Re: What hope can be offered to AIDS patients?

[Guest guest]

,

The point is to

>demonstrate that it's possible to stay healthy and that it's not wise

>to get into the pharmaceutical slaughterhouse line. That said, I'll

>be grateful for anything you can point me to.

I don't know how useful this will be but maybe at least he'd get the idea

that vitamins and other nutraceuticals can be effective (whether or not this

guy in the article beat AIDS with vitamins as he claims).

HIV-infected British man believed freed of virus

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2005/11/14/aids-cure-051114

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote:

> That said, I'll

>be grateful for anything you can point me to.

>

>

>

>

>

Sandor Katz would be my " go to " guy for this situation. Is there, doing

that, according to his book....

--s

[Guest guest]

,

A few years ago I visited Enig at her office (she's local to me)

and toward the end of our meeting she showed me an article that I

believe she wrote. It was on the benefits of coconut oil for AIDS

patients (because coconut oil is anti-viral). It was a

research/academic paper. She was very excited about it.

If I'm wrong and she wasn't the author, she would at least know about

the study.

This doesn't address why he shouldn't just throw in the towel now. I

haven't dealt w/anyone who's had AIDS, but I'd say in general anyone

who's just found out traumatic news isn't able to see things clearly

and goes through a rocky emotional time for a while as they adjust to

the news. If he could be reminded that that's the nature of

traumatic change -- major decisions should be postponed until he can

adjust to his new reality. Many people have found great, genuine joy

in living in spite of serious illnesses and difficulties. There is

still good for him to experience in life. It's understandable if he

can't see that now and it may take a long while before he experiences

it. But he shouldn't give up at a time when his perception is

naturally clouded.

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <paul_idol@y...>

wrote:

>

> Through one of the many strange twists of fate which seem to

> eternally afflict me, the task of convincing someone newly

diagnosed

> with AIDS that proper nutrition and supplementation combined with

a

> judicious application of alternative medical procedures like IV

> infusions of vitamin C can offer a good shot at maintaining health

> has fallen to me. He seems to think that since it's inevitable

that

> he's going to completely disintegrate, he might as well avoid all

the

> suffering and the humiliation and check out early.

>

> A mixture of anecdotal journalism and lay medical journalism

> salted with only a little scholarly literature would

> probably be best, as he's neither highly educated nor

> predisposed to understand that nutrition is extremely

> powerful and that standard medical and dietary advice is

> disastrous. For much the same reasons, I don't know that

> there's any point in delving into the currently unanswerable

> questions of whether HIV really causes AIDS, whether AIDS

> might actually be the result of drugs and medicines,

> whether HIV was created by people, and so on.

> That said, I'll be grateful for anything you

> can point me to.

Hi :

You might suggest that he stops doing whatever he has been doing to

supress his immune system. He must have been doing something. There

is no scientific study to prove either that HIV causes AIDS or that

it is even the probable cause. If he ever gets interested (or if you

want more information), he might check out virusmyth.com.

Chi

[Guest guest]

While, certainly, we on this list have experience with science

> that isn't what it's cracked up to be, occasionally I start wondering

> about this diet, given the preponderance of flaky views that exist here.

Gene,

Sometimes I wonder what you eat. Seriously.

B.

[Guest guest]

> My understanding is that it is highly, highly

> probable that HIV causes AIDS, and that the few

> people who insist otherwise, blaming it on drug

> abuse, or who knows what else, are about as credible

> as the flat earth society. While, certainly, we on this

> list have experience with science that isn't what it's

> cracked up to be, occasionally I start wondering about this

> diet, given the preponderance of flaky views that exist here.

Gene:

You rule the flaky thinking. Are you sure when you say " it is highly,

highly probable " do you not actually mean " it is highly, highly,

highly probable " ? As far as I know, being highly probable in science

is not actually as good as a scientific paper that proves something is

actually the case. If you can give us the scientific study that proves

HIV causes AIDS then I would consider you less flaky in your reasoning.

