80,000 Young People In Thailand Suffer From Aids

[george]

More than 80,000 young people in Thailand suffer from AIDS

BANGKOK: -- More than 80,000 young Thais are now suffering from AIDS, according to the public health minister, Sudarat Keyuraphan.

There are nearly twenty thousand new AIDS victims every year, Mrs. Sudarat told TNA. By the year 2006, Thailand will have more than a million AIDS sufferers, she warned.

Some 80,000 Thai AIDS patients are between the ages of 15 and 24, the majority of them women. One of the biggest problems is that young Thais do not practise safe-sex. Only one in three young Thais used condoms, according to a recent survey.

Many young Thais are also at risk of other health problems because they do not exercise regularly and smoke. According to the recent survey, more than four million, or one or four Thai youngsters between 10 and 24, do not exercise at all.

About 1.5 million of them are also regular cigarette smokers. Most youths prefer to watch television and videos and spend most of their time playing on the computer, according to the survey.

--TNA 2004-10-31

[cojones]

strange that they are mostly females ! that must mean just a few guys are infecting them and they have too many male lovers ?

or are they prostitutes infected by their customers ?

as for lack of exercise it really is chronic , very little walking around ,let alone running or biking , many will suffer from heart problems and diabeties in the future .

[gburns57au]

strange that they are mostly females ! that must mean just a few guys are infecting them and they have too many male lovers ?

or are they prostitutes infected by their customers ?

as for lack of exercise it really is chronic , very little walking around ,let alone running or biking , many will suffer from heart problems and diabeties in the future .

Did it occur to you that it maybe because bodily fluids are deposited in the female that they may be more suseptible to the infection. Why do some people think that because women are getting AIDS that they must be sluts or prostitutes. Of course another reason maybe because in that age bracket mentioned is also the highest group of intravenous drug users.

I could agree with the heart and diabetes problems, IF Thai youth had the same fast food diet as Western kids do. The rate of Child Obesity is far greater in Western countries than any other

[gburns57au]

[quote -- More than 80,000 young Thais are now suffering from AIDS, according to the public health minister, Sudarat Keyuraphan.

That bloody one legged German has been busy......

[yuyi]

More than 80,000 young people in Thailand suffer from AIDS 

BANGKOK: --  More than 80,000 young Thais are now suffering from AIDS, according to the public health minister, Sudarat Keyuraphan.

There are nearly twenty thousand new AIDS victims every year, Mrs. Sudarat told TNA. By the year 2006, Thailand will have more than a million AIDS sufferers, she warned.

Where are these numbers coming from?

Do they do some calculations, or do they actually count?

Some 80,000 Thai AIDS patients are between the ages of 15 and 24, the majority of them women.

From what I see here I guess the women do the test much more often than the men.

[Phil Conners]

Too many inconsiderate smokers here, that's for sure, only good news is that there'll be fewer and fewer of them.

[Felt 35]

More than 80,000 young Thais are now suffering from AIDS

Hmm.....

There are nearly twenty thousand new AIDS victims every year

If they are as good with the fact as with the calculator.......

[medicinebox]

Did it occur to you that it maybe because bodily fluids are deposited in the female that they may be more suseptible to the infection.

Yep, they get filled full of Harry Monk. Discusting.

[meadish_sweetball]

More than 80,000 young Thais are now suffering from AIDS

Hmm.....

There are nearly twenty thousand new AIDS victims every year

If they are as good with the fact as with the calculator.......

Note YOUNG in the stated number at the top.

I think the actual rate could be even higher than this, but of course it must be difficult to estimate with any accuracy what the real number is as I am sure many Thais will avoid telling anybody if they can. AIDS is still a big taboo, although the attitudes are starting to change a little bit for the better.

Unpleasant statistics has a tendency of being downplayed.

[astral]

I think the number sound too low - sad to say.

[Ijustwannateach]

If the article is accurate and this is really talking about full-blown AIDS, the number might be about right- after all, there are many more people with HIV- it's just a matter of time until they develop AIDS.

"Steven"

[English Noodles]

If the article is accurate and this is really talking about full-blown AIDS, the number might be about right-  after all, there are many more people with HIV- it's just a matter of time until they develop AIDS.

"Steven"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

People can carry HIV for several years without becoming ill. Some people have never proceeded to Aids.

