reply to articles in the big scientific journals, and he is probably the leading expert in retroviruses, as well as a well-respected cancer researcher. Tell me there's no suppression of information going on. Oops, there I go again!
Linda
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by moonchild [1815.2803] on August 27, 2006 at 13:19:22:
Thanks Linda, you have some impressive knowledge in this area. I am not at all surprised about the effects on the liver, and that it's the major cause of death. Liver side effects is common for many drugs, I believe.
In any case, thanks for this info. I also still believe that one's mind and will plays a strong role in their ability to recover and/or ward off danger, you being a good case in point!!!
tb
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by moonchild [1815.2803] on August 27, 2006 at 13:25:15:
Walt will certainly be able to relate to Duesberg's experiences, unfortunately.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by lissa [2032.8] on August 26, 2006 at 23:59:03:
It has varied a great deal. They watch the CD4 (T-cell) count and "viral load". These days, they tend to hold off until these surrogate markers (they really have very little correlation with clinical health, in most cases) reach a certain point. So if you happen, for some reason, to have a low CD4 count, they will most likely put you on drugs. Unfortunately, some people just naturally have lower counts than others. To be diagnosed with AIDS, since the rules change in '93, you merely need a poz test and a CD4 count under 200.
I think a viral load of over 100,000 is thought to be cause for concern. The problem with this is that it does not measure virus but RNA particles, which could be anything, even just normal cell debris. Then they do some crazy multiplication to make it look like lots of virus. The inventor of PCR (polymerase chain reaction),the method used to determine viral load, Nobel laureate Kary Mullis, says it does not work for this purpose. He is one of the leading dissident scientists.
Sorry, I digress. I believe these days they take a more "wait-and-see" attitude, since the "Hit Hard, Hit Early" campaign of about 1996, when protease inhibitors first came out, was an unmitigated disaster. There was no question they wanted to put me on the drugs, since I came out of the hospital an AIDS patient, with CD4 of 100 and viral load of about 700,000. Wish I'd known enough to question back then.
Linda
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by Vince F [4572.20] on August 27, 2006 at 05:05:35:
yes. and though some are very sickly and severely immunosuppressed, I wouldn't say the majority are.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by lissa [2032.8] on August 27, 2006 at 13:53:15:
how many do you think are HIV+ ?
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by moonchild [1815.2803] on August 27, 2006 at 13:25:15:
in 89 Duesberg said he couldn't get grant money. My neice and her DH do biomedical research, and depend on grants, so I know how they work. Interesting that he said he believed the HIV/AIDS connection, years ago when I asked him. I haven't felt like it was worth asking again. Maybe he knows how to play the game.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by moonchild [1815.2803] on August 27, 2006 at 13:41:46:
May I ask where/how they suspected you contracted it?
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by moonchild [1815.2803] on August 27, 2006 at 13:41:46:
I figured that the CD4 count was a marker for disease or resistance and why evey expert didn't balk. I didn't believe that HIV was the cause.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by moonchild [1815.2803] on August 27, 2006 at 13:41:46:
Thanks Linda,
Now that is the type of thing (giving "preventative" treatment for just a pos. test) that I can believe could cause someone to become sick, who may not otherwise get AIDS
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by lissa [2032.8] on August 26, 2006 at 23:42:25:
I would agree with you on that Lissa, something that can withstand drugs is only going to change into something even tougher.
On another note, I haven't seen anything mentioned why this all started in homosexual men.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by Vince F [4572.20] on August 27, 2006 at 14:55:25:
I have no idea. I don't think many but it's not the kind of thing I ask people... I know that some of them that are ill are hep c. pos. though.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by two bits [2065.890] on August 27, 2006 at 13:32:58:
You're welcome--just hope I've given people something to think about! And yes, the liver has to process all the drugs we take, so it frequently takes a beating. I have just recently begun to see the profound connection between mind and body. Gotta get better at my SR and resume my Qigong practice!
Linda
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by lyn [5481.10] on August 27, 2006 at 15:28:33:
Hah! Very good question. As a middle-aged white female, I hardly fit the "high risk" group. When I mentioned my much-younger (black) ex-boyfriend, they were all over that! Trouble is, he consistently tested negative. Hmmm...quite a dilemma. I'll admit to not having been a saint sexually. I did grow up in the '60's, after all. But there wasn't much likelihood I'd run up against anyone positive. And the biggest study done with serodiscordant heterosexual couples (that's 1 poz and 1 neg) yielded NO seroconversions over 10 years. There was some condom usage, but there was a lot of nonusage. There was some anal sex. And NO ONE went from neg to poz. So if this is such a sexually transmissable disease, what gives?
The answer, I believe, is that we are dealing not with a virus but with myriad causes of immune suppression. I had a restaurant at the time, my boyfriend had just left me to find a women with whom he could someday have children, and I came down with a bad cold or flu. I lost my appetite (you have no idea how rare that is!)and developed trouble breathing. After several excruciating months of trying to find an answer and schlepping from doctor to doctor who had no better answers than "allergies" and Flonase, I finally got a friend to take me to the emergency room, where they got me on oxygen immediately. It was amazing I was still walking around! I have a feeling I came pretty close to dying, and I can't say that some of the things they gave me didn't help pull me out of it.
