If you wish to read a couple of easy to read commentaries on this
controversial view, here are a couple of links.
Of course, if anyone did end up reading Dr. Hamer's in depth and
scientifically tested work on this then they would know there is a solid
foundation in a new paradigm for cause of disease.
The problem though is that if these ideas on causation are correct, then
even Homoeopathic theory on causation, comes into question -- but that
is a whole other pandora's box!


http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/a_c...faq_proof.html

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/mabcdc.htm

Robyn

------------------------------------
The so called at risk populations for AIDS are male homosexuals who
engage in unprotected anal sex and people who are injecting drugs with
shared needles - malnourished, toxic lifestyles if ever there were.

Richard Knapp

Okay, you're asking me to document the idea that AIDS cases are
traceable back to an infected contact? I'll pull some from the web:

http://www.avert.org/origins.htm
The first recognised cases of AIDS occurred in the USA in the early
1980s ... . A number of gay men in New York and California suddenly
began to develop rare opportunistic infections and cancers that seemed
stubbornly resistant to any treatment. At this time, AIDS did not yet
have a name, but it quickly became obvious that all the men were
suffering from a common syndrome.

The discovery of HIV, the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, was made soon
after. While some were initially resistant to acknowledge the
connection (and indeed some remain so today), there is now clear
evidence to prove that HIV causes AIDS. So, in order to find the source
of AIDS, it is necessary to look for the origin of HIV, and find out
How, When and Where HIV first began to cause disease in humans.
[...]

In June, the CDC published a report about the occurrence, without
identifiable cause, of PCP in five men in Los Angeles5. This report is
sometimes referred to as the "beginning" of AIDS, but it might be more
accurate to describe it as the beginning of the general awareness of
AIDS in the USA.

A few days later, following these reports of PCP and other rare
life-threatening opportunistic infections, the CDC formed a Task Force
on Kaposi's Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections (KSOI).6

Around this time a number of theories were developed about the possible
cause of these opportunistic infections and cancers. Early theories
included infection with cytomegalovirus, the use of amyl nitrite or
butyl nitrate "poppers", and "immune overload".7 8 9

Because there was so little known about the transmission of what seemed
to be a new disease, there was concern about contagion, and whether the
disease could by passed on by people who had no apparent signs or
symptoms.10 Knowledge about the disease was changing so quickly that
certain assumptions made at this time were shown to be unfounded just a
few months later. For example, in July 1981 Dr Curran of the CDC was
reported as follows:

"Dr. Curran said there was no apparent danger to non homosexuals
from contagion. 'The best evidence against contagion', he said, 'is
that no cases have been reported to date outside the homosexual
community or in women'" - The New York Times 11

Just five months later, in December 1981, it was clear that the disease
affected other population groups, when the first cases of PCP were
reported in injecting drug users.12 At the same time the first case of
AIDS was documented in the UK.13
1982 History

The disease still did not have a name, with different groups referring
to it in different ways. The CDC generally referred to it by reference
to the diseases that were occurring, for example lymphadenopathy
(swollen glands), although on some occasions they referred to it as
KSOI, the name already given to the CDC task force.14 15

In contrast some still linked the disease to its initial occurrence in
gay men, with a letter in The Lancet calling it "gay compromise
syndrome".16 Others called it GRID (gay-related immune deficiency), AID
(acquired immunodeficiency disease), "gay cancer" or
"community-acquired immune dysfunction".17 18

&&&&&&& So note that up to this point, researchers have been
looking for the mode of transmission, the cause. Up to this point no
one has been investigating sexual or other body-fluids related
contacts. &&&&&&&&&&

In June a report of a group of cases amongst gay men in Southern
California suggested that the disease might be caused by an infectious
agent that was sexually transmitted.19

By the beginning of July a total of 452 cases, from 23 states, had been
reported to the CDC.20

Later that month the first reports appeared that the disease was
occurring in Haitians, as well as haemophiliacs.21 22 This news soon
led to speculation that the epidemic might have originated in Haiti,
and caused some parents to withdraw their children from haemophiliac
camps.23

