|
|
10th September 2008, 05:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Fear of the Invisible book on viruses & polio and AIDS and HIV
On Sep 10, 2008, at 12:13 PM, Sheri Nakken wrote:
> 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. One reason I wrote "please give me citations" is that's exactly what Richard did to me--"prove it." I supplied the article as my contribution; now I am asking for his. Or, if you sufficiently remember details from the book I'd accept a summary from you--HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE PATTERNS of the cases, if not by contagion? > > > 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. In absence of exchange of infected body fluids they don't, tho. Not that I've ever read. > > 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. Until YOU have read up on the history, we can also not have an equal discussion. Looks like neither of us is prepared to take that plunge at the moment. > > 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. This is an area where I'd much rather err on the side of caution--rather have someone be "too safe" than have to say Huh, you've got Kaposi's sarcoma, you're losing weight and you can't eat? Must be out of sympathy for your boyfriend who had the same thing last year. I just do not get it... Bye > 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 > 
|
|
10th September 2008, 05:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
FRom the FEAROFTHEINVISIBLE book website
AIDS and HIV
>> whole issue and how whacko Gallo really is.............posted by Sherri > > Who's Gallo?..................posted by Shannon ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- More on the subject of AIDS The AIDS virus: Made in the USA? Download a .pdf file for printing. Adobe Acrobat Reader required. Click here to download a free copy. October 26, 2005—You mean AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) didn’t come from a green monkey that bit a black African on the ass? Are you lying to us again, Uncle Sam? I think so. In fact, on July 29, 1969, only days after the Department of Defense (DOD) asked for $10 million from Congress to fund the development of a “synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired . . ." on that day, the chairman of the Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and Population, the Honorable George H. W. Bush, U.S. Representative from Texas, 7th District (1967–71), stressed the pressing need for population control activities to fend off “a growing Third World crisis.” Imagine. Here is the linked text of the Dept. of Defense request for Appropriation for 1970, HB 15090, from page 129. Quoted is Dr. MacArthur from said Pentagon, speaking to Robert L.F. Sikes, Florida, about the need for the above mentioned “synthetic biological agent” [italics mine]. There are two things about the biological agent field I would like to mention. One is the possibility of technological surprise. Molecular biology is a field that is advancing very rapidly and eminent biologists believe that within a period of 5 to 10 years it would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired. Mr. Sikes. Are we doing any work in that field? Dr. MacArthur. We are not. Mr. Sikes.. Why not? Lack of money or lack of interest? Dr. MacArthur. Certainly not lack of interest. Mr. Sikes. Would you provide for our records information on what would be required, what the advantages of such a program would be. the time and the cost involved? Dr. MacArthur. We will be very happy to. The information follows: The dramatic progress being made in the field of molecular biology led us to investigate the relevance of this field of science to biological warfare. A small group of experts considered this matter and provided the following observations: All biological agents up to the present time are representatives of naturally occurring disease. and are thus known by scientists throughout the world. They are easily available to qualified scientists for research. either for offensive or defensive purposes. Within the next 5 to 10 years. it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease. A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed in approximately 5 years at the total cost of $10 million. It would be very difficult to establish such a program. Molecular biology is a relatively new science. There are not many highly competent scientists in the field. Almost all are in university laboratories. And they are generally adequately supported from sources other than DOD. However, it was considered possible to initiate an adequate program through the National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council (NAS—NRC). The matter was discussed with the NAS-NRC. and tentative plans were made to initiate the program. However. decreasing funds in CB [chemical-biowarfare]. growing criticism of the CB. program, and our reluctance to involve the NAS NRC in such a controversial endeavor have led us to postpone it for the past 2 years. It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaken lest it lead to yet another method of massive killing of large populations. On the other hand, without the sure scientific knowledge that such a weapon is possible. and an understanding of the ways it could be done, there is little that can be done to devise defensive measures. Should an enemy develop it there is little doubt that this is an important area of potential military technological inferiority in which there is no adequate . . . And so on. And thus spake Dr MacArthur. And the $10 million appropriation was granted. And it worked, perhaps the beginning of the end.
