Re: overview.htm (fwd)

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:

> > > > [For the record, I have serious doubts whether the HIV virus causes AIDS.

> > > Both homosexual males and IV drug users are well known to take a lot
> > > of antobiotics, which lowers the efficacy of the immune system enough
> > > to allow most anything to happen, ultimately leading to auto-immune
> > > problems.

> Jim and Dale, I agree.
> Also shooting one's bloodstream full of fecal matter hardly helps.

My point about the antibiotics is that the male gays take a dis-
proportionate amount of them, which compounds their problems.  It
suggests to me that the immune system is already seriously debilitated
or damaged before AIDS can take hold, rather than the notion that a
healthy person can get it from the virii alone.

One could argue that in the cases where the cures (antibiotics) add to
a person's problems by further corrupting their immune system, that
they should simply change their habits.  Since I don't see that as a
reasonable possibility, the only thing left is that the public should
be made aware of *all* of the relevant facts, even those which are
heavily suppressed now for PC reasons.

Dale Thorn wrote:
> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> 
> > > > Both homosexual males and IV drug users are well known to take a lot
> > > > of antobiotics, which lowers the efficacy of the immune system enough
> > > > to allow most anything to happen, ultimately leading to auto-immune
> > > > problems.
> 
> > Jim and Dale, I agree.
> > Also shooting one's bloodstream full of fecal matter hardly helps.
> 
> My point about the antibiotics is that the male gays take a dis-
> proportionate amount of them, which compounds their problems.  It
> suggests to me that the immune system is already seriously debilitated
> or damaged before AIDS can take hold, rather than the notion that a
> healthy person can get it from the virii alone.
> 
> One could argue that in the cases where the cures (antibiotics) add to
> a person's problems by further corrupting their immune system, that
> they should simply change their habits.  Since I don't see that as a
> reasonable possibility, the only thing left is that the public should
> be made aware of *all* of the relevant facts, even those which are
> heavily suppressed now for PC reasons.

Why do they take antibiotics? Just curious.

Also, I haven't heard that antibiotics were bad for immune system, 
has that been proven?

	- Igor.

Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> 
> Dale Thorn wrote:
> > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> > 
> > > > > Both homosexual males and IV drug users are well known to take a lot
> > > > > of antobiotics, which lowers the efficacy of the immune system enough
> > > > > to allow most anything to happen, ultimately leading to auto-immune
> > > > > problems.
> > 
> > > Jim and Dale, I agree.
> > > Also shooting one's bloodstream full of fecal matter hardly helps.
> > 
> > My point about the antibiotics is that the male gays take a dis-
> > proportionate amount of them, which compounds their problems.  It
> > suggests to me that the immune system is already seriously debilitated
> > or damaged before AIDS can take hold, rather than the notion that a
> > healthy person can get it from the virii alone.

Dale's hypothesis seems at odds with the linkage of aids and blood 
transfusion and transmission through needles.

Nurses who contract aids through contaminated needles do not,
normally, have devastated immune systems.

	- Igor.

Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > Dale Thorn wrote:

> > > My point about the antibiotics is that the male gays take a dis-
> > > proportionate amount of them, which compounds their problems.  It
> > > suggests to me that the immune system is already seriously debilitated
> > > or damaged before AIDS can take hold, rather than the notion that a
> > > healthy person can get it from the virii alone.

> Dale's hypothesis seems at odds with the linkage of aids and blood
> transfusion and transmission through needles.
> Nurses who contract aids through contaminated needles do not,
> normally, have devastated immune systems.

Let's be realistic about how AIDS is acquired.  A small analogy:

In my pockets I carry two wallets, one with $100's and the other with
smaller change, about 50 bills in various small denominations.  Let's
say tomorrow I spend a $10 bill at the bookstore, and the guy behind
the counter says "this is a phony bill".  So where did I get it?
Well, if pocket change were always LIFO (last in, first out), I might
be able to remember, but there's a good chance I wouldn't, since I go
to a lot of places and do a lot of small transactions.

Now I'm only talking 50 or so small bills, acquired and redistributed
over a period of at most a few months.  AIDS, OTOH, is likely to be
a development from years of  1) Contact with germs, chemicals, food
additives, antibiotics other medical treatments, sexual contact, etc.
and 2) Immune-suppressing activities such as lack of sleep and exercise,
anxiety and stress, and so on.

It seems to me that "proof" of someone acquiring AIDS from one stab
with a contaminated needle is a very nebulous thing. As far as nurses
go, the contact I've had with many of them tells me they are also
(on average) drug users extraordinaire.  Again, you'll be able to
find a very clean hospital in a big city with a bunch of nice clean
nurses in it (a lot of sweet old ladies is the image coming to mind),
but this is as unrealistic as Leave It To Beaver and other 1950's
nonsense.

Dale Thorn wrote:
> Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> 
> > Dale's hypothesis seems at odds with the linkage of aids and blood
> > transfusion and transmission through needles.
> > Nurses who contract aids through contaminated needles do not,
> > normally, have devastated immune systems.

