Re: hiv poll and med questions

[Guest guest]

Overall my health is

ok and I do all I can to keep up on it. I am choosing to stick with the

meds because they are working at this point in time. Believe me,......I

am only taking them because it was a last resort - those who know my

story know this - I am very non-med...and only take them if necessary -

otherwise I still do alternative, wholistic, all-natural therapies along

with the meds. Good idea,...will let it simmer for a bit.

EXACTLY. It becomes more and more obvious to me that, in the short-to-mid-term,

the ARVs DO SAVE LIVES of those whose health fell really low, like I did.

I would have " come back " without ARVs, but would have probably taken me longer.

My advise is do not hesitate to start on the meds if you reach a point where

some people start thinking that dying may be your future.

juan

[Guest guest]

Overall my health is

ok and I do all I can to keep up on it. I am choosing to stick with the

meds because they are working at this point in time. Believe me,......I

am only taking them because it was a last resort - those who know my

story know this - I am very non-med...and only take them if necessary -

otherwise I still do alternative, wholistic, all-natural therapies along

with the meds. Good idea,...will let it simmer for a bit.

EXACTLY. It becomes more and more obvious to me that, in the short-to-mid-term,

the ARVs DO SAVE LIVES of those whose health fell really low, like I did.

I would have " come back " without ARVs, but would have probably taken me longer.

My advise is do not hesitate to start on the meds if you reach a point where

some people start thinking that dying may be your future.

juan

[Guest guest]

>

> Overall my health is ok and I do all I can to keep up on it. I am

> choosing to stick with the meds because they are working at this

> point in time. Believe me,......I am only taking them because it

> was a last resort - those who know my story know this - I am very

> non-med...and only take them if necessary - otherwise I still do

> alternative, wholistic, all-natural therapies along with the meds.

> Good idea,...will let it simmer for a bit.

Your overall health is just " okay " and I thought the drugs were

saving your life, improving your quality of life greatly?!

Mixing immune enhancing, non-toxic therapies with toxic, immune

suppressing drug therapies seems counter-productive.

> EXACTLY. It becomes more and more obvious to me that, in the short-

to-mid-term, the ARVs DO SAVE LIVES of those whose health fell really

low, like I did.

Why do you say that it becomes " more and more obvious " ? Because of

your own anacdotal experience? Nothing anacdotal proves anything

theoretical. That's why we have studies to look at patterns across

populations, controlling for many confounding factors. You may simply

be lucky, perhaps your body is not digesting the meds or you haven't

been on them long enough to experience the serious side effects. But

why take the gamble when there are many proven health benefits of

natural, non-toxic immune-enhancing therapies that do the same thing

or better without the serious side effects?

> I would have " come back " without ARVs, but would have probably

taken me longer.

Uh, huh...

> My advise is do not hesitate to start on the meds if you reach a

point where some people start thinking that dying may be your future.

So, you should base your health care decision-making upon whether or

what " some people start thinking that dying may be [in] your future?! "

C'mon, are you serious? How about basing that potentially life-

impacting decision based on the real evidence? And the fact is,

despite all the rhetoric, there is insufficient evidence [in drug no

drug placebo-controlled studies] to suggest that AIDS drugs extend

life or improve health short, mid or long-term.

YOU GOTTA HAVE HAART? [link to discussion thread with detailed

analysis]

http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages?msg=1068.1

THIS JUST IN!

A paper and editorial in the latest Lancet, a respected medical

journal, emphasize that AIDS drug therapies aren't improving. Whether

they've ever been any good is another question.

" The Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) Cohort Collaboration " concludes in

the paper with the catchy title of " HIV treatment response and

prognosis in Europe and North America in the fi rst decade of highly

active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis " that viral

suppression was improving dramatically, but this did not translate

into lower risk of AIDS or death. In fact the risk of AIDS was 35%

high in 2002-3 than in 1998 and the risk of death was virtually the

same (a hazard ratio of 0.96, statistically the same as no change).

Their conclusion is pretty honest (by comparison to other AIDS

researchers) " Virological response after starting HAART improved over

calendar years, but such improvement has not translated into a

decrease in mortality. "

They could have noted that when drugs are approved based on viral

load as a surrogate marker you're likely to get drugs that improve

viral load but not health!

==

Healthfully and Hopefully,

Jon Landis

V I R U S M Y T H

http://forums.delphiforus.com/innocuous

[Guest guest]

>

> Overall my health is ok and I do all I can to keep up on it. I am

> choosing to stick with the meds because they are working at this

> point in time. Believe me,......I am only taking them because it

> was a last resort - those who know my story know this - I am very

> non-med...and only take them if necessary - otherwise I still do

> alternative, wholistic, all-natural therapies along with the meds.

> Good idea,...will let it simmer for a bit.

Your overall health is just " okay " and I thought the drugs were

saving your life, improving your quality of life greatly?!

Mixing immune enhancing, non-toxic therapies with toxic, immune

suppressing drug therapies seems counter-productive.

> EXACTLY. It becomes more and more obvious to me that, in the short-

to-mid-term, the ARVs DO SAVE LIVES of those whose health fell really

low, like I did.

