I am a 25yr old White Male in UK, and I have been diagnosed with HIV :(

page: 20
68
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
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)




posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

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)


halfoldman,

Let me begin by stating that I'm not here to insult anyone. I would like to offer some information that I think is relevant to the discussion and my opinions based on a few years of research into various topics. Then I'll bow out and leave the seed to take root and grow or wither and die as it will.

IMO, conventional (Big Pharma) medicine and natural (herbal/supplements/who knows what) medicine are all the same, pedalling poisons that would make a well person sick but somehow make a sick person well. Both are based on the same ignorance but with varying levels of arrogance i.e. doctors believe they're god but natural healers (at least the one's I know) see themselves lower down the scale.

As a Natural Hygienist, I know that health isn't made in a factory; you cannot buy health in either a Pharmacy or a Health Food store. The only way to restore and maintain health is by healthy living. I don't and won't use medicines, vaccines, or any other treatment that involves harming the body in an attempt to make it better.

I'm also a firm believer that HIV ≠ AIDS. Ross Horne in his book Health and Survival in the 21st Century explains this better than I ever could and I'll quote a few passages from CHAPTER 8 AIDS, Yuppie Flu and the Common Cold.




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.


Just like the cancer industry, the AIDS industry has become a business bent on it's own survival and expansion. Any evidence which would undermine it's existence will naturally be denied.

I hope that this gives the flavor of my message and those whose interest is piqued will do well to read Chapter 8 and Chapter 9 The Myth of the AIDS Virus to fully understand the reasoning.

(Let me point out that Ross Horne is an advocate of the Pritikin Program which, although a close neighbor, is not Natural Hygiene. However, the fantastic research conducted by the Pritikin Foundation over the years scientifically underpins both Pritikin and NH as to the critical importance of correct diet in building health.)

Good luck in you quest for health.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
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.
ARC is really a dated concept, and hardly used today.

In this Horne article much emphasis is placed on marijuana as a major immune-suppressor and cause of AIDS, which is just as ridiculous as blaming poppers or misdiagnosed Syphillis (as other self-styled denialist "experts" - who have seemingly been living under a rock for two decades - still do on this thread).

Yeah, blame pot - that should really go down well with all the other supporters of AIDS denialism.
No wonder the gay movement stopped supporting AIDS denialism around 1988, when it became an increasingly right-wing pseudoscience that had homophobic, racist and prohibitionist undertones.
But the article also says fear of AIDS causes AIDS, presumably in HIV positive people.
In fact, anything causes AIDS except HIV (but since they don't believe the HIV tests work, they can't really test this hypothesis by their own arguments, or perhaps the tests only work when it suits their circular arguments?).

I assume this is the same Ross Horne who was a famous Australian fruititionist, who died of prostate cancer at 79 after a writing a book on how to cancer-proof your body?
Many would not see this as a spectacular achievement for a specific diet.
My grandpa died older than this without a fad diet.
Seems to me the "health-hygienists" are not in agreement on whether a pure vegan diet is harmful or beneficial, and some are not fans of Ross Horne, with concerns that such diets may have harmed children and will lead to deficiencies in the long run (just the thing for AIDS patients, many of whom can increasingly no longer eat in any case - no wonder so many died under "denialist care" in SA):
naturalhygienesociety.org...
But some naturopaths are already onto the next fad - the "blood group diet", which virtually prescribes meat for some people.
In fact, the "hygienists" seems to bicker a bit amongst themselves.
What you end up eating is dependent on which one you follow.

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.

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?
Why not sell a vegan diet in a TB ward (without a big dollop of butter)?
OK those diseases had treatments, while HIV had none that worked long-term until 1996.
But now we do, and it works.
It's far from perfect, but it works better to reverse AIDS than many other medications do for other chronic conditions.

If marijuana could be further discussed on ATS I would quote the part of your Horne article here (which says it contributes to AIDS and leukemia), because that would highlight the unpleasant agenda of the 3000 or so AIDS denialists, and their otherwise general appeal to conspiracy theorists on the Internet (the only space where they still have a vast representation). Suffice to say that AIDS is one condition where doctors and long-term survivors have actually praised the effects of prescribed medical marijuana, especially in maintaining appetite and treatment adherence.
Horne was simply wrong on almost everything, except perhaps that a plant-based diet can help to reduce heart diseases and some cancers.
However, going to extremes on veganism can (let me guess) also cause AIDS-like symptoms of malnourishment.

