Health Supreme by Sepp Hasslberger

Networking For A Better Future - News and perspectives you may not find in the media

Networking For A Better Future - News and perspectives you may not find in the media

Health Supreme

News Blog

Site Map





Food for Thought


Human Potential






The Media

War Crimes


Articles Archive


See also:


Communication Agents:

INACTIVE  Ivan Ingrilli
  Chris Gupta
  Tom Atlee
INACTIVE  Emma Holister
  Rinaldo Lampis
  Steve Bosserman
  CA Journal


Robin Good's
Web sites:












The Individual - Human Ability:


Society - Politics:






May 03, 2006

Why I Quit HIV - Is AIDS Myth Falling Apart?

A Canadian mathematical biologist working as an Assistant Professor of Mathematics at University of Texas at Tyler, who has lived and breathed the theory of Aids and HIV infection for practically all of her professional life, has announced that she "quit HIV".

Click for larger image

Cartoon by Emma Holister

There are a number of reasons for Rebecca Culshaw's decision - none of them should be a surprise to regulars of this site. They include the non-specific and therefore unreliable nature of the 'HIV test' used to determine infection, the impossibility of modeling the consequences of HIV infection because of disagreements over how exactly the virus acts to kill immune cells, the fact that most deaths of Aids victims are not due to opportunistic infections but are the result of liver failure - a consequence of the drugs that are administered to those who test positive.

Applying statistical models to the data on HIV infection and Aids, Dr Culshaw came across inconsistencies that made it ever harder to understand the epidemic she was helping to overcome. But unlike many others who continue to work in this world of medicine gone very very wrong, Dr Culshaw quit. She explains why in this excellent article - certainly worth reading...

- - -

Why I Quit HIV

(original found on

by Rebecca V. Culshaw

As I write this, in the late winter of 2006, we are more than twenty years into the AIDS era. Like many, a large part of my life has been irreversibly affected by AIDS. My entire adolescence and adult life – as well as the lives of many of my peers – has been overshadowed by the belief in a deadly, sexually transmittable pathogen and the attendant fear of intimacy and lack of trust that belief engenders.

To add to this impact, my chosen career has developed around the HIV model of AIDS. I received my Ph.D. in 2002 for my work constructing mathematical models of HIV infection, a field of study I entered in 1996. Just ten years later, it might seem early for me to be looking back on and seriously reconsidering my chosen field, yet here I am.

My work as a mathematical biologist has been built in large part on the paradigm that HIV causes AIDS, and I have since come to realize that there is good evidence that the entire basis for this theory is wrong. AIDS, it seems, is not a disease so much as a sociopolitical construct that few people understand and even fewer question. The issue of causation, in particular, has become beyond question – even to bring it up is deemed irresponsible.

Why have we as a society been so quick to accept a theory for which so little solid evidence exists? Why do we take proclamations by government institutions like the NIH and the CDC, via newscasters and talk show hosts, entirely on faith? The average citizen has no idea how weak the connection really is between HIV and AIDS, and this is the manner in which scientifically insupportable phrases like "the AIDS virus" or "an AIDS test" have become part of the common vernacular despite no evidence for their accuracy.

When it was announced in 1984 that the cause of AIDS had been found in a retrovirus that came to be known as HIV, there was a palpable panic. My own family was immediately affected by this panic, since my mother had had several blood transfusions in the early 1980s as a result of three late miscarriages she had experienced. In the early days, we feared mosquito bites, kissing, and public toilet seats. I can still recall the panic I felt after looking up in a public restroom and seeing some graffiti that read "Do you have AIDS yet? If not, sit on this toilet seat."

But I was only ten years old then, and over time the panic subsided to more of a dull roar as it became clear that AIDS was not as easy to "catch" as we had initially believed. Fear of going to the bathroom or the dentist was replaced with a more realistic wariness of having sex with anyone we didn't know really, really well. As a teenager who was in no way promiscuous, I didn't have much to worry about.

That all changed – or so I thought – when I was twenty-one. Due to circumstances in my personal life and a bit of paranoia that (as it turned out, falsely and completely groundlessly) led me to believe I had somehow contracted "AIDS," I got an HIV test. I spent two weeks waiting for the results, convinced that I would soon die, and that it would be "all my fault." This was despite the fact that I was perfectly healthy, didn’t use drugs, and wasn’t promiscuous – low-risk by any definition. As it happened, the test was negative, and, having felt I had been granted a reprieve, I vowed not to take more risks, and to quit worrying so much.