Enter Dr. Robert Strecker Flash forward to 1983. Dr. Robert Strecker of Los Angeles, a practicing gastroenterologist with a Ph.D. in pharmacology, is hired as a consultant to work on a health care proposal for an HMO of the Security Pacific Bank, concerning coverage costs in the event any of 30,000 employees came down with AIDS. Along with the help of his brother, Theodore, a lawyer, the two compiled extensive research of the epidemic which ultimately became The Strecker Memorandum. In it, Dr. Strecker indicated that the AIDS virus was in fact developed by the National Cancer Institute, in cooperation with the World Health Organization (WHO), in a laboratory at Ft. Dietrick in Maryland. From 1970–74, this laboratory facility was part of the U.S. Army’s germ warfare unit, known as the Army Infectious Disease Unit, or Special Operations Division, also referred to as the Army’s Chemical Biological Warfare Laboratory. Post 1974, the facility was renamed the National Cancer Institute (NCI). According to researcher William Cooper (former Navy Intelligence), noted in Larry Jamison’s article Is The AIDS Virus Man Made?,this work was supervised by the CIA under a project called MK-NAOMI. [To get to this site click link, then “All News,” then “Next page”] Dr. Strecker has also traced some of the research and researchers at Ft. Dietrick/NCI to a group of Japanese scientists captured at WW II’s end and given amnesty in exchange for information on racial and ethnic bio-weaponry, their research dating back to 1930. What’s more, expatriated Russian scientists were brought in to help as well. Dr. Strecker, one of the original and foremost authorities on the AIDS virus, found that the virus creation was conducted under the leadership of Dr Robert Gallo, who later claimed to discover the virus. Dr. Gallo and his team created the AIDS virus by combining the bovine (cattle) leukemia virus and visna (sheep) virus, and injecting them into human tissue cultures. They discovered, as Strecker did, that bovine leukemia virus is lethal to cattle, but not to humans. And the visna virus is deadly to sheep, but not to man. However, when combined, they produce a retro-virus that can change the genetic composition of the cells they enter. In fact, as Larry Jamison points out, early field tests on prison convicts led to sickness then death, which inspired Gallo and friends to bigger and more terrible things, including injecting brothers and sisters with the tainted vaccine to see who died first. This was done to study HLA (human leukocyte antigen processing), to see how related people reacted. Frighteningly, whole families got sick at once! And there was worse to come. The AIDS retro-virus works, as Dr. Strecker states, by causing the destruction of the immune system, fundamentally the body's white blood or T-cells essential to the effectiveness of the immune system particularly against opportunistic infections diseases. The B-cells deal with more benign, bacterial infections. AZT, the drug which is a kind of junk food that starves the AIDS virus, often kills the patient as well. It provides dubious consolation. Predictably, when Robert and Theodore tried to share their findings with national, state and local authorities, they received only two responses. On August 11, 1988, Ted Strecker, was found shot to death in his home in Springfield, Missouri. The death was ruled a suicide, in spite of the fact that Dr. Robert Strecker had spoken to his brother on the phone the night before, and Ted was both healthy and in good spirits. On September 12, 1988, the lone political official who had responded to the Streckers’ findings, Illinois State Representative Douglas Huff of Chicago, was found dead in his home. The autopsy claimed he died of a stroke as a result of an overdose of cocaine and heroin. Huff had been an outspoken supporter of Dr. Strecker’s work to publicize what was in essence an AIDS cover-up. Dr. Strecker himself is said to have “gone underground” about five years ago. Yet copies of his Strecker Memorandum are available on DVD and VHS. His passion and massive knowledge have not faded since 1988 when the piece was produced. See it if you can. The common disinformation on AIDS that Strecker fought was the claim that AIDS origin came from a green monkey biting a black man’s backside in Africa. Strecker and a number of virologists pointed out that the AIDS virus doesn’t appear naturally in any animal. Plus, it would have been impossible to reach the point of millions infected from a single episode. More likely, they said, if the virus had come from green monkeys, it would have surfaced with the Pygmies, who are closer to them, and use them as a food source. Ironically, Pygmies contracted AIDS later on when they had intercourse with prostitutes in cities, where the AIDS virus first appeared, not in the jungle. Also, concerning green monkeys, Dr. William Campbell Douglass, MD, writes in 1987 in W.H.O. Murdered Africa : “This is the origin of the green monkey theory. The polio vaccine was grown on green monkey kidney cells and the geniuses who brought us polio vaccine said: ‘We got away with it once so let's use it again.’ But they didn't get away with it and in spite of the fact that polio was rapidly disappearing without any medical intervention, 64 million Americans were vaccinated with SV-40 contaminated vaccine in the 60s. An increase in cancer of the brain, possibly multiple sclerosis and God only knows what else is the tragic result. The delay between vaccination and the onset of cancer with this virus is as long as 20–30 years. Ninteen sixty-five plus 20 equals 1985. Get the picture?” Why, Where and When the AIDS Epidemic First Reared its Head In 1972, under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO), there was a massive vaccination program for smallpox, literally for millions of Africans. Strecker and others believe that the smallpox vaccine laced with the HIV/AIDS virus was given the population, which was mostly black, poor, and part of that startlingly growing African population that GHW Bush, among many elites, the Rockefeller family, the Club of Rome crowd and Bilderbegers, had been concerned with in 1969, and back to 1965, when “the Club” was formed. The intent was to achieve their awful goal—of reducing the world’s population by 75 percent—as mentioned in The Modern History Project. This is the main reason the AIDS pandemic occurred almost simultaneously in Haiti, Brazil, Japan, and the United States, as well as Central Africa. As Jamison tells us, “There was a book in 1968 titled The Population Bomb, by Dr. Paul Ehrlich that had a very telling paragraph on page 17 that probably tells us the key thinking that was behind the decision. Dr. Ehrlich says ‘in summary, the world’s population will continue to grow as long as the birth rate exceeds the death rate; it’s as simple as that. When it stops growing or starts to shrink, it will mean that either the birth rate has gone down or the death rate has gone up or a combination of the two. Basically, then there are only two kinds of solutions to the population problem. One is a birth rate solution (remember the ZPG—Zero Population Growth—movement?) The other is a death rate solution in which ways to raise the death rate—war, famine, pestilence—find us. The problem could have been avoided by population control, in which mankind consciously adjusted the birth rate so that a ‘death rate solution’ did not have to occur.’"How thoughtful of them all. Jamison goes on to say: “The late William Cooper, in his excellent book Behold A Pale Horse notes that Dr. Ehrlich’s wife, Anne, is a member of the Club Of Rome, a think tank group that produced a computer model called Global 2000 which not only outlined the recommendations for AIDS, including a special prophylactic for the ruling elite, and a cure at the very same time which is to be released to the survivors when it is decided enough people have died. According to Cooper, the Global 2000 plan was developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and then presented to President Carter. Cooper’s research determined that the order to proceed with the plan ‘was given by the policy committee of the Bilderberg Group in Switzerland.’” He adds, “The Bilderbergers . . . are a powerful alliance of elite world political leaders and international financiers. . . . In his book, Cooper also mentions the ‘Haig-Kissinger depopulation policy which has taken over various levels of government and in fact is determining U.S. Policy. The planning organization operates outside the White House and directs its entire efforts to reduce the world’s population by 2 billion people through war, famine and any other means necessary.’ Active policies of our State Department go beyond the implementation of AIDS, because Cooper mentions the existence of the office of Population Affairs whose Latin American case officer Thomas Ferguson actually made the statement that ‘There is a single theme behind all of our work: we must reduce population levels. Either they do it our way through nice clean methods or they will get the kind of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut.'"That ‘messy and clean’ language has a familiar ring to it. And in fact, on May 11, 1987, as The Modern History Project, Jamison, and others point out, no less than the London Times broke the story “Smallpox Vaccine ‘Triggered AIDS Virus.’” It was written by Science Editor Pearce Wright, who, challenged by independent investigators' research, went on to tie the World Health Organization’s mass vaccination program to the AIDS outbreak. Since Central (Sub-Saharan) Africa was the locus of the program, it has tragically become the most hard-hit area of the world. The London Times article, which spread like wildfire over Europe, never touched the shores of America. The story was buried like the first AIDS victim. The irony is that AIDS is considered a heterosexual disease in Africa, while in America it has been stigmatized as a ‘gay’ disease. The dark heart of that matter begins in 1969, with a Dr. W. Schmugner, a Polish physician educated in Russia, who came to America where he became head of the New York City Blood Bank. He established guidelines for a Hepatitis B vaccine study, in which only “promiscuous males,” ages 20 to 40 were included in the study, managing to somehow single out only gays. In 1978, more than a thousand “promiscuous homosexual” males were the victims of this “experimental” Hepatitis B vaccination, sponsored by the National Institute of Health (NIH) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Since the vaccine was not produced from human tissue culture, it’s impossible to have an accidental contamination. In plain language, the AIDS virus was intentionally laced into the Hep B vaccine. By 1981, the CDC claimed that only 6 percent of the Hep B vaccine recipients were infected with AIDS. In 1984, the truth was outed: the number was 64 percent. That’s right, 64 percent. Not surprisingly, these Hep B vaccines studies are now under lock and key at the No Justice Department in Washington, DC. And no one can see them. No, no, no, not you, not you, not you. Helping to Further Spread the Disease To help the disease really dig into the population, vital information was additionally covered-up. Emphasis was put on the prime cause of AIDS infection as the exchange of body fluid through sexual activity and intravenous drug use. This gave birth to a campaign for using clean unused needles as well as condoms. Lovely. The fact is condom use is not a guarantee against contracting the disease. One AIDS virion (a virus particle with outer coat intact) is 500 times smaller than the smallest sperm and 10 times smaller than the smallest hole in a condom and therefore can pierce it. Failure rates of 30–50 percent have been noted, and condom quality itself is under scrutiny. Nevertheless, this is not, I repeat, not a recommendation to anyone not to use a condom. What’s more, the risk of casual contact has been understated. I don’t mean to anger anyone here or bail on the afflicted, but AIDS is highly contagious. There is hard evidence, which Strecker mentioned, that the AIDS virus can survive on a dry petri dish for 7 days, and up to 15 days in a wet environment. Incubation in a host can last for 10 to 15 years before there is noticeable sign of illness. This means a carrier could unknowingly pass on the disease in that time. It’s a painful proposition all around, including the caution of Professor William Haseltine of Harvard Medical School: “Anyone who tells you categorically that AIDS is not contracted by saliva is not telling you the truth. AIDS may in fact be transmissible by tears, saliva, bodily fluids, and mosquito bites.” Whether you agree with the above or not, the larger context is that this pox, this abomination, was created and spread consciously by the United States government against black heterosexual populations and then gay white populations, and then spread to populations at large around the world. This mass-murder has already dwarfed the holocaust, in which six million people were murdered with industrial technology. The evil geniuses behind this virus have bio-engineered an organism that multiples 100 times faster than influenza. There are more than 180 different AIDS viruses and 300 strains, which makes blood testing meaningless. Strecker’s number for possible AIDS viruses was 9,000 (base pairs on the genome) to the fourth power.
__________________
"Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein
|
|
10th September 2008, 06:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fear of the Invisible book on viruses & polio and AIDS and HIV
>>
>>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. 'Before they became ill - or did they become ill, or did they just diagnose them with AIDS because their T-cells dropped below the range they have determined indicates AIDS Single donors? I'd like to see that. >>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.) You continue to listen to those who have an agenda. >>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. This just isn't good enough proof for me - there have been quite a few? There has NEVER been prove that body fluids they say are infected with HIV cause anything. Seriously - they have not ever proven it. Just because they say it does not mean it is proven. The book takes you on a fascinating journey with someone who didn't question it to begin with but used her brain as she went along, questioning, meeting with those in the field, writing to Gallo and on and on. >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 I certainly know the mainstream view inside and out. I mentioned that I lived in the Bay area too. My brothers lover died of AIDS in those early years. I was in the thick of it. And remember, I was a practicing RN in California all during those years. And because of my brothers' supposed exposure, I delved into it very very deeply. I know their story. I know their line. I know it inside and out and started to question it when others also started to question it and huge numbers of scientists have gone on record exposing the untruths and as in so many who go against AMA and pHARMA, have been blackballed and the media loves the other story. I would suggest you owe it yourself and your patients to look at the other side. People who go on these drugs being told they are HIV positive and need them to prevent development of AIDS are going to become very very ill - for NOTHING. By not knowing the other side for balance, you're advice could be deadly. 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
|
|
10th September 2008, 06:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fear of the Invisible book on viruses & polio and AIDS and HIV
At 06:34 PM 9/10/2008, you wrote:
>On Sep 10, 2008, at 12:13 PM, Sheri Nakken wrote: > >>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. > >One reason I wrote "please give me citations" is that's exactly what >Richard did to me--"prove it." I supplied the article as my >contribution; now I am asking for his. > Or, if you sufficiently remember details from the book I'd > accept a summary from you--HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE PATTERNS of the > cases, if not by contagion? >> >> >>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. > >In absence of exchange of infected body fluids they don't, tho. Not >that I've ever read. > >> >>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. > >Until YOU have read up on the history, we can also not have an equal >discussion. >Looks like neither of us is prepared to take that plunge at the moment. Again, Shannon - I know the history - I was there when it all was first coming out! I was immersed in it due to my brother's lover becoming ill and then my brother's future. I KNOW THE HISTORY. I lived in the thick