Well, under Mbeki's official support for denialism and an influx of conmen into SA, our Health Minister said we should treat AIDS with beetroot, garlic, lemon juice, olive oil and African Potato.
Unfortunately it didn't work.

We first battled big pharma to get treatment, and then our own government.
But luckily for us, AIDS denialism is truly over.

Since 1996 modern medicine can treat AIDS, and people have made remarkable recoveries on ARVs known as the "Lazarous effect": AIDS patients literally rose from their deathbeds.
The only conspiracy is how big pharma distributes its medicines, and whether profits come before people.
For the alternative health industry there are no unified ethics - one is virtually at the mercy of the self-styled guru that claims to provide treatment. There is also a focus on self-promotion which prevents any real unified counter-science, or monolithic advertising. Only our advertising standards authority has recently stepped in to stop products from making unproven and simply made-up claims. That being said, some more established industries do try to maintain a set of standards, like homeopathy.

I am not the spokesperson for a certain position, and I do hope that some others who gave their HIV/AIDS testimonies will return to further the discussion.
While people can believe or do what they like, I do find it is important that people also hear from the treatment success cases, and that the science of HIV/AIDS does not become a scapegoat for concerns about "big pharma". Many people in SA still remain without treatment, and the struggle for poorer nations continues.

On the denialists: I think Wikipedia actually gives a general overview, and indeed mentions SA, as well as the many loopholes in their argumentation: en.wikipedia.org...

Otherwise I find it interesting that so many still quote dated articles, and AIDS denialism deserves much more research, so I don't mind if the disparate theories keep coming.

None of these theories agree with each other, but I seem to attract the responses, rather than the fact that they cannot agree amongst themselves.

Fortunately, few HIV-positive people fall for the denialist lies these days, and many change positions before becoming martyrs to ungrateful and spiteful denialist gurus.
www.aidstruth.org...

However, there are well meaning people beyond politics out there, and I wish them all the best for their research, both for their own health and especially that of their clients.

I think everything has a benefit and a limitation.
Diets that reduce coronary heart disease may not necessarily be appropriate to wasting diseases, and so forth.
I would agree however that diet and HIV management are very important issues, especially in our SA situation, where medication is only freely available as a last resort.
edit on 1-2-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Some of the denialists might try some of the natural cures of Tina van der Maas.
She was a Dutch nurse who unlike most denialists got into the field with AIDS patients (although she never commented on the link between HIV and AIDS, and it is unclear whether all her "patients" were even tested for HIV).
Not that it matters, Maas claimed her program could cure just about anything.

Some advice at the time was to put a clove of garlic in the private parts overnight for Candida, charcoal for diarrhea, and adding a nail to a cooking pot for iron!

Many had connections to the Rath Foundation or the African Solution "immune booster" (www.orgoniseafrica.com...), and they disappeared from SA as suddenly as they came when criminal charges were brought against the elusive Rath, and the politics changed.
Well this was Tina van der Maas' recommended "immune booster" and anti-AIDS cocktail - Africa's Solutions (and Forte with olive leaf extract).
I had it in the fridge, but a professor came to visit and he smelled it, and advised that I pour it down the drain.
It's now defunct, but was once widely available: www.health24.com...
Some people died on intravenous drips of the rubbish.

I wouldn't wish it on any country.
But maybe some would learn from the experience.
Get a President who supports only "natural cures" and see how you like your people dying of preventible causes.

In fact, make Tina the health minister:
reducetheburden.org...

There may be much wrong with "big pharma".
It needs a close eye and participation, and not a total withdrawal.

But whatever improvements are required for big pharma, when the next book of genocidal stupidity is written, I think AIDS denialism will be in the top ten causes of needless deaths.

They have let people die and killed people deliberately, and as such it shouldn't be advised to anyone.
A position of ignorance can never become a path to health, just like a cult can never be a path to God.

See:
Nathan Geffen: Debunking Delusions: The Inside Story of the Treatment Action Campaign. Jacana, 2010.
Kerry Cullinan and Anso Thom: The Virus, Vitamins and Vegetables: The South African HIV/AIDS Mystery. Jacana, 2009.

But it won't make a difference to believers, I guess.

It's actually so unfair that HIV-positive people find themselves so bombarded with debates in many places, and yet at the end of the day the law is no believer in conspiracies, and while people's heads are pumped full of beguiling nonsense, they are still expected to behave in a manner that protects society.
We pay the price for all this.
edit on 2-2-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Many years ago, I worked for a wealthy man by the name of MacDonald.

He regularly holidayed in Africa. As a result of this, he picked up an extraordinary, incurable disease. He was given 2 years at most to live.

Every day, he carefully kept to a strict diet to prolong his life. 18 months later, he was still alive and...they found a cure.

He is still alive today.

Your disease might not be curable today, but stay alive as long as possible and just maybe the same could happen for you and a cure be found in time.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:02 AM
link   
What every HIV-positive person should know.

From the clip below: If you cannot prove that you've disclosed your HIV status to a partner, you're at risk...
The fear in SA is that such a broad law based on HIV-status will deter people from testing, or knowing their status.

Always disclose your status to a potential lover or partner, and if possible, do it publically.

The non-disclosure of HIV between lovers is increasingly criminalized.
Using a condom is not considered disclosure.

So, we find a huge re-stigmatization of HIV, often based on dated laws, including laws against spitting and biting.

In SA we will soon see the first cases.

While deliberate infection is abhorrent and should be criminalized, there is a huge gray area.

The denialists have sometimes latched onto such cases of clear human rights violations, but they are not recognized in any court, and they can not help anyone. At worst they can lead people to doubt their status, when the court views such people as knowing of their status.

In the US:


Activist in the US draws attention to increasing criminalization of HIV:




edit on 2-2-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Urgent documentary: Women, HIV and Criminal Law:



Amongst heterosexual infections women bear 60% of HIV infections.
The chances of a woman or girl becoming infected by a male are higher than vice-versa.
Yet women and girls are met with the full force of ridiculous laws.
edit on 2-2-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by benjamin2012
 


Benjamin2012, peace and blessings to you as you continue in your impressive recovery. I have tried reading all the responses in this thread, but I have never seen such a dynamic ATS thread! Responses are so thick and fast I cannot keep up. I wanted to add some comments and some links on nutrition, however: Several responses here have rightly recommended a healthy diet, as well as powerfully healing mind/body techniques such as meditation, etc. Let me be specific, then, and list for you 29 books currently available on Amazon website (and elsewhere, no doubt) which detail the macrobiotic (MB) dietary guidelines which enabled many many people to progress toward an HIV-negative status. Here's that link:

www.amazon.com...=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=macrobiotic+aids&x=15&y=17

Is a vegan diet necessary, for instance? I'm not sure it's so cut-and-dried as all that ... an important part of the MB approach is a tailoring to the overall health status, age, and lifestyle factors influencing that particular person.

Also see, for example, the writings of Sandor Ellix Katz, who has written about his use of MB methods during his experience of healing from AIDS. Here is an author profile of Sandor and a list of his books:

www.amazon.com...=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1

Be aware, as well, of the amazing book You Can Heal Your Life, by Louise Hay, founder of the Hay House, a book publisher and speaker's bureau. Louise was inspired to write this, her first book ever, after helping many AIDS sufferers improve their health thru diet and lifestyle changes. Here is a link to that book ... don't forget to also read some of the 253 (!) reader endorsements of that book at the bottom of that online page:

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328205706&sr=1-1

As a final thought, I encourage you to think a long time before responding (if ever) to inappropriate questions that may be aimed at you in this thread, posts that question your (take your pick) culpability, risk-increasing factors in your personal history, etc., etc. Just because they ask does not mean that you have any need to respond to such inappropriate inquiries into such necessarily personal areas. You have the right to guard the boundaries of your personal space. And judging from the many, many, ATS responses arising in your defense, I think that ultimately you will be able to conclude that the vast, vast majority of the ATS community is On Your Side. Let us know if you have any additional information needs as you move forward with your life. And here is one final link, to the UK website of MB counselor and practitioner of a diverse array of therapeutic methods, Simon G. Brown in London, England. Simon and his wife Dragana have helped many people around the world, including Boy George, with whom Dragana co-wrote a cookbook, recover full health:

www.chienergy.co.uk...

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328206454&sr=1-1



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   
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 and as the intent of my posts is always to present information with the hope of eliciting information in return, you've delivered a bumper crop of food for thought to keep me busy for a while. I'll pick up a few of your points here for the purpose of clarifying my thoughts and hopefully fine-tuning any further communications.


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.


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.

Of course, Horne, the alternative establishments, and myself included will be guilty of doing the same but with so many competing realities, it cannot be helped. Once again, it's results that count.

Horne's failure to cancerproof himself could be taken as a repudiation of his beliefs or testimony that living organisms are not just the product of their own lifetime but that of their lineage. For someone like me, already in my 50's before getting wise to the principles of health, I have a lifetime of unhealthy living working against me but I also have my parents first 20+ years of unhealthy living to contend with. My father and his father were both dead before the age of 65 with prostate cancer. My father's only brother is still fairly fit in his 80s. If I'm destined to follow my father's path, it might be that I can do nothing to change it but if healthy living delays the eventuality by 10 more years, I will see it as a success. Another 10 years of being there for my children is definitely a worthwhile achievement. We don't know how long Horne would have lived on a SAD diet nor what quality of life he would have had so it's impossible to judge him on that account. If he mistakenly believed that his diet would forever protect him from any internal flaws that predisposed him to cancer, he would not be the first to make this bold assumption.



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.


This is a complicated. As an analogy, most of the world believes that flu kills people but I'm convinced that left to itself, flu will almost always run its course and leave the sufferer fully chastised but fresher for the experience. What kills people is the treatment applied by care providers who don't understand the physiological process. Whether you see flu as an attack by a virus or as a natural mechanism for detoxifying the body, either way there's a battle going on inside the body. Fever is a natural part of the body's defenses and defeating it weakens the body's ability to recover. If they use medicine (=drug=toxic) to reduce the fever or for any other purpose, they add to the body's toxic load. A high level of toxicity reduces the effectiveness of the organs. So you wind up with a dangerous spiral of backed-up toxicity and an ever-weakening system and doctors who insist on interfering because they know best. It's a wonder that we don't see higher fatalities.

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)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   

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


I would say so. He has a great personal motivation to do so. For halfoldman, it is a blessing that he did not contract this 20 years ago, as the policies of SA would have surely left him dead by now, and you would not have the benefit of his insight. It is unfortunate that this disease has such a stigma, or there would be more people willing to share their insights and help educate those that read and study this, but have no personal insight and no experiences with those that have actually lived it.


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 would not continue with a pointless discussion based on the fallacy that HIV does not equal death.

There is more than OVERWHELMING proof that the progression of HIV into AIDS to death has nothing to do with the doctor's management of the disease. It makes PERFECT sense to address these issues with the proven effectiveness of the ARV medications that control it and reverse the damage to the immune system caused by the depletion of T-cells that are hijacked by the virus.

Further, there is overwhelming PROOF that HIV is not a lifestyle / health issue that can be reversed by better nutrition and improved healthcare management. Good nutrition and management of health issues can slow the progression. However it will still progress, and the virus will suceed without the intervention of the ARV medications that stop the infected T-cells from replicating the virus, and newer ARV medications that block the T-cells from becoming infected.


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.


Therefore Horne was preaching to the choir when you read his books. This may explain why you accepted the dated opinions of Horne that were made prior to the scientific advances that were able to prove the existence of the virus, and the UNDENIABLE success of the treatments that followed, all that took place after Horne's misguided (and I dare say prejudiced) opinions expressed in his writings.

I will not change your opinion of scientific studies. However, in this case, the accepted FACTS that the scientists had to face - is that every thing they tried to do to slow, stop, or reverse the progression of the disease FAILED, until the concept of the multi-drug combos was tried and PROVEN to work. The PROOF lies in the millions of dead bodies that continued to pile up before 1996, and the millions of people that recovered from their death beds after that date, or never made it to that point, due to the introduction of the multi-drug combos.

