Questioning The Validity of HIV & AIDS (continues)

»
S
I
D
E
B
A
R
«

May 19th, 2009 by Troy

Reading time: 6 -- 10 minutes

WARNING: this is a deeply serious blog entry that explores a very sensitive subject for many people, and it poses questions and commentary that may go against everything you have taken for granted as being true about HIV and AIDS.

It is now the 21st Century and it has become a fairly common and unquestioned reality that HIV exists and AIDS is/was an epidemic that threatens everyone on a level few famous diseases ever have. Rather than rehashing the questions and controversies that continue to grow within the medical and scientific community, I urge you to read my original posts (here and here) that helps to delineate the shocking realities and questions about HIV/AIDS that most people do not even realize are in need of being explored. Please keep in mind that I wrote those articles before I was diagnosed, so my continued questioning is not out of some kind of denial, but out of a serious wish for solid answers… which have not been found, yet.

I’ve been questioning this “epidemic” for many years and have yet to find anyone to intelligently respond to the serious questions posed by the dissenters throughout the medical and scientific communities. I’ve watched this controversy unfold over the years to the point where HIV was actually on trial for the first time ever in an Australian suit against a man charged with murder for having sex with people knowing he was diagnosed as HIV Positive. The defense posed that in any other conviction of murder, a weapon had to be proven to have been used, asking the prosecution to find proof that HIV exists, and show evidence that it is, indeed, contagious. This trial raged for a while, but throughout the entire trial, no evidence was able to be presented to support HIV as being contagious or even existing, so the Judge threw the case out because he did not want to be associated with the questioning of the validity of HIV/AIDS. The fact that neither contagion nor HIV could be proven in a court of law is extraordinary! Any other known contagion or virus can easily show evidence of its properties and existence!

I had already been noticing the passionate investment in the reality of AIDS and HIV to the point of its being a topic that was off limits for questioning, but now that I am on the “inside,” having had my own diagnosis of AIDS in 2007 during my descent into Pneumonia and a coma, I have had a first-row seat in this terrifying show of zealotry. No doctor is willing to answer my questions. No doctor CAN answer my questions. And some are outright hostile and condescending in the face of my questions. Yet I shyly and desperately beg for one… just ONE doctor to have an intelligent conversation with me about the lack of science behind AIDS as an epidemic, and the lack of evidence that HIV exists as a contagion. I’ve never had to deal with so many doctors in my entire life and it has only become clear to me over these past couple of years that doctors are merely priests at the bottom of a pharmaceutical chain of command that acts as the unquestionable voice of God.

Medicine is truly the new religion. Blind Faith and Unquestioning receipt of treatment and drugs is expected of us, or the threat of death or humiliation is at hand. Believe me, I know.

Although I am supposed to have the choice as to whether to take HIV drug treatment, and I am supposed to have a right to educate myself about the consequences of such treatments, I have never felt such a lack of choice and such an imposition of fear in my entire life. I would sit and cry in desperation for a doctor to explain to me exactly what I was getting into and the response was callous and condescending, saying to me nothing more informative than, “if you want to live, you will take the drugs.” In fact, my doctor tossed a map of all of the HIV drugs in front of me and said, “which ones do you want?” I shook my head in shock and disbelief, saying back to her, “Asking me to choose and combine from this is like asking me which cliff I want to jump off of! I don’t want to jump off the cliff in the first place, yet you are asking me to choose from where to jump?” Begrudgingly, she picked out my “cocktail” for me and I have been taking them DAILY… for almost two years now. Because I am scared. Until someone will answer the questions posed by dissenters, I am left only with the solid push of fear that I have to take the drugs… or die. And no one can tell me that someone is not making money off of me. My monthly drug bill is over $2000. Monthly. That’s more than my New York City RENT!

So on top of all of the controversy that already plagued (pun intended) the HIV/AIDS Hypotheses (yes, “hypotheses,” as none of the claims have even reached the level of evidence to be called a Theory,) it has now come out that the original documents from Gallo, the American Virologist who claimed credit for discovering HIV and connecting it to AIDS, was in fact a fraudulent claim motivated by monetary gain and competition. Questions as to the motivation of those pushing the AIDS/HIV news came about shortly after the original announcement when it was discovered that the very same “virus” that was announced by Gallo as being the cause of AIDS had already been discovered by Luc Montagnier in France.