of it. >>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. > >This is an area where I'd much rather err on the side of >caution--rather have someone be "too safe" than have to say Huh, >you've got Kaposi's sarcoma, you're losing weight and you can't >eat? Must be out of sympathy for your boyfriend who had the same >thing last year. ???????? what on earth does that mean? >I just do not get it... No you don't get it because you haven't educated yourself on the other side...............those that have exposed the false findings, the research that never was, the decision it is caused by HIV based on absolutely nothing. And then the whole issue of what is HIV - is there such a thing? Do they ever find a whole virus? NO! Healthy cells make what they call HIV - fragments that they compare and say is HIV (and that is another huge story) I can't summarize the book for you. It is so complicated that it takes her 278 pages to build the story and expose it all. 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
|
|
10th September 2008, 06:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The Gay Vaccine Experiment and the Outbreak of AIDS The earliest AIDS cases in America can be clearly traced back to the time period when the hepatitis B experiment began at the New York Blood Centre.The Centre began injecting gay men with multiple doses of the experimental vaccine in November 1978. The inoculations ended in October 1979, less than two years before the official start of the epidemic. Most importantly, the vaccine was developed in chimpanzees – the primate now thought to contain the “ancestor” virus of HIV. Also downplayed is the Centre’s pre-AIDS connection to primate research in Africa and also to a primate centre in the New York City area. The final experimental vaccine was also made by Merck and the NIH from the pooled serum specimens of countless gay men who carried the hepatitis B virus in their blood. The New York Blood Centre (NYBC) is the largest independent blood supplier and distributor in the USA. In 1970, Alfred M Prince, M.D., head of the NYBC Laboratory of Virology, began his hepatitis research with chimps housed at LEMSIP (Laboratory for Experimental Medicine and Surgery) in downstate Tuxedo, NY. Until disbanded in 1997, LEMSIP supplied New York area scientists with primates and primate parts for transplantation and virus research. Founded in 1965, LEMSIP was affiliated with New York University Medical Centre, where the first cases of AIDS-associated Kaposi’s sarcoma were discovered in 1979. NYU Medical Centre researchers were also heavily involved in the development of the experimental hepatitis B vaccine, and the Centre received government grants and contracts connected with biological warfare research beginning in 1969, according to Dr. Leonard Horowitz.......................................... ..............
__________________
"Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein
|
|
10th September 2008, 08:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fear of the Invisible book on viruses & polio and AIDS and HIV
On Sep 10, 2008, at 10:30 AM, Sheri Nakken wrote:
> At 04:25 PM 9/10/2008, you wrote: >> 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. > They make this stuff up as they go. That's silly. *Who* makes it up? The patients? The doctors? The researchers? Who's making up what? Is it completely *coincidence* that every AIDS-infected person had prior exchange of body fluids wit an AIDS-infected patient? > There are people HIV positive who have never become sick, without > their drugs That I acknowledge. I'm NOT a big fan of the drugs, tho I don't know enough about the issues to say much about that. It's NORMAL when a pathogen initially enters a population for its virulence to decline. I assume that in your "old days" when you still "believed in" pathogens you were familiar with that idea? > There are people HIV negative who are sick Sure. No one is claiming that HIV is the only thing that can make a person sick! And I've already acknowledged that other agents can cause similar picture. (And *some* of those people will go only later to become HIV+; with your nursing background you will be familiar--from your "old days"--with the reasons for that.) > HIV has never been proven to be infectious or cause anything You keep saying that, and as a stand-alone statement it's not very useful. Also, it's contradicted by the science and the history of AIDS in the US. > They have never isolated a complete virus I don't know whether that's true or not, and very clearly you do not know it either. Even if it *is* still true, I don't know how relevant it is to the discussion. Does it matter whether the agent of contagion is a retrovirus or a bacterium or a self-replicating energy field or what? Hm, I just googled "isolate 'aids virus" and got an article from today's NY Times--talk about timing. I'm not going to read the whole thing, but here's a snip: ------------------------------------ Altogether, Dr. Gallo said five samples of AIDS virus from one patient were sent to him in 1983 by Dr. Montagnier. Two cannot now be found, but the other three samples from the freezer are only about 91 percent identical to Dr. Montagnier's virus, called LAV, and to Dr. Gallo's virus, HTLV-IIIb, enugh to indicate that those in the freezer are a different strain. If they are a different strain, Dr. Gallo said, he could not have used them to grow the virus strain on which he based his claim of discovery. Dr. Gallo said, however, that still did not solve the question of why the American virus and the French virus were virtually identical. Were they taken