Why do you say that it becomes " more and more obvious " ? Because of

your own anacdotal experience? Nothing anacdotal proves anything

theoretical. That's why we have studies to look at patterns across

populations, controlling for many confounding factors. You may simply

be lucky, perhaps your body is not digesting the meds or you haven't

been on them long enough to experience the serious side effects. But

why take the gamble when there are many proven health benefits of

natural, non-toxic immune-enhancing therapies that do the same thing

or better without the serious side effects?

> I would have " come back " without ARVs, but would have probably

taken me longer.

Uh, huh...

> My advise is do not hesitate to start on the meds if you reach a

point where some people start thinking that dying may be your future.

So, you should base your health care decision-making upon whether or

what " some people start thinking that dying may be [in] your future?! "

C'mon, are you serious? How about basing that potentially life-

impacting decision based on the real evidence? And the fact is,

despite all the rhetoric, there is insufficient evidence [in drug no

drug placebo-controlled studies] to suggest that AIDS drugs extend

life or improve health short, mid or long-term.

YOU GOTTA HAVE HAART? [link to discussion thread with detailed

analysis]

http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages?msg=1068.1

THIS JUST IN!

A paper and editorial in the latest Lancet, a respected medical

journal, emphasize that AIDS drug therapies aren't improving. Whether

they've ever been any good is another question.

" The Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) Cohort Collaboration " concludes in

the paper with the catchy title of " HIV treatment response and

prognosis in Europe and North America in the fi rst decade of highly

active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis " that viral

suppression was improving dramatically, but this did not translate

into lower risk of AIDS or death. In fact the risk of AIDS was 35%

high in 2002-3 than in 1998 and the risk of death was virtually the

same (a hazard ratio of 0.96, statistically the same as no change).

Their conclusion is pretty honest (by comparison to other AIDS

researchers) " Virological response after starting HAART improved over

calendar years, but such improvement has not translated into a

decrease in mortality. "

They could have noted that when drugs are approved based on viral

load as a surrogate marker you're likely to get drugs that improve

viral load but not health!

==

Healthfully and Hopefully,

Jon Landis

V I R U S M Y T H

http://forums.delphiforus.com/innocuous

[Guest guest]

Dear , how would you define the death of Pasquarelly?

Anecdotal? (for those who don't know, D. Pasquarelli was

Maggiore major associate in Alive and Well, died about 4 years ago

of AIDS related complications). And the death of

Maggiore's daughter? I guess anecdotal also (the daughter of

Maggiore died about 3 years ago of AIDS related pneumonia. Her

mother claims it was a reaction to antibiotics despite all evidence

pointing to HIV. Maggiore hasn't, understandably, changed her views.

It is difficult to do so when all your identity - and source of

income - is based on that.)I have been HIV+ for 13 years, and very

early on jumped on the dissident bandwagon. Even if the people in

the dissident support groups I was in kept on getting sick, I

sticked to it, finding (like you all dissidents do) all sorts of

rationalization to justify what I was witnessing. I alway led a

healthy life, no drugs, no streetdrugs, great support from friends

and family, and still my health slowly deteriorated. ,

statistics and numbers are not life. In real life, the vast majority

of people who turn to be HIV+ do get sick, eventually. This does not

mean that everybody does, and Maggiore and yourself belong probably

to this group. You keep on saying that there are 70 and more reasons

that the test can be positive. Regardless, do you think having your

blood full of immunocomplexes is a good thing? Even most among the

dissidents are starting to see the light and agree that hiv+ means

that something is going on. But we don't need the dissidents or

anyone else to see the facts. You just need to look around.

Antiretroviral drugs do help people, despite many (but not

everybody) can get sideeffects from them. The dissidents major crime

is in having shifted the focus from " cure " to " cause " . Nothing could

be more allopathic. The most innovative (and not funded by big

pharma)research is now moving towards an immune overactivation

instead of immune depression theory of aids. In this view, the white

blood cells die for apoptosys and not because they're killed by the

virus. The virus then is only a triggering agent.

Going back to the dissidents, their stand is obviously fuelled by

fear, and by reaction to the big power of pharmaceutical industry.

Devon, don't listen to all this blabbering (including mine), you are

the only one that can decide for yourself, and no " informed

decision " can be made based on the semantics on which the dissident

cling for dear life. Get a good alternative doctor (hard job, to

find one), and a good allopathic one also. Listen to your body, and

act consequently. And keep your CD4 cells monitored.

Merc

cures for AIDS , " Jon Landis " <kellyjon23@...>

wrote:

>

>

> >

> > Overall my health is ok and I do all I can to keep up on it. I

am

> > choosing to stick with the meds because they are working at this

> > point in time. Believe me,......I am only taking them because it

> > was a last resort - those who know my story know this - I am

very

> > non-med...and only take them if necessary - otherwise I still do

> > alternative, wholistic, all-natural therapies along with the

meds.

> > Good idea,...will let it simmer for a bit.

>

> Your overall health is just " okay " and I thought the drugs were

> saving your life, improving your quality of life greatly?!

>

> Mixing immune enhancing, non-toxic therapies with toxic, immune

> suppressing drug therapies seems counter-productive.

>

>

> > EXACTLY. It becomes more and more obvious to me that, in the

short-

> to-mid-term, the ARVs DO SAVE LIVES of those whose health fell

really

> low, like I did.

>

>

> Why do you say that it becomes " more and more obvious " ? Because of

> your own anacdotal experience? Nothing anacdotal proves anything

> theoretical. That's why we have studies to look at patterns across

> populations, controlling for many confounding factors. You may

simply

> be lucky, perhaps your body is not digesting the meds or you

haven't

> been on them long enough to experience the serious side effects.

But

> why take the gamble when there are many proven health benefits of

> natural, non-toxic immune-enhancing therapies that do the same

thing

> or better without the serious side effects?

>

> > I would have " come back " without ARVs, but would have probably

> taken me longer.

>

> Uh, huh...

>

> > My advise is do not hesitate to start on the meds if you reach a

> point where some people start thinking that dying may be your

future.

>

> So, you should base your health care decision-making upon whether

or

> what " some people start thinking that dying may be [in] your

future?! "

> C'mon, are you serious? How about basing that potentially life-

> impacting decision based on the real evidence? And the fact is,

> despite all the rhetoric, there is insufficient evidence [in drug

no

> drug placebo-controlled studies] to suggest that AIDS drugs extend

> life or improve health short, mid or long-term.

>

> YOU GOTTA HAVE HAART? [link to discussion thread with detailed

> analysis]

> http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages?msg=1068.1

>

>

> THIS JUST IN!

>

> A paper and editorial in the latest Lancet, a respected medical

> journal, emphasize that AIDS drug therapies aren't improving.

Whether

> they've ever been any good is another question.

>

> " The Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) Cohort Collaboration " concludes

in

> the paper with the catchy title of " HIV treatment response and

> prognosis in Europe and North America in the fi rst decade of

highly

> active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis " that viral

> suppression was improving dramatically, but this did not translate

> into lower risk of AIDS or death. In fact the risk of AIDS was 35%

> high in 2002-3 than in 1998 and the risk of death was virtually the

> same (a hazard ratio of 0.96, statistically the same as no change).

>

> Their conclusion is pretty honest (by comparison to other AIDS

> researchers) " Virological response after starting HAART improved

over

> calendar years, but such improvement has not translated into a

> decrease in mortality. "

>

> They could have noted that when drugs are approved based on viral

> load as a surrogate marker you're likely to get drugs that improve

> viral load but not health!

>

>

> ==

>

>

> Healthfully and Hopefully,

>

> Jon Landis

>

>

>

> V I R U S M Y T H

> http://forums.delphiforus.com/innocuous

>

[Guest guest]

Dear , how would you define the death of Pasquarelly?

Anecdotal? (for those who don't know, D. Pasquarelli was

Maggiore major associate in Alive and Well, died about 4 years ago

of AIDS related complications). And the death of

Maggiore's daughter? I guess anecdotal also (the daughter of

Maggiore died about 3 years ago of AIDS related pneumonia. Her

mother claims it was a reaction to antibiotics despite all evidence

pointing to HIV. Maggiore hasn't, understandably, changed her views.

It is difficult to do so when all your identity - and source of

income - is based on that.)I have been HIV+ for 13 years, and very

early on jumped on the dissident bandwagon. Even if the people in

the dissident support groups I was in kept on getting sick, I

sticked to it, finding (like you all dissidents do) all sorts of

rationalization to justify what I was witnessing. I alway led a

healthy life, no drugs, no streetdrugs, great support from friends

and family, and still my health slowly deteriorated. ,

statistics and numbers are not life. In real life, the vast majority

of people who turn to be HIV+ do get sick, eventually. This does not

mean that everybody does, and Maggiore and yourself belong probably

to this group. You keep on saying that there are 70 and more reasons

that the test can be positive. Regardless, do you think having your

blood full of immunocomplexes is a good thing? Even most among the

dissidents are starting to see the light and agree that hiv+ means

that something is going on. But we don't need the dissidents or

anyone else to see the facts. You just need to look around.

Antiretroviral drugs do help people, despite many (but not

everybody) can get sideeffects from them. The dissidents major crime

is in having shifted the focus from " cure " to " cause " . Nothing could

be more allopathic. The most innovative (and not funded by big

pharma)research is now moving towards an immune overactivation

instead of immune depression theory of aids. In this view, the white

blood cells die for apoptosys and not because they're killed by the

virus. The virus then is only a triggering agent.

Going back to the dissidents, their stand is obviously fuelled by

fear, and by reaction to the big power of pharmaceutical industry.

Devon, don't listen to all this blabbering (including mine), you are

the only one that can decide for yourself, and no " informed

decision " can be made based on the semantics on which the dissident

cling for dear life. Get a good alternative doctor (hard job, to

find one), and a good allopathic one also. Listen to your body, and

act consequently. And keep your CD4 cells monitored.