The occurrence of the disease in non-homosexuals meant that names such
as GRID were redundant. The acronym AIDS was suggested at a meeting in
Washington, D.C., in July.24 By August this name was being used in
newspapers and scientific journals.25 26 27 AIDS (Acquired Immune
Deficiency Syndrome) was first properly defined by the CDC in
September.28

By the beginning of July a total of 452 cases, from 23 states, had
been reported to the CDC

[big snip, more history]
In December a 20-month old child who had received multiple transfusions
of blood and blood products died from infections related to AIDS.35
This case provided clearer evidence that AIDS was caused by an
infectious agent, and it also caused additional concerns about the
safety of the blood supply. Also in December, the CDC reported the
first cases of possible mother to child transmission of AIDS.36

[...] "When it began turning up in children and transfusion recipients,
that was a turning point in terms of public perception. Up until then
it was entirely a gay epidemic, and it was easy for the average person
to say 'So what?' Now everyone could relate." - Harold Jaffe of the CDC
for newsweek 37

[...] Meanwhile in Uganda, doctors were seeing the first cases of a
new, fatal wasting disease. This illness soon became known locally as
'slim'.39

1983 History

In January, reports of AIDS among women with no other risk factors
suggested the disease might be passed on through heterosexual sex.40

[snip more history: the sexual connection is noted, along with more
cases in hemopheliacs: "The risk for haemophiliacs was so great
because the blood concentrate that some haemophiliacs used exposed them
to the blood of up to 5,000 individual blood donors."

snip
Reports from Europe suggested that two rather separate AIDS epidemics
were occurring. In the UK, West Germany and Denmark, the majority of
people with AIDS were homosexual, and many had a history of sex with
American nationals. However in France and Belgium AIDS was occurring
mainly in people from Central Africa or those with links to the area.59

%%%%%%% So contagion seems abundantly clear. If you want to say
it's not a virus, whatever, but it's something that can be transmitted
in several ways, including blood, sex, shared needles. The CDC is
(during this history) working this out bit by bit, as cases continue to
roll in.

Okay, it's a very nice article, and I could post lots more of it, but
to me this does make the "infection connection" look abundantly clear.

Would you like me to look for something more specific, or would you
like to tell me how you propose to reconcile the above history with the
idea that AIDS is not infectious?

Shannon

On Sep 10, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Knapp, Richard wrote:

> Shannon,
>
> Please, please, please - instead of saying things that amount to:
> "Everyone knows this." State a fact, cite a case or cases, give a
> specific study that you think supports your point of view. Otherwise,
> your words and time (and mine and everyone's reading) is wasted.
>
> Richard Knapp
> EAS - Data Warehouse Group
> University of Missouri
> 615 Locust Street #300
> Columbia, MO 65201
> 573-882-8856
> knappr (AT) umsystem (DOT) edu
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: homeopathy-bounces (AT) homeolist (DOT) com
> [mailto:homeopathy-bounces (AT) homeolist (DOT) com] On Behalf Of Robert & Shannon
> Nelson
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:39 AM
> To: homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com
> Subject: Re: [H] Fear of the Invisible book on viruses & polio and AIDS
> and HIV
>
> On Sep 10, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Sheri Nakken wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> If AIDS is not contagious (which I *think* is part of what you've
>>> asserted), then how is it that it's (almost) always been traceable,
>>> back thru a chain of infected contacts?
>>
>> Show me where that is the case?
>
> Well, for instance the entire history of (as it's called) AIDS in the
> united states. Beginning with Patient Zero and his infected
> contacts... was it dozens, or was it even more? The patterns of
> emergence of cases was extremely clear.
>>
>> If there are such contacts, do they have the same drug use?
>
> Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Why are you asking? I'm *certain* you
> read and remember all of this, just as I do; probably more clearly
> because of your nursing background.
>
>>> I do realize that very similar syndrome can be caused by agents which
>
>>> are *not* infectious--malnutrition, and certain toxicities, for
>>> instance. I don't dispute that; and I don't dispute that some cases
>>> which are *called* AIDS may well have toxic origins.
>>>
>>> But most cases in the US, the only links--and they have generally
>>> been very *clear* links--have been to also-infected contacts with
>>> whom body fluid was shared.
>>
>>
>> I have never seen such proof - I challenge you to prove that.
>
> The epidemiological studies. The history of AIDS in the US.
> How could I prove it? I'm not a doctor nor a researcher. But there is
> such a HUGE body of work by people who *are* doctors and
> researchers--and have zero financial or other stake in any "story"
> about its causes--I don't see how one can dismiss all of this as
> conspiracy or ignorance.
>
> Does he claim they are lying, or what?
>
>> This book goes into even more detail than you've seen before on the
>> whole issue and how whacko Gallo really is
>
> Who's Gallo?
>>
>>
>>> If we for the moment confine consideration to US cases where
>>> malnutrition and toxicity are apparently not factors *and* where
>>> there has been an undisputed sharing of body fluids with a
>>> (so-called) AIDS-infected person, how do these folks explain the
>>> patterns?
>>
>>
>> Again, prove the patterns
>>
>> A certain community may have similar behaviors related to drug use.
>
> Again, of course I cannot prove it. Would you like me to look up book
> titles so you could read about it? If you're going to try to trash the
> commonly accepted theory, shouldn't you at least know a little bit
> about what you're trying to trash?
>
> Am I wrong in my assumption that you've at least *read* the material
> about how AIDS came to the US, and its early history? Okay, maybe I
> got more exposure since I was living just across the Bay from San
> Francisco at the time, and had lots of gay friends and
> friends-of-friends. It was a very "live" issue in my circle.
>
> So--have you *not* read the early history of AIDS?
> The patterns were--and have continued to be--very clear, at least in
> certain US populations where toxicity and malnutrition have NOT in
> general been problems. And where AIDS cases have (nearly) always been
> traceable to an infected contact.
>
> If someone wants us to believe that all of that is hooey and mythology,
> then *they* should be prepared to "prove" (as you say) that those
> apparent patterns can be explained away in some other way. And no,
> similar drug use does *not* account for it. As you would know, if
> you'd been reading the accounts as they were coming out, along the way.
>
> Shannon
>
>
>> Sheri
>>
>>
>> Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
>> http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm &
>> http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm
>> ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood
>> Diseases - next classes start in September
>
>

At 05:21 PM 9/10/2008, you wrote:
>If you wish to read a couple of easy to read commentaries on this
>controversial view, here are a couple of links.
>Of course, if anyone did end up reading Dr. Hamer's in depth and
>scientifically tested work on this then they would know there is a solid
>foundation in a new paradigm for cause of disease.
>The problem though is that if these ideas on causation are correct, then
>even Homoeopathic theory on causation, comes into question


I'm not sure why you would say that
Dr. Hamer says everything originates from shock and trauma - I would
suggest that we find that very often in homeopathy - the degree may
vary - weather, emotional stress, physical stress, and so forth. I
don't see any contradiction.

But I agree with much of what he says, but I also know chemicals and
toxic conditions can cause illness in many - it doesn't just have to
be about a shock. But at least he's not blaming bacteria or viruses.

http://www.newmedicine.ca/german-new-medicine.php

> -- but that
>is a whole other pandora's box!


Thanks for sharing the links with the group



>http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/a_c...faq_proof.html
>
>http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/mabcdc.htm

Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm & http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood
Diseases - next classes start in September

Okay, so by damaging the immune system poppers make the user more
vulnerable to *any* infection, including AIDS. Works for me.

But how does the "popper connection" explain cases occurring after
transfusions and in people who have *not* used them?