by doctors from the same patient and unknowingly sent to both laboratories? Or did one of the laboratories have an accidental contamination from some other samples shipped between them in 1983 or 1984? --------------------------------- Okay, so now I know who the Gallo you referred to is. Maybe he is crazy, how would I know? :-) But there do seem to have been a number of AIDS viruses isolated, by more than one lab. Okay, maybe it's all a conspiracy... > ... >> What I am suggesting--what the US data seems to say--is that the >> *primary* factor is contagion; > > > And that is made up. Never proven. There is no data proving that. I > challenge you to find proof, not just a statemetn I challenge *you* to show me a convincing re-write of the HISTORY of the epidemic in the US which supports your ideas. The *history* is there--it's been written up in newspapers, books, doctors' reports, letters home, all over the place. No theory can credibly dismiss the aspect of contagion, unless it can explain the apparent *patterns*. Again, of course I acknowledge that a healthier person is more resistant to contagion in general; I'm not saying that contagion is the *only* factor, but only that it does appear to be *a* (important) factor. > >> 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. > > > Sorry, not true. > This is from a toxic assault and in many cases from use of poppers and > other toxic drugs. Those weaken the immune system, certainly. But there have been *many* cases where none of these things were apparently a factor--wives or girlfriends would be one set; health care workers exposed during their work is another. Drug use shows epidemiological patterns too, and those patterns are *different*. > > See the book and my webpage info > http://www.wellwithin1.com/AIDS.htm > > I really encourage you to get this book as you will then understand > all the lies we all have been told. Honestly, if I could see any way that the theory could cover the evidence, I would have more interest. However, there probably is also worthwhile perspective in the book, so I'll add it to my list... Frankly, tho, I just haven't been impressed yet... Shannon > > >> 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 >>> >>>
|
|
10th September 2008, 08:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fear of the Invisible book on viruses & polio and AIDS and HIV
At 08:59 PM 9/10/2008, you wrote:
>On Sep 10, 2008, at 10:30 AM, Sheri Nakken wrote: > >>At 04:25 PM 9/10/2008, you wrote: >>>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. > > >>They make this stuff up as they go. > >That's silly. *Who* makes it up? The patients? The doctors? The >researchers? >Who's making up what? Is it completely *coincidence* that every >AIDS-infected person had prior exchange of body fluids wit an >AIDS-infected patient? And where is your proof of that statement? >HIV has never been proven to be infectious or cause anything > >You keep saying that, and as a stand-alone statement it's not very useful. >Also, it's contradicted by the science and the history of AIDS in the US. Its useful because it is vital to this whole issue. If they haven't proven HIV to be infectious the whole premise falls apart. And they haven't. Janine Roberts has actually photo copies of Robert Gallos research papers, notes and all - showing changes he made to his assistants findings right on the paper - crossing things out and inventing things. >>They have never isolated a complete virus > >I don't know whether that's true or not, and very clearly you do not >know it either. I do know. >Even if it *is* still true, I don't know how relevant it is to the >discussion. Does it matter whether the agent of contagion is a >retrovirus or a bacterium or a self-replicating energy field or what? So now you have changed the goalposts. You are saying that AIDS is causedby HIV virus It has never been proven - it has never been proven to be contagious - period. >Hm, I just googled "isolate 'aids virus" and got an article from >today's NY Times--talk about timing. I'm not going to read the >whole thing, but here's a snip: Ahh, Gallo the criminal - you will see why when you read Roberts' book. Other scientists have been saying the same thing, and now we have copies of his fraud in his own handwriting. >------------------------------------ >Altogether, Dr. Gallo said five samples of AIDS virus from one >patient were sent to him in 1983 by Dr. Montagnier. Two cannot now >be found, but the other three samples from the freezer are only >about 91 percent identical to Dr. Montagnier's virus, called LAV, >and to Dr. Gallo's virus, HTLV-IIIb, enugh to indicate that those in >the freezer are a different strain. > >If they are a different strain, Dr. Gallo said, he could not have >used them to grow the virus strain on which he based his claim of discovery. > >Dr. Gallo said, however, that still did not solve the question of >why the American virus and the French virus were virtually >identical. Were they taken by doctors from the same patient and >unknowingly sent to both laboratories? Or did one of the >laboratories have an accidental contamination from some other >samples shipped between them in 1983 or 1984? >--------------------------------- > >Okay, so now I know who the Gallo you referred to is. Maybe he is >crazy, how would I know? :-) But there do seem to have been a >number of AIDS viruses isolated, by more than one lab. Okay, maybe >it's all a conspiracy... The fact that you did NOT know the name Gallo, shows how much you have read and researched on this issue, Shannon. You need the whole background on the above. >>... >>>What I am