[IamMaiC]

I could agree with the heart and diabetes problems, IF Thai youth had the same fast food diet as Western kids do. The rate of Child Obesity is far greater in Western countries than any other

Last time I was in Thailand I saw way too many BK's and Mcdonald's and KFC's If this is not a sign of impending doom I don't know what is. Get the movie "Supersize me" and see the effect of eating this crap for a month. every meal breakfast lunch and dinner for one month. It made me sick

[Ijustwannateach]

If the article is accurate and this is really talking about full-blown AIDS, the number might be about right-  after all, there are many more people with HIV- it's just a matter of time until they develop AIDS.

"Steven"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

People can carry HIV for several years without becoming ill. Some people have never proceeded to Aids.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, yes, and if you sleep with a virgin or your AIDS-dead brother's wife or drink your own urine you'll be cured, etc., etc.

Sure there are rare cases of immunities and long gestations. But for 99.99999999% of us, HIV=eventually AIDS. Holding out the possibility of being one of the rare exceptions is like planning to avoid AIDS by winning the lottery. Take your HIV myths and put 'em where the sun don't shine!

"Steven"

[yuyi]

If the article is accurate and this is really talking about full-blown AIDS, the number might be about right-  after all, there are many more people with HIV- it's just a matter of time until they develop AIDS.

"Steven"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

People can carry HIV for several years without becoming ill. Some people have never proceeded to Aids.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, yes, and if you sleep with a virgin or your AIDS-dead brother's wife or drink your own urine you'll be cured, etc., etc.

Sure there are rare cases of immunities and long gestations. But for 99.99999999% of us, HIV=eventually AIDS. Holding out the possibility of being one of the rare exceptions is like planning to avoid AIDS by winning the lottery. Take your HIV myths and put 'em where the sun don't shine!

"Steven"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you habe any proof for your statements? Any scientific study showing that HIV leads to AIDS in as you say 99.99999999% of the cases?

No you don't !

1) The HIV virus has not been isolated yet, after all these years.

2) Therefore no test can test for the HIV virus, but only for proteins, which are assumed to be in the blood when the assumed HIV virus is there.

3) Therefore any connection between a HIV virus and the diseases which are now called AIDS is an assumption only.

4) Most HIV / aids deaths of the early years show the typical symptoms of an overdose with AZT - therefore now the recommended doses are much much smaller. AZT has been disapproved as cancer med (in a time when the idea of a virus causing cancer was fashion) because too many lab rats did die. The poor "rich" early Aids patients which could afford to buy AZT did die as well.

If I'm wrong, then please point me to the study where these points 1 - 4, as I state them here, are proven to be wrong. I would be happy if you could do, I'm looking for them for many years, and didn't find them yet. (I'm not joking, this is too serious to joke.)

No I did not just pull this out of thin air, actually there seems to be a court coming to that same conclusion:

Course of Events on January 15th 2001 at the District Court (Landgericht) of Dortmund:

Judge Hackmann announced the statement of the "Bundesgesundheitsbehörde", the Federal German Health Authorities, which says that in connection with AIDS there has never been isolated a virus (Dr. Marcus, Robert-Koch-Institute (RKI) Berlin). The judge figured out that the German Bundestag had been backing the lie of the Federal Health Authorities (RKI, Dr. Marcus, 9.3.95) about a successful isolation of a virus in connection with AIDS in the course of a petition (Art. 17, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, Pet. 5-13-15-2002-010526).

taken from here:

http://www.la.indymedia.org/news/2003/06/66369.php

So far all I see is a huge huge business, and all who ask questions get silenced.

==================================================

To avoid a misinderstanding, no, I'm not saying don't use condoms, and I'm not saying that there is no HIV. I'm just asking for a scientific proof, instead of assumptions sponsored with pharma money, before we poison the patients.

[Crushdepth]

I met a Thai HIV researcher earlier this year. She said the prevalence of HIV is about 1 person in 60. Thailand *already has* 1 million infected people.

[yuyi]

I found also this article here, from WWW.NYPRESS.COM | JULY 13, 2004 .