Over the past ten years, my attitude toward HIV and AIDS has undergone a dramatic shift. This shift was catalyzed by the work I did as a graduate student, analyzing mathematical models of HIV and the immune system. As a mathematician, I found virtually every model I studied to be unrealistic. The biological assumptions on which the models were based varied from author to author, and this made no sense to me. It was around this time, too, that I became increasingly perplexed by the stories I heard about long-term survivors. From my admittedly inexpert viewpoint, the major thing they all had in common – other than HIV – was that they lived extremely healthy lifestyles. Part of me was becoming suspicious that being HIV-positive didn’t necessarily mean you would ever get AIDS.

By a rather curious twist of fate, it was on my way to a conference to present the results of a model of HIV that I had proposed together with my advisor, that I came across an article by Dr. David Rasnick about AIDS and the corruption of modern science. As I sat on the airplane reading this story, in which he said "the more I examined HIV, the less it made sense that this largely inactive, barely detectable virus could cause such devastation," everything he wrote started making sense to me in a way that the currently accepted model did not. I didn’t have anywhere near all the information, but my instincts told me that what he said seemed to fit.

Over the past ten years, I nevertheless continued my research into mathematical models of HIV infection, all the while keeping an ear open for dissenting voices. By now, I have read hundreds of articles on HIV and AIDS, many from the dissident point of view but far, far more from that of the establishment, which unequivocally promotes the idea that HIV causes AIDS and that the case is closed. In that time, I even published four papers on HIV (from a modeling perspective). I justified my contributions to a theory I wasn’t convinced of by telling myself these were purely theoretical, mathematical constructs, never to be applied in the real world. I suppose, in some sense also, I wanted to keep an open mind.

So why is it that only now have I decided that enough is enough, and I can no longer in any capacity continue to support the paradigm on which my entire career has been built?

As a mathematician, I was taught early on about the importance of clear definitions. AIDS, if you consider its definition, is far from clear, and is in fact not even a consistent entity. The classification "AIDS" was introduced in the early 1980s not as a disease but as a surveillance tool to help doctors and public health officials understand and control a strange "new" syndrome affecting mostly young gay men. In the two decades intervening, it has evolved into something quite different. AIDS today bears little or no resemblance to the syndrome for which it was named. For one thing, the definition has actually been changed by the CDC several times, continually expanding to include ever more diseases (all of which existed for decades prior to AIDS), and sometimes, no disease whatsoever. More than half of all AIDS diagnoses in the past several years in the United States have been made on the basis of a T-cell count and a "confirmed" positive antibody test – in other words, a deadly disease has been diagnosed over and over again on the basis of no clinical disease at all. And the leading cause of death in HIV-positives in the last few years has been liver failure, not an AIDS-defining disease in any way, but rather an acknowledged side effect of protease inhibitors, which asymptomatic individuals take in massive daily doses, for years.

The epidemiology of HIV and AIDS is puzzling and unclear as well. In spite of the fact that AIDS cases increased rapidly from their initial observation in the early 1980s and reached a peak in 1993 before declining rapidly, the number of HIV-positive individuals in the U.S. has remained constant at one million since the advent of widespread HIV antibody testing. This cannot be due to anti-HIV therapy, since the annual mortality rate of North American HIV-positives who are treated with anti-HIV drugs is much higher – between 6.7 and 8.8% – than would be the approximately 1–2% global mortality rate of HIV-positives if all AIDS cases were fatal in a given year.

Even more strangely, HIV has been present everywhere in the U.S., in every population tested including repeat blood donors and military recruits, at a virtually constant rate since testing began in 1985. It is deeply confusing that a virus thought to have been brought to the AIDS epicenters of New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles in the early 1970s could possibly have spread so rapidly at first, yet have stopped spreading completely as soon as testing began.

Returning for a moment to the mathematical modeling, one aspect that had always puzzled me was the lack of agreement on how to accurately represent the actual biological mechanism of immune impairment. AIDS is said to be caused by a dramatic loss of the immune system’s T-cells, said loss being presumably caused by HIV. Why then could no one agree on how to mathematically model the dynamics of the fundamental disease process – that is, how are T-cells actually killed by HIV? Early models assumed that HIV killed T-cells directly, by what is referred to as lysis. An infected cell lyses, or bursts, when the internal viral burden is so high that it can no longer be contained, just like your grocery bag breaks when it’s too full. This is in fact the accepted mechanism of pathogenesis for virtually all other viruses. But it became clear that HIV did not in fact kill T-cells in this manner, and this concept was abandoned, to be replaced by various other ones, each of which resulted in very different models and, therefore, different predictions. Which model was "correct" never was clear.

As it turns out, the reason there was no consensus mathematically as to how HIV killed T-cells was because there was no biological consensus. There still isn’t. HIV is possibly the most studied microbe in history – certainly it is the best-funded – yet there is still no agreed-upon mechanism of pathogenesis. Worse than that, there are no data to support the hypothesis that HIV kills T-cells at all. It doesn’t in the test tube. It mostly just sits there, as it does in people – if it can be found at all. In Robert Gallo's seminal 1984 paper in which he claims "proof" that HIV causes AIDS, actual HIV could be found in only 26 out of 72 AIDS patients. To date, actual HIV remains an elusive target in those with AIDS or simply HIV-positive.

This is starkly illustrated by the continued use of antibody tests to diagnose HIV infection. Antibody tests are fairly standard to test for certain microbes, but for anything other than HIV, the main reason they are used in place of direct tests (that is, actually looking for the bacteria or virus itself) is because they are generally much easier and cheaper than direct testing. Most importantly, such antibody tests have been rigorously verified against the gold standard of microbial isolation. This stands in vivid contrast to HIV, for which antibody tests are used because there exists no test for the actual virus. As to so-called "viral load," most people are not aware that tests for viral load are neither licensed nor recommended by the FDA to diagnose HIV infection. This is why an "AIDS test" is still an antibody test. Viral load, however, is used to estimate the health status of those already diagnosed HIV-positive. But there are very good reasons to believe it does not work at all. Viral load uses either PCR or a technique called branched-chained DNA amplification (bDNA). PCR is the same technique used for "DNA fingerprinting" at crime scenes where only trace amounts of materials can be found. PCR essentially mass-produces DNA or RNA so that it can be seen. If something has to be mass-produced to even be seen, and the result of that mass-production is used to estimate how much of a pathogen there is, it might lead a person to wonder how relevant the pathogen was in the first place. Specifically, how could something so hard to find, even using the most sensitive and sophisticated technology, completely decimate the immune system? bDNA, while not magnifying anything directly, nevertheless looks only for fragments of DNA believed, but not proven, to be components of the genome of HIV – but there is no evidence to say that these fragments don’t exist in other genetic sequences unrelated to HIV or to any virus. It is worth noting at this point that viral load, like antibody tests, has never been verified against the gold standard of HIV isolation. bDNA uses PCR as a gold standard, PCR uses antibody tests as a gold standard, and antibody tests use each other. None use HIV itself.

There is good reason to believe the antibody tests are flawed as well. The two types of tests routinely used are the ELISA and the Western Blot (WB). The current testing protocol is to "verify" a positive ELISA with the "more specific" WB (which has actually been banned from diagnostic use in the UK because it is so unreliable). But few people know that the criteria for a positive WB vary from country to country and even from lab to lab. Put bluntly, a person’s HIV status could well change depending on the testing venue. It is also possible to test "WB indeterminate," which translates to any one of "uninfected," "possibly infected," or even, absurdly, "partly infected" under the current interpretation. This conundrum is confounded by the fact that the proteins comprising the different reactive "bands" on the WB test are all claimed to be specific to HIV, raising the question of how a truly uninfected individual could possess antibodies to even one "HIV-specific" protein.

I have come to sincerely believe that these HIV tests do immeasurably more harm than good, due to their astounding lack of specificity and standardization. I can buy the idea that anonymous screening of the blood supply for some nonspecific marker of ill health (which, due to cross reactivity with many known pathogens, a positive HIV antibody test often seems to be) is useful. I cannot buy the idea that any individual needs to have a diagnostic HIV test. A negative test may not be accurate (whatever that means), but a positive one can create utter havoc and destruction in a person’s life – all for a virus that most likely does absolutely nothing. I do not feel it is going too far to say that these tests ought to be banned for diagnostic purposes.

The real victims in this mess are those whose lives are turned upside-down by the stigma of an HIV diagnosis. These people, most of whom are perfectly healthy, are encouraged to avoid intimacy and are further branded with the implication that they were somehow dreadfully foolish and careless. Worse, they are encouraged to take massive daily doses of some of the most toxic drugs ever manufactured. HIV, for many years, has fulfilled the role of a microscopic terrorist. People have lost their jobs, been denied entry into the Armed Forces, been refused residency in and even entry into some countries, even been charged with assault or murder for having consensual sex; babies have been taken from their mothers and had toxic medications forced down their throats. There is no precedent for this type of behavior, as it is all in the name of a completely unproven, fundamentally flawed hypothesis, on the basis of highly suspect, indirect tests for supposed infection with an allegedly deadly virus – a virus that has never been observed to do much of anything.

As to the question of what does cause AIDS, if it is not HIV, there are many plausible explanations given by people known to be experts. Before the discovery of HIV, AIDS was assumed to be a lifestyle syndrome caused mostly by indiscriminate use of recreational drugs. Immunosuppression has multiple causes, from an overload of microbes to malnutrition. Probably all of these are true causes of AIDS. Immune deficiency has many manifestations, and a syndrome with many manifestations is likely multicausal as well. Suffice it to say that the HIV hypothesis of AIDS has offered nothing but predictions – of its spread, of the availability of a vaccine, of a forthcoming animal model, and so on – that have not materialized, and it has not saved a single life.

After ten years involved in the academic side of HIV research, as well as in the academic world at large, I truly believe that the blame for the universal, unconditional, faith-based acceptance of such a flawed theory falls squarely on the shoulders of those among us who have actively endorsed a completely unproven hypothesis in the interests of furthering our careers. Of course, hypotheses in science deserve to be studied, but no hypothesis should be accepted as fact before it is proven, particularly one whose blind acceptance has such dire consequences.

For over twenty years, the general public has been greatly misled and ill-informed. As someone who has been raised by parents who taught me from a young age never to believe anything just because "everyone else accepts it to be true," I can no longer just sit by and do nothing, thereby contributing to this craziness. And the craziness has gone on long enough. As humans – as honest academics and scientists – the only thing we can do is allow the truth to come to light.

March 3, 2006

Rebecca V. Culshaw, Ph.D. [send her mail], is a mathematical biologist who has been working on mathematical models of HIV infection for the past ten years. She received her Ph.D. (mathematics with a specialization in mathematical biology) from Dalhousie University in Canada in 2002 and is currently employed as an Assistant Professor of Mathematics at a university in Texas.

See also:

Why I Quit HIV: The Aftermath
by Rebecca V. Culshaw
I want to start with an apology. I regret that I have not been able to individually answer every email I've received in the wake of my essay, "Why I Quit HIV," which recently appeared on Lew Rockwell. I am grateful for this forum, and I hope that I will be able to clear up some confusion people appear to have experienced. I'd also like to express my gratitude for the many, many positive and indeed inspirational letters I've received. Now I'd like to address some common questions I received...

Beyond the 'HIV-Causes-AIDS' Model
AIDS disease is generally characterised by a decline in CD4+ T lymphocytes circulating in the blood, which are responsible for cell-mediated immunity. As a result, the patient becomes susceptible to opportunistic infections (those affecting weakened immune systems) such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, meningitis, and other diseases caused by parasites, bacteria and viruses that can enter and multiply in the cells of the body.

But models that assume the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) plays a central role in disease progression run into considerable difficulties. If the decline in CD4+ cells is due to HIV killing the cells, then there should be a correlation between the 'viral load', which estimates the amount of virus in the body, and the CD4+ cell count. But that is not the case. CD4+ cell count is not a reliable indicator of disease progression at all, nor for that matter is viral load (Chapter 2, Unraveling AIDS, ISIS Report), and they bear little relationship to each another. This has been confirmed in a recent study on untreated HIV+ individuals.

See also:

There is no impersonal "scientific method" that automatically makes reliable whatever a researcher does. The "scientific method" consists of the interaction among scientists. Medicine is not science. It's related to science rather like engineering is related to science. It's concerned with what works, not why it does. Corollary: Medical doctors are trained to apply existing agreed-on knowledge, they are not taught to question it. Scientists are trained to question existing knowledge in order to contribute to correcting it and expanding it. Caveat: Some MDs do become first-rate researchers.