Fast-forward 25 years and we now have access to the original documents written by Popovic that were supposed to have been published in place of what ended up being published by Gallo! Gallo received the documents only 9 days before the planned announcement of the HIV/AIDS findings, which was planned even before the experiments that were even done!! These are extraordinary documents and clearly show the intention for fraud by Gallo and those seeking to begin the perpetuation of one of the most profitable diseases of all time.

For your convenience, here are the links to the original documents and the original article commenting on the discovery of these documents. I urge you to read them when you have a chance because this is some serious shit that could lead to a world without AIDS… because it never existed.

Before I share the interviews below, I’d like you to see this trailer for a new documentary that pulls everything together from my previous blog posts linked earlier, and goes straight to the source to explore these controversies:

The video below is an example of the reaction from those in the medical community in regards to the asking for evidence for HIV, AIDS, the tests, and the supposed number of lives being saved by the drugs.

I was so excited to see that this was an interview with the men responsible for the creation/discovery of HIV/AIDS and it was being conducted by someone who would ask the hard questions! All I want is for them to ANSWER. I don’t care who is right or wrong… I just want intelligent answers.

Instead, this is what you get…

Below is part of the interview with Peter Deusberg, one of the more notorious dissenters because he is world-renowned for his being the first to isolate the cancer gene through his work on retroviruses, continuing on to map the genetic sequences of those viruses. He is a Nobel-Prize winner and a Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology, and was hailed by Gallo as being the person who knows more about retroviruses than any other man alive. Of course, that moniker was thrown out when it didn’t suit Gallo’s claims that go against all scientific substance. When the full interview is up, I will post it.

Keep questioning… Always question.

31 Responses

Matthew writes:
May 19th, 2009 at 1:18 pm

Last I checked, the total amount of people dying in Canada that was attributed to AIDS was about 30 each year.

30 out of a population of 30 million is miniscule. The rates across Europe are the same. It’s totally out of proportion with the energy and funding sent in various ways to AIDS.

A question, though: If you believe this, why are you taking those drugs? Or if they’re pushing them at you so hard, why aren’t you throwing them down the toilet when you get home?

Reply
- Troy writes:
  May 19th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
  
  @Matthew, for the reason I already stated in my post: I’m Scared. It’s that simple. If you were near death and had your family and friends surrounding your bed to say goodbye and then took two years to recover, all the while having doctor after doctor tell you that the only way you will STAY alive is to take the drugs… well, it’s no longer a safe political or scientific exploration: it’s your life. So I gave in. I made an agreement with myself that if I suffered any obvious side effects, I would quit, but I haven’t suffered any obvious ones. What might be happening inside me in the long term, I don’t know, and I am forced to trust my doctors telling me that I am better and healthy and strong, even though I often do just feel like shit… headaches, diarrhea, stomach aches, dizziness, all of which are mild enough not to interfere with life, but may or may not be side-effects of the drugs. Doctors claim those are symptoms of HIV… I just don’t know. If I were not in the middle of this with my life at risk, I would probably feel more comfortable taking a solid position, but I don’t have that luxury.
  
  Reply
- John Barrow writes:
  June 21st, 2009 at 2:23 pm
  
  The number you cite is absurd. Please give a reference. “Last I heard” is useful only from someone in the nation’s health department.
  
  Reply
Teri Rasmus writes:
May 19th, 2009 at 1:43 pm

You say you were diagnosed during your pneumonia recovery, did you question if that could have been a contributing factor to the positive test? (the pneumonia) I do know “HIV” starts as a simple virus that carries it’s genetic material in RNA rather than DNA. It infects the T-4 lymphocytes which are critical to the body’s immune system-hence when you had pneumonia your immune system was very compromised. When HIV establishes itself in the body the number of CD4 lymphocytes begin to decline. If the number fall below 300, a person is more at risk for an oppurtunistic infection, which would compromise your immune sytem even more (my opinion) If it fall below 200 a person is said to have aids. If these tests are going by immune system health then a person who has had pneumonia, gastrointestinal problems, Kaposi’s sarcoma, chronic illnesses would then naturally have lower counts. I know in my textbooks the description for diagnosis is ELISA, then Western Blot, other tests..complete medical history-ie:risk factors. So if a gay person, IV drug user etc. goes to a Dr it seems like a preconceived notion that they are already catagorized as “Must have HIV or AIDS”. In my opinion, any person who has an illness that affects the immune system would then be considered to have “HIV”, correct? In that case any person with cancer, emphysema etc would fail the test and be in the “HIV” positive result range.
Troy no need to comment back just working through this in my head. You have very valid points! As for the profit factor, yes I do agree with that. People think I’m crazy because I DON’T donate to all these cancer things. My personal opinion is there is already a cure for cancer. But look at the big picture–Dr’s, hospitals,pharmacuetical companies, researchers….that’s a lot of freakin money being made.
Hugs,
Teri