The lesson I learned in school about the widely held belief that the

earth was flat and the centre of the universe (it was said to

be " highly, highly probable " I think), was that just because a

majority hold a certain scientific view it does not make it right and

it only takes one person to introduce evidence to show the widely held

view (the establishment view) is wrong. If you can't find the study

that proves HIV causes AIDS (there isn't one), you might want to read

Duesberg's paper on AIDS epidemiology: Inconsistencies with

Human Immunosupressive Virus and with infectious disease. When you

read it please offer your evidence to counter the points Duesberg

makes.

Chi

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Berg " <bberg@c...>

wrote:

> > The lesson I learned in school about the widely held belief

> > that the earth was flat and the centre of the universe (it

> > was said to be " highly, highly probable " I think), was that

> > just because a majority hold a certain scientific view it

> > does not make it right and it only takes one person to

> > introduce evidence to show the widely held view (the

> > establishment view) is wrong.

> Actually, that's a myth. The round-earth model

> has generally been accepted since classical times.

:

I don't care if it's a myth, it's a good lesson anyway. This

probably wasn't the only myth I learned in school. I was taught, for

instance, that milk was good for me. No reference was ever made to

the agronomic factors used in its production.

> > If you can't find the study

> > that proves HIV causes AIDS (there isn't one)...

> Here's what the NIH has to say. Obviously it would

> be unethical to inject humans with HIV, but

> apparently they've done studies with lower primates

> and other animals that do indeed demonstrate this as

> clearly as possible without actually experimenting on humans.

> There have also been cases involving blood transfusions and

> laboratory/medical accidents in which workers with no other

> known risk factors developed AIDS and died.

What the NIH presents as evidence on that web page is not a proof

that HIV causes AIDS. If there ever was a scientific study to prove

that HIV is the cause of AIDS or even the probable cause of AIDS the

NIH should have and would have provided a scientific reference on

that page. They didn't.

Chi

[Guest guest]

Oddly, I happened to have been studying AIDS for a while. First

because in reading the book " Vaccine A " I came across a reference to

swine fever & upon looking it up came across some pretty credible

evidence that the type of AIDS in the US & Cuba may be swine fever

which often is cross-contaminated with HIV.

Then on the CDC's own website I read a number of very bad arguments

about why the AIDS in Africa has nothing whatsoever to do with a

series of polio vaccines given some time before. I didn't think it

did have anything to do with the polio vaccines, until I read all that.

Good news is that ozone treatment is supposed to be very effective for

those with AIDS. Try googling ozone and AIDS and see what you get.

Beware of QuackWatch as it's run by the pharmafia and poo-pooh's any

nutritional cure. I asked in the rife group about rife machines for

AIDS and they said pretty much unanimously that ozone is the way to

go, though I had heard that Rife worked fairly well for those with

AIDS.

A Dr. Rath (google him) was trying to treat people with AIDS in South

Africa with vitamin C FOR FREE and the government made him stop. He

said high doses of c were giving them very good results. Maybe it

didn't fit in with their population control program.

One more bit, there is also good evidence that the T counts mean

nothing - they go up & down throughout the day & depending on how much

you rest & what you eat.

This may make me sound paranoid, but look it up, you'll see!

>

> >

> > Through one of the many strange twists of fate which seem to

> > eternally afflict me, the task of convincing someone newly

> diagnosed

> > with AIDS that proper nutrition and supplementation combined with

> a

> > judicious application of alternative medical procedures like IV

> > infusions of vitamin C can offer a good shot at maintaining health

> > has fallen to me. He seems to think that since it's inevitable

> that

> > he's going to completely disintegrate, he might as well avoid all

> the

> > suffering and the humiliation and check out early.

> >

[Guest guest]

Yep, I've heard that too, that people with AIDS often don't have HIV,

and people with HIV don't always develop AIDS. Supposedly HIV is a

relatively harmless virus, it's the stuff you get at the same time

that makes you sick. For example, lots of people who get lyme get

treated and get better. They don't test for all the tiny parasites

people get along with the lyme that can really do a number on you.

