Health, new about AIDS?

[nlc]

I reread several times, I did not understand

It is at least 2 then (it makes long as understand much more about this fact )!

In fact is that the info is deliberately vague to just that nobody understands and that people think it is progressing.
When we analyze in detail as I did we finally understand that it is not only unclear but the information is contradictory.

[Janic]

nlc hello
you are desperate wanting to break the new toy and "the immense hopes put in a solution of the future of which we will thank our children, etc.."
Long live vaccines that make this message: please do not change your bad habits of life, we are the messiahs who bring you this new gospel (good news for those unaware) that tomorrow is shaved gratis, eat, drink , smoke, take drugs, we're there to get you going without questions asked and we hard cash.

[Fakir]

I just read an article on the last Sciences & Vie in April, about a first cured AIDS case. For 4 years Timothy Brown has appeared to be HIV negative.

The editorial staff of Sciences & Vie wanted to react to the 44 committed pages of the forum Econology!

This gentleman has AIDS, from 1995 years. A successful bone marrow transplant to treat leukemia (the guy did not really lucky ...) would have strengthened his immune system. Thus, its body, supported by its triple therapy would rid of the disease.

Like what, strengthening the immune system of papaya is not a concept totally crazy. It's just face the dragon with a toothpick!

Anyway, this is the first time I read an article on AIDS optimistic with so much hope.

[nlc]

We talked about just above:

The guy did not have AIDS said he was just HIV positive, so is said to have cured what exactly! ????

If passed HIV negative is that we no longer detects antibodies directed against HIV.

Not having any more antibodies in the case of AIDS makes it possible to say that one is no longer "infected" with HIV and that one is cured, whereas precisely the purpose of antibodies once created is that they remain to protect the organism from the next "attack". This is the very principle of vaccines. And when we are tested to find out if we are protected against a disease, they do the research for antibodies!

In all diseases where the virus disappears antibodies remain. In the case of AIDS have antibodies would indicate that we are still infected, and the healing sign would be the disappearance of antibodies. That does not make any sense !!

[Janic]

nlc

Not having any more antibodies in the case of AIDS makes it possible to say that one is no longer "infected" with HIV and that one is cured, whereas precisely the purpose of antibodies once created is that they remain to protect the organism from the next "attack". This is the very principle of vaccines. And when we are tested to find out if we are protected against a disease, they do the research for antibodies!

On this subject there, there is much to say.
I know by responding that I will bring the wrath of good thinking, but this is just common sense and does not make an omelette without breaking eggs!
The antibody does not appear thatafter the battle against an assailant outside agent. Or if it was the antibody that was the elite troops to fight the enemy, it would appear from the beginning and would persist all the time of the infection and subsist (possibly) after. Off, for what I read, it is not the case: why?

In all diseases where the virus disappears antibodies remain. In the case of AIDS have antibodies would indicate that we are still infected, and the healing sign would be the disappearance of antibodies. That does not make any sense !!

Unless, indeed, the antibodies are witnesses of a past fight (the survivors of the war) which does not mean that these are the fighters of the future and the disappearance of these antibodies mean the definitive end of the infection.
If this aspect is right, we should find no antibody in a healthy subject (it's rare I know) and insofar be healthy carrier of non-neutralized virus. Who knows? so :

No longer having antibodies in the case of AIDS makes it possible to say that we are no longer "infected" by HIV and that we are cured, whereas precisely the purpose of antibodies once created is that they remain to protect the organism from the next "attack". This is the very principle of vaccines.

Except for the vaccines they completely planted! They plant themselves well to HIV!
Dr. Ancelet in his book "to end Pasteur" indicates that he was troubled by the fact that we slaughtered animals tested positive while the same test in humans was considered a healthy response. Hence its loss of confidence in the system.

[nlc]

To my mind the immune system created by the antibody has a memory of the virus he fought. For example by having developed naturally all childhood diseases are small, no more then develops because if the virus is present again he has no time to become pathogenic.

When we did blood tests to my wife to see if she was immunized against certain diseases that must absolutely avoid getting pregnant, the tests verify the presence of the corresponding antibody.