Reply
- Troy writes:
  May 19th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
  
  @Teri, you are absolutely right… if I were not gay, I might not have received this conclusive diagnosis. It is the strangest thing in the world to me that a diagnosis decision can be determined by lifestyle and sexuality! Any other virus either exists, or it doesn’t! Since my diagnosis, I have become friends with several who suffered from pneumonia and suffered extreme collapses of the immune system, but because they are straight, there is no diagnosis of HIV, even though we experienced the same, exact symptoms and disease.
  
  By the way, my CD4 count was down to Zero at the time of my Pneumonia, and by the time I got back to the U.S. and was set up with local doctors, it was up in the 100’s, and then we waited until it was in the 200’s nearing 300 before getting me on medicine. Once on medicine, my count moved at a slower pace and has gone only as high as about 600, I think. I’m right at the bottom of what’s considered normal now. The odd thing is that they attribute this great increase in my CD4 count to the medicine, completely ignoring the fact that OFF the meds, I was already zooming back to 300 BEFORE I took meds, and then it took nearly a year to rise another 300.
  
  It’s like religion! They take what’s convenient for supporting some unfounded, imposed claim and throw out all of the evidence that actually contradicts them.
  
  Unbelievable.
  
  Reply
  - Matthew writes:
    May 19th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
    
    Since you wrote about it years ago I did read up a lot on the dissidents view. Essentially, the effectiveness of the drugs are not known because there has never been a valid trial against a placebo. The original study of AZT had so many defects they decided it was invalid, but everything since has been against former medication, because it’s “unethical” to not give someone medicine if there’s a recognized treatment. Never mind that it was never scientifically recognized.
    
    So I don’t know what the drugs are doing to you, but you’re right, it is a religion. Doctors are also like that because it’s sort of known that if you question the regime, you’ll be ostracized. When AIDS is questioned, you lose your job in many cases.
    
    Reply
    - Troy writes:
      May 20th, 2009 at 12:35 am
      
      @Matthew, the interview above, if you get a chance to listened to it, has a surprising exclamation by Gallo when he says with condescension that all of the current drugs still have forms of AZT throughout! I had no idea! Everyone told me they stopped using it, but apparently, if you change the name, it’s not the same drug. These people are beyond ethics.
      
      Reply
      - John Barrow writes:
        June 21st, 2009 at 2:41 pm
        
        AZT is a chemical. While it is present in some combination pills, like “Atripla,” which clearly states this fact on the label, it is not present in single agent drugs, unless labelled as AZT. That would be against the law.
        
        Reply
        
        Troy writes:
        June 21st, 2009 at 2:44 pm
        
        Gallo, himself, says in the interview that AZT is still the primary form of treatment, but by a different name now.
        
        Reply
    - John Barrow writes:
      June 21st, 2009 at 2:32 pm
      
      This is just plain wrong. AZT was tested as monotherapy in MULTIPLE trials. Even as monotherapy, which has not been done for 15 years, AZT clearly improves parameters of immune function. It does not prolong (or shorten) life as monotherapy, but in general improves quality of life.
      
      At this point, with drugs that are so excellent at restoring health and adding years of life, it would be unethical to test any new drug against placebo. It would be like testing parachutes against no parachute. New drugs and combinations are tested with established combinations. To do otherwise would merit a Nuremburg trial.
      
      Reply
  - John Barrow writes:
    June 21st, 2009 at 2:24 pm
    
    The diagnosis of HIV infection is made on the basis of a test for antibodies to the Human Immunodeficiency virus or tests for the presence of the virus itself.
    
    It is not based on lifestyle, behavior, or hair color preference.
    
    Reply
    - Troy writes:
      June 21st, 2009 at 2:48 pm
      
      There are so many factors that contribute to false-positives, including the fact that every test is subject to human interpretation with no consistent standards. Lifestyle is entirely considered in the interpretation. If that information is available, it is one of the primary considerations, as a matter of fact. HIV tests are an interpretative process that is subject to a number of inaccuracies. Besides all of that, it tests for antibodies because HIV, itself, has never been isolated to any extent that it can be tested for, so we have to test only for surrogates. Maybe if they could actually isolate the virus, we could test directly for it. For now, the same antibodies that are claimed to indicate HIV are the same antibodies that show up for any number of common illnesses.
      
