Entering the Discussion of HIV/AIDS Cautiously

Tentatively, over HIV/AIDS, remembering Jacob Zuma and the anti-bacterial (discussion) by house-hold detergents, I give you my opinion for now:

There's a lingering recall of a med. doctor who, by suspicion, is the first documented case in USA and that many people have been brought in to answer the situation at hand.

--------------------------------------

Update: I withdraw the case against HIV-AIDS. There is a virus there and HIV-AIDS is for real and very dangerous, no doubt about it!

--------------------------------------

That a psychiatrist has also given one opinion. My suspicion is, rightfully so, that all of these people's work has entered the data-set.

Therefore, as conclusion (for now): This med. doctor is suspected to have been deeply corrupt triggering a rare condition in the blood that can look like coagulation but is rather hoops or mud of something that may seem to be cancer, of one particular kind. You may say blood clots of warts. So therefore, my recommendation is now that HIV/AIDS is not transferrable by sex like they say, but rather the symptom of this corrupt, widely out on the schizophrenic category by two-category system of classification, person and in line with Alzheimer's and those, that this person has died from a type of blood clot/blood cancer! End of story (for now).

I writing this to you now, I also pay great respects to both oncology and hematology alike.

This solves the serious need for description from other (med.) doctors and sheds light on a new angle to which other serious researchers may add opinion, something that should be plain! That being all the way to the schizophrenic side of life entails  the result: HIV/AIDS.

Corrupt means schizophrenic or worse in this text, i.e., toward the immorally blind psychopathic behaviour much like the personality described in "American Psycho" by Bret Easton Ellis.

Blood cancer:
Leukemia C90 - C95 (ICD-10, WHO) - http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/C90.1 - through to C95.

Neither do I give any guarantee that I'm right nor do I insist to defeat other/former insights into HIV/AIDS research. I just see I locked situation for the HIV/AIDS disease and that the new insights into the "very dignified" med. doctors in revealing many of them more of the kind of Dr. Mengele, whether Dr. Schwein A. or other, that many med. doctors may be perverse! Therefore, I have no qualms in giving my free opinion by the above. You understand, please?

That the "Dachau-concentration-camp" research as much as Tuskagee syphilis research is very much alive, and that, correctly, they have NO regards for the Helsinki-declaration or the dignity of human kind, that they just do whatever they feel they can get away with!!!

This is hinted to by "anti-bacterial detergents" discussion above, where I've found that they fail to apply the use of alcoholic substances correctly in trying to keep the best standards for sterile surgery rooms or sterile instruments, at times, or often...
Development further: I'm not into voodoo just yet - the HIV/AIDS:

When I write "tentatively", I mean it!
I'm still with the consensus science, the best practice science (also laboratory/"petri-dish") and the best results science. That I obviously understand the requirements to /win/ a scientific discussion based on facts, not shamanism, hence my "Efficiency Argument" and more.

This may also only enter as solution to /one aspect ("one strand")/ of the HIV/AIDS discussion, not all of them (there are several types).

Plainly, the above is meant for research only and I strongly encourage people to follow the usual advice for sexual behaviour, that exposure to disease (STDs) can prove fatal.

So don't mess up and try to give me the blame for any stupidity.

Also, my data-set isn't yet any to speak of. That I need to get some confirmation routine to square this up, like a combined psychiatric examination, with some bio-indicators (metabolism fx.) and the very blood samples themselves, how they look and "suspected stage" in the disease, any prediction, and of course the accumulated numbers, the cases, person by person.

(I hold the advanced psychiatric procedures, not the "loose"/unstructured, "I look into your personality and see so much"-type of interview style. No, more like a computerised routine of entering various data-sources and compiling the whole to see what one gets, i.e., a close to/or 100% routine for psychiatric diagnostication.)

(I'm sorry if I've upset you!)