In other words, whether true or not, medicine tells us that having the antibodies against a virus causing illness is a sign that is immunized against this disease.

But in the case of HIV / AIDS, it is the opposite, we are considered sick if it detects antibodies !! Because the virus is not found in the HIV-positive, even AIDS it must be remembered.

This is totally absurd because it means that the only solution with this particular virus is that it is important not the body develops antibodies !! How we do so if the virus is present someday?

If this is in total paradox, it is because the orthodox research assumes that this is the virus that causes AIDS, while strictly there is no proof, no study or scientific publication establishes the link.

The second biggest paradox being of course that this virus is invisible in patients who are said to be "infected", even in AIDS patients. If at some point it really becomes pathogenic and recurs, it should be found in patients, it is not.

[dedeleco]

Some do not listen or do not read, explanations of basic extension, otherwise they would cease to write errors, showing that they do not read !!

To read about bone marrow transplant, which destroys the immune system completely from the bone marrow (marrow refuge HIV who then disappeared) to replace him as totally by that of healthy donor !!! (When the transplant operation except bad luck saw the violence of this)

If you read Chermann JC, damn and damn, you'd know that even undetectable, HIV takes refuge elsewhere than in the blood, especially the immune system, which is found in the bone marrow !!

Evidence that HIV = AIDS more, because evidence from 80 years, repeatedly !!

Finally Janic and other stubborn of the noggin, did not understand that HIV hides and hides like a burglar, putting a gendarme or police uniform, not to be spotted, with his host proteins which protects the immune system, to be undetected, explained by JC Chermann and many others.

Read carefully the book of the man who was the scientific director of the Nobel Prize, as he taught them all, what looked like retroviruses, 10 years before!!

JC Chermann : 45 60 pages and also to the 100 page, so scientifically proven that they persuaded their US competitor with Gallo, very stubborn too, that was wrong with the wrong virus !!
http://www.amazon.fr/Tout-monde-connait ... 2234063752
Everyone should know this story
that stubborn, obstinate in your denial, you refuse to 20 years late !!!!

[Janic]

nlc

But in the case of HIV / AIDS, it is the opposite, we are considered sick if it detects antibodies !! Because the virus is not found in HIV, even AIDS it must be remembered.

just what would be an implicit recognition that the antibodies are the signs of infection and therefore not resorbed awaiting réactivitée and therefore ficherait ground all New Pasteur theories. As to the antibodies detected are those of a HIV is another aspect. But it is true that that puts scientists before a difficult choice!

[nlc]

nlc

But in the case of HIV / AIDS, it is the opposite, we are considered sick if it detects antibodies !! Because the virus is not found in HIV, even AIDS it must be remembered.

just what would be an implicit recognition that the antibodies are the signs of infection and therefore not resorbed awaiting réactivitée and therefore ficherait ground all New Pasteur theories. As to the antibodies detected are those of a HIV is another aspect. But it is true that that puts scientists before a difficult choice!

For the tough choice for me it is seen, the good assumption is that past infection the antibodies remain. My wife had the good antibodies against rubella, thus no risk (or extremely low risk) to catch it by being pregnant, being immunized. If the antibodies had evidence of infection still ongoing, we could say that is infected with any diseases we met suddenly !!

In addition, antibodies are passed from mother to child, to protect it during the month 1er the time it is its own immune defenses.

So if antibodies is that the control body the virus that can not become pathogenic.

Dedeleco: answer questions, you dodged again.

[dedeleco]

JC Chermann and many others after, found the virus HIV AIDS, and solved the "Cornelian choice" by proving that it is the cause of AIDS, against Gallo who had found before another virus which was not the good, mixed with HIV !!!

Instead of holding forth,
Read carefully the book of the man who was the scientific director of the Nobel Prize, as he taught them all, what looked like retroviruses, 10 years before!!

JC Chermann : 45 60 pages and also to the 100 page, so scientifically proven that they persuaded their US competitor with Gallo, very stubborn too, that was wrong with the wrong virus !!
http://www.amazon.fr/Tout-monde-connait ... 2234063752
Everyone should know this story
that stubborn, obstinate in your denial, you refuse to 20 years late !!!!