They can make you much more sick than lyme itself, but it's all

grouped into the category of " lyme " . See for yourself at

www.lymephotos.com (but not while you're eating!)

> What the NIH presents as evidence on that web page is not a proof

> that HIV causes AIDS. If there ever was a scientific study to prove

> that HIV is the cause of AIDS or even the probable cause of AIDS the

> NIH should have and would have provided a scientific reference on

> that page. They didn't.

> Chi

>

[Guest guest]

>

> " Gene:

> You rule the flaky thinking. "

> That's interesting. I've been called many things,

> but this is the first time I've been called 'flaky'.

I didn't call you flaky, I said your thinking was flaky. Whether or

not you are flaky I have no idea. Please read what I say as I said

it.

> " Are you sure when you say " it is highly,

> highly probable " do you not actually mean " it is highly, highly,

> highly probable " ? "

>

> I'm 89% sure.

If you are diagnosed with AIDS and are about to undertake the highly

toxic anti-viral drug treatment to deal with this proposed viral

cause of the syndrome, AIDS, is 89% sure sufficient to make the

decision?

> " As far as I know, being highly probable in science is not

> actually as good as a scientific paper that proves something is

> actually the case. "

>

> Curious - I wasn't aware that science PROVED anything.

Good point. A scientist should always have doubt about anything that

has been proven. It's the only way we progress from science that is

wrong.

> " If you can't find the study that proves HIV causes

> AIDS (there isn't one), you might want to read Duesberg's

> paper on AIDS epidemiology: Inconsistencies with HIV

> and with infectious disease.

> When you read it please offer your evidence

> to counter the points Duesberg makes. "

> Again - this is always quite classic. When encountering a

> fool, you are asked to be an expert in a subject, or become

> one, in order to counter a claim that (from everything

> that I can understand) is not considered seriously by an

> enormous majority of AIDS researchers. Far beyond the

> majority that may belive that saturated fats are bad for

> you....but you stated it as fact. I think

> that the burden of proof is on you.

Are you calling me a fool?

If you aren't a fool, you should have no trouble understanding

Duesberg's paper. It is not a highly technical paper on viruses, it

is about questioning the epidemiological evidence that claims to

support HIV as the cause of AIDS. Duesberg has a website.

If there was a paper that proved HIV was the cause of AIDS then

there would be a burden of proof to prove it isn't so. Until then,

the burden of proof lies with those who claim, in the absence of a

scientific study, that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

If the majority believe that chemotherapy is usually the best

treatment for cancer you might want to check what percentage of

oncologists take chemotherapy when they get cancer.

> Yes - it is attractive to believe that the majority

> of the scientific community is wrong. But, I doubt

> (am I wrong?) that you are an expert in the field yourself.

> You've just found someone whose views you find attractive,

> you state them as fact, and anyone who doubts them is a

> flake. Cool.

It may be attractive to believe that the majority of the scientific

community is right. In order to question the view of the majority of

the scientific community, it is necessary to review the evidence

offered on both sides of the argument. It is not always necessary to

be an expert to examine the evidence on both sides and to come to

your own rational conclusion. It it certainly irrational to support

one side or the other without reviewing the evidence from both sides.

With respect to my looking at the HIV-AIDS situation, I have read

Duesberg's papers and evidence from others and I own and have read a

copy of Gallo's book, " Virus Hunting " " Aids, cancer & the

human retrovirus: a story of scientific discovery " . I assume you

know that Gallo is the American discoverer of HIV as the probable

cause of AIDS.

I don't find Deuesberg's views on any subject attractive, but I do

find his epidemiological evidence sufficient to cause me to believe

that HIV does not cause AIDS until someone produces a paper that

refutes Duesberg's evidence to show that HIV does cause AIDS and

therefore Duesberg is wrong. Gallo's book didn't prove Duesberg

wrong.

You can believe whatever you want, I don't care. Others reading this

discussion, if they have any interest, may want to look at the

evidence and make up their own minds. I never ask any fool to

believe me.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> LOL! This qualifies as the understatement of this

> very young century!