When you take the contagion out of the equation, you no longer have to wonder who in your murky past may have "infected" you. The earliest guys who were diagnosed were not the "previously healthy" individuals they were said to be--they were heavily involved with recdreational drugs, including poppers, and used antibiotics to stave off constant infections. This lifestyle was a disaster waiting to happen. I can't say for sure why certain people get sick and some don't, or why some recover and others don't. Perhaps there is a point past which you can't push your body and expect to come back. Nobody has all the answers, but somebody needs to be asking more questions. And nobody should assume that a poz test means anything except that you have antibodies, which used to be a good thing.
Sorry if I got off on a tangent and "overanswered" your question!
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by Charles [5350.74] on August 27, 2006 at 16:23:07:
Charles, I just partially addressed this in an answer to Lyn. With the sexual revolution, things started getting really wild. The drug use was monumental, and they were popping antibiotics like candy. I read something by one guy, now dead, who listed an incredible number of disease he had at one time and the drugs he took to try to get better. Could anyone's immune system withstand this assault? The original theory was that this was lifestyle-related, but when Gallo held that infamous press conference in 1984, everything shifted to a viral cause. Gallo, coincidentally, had been a virus hunter when it was thought that viruses might be a main cause of cancer, so he just shifted his focus and already had a bias in that direction.
Linda
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by lissa [2032.8] on August 27, 2006 at 16:21:25:
You're welcome, and you're right. Also, in the early days, AZT was given in ridiculously high amounts, and I cannot tell you how many gay guys I've talked to who watched their friends who took it die, while those who refused treatment stayed well. Many of the side effects mimic "AIDS" symptoms eerily well, and the package insert even admits this. WSomething to think about.
Linda
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by moonchild [1815.2803] on August 27, 2006 at 16:43:26:
I think some people will be resistant to a disease for different reasons. Some may have built an immunity, and some because of their genes. I think it was that milk maids were resistant to small pox because they were exposed to cow pox from milking cows, and it is milder so it's like they were vaccinated. I think it was genes that prevented some people from geting the bubonic plague. 25% are immune to the herpes virus.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by moonchild [1815.2803] on August 27, 2006 at 16:49:58:
Well I happen to disagree with the medical profession, I think the way to heal ourself is stimulating our immune system. I know that tobacco can do that and I believe there are chemicals in other plants that will do that also, the only problem with these chemicals is how can we get them into our body.
Tobacco has 3 or 4 chemicals with AntiHIV activity plus plus it can make our body kill infections that can kill us.
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by Charles [5350.74] on August 27, 2006 at 17:12:22:
You ever read this?
http://www.stopgettingsick.com/Condtemplate.cfm-2097-228-1
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by two bits [2065.890] on August 27, 2006 at 12:23:49:
I believe Lyn said his lifestyle is not that healthy. smokes, drinks, drives his harley (lol...that's what she said, the point being he enjoys his life I guess, but don't know about healthy)
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by moonchild [1815.2803] on August 27, 2006 at 16:23:28:
Linda,
Your information has been very interesting, informative, and helpful, I'm sure. I've read your posts before and have always learned something interesting! Funny you mentioned Qi Gong, I love it. I usually do one or two of those exercises right before my SR and it really helps me get into the SR easier. They use a similar concept in my yoga class. At the end of the night they make us all lie down, close out the lights, and practice SR for about 15 minutes.
Keep up the great work and continue to take care of that good mind of yours!
tb
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by Charles [5350.74] on August 27, 2006 at 17:22:04:
Interesting stuff. Let's hope it works when they make drugs out of it, or it'll never be used. If they can't make a bunch of money off it...
Linda
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by lissa [2032.8] on August 27, 2006 at 20:58:15:
I wonder if his lifestyle got worse after he tested poz. It has that effect on a lot of people if they believe they're gonna die anyway. Anyway, goes to show that even playing fast and loose with your health won't necessarily cause the "evil HIV" to getcha. Probably the best thing he can do is stay away from the "lifesaving drugs". If all he's got wrong with him is a poz test, he's probably perfectly healthy. The tests are so screwed up.
Linda
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by two bits [80.56] on August 28, 2006 at 01:07:25:
Thanks, Two Bits.
I have a few CDs that my Qigong instructor made, and I think they'd serve as SR, since they are basically meditation where you concentrate on making your major organs healthy and ridding the body of bad qi and disease. Supposedly the master who taught this guy has a 90% cure rate when dealing with cancer. Something for Western medicine to emulate!
Linda
In Reply to: Re: brother in law with HIV posted by moonchild [1815.2803] on August 29, 2006 at 06:12:31:
Hi Linda,
They sound like good CD's, especially if the instructor made them. Yes, it's all about that bad chi and it getting stuck and blocked and the toxic results of that. 90% ain't bad!
I was at the county fair last week and encountered a both where they did chi healing. The guy did a little demo on me. It was fabulous. First he felt the energy by touch my aura. They he gave me some accupressure while he made loud buzzing noises to help clear the chi blocks. When he was done I felt like a million dollars. If only I could have that done all the time, I'd be fabulous fabulous fabulous. Now something strange has happened to my kkeyboard and I don't know how this post will come out.
Two bits
|
[ Aids Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |