INCREDIBLE new book by Janine Roberts - just
finished it - will be meeting with her sometime
in the next few weeks (she lives just 90 minutes from me)

Fear of the Invisible book on Polio and AIDS and
HIV (and makes you question all the other things
blamed on 'viruses', ie measles, mumps, chickenpox, rubella, flu, etc)

She goes into great detail on the actual lies
about polio to include how the vaccine is made
and how NEVER proved to be infectious
(some of Jim West's great info here and credited to him and his pages)

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 - NEVER
proven.........money and ego driven..........you
will be sickened even more than you may already be now

The lives that have been lost or damaged due to
the lies about Polio and the lies about HIV and AIDS

I highly recommend this if you want to know how
virology has NOT A CLUE about what they want you
to believe they know so much about

The lunatics are in charge of the asylum for sure

Sheri

Link to book in the US
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0955917727/wellwithinA/>http://www..amazon.com/exec/obidos/I...7/wellwithinA/

Link to book in the UK

<http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0955917727/wellwithin-21/202-2017433-62>http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...202-2017433-62

13405

How scared should we be
of viruses and vaccines,
HIV and AIDS? Fear_of_invisible_back_cover_150x225.jpg

Fear of the Invisible
by Janine Roberts
isbn 0955917727, amazon.com

An Investigative Journey into a reckless and contaminated Medical Industry

This book takes its readers on a journey into the
very heart of the hunt for viruses – to the key
experiments performed to prove that these
innvisibly small particles cause diseases that
often were previously blamed on toxins or
bacteria. It sheds light on the extraordinary
assumptions underlying much of this research into
viruses – and the resulting vaccinees and antiviral medicines.

The author, an investigative journalist who
researched and produced investigative films for
the BBC, American and Australian television, was
asked by parents with children severely ill after
vaccination to discover if the medical
authorities were hiding anything from them. She
agreed, but had no idea how long this search
would take or how it would change her ideas. She
expected at best to uncover a small degree of contamination.

On the ensuing decade-long journey of discovery,
she found top government scientists report
alarmingly, at meetings between scientists, that
it is impossible to purify vaccines. They stated
that the childhood vaccines of today are
contaminated with viruses from chickens, humans
and monkeys, with RNA and DNA fragments, with
"cellular degradation products," and possibly "oncogenes and prions."

They say they dare not tell the pubic about all
this contamination - as they might demand a
withdrawal of the vaccines. Thus the public is
not told despite all the consequences of such
contamination for long-term public health. A US
court decision in 2008 has linked autism with
vaccine contamination. The author cites her
sources by name – and gives references and
IInternet links where they are available.

There is much research here that has not been
reported elsewhere. She reveals, for example,
that the World Health Organization (WHO) knows
the MMR vaccine is contaminated with chicken
leukosis virus, yet has decided not to tell the
public and to continue to make the vaccine with
eggs from contaminated chickens. She doubts the
accuracy of their research, as it is based on
discovering an enzyme, RT, not a virus, but they
believe it is very dangerous to chickens and
potentially to children. They stay silent because
to confess this would reveal that they cannot
purify the vaccines given to our children.

She reports US biowarfare researchers tried to
create new agents to destroy human immune systems
– and reported working on a bacterium to makee it
a hospital superbug. Did they manage to create
HIV? She thought it unlikely as military
personnel were not AIDS first victims. Besides
there was a more likely alternative. A senior
professor told her the vaccine program was so
contaminated and chimps were used in vaccine
manufacturing so widely, that HIV could easily
have spread in a vaccine without any need for
military intervention. She then set out to find
why HIV spread so far and so fast. Was it in a
vaccine? She needed to know more about HIV so
went to the foundation research widely held today
to have found this virus and proved it caused AIDS.

She was then rocked to discover that this key HIV
research was investigated for scientific fraud by
powerful US scientific institutions and by
Congress. Why is this not widely known? These
reported major errors in this research, with some
errors so serious that the inquiries said they
made it impossible to repeat these experiments
and verify them! She reveals the evidence
unearthed – reproducing key documents so the
reader can assess themm for themselves. This is explosive material.

