Re: not new hiv propaganda

[Guest guest]

Ok, seeing a supposed virus doesn't document its actions or what it does to

the body, and I don't pay much attention to the PCR. But a little doubt is

raised when doc tells me how low my Tcells are. I have been off meds, and

doc asked me why I visit him if I'm not going to go on meds. I told him to

monitor my labwork.

I have read on here how tcells are meaningless, but not really why. I

don't get why they don't even look at them for other immune diseases if

they are such a marker that indicates immune function. Anyway, since you

have been off meds for 6 years, have you monitored tcells? If so, are they

super low or in the so called normal range? I am healthy as a horse and

tend to ignore the doc, but have moments of doubt in this area. I suppose

if tcells don't mean anything, I really have no reason to keep looking at

labs.

On Dec 24, 2011 8:54 PM, " Bob D " <muckblit@...> wrote:

> " My doctor told me he has seen the hiv virus under a microscope and has

> pictures "

>

>

> Oh, just the same old electron microscope stuff which is not how the

> existence or presence of a virus is proven. There still has not been any

> isolation of HIV virus. You can google those electron microscope pictures.

>

> Nothing new said in these HIV drug advertising posts coming in together.

> We heard the same supposed replication and attack modus twenty years ago.

> That unproven theory was always part of the scare tactic.

>

> What the PCR test inventor says about HIV PCR testing is that the sample

> is too watered down and no reason is given for conspicuously and

> unscientifically and suspiciously unscientifically, with vested interest,

> diluting the sample so that the test becomes invalid as far as proving HIV

> is present or that HIV exists. Then when real tests are given they prove

> that the dna fragments belong to fifty pathogens and/or recent pregnancy.

> Needless to say, HIV PCR testing does not exclude dozens of more likely

> causes of a positive result, much less prove HIV exists.

>

> We have been over this ground many times, and to do so again and again is

> not the purpose of this group. We are hear to begin with agreement that HIV

> does not exist or if there is a retrovirus it does no harm, and then to

> discuss the real problems, including healing damage from HIV drugs, and how

> people are addressing the lifestyle illnesses and opportunistic infections,

> whether those are lifestyle or HIV drug caused infections.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I am very glad you are healthy Dan. How long have you been positive? They do use

the PCR test for other conditions. One I know of is HepC. Yes there is a HepC

PCR test, just like the HIV PCR test.

Re: not new hiv propaganda

Ok, seeing a supposed virus doesn't document its actions or what it does to

the body, and I don't pay much attention to the PCR. But a little doubt is

raised when doc tells me how low my Tcells are. I have been off meds, and

doc asked me why I visit him if I'm not going to go on meds. I told him to

monitor my labwork.

I have read on here how tcells are meaningless, but not really why. I

don't get why they don't even look at them for other immune diseases if

they are such a marker that indicates immune function. Anyway, since you

have been off meds for 6 years, have you monitored tcells? If so, are they

super low or in the so called normal range? I am healthy as a horse and

tend to ignore the doc, but have moments of doubt in this area. I suppose

if tcells don't mean anything, I really have no reason to keep looking at

labs.

On Dec 24, 2011 8:54 PM, " Bob D " <muckblit@...> wrote:

> " My doctor told me he has seen the hiv virus under a microscope and has

> pictures "

>

>

> Oh, just the same old electron microscope stuff which is not how the

> existence or presence of a virus is proven. There still has not been any

> isolation of HIV virus. You can google those electron microscope pictures.

>

> Nothing new said in these HIV drug advertising posts coming in together.

> We heard the same supposed replication and attack modus twenty years ago.

> That unproven theory was always part of the scare tactic.

>

> What the PCR test inventor says about HIV PCR testing is that the sample

> is too watered down and no reason is given for conspicuously and

> unscientifically and suspiciously unscientifically, with vested interest,

> diluting the sample so that the test becomes invalid as far as proving HIV

> is present or that HIV exists. Then when real tests are given they prove

> that the dna fragments belong to fifty pathogens and/or recent pregnancy.

> Needless to say, HIV PCR testing does not exclude dozens of more likely

> causes of a positive result, much less prove HIV exists.

>

> We have been over this ground many times, and to do so again and again is

> not the purpose of this group. We are hear to begin with agreement that HIV

> does not exist or if there is a retrovirus it does no harm, and then to

> discuss the real problems, including healing damage from HIV drugs, and how

> people are addressing the lifestyle illnesses and opportunistic infections,

> whether those are lifestyle or HIV drug caused infections.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I have been hiv+ for 20 years. I took the meds at times, and then took

long breaks in between. The test I was talking about is the cd4, as that

is the most credible one they use to scare people back on meds. I'm not

concerned with the PCR test at all. I know several have stated the cd4 in

the blood is meaningless, but my numbers were high back when I first

tested, and have gradually declined, mostly due to the meds I did take, I

believe. I know taking meds makes the numbers rise again, but it seems to

me its an artificial increase.