> I am years removed from my last foray into formal

> education and I am still *unlearning* a bunch of

> crap that I was formally taught.

Hi :

When I spoke to my local board of eductation about my son's

not attending school, I said that you will probably want to know why

my son is not attending school and the reason is that I want him to

get a good education and you can't get one by going to school.

Simon, Kodachrome, " When I think back on all the crap I learned

in high school, it's a wonder that I can think at all. "

Chi

[Guest guest]

>> The point is to

demonstrate that it's possible to stay healthy and that it's not wise

to get into the pharmaceutical slaughterhouse line. That said, I'll

be grateful for anything you can point me to. <<

I haven't been reading the list too much lately, but this subject line

caught my eye.

I have seen people with HIV/AIDS who have done EVERYTHING. I am a lesbian

and lived in San Francisco (where I was born and grew up) my whole life,

including pre and post AIDS. I knew guys who were total health fanatics, who

did not do the club scene or drugs, who took really great care of

themselves, including guys who were massage therapists and yoga teachers and

acupuncturists, who died of AIDS. I know guys who could barely stay off

cigarettes and cocaine even when they were in the hospital with pneumonia,

who are still alive today. I have seen people with HIV/AIDS who gave up, and

lived, and who fought, and died.

And vice versa for all those things.

All my friends who managed to live post-protease inhibitor are still alive

today and doing great. They are healthy and well and living full lives.

There is no question that early anti-virals were limited and the side

effects were brutal, and if you couldn't handle one drug or set of drugs

there were few options. Today, as long as you can afford the meds, there

seems to be a combination that works for just about everyone.

Taking those drugs, coupled with attention to nutrition and exercise and

stress reduction, has given health and life and hope to many people I know.

I saw a lot of guys try to deal with this with nutrition and other

alternative/holistic methods, back when there WERE no meds. I was at that

time the editor of a newsletter on holistic/alternative approaches to

treating HIV/AIDS. What I observed were that while you could often get a lot

of symptomatic relief from these approaches, the underlying disease wasn't

slowed or stopped.

I realize there is a whole movement out there that says HIV doesn't cause

AIDS, that lifestyle and sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll do.... that just

doesn't match what I saw and how it played out in real life. It's a fantasy

that makes us feel like we have control. Infectious disease exists, it's

real, and it can fuck your life up no matter how well you eat, sleep, and

take care of yourself. That's the nature of life.

It's not an either/or. You have to do everything you can do: Nutrition,

stress reduction, exercise, sleep, and make informed and balanced drug

choices when appropriate.

As to your friend figuring he's doomed so should just give up and check out,

he should get a grip. This is 2006, not 1992. If he wants to talk to a whole

lot of guys who are alive 15 and 20 years post-infection and in better

health than I am, have him email me.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Raising Our Dogs Holistically Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com/

http://doggedblog.com/

[Guest guest]

--- In , Berg <bberg@c...>

wrote:

> Injecting people with an HIV culture and seeing whether

> they develop AIDS would be the most effective proof.

> Since that is, for obvious reasons, not an option, what would

> you accept as sufficiently strong evidence that HIV

> causes AIDS?

Hi :

One of the things that troubles me about the syndrome known as AIDS,

is that the presence of the virus, believed by so many to be the

cause, is detected by the presence of antibodies, not by the presence

of the virus itself. If I get a vaccination (which I wouldn't), the

creation of antibodies in my body is an indication that now I have

immunity from taking the vaccination. Why is it in the case of AIDS

that antibody presence does not indicate immunity, but rather you are

going to become sick or sicker? The tests for the presence of HIV

antibodies are non-specific and give false positive readings. These

tests are not even used in Africa where the syndrome AIDS is diagnosed

from clinical symptoms (lol).

Check what happened to the population in South Africa in the last

census. It went up.

