- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

In article <californDzvI6s….@netcom.com> calif…@netcom.com  writes:

> [...] We cannot expect "HIV
> positives" to be any more healthy on average than "HIV negatives", and
> some percentage of the latter will always suffer health problems. But HIV
> positives’ health problems will generally be looked at mainly in the
> context of being (alleged) effects of – or associated with – "HIV" while
> similar conditions in "HIV negatives" will not be mistaken for being HIV
> related. Or, the doctor will mostly ignore those conditions he believes
> are unrelated to "HIV", as if they don’t matter as much as those symptoms
> or problems he believes *are* related to HIV. This is why I have said that
> HIV positive people don’t have as good or as objective a medical treatment
> experience as those who are HIV "negative". In other words, their
> diagnosis does have predictive value in that we can predict they will
> experience from the medical profession certain possibly health-damaging
> "non-HIV effects of an HIV positive diagnosis".

Absolutely agreed. Although one would hope that those who are aware
of the artificial nature of their "HIV positive" status will demand
rational and appropriate treatment. A doctor who believes in "HIV
theory" is about as useful to someone with an "HIV" label as a pilot
who is convinced that planes can’t really fly.

> Another "non-HIV effect of an HIV positive diagnosis" is the
> fear/depression/stress/hopelessness mindset. The so-called "HIV positive"
> diagnosed person cannot just avoid medical drugs like AZT, he needs to
> examine, challenge, and ultimately reject this whole mindset and the
> similar, reinforcing you’re-gonna-die mindset of others who are both HIV
> positive or not. Otherwise, he may go into a downward psychsomatic spiral
> even in the absence of AZT chemotherapy intervention.

There seems to be a huge incidence of suicide associated with these
meaningless "HIV" diagnoses. Potential victims of this pogrom should
get in touch with honest, helpful groups as early as possible, and
scrupulously avoid "Aids-deluded" medical professionals, who are their
greatest danger.

> Despite the above, I agree it is absolutely necessary to avoid immune
> suppressive chemotherapy because it damages health and immunity by
> attacking bone marrow, T Cells, the liver, kidneys, Thymus, etc.
> Avoidance of recreational drugs is important for similar reasons. Building
> up health directly through diet, nutritional supplementation to eliminate
> deficiencies, exercise regimens, stress reduction, risk elimination, and
> yes, the occasional *short-term* medical drug intervention, etc. is the
> best solution.

Yes, short term, and appropriate for the complaint. No "HIV disease"
claptrap. As always, the most important thing anyone can do for their
health is to avoid these corrupt, wretched tests altogether.

 John
—  
"I think truth can be suspended, re-routed, rejected, for seemingly
astonishingly long periods of time. But I think it is kind of like
energy. I don’t think it can be destroyed.
It is rather like an airplane in a holding pattern and it does have
to land somewhere eventually."       Celia Farber, Reappraising AIDS

: "HIV" does absolutely nothing in the majority
: of so-called "HIV positive" people. To induce any kind of health
: problems from "HIV", poisonous drugs have to be taken in large
: quantities under the guise of "medication". Those who refuse to
: subscribe to this process remain in suspiciously good health, as
: the various HEAL groups and Continuum have observed.
—

This is true John, but with certain caveats. We cannot expect "HIV
positives" to be any more healthy on average than "HIV negatives", and
some percentage of the latter will always suffer health problems. But HIV
positives’ health problems will generally be looked at mainly in the
context of being (alleged) effects of – or associated with – "HIV" while
similar conditions in "HIV negatives" will not be mistaken for being HIV
related. Or, the doctor will mostly ignore those conditions he believes
are unrelated to "HIV", as if they don’t matter as much as those symptoms
or problems he believes *are* related to HIV. This is why I have said that
HIV positive people don’t have as good or as objective a medical treatment
experience as those who are HIV "negative". In other words, their
diagnosis does have predictive value in that we can predict they will
experience from the medical profession certain possibly health-damaging
"non-HIV effects of an HIV positive diagnosis".