Merc

cures for AIDS , " Jon Landis " <kellyjon23@...>

wrote:

>

>

> >

> > Overall my health is ok and I do all I can to keep up on it. I

am

> > choosing to stick with the meds because they are working at this

> > point in time. Believe me,......I am only taking them because it

> > was a last resort - those who know my story know this - I am

very

> > non-med...and only take them if necessary - otherwise I still do

> > alternative, wholistic, all-natural therapies along with the

meds.

> > Good idea,...will let it simmer for a bit.

>

> Your overall health is just " okay " and I thought the drugs were

> saving your life, improving your quality of life greatly?!

>

> Mixing immune enhancing, non-toxic therapies with toxic, immune

> suppressing drug therapies seems counter-productive.

>

>

> > EXACTLY. It becomes more and more obvious to me that, in the

short-

> to-mid-term, the ARVs DO SAVE LIVES of those whose health fell

really

> low, like I did.

>

>

> Why do you say that it becomes " more and more obvious " ? Because of

> your own anacdotal experience? Nothing anacdotal proves anything

> theoretical. That's why we have studies to look at patterns across

> populations, controlling for many confounding factors. You may

simply

> be lucky, perhaps your body is not digesting the meds or you

haven't

> been on them long enough to experience the serious side effects.

But

> why take the gamble when there are many proven health benefits of

> natural, non-toxic immune-enhancing therapies that do the same

thing

> or better without the serious side effects?

>

> > I would have " come back " without ARVs, but would have probably

> taken me longer.

>

> Uh, huh...

>

> > My advise is do not hesitate to start on the meds if you reach a

> point where some people start thinking that dying may be your

future.

>

> So, you should base your health care decision-making upon whether

or

> what " some people start thinking that dying may be [in] your

future?! "

> C'mon, are you serious? How about basing that potentially life-

> impacting decision based on the real evidence? And the fact is,

> despite all the rhetoric, there is insufficient evidence [in drug

no

> drug placebo-controlled studies] to suggest that AIDS drugs extend

> life or improve health short, mid or long-term.

>

> YOU GOTTA HAVE HAART? [link to discussion thread with detailed

> analysis]

> http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages?msg=1068.1

>

>

> THIS JUST IN!

>

> A paper and editorial in the latest Lancet, a respected medical

> journal, emphasize that AIDS drug therapies aren't improving.

Whether

> they've ever been any good is another question.

>

> " The Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) Cohort Collaboration " concludes

in

> the paper with the catchy title of " HIV treatment response and

> prognosis in Europe and North America in the fi rst decade of

highly

> active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis " that viral

> suppression was improving dramatically, but this did not translate

> into lower risk of AIDS or death. In fact the risk of AIDS was 35%

> high in 2002-3 than in 1998 and the risk of death was virtually the

> same (a hazard ratio of 0.96, statistically the same as no change).

>

> Their conclusion is pretty honest (by comparison to other AIDS

> researchers) " Virological response after starting HAART improved

over

> calendar years, but such improvement has not translated into a

> decrease in mortality. "

>

> They could have noted that when drugs are approved based on viral

> load as a surrogate marker you're likely to get drugs that improve

> viral load but not health!

>

>

> ==

>

>

> Healthfully and Hopefully,

>

> Jon Landis

>

>

>

> V I R U S M Y T H

> http://forums.delphiforus.com/innocuous

>

[Guest guest]

To Pierpaolorizzo (and any other AIDS apologists mistakenly in this group):

Please go to groups and read the description of this group. People of

your beliefs do not belong here. Your nonsense about invalid surrogate

markers, like t-cells and viral load, are a waste of time for the members of

this

group. You have your beliefs. We have science and logic. We KNOW better.

" How would you define the death of....? " What kind of question is that?

Define death? Cessation of pulse, breathing, brain waves? What are you

getting at? I have a better question for you. How come any time someone from

the

dissident camp dies, it makes headlines? When you guys go it just makes the

obituaries?

Elite Controller #1

In a message dated 8/19/2006 8:38:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

pierpaolorizzo@... writes:

Dear , how would you define the death of Pasquarelly?

Anecdotal? (for those who don't know, D. Pasquarelli was

Maggiore major associate in Alive and Well, died about 4 years ago

of AIDS related complications)of AIDS related complicat

Maggiore's daughter? I guess anecdotal also (the daughter of

Maggiore died about 3 years ago of AIDS related pneumonia. Her

mother claims it was a reaction to antibiotics despite all evidence

pointing to HIV. Maggiore hasn't, understandably, changed her views.

It is difficult to do so when all your identity - and source of

income - is based on that.)I have been HIV+ for 13 years, and very

early on jumped on the dissident bandwagon. Even if the people in

the dissident support groups I was in kept on getting sick, I

sticked to it, finding (like you all dissidents do) all sorts of

rationalization to justify what I was witnessing. I alway led a

healthy life, no drugs, no streetdrugs, great support from friends

and family, and still my health slowly deteriorated. ,

statistics and numbers are not life. In real life, the vast majority

of people who turn to be HIV+ do get sick, eventually. This does not

mean that everybody does, and Maggiore and yourself belong probably

to this group. You keep on saying that there are 70 and more reasons

that the test can be positive. Regardless, do you think having your

blood full of immunocomplexes is a good thing? Even most among the

dissidents are starting to see the light and agree that hiv+ means

that something is going on. But we don't need the dissidents or

anyone else to see the facts. You just need to look around.

