It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by RightWingAvenger
I'm not against natural medicine, it just doesn't treat or cure AIDS.
Sure "big pharma" is a profit based industry, and so is the alternative health market, which ranges from natural medicines to complete bogus, and even criminal treatments of inappropriate medications sold as vitamins.
There certainly are people in SA who spent fortunes on a range of ineffective treatments, but I'm not going to repeat what was already discussed.
As for your other theories on HIV not being a scientific virus (something that not even many natural healers will deny nowadays), you can believe what you want.
However I do agree that people should inform themselves of the facts and not simply accept the ridiculous fairy-tales still spread by some people.
But they can insult me all they like, it doesn't change a single fact of what we've been through in SA.
Millions of people study the science on HIV and manage the virus with ARVs.
So if I'm full of it, I'm in good company.edit on 29-1-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)
What do AIDS, yuppie flu, and the common cold have in common?
They all reflect a state of diminished resistance to infection, in other words a state of lowered immunocompetence due to a weakened immune system and reduced vitality.
They are all lifestyle-related problems insoluble by traditional medicine.
As immunocompetence depends on the maintenance of homeostasis within the body, and as homeostasis in turn depends on correct diet and other lifestyle factors, it again becomes clear that these health problems are caused, primarily, not by germs or viruses, but by wrong diet and other lifestyle factors, not the least of which factors is the use of medical drugs which further damage an already damaged immune system.
That ARC [AIDS-related Complex] was the same as the pattern of signs and symptoms appearing in the "straight" heterosexual world as chronic fatigue syndrome seemed not to be noticed, and so it was assumed they are separate illnesses. If you were heterosexual and presented with fatigue, headaches, candida, herpes and swollen lymph glands, the diagnosis would be chronic fatigue syndrome; if you were gay, the same symptoms would be diagnosed as ARC or even AIDS.
Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by JohnJasper
The Ross Horne chapter/article was written in 1987, and although the Aids denialists still recycle such dated material, many former skeptics have changed their minds, and the scientific establishment considers those canards long resolved.
What is really terrible about this article is how it ascribes a ruinous lifestyle to every high-risk group, and assumes such behavior in every individual who has AIDS.
It also fails to mention the major differences between HIV/AIDS and Yuppie Flu: mainly, HIV usually leads to AIDS which kills people, while fatigue and Yuppie Flu do not.
It's a ridiculous comparison.
Originally posted by JohnJasper
Hello halfoldman,
Thank you for the in depth reply to my post. You've obviously spent a lot of time considering this subject in detail from angles that I would never have delved into
Is there any reason to think that the progression of HIV into AIDS or AIDS to death has nothing to do with the doctors' management of the disease? Certainly, there are those people whose health issues/lifestyle will naturally progress the disease without or in spite of professional help but it would make more sense to address those issues instead of trying to poison their bodies into submission.
(continued)
I personally care little for what the scientific establishment thinks as they've proven themselves flawed in so many fields of endeavor. They work with information that they accept as facts and then formulate opinions on those facts but in so doing, seem to be able to completely ignore important information that doesn't fit their paradigm. I was of this "opinion" long before reading Horne's books.
In fact, the "hygienists" seems to bicker a bit amongst themselves.
What you end up eating is dependent on which one you follow.
At least the people you mention also question the larger "germ theory" and other aspects of science, and don't latch onto HIV/AIDS as the ultimate conspiracy for everything they perceive to be wrong with "big pharma".
Why not latch on to Malaria, or TB or indeed, Syphilis?
I've been a vegetarian for well over a decade, although I do still eat seafood at times.
I think it is healthy, and my CD4 counts remain stable for now.
For people who can no longer eat because their mouths and guts are full of Candida, it wouldn't really matter anymore whether they try to eat meat, dairy and eggs or not.
Originally posted by JohnJasper
(continued from this post)
If Yuppie Flu and chronic fatigue were managed with the same medicines and mindset that AIDS is, I suspect that we'd see more fatalities from them as well. When MS sufferers die the cause of death is rarely recorded as MS (MS is not a fatal disease!) A similar situation exists for YF and CFS (All you need to know about Chronic Fatigue).
I must make a similar journey in my Natural Hygiene education so that when I reach the practitioner level, I'll be prepared to assist clients intelligently even if that means recommending the conventional therapies.
Best of health to you,
John
Some critics of PEPFAR feel that American political and social groups with moral rather than public health agendas are behind several requirements of PEPFAR, pointing to the mandates that one-third of prevention spending in 2006–2008 be directed towards abstinence-until-marriage programs and that all funded organizations sign an anti-prostitution pledge. PEPFAR also does not fund needle exchange programs, which are widely regarded as effective in preventing the spread of HIV.[18] The requirement for prevention spending was lifted with the PEPFAR reauthorization in 2008,[11] but some critics worry that some funds could still be spent on abstinence programs. The Center for Health and Gender Equity and Health GAP outline their criticism of PEPFAR on a website known as PEPFAR Watch. The previous 33% earmark has since been replaced by a requirement that if more than 50% of PEPFAR funds are allocated to non-abstinence promotion measures, the US Global AIDS Coordinator must report to Congress.
Originally posted by lakesidepark
Well you did continue, but I hope You did read my reply to the last post. It is important to me. It is important to point out the obvious. The fact that HIV does lead to death is undebatable to me. It is as obvious to me and to millions as it is obvious the sun rises and the sun sets.
I would hope that means you do acknowledge that the ARV medications do save lives, and whatever you believe, you do not deny the obvious and subject your patients to death.
This is also impoirtant to me.
You can find a previous post of mine in this thread where I detail my treatment and the experiences of my case counselor for one specific instance of those that died and those that lived, and the difference between them. And yes, she (my case counselor) cried when she spoke of those hundreds of patients she was not able to save. It was personal to her too.
I didn't trust the drugs either, that is why I prepared for death. My own body told me that was where I was going, I made my wills, and went to the drugs without hope that they would save me, only a desperate shot to live after all else had failed. Today I qualify for AARP, and NOT disablilty, I returned to working my ass off, and no one around me suspects I carry the killer virus within by the efforts they see from me. I can now happily suffer from old age thanks to the success of the drugs, and am not even considering leaving the workforce, as I will die in the streets, probably a long time from now, working my ass off. And I will be happy and proud to do so.
I hope you don't take my postings as any attack on your perspectives, I wish you all the success in the world, and hope you someday can save people from death and improve the quality of their lives.
Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by JohnJasper
...
So whether it's my vegetarian diet or genes, whatever, I'm very grateful to be so blessed and lucky.
I'm progressing very slowly, and there's some debate on whether HIV causes gradual damage over time, or whether it suddenly activates in some way.
However, I am progressing, and my viral load is present.
Coming more from a social side I'd also ask: What have we learnt from the ARV success?
Is the lesson to totally withdraw from "pharma", and assume we're just going to write our own books?
Is a Beverly Hills diet of watermelons or grapes going to solve serious viral and genetic diseases?
Liberace was on a watermelon diet when he progressed to AIDS (he thought the diet was finally working because he started losing weight which never came back), and a family member of mine (HIV-negative) destroyed his teeth in the 1980's with an acidic pineapple diet.
He kept it up for about a year, and his teeth were reduced to stumps.
Every condition is different.
On diet I'd say humans are omnivores (although I encourage vegetarianism), although I'd juggle the food pyramid a bit and say we need more green or red veggies (snacking on broccoli, red cabbage, sprouts and celery).
I have developed an absolute taste for it, and many gay or HIV-poz people are very into healthy eating.
However, in black SA culture meat has a very important place, and although it's probably organic, nobody is ever going to change that.
But they've been doing that for centuries, and they never had AIDS.
However, there were some concerns about the introduction of maize (in the 19th century), and nowadays it is fortified.