Do you know anyone that lives with this disease? I do. I have met hundreds personally. The people I have met do not fall into the typical lifestyle and behaviour patterns that some attribute to the cause of the disease. I am not of the gay community, and neither are those I speak of, and it includes housewives, children, hemophillacs, and many others who contracted this without the 'objectionable lifestyles'. This is NOT a slur, as I am by no means prejudiced to the gay community, but more than thankful that the gay community of the U.S. took on this fight before I had to. If not for the gay community of the U.S forcing the 'fast track' policies on the FDA, I may also be dead.

I Know people that died, believed the same stuff spouted by Horne and others of the denialist community. Those that believed the writings of Horne and others of the same belief, and refused to take the 'pharmaceutical poisons' after their diagnosis, are dead. All of them.

I have yet to meet someone that has this condition, and took the drugs, and were compliant, that have died. There is a difference between scientific theory and PHYSICAL PROOF. Cause and effect. When you are dying of this disease you know it. When you take the drugs and they work you know it. This is not a 'belief'. This is my life, and the lives of millions of others that LIVE THE PROOF. This can be DENIED, but it CANNOT BE DEBUNKED.

Thank you halfoldman for keeping up the fight. I will help when I can.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
(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).

My wife, who is an MS sufferer, is seeing a slow decline over the years and it's hard to know how much of that is due to the constant intake of various prescription medications. I'm sure that her recent heart attack was caused by the high dose of steroids she was taking the previous week and the extended course of antibiotics she was on at the time but the doctors completely disregarded this "nonsense". This means that the possibility of it being a factor will not be recorded or addressed and the medication will still appear safe to the community. Can you see a parallel?



In fact, the "hygienists" seems to bicker a bit amongst themselves.
What you end up eating is dependent on which one you follow.


I agree that there is a lot of bickering and to some extent I see that as a healthy atmosphere. Doctors can have opinions but must stay within accepted practices. Those who see the light and wish to apply natural and beneficial practices such as water fasting, must abandon their career and join the alternative community "quacks."

And I fully agree with you that the world is full of charlatans, some well-intentioned but deluded and some in it for the money. A large number of both types are medical professionals and no doubt similar numbers in the alternative world. I believe that everybody should quit trusting professionals and take responsibility for their own health. Do the reading, follow the science and make up your own mind. Then accept the fate that you choose for yourself. Just believing that doctors know best is a recipe for disaster for yourself and for those who depend on your judgement.



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 agree. The world is way too complicated to focus on just one conspiracy. There's too many to keep up with all of them but surely we can all multi-task more than one at a time.


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.


The problems with eating meat are too numerous to fit in this space but fortunately are well expounded in TC Fry's Life Science course, Lesson 32 - Why We Should Not Eat Meat. In some circles, seafood is considered the worst of meats because it putrefies in the digestive system quicker than beef, chicken, etc.

People who suffer from Candida overgrowth may be stuck with it but if they haven't undergone an extended water-only fast, they don't know that for sure. Of course, the medical profession cannot accept what they erroneously call the "starvation diet" despite the number of doctors who have successfully healed themselves using this perfectly natural process.

All of the alternative treatments that you've listed are horrible mistakes and it's criminal that the public should have been subjected to them. It's another example of putting faith before proven results.

Despite the satisfaction that you say doctors and sufferers have with the current state of treatment, there's always a case for continuing, unbiased research into cause and treatment. Unfortunately, the money is being spent on conventional medical science which will only try to invent a means to detect/treat/cure AIDS. Prevention is not a priority. There's no money in prevention.

You've had quite a journey and have made your decision based on the evidence before you. Hopefully, you have fully documented that evidence for the benefit of others. 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



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   

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).


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 not dare to risk my privacy to post my personal experiences if I did not think (and live it personally and see with my own eyes) the denialist perspective is dangerous and deadly.


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


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.