      Reply
      - John Barrow writes:
        June 21st, 2009 at 2:54 pm
        
        Once again, you are 100% entirely, totally wrong.
        
        HIV tests are highly standardized. They “interpretation” is the same in every country on the planet. It is done based on some easily identified banding patterns. Nobody knows if the subject is gay, straight, black, or white, or a lesbian from Mars by looking at the test results.
        
        The tests are very accurate, repeatable, and generate clear, consistent results.
        
        Reply
        
        Troy writes:
        June 21st, 2009 at 10:30 pm
        
        @John, you are reacting the same way as a religious zealot reacts in that all you are saying is that we are stupid, absurd, wrong, and that there is no room for questioning… yet, there’s no tangible evidence or references. There is no need for name-calling, hostility, and insults. I have no idea why that seems to be the modus operandi from people who have found peace with their conclusions. When I feel I KNOW something and someone else is asking for clarity and information, I don’t insult them or call them ignorant and stupid for asking. I kindly direct them to sources where they can draw their own conclusions and I share what I know, but why so much hostility?
        
        And you kind of lost some credibility with me on this last reaction because it’s a common, well-known fact that is openly admitted and discussed within the scientific and medical industry, and INCLUDED as a disclaimer in the HIV TESTS themselves,that the tests have no standard, and that they cannot conclusively detect the presence of HIV. At present, not only is lifestyle and personal history taken into account if that information is available, but a person can be diagnosed as HIV Positive in one state or country and HIV Negative in another.
        
        Reply
- John Barrow writes:
  June 21st, 2009 at 2:42 pm
  
  Pneumonia does not cause false positive tests for HIV infection. Period.
  
  The people who write otherwise are liars or just plain ignorant.
  
  Reply
M writes:
June 20th, 2009 at 6:39 pm

Crap ! You better take ur pills, accept and get over it. It will save ur life.

Reply
- Troy writes:
  June 20th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
  
  M, why are you so convinced that that’s the case? I’d like to have that kind of conviction, myself, but so far, there’s no evidence to support that the pills have anything to do with anything other than some pretty horrific side-effects and death, itself. The evidence hoisted as proof of pills being responsible for survival of those diagnosed with HIV and AIDS is circumstantial, and considering how many people are surviving without medication, it just doesn’t seem to be a valid claim. Since more and more people are being diagnosed as HIV+ and since HIV has no substantial symptoms beyond the diagnosis process, it makes sense that more and more people are “surviving.” I just don’t know. I wish I could just blindly accept what TV tells me and then feel that all is in order, but I am too questioning and want to know the truth. Can you tell me how you know so conclusively? It would bring me a lot of peace to finally have answers with some scientific substance.
  
  Reply
  - John Barrow writes:
    June 21st, 2009 at 2:28 pm
    
    The evidence for the pills saving lives has been shown over and over and over again. It has been shown in men, women and children. It has been shown to be the same on all continents. It is the same where pharmaceuticals are sold at high profit, and where generic drugs are handed out at almost no cost.
    
    While the HAART drugs do have some side effects, each generation of drugs has been more tolerable than the preceding one.
    
    In addition, we now know that many things that were thought to be side effects of drugs are, in fact, lethal effects of the virus. People who stop treatment die at a signficantly higher rate than those who stay on treatment.
    
    Reply
    - Troy writes:
      June 21st, 2009 at 2:50 pm
      
      John, please reference your sources. I’m not saying you are wrong, but if you are correct, I’d love to see these sources. And I’d hope they are independent sources, and not from the CDC or WHO or the pharmaceutical companies. To use them as references for the success of drugs would be like using the Meat and Dairy Council as a reference for what’s best for our bodies. Look where that got us.
      
      Reply
      - John Barrow writes:
        June 21st, 2009 at 3:09 pm
        
        In July of 2003, “Nature” printed an edition entitled “20 years of HIV” with summaries of the science of virology, treatment, pathogenisis, etc.
        
        It covers all of the by now absurd, obnoxious, and harmful rantings of the self-named “denialist” movement.
        
        I would suggest you start there, but please, open your mind just for a second. The universe is far larger than the distance between the computer screen and your retinas.
        
        Reply
John Barrow writes:
June 21st, 2009 at 3:39 pm

http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/cohen/cohen.dtl

This is a very nice review from “Science.”

The case for HIV is somewhat better than the case for gravity. Still, there are those who doubt both.