Nevertheless, it is worth noting that a high proportion of HIV/AIDS researchers are MDs–for example, the statistically illiterate ones mentioned in the "LIES" post. Among those who question whether HIV = AIDS there is a high proportion of research-trained PhDs.

Death Rush is John Lauritson's 64-page book published by Pagan Press in 1986. Its purpose was to warn gay men about the dangers of the nitrite inhalants or alkyl nitrites (amyl nitrite, butyl nitrite, isobutyl nitrite, etc). Although Death Rush: Poppers & AIDS has been out-of-print for many years now, the medical information is still valid. The toxicities of these drugs have not changed. The nitrite inhalants are still powerfully mutagenic; they still cause anemia; they are still immunosuppresive.


posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Wednesday May 3 2006
updated on Thursday November 25 2010

URL of this article:


Related Articles

HIV-Aids: A Tragic Error
Recently, a friend from the UK sent a copy of an article published in the Observer, titled: "UK firm tried HIV drug on orphans" which details experiments with toxic AIDS drugs on orphans in New York, involving the British drug giant GlaxoSmithKline. Reading the article I forwarded to some people, a medical doctor friend has the following to say: "I see nothing wrong with this. At least the children received... [read more]
April 12, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger

Glutathione Peroxidase - Selenium, Aminoacids Overcome AIDS
According to the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service "new clinical reports from Zambia, Uganda and South Africa indicate that AIDS may be stopped by nutritional supplementation. A number of members of the medical profession have observed that high doses of the trace element selenium, and of the amino acids cysteine, tryptophan, and glutamine can together rapidly reverse the symptoms of AIDS, as predicted by Dr. Harold D. Foster's nutritional hypothesis." Yet,... [read more]
April 26, 2006 - Sepp Hasslberger

Aids Test Unscientific: Test Kit Makers Sued in Kansas
The test kits used to determine "HIV positive" status in patients are deeply flawed - they were developed on the basis of faulty scientific methodology and assumptions and are without value in determining whether a person suffers from "HIV Aids", alleges Kim Marie Bannon in a civil suit filed under the Consumer Protection Act of the State of Kansas, US. The legal action against the makers of Aids test kits... [read more]
April 27, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger

AZT, Nevirapine: Do Anti-Retroviral Drugs Cause AIDS?
Nevirapine has been in the news recently over a study in Africa, where researchers apparently "forgot" to report numerous serious side effects and even several deaths. The study was to prove efficacy in reducing HIV transmission from pregnant mothers to their newborns, but researchers also "forgot" to include a control group of mothers that did not receive the drug. Grave oversights? Apparently the US health authorities thought so, because the... [read more]
February 10, 2005 - Sepp Hasslberger

Avian Flu - A Selenium Deficiency Disease
Image credit: Fons Reijsbergen The way we raise chickens in factory farms has been named as the cause for the spread of avian flu or 'bird flu'. Wendy Orent, the author of "Plague: The Mysterious Past and Terrifying Future of the World's Most Dangerous Disease" writes in an editorial titled "Blame Big Chicken" in PittsburghLive: According to University of Ottawa flu virologist Earl Brown, lethal bird flu is entirely... [read more]
March 26, 2006 - Sepp Hasslberger

AIDS Experiments on Children in New York's Incarnation Center 'A Human Tragedy'
Liam Scheff is the author of a series of articles exposing the Incarnation Children's Center's cruel experimentation on children - often orphans - who are subjected to excruciating multiple drug "treatments" for having tested positive in so-called HIV/AIDS tests. Liam's original expose' "The House That AIDS Built" is here. Liam Scheff is one of the very few courageous reporters who will not shut up to appease. His latest article: Orphans... [read more]
July 15, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger




Readers' Comments

There are only a handful of scientists who remain adamant and faithful to the idea of a virus that targets the immune system or more specifically the T4 cells of the immune system. That idea is based on Dr Gallo's paper that merely "suggests that HTLV-III may be the primary cause of AIDS".

It was a suggestion that perhaps a virus may be the primary cause and there was never any proof of such a specific cause in scientific literature but the media hijacked that mere suggestion and created a scare that registered in the minds of the public that a specific virus is actually causing AIDS. Sadly, while it took root, NIH stood by and promoted that myth.