If Natural therapies ever come up with a successful treatment that is as effective as the ARV medications I would be more than happy to pursue it. I more suspect that the Natural Therapies will help the sufferers cope with the weaknesses induced by the virus, and the symptoms experienced when the drugs start bringing back the immune system (look up Immune Reconstitution Syndrome), because these are the areas that the Natural Therapies can help us the most. Just don't live the illusion that they will solve the problem alone. Or your patients will die.

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.

Until there is something better that is PROVEN, not by scientists but by patients, I must go with the therapies that are proven by the amount of dead bodies that it reduces. At this time, for HIV, that is the medication that is approved by the scientists that you do not trust. I do not have to trust them either, and I do not always trust them.

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.

But in this case, I do not need the scientist opinions, theories, or 'facts', whether they are correct or misguided. It is already proven to me in flesh and blood, and the piles of dead bodies, and the people that did NOT end up on that pile, and the single difference between them (the drugs). This is as evident to me as the sun proves to me it emits light and heat. No science here, this is hard proof that can be seen and felt.

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.

Further I hope the OP has also considered all that has been discussed here, and gives the ARV medications another chance, as he too can live to see old age as I have, and no longer see his life as somthing that has already expired. Life can get better, and he can live, as many of us do now.

This thread has went quite off the original subject, but it is important to me, important to halfoldman, and my risking my privacy to express my experiences may someday result in another life (hopefully Benjamin, and maybe others) that can continue after beating the death sentence that the three of us have been rendered.

Benjamin, you can live and love life again. Give it another chance and see it thru. The first years of treatment are no fun. But it will get better, and one day you will no longer feel outside the world of the living.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 

Thanks for your further discussion John.

I think your research will expand to understand many other conditions.
Science and industries do get things wrong.
Sometimes, the harder they are pushed by demand, the more mistakes they make.
On HIV we don't know everything - even science admits we don't know a lot.
A tiny group of people never progress to AIDS, and some of these survived AZT in the 1980's, and some groups are studied here.
Genetics also has a lot to do with everything, and at the end of the day HIV is an animal virus introduced into the human population.

Good luck to your wife.
I really mean that, and all the best to yourself.

Some more ideas (not necessarily scientific):

When HIV/AIDS first hit in SA many doctors did not understand it.
Many doctors didn't want to work with it, because of the stigma.
Some people were told they'd live two years maximum after testing positive.
But that was wrong information.
There are also different strains - HIV2, for example, can take over a decade to progress to AIDS.

However, when one does progress to AIDS, you can no longer cure candida.
That is the crux of AIDS.
Some people die very quickly without ARVs, while some linger for a year or two.
It is the most tragic and heartbreaking sight to behold (although I will refrain from pics and re-stigmatizing imagery).
And these are people brought to clinics at the last moment.
By 2005 only 1.5 million people were on treatment, whereas the WHO recommended that 5 million needed urgent HIV/AIDS treatment. (The Skeptic's Guide to the Global AIDS Crisis. Dale Hanson Bourke. 2006: p.50.)
At that point our government strongly discouraged it in favor of natural "treatments".

Now HIV is one of the (or possibly the) most studied viruses in the postmodern era, and some would point out it has been disproportionally studied (at the expense of other afflictions).

As far as diet goes, my current doctor told me he got two lectures on nutrition in medical school!
So they didn't know much.
In my youth they thought smoking was a minor evil, and you had to eat red meat twice a week or you'd starve.
Even by 2005 there were only 2 real HIV experts in SA.

I saw a documentary on our Carte Blanche show (unfortunately it's not common use yet), and it was about 4 women who were all infected with HIV by the same man around 2004 (when I also tested positive to various tests). The topic was that they now want to take this bastard to court, who knowingly infected them.
However, what struck me was that out of those women only one has not progressed to AIDS, just like myself (I recall the one also survived lymphoma, and the other had severe shingles, to the point of becoming lame before treatment).

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.
So the denialists did have some positive results, but at the end of the day, when AIDS begins, you cannot reverse it with foods or vitamins.
You will kill that person.

What might make a good guide would be a vegetarian's cookbook for HIV-positive people.
As I've reiterated before, if one can keep up the CD4 count above 200 through diet in SA then why not?
I mean you're not going to get the ARVs before that in any case.
One just mustn't publish false claims, but nobody can deny a good, balanced cookbook for vegans or vegetarians.