> It seems to me that "proof" of someone acquiring AIDS from one stab
> with a contaminated needle is a very nebulous thing. As far as nurses
> go, the contact I've had with many of them tells me they are also
> (on average) drug users extraordinaire. 

  Nurses have free access to all types of antibiotics and high-inducing
drugs, and a good many of them are regular users of both.
  Hospitals are notoriously bad places for healthy people to go, as many
go in with little diseases and come out with big diseases (for which
they are often re-hospitalized).
  Also, outward appearances rarely have a whole lot to do with
indications
of a superior auto-immune system. Plants have been bred to 'look pretty'
for the consumer, so we now have unblemished food stuffs which require
huge applications of poisonous chemicals in order to survive, because
they have lost their natural ability to defend themselves against even
ordinary plant pests and diseases.

Toto

Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> Dale Thorn wrote:
> > > > > Both homosexual males and IV drug users are well known to take a lot
> > > > > of antobiotics, which lowers the efficacy of the immune system enough
> > > > > to allow most anything to happen, ultimately leading to auto-immune
> > > > > problems.

> > > Jim and Dale, I agree.
> > > Also shooting one's bloodstream full of fecal matter hardly helps.

> > My point about the antibiotics is that the male gays take a dis-
> > proportionate amount of them, which compounds their problems.  It
> > suggests to me that the immune system is already seriously debilitated
> > or damaged before AIDS can take hold, rather than the notion that a
> > healthy person can get it from the virii alone.
> > One could argue that in the cases where the cures (antibiotics) add to
> > a person's problems by further corrupting their immune system, that
> > they should simply change their habits.  Since I don't see that as a
> > reasonable possibility, the only thing left is that the public should
> > be made aware of *all* of the relevant facts, even those which are
> > heavily suppressed now for PC reasons.

> Why do they take antibiotics?  Just curious.

I'm not precisely sure, but remember, I'm not saying that your typical
suburban, well-to-do, successful gay male falls into this category.

There are, OTOH, a lot of people in the city who have lifestyles which
are not represented accurately in the prime-time sitcoms, and the ones
who fall into the greatest health-risk category are IV drug users and
gay males (in the city, remember - i.e., Santa Monica boulevard).

Remember too those ads for male sexual lubricants - you cannot use
a condom with those lubricants.  Safe sex, I don't think so.

> Also, I haven't heard that antibiotics were bad for immune system,
> has that been proven?

You're kidding, yes?  Anything besides good food, exercise, sleep etc.
is bad for the immune system.  Antibiotics (usually "dead" germs of
some sort) are horrendous things to inject directly into your system.

In October 1959, after lapsing into a coma from a massive sinus
infection, I was given "a million units of penicillin" in the
children's hospital when first admitted.  I recovered OK after
two weeks, so I'm certainly not opposed to antibiotics for those
who really need them.  OTOH, our U.S. economy today is antibiotic-
and-hormone crazy, injecting cows, pigs, and chickens to name a few
animals, all in the hopes of raising production.  So why is the rate
of cancer going up so high?  It seems nearly everyone I know is
getting this degenerate disease when they get older.  Check out the
videos by Howard Lyman, who used to be a big-time "chemical" farmer.
One quote:  "My soil after a few years was like asbestos".

Dale Thorn wrote:
> Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > > One could argue that in the cases where the cures (antibiotics) add to
> > > a person's problems by further corrupting their immune system, that
> > > they should simply change their habits.  Since I don't see that as a
> > > reasonable possibility, the only thing left is that the public should
> > > be made aware of *all* of the relevant facts, even those which are
> > > heavily suppressed now for PC reasons.
> 
> > Why do they take antibiotics?  Just curious.
> 
> I'm not precisely sure, but remember, I'm not saying that your typical
> suburban, well-to-do, successful gay male falls into this category.
> 
> There are, OTOH, a lot of people in the city who have lifestyles which
> are not represented accurately in the prime-time sitcoms, and the ones
> who fall into the greatest health-risk category are IV drug users and
> gay males (in the city, remember - i.e., Santa Monica boulevard).
> 
> Remember too those ads for male sexual lubricants - you cannot use
> a condom with those lubricants.  Safe sex, I don't think so.

That does not come close to a theory that would explain HIV away.

> > Also, I haven't heard that antibiotics were bad for immune system,
> > has that been proven?
> 
> You're kidding, yes?  Anything besides good food, exercise, sleep etc.
> is bad for the immune system.  Antibiotics (usually "dead" germs of
> some sort) are horrendous things to inject directly into your system.

This may very well be true. I try to never use antibiotics,
because I had allergy when I was a child and I also do not
like taking any medications.

There needs to be something more convincing than these generic
statements, if you want to create some plausible theory.