Remember, please, also that there has been a period of the discussion of when one discussed some type of (comprehensive, but expensive) "self-test" kits and that the result has been summed to be that even these fairly big kits have proved insufficient for providing a 100% secure results. So here we have it: practically no secure testing-array for HIV/AIDS that I'm aware of, only the recording of symptoms by that longitudinal contact.
I'll just notify you right away that there are more people than me who are onto the HIV/AIDS as something else than "the popular story". And they have studies to go (they claim). Given the level of fraud in society and the status of the legal systems, I just back these two:
HIV tests are the biggest scam!!!
Piney Davis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yopRSViC_M
and
AIDS is a hoax! Biologist Christl Meyer explodes the HIV/AIDS conspiracy
Christl Meyer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaA6zLUPfvk .

That my opinion by "Entering the Discussion of HIV/AIDS Cautiously" is only about ONE (1) case and its scope/consequences. This is not a "normative" opinion to the public, but an opinion on the research and parts of the hematology and oncology studies around the World. Oncology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncology and Hematology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematology .

Sorry for leaving out the hematology, that's of course most interesting... "That the blood contains..." Any good "blood magic" there? ;-)

"Blood magic...", humorously recalling the "magic devices" described by Kuhn in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed.

The med. doctors' scientific principles go by this:
Remember that by Diabetes Type 2, it follows, as example too
No symptoms -> no disease
Not fatty -> not Diabetes Type 2.

One should also remember the old divide as subtypes under bacteria with all types included, that bacteria spawn two subtypes:
other/move bacteria (also those that have evolved) and viruses (which evolve too)!

Remarks for literature may be to look for change "in scientific wording" from 1985 to 1995 as they have stopped using it.

Extra notice of earlier science history too: That as this (new) HIV/AIDS theory has entered the World, there has been some contextual science discussion on the science criteria for objective science, also in philosophy of science, of course. As such, this text of mine stands with a magnitude of at least x2 or in square power!

By suspicion, that HIV/AIDS has branched out, being an investigation on several levels, also one to which one wants to determine what science really is!

Killer of HIV/AIDS Theory and Description?

Diagnostication part of HIV/AIDS is missing compared to other classical bacteria/virus infections such as "when sample has been cultured in laboratory for some standard time" then result [something] which is definitely bacteria/virus [x] and has this [x] correlation to symptoms. This is generally expressed. Clearly, as the pattern has been completed with the real data then the HIV/AIDS problem or "inconsistency" beomces more evident.

However, some of these bacteria/viruses have become "operationalised" over indicators in the blood and that diagnostication by machine [x] or detector chemical [x] is obtained after [x] minutes, but perhaps no more than 20.

This makes us able to suggest that HIV/AIDS is killed because is fails to support a simple test-set by blood analysis. Is therefore HIV/AIDS killed as theory and description? That is, is it unscientific to write HIV/AIDS? (If not, I want to have the virus component definitely classified and made possible to analyse, according to virus classification system, compatible with all other viruses.)

Additionally, the Separator: according to my Preventive Cancer Measures some of these people may have particular values from neuro-signals that indicate "a tendency toward blood cancer" rather than any virus at all.

(Main "killer": the lack of small laboratory diagnostication standard, a so called "self-help" kit.)

Virus is traditionally classified in the petridishes and not by the "negative" side anti-bodies. Again, indicating a presence of (blood-)cancer and not virus. Also, the first paper went to a Cancer Research Journal, by the French team, and not to a journal of virology. This may imply several things, also the definite scientific.

Definite virus-detection is no problem by traditional (outside the HIV/AIDS "craze") virus-detection/identification, i.e., one type of petri-dish method or other.

For other results, to quench the idiot protests further, where there is no virus (present), "but still this insistence", one supplies three angles for HIV/AIDS theorists:
- First: Papilloma nature of "the other" in the petri-dish may be identified.
- Second: The relevant patient's nature neuro-value in terms of cancer-indication, compared to the best/healthy person's neuro-value. Just choose any healthy person.
- Third: That a further metabolism test will tell what kind of patient we're dealing with here, probably with a run down the cancer slope, either way.

This comes on top of traditional investigation angles into viruses and blood cancer alike and should have long traditions for either (50 years +).