It says a lot about the attitude towards HIV positive people, and the benefits of the current HIV medication. Death seems to be guaranteed, if - you take it.

http://nypress.com/print.cfm?content_id=10614

Here just a short part of it:

"...standard AIDS drugs: nucleoside analogues, protease inhibitors and Nevirapine:

Nucleoside analogues, like AZT, work by stopping cell division. They stop the formation of new blood in the bone marrow, in some cases causing anemia and bone marrow death. They've caused death in pregnant mothers, spontaneous abortion, birth defects, liver failure, pancreatic failure, muscle wasting, developmental damage and death in children and adults. They also may cause cancer.

Protease inhibitors interfere with the body's ability to build new proteins. Since we're made of protein, protease inhibitors have pronounced effects on physical appearance and organ function. The side effects can be bizarre, grotesque and often fatal: wasting in the face, arms and legs, fatty humps on the back and shoulders, distended belly, heart disease, birth defects, organ failure-and death.

Almost all of this is found on the warning labels.

The first AIDS drug, AZT, was designed in the 60s as a chemotherapy drug for cancer patients, but it was never approved. Critics declared it too toxic even for short-term use, yet in 1987 it was pushed through for lifelong use in HIV-positive people. Although its trials were later revealed to be fraudulent, AZT remains on the market.

Finally, there's Nevirapine, which also interferes with normal cell function. In test trials, Nevirapine has caused severe liver damage and death in dozens of patients. Most die from organ failure due to drug toxicity. Nevirapine can also cause a violent skin disorder called Steven-Johnsons Syndrome-a horrifying condition in which the skin blisters and ruptures or peels off in large swaths, leaving bloody, exposed flesh.

Despite causing so many serious medical issues in the course of treatment, AIDS drugs don't even claim to work. Every AIDS drug label bears a version of this caveat:

This drug will not cure your HIV infection… Patients receiving antiretroviral therapy may continue to experience opportunistic infections and other complications of HIV disease… Patients should be advised that the long-term effects are unknown at this time."

So why do people take the drugs? Because they test HIV-positive. But as Christine Maggiore learned, HIV tests are highly inaccurate.

Most HIV tests are antibody tests, which means that they can cross-react with normal proteins in human blood. There are nearly 70 commonly occurring conditions-as listed in the medical literature-that are known to make the tests come up positive. These include yeast infections, colds, flus, arthritis, hepatitis, herpes, recent inoculations, drug use and pregnancy.

The remaining HIV tests, called viral load tests, can produce dozens of conflicting results-even from the same blood sample.

HIV tests are so unreliable that they all bear a disclaimer: "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood," or "The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR [Viral Load] test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection," or "Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection" (Abbott Laboratories HIV Test, Roche Viral Load Test and Epitope, Inc. Western Blot Test, respectively).

And the kicker: Positive test results can occur due to "prior pregnancy, blood transfusions...and other potential nonspecific reactions" (Vironostika HIV Test, 2003).

In short: In the 90s, drug companies like Glaxo Wellcome and Abbott Labs began recycling old chemotherapy drugs for the new AIDS drug market. This market consisted of gay men who weren't told that the HIV test was a nonspecific antibody test. They were told, however, that AIDS was an unavoidable outgrowth of testing positive on this test, and that HIV was a fatal condition.

If you look in the medical literature, you'll find that neither of these assumptions is true."

[cojones]

So why do people take the drugs? Because they test HIV-positive. But as Christine Maggiore learned, HIV tests are highly inaccurate.

*******************

untrue , infected people take these drugs because their CD4 count dictates that they take the drugs in order to keep it supressed.

and thats the best that science can offer at this time.

HIV infected people have been taking these drugs for 10 years and more now and live relatively normal lives if they can live with the daily drugs .

some are ok some are not , but everybody is likely to have adverse reactions with any drugs , Paracetamol can be dangerous even in small doses .

all drugs have a multitude of warnings on the lables about what could happen ,HAART medication is no different .

If a poor thai cant afford the drugs he is likely to die fairly quickly , whereas a Thai who takes the daily drugs will live a normal life ,

but more thais are being killed by liver failure due to drinking too much thai wiskey ,or in road accidents

[cojones]

The remaining HIV tests, called viral load tests, can produce dozens of conflicting results-even from the same blood sample.

HIV tests are so unreliable that they all bear a disclaimer: "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood," or "The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR [Viral Load] test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection," or "Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection" (Abbott Laboratories HIV Test, Roche Viral Load Test and Epitope, Inc. Western Blot Test, respectively).

*************************

sounds like way out of date info you post ....