She then finds the faults in researching HIV
apply also to other viruses. She goes to the key
experiments and can find none in which pure
samples of viruses were produced and proved to
cause particular human diseases. If they cannot
purify viruses for use in vaccines, they cannot
produce the pure cultures needed to link with certitude viruses with diseases.

The book discusses in detail the attack on the
Perth group in an Australian court in 2007.
During this many HIV experts said again and again
- 'but we don't isolate other viruses. `it is not
only HIV that we do not isolate.' They described
how they produced the flu and measles virus. The
author shows how measles virus is produced
according to the latest CDC guidelines. it is as
strange as anything done with HIV. At no point is
the virus actually detected and identified.

A major part of the book takes its readers on a
journey through various aspects of HIV theory,
such as sexual transmission, the different
clinical definitions of AIDS, why AIDS is said to
be caused by HIV and at the same time is said to
happen in the absence of HIV, and why the HIV
test picks up on different diseases in the West and in Africa.

In the final part of this book the author reports
recent research that is revolutionizing biology
and offering much hope for the future. These new
developments shed new light on the relationships
between our cells and viruses. They are not
necessarily enemies. Readers may find these new
developments will radically change the ideas they
have held about viruses all their lives.

The preface is contributed by Dr Roberto Giraldo.
The book has hundreds of scientific references, a
scientific glossary and an index.

<http://www.rethinkingaids.com/tabid/122/Default.aspx>http://www.rethinkingaids.com/tabid/122/Default.aspx

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

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 03:37 PM 9/10/2008, you wrote:
>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?


Show me where that is the case?

If there are such contacts, do they have the same drug use?


>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.
This book goes into even more detail than you've seen before on the
whole issue and how whacko Gallo really is


>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.
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

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 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.
There are people HIV positive who have never become sick, without their drugs
There are people HIV negative who are sick
HIV has never been proven to be infectious or cause anything
They have never isolated a complete virus
It is all smoke and mirrors


>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

>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.

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.


>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
>>
>>

She uses 278 pages to explain this

Excerpt from back cover:

It is very comforting to read in in Fear of the Invisible" "We all
have been taught to greatly fear viruses- and yet scientists are now
discovering that they are fundamental parts of life, made by the
millions by all healthy cells. I hope this book will help by
combating this fear, this damning of the invisible because we do not
understand it. Without this fear, hopefully the focus in medical
research will shift to looking more at the environmental toxins that
really put us, and our world, gravely at risk." Dr. Roberto Giraldo