Antiretroviral drugs do help people, despite many (but not

everybody) can get sideeffects from them. The dissidents major crime

is in having shifted the focus from " cure " to " cause " . Nothing could

be more allopathic. The most innovative (and not funded by big

pharma)research is now moving towards an immune overactivation

instead of immune depression theory of aids. In this view, the white

blood cells die for apoptosys and not because they're killed by the

virus. The virus then is only a triggering agent.

Going back to the dissidents, their stand is obviously fuelled by

fear, and by reaction to the big power of pharmaceutical industry.

Devon, don't listen to all this blabbering (including mine), you are

the only one that can decide for yourself, and no " informed

decision " can be made based on the semantics on which the dissident

cling for dear life. Get a good alternative doctor (hard job, to

find one), and a good allopathic one also. Listen to your body, and

act consequently. And keep your CD4 cells monitored.

Merc

_cures for AIDS@grouaidscu_ (mailto:cures for AIDS ) , " Jon

Landis " <kellyjon23@kel>

wrote:

>

> --- In _cures for AIDS@grouaidscu_ (mailto:cures for AIDS ) ,

" Mazar Barnett "

> <juanmbarg@> wrote:

> >

> > Overall my health is ok and I do all I can to keep up on it. I

am

> > choosing to stick with the meds because they are working at this

> > point in time. Believe me,......I am only taking them because it

> > was a last resort - those who know my story know this - I am

very

> > non-med...and only take them if necessary - otherwise I still do

> > alternative, wholistic, all-natural therapies along with the

meds.

> > Good idea,...will let it simmer for a bit.

>

> Your overall health is just " okay " and I thought the drugs were

> saving your life, improving your quality of life greatly?!

>

> Mixing immune enhancing, non-toxic therapies with toxic, immune

> suppressing drug therapies seems counter-productive.

>

>

> > EXACTLY. It becomes more and more obvious to me that, in the

short-

> to-mid-term, the ARVs DO SAVE LIVES of those whose health fell

really

> low, like I did.

>

>

> Why do you say that it becomes " more and more obvious " ? Because of

> your own anacdotal experience? Nothing anacdotal proves anything

> theoretical. That's why we have studies to look at patterns across

> populations, controlling for many confounding factors. You may

simply

> be lucky, perhaps your body is not digesting the meds or you

haven't

> been on them long enough to experience the serious side effects.

But

> why take the gamble when there are many proven health benefits of

> natural, non-toxic immune-enhancing therapies that do the same

thing

> or better without the serious side effects?

>

> > I would have " come back " without ARVs, but would have probably

> taken me longer.

>

> Uh, huh...

>

> > My advise is do not hesitate to start on the meds if you reach a

> point where some people start thinking that dying may be your

future.

>

> So, you should base your health care decision-making upon whether

or

> what " some people start thinking that dying may be [in] your

future?! "

> C'mon, are you serious? How about basing that potentially life-

> impacting decision based on the real evidence? And the fact is,

> despite all the rhetoric, there is insufficient evidence [in drug

no

> drug placebo-controlled studies] to suggest that AIDS drugs extend

> life or improve health short, mid or long-term.

>

> YOU GOTTA HAVE HAART? [link to discussion thread with detailed

> analysis]

> _http://forums.http://forumshttp://forums.http://fohttp://foh_

(http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages?msg=1068.1)

>

>

> THIS JUST IN!

>

> A paper and editorial in the latest Lancet, a respected medical

> journal, emphasize that AIDS drug therapies aren't improving.

Whether

> they've ever been any good is another question.

>

> " The Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) Cohort Collaboration " concludes

in

> the paper with the catchy title of " HIV treatment response and

> prognosis in Europe and North America in the fi rst decade of

highly

> active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis " that viral

> suppression was improving dramatically, but this did not translate

> into lower risk of AIDS or death. In fact the risk of AIDS was 35%

> high in 2002-3 than in 1998 and the risk of death was virtually the

> same (a hazard ratio of 0.96, statistically the same as no change).

>

> Their conclusion is pretty honest (by comparison to other AIDS

> researchers) " Virological response after starting HAART improved

over

> calendar years, but such improvement has not translated into a

> decrease in mortality. "

>

> They could have noted that when drugs are approved based on viral

> load as a surrogate marker you're likely to get drugs that improve

> viral load but not health!

>

>

> ==

>

>

> Healthfully and Hopefully,

>

> Jon Landis

>

>

>

> V I R U S M Y T H

> _http://forums.http://forumhttp://forums_

(http://forums.delphiforus.com/innocuous)

>

__.

[Guest guest]

To Pierpaolorizzo (and any other AIDS apologists mistakenly in this group):

Please go to groups and read the description of this group. People of

your beliefs do not belong here. Your nonsense about invalid surrogate

markers, like t-cells and viral load, are a waste of time for the members of

this

group. You have your beliefs. We have science and logic. We KNOW better.