For me to believe that HIV caused AIDS, I would need to see a specific

test created for the virus (not for antibodies) that would give almost

zero false positives. I would expect to see a country decimated by

AIDS to at least have an increased death rate and at least a reduction

in the rate of population increase. I would expect that in North

America and Europe, that this so-called infectious virus would cause

AIDS equally in men and women and move outside the original and still

the main risk groups, homosexuals and intravenus drug users. I would

want to see evidence that HIV, not poppers, is the prime cause of

Kaposi's sarcoma.

Even if I was satisfied that HIV was the cause of AIDS, I would

consider it as I do any other so-called infectious agent, insufficient

to cause a disease without a weakened condition of the victim. Reading

NAPD should convince anyone of that.

Chi

[Guest guest]

Suze-

Hmm, looks useful, if awfully light on actual information. Thanks!

>I don't know how useful this will be but maybe at least he'd get the idea

>that vitamins and other nutraceuticals can be effective (whether or not this

>guy in the article beat AIDS with vitamins as he claims).

>

>HIV-infected British man believed freed of virus

>http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2005/11/14/aids-cure-051114

-

[Guest guest]

Ellen-

>He talks about it

>a little in his book, Wild Fermentation. Do you have a copy?

I do, though so far I've only read little bits of it. Are the parts

that relate to AIDS the sort of thing that will be useful in

convincing someone who's not educated about health and assumes the

mainstream view of things is correct?

-

[Guest guest]

> You are awfully quick to draw enormously broad

> conclusions from _NAPD_, especially ones generating

> an awfully narrow view of any given thing.

It is your opinion that I was " awfully quick ... " . What do you base

your opinion of my actions on?

> In this case, to exonerate the terrain as the paramount

> factor in disease without affording sufficient status

> to the microbe would be to ignore the implications of

> the 25 years of rabbit experiments Price did inducing

> diseases with microbes from root canaled teeth.

You are awfully quick to come to that conclusion. Try reading 4

volumes of " The Albrecht Papers " and " Soil Grass and Cancer " and see

whether or not they support your position or mine. You won't do that

awfully quickly, I can assure you.

> As Christy pointed out, even a good terrain fertilized

> by perfect nutrition can falter through circumstantial events.

> And historical evidence demonstrates, there are examples of

> what we would think would have been quite healthy folks

> succumbing to massive disease.

Please provide an example and please explain what you mean by " quite

healthy folks " as I am not sure what it means.

> There are examples in NAPD of nutrition providing protection

> from diseases, but there is *no clear example* conclusively

> showing the introduction of a *new* microbe, resistance

> to which was conferred on the population through diet.

Do you think HIV is a new microbe or a newly discovered microbe?

> There are many things suggested by NAPD that are not

> conclusively shown and leave room to consider other research.

> The existence and indentity of activator X is one of them,

> and the interaction between diet, previous historical

> populational exposure, and current circumstantial

> exposure to a microbe and how they interact to produce

> disease is another one. NAPD doesn't provide clear,

> conclusive answers on either of them.

Weston Price left no doubt as to the existence and identity of

activator X. He explained it was the result obtained from a chemical

test developed by Yoder for antirachitic properties.

NAPD didn't leave any doubt in my mind about the relationship

between being healthy by being well fed and exposure to any known or

previously unknown microbe.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> You know, this type of crap is why I am so reluctant

> to participate in arguments about AIDS like this one.

Good decision. You won't listen to my crap and I won't listen to yours.

Enjoy your chemotherapy.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> A poppy seed " causes " a poppy, but only if it's planted

> in fertile ground and receives appropriate moisture,

> heat, light, nutrients, etc. At any point the process might

> be aborted by environmental factors, or even a defect in

> the seed itself.

> Some seeds are extremely adaptable and will sprout

> in most soils and under nearly any conditions.

> We call these " weeds. " Others require highly

> specialized conditions to complete their life cycle.

Hahaha. Are you now passing yourself off as an expert on weeds and

seeds too?

Please name the seeds that are extremely adaptable and will sprout

in most soils and under nearly any conditions.

In fact, the plants that we may call weeds growing in any area tell

the informed person something about the soil fertility. This is

because different weeds require different soil fertility conditions

to germinate and grow. Of course, this is another example in nature

of the terrain being everything and the seed being nothing. The

plant does not create the terrain, the terrain determines the seed

that will germinate and grow there.