On Sep 10, 2008, at 11:13 AM, Sheri Nakken wrote:

> At 04:57 PM 9/10/2008, Knapp, Richard wrote:
>> The so called at risk populations for AIDS are male homosexuals who
>> engage in unprotected anal sex and people who are injecting drugs with
>> shared needles - malnourished, toxic lifestyles if ever there were.
>
>
> It is more the use of poppers (not shared needles) and not even the
> anal sex.
> http://paganpressbooks.com/POPBOOK.HTM
> DEATH RUSH:
> Poppers* & AIDS
> "
> THE SCIENTIFIC PICTURE
>
> The evidence against poppers comes from many different types of
> studies, and is remarkably consistent. Whether from epidemiological,
> mice, or laboratory studies, the data support each other in
> demonstrating the harmful properties of poppers and implicating
> poppers in the etiology of AIDS. Despite rumors which originated with
> the poppers industry in 1983, there is no evidence that could
> reasonably be interpreted as “exonerating” poppers.
> "
>
> "• 96-100% of the gay men with AIDS used poppers, usual

I'm asking you to document it with actual research

I challenge you to read the book and go beyond what the media and
drug companies and virologists want you to think.

At 05:32 PM 9/10/2008, you wrote:
>Okay, you're asking me to document the idea that AIDS cases are
>traceable back to an infected contact? I'll pull some from the web:
>
>http://www.avert.org/origins.htm
>The first recognised cases of AIDS occurred in the USA in the early
>1980s ... . A number of gay men in New York and California suddenly
>began to develop rare opportunistic infections and cancers that
>seemed stubbornly resistant to any treatment. At this time, AIDS did
>not yet have a name, but it quickly became obvious that all the men
>were suffering from a common syndrome.
>
>The discovery of HIV, the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, was made
>soon after. While some were initially resistant to acknowledge the
>connection (and indeed some remain so today), there is now clear
>evidence to prove that HIV causes AIDS. So, in order to find the
>source of AIDS, it is necessary to look for the origin of HIV, and
>find out How, When and Where HIV first began to cause disease in humans.
>[...]


Show me the research by Gallo that proved this. Show me his research
where he proved that HIV causes AIDS

You are giving us the myth of AIDS, not any facts.

I challenge you to go beyond.............

We all know all of this - the story they want us to believe

They also tell us that vaccines stopped smallpox and polio - doesn't
make it so.

It would be so nice and easy if the below were the truth, in so many
ways. But it isn't.