" How would you define the death of....? " What kind of question is that?

Define death? Cessation of pulse, breathing, brain waves? What are you

getting at? I have a better question for you. How come any time someone from

the

dissident camp dies, it makes headlines? When you guys go it just makes the

obituaries?

Elite Controller #1

In a message dated 8/19/2006 8:38:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

pierpaolorizzo@... writes:

Dear , how would you define the death of Pasquarelly?

Anecdotal? (for those who don't know, D. Pasquarelli was

Maggiore major associate in Alive and Well, died about 4 years ago

of AIDS related complications)of AIDS related complicat

Maggiore's daughter? I guess anecdotal also (the daughter of

Maggiore died about 3 years ago of AIDS related pneumonia. Her

mother claims it was a reaction to antibiotics despite all evidence

pointing to HIV. Maggiore hasn't, understandably, changed her views.

It is difficult to do so when all your identity - and source of

income - is based on that.)I have been HIV+ for 13 years, and very

early on jumped on the dissident bandwagon. Even if the people in

the dissident support groups I was in kept on getting sick, I

sticked to it, finding (like you all dissidents do) all sorts of

rationalization to justify what I was witnessing. I alway led a

healthy life, no drugs, no streetdrugs, great support from friends

and family, and still my health slowly deteriorated. ,

statistics and numbers are not life. In real life, the vast majority

of people who turn to be HIV+ do get sick, eventually. This does not

mean that everybody does, and Maggiore and yourself belong probably

to this group. You keep on saying that there are 70 and more reasons

that the test can be positive. Regardless, do you think having your

blood full of immunocomplexes is a good thing? Even most among the

dissidents are starting to see the light and agree that hiv+ means

that something is going on. But we don't need the dissidents or

anyone else to see the facts. You just need to look around.

Antiretroviral drugs do help people, despite many (but not

everybody) can get sideeffects from them. The dissidents major crime

is in having shifted the focus from " cure " to " cause " . Nothing could

be more allopathic. The most innovative (and not funded by big

pharma)research is now moving towards an immune overactivation

instead of immune depression theory of aids. In this view, the white

blood cells die for apoptosys and not because they're killed by the

virus. The virus then is only a triggering agent.

Going back to the dissidents, their stand is obviously fuelled by

fear, and by reaction to the big power of pharmaceutical industry.

Devon, don't listen to all this blabbering (including mine), you are

the only one that can decide for yourself, and no " informed

decision " can be made based on the semantics on which the dissident

cling for dear life. Get a good alternative doctor (hard job, to

find one), and a good allopathic one also. Listen to your body, and

act consequently. And keep your CD4 cells monitored.

Merc

_cures for AIDS@grouaidscu_ (mailto:cures for AIDS ) , " Jon

Landis " <kellyjon23@kel>

wrote:

>

> --- In _cures for AIDS@grouaidscu_ (mailto:cures for AIDS ) ,

" Mazar Barnett "

> <juanmbarg@> wrote:

> >

> > Overall my health is ok and I do all I can to keep up on it. I

am

> > choosing to stick with the meds because they are working at this

> > point in time. Believe me,......I am only taking them because it

> > was a last resort - those who know my story know this - I am

very

> > non-med...and only take them if necessary - otherwise I still do

> > alternative, wholistic, all-natural therapies along with the

meds.

> > Good idea,...will let it simmer for a bit.

>

> Your overall health is just " okay " and I thought the drugs were

> saving your life, improving your quality of life greatly?!

>

> Mixing immune enhancing, non-toxic therapies with toxic, immune

> suppressing drug therapies seems counter-productive.

>

>

> > EXACTLY. It becomes more and more obvious to me that, in the

short-

> to-mid-term, the ARVs DO SAVE LIVES of those whose health fell

really

> low, like I did.

>

>

> Why do you say that it becomes " more and more obvious " ? Because of

> your own anacdotal experience? Nothing anacdotal proves anything

> theoretical. That's why we have studies to look at patterns across

> populations, controlling for many confounding factors. You may

simply

> be lucky, perhaps your body is not digesting the meds or you

haven't

> been on them long enough to experience the serious side effects.

But

> why take the gamble when there are many proven health benefits of

> natural, non-toxic immune-enhancing therapies that do the same

thing

> or better without the serious side effects?

>

> > I would have " come back " without ARVs, but would have probably

> taken me longer.

>

> Uh, huh...

>

> > My advise is do not hesitate to start on the meds if you reach a

> point where some people start thinking that dying may be your

future.

>

> So, you should base your health care decision-making upon whether

or

> what " some people start thinking that dying may be [in] your

future?! "

> C'mon, are you serious? How about basing that potentially life-

> impacting decision based on the real evidence? And the fact is,

> despite all the rhetoric, there is insufficient evidence [in drug

no

> drug placebo-controlled studies] to suggest that AIDS drugs extend

> life or improve health short, mid or long-term.