Another "non-HIV effect of an HIV positive diagnosis" is the
fear/depression/stress/hopelessness mindset. The so-called "HIV positive"
diagnosed person cannot just avoid medical drugs like AZT, he needs to
examine, challenge, and ultimately reject this whole mindset and the
similar, reinforcing you’re-gonna-die mindset of others who are both HIV
positive or not. Otherwise, he may go into a downward psychsomatic spiral
even in the absence of AZT chemotherapy intervention.

Despite the above, I agree it is absolutely necessary to avoid immune
suppressive chemotherapy because it damages health and immunity by
attacking bone marrow, T Cells, the liver, kidneys, Thymus, etc.
Avoidance of recreational drugs is important for similar reasons. Building
up health directly through diet, nutritional supplementation to eliminate
deficiencies, exercise regimens, stress reduction, risk elimination, and
yes, the occasional *short-term* medical drug intervention, etc. is the
best solution.

Californ

> This is true John, but with certain caveats. We cannot expect "HIV
> positives" to be any more healthy on average than "HIV negatives", and
> some percentage of the latter will always suffer health problems.

This is absolutly UNTRUE john.  Every prospective study of HIV infected and
uninfected individuals has found to the contrary.  The only evidence in support
of this statement is found from cross sectional studies in which many people
who are studied at a single point in time are found to be asymptomatic and
seropostive.  You and californ are making a, perhaps the, classic error
in epidemiologic reasoning.

> > One of the best demonstrations that they are right is the rather
> > awkward fact that "HIV" does absolutely nothing in the majority of
> > so-called "HIV positive" people. To induce any kind of health
> > problems from "HIV", poisonous drugs have to be taken in large
> > quantities under the guise of "medication". Those who refuse to
> > subscribe to this process remain in suspiciously good health, as the
> > various HEAL groups and Continuum have observed.

> For how long does HIV do nothing to such people?  

Indefinitely, as far as can be determined. Meet some, and form an
impression of your own about their state of health.

> Is there good
> evidence that these survivors (and the best of luck to them) aren’t
> simply a self-selecting group?  (i.e., those people that don’t survive
> don’t join such groups, and those members that subsequently die of
> what the rest of us would call AIDS related illness are found to have
> taken these toxic drugs, or are said to have died of some ordinary (if
> somewhat rare in non-immune suppressed individuals) illness.)  

They are very much a self-selected group, of course, but that
doesn’t detract from the fact that they refused to take the
medication and they are here to tell the tale; the opposite
of what would be expected. There is no corresponding group of
long-term surviviors of "Aids medication".

Whether there is any large group of healthy people in recent
years who refused "Aids medication" but still developed and died
of "Aids" the way the medicated people did, I don’t know. It
certainly seems unlikely. Continuum, who are in contact with all
kinds of "Aids" and "HIV+" subjects, report that the illness
and death concentrates in the medicated group, whatever their
initial state of health.

The suspiciously clear correlation between consumption of "Aids"
drugs and development of "Aids" (and its converse) has now been
noticed and admitted even by mainstream clinicians such as Dr
Donald Abrams, as well as groups such as HEAL and Continuum.
"Maybe if we just stop it altogether people will be better off,"
he is reported to have said. This is exactly what the dissident
authorities have been saying for years.

> Is there some solid evidence that adopting a healthy lifestyle and not
> taking AZT and friends actually works?  Or is it a bit like these
> crank groups that think they can live forever by doing something or
> other, but who turn out to die anyway?

Go and meet them. How else are you going to find out? Also, in
the UK, the small number of "Aids" deaths and cases started to
level off and decline purely in response to the reduction in
toxicity of this "medicine", and increased refusal of it by
prospective victims. There are no other explanations available.

> Huh?  AIDS hasn’t spread into the heterosexual community as much as
> was once feared, but there are alternative explanations, even within
> the HIV causes AIDS conspiracy.

That won’t wash. The errors about "Aids" are on a monumental scale.
The total absence of the "heterosexual explosion of Aids" is not a
minor miscalculation. It represents root and branch incomprehension
of the phenomenon. Also, the epidemiology of what little "Aids" we
have had here totally demolishes claims that an infectious agent is
in any responsible.