Reply
John Barrow writes:
June 21st, 2009 at 3:54 pm

http://www.aegis.org/news/misc/2000/BG000201.html

This is a good one, too

Reply
John Barrow writes:
June 21st, 2009 at 4:01 pm

http://www.aegis.org/topics/mdelaney.html

This is another good summary.

The evidence is solid. HIV is the cause of AIDS.

To deny this at this point is not “brave,” “controversial,” or “daring.” It is merely obnoxious.

Reply
Troy writes:
June 21st, 2009 at 10:40 pm

@John, thank you for these… I will read them thoroughly and respond. I’m sorry you feel compelled to be such an angry asshole about all of this. I’m trying to find my own path to some conclusive answers and people like you make that sensitive process a lot more complicated and painful. I’m sorry you feel threatened by my questioning, or if you think that what you know should be immediately accepted without question, but some of us see this as more than just a matter of religious zeal and blind faith in medicine and drug companies. This is my life we are talking about, and for you to be so insensitive is part of the very reason I continue to question. When those who claim that HIV/AIDS should not be questioned, and the reprimanding for questioning is delivered with such hostility and insult, it makes me doubt even more. Because when the truth is the truth, there’s no need for such anger and insult. Facts stand as facts and all you would have to do is kindly and compassionately offer up your sources.

Reply
Troy writes:
June 21st, 2009 at 11:18 pm

@John, okay, I just read those articles and they are compelling, but they lead to the same place that I always find when following references supporting the mainstream hypothesis of HIV/AIDS. They all reference organizations and people who benefit entirely from the so-called “epidemic” (which by definition it never was), references to articles over 10 years old, and the worst is that they reference themselves, similar to the way Christians claim that the Bible is true because it says so, itself. I really want to see the independent research and scientific papers that support the claims.

The second article was heartbreaking and I feel for those peoples’ stories. I think in any situation where there is no solid information and no solid reference, there are going to be potential casualties from extremists on both sides. I’m not an extremist, and most dissenters I know are not extremists. They only want proof and answers, and not the typical responses of “because I told you so,” or the Martian Argument that says if you can’t prove it DOESN’T exist, then that’s proof that it DOES exist.

Along with the recent details about Gallo’s forging false documents for his press conference in his eagerness to take credit for the HIV discovery when the tests did not prove to support his theories, just makes it very difficult to roll over.

I’m on my meds; I take care of myself as best I can… but the questions remain unanswered. I mean, just the very simple fact that HIV has never been isolated and that no image has ever been able to be captured of the virus… Every other virus in existences that we claim is connected to the cause of a disease can be seen. The fact that HIV is so elusive that we can’t even test for it, let alone photograph it, leaves me very confused.

Reply
John Barrow writes:
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:51 am

I’m not being an angry asshole, I’m trying to stop people from thinking the denialist “stuff.”
I would ask you to look at one thing on “denialist” sites. They are always criticizing this or that trial, usually for entirely bogus reasons, but they focus on trying to discredit research done in thousands of clinical trials.
The clinical trials to prove the denialist claims would be simple, fast, and revealing. There has never been a single “research” study to validate these flimsy hypotheses……..
Meanwhile, it is safe to say that in South Africa alone, thousands of people died unnecessarily because the government swallowed this garbage.
Yes, in fact, that does make me angry…….

Reply
John Barrow writes:
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:11 am

Troy,
Those who tell you that the virus has “never been isolated,” and “never been captured in an image” are lying to you.
The virus has been isolated many, many times, and this is done routinely in research studies, especially in vaccine studies. Vaccine concepts have been engineered which are HIV virions with genetic deletions to make them not replication competent.
As for “seeing” them, they are seen by electron microscopy. Now, electron microscopy looks at things that are really, really small, and of course, you’re actually looking at the chemicals used to create images. …..just as you do for fingerprints, or many types of cells which are much, much larger, and not readily visible under the visible light spectrum.
Even if nobody had “seen” the virus itself, what would that mean? Nobody has ever seen an atom, yet the evidence for their existence is pretty convincing.
I don’t want to sound angry with you, personally. It’s true that most of the articles I sent are old……..because the science of this question was settled in the 80s and 90s……and the depth of knowledge has only grown more profound.
Meanwhile, the “denialists” are caught in some twilight zone…….they have not produced a new thought since Deusberg……..and that was more than 20 years ago.