> That's how pathogens are, too.

Yup, I think pathogens are like seeds too.

Chi

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote:

> Unfortunately, he's very concerned about giving it to his wife, and

> that's clouding his thinking further. I don't think he'd be

> vulnerable to the argument that people have found great joy in life

> while suffering from crippling diseases either, but maybe I just

> don't know how to present that case. I don't know. Any

suggestions?

Actually, when you're really, really down, there likely isn't

anything that anyone can say that would be helpful. I think it's

important for his family and friends to *be* with him while he's at

his most emotionally desperate. Forget trying to say anything

helpful, ie, anything that you'll say that he'll respond positively

to. It could help for the people in his life to tell him

frequently, " I/we love you. I want/need you here. " Not trying to

argue or convince and also realizing they might get a nasty

response. Simply the *presence* of others is powerful. *That* speaks

to his value and dignity. Maybe you (someone?) could take him some

chicken coconut soup and eat it in silence w/him. Or just hear his

despair w/out trying to fix or assuage it. Maybe you could say, " I

believe there's still good in life for you. I'm not sure what it is

at the moment, but I believe it's there. " ???

It might be helpful for his wife to find a book on how a spouse can

best deal with/help at times like these.

When you're angry and scared, it only makes you more angry when

people try to tell you why you needn't be angry or scared! Friends

who will ask him, " what makes you most angry? what makes you most

scared? " could be helpful to him -- as long as they aren't dismissive

of his answers.

If he could find a support group of people in similar situations,

that can be tremendously helpful. Or, if you/his wife could find

another Christian, married man, w/AIDS to come visit him and share

his experience. The more similarities the better because if it's

someone too different, he can just think, " well, he just can't

understand *my* situation. "

As for his faith being broken. It may or may not be. It may be

broken temporarily. It may be broken permanently. At the least it

will be transformed. But I *know* (from personal experience!) that

it's extremely hurtful/harmful if his Christian friends are primarily

worried/anxious about the state of his faith, rather than being

concerned about being there for him, loving him. They need to

understand that a broken faith is just part of the package right

now. If he's pissed at God, so be it. It's not a real cause for

concern, imo. In fact, I'd be concerned if he wasn't pissed. (you

know, the 5 stages of grief: denial, anger, ...)

I think I've shared this experience here before, but it's worth

repeating. When I got sick in Africa, I was terrified because I was

so extremely sick and no one knew what was wrong. Several European

colleagues occasionaly brought me food. Some American close friends

(who lived a few doors down), walked past my front door for 6 weeks

without ever visiting or asking how they could help. At 6 weeks, the

wife came to visit and told me I had a defeatist attitude and that's

why I was sick.

Two Maasai friends heard that I was sick and traveled 4 hours (using

money for transportation when they had close to no money), showed up

unannounced at my door (as they do in Africa), I welcomed them into

the living room, happy to see them, but I could barely sit up. They

told me to go back to my room and sleep because I was sick. I said I

wanted to visit because they'd traveled to see me. They said they

came to be with me because I was sick and I needed to go back and

sleep. I asked what would they do? They said, " We will sit here and

wait. " So, they sat in my living room for 5 hours while I slept,

just to be with me. I sat my alarm (cause they told me what time

they needed to leave), got up, saw them to the door, and they spent 4

hours returning home. They took an entire day & financial sacrifice

just to sit in my living room.

Two weeks later, another Maasai friend showed up after hearing how

sick I was from the other two friends. She was a mother of 4 with a

bum for a husband and it was not infrequent that she didn't have food

for her children. She showed up at my door with huge papayas and

lemons and said, " , I know you have everything (any white person

is filthy rich comparatively speaking), but I had to bring you

something. "

Compare that to my American friend who came and told me I had a

defeatist attitude. I felt loved and cherished and safe -- for at

least those moments.

Your friend needs some love like that. He can get through this. He

just doesn't know it yet. He needs his friends to carry him until he

does.