Where I must disagree more strongly is on prevention, especially with the experience of PEPFAR.
At least in SA prevention is a huge issue, caught between science and ideology.
At least in Africa more money goes to prevention campaigns than treatment at present (although following all that money is not an easy task).
Let's just shortly say that proven public health campaigns (for safe or responsible sex) clash with religious campaigns for abstinence (less proven).
Often, a country that wants treatment must also undertake not to decriminalize prostitution, for example.
Treatment comes with ideological ties to prevention.


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.


en.wikipedia.org...[
edit on 5-2-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

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.


@lakesidepark, I was busy writing the continuance of my earlier post (ATS' word limit led me to post part 1 first and then follow up with remainder as soon as possible.) when your reply came through. I thank you for your fair and direct comments and I will endeavor to seek out the proof and evidence which you allude to. I will also be reading up on Immune Reconstitution Syndrome.

If this is actually a case where poisoning the body is the better option then it will be a serious blow to the Natural Hygiene foundation. But instead of denying the facts, it is our responsibility to investigate and understand the physiology behind the failure of natural healing and the success of medical treatments.


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.


I can only acknowledge that there is a claim that ARV medications save lives and defer judgement until I've seen the evidence. My reasons for doubting are well founded but my mind is open. My suspicion is that the cause of AIDS (leaving HIV aside for the moment for the sake of discussion) remains but the multi-drug combos stifle the body's self-destructive behavior. If this was the case, I would expect it to result in a short term reduction of symptoms that eventually erupts in some other disease manifestation.


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.


Thanks, I'll look for that.


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.


That's great! Getting your life back must be a wonderful feeling, one that I hope my wife will one day experience. Thank you for the information and the well wishes. May your remaining years be prosperous and rewarding.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

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.


By progressing, I presume that you mean that your health is slowly declining. Is that correct? If so, it's good news that your progression is slow and hopefully this provides you a degree of comfort.



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.


Humans are capable of surviving and to some extent thriving on a wide range of foods but our physiology is preset and has been for millions of years with no significant change. Our ability to tolerate some of the vilest concoctions for decades is well attested. People have lived healthy lives into their 90s and beyond while smoking and drinking while others have expired after a few decades of clean living. I believe that we are all different and our destinies have been pre-ordained to some extent by our start in life. What we cannot be sure of is how much longer we actually live and how much better the quality of life is by living within the limits of our physiology. Would the 90 year old smoker have lived to 120 fighting fit if he'd abstained from cigarettes? Who really knows.

What we do know is that studies on smaller animals have proven that when fed on their physiologically correct diet, they live healthier longer lives than the control group and that their decendants increase in health over generations. The control group declines in health over generations but when their diet is corrected, they too turn around and experience the same gradual improvements as the study group.

For someone in fairly good health, living healthily most of the time is probably enough to see them through a good lifetime. Someone who's had a difficult start in life may have to adopt a very strict lifestyle to achieve and maintain a reasonable level of health. This has been borne out by more than a century of Natural Hygiene experience but is completely ignored by the conventional medical fraternity.

Unfortunately, there are people who find that by making a change in their lifestyle, they suddenly make a significant improvement in their health. They then assume that what worked for them will work for everyone else and go into business selling their remedy. If it doesn't work for many of their clients, they assume that it's because the client isn't honestly implementing the remedy. They overlook the fact that we're all different and what works for some won't necessarily work for others. Whether we call them charlatans or quacks, their misguided beliefs can cause harm to others and they need to be challenged to prove their claims or shut up.

However, conventional medicine does not work in that method. They deny anything that doesn't fit within their accepted paradigm without regard to existing proof. They have no interest in allowing competition against their monopoly on health care regardless of the impact on patients. When they run out of treatment options, they do not say that's all WE can do for you. They say that nothing more can be done. It's a rare doctor who will suggest that a patient consider an alternative therapy. Or at least that's what I hear.

Once again, thank you for the insights and I will continue to do my homework bearing this all in mind..




top topics
 
68
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join