Sheri


>In June, the CDC published a report about the occurrence, without
>identifiable cause, of PCP in five men in Los Angeles5. This report
>is sometimes referred to as the "beginning" of AIDS, but it might be
>more accurate to describe it as the beginning of the general
>awareness of AIDS in the USA.
>
>A few days later, following these reports of PCP and other rare
>life-threatening opportunistic infections, the CDC formed a Task
>Force on Kaposi's Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections (KSOI).6
>
>Around this time a number of theories were developed about the
>possible cause of these opportunistic infections and cancers. Early
>theories included infection with cytomegalovirus, the use of amyl
>nitrite or butyl nitrate "poppers", and "immune overload".7 8 9
>
>Because there was so little known about the transmission of what
>seemed to be a new disease, there was concern about contagion, and
>whether the disease could by passed on by people who had no apparent
>signs or symptoms.10 Knowledge about the disease was changing so
>quickly that certain assumptions made at this time were shown to be
>unfounded just a few months later. For example, in July 1981 Dr
>Curran of the CDC was reported as follows:
>
> "Dr. Curran said there was no apparent danger to non
> homosexuals from contagion. 'The best evidence against contagion',
> he said, 'is that no cases have been reported to date outside the
> homosexual community or in women'" - The New York Times 11
>
>Just five months later, in December 1981, it was clear that the
>disease affected other population groups, when the first cases of
>PCP were reported in injecting drug users.12 At the same time the
>first case of AIDS was documented in the UK.13
>1982 History
>
>The disease still did not have a name, with different groups
>referring to it in different ways. The CDC generally referred to it
>by reference to the diseases that were occurring, for example
>lymphadenopathy (swollen glands), although on some occasions they
>referred to it as KSOI, the name already given to the CDC task force.14 15
>
>In contrast some still linked the disease to its initial occurrence
>in gay men, with a letter in The Lancet calling it "gay compromise
>syndrome".16 Others called it GRID (gay-related immune deficiency),
>AID (acquired immunodeficiency disease), "gay cancer" or
>"community-acquired immune dysfunction".17 18
>
> &&&&&&& So note that up to this point, researchers have
> been looking for the mode of transmission, the cause. Up to this
> point no one has been investigating sexual or other body-fluids
> related contacts. &&&&&&&&&&
>
>In June a report of a group of cases amongst gay men in Southern
>California suggested that the disease might be caused by an
>infectious agent that was sexually transmitted.19
>
>By the beginning of July a total of 452 cases, from 23 states, had
>been reported to the CDC.20
>
>Later that month the first reports appeared that the disease was
>occurring in Haitians, as well as haemophiliacs.21 22 This news soon
>led to speculation that the epidemic might have originated in Haiti,
>and caused some parents to withdraw their children from haemophiliac camps.23
>
>The occurrence of the disease in non-homosexuals meant that names
>such as GRID were redundant. The acronym AIDS was suggested at a
>meeting in Washington, D.C., in July.24 By August this name was
>being used in newspapers and scientific journals.25 26 27 AIDS
>(Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) was first properly defined by
>the CDC in September.28
>
> By the beginning of July a total of 452 cases, from 23 states,
> had been reported to the CDC
>
>[big snip, more history]
>In December a 20-month old child who had received multiple
>transfusions of blood and blood products died from infections
>related to AIDS.35 This case provided clearer evidence that AIDS was
>caused by an infectious agent, and it also caused additional
>concerns about the safety of the blood supply. Also in December, the
>CDC reported the first cases of possible mother to child
>transmission of AIDS.36
>
>[...] "When it began turning up in children and transfusion
>recipients, that was a turning point in terms of public perception.
>Up until then it was entirely a gay epidemic, and it was easy for
>the average person to say 'So what?' Now everyone could relate." -
>Harold Jaffe of the CDC for newsweek 37
>
>[...] Meanwhile in Uganda, doctors were seeing the first cases of a
>new, fatal wasting disease. This illness soon became known locally as 'slim'.39
>
>1983 History
>
>In January, reports of AIDS among women with no other risk factors
>suggested the disease might be passed on through heterosexual sex.40
>
>[snip more history: the sexual connection is noted, along with more
>cases in hemopheliacs: "The risk for haemophiliacs was so great
>because the blood concentrate that some haemophiliacs used exposed
>them to the blood of up to 5,000 individual blood donors."
>
>snip
>Reports from Europe suggested that two rather separate AIDS
>epidemics were occurring. In the UK, West Germany and Denmark, the
>majority of people with AIDS were homosexual, and many had a history
>of sex with American nationals. However in France and Belgium AIDS
>was occurring mainly in people from Central Africa or those with
>links to the area.59
>
> %%%%%%% So contagion seems abundantly clear. If you want to