suggesting--what the US data seems to say--is that the >>>*primary* factor is contagion; >> >> >>And that is made up. Never proven. There is no data proving >>that. I challenge you to find proof, not just a statemetn > >I challenge *you* to show me a convincing re-write of the HISTORY of >the epidemic in the US which supports your ideas. Get the book. It is all there in black and white - the history of the 'epidemic' that isn't an epidemic - but the toxic tipping point resulting in AIDS and some of the webpages referred to also show that as well as that email I just posted with that website from Roberto Giraldo. >The *history* is there--it's been written up in newspapers, books, >doctors' reports, letters home, all over the place. No theory can >credibly dismiss the aspect of contagion, unless it can explain the >apparent *patterns*. Sorry - history is rewritten all the time, or written to begin with. The media plays its role well. Repeat it enough and people will believe it. >Again, of course I acknowledge that a healthier person is more >resistant to contagion in general; I'm not saying that contagion is >the *only* factor, but only that it does appear to be *a* (important) factor. It is not a factor at all. Has never been proven to be. Gallo did not prove it - Gallo faked it all. Hundreds of scientists have been saying this for more than a decade. >>>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. >> >> >>Sorry, not true. >>This is from a toxic assault and in many cases from use of poppers >>and other toxic drugs. > >Those weaken the immune system, certainly. >But there have been *many* cases where none of these things were >apparently a factor--wives or girlfriends would be one set; I just posted research that shows that not to be true. > health care workers exposed during their work is another. and how many of those had AIDS, after a needle-stick, before being put on drugs preventatively? >Drug use shows epidemiological patterns too, and those patterns are >*different*. ??? not sure what you mean above What patterns are different. You haven't even looked at this issue - how can you be so sure? >>See the book and my webpage info >>http://www.wellwithin1.com/AIDS.htm >> >>I really encourage you to get this book as you will then understand >>all the lies we all have been told. > >Honestly, if I could see any way that the theory could cover the >evidence, I would have more interest. However, there probably is >also worthwhile perspective in the book, so I'll add it to my list... >Frankly, tho, I just haven't been impressed yet... Well, you expect me to re-write the book for you here and a summary which is NOT possible - this is complicated and that is why it is hidden - too complicated for most people to follow and the media doesn't want to tell those stories, and people won't listen - they will yawn and turn the page. You have to go through it step by step as many of us have and Janine Roberts shows very nicely in her book. It is like a detective story. Sheri >Shannon >> >> >>>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 >>>> >>>>
|
|
10th September 2008, 08:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fear of the Invisible book on viruses & polio and AIDS and HIV
Whew, okay I was correct my assumption that you know all the history.
Why, then, are you not able to explain to me how the whole "tracing of contacts" etc. is all a lie? On Sep 10, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Sheri Nakken wrote: > >>> >>> 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. > > 'Before they became ill - or did they become ill, or did they just > diagnose them with AIDS because their T-cells dropped below the range > they have determined indicates AIDS Different in different cases--as you know perfectly well. > [...] > >>> 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. > > > This just isn't good enough proof for me - there have been quite a > few? There has NEVER been prove that body fluids they say are > infected with HIV cause anything. That the dentist with AIDS who was said to have infected several patients--it didn't happen, or it was just coincidence that they happened to be his patients? Never mind, I'm going to try--again--to keep quiet on this for now. BTW, I would not be putting people on AZT; but I would also not be telling them it's okay to have sex freely, don't worry, it's not contagious. Shannon > Seriously - they have not ever proven it. Just because they say it > does not mean it is proven. The book takes you on a fascinating > journey with someone who didn't question it to begin with but used her > brain as she went along, questioning, meeting with those in the field, > writing to Gallo and on and on. > > >> 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 > > I certainly know the mainstream view inside and out. > > I mentioned that I lived in the Bay area too. My brothers lover died > of AIDS in those early years. I was in the thick of it. > And remember, I was a practicing RN in California all during those > years. > And because of my brothers' supposed exposure, I delved into it very > very deeply. I know their story. I know their line. > > I know it inside and out and started to question it when others also > started to question it and huge numbers of scientists have gone on > record exposing the untruths and as in so many who go against AMA and > pHARMA, have been blackballed and the media loves the other story. > > I would suggest you owe it yourself and your patients to look at the > other side. > People who go on these drugs being told they are HIV positive and need > them to prevent development of AIDS are going to become very very ill > - for NOTHING. By not knowing the other side for balance, you're > advice could be deadly. > > 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 >