> In October 1959, after lapsing into a coma from a massive sinus
> infection, I was given "a million units of penicillin" in the
> children's hospital when first admitted.  I recovered OK after
> two weeks, so I'm certainly not opposed to antibiotics for those
> who really need them.  OTOH, our U.S. economy today is antibiotic-
> and-hormone crazy, injecting cows, pigs, and chickens to name a few
> animals, all in the hopes of raising production.  So why is the rate
> of cancer going up so high?  It seems nearly everyone I know is
> getting this degenerate disease when they get older.  Check out the
> videos by Howard Lyman, who used to be a big-time "chemical" farmer.
> One quote:  "My soil after a few years was like asbestos".

As far as I understand, 1) no one really understands why cancer rates
are up so much and 2) since people live longer, they are more likely do
have cancer.

What you said is one of the hypotheses. I personally feel that
environment and bad greasy food are other major contributors.
The way they cook all these fries, with overheated grease, is very
bad.

	- Igor.

Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> Dale Thorn wrote:
> > Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

> > Remember too those ads for male sexual lubricants - you cannot use
> > a condom with those lubricants.  Safe sex, I don't think so.

> That does not come close to a theory that would explain HIV away.

The virus I believe is best explained by the numerous articles that
were published in the 1970's on "gene splicing", and the fact that we
now have two certified (official) government requests on paper that
call for the development of an agent precisely like HIV, which were
in fact funded.  One was requested in 1979 (I think) by someone
representing the Ft. Detrick folks ($10 million), and the other
request was formally made by the World Health Organization.  Why
would the WHO want to develop a nasty bug like HIV?  Use your
imagination.  Does the virus actually cause the immune collapse?
That's still controversial, from what I hear.  Try to find some of
the material by Jakob Segal, who is heavily suppressed in the USA.

Also check out Jon Rappaport (who also did some excellent on-the-spot
interviews in OKC after the bombing), also Dr. Robert Strecker, whose
brother was murdered trying to investigate the political threads of
the origins of AIDS/HIV.

> > In October 1959, after lapsing into a coma from a massive sinus
> > infection, I was given "a million units of penicillin" in the
> > children's hospital when first admitted.  I recovered OK after
> > two weeks, so I'm certainly not opposed to antibiotics for those
> > who really need them.  OTOH, our U.S. economy today is antibiotic-
> > and-hormone crazy, injecting cows, pigs, and chickens to name a few
> > animals, all in the hopes of raising production.  So why is the rate
> > of cancer going up so high?  It seems nearly everyone I know is
> > getting this degenerate disease when they get older.  Check out the
> > videos by Howard Lyman, who used to be a big-time "chemical" farmer.
> > One quote:  "My soil after a few years was like asbestos".
> 
> As far as I understand, 1) no one really understands why cancer rates
> are up so much and 2) since people live longer, they are more likely do
> have cancer.

True if all other things are equal.  Try subtracting out some of the
cancer factors, and perhaps they'd die of something else.

> What you said is one of the hypotheses. I personally feel that
> environment and bad greasy food are other major contributors. The
> way they cook all these fries, with overheated grease, is very bad.

Try an interesting experiment. Get an ordinary hamburger at McDonald's.
Take the "meat" out of the bun and break it in half, then hold the
broken edge up to your nose.  It helps to have good sense of smell,
but you'll probably get the picture anyway.

Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> Dale Thorn wrote:
> > My point about the antibiotics is that the male gays take a dis-
> > proportionate amount of them, which compounds their problems. 

> Why do they take antibiotics? Just curious.

  Both male homosexuals and IV drug-users have always suffered from
an inordinate amount of infections, etc., because they are engaging
in physical behavior that Mother Nature had not anticipated, since
the behavior fulfills more of a psychological need than a physical
one.
  Perhaps Mother Nature is homophobic and anti-drug, but, at any 
rate, she did not design the butt-hole to allow virus-free insertion
of outside objects, nor blood-veins to be pierced regularly in
order to insert condensed chemical combinations.
  As a result, those who engage in these behaviors have always had
to deal with the physical effects which result from Nature's 'error'.
IV drug users have always had high incidences of jaundice, etc., 
while male homosexuals have had to contend with various forms of
venereal disease, etc.  In both cases, they end up in a continuing
cycle of antibiotic use.

> Also, I haven't heard that antibiotics were bad for immune system,
> has that been proven?

  There has been great concern raised among those in the medical 
profession regarding the end-effects of their wholesale prescribing
of anitbiotics for colds, aches and pains, etc., leading to the 
development of new strains of virus which are immune to the older
antibiotics. This leads to development of stronger (misused)
antibiotics, which then leads to stronger strains of virus.
  There have been a number of studies which point to the fact that
the human immune system is now caught in a battle between increasingly
potent virus and antibiotics and is losing its capacity to fight
its 'natural' enemies.

  Humans tend to base their 'judgements' on psychological critera.
Thus someone who puts a quart of scotch in their system every day
can turn around and call someone who is putting outside objects 
into their butt-hole a 'pervert' who is doing 'unnatural' things
to their body.
  Personally, I prefer to kill two birds with one stone, so I put
a quart of scotch up my butt-hole every day.

Toto
 
>         - Igor.