HIV cure = good nutrition?! (Video)

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to address that I haven't already stated. Maybe you need to be more specific.

The problem (as far as I see it) is that people can become immunocompromised from a wide range of factors, yet most people think of it as mostly just existing from the HIV virus, or AIDS. This just isn't so.

On an interesting note, although my WBC count has remained low, I'm pretty much never sick now. I had allergies last summer, and caught my first headache in a long time, but besides that...not much. Haven't had the flu since the last season I took the shot (2001), and haven't needed antibiotics since 2005, after I was traumatized from a serious car wreck. Besides that, I've been a-okay.

I was trying to show people that there is no real correlation to HIV and T-Cell count, HIV and immune deficiency, and most important of all HIV AND AIDS.

It does NOT make sense...the equation just does not work out.

Not only is it NOT passed sexually, it does not go from mother to unborn child nor any other method.

The supposed 'HIV' has never been isolated. There is no "HIV" virus, and it is NOT real.

Whatever the test for hiv actually shows as you having or not, there IS a correlation between a positive result and immunosuppression.

You can't say AIDS isn't related to sexual activity. That's just ignorance.

The more partners one has, the more likely one is to become overwhelmed by swapping tons of different pathogens. The end result is a diseased state.

Originally posted by unityemissions
Whatever the test for hiv actually shows as you having or not, there IS a correlation between a positive result and immunosuppression.

You can't say AIDS isn't related to sexual activity. That's just ignorance.

The more partners one has, the more likely one is to become overwhelmed by swapping tons of different pathogens. The end result is a diseased state.

Believe me, it is not passed sexually.

Why are there so many HIV+ people with HIV - partners, but the negative person never gets the virus? And help me make sense of the fact that most HIV mother never pass it to their unborn?

Surely they are receiving the mother's pathogens, DNA., blood, plasma, etc...

reply to post by ButterCookie


You're going in circles.

If you don't believe in HIV as being a virus, then stick to it.

People may or may not become infected with a virus after exposure.

That has to do with genetics and the state of the individuals immune system.

It's the same with any STD.

You can have a partner with one, have sex many times, and never get it.

Your reasoning is bunk.

The House of Numbers documentary has been debunked.
I've subsequently seen it, and it's a bad piece of film, with the death of at least one HIV-positive denialist from AIDS-related conditions during the production.

More damningly, 18 scientists interviewed in the propaganda-piece later claimed they were falsely represented:

Eighteen scientists interviewed in the film state that their answers to Leung's questions were selectively edited to convey a false sense that the scientific community disagrees on basic facts about HIV/AIDS.[3] Two interviewees, Neil Constantine and Robin Weiss, cite examples supporting the allegation that Leung misrepresented their words in a "surely intentional" manner.

en.wikipedia.org...

See the Inside the House of Numbers website for some main points:

This website offers documents summarizing and correcting the lies made in the film. For example, a key claim in the film is that researchers found that T cell depletion doesn't lead to AIDS. But it hides the fact that the article it cites was about research with monkeys: the article says T call loss in humans DOES lead to AIDS. Another example: In the film, Christine Maggiore describes receiving inconclusive HIV tests. But the lab work shown on screen belies her words: it shows a 8 out of 8 bands reacting positive for HIV. And there is much, much more to come.
We also post the responses of scientists who were interviewed and who reject the ways their words were taken out of context and misrepresented, the pithy New York Times review, and other documents about House of Numbers.

www.houseofnumbers.org...

reply to post by halfoldman


What in particular has been debunked?

Who is the debunker?

Just because an AIDS denialists has died of 'AIDS-related' illness, it still does not mean AIDS...it means similar to AIDS, like most illnesses, coincidentally.

Usually, someone with grave symptoms has other health issues going on in the 1st place; unfortunately for them, doctors won't bother to treat the underlying issue- they just pump them full of more poison....I mean AZT.

Why is that if a person who develops pneumonia with testing HIV negative is said to just have pneumonia, but if they do test HIV positive,then their pneumonia is suddenly 'AIDS-related'?

reply to post by pause4thought


Ask some of the African countries south of the Sahara, who had/have goverments denying AIDS. They all had the nutrition BS pushed down their throats, and are now suffering from it.

take a look at the following table, and guess which countries had governments denying AIDS and pushing the nutrition thing. Yes, you are correct, the countries with the highest AIDS numbers. Does that say anything about the AIDS being cured by garlic, or "African Potatoes", and vitamins?

www.avert.org...

As to octopus and the african....the website that i listed, aliveandwell.org, have many people, like i said, that through nutrition and clean living go their lives, some over 30 years now, HIV positive but with no aids. And they do it with NO HIV MEDS. So add that to your arithmetic, octopus. You stated "lets see them do it without any meds"....they do.

Please tell this to the 5.6 million with AIDS in South Africa, that the previous health minister was right, and they should rather go back to their traditional medicine.

There are 2 other cures for AIDS too, both very effective.
1. a cold-shower cures AIDS. Just ask any South African about that.
2. Having sex with a virgin cures AIDS. just sorry that so many people believe that onliest sure way to have sex with a virgin is to rape either a baby or a toddler. Again, ask any South African about that.

Originally posted by ButterCookie


It does NOT make sense...the equation just does not work out.

Not only is it NOT passed sexually, it does not go from mother to unborn child nor any other method.

The supposed 'HIV' has never been isolated. There is no "HIV" virus, and it is NOT real.

I am not sure where your information about this comes from. Maybe it is different in Western countries than in Africa, but :

Nine out of ten children infected with HIV were infected through their mother either during pregnancy, labour and delivery or breastfeeding.8 Without treatment, around 15-30 percent of babies born to HIV positive women will become infected with HIV during pregnancy and delivery and a further 5-20 percent will become infected through breastfeeding.9 In high-income countries, preventive measures ensure that the transmission of HIV from mother-to-child is relatively rare, and in those cases where it does occur a range of treatment options mean that the child can survive - often into adulthood.

www.avert.org...

After the SA government introduced antiretrovirals for the mothers, the statistics has changed to this:

An inaugural national evaluation survey among the world's biggest AIDS population tested 9,915 infants at public clinics, of whom 31.4 percent were exposed to the virus but only 3.5 percent tested positive, the government research body said.

So, from a 20-50% infection rate of babies with HIV-positive mothers, they are now down to about 11%. Sounds as though the antiretrovirals are working. Not that effective, but enough to make a difference.
www.medindia.net...

reply to post by ButterCookie

What has been debunked?
The House of Cards documentary.

I provided links to the material, please read it and it will answer those questions.
Rather devastatingly for the documentary, 18 scientists who appeared on it are the main debunkers.

Many HIV-positive denialists have died of AIDS-related conditions, and because such deaths are inconvenient to the denialist gurus, they are often posthumously insulted by their erstwhile masters:
www.aidstruth.org...

However nowadays few people will still martyr themselves for what has become a tiny Internet cult, and most manage to break away from the denialists in time.

Thankfully the denialist nightmare for us in SA is now truly over.
Unfortunately the decade of denialism resulted in the avoidable deaths of over 300 000 people.
en.wikipedia.org...

The above website also has links explaining the basics of HIV/AIDS science, and why AIDS causes people to pick up a number of co-infections, which will no longer heal but deteriorate as the CD4 count drops and the viral load becomes astronomical.

The whole AZT canard hasn't been relevant since the mid-1990s, but people who aren't well informed can still be made to repeat the denialist slogans from 1987. It doesn't reflect living with HIV, or on ARVs since 1996 at all.

reply to post by halfoldman


You are very very incorrect...

I won't go into personal specific details, but you are very incorrect.