Diagnosing HIV Infection

HIV ELISAs and Western Blots

Antibodies to HIV are usually detected by assays known as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA or EIA). The wells of plastic microtiter plates are coated with recombinant viral proteins (antigens), which stick to the plastic. If serum from an infected patient is added to the well, HIV antibodies bind to the proteins and become attached to the plate. After washing away the serum the bound antibodies are detected by a second antibody that is linked to an enzyme such as alkaline phosphatase. This second antibody binds to human anti-HIV antibodies and can be detected by reacting the plates with a substrate for alkaline phosphatase that turns color when cleaved by the enzyme.

HIV antibody tests are more than 99% sensitive (that is, they detect the presence of HIV antibodies in nearly all infected patients); virtually the only infected patients who are not detected by standard HIV tests are those who are tested within the first few weeks after infection. The specificity of HIV antibody tests is also better than 99%, but some false positive tests do occur.

Therefore, all positive ELISAs are confirmed by a second test such as the western blot. Though not as sensitive as the ELISA, the western blot is more specific and allows the laboratory to identify the specific HIV proteins to which the antibodies are reacting. Only tests that are positive by ELISA and by a second, confirmatory test are reported as HIV positive.

HIV tests performed in the United States detect antibodies to both HIV-1 and HIV-2. Antibodies to most of subtypes of HIV-1 group M are detected by the current tests, but they are less reliable at detecting infection with more distantly related strains of HIV-1 belonging to groups O and N. (Group M accounts for the vast majority of HIV-1 infections; groups O and N are found predominantly in western Africa.)

[yuyi]

So why do people take the drugs? Because they test HIV-positive. But as Christine Maggiore learned, HIV tests are highly inaccurate.

*******************

untrue , infected people take these drugs because their CD4 count dictates that they take the drugs in order to keep it supressed.

and thats the best that science can offer at this time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is definitely not the case in normal public hospitals in Thailand. I saw it with my own eyes. No CD4 count was made, but the meds were given, with the urgent warning that death is near and only the meds can prolong life. And that only because of a positive Elisa. No Western Blot at all.

And what you forgot to post is that the HIV antibodies mentioned in your text are not HIV antibodies. Quoting the disclaimer on some tests: "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood," No matter how nice it is worded, any claim of a 99% detection of a HIV infection is nonsense, these tests are not testing any HIV virus, they simply cannot do that, as long as the virus is not isolated and available to test for it. Until then, it is all assumptions, sold as truth.

Did you read the post I posted before about the court findings about this, and about the HIV tests? Probably not.

HIV infected people have been taking these drugs for 10 years and more now and live relatively normal lives if they can live with the daily drugs .

some are ok some are not

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, these drugs are tolerated better than before, mainly because the dose given got dramatically reduced. But this does not change anything at the fact that they are very strong cell poisons, that they do cause the typical AIDS symptoms, and that there is no proof that they have any effect on a HIV virus.

And there is even no proof about a connection between the HIV virus and AIDS.

Prove me wrong, please!

When I started to realize all this, I did not want to believe it. But the facts are there. So far, all further research did only confirm what I'm stating here.

[sriracha john]

A couple of absolutes regarding HIV/AIDS

100% of people that are HIV+ develop AIDS, however long it may delayed in it's development through drugs.

AIDS has a 100% mortality rate.

There is no cure, only treatments.

[yuyi]

A couple of absolutes regarding HIV/AIDS

100% of people that are HIV+ develop AIDS, however long it may delayed in it's development through drugs.

AIDS has a 100% mortality rate.

There is no cure, only treatments.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's exactly what I did believe, before I did start to research and ask questions.

Based on my knowledge about cancer treatments and chemotherapy, I did try to understand, especially when I saw that similar chemotherapies where used treat HIV diagnosed patients. Unfortunately I did not find much to understand.

Again, I hear that a lot, even doctors say that. But whenever I ask for the usual medical studies, for any scientific evidence on which this statement is based, I get nothing. Yes. nothing. Even doctors only parrot what they heard, be it wrong or right.

The court judgement quoted in my former post does show that even the health officials in a modern country such as Germany did make such statements, just parroting, but without any proof. and they did so knowing that there is no proof!

I assume also you have nothing solid to base your statement on, unfortunately, otherwise you would have mentioned it, correct? In case you are aware of any medical study proving the assumed connection between HIV and AIDS I would appreciate to let me know. I'm still researching. But I do not ask for parroted statements, I ask for solid scientific evidence, if there is any.