Reply
- Troy writes:
  June 22nd, 2009 at 2:46 am
  
  First off, I appreciate your change of tone. I know this is a sensitive issue, which is why I posted the warning at the very beginning of the post. I was also clear in all three of my posts that I am seeking answers. I am not taking any stances. These are tough questions for me to ask while being diagnosed with a terminal illness. There is a need for sensitivity and patience from both sides. The questions and details posed across my three HIV/AIDS posts have yet to be answered for me beyond the pat responses of insults, hostility, and the all-too-familiar “because I said so” mentality. The use of the term “denialists” is also an insulting distraction from the valid scientific and medical “dissenters” whose positions have never been one of denial, but of pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies, and of asking for proof to support the hypotheses. Their position can be summed up more accurately as, “we aren’t saying that HIV doesn’t exist, we are just asking for substantial proof that it does exist.”
  
  If HIV=AIDS is valid, has been isolated, and can be so conclusively presented, then why wasn’t any of this able to be used for the Australian trial on HIV? The Defense for the man being accused of intentionally infecting a partner with HIV pointed out that in any other trial of assault, the alleged weapon had to be proven to exist and to have been used. All they asked was that HIV be proven conclusively to not only exist, but to be contagious. This was not able to be done. The trial was tossed out of court. Gallo’s own testimony undermined the claims that HIV=AIDS, etc.
  
  HIV on TRIAL Transcripts
  
  I just wonder how something like that can happen if the story is as solid as you say.
  
  * Page 1294 where Gallo agrees that he found evidence of HIV in only 40% of the AIDS patients in his original study, and that 40% is not enough to prove HIV is the cause of AIDS:
  
  Attorney to Gallo: “You had…48 out of 119, or 40%?”
  
  Gallo: “I agree”
  
  Attorney: “Do you agree that the isolation of HIV from only 40% of patients is not proof that HIV causes AIDS?”
  
  Gallo: “I would say of course, in and of itself, 40% isolation of a new virus, I would not say is the cause.”
  
  * Page 1300 where Gallo admits to finding low percentages of HIV positivity in people with AIDS symptoms:
  
  Attorney: “For…adults with KS, 30%; for adults…with AIDS opportunistic infections 47%. Do you accept your figures?”
  
  Gallo: “I accept the figures.”
  
  * Page 1317 where Gallo acknowledges finding no HIV in KS lesions or in T cells, and testimony on page 1318 in which Gallo admits that “viral load” tests cannot be used to prove infection with a virus.
  
  Reply
Irene writes:
July 15th, 2009 at 11:21 pm

I had not paid any attention to my blog – I finally read your comment and realized the last time I haunted your blog you had just gotten over being out of the hospital. I totally missed any single mention of your Status and when I read this post my eyes stung. My drama is so miniscule compared to this – and you really put it in perspective for me. I have so many questions like the Magic Johnson miraculous recovery and the average person and their dilemmas. There are so many discrepancies in medicine, treatment, for AIDS and other major diseases. We have to always remember that medicine is a PRACTICE. We are allowing people to practice on us. There are no rules, there is what is found so far… and when down the road the pseudo rule of medical practice is found to cause some side effect they practice another rule… Nothing is etched in stone and sometimes something can cause a very different reaction in different people. I understand your feeling on the medicine and I hope in my heart of hearts that one day the truth about HIV and AIDS is found, and there is a vaccine and cure for it.

I think I will be busy playing catch up here this weekend. You are in my thoughts, and my chant tonight will be about you.

Namaste
Irene
Irene chose to share this personal blog entry courtesy of CommentLuv ::: I Did, But I Sort of Didn’t Want to…

Reply
Nicholas writes:
January 18th, 2010 at 2:45 pm

Wow. I am coming to a clearer understanding of why it is so important to QUESTION and not take anything on blind-faith, just because someone else said so. I have a question for you, Troy. However, I understand if you don’t want to share in this format. Before you were diagnosed as being HIV+, would you say that your lifestyle was such that it could have suppressed your immune system functioning? Of course, SO MANY FACTORS contribute to lowering our immune functioning! Lack of good sleep, for example…

Thank you, Troy, for your courage in QUESTIONING publicly, so that people like me can learn and grow…

And thank you, too, John Barrows. The way you responded throughout this discussion helped me to see those parts of myself that will oftentimes respond out of fear and defense…

Reply
- Troy writes:
  January 18th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
  
  Hey Nicholas, thanks for your reply! You might find part of the Energy Report for August of 2007 of interest in response to your question here. When you get there, scroll down to just below the caps reading END OF REPORT and you’ll see a question that reads: “Can you discuss helpful ways to build the immune system and some holistic ways Troy can improve his health?” I can’t wait to get all of that TLE stuff archived in a more searchable database!
  
  Reply

Recent Comments