> say it's not a virus, whatever, but it's something that can be
> transmitted in several ways, including blood, sex, shared
> needles. The CDC is (during this history) working this out bit by
> bit, as cases continue to roll in.
>
>Okay, it's a very nice article, and I could post lots more of it,
>but to me this does make the "infection connection" look abundantly clear.
>
>Would you like me to look for something more specific, or would you
>like to tell me how you propose to reconcile the above history with
>the idea that AIDS is not infectious?
>
>Shannon
>
>On Sep 10, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Knapp, Richard wrote:
>
>>Shannon,
>>
>>Please, please, please - instead of saying things that amount to:
>>"Everyone knows this." State a fact, cite a case or cases, give a
>>specific study that you think supports your point of view. Otherwise,
>>your words and time (and mine and everyone's reading) is wasted.
>>
>>Richard Knapp
>>EAS - Data Warehouse Group
>>University of Missouri
>>615 Locust Street #300
>>Columbia, MO 65201
>>573-882-8856
>>knappr (AT) umsystem (DOT) edu
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: homeopathy-bounces (AT) homeolist (DOT) com
>>[mailto:homeopathy-bounces (AT) homeolist (DOT) com] On Behalf Of Robert & Shannon
>>Nelson
>>Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:39 AM
>>To: homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com
>>Subject: Re: [H] Fear of the Invisible book on viruses & polio and AIDS
>>and HIV
>>
>>On Sep 10, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Sheri Nakken wrote:
>>
>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>If AIDS is not contagious (which I *think* is part of what you've
>>>>asserted), then how is it that it's (almost) always been traceable,
>>>>back thru a chain of infected contacts?
>>>
>>>Show me where that is the case?
>>
>>Well, for instance the entire history of (as it's called) AIDS in the
>>united states. Beginning with Patient Zero and his infected
>>contacts... was it dozens, or was it even more? The patterns of
>>emergence of cases was extremely clear.
>>>
>>>If there are such contacts, do they have the same drug use?
>>
>>Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Why are you asking? I'm *certain* you
>>read and remember all of this, just as I do; probably more clearly
>>because of your nursing background.
>>
>>>>I do realize that very similar syndrome can be caused by agents which
>>
>>>>are *not* infectious--malnutrition, and certain toxicities, for
>>>>instance. I don't dispute that; and I don't dispute that some cases
>>>>which are *called* AIDS may well have toxic origins.
>>>>
>>>>But most cases in the US, the only links--and they have generally
>>>>been very *clear* links--have been to also-infected contacts with
>>>>whom body fluid was shared.
>>>
>>>
>>>I have never seen such proof - I challenge you to prove that.
>>
>>The epidemiological studies. The history of AIDS in the US.
>>How could I prove it? I'm not a doctor nor a researcher. But there is
>>such a HUGE body of work by people who *are* doctors and
>>researchers--and have zero financial or other stake in any "story"
>>about its causes--I don't see how one can dismiss all of this as
>>conspiracy or ignorance.
>>
>>Does he claim they are lying, or what?
>>
>>>This book goes into even more detail than you've seen before on the
>>>whole issue and how whacko Gallo really is
>>
>>Who's Gallo?
>>>
>>>
>>>>If we for the moment confine consideration to US cases where
>>>>malnutrition and toxicity are apparently not factors *and* where
>>>>there has been an undisputed sharing of body fluids with a
>>>>(so-called) AIDS-infected person, how do these folks explain the
>>>>patterns?
>>>
>>>
>>>Again, prove the patterns
>>>
>>>A certain community may have similar behaviors related to drug use.
>>
>>Again, of course I cannot prove it. Would you like me to look up book
>>titles so you could read about it? If you're going to try to trash the
>>commonly accepted theory, shouldn't you at least know a little bit
>>about what you're trying to trash?
>>
>>Am I wrong in my assumption that you've at least *read* the material
>>about how AIDS came to the US, and its early history? Okay, maybe I
>>got more exposure since I was living just across the Bay from San
>>Francisco at the time, and had lots of gay friends and
>>friends-of-friends. It was a very "live" issue in my circle.
>>
>>So--have you *not* read the early history of AIDS?
>>The patterns were--and have continued to be--very clear, at least in
>>certain US populations where toxicity and malnutrition have NOT in
>>general been problems. And where AIDS cases have (nearly) always been
>>traceable to an infected contact.
>>
>>If someone wants us to believe that all of that is hooey and mythology,
>>then *they* should be prepared to "prove" (as you say) that those
>>apparent patterns can be explained away in some other way. And no,
>>similar drug use does *not* account for it. As you would know, if
>>you'd been reading the accounts as they were coming out, along the way.
>>
>>Shannon
>>
>>
>>>Sheri
>>>
>>>
>>>Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
>>>http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm &
>>>http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm
>>>ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood
>>>Diseases - next classes start in September
>>
>>