>

> YOU GOTTA HAVE HAART? [link to discussion thread with detailed

> analysis]

> _http://forums.http://forumshttp://forums.http://fohttp://foh_

(http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages?msg=1068.1)

>

>

> THIS JUST IN!

>

> A paper and editorial in the latest Lancet, a respected medical

> journal, emphasize that AIDS drug therapies aren't improving.

Whether

> they've ever been any good is another question.

>

> " The Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) Cohort Collaboration " concludes

in

> the paper with the catchy title of " HIV treatment response and

> prognosis in Europe and North America in the fi rst decade of

highly

> active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis " that viral

> suppression was improving dramatically, but this did not translate

> into lower risk of AIDS or death. In fact the risk of AIDS was 35%

> high in 2002-3 than in 1998 and the risk of death was virtually the

> same (a hazard ratio of 0.96, statistically the same as no change).

>

> Their conclusion is pretty honest (by comparison to other AIDS

> researchers) " Virological response after starting HAART improved

over

> calendar years, but such improvement has not translated into a

> decrease in mortality. "

>

> They could have noted that when drugs are approved based on viral

> load as a surrogate marker you're likely to get drugs that improve

> viral load but not health!

>

>

> ==

>

>

> Healthfully and Hopefully,

>

> Jon Landis

>

>

>

> V I R U S M Y T H

> _http://forums.http://forumhttp://forums_

(http://forums.delphiforus.com/innocuous)

>

__.

[Guest guest]

> > >

> > > Overall my health is ok and I do all I can to keep up on it. I

> am

> > > choosing to stick with the meds because they are working at

this

> > > point in time. Believe me,......I am only taking them because

it

> > > was a last resort - those who know my story know this - I am

> very

> > > non-med...and only take them if necessary - otherwise I still

do

> > > alternative, wholistic, all-natural therapies along with the

> meds.

> > > Good idea,...will let it simmer for a bit.

> >

> > Your overall health is just " okay " and I thought the drugs were

> > saving your life, improving your quality of life greatly?!

> >

> > Mixing immune enhancing, non-toxic therapies with toxic, immune

> > suppressing drug therapies seems counter-productive.

> >

> >

> > > EXACTLY. It becomes more and more obvious to me that, in the

> short-

> > to-mid-term, the ARVs DO SAVE LIVES of those whose health fell

> really

> > low, like I did.

> >

> >

> > Why do you say that it becomes " more and more obvious " ? Because

of

> > your own anacdotal experience? Nothing anacdotal proves anything

> > theoretical. That's why we have studies to look at patterns

across

> > populations, controlling for many confounding factors. You may

> simply

> > be lucky, perhaps your body is not digesting the meds or you

> haven't

> > been on them long enough to experience the serious side effects.

> But

> > why take the gamble when there are many proven health benefits of

> > natural, non-toxic immune-enhancing therapies that do the same

> thing

> > or better without the serious side effects?

> >

> > > I would have " come back " without ARVs, but would have probably

> > taken me longer.

> >

> > Uh, huh...

> >

> > > My advise is do not hesitate to start on the meds if you reach

a

> > point where some people start thinking that dying may be your

> future.

> >

> > So, you should base your health care decision-making upon whether

> or

> > what " some people start thinking that dying may be [in] your

> future?! "

> > C'mon, are you serious? How about basing that potentially life-

> > impacting decision based on the real evidence? And the fact is,

> > despite all the rhetoric, there is insufficient evidence [in drug

> no

> > drug placebo-controlled studies] to suggest that AIDS drugs

extend

> > life or improve health short, mid or long-term.

> >

> > YOU GOTTA HAVE HAART? [link to discussion thread with detailed

> > analysis]

> > http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages?msg=1068.1

> >

> >

> > THIS JUST IN!

> >

> > A paper and editorial in the latest Lancet, a respected medical

> > journal, emphasize that AIDS drug therapies aren't improving.

> Whether

> > they've ever been any good is another question.

> >

> > " The Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) Cohort Collaboration " concludes

> in

> > the paper with the catchy title of " HIV treatment response and

> > prognosis in Europe and North America in the fi rst decade of

> highly

> > active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis " that

viral

> > suppression was improving dramatically, but this did not translate

> > into lower risk of AIDS or death. In fact the risk of AIDS was 35%

> > high in 2002-3 than in 1998 and the risk of death was virtually

the

> > same (a hazard ratio of 0.96, statistically the same as no

change).

> >

> > Their conclusion is pretty honest (by comparison to other AIDS

> > researchers) " Virological response after starting HAART improved

> over

> > calendar years, but such improvement has not translated into a

> > decrease in mortality. "

> >

> > They could have noted that when drugs are approved based on viral

> > load as a surrogate marker you're likely to get drugs that improve

> > viral load but not health!

> >

> >

> > ==

> >

> >

> > Healthfully and Hopefully,

> >

> > Jon Landis

> >

> >

> >

> > V I R U S M Y T H

> > http://forums.delphiforus.com/innocuous

> >

>

[Guest guest]

> > >

> > > Overall my health is ok and I do all I can to keep up on it. I

> am

> > > choosing to stick with the meds because they are working at

this

> > > point in time. Believe me,......I am only taking them because

it

> > > was a last resort - those who know my story know this - I am

> very

> > > non-med...and only take them if necessary - otherwise I still

do

> > > alternative, wholistic, all-natural therapies along with the

> meds.