 John
—  
"Meanwhile, let us hope that the country is not confronted with a real
epidemic in the near future: after the disinformation the government
has told us about Aids, who would believe it?"
                 Andrew Neil, editor, The Sunday Times, 23 June 1996.

>> j…@blackdog.demon.co.uk (himself) writes:

>> > Some scientists believe all positive antibody
>> > test results are false positives because of this huge problem of
>> > cross-reactions.

>> And they are wrong.

> One of the best demonstrations that they are right is the rather
> awkward fact that "HIV" does absolutely nothing in the majority
> of so-called "HIV positive" people.

I actually addressed this earlier today.  You are wrong and your assertion is
rubbish.

> j…@blackdog.demon.co.uk (himself) writes:

> > Some scientists believe all positive antibody
> > test results are false positives because of this huge problem of
> > cross-reactions.

> And they are wrong.

One of the best demonstrations that they are right is the rather
awkward fact that "HIV" does absolutely nothing in the majority
of so-called "HIV positive" people. To induce any kind of health
problems from "HIV", poisonous drugs have to be taken in large
quantities under the guise of "medication". Those who refuse to
subscribe to this process remain in suspiciously good health, as
the various HEAL groups and Continuum have observed.

All that was necessary in the UK to reverse a small but growing
number of "Aids" deaths was a reduction in the toxicity of these
drugs and, increasingly, outright refusal to accept them by
potential victims. Apart from a few tragic individuals continuing
to poison themselves to death, the whole subject of "Aids" is
ancient history here.

Even allowing for the fact that the US bought heavily into the
"Aids" myth, surely you will be pleased to find the same happy
outcome, as more and more people refuse to subscribe to this
superstition and go on to enjoy their lives. Or will we find you,
like Dr Harris, forever on the touch-lines of life, shrieking
"Premature! You’re all going to Die!" at the players? I hope
not.

 John
—  
"HIV is a metaphor for a lot of quasi-related phenomena. No one has
ever proved its existence as a virus. We don’t believe it exists."
         Dr. V. F. Turner, Royal Perth Hospital, Western Australia

>> In article <53ra3n$…@artemis.ibernet.es>, to…@ibm.net writes:
>> [...]
>> > Can you explain more about the "bands" in the wb??? I was told
>> > "positive" only, with no other adjective. What do you mean?

>> The western blot detects the size of the proteins with which the antibodies
>> react.  This size may match the size of  known HIV viral proteins.  

> Or other proteins.

If you reread my post you will see I was careful to say just that.

> Some scientists believe all positive antibody
> test results are false positives because of this huge problem of
> cross-reactions.

And they are wrong.

As more is known, so the disability of these

> tests is better understood. It is quite impossible to confidently
> assign any protein to an antibody to HIV. Certain proteins are
> theorised to have some relationship to "HIV". It’s no stronger than
> that.

Rubbish.

For how long does HIV do nothing to such people?  Is there good
evidence that these survivors (and the best of luck to them) aren’t
simply a self-selecting group?  (i.e., those people that don’t survive
don’t join such groups, and those members that subsequently die of
what the rest of us would call AIDS related illness are found to have
taken these toxic drugs, or are said to have died of some ordinary (if
somewhat rare in non-immune suppressed individuals) illness.)  

Is there some solid evidence that adopting a healthy lifestyle and not
taking AZT and friends actually works?  Or is it a bit like these
crank groups that think they can live forever by doing something or
other, but who turn out to die anyway?

> All that was necessary in the UK to reverse a small but growing
> number of "Aids" deaths was a reduction in the toxicity of these
> drugs and, increasingly, outright refusal to accept them by
> potential victims. Apart from a few tragic individuals continuing to
> poison themselves to death, the whole subject of "Aids" is ancient
> history here.