Sure, the most at-risk population.
But tis doesn't even come close to explaining all of the cases.
And more to-the-point, a male homosexual who does all of those things
*except* exchange body fluids with an AIDS infected person, is not apt
to develop AIDS.
If you dispute this, please give me citations to back it up.
Shannon

On Sep 10, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Knapp, Richard wrote:

> The so called at risk populations for AIDS are male homosexuals who
> engage in unprotected anal sex and people who are injecting drugs with
> shared needles - malnourished, toxic lifestyles if ever there were.
>
> Richard Knapp
> EAS - Data Warehouse Group
> University of Missouri
> 615 Locust Street #300
> Columbia, MO 65201
> 573-882-8856
> knappr (AT) umsystem (DOT) edu
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: homeopathy-bounces (AT) homeolist (DOT) com
> [mailto:homeopathy-bounces (AT) homeolist (DOT) com] On Behalf Of Robert & Shannon
> Nelson
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:26 AM
> To: homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com
> Subject: Re: [H] Fear of the Invisible book on viruses & polio and AIDS
> and HIV
>
> I wasn't trying to say they are not factors--I honestly don't know
> whether or not they are, in the majority of *US* AIDS cases. We're a
> tad malnourished and toxic as a nation, and it's acknowledged that the
> (as it's called) AIDS virus is not *highly* infective; if I remember
> right it's said that perhaps a third of people who have the contact
> will actually develop the disease.
>
> What I am suggesting--what the US data seems to say--is that the
> *primary* factor is contagion; if absence of that contagion, the person
> would not have developed AIDS, and their overall health would not have
> declined as quickly or badly, and they would not have developed the
> AIDS-related symptoms.
>
> Which parts of that do you dispute?
> Shannon
>
>
> On Sep 10, 2008, at 9:49 AM, Knapp, Richard wrote:
>
>> Hi Shannon,
>>
>> Can you cite some cases where "malnutrition and toxicity" are not
>> factors?
>>
>> Richard Knapp
>> EAS - Data Warehouse Group
>> University of Missouri
>> 615 Locust Street #300
>> Columbia, MO 65201
>> 573-882-8856
>> knappr (AT) umsystem (DOT) edu
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: homeopathy-bounces (AT) homeolist (DOT) com
>> [mailto:homeopathy-bounces (AT) homeolist (DOT) com] On Behalf Of Robert &
> Shannon
>> Nelson
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:38 AM
>> To: homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com
>> Subject: Re: [H] Fear of the Invisible book on viruses & polio and
> AIDS
>> and HIV
>>
>> Hi Sheri,
>> I won't re-awaken the whole debate, except I'd like to try one more
>> time to understand this one point:
>>
>> On Sep 10, 2008, at 8:25 AM, Sheri Nakken wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> Viruses NOT what you have been taught that they are
>>> Produced by our own bodies to do a job!
>>>
>>> And then she goes on into HIV and AIDS and the insanity of this link
>>
>> If AIDS is not contagious (which I *think* is part of what you've
>> asserted), then how is it that it's (almost) always been traceable,
>> back thru a chain of infected contacts?
>>
>> I do realize that very similar syndrome can be caused by agents which
>> are *not* infectious--malnutrition, and certain toxicities, for
>> instance. I don't dispute that; and I don't dispute that some cases
>> which are *called* AIDS may well have toxic origins.
>>
>> But most cases in the US, the only links--and they have generally been
>> very *clear* links--have been to also-infected contacts with whom body
>> fluid was shared.
>>
>> If we for the moment confine consideration to US cases where
>> malnutrition and toxicity are apparently not factors *and* where there
>> has been an undisputed sharing of body fluids with a (so-called)
>> AIDS-infected person, how do these folks explain the patterns?
>>
>> Shannon
>>
>>

At 05:35 PM 9/10/2008, you wrote:
>Okay, so by damaging the immune system poppers make the user more
>vulnerable to *any* infection, including AIDS. Works for me.