AIDs is not a disease like smallpox that is specific and caused by a specific virus but it is clearly a condition that is clearly explainable by free radical action and oxidative stress and hence it will not fit into any mathematical model that takes a virus as the cause.

The media has not taken the responsibility to properly explain the whole issue and the central controversy in AIDS that no virus had been in fact isolated in accordance with the internationally established rules of virology. The media does not question why these basic lab standards were violated.

The mainstream media also does not deem it necessary nor their public responsibility to explain what the so called AIDS tests really are and the disclaimers attached to them.

There is more science to suggest or even clearly indicate that the Gallo isolate does not contain a virus but possibly polymer actin proteins produced by white blood cells under oxidative stress, the kind of oxidative stress found in malnourished people and in people recovering from malaria or flu etc. The antibodies in such people are an auto-immune response of their body to these polymer proteins. Hence they respond clinically to proper nutritional interventions.

HIV as the primary cause of AIDS shows how a disease can be cultured politically when the petri dish is found wanting. Politically, certain people and establishments want a frightening disease caused by a virus that targets the T4 cells of the immune system, even though it violates a billion years of evolutionary biology and 65 million years of mammalian evolutionary biology and the fact of an illusive virus by the gold standard in spite of it being touted to be complex. WHY?

There are more primary reasons why the list of dissident scientists is growing by the day and month. And they are based on science, not politics.


Posted by: BELDEU SINGH on May 7, 2006 08:44 AM


There is an interesting ebook at - What really causes AIDS? - charting selenium deficiency in the soil and the incidence of HIV-1. The book is well worth the read and is available free.

Posted by: John Leggett on July 31, 2006 12:14 PM


I am stunned to read the above article, I will continue to find out more on the subject. thanks a million

Posted by: chi fung lee on March 4, 2007 05:39 AM


Very intersting but, I'd like to hear Rebecca V. Culshaw's opinion as to what is happening in Africa. Millions who are hiv+ are dying, while they don't get any medications what so ever, so they don't die of toxic cocktails harming their livers... any logic here?

Posted by: David on January 3, 2008 02:24 PM



I can't give you Rebecca Culshaw's opinion, but anyway, let's look at your question:

"Millions who are hiv+are dying while they don't get any medications..."

First of all, have you got any experience in Africa, seen thousands (let alone millions) die? I ask because a reader from Africa who lives in Canada says that his personal experience does not indicate there are lots of people dying of Aids.

Secondly, Africa has health problems that are poverty related (malnutrition) and sanitation related (malaria, dyssentery) and people do die from these while they get no medication and no help in nutrition and sanitation. It does not mean that every person who dies in Africa dies of Aids - quite the contrary.

Finally, the claim that millions of Africans are dying does not check out with the actual population numbers. Population in almost all African countries is growing, a far cry from the scenery of millions dying.

For a discussion of African Aids statistics and population numbers, check out this excellent post


on Henry Bauer's blog. Bauer is an emeritus professor.

Posted by: Sepp on January 4, 2008 03:26 PM


HIV/AIDS/Swine Flu and other similar stuff are problem of the richer or people living under normal standard. For people in communist state like Vietnam, the chance of being killed by 1000 non-aid causes is 10,000 times higher than acquiring HIV/AIDS so people don't care about hiv/aids, having unprotective sex all the time and in the end it turns out nobody gets the disease. HIV tests on prostitutes nowhere showed positive.

Posted by: Trinh Ba Tung on July 23, 2009 11:08 AM


This post discusses the efficacy of testing for HIV and its unproven link to the cause of AIDS.

Just as HPV (human papilloma virus) is now linked to cancer, what is then the "purpose" of the HIV virus if not a precursor to AIDS?

Has the virus actually been identified and its life cycle studied at all? Or is this all assumed?

If so, what kind of society are we living in where assumptions are the basis for diagnosis - and in the end "profit" for pharmaceutical companies?

How many people in the United States die of actual AIDS annually?

Is it better for an HIV+ person to forgo western treatment and just live a healthy lifestyle and be done with it?

Has there been a study (in civilizations where good nutrition and medicines are readily available) to track the progression, overall health and mortality of HIV individuals who are NOT treated with destructive Antivirals?

None of this surprises me - in the end, profit is the motivator. EVERYTHING can be traced to monetary gain.

When will we all just grow up.