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <paul_idol@y...>

wrote:

> I'm having an annoying problem with the list today --

> some messages aren't showing up, others are showing

> up ridiculously delayed. This means I'm probably not

> catching some list rule violations.

> None of what you say is technically an ad hominem,

> but the chemotherapy crack seems uncalled

> for even though I have yet to see Christie's post,

> and I'd ask that you try to remain civil even if you

> feel offended by some people's disagreement with you.

Hi :

I treat people the way they treat me, so I respond in kind. With

respect to chemotherapy, a.k.a. AIDS treatment, if you are going with

a belief system that advocates chemotherapy then imo you should enjoy

it. The same applies if you take an alternative non-toxic treatment.

If you look at what Bergalis wrote about her symptoms in her

bitter farewell letter, you will see that all the symptoms were side

effects of the azt that she was given til her death, and none of the

symptoms were known to be caused by HIV. People live longer taking azt

today because the dosage has been reduced so it doesn't kill you as

quickly. azt is chemotherapy.

Chi

[Guest guest]

Hey could I ask what you mean here by evolve? I know I shouldn't

ask cause I never understand your explanations But I wanted to hear

your definition of evolve. Dennis

> Pathogens, like beneficial organisms, and like host species, and so

> on, evolve over time, as well. It would be beneficial for a pathogen

> to evolve the capacity to tolerate otherwise harsh conditions. If a

> pathogen evolves such a capacity to inhabit a terrain that generally

> is inhibitive of pathogens, then such a terrain would cease to be

> inhibitive for that particular pathogen.

>

> Chris

> --

> Dioxins in Animal Foods:

> A Case For Vegetarianism?

> Find Out the Truth:

> http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

>

[Guest guest]

What about him contacting Sandor Katz, isn't that the guy that is the

fermenting guru? He has had AIDS for years, or is at least HIV positive and

seems to

be doing well. He can be found easily by GOOGLEing.

Bonnie

[Guest guest]

Christie-

>I knew guys who were total health fanatics, who

>did not do the club scene or drugs, who took really great care of

>themselves, including guys who were massage therapists and yoga teachers and

>acupuncturists, who died of AIDS.

In most circles and most recent times, though, " total health

fanatics " did horrendous damage to their health. Were these people

you speak of eating high-fat, nutrient-dense foods without consuming

any of the displacing foods of modern commerce or the toxic swill

that passes for health food even today?

>I saw a lot of guys try to deal with this with nutrition and other

>alternative/holistic methods, back when there WERE no meds. I was at that

>time the editor of a newsletter on holistic/alternative approaches to

>treating HIV/AIDS. What I observed were that while you could often get a lot

>of symptomatic relief from these approaches, the underlying disease wasn't

>slowed or stopped.

But _what_ approaches did they try?

I'm not questioning what you say, Christie, I'm just skeptical that

they were trying the right things.

Nor am I saying that doing all the right things would necessarily be

enough, but that's a separate question.

>As to your friend figuring he's doomed so should just give up and check out,

>he should get a grip. This is 2006, not 1992. If he wants to talk to a whole

>lot of guys who are alive 15 and 20 years post-infection and in better

>health than I am, have him email me.

Maybe I will, and I appreciate the offer, but we're talking about a

southern good ol' boy. I'm not sure how to approach the issue with him.

-

[Guest guest]

> In most circles and most recent times, though, " total health

> fanatics " did horrendous damage to their health.

Yes, that's very true - I mean, *I* was a vegetarian then. <G>

However, the usual culprits identified by the Duesberg folks as " causing "

AIDS are rampant recreational drug use, promiscuity/anal sex, and being a

scene queen ... partying all night. Sex and drugs and rock and roll.