No - AIDS is the damage to the immune system - nothing to do with an
infection of any kind


>But how does the "popper connection" explain cases occurring after
>transfusions and in people who have *not* used them?


What is the health of these people who got transfusions and became ill?
How many cases like this are there? Who are they?

And how many cases are there of AIDS (not HIV positive but AIDS) in
those that have not used them or have some other toxic exposure
injuring their immune system.

Sheri

At 05:38 PM 9/10/2008, you wrote:
>Sure, the most at-risk population.
>But tis doesn't even come close to explaining all of the cases.
>And more to-the-point, a male homosexual who does all of those
>things *except* exchange body fluids with an AIDS infected person,
>is not apt to develop AIDS.
>If you dispute this, please give me citations to back it up.


I don't think that it is up to us to do that. It is up to you to
show that HIV causes AIDS - that AIDS is infectious. The scientists
haven't even done that....................

Someone who does NOT exchange body fluids but has behaviors involving
the use of poppers or other drugs or toxic exposure could very well
develop AIDS.

Many have been diagnosed with AIDS -- just because HIV positive and
then drop in T cells and voila, diagnose of AIDS
Do they have immune system problems that will develop into horrific
immune collapse?

A drop in T cells happen in normal people all the time

Until you have read thoroughly the other side, we can't have an equal
discussion.

Its not up to me to convince you. It is up to you to be sure you
have a well-rounded education on the issue.
Sheri

Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm & http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood
Diseases - next classes start in September

For now I'm going to leave this.
I'll try to have a look at the book, but frankly it's on a long list.

On Sep 10, 2008, at 11:36 AM, Sheri Nakken wrote:

> I'm asking you to document it with actual research

Can't do it, don't have time to look.
I do feel, tho, that anyone making an assertion such as "AIDS is not
contagious" has a heavy, heavy responsibility to those to whom they're
giving counsel.
Best wishes,
Shannon


>
> I challenge you to read the book and go beyond what the media and drug
> companies and virologists want you to think.
>
> At 05:32 PM 9/10/2008, you wrote:
>> Okay, you're asking me to document the idea that AIDS cases are
>> traceable back to an infected contact? I'll pull some from the web:
>>
>> http://www.avert.org/origins.htm
>> The first recognised cases of AIDS occurred in the USA in the early
>> 1980s ... . A number of gay m

On Sep 10, 2008, at 11:42 AM, Sheri Nakken wrote:

> At 05:35 PM 9/10/2008, you wrote:
>> Okay, so by damaging the immune system poppers make the user more
>> vulnerable to *any* infection, including AIDS. Works for me.
>
>
> No - AIDS is the damage to the immune system -

Agreed

> nothing to do with an infection of any kind

Not agreed.
>
>
>> But how does the "popper connection" explain cases occurring after
>> transfusions and in people who have *not* used them?
>
>
> What is the health of these people who got transfusions and became ill?

What is? They have AIDS.
Do you mean what *was* it? Obviously not great, since they were
getting a transfusion! But that's not the point. The point is that
these infections have been traceable to single donors.

> How many cases like this are there? Who are they?

Sheri, if you actually care, then do your own homework. You can google
just as well as I.
If you don't care, then I'd be wasting my time to look up (more)
references for you.
From the article I sent, there were numerous cases, enough to grab the
epidemiologists' attention. If you want details, you'll be able to
find them I'm sure. (But you *don't* want details, we both know.)

> And how many cases are there of AIDS (not HIV positive but AIDS) in
> those that have not used them or have some other toxic exposure
> injuring their immune system.

That have not used poppers or transfusions, you mean?
There have been quite a few. I do not mean quite a few cases among
people who were previously in a perfect state of health; I mean quite
a few cases among people who had previously been in an *unremarkable*
(average) state of health, and whose troubles began after exposure to
infected body fluids.

If this is actually news to you, then you do owe it to yourself--and
your students and patients!!!--to get more familiar with "the
mainstream view" before you go wholesale out to tear it down. This is
an area where bad advice could be deadly.
Shannon
>
> Sheri
>