|
|
10th September 2008, 08:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fear of the Invisible book on viruses & polio and AIDS and HIV
At 09:22 PM 9/10/2008, you wrote:
>Whew, okay I was correct my assumption that you know all the history. >Why, then, are you not able to explain to me how the whole "tracing >of contacts" etc. is all a lie? Because it is hugely complicated to explain 1. the history of virology and how they all had just been proven wrong in thinking cancer was caused by a virus and needed to save face and save their jobs and funding 2. looking for just the thing - a few guys with a condition with immune system impairment 3. the ball gets rolling and this is where it is so very complicated. They make this up as they go, I tell you Shannon. Same with tracing of contacts for anything else. Where did the first measles case occur? Tell me. Who did that first person who got measles get it from? >On Sep 10, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Sheri Nakken wrote: > >> >>>> >>>>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. >> >>'Before they became ill - or did they become ill, or did they just >>diagnose them with AIDS because their T-cells dropped below the >>range they have determined indicates AIDS > >Different in different cases--as you know perfectly well. >>[...] >> >>>>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. >> >> >>This just isn't good enough proof for me - there have been quite a >>few? There has NEVER been prove that body fluids they say are >>infected with HIV cause anything. > >That the dentist with AIDS who was said to have infected several >patients--it didn't happen, or it was just coincidence that they >happened to be his patients? you have to look at each of these 'fairy tales' and dig very deep. >Never mind, I'm going to try--again--to keep quiet on this for now. >BTW, I would not be putting people on AZT; but I would also not be >telling them it's okay to have sex freely, don't worry, it's not contagious. That's how you see it. Sheri >Shannon > >>Seriously - they have not ever proven it. Just because they say it >>does not mean it is proven. The book takes you on a fascinating >>journey with someone who didn't question it to begin with but used >>her brain as she went along, questioning, meeting with those in the >>field, writing to Gallo and on and on. >> >> >>>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 >> >>I certainly know the mainstream view inside and out. >> >>I mentioned that I lived in the Bay area too. My brothers lover >>died of AIDS in those early years. I was in the thick of it. >>And remember, I was a practicing RN in California all during those years. >>And because of my brothers' supposed exposure, I delved into it >>very very deeply. I know their story. I know their line. >> >>I know it inside and out and started to question it when others >>also started to question it and huge numbers of scientists have >>gone on record exposing the untruths and as in so many who go >>against AMA and pHARMA, have been blackballed and the media loves >>the other story. >> >>I would suggest you owe it yourself and your patients to look at >>the other side. >>People who go on these drugs being told they are HIV positive and >>need them to prevent development of AIDS are going to become very >>very ill - for NOTHING. By not knowing the other side for balance, >>you're advice could be deadly. >> >>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 >>
|
|
10th September 2008, 08:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fear of the Invisible book on viruses & polio and AIDS and HIV
On Sep 10, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Sheri Nakken wrote:
> [...] >> This is an area where I'd much rather err on the side of >> caution--rather have someone be "too safe" than have to say Huh, >> you've got Kaposi's sarcoma, you're losing weight and you can't eat? >> Must be out of sympathy for your boyfriend who had the same thing >> last year. > > > ???????? what on earth does that mean? :-) Sorry, I just meant, it seems to me that if you remove the idea of contagion, then you have a very hard time explaining some of the observations. Particularly, that sexual partners of AIDS patients (whether gay or straight) are at much higher statistical risk of developing it as well. If not contagion, then why? I mean assuming--as is sometimes the case--that the partner does *not* share the same lifestyle. So, I hypothesized, i must be a sympathy thing. Back under my rock... Oh one more thing, I do think the fact that you've come to believe that *nothing* is contagious is relevant to the discussion. I have an awfully hard time with that one, too. > > >> I just do not get it... > > > No you don't get it because you haven't educated yourself on the other > side...............those that have exposed the false findings, the > research that never was, the decision it is caused by HIV based on > absolutely nothing. And then the whole issue of what is HIV - is > there such a thing? Do they ever find a whole virus? NO! So you keep saying; various other sources say otherwise. S > > Healthy cells make what they call HIV - fragments that they compare > and say is HIV (and that is another huge story) > > I can't summarize the book for you. It is so complicated that it > takes her 278 pages to build the story and expose it all. > > 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 > |