Cells MAKE retroviruses
Sheri


>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
>
>__._,_.___
><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minutus/message/57781;_ylc=X3oDMTM2dWJnZG5pBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycEl kAzE5Nzk0OTkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MTg5ODczBG1zZ0lkAzU3N zgzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTIyMTA1NzU4NQR 0cGNJZAM1Nzc4MQ-->Messages
>in this topic (2)
><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minutus/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxNGVpdWdlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElk AzE5Nzk0OTkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MTg5ODczBG1zZ0lkAzU3Nz gzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTIyMTA1NzU4NQ--?act=reply&messageNum=57783>Reply
>(via web post) |
><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minutus/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJldmZsYm4zBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElk AzE5Nzk0OTkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MTg5ODczBHNlYwNmdHIEc2 xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTIyMTA1NzU4NQ-->Start
>a new topic
><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minutus/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbWN0bnNnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdy cElkAzE5Nzk0OTkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MTg5ODczBHNlYwNmdH IEc2xrA21zZ3MEc3RpbWUDMTIyMTA1NzU4NQ-->Messages
>|
><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minutus/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJmY3I4ZmdwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycEl kAzE5Nzk0OTkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MTg5ODczBHNlYwNmdHIEc 2xrA2xpbmtzBHN0aW1lAzEyMjEwNTc1ODU->Links
>|
><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minutus/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYmFra2JsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycEl kAzE5Nzk0OTkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MTg5ODczBHNlYwNmdHIEc 2xrA3BvbGxzBHN0aW1lAzEyMjEwNTc1ODU->Polls
>|
><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minutus/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYWRrc2JnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdyc ElkAzE5Nzk0OTkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MTg5ODczBHNlYwNmdHI Ec2xrA21icnMEc3RpbWUDMTIyMTA1NzU4NQ-->Members
>
>Visit Minutus Website at <http://www.minutus.org>http://www.minutus.org
>
>ATTENTION PLEASE:
>
>The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of
>Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no
>representations regarding the individual suitability of the
>information contained in any document read or advice or
>recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email
>postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use
>remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or
>its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential,
>incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and
>howsoever caused.
>
>****
>ATTENTION PLEASE!!
>
>If you do not wish to receive individual emails, you can simply
>change your setting at
><http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus>http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus
>to receive a single daily digest.
><http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZG45aHIyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE5 Nzk0OTkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MTg5ODczBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2 dmcARzdGltZQMxMjIxMDU3NTg1>
>Yahoo! Groups
>
><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minutus/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMXJjMGw0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElk AzE5Nzk0OTkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MTg5ODczBHNlYwNmdHIEc2 xrA3N0bmdzBHN0aW1lAzEyMjEwNTc1ODU->Change
>settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
>Change settings via email:
><mailto:minutus-digest (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com?subject=Email Delivery:
>Digest>Switch delivery to Daily Digest |
><mailto:minutus-traditional (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com?subject=Change Delivery
>Format: Traditional>Switch format to Traditional
><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minutus;_ylc=X3oDMTJkc281YjYxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdyc ElkAzE5Nzk0OTkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MTg5ODczBHNlYwNmdHI Ec2xrA2hwZgRzdGltZQMxMjIxMDU3NTg1>Visit
>Your Group | <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Groups Terms
>of Use | <mailto:minutus-unsubscribe (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com?subject=>Unsubscribe
>Recent Activity
> * 6
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minutus/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMXY3NjhhBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdyc ElkAzE5Nzk0OTkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MTg5ODczBHNlYwN2dGw Ec2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyMjEwNTc1ODU->New
> Members
><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minutus;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMXQ3MDA1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdyc ElkAzE5Nzk0OTkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MTg5ODczBHNlYwN2dGw Ec2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTIyMTA1NzU4NQ-->Visit
>Your Group
>Yahoo! Health
>
><http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13rkvv6u1/M=493064.12016303.12582636.9706571/D=grphealth/S=1705189873:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1221064785/L=/B=.2jnB0LaX98-/J=1221057585860011/A=5191948/R=0/SIG=13e3p6u0h/*http://health.yahoo.com/arthritis-overview/top-ten-things-that-don-t-cause-arthritis/harvard--COL111103.html>Achy
>Joint?
>
>Common arthritis
>
>myths debunked.
>Meditation and
>
><http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13r229a5v/M=493064.12016231.12582634.9706571/D=grphealth/S=1705189873:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1221064785/L=/B=_GjnB0LaX98-/J=1221057585860011/A=5191951/R=0/SIG=11iiaadso/*http://new.groups.yahoo.com/giftoflovingkindness>Lovingkindness
>
>A Yahoo! Group
>
>to share and learn.
>Sitebuilder
>
><http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13r268q5e/M=493064.12016255.12445662.8674578/D=grphealth/S=1705189873:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1221064785/L=/B=_WjnB0LaX98-/J=1221057585860011/A=4025304/R=0/SIG=12uhb64pb/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44092/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting/sitebuilding.php>Build
>a web site
>
>quickly & easily
>
>with Sitebuilder.
>.
>
>__,_._,___

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

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

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 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,
usually quite heavily. These men were also heavy
users of many other “recreational” drugs,
including amphetamines (“speed”), cocaine,
heroin, quaaludes (“ludes”), LSD, barbiturates
(“downers”), and ethyl chloride. (Friedman-Kien
1982, Haverkos 1982/1985, Jaffe 1983) "

"• Case-control studies have implicated poppers
as a statistically significant and important risk
factor for the development of AIDS. (Marmor 1982, Newell 1985)

• In gay men who do not (yet) have AIDS, popper
usage is correlated with immunological
abnormalities similar to those found in AIDS patients. (Goedert 1982)