Huh?  AIDS hasn’t spread into the heterosexual community as much as
was once feared, but there are alternative explanations, even within
the HIV causes AIDS conspiracy.
—
Bruce Stephens                  | email: B.Steph…@math.ruu.nl
Utrecht University              | telephone: +31 30 2534630
Department of Mathematics       | telefax:   +31 30 2518394
P.O. Box 80010, 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands

> In article <53ra3n$…@artemis.ibernet.es>, to…@ibm.net writes:
> [...]
> > Can you explain more about the "bands" in the wb??? I was told
> > "positive" only, with no other adjective. What do you mean?

> The western blot detects the size of the proteins with which the antibodies
> react.  This size may match the size of  known HIV viral proteins.  

Or other proteins. Some scientists believe all positive antibody
test results are false positives because of this huge problem of
cross-reactions. As more is known, so the disability of these
tests is better understood. It is quite impossible to confidently
assign any protein to an antibody to HIV. Certain proteins are
theorised to have some relationship to "HIV". It’s no stronger than
that.

There are about nine different Western Blot tests currently in use,
all contradicting each other as to which proteins to use. A positive
result under some regimes will be negative under others.

The actual interpretation of Western Blot tests comprises a large
subjective element, which varies from place to place and time to
time, and takes into account anything the subject has said which
might reveal a possible "route for infection", and whether he or
she belongs to a high or low "risk group". Thus the same technical
results may be interpreted as positive or negative on purely
subjective, indeed voluntary, criteria. This explains why so few
people who have not stated that they are practising homosexuals or
intravenous drug users have found themselves labelled "HIV positive".

> Some tests are considered indeterminate because the antibodies react
> to proteins known not to be HIV proteins (these are negative tests in
> that they are not indicative of HIV, but are not  read as such — only
> totally unreactive WBs are termed negative).  

Actually not true at all. The interpretation of test results as
positive or negative depends upon the factors above. It is a mistake
to say that only totally unreactive WBs are termed negative. The 1992
testing guidelines issued by the UK Public Health Laboratories detail
circumstances when subjective criteria will be taken into account:

 "If the optical density/cut off ratio for the assay A is < 2 and
  the individual is not stated on the clinician’s request form to
  be at high risk, it is recommended that a negative report be
  issued without follow-up."
       [ Prejudice Drives HIV test results, Continuum Vol4.No3, p2 ]

> Others are considered indeterminate because they react with proteins
> of a certain size which may be HIV proteins but there are too few, or
> too weak, reactions to be deemed definitely positive.  Thus, if you
> doubt the reality of the tests "postive" result, it is reasonable to
> ask if the criteria for positivity were just met or greatly exceeded.  

Doubt everything you hear about this test, as it has no scientific
validity. This is why it has turned out to be such a hopeless
diagnostic tool. The only sensible action is to avoid taking any
"HIV test", or if compelled to do so, be aware that its results are
totally without relevance to questions of health.

 John
—
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the
majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish
than sensible."                          Bertrand Russell 1872-1970

>>If you believe that this is a false-positive, check just what bands were
>>positve on the WB.  Was it a marginally positive test or an unequivocally
>>positive one? Have the WB repeated to make sure the lab didn’t mix up the
>>specimens. Get a confirmatory viral load test.
>>Then decide.
>>Mean time practice safer sex.  It’s good advice for both HIV- and HIV+ people.

> Can you explain more about the "bands" in the wb??? I was told
> "positive" only, with no other adjective. What do you mean?
> Tom

The western blot detects the size of the proteins with which the antibodies
react.  This size may match the size of  known HIV viral proteins.   Some tests
are considered indeterminate because the antibodies react to proteins known not
to be HIV proteins (these are negative tests in that they are not indicative of
HIV, but are not  read as such — only totally unreactive WBs are termed
negative).  Others are considered indeterminate because they react with
proteins of a certain size which may be HIV proteins but there are too few, or
too weak, reactions to be deemed definitely positive.  Thus, if you doubt the
reality of the tests "postive" result, it is reasonable to ask if the criteria
for positivity were just met or greatly exceeded.  Of course if the lab tested
someone elses blood this is not helpful and a repeat test is also needed.