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.
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.
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. Two interviewees, Neil Constantine and Robin Weiss, cite examples supporting the allegation that Leung misrepresented their words in a "surely intentional" manner.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.