• Among men with swollen lymph nodes (all of whom
had used poppers), heavy popper users were more
likely to develop AIDS. (Mathur-Wagh 1984/1986)

• A recent study compared two groups of gay men
who were antibody positive to the LAV (HTLVIII)
virus: people who were clinically sick with AIDS,
and people who were not sick. Usage of the
nitrite inhalants proved to be one of the most
important risk factors for developing AIDS, and
especially, Kaposi's sarcoma. The heavier the
popper usage, the greater the risk. (Moss 1985)

• Leaders of People With AIDS, who have known
hundreds of PWA's, state that most of them were
heavily into drugs, and all of them used poppers.

• W.J. Wallace, the manager of the Mineshaft,
stated in an interview, “I really don't know
anybody who's had AIDS who hasn't used drugs.”

• Finally, there is the crucial point that for 5
years AIDS, unlike a truly communicable disease,
has remained compartmentalized. Gay men accounted
for three-quarters of the AIDS cases 5 years ago,
and account for the same proportion now in 1986. Poppers are used by gay men.
They are used by very, very few straight men, and
by virtually no women at all."

MICE STUDIES
• Five different studies found that exposure to
amyl or isobutyl nitrite, either through
injection or inhalation, caused immunological
deficiency in mice. (Watson 1982, Neefe 1983,
Lotzova 1984, Gangadharam 1985, and Ortiz 1985)

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/jlpoppers.htm
"Subsequent studies, both in vitro and in vivo,
have shown that poppers damage the immune system.
They cause two kinds of anemia: Heinz body
hemolytic anemia and methemoglobinemia. They
damage the lungs. They have the potential to
cause cancer by producing deadly N-nitroso
compounds in interaction with many common drugs
and chemicals, including antihistamines,
artificial sweeteners, and pain killers.(7)
Subsequent studies, both in vitro and in vivo,
have shown that poppers damage the immune system.
They cause two kinds of anemia: Heinz body
hemolytic anemia and methemoglobinemia. They
damage the lungs. They have the potential to
cause cancer by producing deadly N-nitroso
compounds in interaction with many common drugs
and chemicals, including antihistamines,
artificial sweeteners, and pain killers.(7) "

"When the first cases of AIDS were identified in
1981, or the predecessor cases of GRID (Gay
Related Immune Deficiency), poppers were high on
the list of etiological suspects. Here, after
all, was a drug used heavily and almost
exclusively by the group of people getting sick.
Nevertheless, despite compelling epidemiological
and toxicological evidence, the Centers for
Disease Control (CDC) hastened to exonerate
poppers. They did so for two reasons, both of
which were spurious. First, the CDC found AIDS
patients who had never used poppers; therefore,
argued the CDC, poppers could not be the cause.
The CDC's assumption was that "AIDS" constituted
a single, coherent disease entity with a single
cause. Second, the CDC conducted a brief mice
study in 1982-1983, and claimed to find "no
evidence of immunotoxicity". These results are
contradicted by several other studies, which did
find that the inhalation of nitrite fumes causes
immune suppression in mice. The reasons for the
negative findings of the CDC mice study were
explained at the Gaithersburg meeting by one of
the investigators, Daniel Lewis, about which more below. "

MUCH MORE THERE



Gallo's 4 science papers were supposed to address
that AIDS was sexually transmitted and they never did

It was just assumed it was promiscuity
The sexual transmission of AIDS was only
promulgated by press releases and media
interviews as self evident - NEVER proven

Member of the gay community also were part of
this - they greeted, with enormous relief, the
declaration that a virus cause AIDS. Earlier
Toxicologists told them their lifestyle caused
their illnesses, but the discovery of this virus
now surely had lifted the blame from their drug
taking and partying lifestyle.........excepted
from In Fear of the Invisible - pages 134 & 135

It then became politically correct

A large study was done with 175 heterosexual
copules with one partner HIV-positive - monitored
for 6 years - counseled to have safe sex. 1/4 did not consistently use condoms
NO SEROCONVERSIONS among expect partners (no HIV
transmission and NO AIDS) - p. 137 and 138

and there are more studies