[sriracha john]

A couple of absolutes regarding HIV/AIDS

100% of people that are HIV+ develop AIDS, however long it may delayed in it's development through drugs.

AIDS has a 100% mortality rate.

There is no cure, only treatments.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's exactly what I did believe, before I did start to research and ask questions.

Based on my knowledge about cancer treatments and chemotherapy, I did try to understand, especially when I saw that similar chemotherapies where used treat HIV diagnosed patients. Unfortunately I did not find much to understand.

Again, I hear that a lot, even doctors say that. But whenever I ask for the usual medical studies, for any scientific evidence on which this statement is based, I get nothing. Yes. nothing. Even doctors only parrot what they heard, be it wrong or right.

The court judgement quoted in my former post does show that even the health officials in a modern country such as Germany did make such statements, just parroting, but without any proof. and they did so knowing that there is no proof!

I assume also you have nothing solid to base your statement on, unfortunately, otherwise you would have mentioned it, correct? In case you are aware of any medical study proving the assumed connection between HIV and AIDS I would appreciate to let me know. I'm still researching. But I do not ask for parroted statements, I ask for solid scientific evidence, if there is any.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

U.S. National Institute of Health:

HIV destroys CD4+ T cells, which are crucial to the normal function of the human immune system. In fact, depletion of CD4+ T cells in HIV-infected individuals is an extremely powerful predictor of the development of AIDS. Studies of thousands of individuals have revealed a near-perfect correlation has been found between infection with HIV and the subsequent development of AIDS.

Also:

EVIDENCE THAT HIV CAUSES AIDS

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm

or:

The Durban Declaration: HIV is the cause of AIDS

The declaration has been signed by over 5,000 people, including Nobel prizewinners, directors of leading research institutions, scientific academies and medical societies, notably the US National Academy of Sciences, the US Institute of Medicine, Max Planck institutes, the European Molecular Biology Organization, the Pasteur Institute in Paris, the Royal Society of London, the AIDS Society of India and the National Institute of Virology in South Africa. In addition, thousands of individual scientists and doctors have signed, including many from the countries bearing the greatest burden of the epidemic. Signatories are of MD, PhD level or equivalent.

[sua yai]

I'm no doctor and so can only post from the personal experience of a friend.

She was diagnosed HIV + 4 years ago. Her CD4 count stood at @450. Thai doctors started her on ARV medication. A couple of years later, her count had dropped to 40. I believe most doctors regard a count of under 50 as AIDS.

Medication was changed, and her last count had risen to 650. Surely this is some proof that the medication is working. She and the doctors are amazed.

On another note, four years ago, her monthly medication cost 3,000 Baht. It now costs 30 Baht. I'm not a great supporter of Mr T, but he has at least done this. Let's just hope for many peoples' sake, he dosn't sign the agreement with the US to stop manufacturing the drugs over here

[yuyi]

U.S. National Institute of Health:

HIV destroys CD4+ T cells, which are crucial to the normal function of the human immune system. In fact, depletion of CD4+ T cells in HIV-infected individuals is an extremely powerful predictor of the development of AIDS. Studies of thousands of individuals have revealed a near-perfect correlation has been found between infection with HIV and the subsequent development of AIDS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Statements like that can be found everywhere. They are no proof, that would be too easy What I'm more interested in is on what they base these statements - the studies mentioned here, without further reference.

The Durban Declaration: HIV is the cause of AIDS

The declaration has been signed by over 5,000 people, including Nobel prizewinners, directors of leading research institutions, scientific academies and medical societies, notably the US National Academy of Sciences, the US Institute of Medicine, Max Planck institutes, the European Molecular Biology Organization, the Pasteur Institute in Paris, the Royal Society of London, the AIDS Society of India and the National Institute of Virology in South Africa. In addition, thousands of individual scientists and doctors have signed, including many from the countries bearing the greatest burden of the epidemic. Signatories are of MD, PhD level or equivalent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As far as I remember this declaration was necessary because the South African government had been asking for a proof of the HIV leads to AIDS theory, and nobody could present a real one. They got this declaration instead.

It shows that many do think the assumption is valid. However its not a proof, obviously. Its an opinion. And there had been Nobel prize winners there with a very different opinion.