Testing.
Virus: Result positive/negative. No possible objection either way for these HIV/AIDS theorists.Blood cancer: Blood cancer symptoms correlation.
Other: Virus free and healthy too!
Else: Cancer may develop or has developed with the patient, given these two indicators of neuro-value of the patient and metabolism test (or equivalent).

Simply: CASE IS CLOSED! It's now for the acting authorities to move against HIV/AIDS theory and make sure the proper medicines are available in the future! Alright?

"Classifications of HIV infection"

"Two main clinical staging systems are used to classify HIV and HIV-related disease for surveillance purposes: the WHO disease staging system for HIV infection and disease,[11] and the CDC classification system for HIV infection.[79] The CDC's classification system is more frequently adopted in developed countries. Since the WHO's staging system does not require laboratory tests, it is suited to the resource-restricted conditions encountered in developing countries, where it can also be used to help guide clinical management. Despite their differences, the two systems allow comparison for statistical purposes.[9][11][79]

The World Health Organization first proposed a definition for AIDS in 1986.[11] Since then, the WHO classification has been updated and expanded several times, with the most recent version being published in 2007.[11] The WHO system uses the following categories:

Primary HIV infection: May be either asymptomatic or associated with acute retroviral syndrome.[11]

Stage I: HIV infection is asymptomatic with a CD4+ T cell count (also known as CD4 count) greater than 500 per microlitre (µl or cubic mm) of blood.[11] May include generalized lymph node enlargement.[11]
Stage II: Mild symptoms which may include minor mucocutaneous manifestations and recurrent upper respiratory tract infections. A CD4 count of less than 500/µl.[11]
Stage III: Advanced symptoms which may include unexplained chronic diarrhea for longer than a month, severe bacterial infections including tuberculosis of the lung, and a CD4 count of less than 350/µl.[11]
Stage IV or AIDS: severe symptoms which include toxoplasmosis of the brain, candidiasis of the esophagus, trachea, bronchi or lungs and Kaposi's sarcoma. A CD4 count of less than 200/µl.[11]

The United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention also created a classification system for HIV, and updated it in 2008.[79] This system classifies HIV infections based on CD4 count and clinical symptoms,[79] and describes the infection in three stages:

Stage 1: CD4 count ≥ 500 cells/µl and no AIDS defining conditions
Stage 2: CD4 count 200 to 500 cells/µl and no AIDS defining conditions
Stage 3: CD4 count ≤ 200 cells/µl or AIDS defining conditions

Unknown: if insufficient information is available to make any of the above classifications

For surveillance purposes, the AIDS diagnosis still stands even if, after treatment, the CD4+ T cell count rises to above 200 per µL of blood or other AIDS-defining illnesses are cured.[9]"

Source: Wikipedia. Url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Classifications_of_HIV_infection .

Possible theoretical causes to lower CD4 counts:
Radiation
Cancer
General virus infection, any
Illness, any, severe enough
Famine, severe enough

It seems to me weak! Almost so to say that if you are under somatic pressure, it's likely to be HIV/AIDS, in theory. I also note that the WHO classification is entirely without any virus or virus description... When I write that it's entirely without a virus, I intend to make this a statement of fact that they have held this as official view all the way up from "eagle's nest" in terms of authority in science of medicine. Exactly right, entirely without a virus!

Also, there are various epidemiological problems connected to the virus, such that only one person, as late as 1980s in New York, is affected by it, but no other people throughout the World despite the infection-vectors, like blood and sperma. And as the World largely remains condom-less up to this point of a single individual.

For the many thousands of years, one would think the humanity has become resilient to it, the HIV-virus itself (or being wiped out as effect that we are not, of course).

So, can it rate as a mere little flu-virus and not this deadly thing?

Enjoy.

(If they, the med. doctors, don't take the hint, then I note strictly the culture of lying and dishonesty, one that they need to accept straight down and without particular reservation.)

PS: I'm sorry that this last text has only entered now, rather than at first with the rest of earlier.