HIV Aids - Using basic logic to understand "HIV/AIDS."

Author

Using basic logic to understand "HIV/AIDS."

monty1945@lycos.com

2006-07-22, 9:19 pm

Here is a passage from a report on today's www.sciencedaily.com:

"Candida albicans, a type of yeast present in 80 percent of humans, is
usually harmless. In otherwise healthy people, it can cause mild oral
and vaginal infections (candiasis or thrush) that are easily treated.
But in people whose immune systems are suppressed (by AIDS,
chemotherapy, or drugs for surgery or organ transplantation) it can
produce deadly, systemic infections, causing death in 30 to 50 percent
of cases. Premature babies, whose immune systems are immature, are also
at risk."

Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...60721200644.htm

Now no "mainstream" doctor or scientist would disagree with this
statement. However, let us use basic logic here. If am a doctor, I do
not follow my patient's around to determine what they are doing to
their bodies. If I am a typical doctor, I ask a few questions of them
and review their charts. Most people who do massive amounts of illegal
drugs are not going to reveal this fact to their doctors. Moreover,
even if they did, few in fany experiments on the effects of various
combinations of illegal drugs on humans have been conducted. Thus,
there is no way to know if various combinations of illegal drugs being
used by many "high risk groups" for "AIDS" have severe
immunosuppressive qualities. Even fish oil supplements, if taken in
high, but not uncommon doses, can, in fact, have strong
immunosuppressive effects. For example: "...the anti-inflammatory
effects of FO may be explained in part by a shift in the Th1/Th2
balance, due to the direct suppression of Th1 development, and not by
enhancement of the propensity of CD4+ T cells to be polarized toward a
Th2 phenotype..."

Source: J Nutr. 2005 Jul;135(7):1745-51.

Those of you who are familiar with the "HIV/AIDS" literature understand
the significance of such a finding. And how many of you think that a
person doing all kinds of illegal drugs in large doses is living a less
immunosuppressive life than someone "supplementing" with several grams
of fish oil each day? Again, let's have just a tiny bit of logic here,
please, for the sake of humanity (and not BigPharma profits).

GMCarter

2006-07-23, 8:19 am

On 22 Jul 2006 15:01:17 -0700, monty1945@lycos.com wrote:

>Here is a passage from a report on today's www.sciencedaily.com:
>
>"Candida albicans, a type of yeast present in 80 percent of humans, is
>usually harmless. In otherwise healthy people, it can cause mild oral
>and vaginal infections (candiasis or thrush) that are easily treated.
>But in people whose immune systems are suppressed (by AIDS,
>chemotherapy, or drugs for surgery or organ transplantation) it can
>produce deadly, systemic infections, causing death in 30 to 50 percent
>of cases. Premature babies, whose immune systems are immature, are also
>at risk."
>
>Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...60721200644.htm
>
>Now no "mainstream" doctor or scientist would disagree with this
>statement. However, let us use basic logic here. If am a doctor, I do
>not follow my patient's around to determine what they are doing to
>their bodies. If I am a typical doctor, I ask a few questions of them
>and review their charts. Most people who do massive amounts of illegal
>drugs ...

....are pretty obvious to any physician. And the reality is, there is
NO evidence to suggest that AIDS is caused by drug use. No commonly
used recreational drugs cause AIDS. Period.

And MANY, MANY people with AIDS and thrush that arises from it are NOT
drug users.

This is the lamest, most pathetic and readily refuted "theory" of AIDS
ever put forward. Which is yet another reason Peter Duesberg, if he
still embraces this nonsense, is a complete XXXXing idiot. Sorta like
you, Monty.

George M. Carter

DavidT

2006-07-24, 4:19 pm

Let's see........
The World according to Monty:

In the 1980s, a massive epidemic of fish oil treatment began in Africa,
resulting in profound cellular immunodeficiency in populations taking
the supplements. It seems that the main consumers of fish oil
supplements were firstly the most promiscuous young adults and
prostitutes, followed later by their infants. Rather bizarrely, fish
oil supplements were not deemed to be necessary for people who had few
sexual partners or who were "too old" to get up to that sort of
nonsense. Fish oil immunodefiicency syndrome (FOIDS) also was noted to
be more commomly present in those with concurrent STIs/genital lesions,
leading to the theory that users of fish oil were applying oil directly
to their genital regions. The pervasive power of fish oil was so
strongly felt that close sexual contacts of those who had taken fish
oil were also rendered immunodeficient, either through some
surruptitious consumption of oil, or through magical osmosis from their
bed mates.