Posted by: Jason Koren on November 10, 2009 02:16 PM


Hey. Im a 24yr old female from south africa, who recently had shingles and a week into the medication for shingles my doc advised me to test for hiv. I asked if the meds ive been taking wont skew with the results and he said no. I tested hiv positive on the elisa, I do not wish to take any toxic meds nor do i wish 2go 4 a cd4 count. I do know that i have been under a lot of stress for the past 3- 4 yrs, i had mild iron deficiency anaemia, i do not exercise nor do i eat healthy which might have played a major role in my weak immune system. I do not know much about which meds are toxic and which arent. Im currently taking immunace to boost my immune system and do try to eat healthy. I would like to know if there is a site or if any1 can tell me which pills r 'cocktails', by big pharma, or maybe give me a list of herbal meds that i can take to boost my immune system.

Thank you!

Posted by: Karabo on June 26, 2010 02:57 PM


Karabo, try these people... they are in your country.

Posted by: Sepp on June 27, 2010 05:05 AM


I believe the actual numbers of "AIDS" deaths in SA is in the low thousands. When you hear millions, you are getting the enthusiastic propaganda, no t any facts. The 1000s is highly unlikely - ie if it isn't millions is is most likely 0.

Posted by: gh on March 24, 2011 02:21 PM


Security code:

Please enter the security code displayed on the above grid

Due to our anti-spamming policy the comments you are posting will show up online within few hours from the posting time.



The Individual Is Supreme And Finds Its Way Through Intuition


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

These articles are brought to you strictly for educational and informational purposes. Be sure to consult your health practitioner of choice before utilizing any of the information to cure or mitigate disease. Any copyrighted material cited is used strictly in a non commercial way and in accordance with the "fair use" doctrine.



Enter your Email

Powered by FeedBlitz



Most Popular Articles
Lipitor: Side Effects And Natural Remedy

Lipitor - The Human Cost

Fluoride Accumulates in Pineal Gland

Original blueprints for 200 mpg carburetor found in England

Medical system is leading cause of death and injury in US

Aspartame and Multiple Sclerosis - Neurosurgeon's Warning

'Bird Flu', SARS - Biowarfare or a Pandemic of Propaganda?



More recent articles
Chromotherapy in Cancer

Inclined Bed Therapy: Tilt your bed for healthful sleep

European Food Safety Authority cherry picks evidence - finds Aspartame completely safe

Did Aspartame kill Cory Terry?

Retroviral particles in human immune defenses - is AIDS orthodoxy dead wrong?

Vaccine damage in Great Britain: The consequences of Dr Wakefield’s trials

Archive of all articles on this site



Most recent comments
Uganda: Pfizer Sponsored AIDS Institute Snubs Natural Treatment Options

Lipitor: Side Effects And Natural Remedy

AIDS: 'No Gold Standard' For HIV Testing

Lipitor: Side Effects And Natural Remedy

'Global Business Coalition' Wants More Testing: But Tests Do Not Show AIDS



Candida International

What Does MHRA Stand For??

Bono and Bush Party without Koch: AIDS Industry Makes a Mockery of Medical Science

Profit as Usual and to Hell with the Risks: Media Urge that Young Girls Receive Mandatory Cervical Cancer Vaccine


Share The Wealth

Artificial Water Fluoridation: Off To A Poor Start / Fluoride Injures The Newborn

Drinking Water Fluoridation is Genotoxic & Teratogenic

Democracy At Work? - PPM On Fluoride

"Evidence Be Damned...Patient Outcome Is Irrelevant" - From Helke

Why Remove Fluoride From Phosphate Rock To Make Fertilizer


Evolving Collective Intelligence

Let Us Please Frame Collective Intelligence As Big As It Is

Reflections on the evolution of choice and collective intelligence

Whole System Learning and Evolution -- and the New Journalism

Gathering storms of unwanted change

Protect Sources or Not? - More Complex than It Seems



Islanda, quando il popolo sconfigge l'economia globale.

Il Giorno Fuori dal Tempo, Il significato energetico del 25 luglio

Rinaldo Lampis: L'uso Cosciente delle Energie

Attivazione nei Colli Euganei (PD) della Piramide di Luce

Contatti con gli Abitanti Invisibili della Natura


Diary of a Knowledge Broker

Giving It Away, Making Money

Greenhouses That Change the World

Cycles of Communication and Collaboration

What Is an "Integrated Solution"?

Thoughts about Value-Add




Best sellers from