> > > Good idea,...will let it simmer for a bit.

> >

> > Your overall health is just " okay " and I thought the drugs were

> > saving your life, improving your quality of life greatly?!

> >

> > Mixing immune enhancing, non-toxic therapies with toxic, immune

> > suppressing drug therapies seems counter-productive.

> >

> >

> > > EXACTLY. It becomes more and more obvious to me that, in the

> short-

> > to-mid-term, the ARVs DO SAVE LIVES of those whose health fell

> really

> > low, like I did.

> >

> >

> > Why do you say that it becomes " more and more obvious " ? Because

of

> > your own anacdotal experience? Nothing anacdotal proves anything

> > theoretical. That's why we have studies to look at patterns

across

> > populations, controlling for many confounding factors. You may

> simply

> > be lucky, perhaps your body is not digesting the meds or you

> haven't

> > been on them long enough to experience the serious side effects.

> But

> > why take the gamble when there are many proven health benefits of

> > natural, non-toxic immune-enhancing therapies that do the same

> thing

> > or better without the serious side effects?

> >

> > > I would have " come back " without ARVs, but would have probably

> > taken me longer.

> >

> > Uh, huh...

> >

> > > My advise is do not hesitate to start on the meds if you reach

a

> > point where some people start thinking that dying may be your

> future.

> >

> > So, you should base your health care decision-making upon whether

> or

> > what " some people start thinking that dying may be [in] your

> future?! "

> > C'mon, are you serious? How about basing that potentially life-

> > impacting decision based on the real evidence? And the fact is,

> > despite all the rhetoric, there is insufficient evidence [in drug

> no

> > drug placebo-controlled studies] to suggest that AIDS drugs

extend

> > life or improve health short, mid or long-term.

> >

> > YOU GOTTA HAVE HAART? [link to discussion thread with detailed

> > analysis]

> > http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages?msg=1068.1

> >

> >

> > THIS JUST IN!

> >

> > A paper and editorial in the latest Lancet, a respected medical

> > journal, emphasize that AIDS drug therapies aren't improving.

> Whether

> > they've ever been any good is another question.

> >

> > " The Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) Cohort Collaboration " concludes

> in

> > the paper with the catchy title of " HIV treatment response and

> > prognosis in Europe and North America in the fi rst decade of

> highly

> > active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis " that

viral

> > suppression was improving dramatically, but this did not translate

> > into lower risk of AIDS or death. In fact the risk of AIDS was 35%

> > high in 2002-3 than in 1998 and the risk of death was virtually

the

> > same (a hazard ratio of 0.96, statistically the same as no

change).

> >

> > Their conclusion is pretty honest (by comparison to other AIDS

> > researchers) " Virological response after starting HAART improved

> over

> > calendar years, but such improvement has not translated into a

> > decrease in mortality. "

> >

> > They could have noted that when drugs are approved based on viral

> > load as a surrogate marker you're likely to get drugs that improve

> > viral load but not health!

> >

> >

> > ==

> >

> >

> > Healthfully and Hopefully,

> >

> > Jon Landis

> >

> >

> >

> > V I R U S M Y T H

> > http://forums.delphiforus.com/innocuous

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

I was " diagnosed " in 1999. I have never been on meds. My general health is

good and I don't have anything that was considered AIDS-related when I had it

before I was " diagnosed " . Now, even my allergies are considered " AID$-related " .

Take care,

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

Stay in the know. Pulse on the new .com. Check it out.

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

I was " diagnosed " in 1999. I have never been on meds. My general health is

good and I don't have anything that was considered AIDS-related when I had it

before I was " diagnosed " . Now, even my allergies are considered " AID$-related " .

Take care,

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

Stay in the know. Pulse on the new .com. Check it out.

[Guest guest]

Thanks For The Reply. All These People In This Group Are Living

Testimony That All This Hiv/Aids Crap Is Garbage. Big Sigh Of

Relief! Now I Need To Work On Letting Others Know About This

Alternative life Saving Information Out Here.

>

> Hi All,

>

> I was " diagnosed " in 1999. I have never been on meds. My

general health is good and I don't have anything that was considered

AIDS-related when I had it before I was " diagnosed " . Now, even my

allergies are considered " AID$-related " .

>

> Take care,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Stay in the know. Pulse on the new .com. Check it out.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks For The Reply. All These People In This Group Are Living

Testimony That All This Hiv/Aids Crap Is Garbage. Big Sigh Of

Relief! Now I Need To Work On Letting Others Know About This

Alternative life Saving Information Out Here.

>

> Hi All,

>

> I was " diagnosed " in 1999. I have never been on meds. My

general health is good and I don't have anything that was considered

AIDS-related when I had it before I was " diagnosed " . Now, even my

allergies are considered " AID$-related " .

>

> Take care,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Stay in the know. Pulse on the new .com. Check it out.

>

>