While there's no doubt that some of these guys were vegetarians or ate

macrobiotic diets and other things I've come to see as being harmful

nutritionally, in other respects they were very in tune with their bodies

and had very healthy lives in many ways - certainly several of them had

learned quite a bit about stress management. And being a vegetarian

certainly doesn't cause AIDS or it would be widespread in lesbians. <G>

My point is not that they were " healthy " per se, but that a wide diversity

of lifestyles and approaches to HIV/AIDS resulted in a wide diversity of

outcomes - that some people who really didn't have healthy lives by anyone's

definition did beat HIV once they got on appropriate, late-generation

antivirals ... whoever is still talking about AZT monotherapy in 2006 is

just NOT paying attention .... while other people who had relatively healthy

lives even if I wouldn't consider their diets optimal, didn't, AND VICE

VERSA. I didn't mean to imply that the " healthy " guys died and the

" unhealthy " ones lived. Not at all. It actually seemed to make no

difference. All my friends who managed to stay alive until the introduction

of protease inhibitors are still alive today, regardless of their previous

or even current lifestyles, diets, etc. Those who eat well (and I include

some WAP folks there, although none as far as I know on this list) and get

exercise and take decent care of themselves are doing fabulously well and

you'd never know they had any kind of disease or condition - and they take

antiviral drugs.

That is why I felt I had to point out that pharmaceuticals are not

necessarily a " slaughterhouse " approach, although I certainly didn't mean to

say that diet and exercise and sleep and other lifestyle factors don't make

a difference. I obviously believe they DO, I just wanted to challenge the

automatic and immediate dismissal of drug therapy in combination with those

things.

I am not suggesting anyone blindly follow any treatment recommendation for

HIV or any other disease by jumping on the drug company bandwagon. I am

suggesting that people investigate all the options, use common sense and a

well-functioning bs detector, and make an individual, informed, rational

decision.

There is bs aplenty on all sides of this issue to go around. It is not the

sole domain of conventional OR alternative medicine.

> Maybe I will, and I appreciate the offer, but we're talking about a

> southern good ol' boy. I'm not sure how to approach the issue with him.

I understand.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Raising Our Dogs Holistically Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com/

http://doggedblog.com/

[Guest guest]

---and , I'm quoting one of the scientists I referred

to yesterday, " without DNA there is no self-replication but without

self-replication there is no natural selection (evolution) so we

can't use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without

assuming the existence of the very thing we're trying to explain

(evolution). Perhaps you're referring to something some folks

consider micro-evolution. As you guys indicated an organism is

necessary before it makes DNA, RNA, ie self replicates.

Dennis

In , Masterjohn

<chrismasterjohn@g...> wrote:

>

> On 1/18/06, Berg <bberg@c...> wrote:

> > > [mailto: ] On Behalf Of

dkemnitz2000

> > > Hey could I ask what you mean here by evolve? I know I

> > > shouldn't ask cause I never understand your explanations But

> > > I wanted to hear

> > > your definition of evolve. Dennis

> >

> > Like all other known forms of life, pathogens store the

information

> > necessary to reproduce in their DNA. Each time the pathogen

reproduces, it

> > makes one copy of its DNA to give to each of its offspring.

Occasionally an

> > error is made when copying the DNA. This results in a mutation,

meaning that

> > the new pathogen(s) will be slightly different from the old

ones. If this

> > mutation is beneficial--that is, if it gives the new pathogen a

better

> > chance of reproducing--the mutation will become more common due

to the

> > pathogen and its descendants reproducing more frequently. Thus,

over time,

> > pathogens tend to become stronger and better able to overcome

our defenses

> > against them.

>

> Thanks . And in addition to what said, the

proportion

> of individuals with any given preexisting gene in a population will

> change over time in reaction to the environment. Although in this

> particular case, unlike the one offers above, the property

> conferred by a gene whose proportion in the population is changing

> might not be something fundamentally new, since microbes must act

at a

> certain critical mass to exert some effects, a sharp environmental

> change could cause a mass reproportionment of the genes in the

> population, such that at the level of the population, the property

is

> new, simply because a critical mass of the microbes now possess it,

> their competitors in the population having been weeded out.

>

> Chris

> --

> Dioxins in Animal Foods:

> A Case For Vegetarianism?

> Find Out the Truth:

> http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

>