I would love it if those in the know would re-educate some of us on the

reasons why cd4 can't be relied on as an indicator of health.

On Dec 26, 2011 2:21 PM, " DOUG MAN " <dougman1@...> wrote:

> I am very glad you are healthy Dan. How long have you been positive? They

> do use the PCR test for other conditions. One I know of is HepC. Yes there

> is a HepC PCR test, just like the HIV PCR test.

>

> Re: not new hiv propaganda

>

>

>

> Ok, seeing a supposed virus doesn't document its actions or what it does

> to

> the body, and I don't pay much attention to the PCR. But a little doubt is

> raised when doc tells me how low my Tcells are. I have been off meds, and

> doc asked me why I visit him if I'm not going to go on meds. I told him to

> monitor my labwork.

>

> I have read on here how tcells are meaningless, but not really why. I

> don't get why they don't even look at them for other immune diseases if

> they are such a marker that indicates immune function. Anyway, since you

> have been off meds for 6 years, have you monitored tcells? If so, are they

> super low or in the so called normal range? I am healthy as a horse and

> tend to ignore the doc, but have moments of doubt in this area. I suppose

> if tcells don't mean anything, I really have no reason to keep looking at

> labs.

>

>

> On Dec 24, 2011 8:54 PM, " Bob D " <muckblit@...> wrote:

>

> > " My doctor told me he has seen the hiv virus under a microscope and has

> > pictures "

> >

> >

> > Oh, just the same old electron microscope stuff which is not how the

> > existence or presence of a virus is proven. There still has not been any

> > isolation of HIV virus. You can google those electron microscope

> pictures.

> >

> > Nothing new said in these HIV drug advertising posts coming in together.

> > We heard the same supposed replication and attack modus twenty years

> ago.

> > That unproven theory was always part of the scare tactic.

> >

> > What the PCR test inventor says about HIV PCR testing is that the sample

> > is too watered down and no reason is given for conspicuously and

> > unscientifically and suspiciously unscientifically, with vested

> interest,

> > diluting the sample so that the test becomes invalid as far as proving

> HIV

> > is present or that HIV exists. Then when real tests are given they prove

> > that the dna fragments belong to fifty pathogens and/or recent

> pregnancy.

> > Needless to say, HIV PCR testing does not exclude dozens of more likely

> > causes of a positive result, much less prove HIV exists.

> >

> > We have been over this ground many times, and to do so again and again

> is

> > not the purpose of this group. We are hear to begin with agreement that

> HIV

> > does not exist or if there is a retrovirus it does no harm, and then to

> > discuss the real problems, including healing damage from HIV drugs, and

> how

> > people are addressing the lifestyle illnesses and opportunistic

> infections,

> > whether those are lifestyle or HIV drug caused infections.

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

,

I do continue to get monitored, not because I believe in all this nonsense, but

to show my doctors and others that their theories are wrong. My last t-cells

were 45 and my viral load was over 7million. Don't you think that if I had 7

million of an actual virus that I would be extremely sick? You are right they

use these useless tests to scare people into taking the meds.

Go to YouTube and watch " deadly deception " by willner and learn how low

cd4's are a good thing. Watch dr. Willner inject himself with HIV positive

blood.

I hope that you will check out my new book which is currently at the publisher

entitled, AIDS THEY SUCKERED US. (AIDS Biggest Medical Blunder In History).

> >

> > > " My doctor told me he has seen the hiv virus under a microscope and has

> > > pictures "

> > >

> > >

> > > Oh, just the same old electron microscope stuff which is not how the

> > > existence or presence of a virus is proven. There still has not been any

> > > isolation of HIV virus. You can google those electron microscope

> > pictures.

> > >

> > > Nothing new said in these HIV drug advertising posts coming in together.

> > > We heard the same supposed replication and attack modus twenty years

> > ago.

> > > That unproven theory was always part of the scare tactic.

> > >

> > > What the PCR test inventor says about HIV PCR testing is that the sample

> > > is too watered down and no reason is given for conspicuously and

> > > unscientifically and suspiciously unscientifically, with vested

> > interest,

> > > diluting the sample so that the test becomes invalid as far as proving

> > HIV

> > > is present or that HIV exists. Then when real tests are given they prove

> > > that the dna fragments belong to fifty pathogens and/or recent

> > pregnancy.

> > > Needless to say, HIV PCR testing does not exclude dozens of more likely

> > > causes of a positive result, much less prove HIV exists.

> > >

> > > We have been over this ground many times, and to do so again and again

> > is

> > > not the purpose of this group. We are hear to begin with agreement that

> > HIV

> > > does not exist or if there is a retrovirus it does no harm, and then to

> > > discuss the real problems, including healing damage from HIV drugs, and

> > how

> > > people are addressing the lifestyle illnesses and opportunistic

> > infections,

> > > whether those are lifestyle or HIV drug caused infections.

> > >

> > >

> > >