Also:

EVIDENCE THAT HIV CAUSES AIDS

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now this is more what I look for. It really sounds convincing. I did study such information quite much, some time ago. The statements there seem to be all based on scientific studies. They are mentioned, and to make the research easier, there is even a link to the summary of the studies used as evidence.

Let's have a closer look at some important stuff:

"The availability of potent combinations of drugs that specifically block HIV replication has dramatically improved the prognosis for HIV-infected individuals. Such an effect would not be seen if HIV did not have a central role in causing AIDS.

Clinical trials have shown that potent three-drug combinations of anti-HIV drugs, known as highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), can significantly reduce the incidence of AIDS and death among HIV-infected individuals as compared to previously available HIV treatment regimens (Hammer et al. NEJM 1997;337:725; Cameron et al. Lancet 1998;351:543)."

Did you notice it? There is no study / clinical trial mentioned to show that the drugs have a better effect than no drugs. Not one. And especially not a double-blind one.

There are studies listed showing that the HAART drugs are better than the "previously available HIV treatment regimens". I looked at the studies mentioned here from Hammer and Cameron.

Hammer: "We compared treatment with the protease inhibitor indinavir in addition to zidovudine and lamivudine with treatment with the two nucleosides alone in HIV-infected adults previously treated with zidovudine."

No double blind trial, no placebo control group. All got the same basic medication, and some got different ones on top of it. And all had been receiving cell poisons for a longer time, so their cd4 was already very low. Now he compares which group dies faster. I'm tempted to rephrase it: "which of these cell poisons does kill you slower?".

I would have liked to see what happens if no cell poisons are given, or only placebos, in a double-blind clinical trial.

How about Camerons study: "We undertook an international, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ritonavir in patients with HIV-1 infection and CD4-lymphocyte counts of 100 cells/microL or less, who had previously been treated with antiretroviral drugs. METHODS: 1090 patients were randomly assigned twice-daily liquid oral ritonavir 600 mg (n = 543) or placebo (n = 547) while continuing treatment with up to two licensed nucleoside agents."

Again, here the trial, despite being double-blind, is not comparing the effect of medication and placebo. It is comparing the combination of "up to two licensed nucleoside agents" and ritonavir with the combination of "up to two licensed nucleoside agents" and a placebo.

Again, I would have liked to see what happens if no cell poisons are given, or only placebos, in a double-blind clinical trial.

Can you understand now my request for a proof? Whenever I get presented one, it does not proof the assumption. Here the assumption to be proven is "these drugs have a positive effect at HIV patients", but it compares drug A with drug B, quietly assuming that there is a positive effect of these drugs. When I see how AIDS patient suffer and die with the typical symptoms which the cell poisons given cause, then I would like to know what killed them - the disease or the treatment.

I could go on for days like that, but I assume that nobody here cares anyway about my concerns, so I stop for now, and get some sleep. If I have overlooked the proof please point me to it.

So I just give as a contrast another quote from the NYPress article I presented earlier. Not a scientific proof, but food for thought:

"WHEN CHRISTINE MAGGIORE TESTED HIV-POSITIVE IN 1992, HER DOCTOR TOLD HER TO GET READY TO DIE. BUT SHE WASN'T INTERESTED IN DYING.

Maggiore was told that the AIDS drugs would make her sick, so she skipped them, instead relying on natural methods to support her health. A year and a half later, she was so healthy that her doctor said there was something wrong and she should retest.

She did retest, several times. The tests came back negative, indeterminate and positive. Maggiore investigated the medical literature and learned that HIV tests are highly inaccurate. She also discovered that there are gaping flaws in the HIV hypothesis itself.

Believing that this is the sort of thing people should know, she founded Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives, a resource for people who, like herself, want to make fully informed decisions about their health.

Since testing positive, Maggiore has had two children. Her kids, two and six years old, have never been tested. They've been raised on organic food, with a naturopathic approach to health. They're both intelligent and active. They don't take AIDS drugs. And they're not in the least bit sick. They regularly see their pediatrician, who has no medical complaints about their well-being.

And they're not alone. There are thousands of healthy HIV-positive people who don't take the drugs, who rely on natural regimens to support their immune function."

(From WWW.NYPRESS.COM | JULY 13, 2004 http://nypress.com/print.cfm?content_id=10614)