Monday, 1 April 2013

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.

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.

47 comments:

  1. Not an Apil Fool's joke!!! *smile* !!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 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...

    ReplyDelete
  4. 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!)

    ReplyDelete
  5. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 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 .

    ReplyDelete
  7. 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? ;-)

    (First to Facebook as so often-times.)

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

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've now also entered:
    "I writing this to you now, I also pay great respects to both oncology and hematology alike."
    "PS2: Funnily, Blogger prevents me from entering two new labels, hematology and oncology (while also correcting "clut" to clot."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Alright. Blogger has only narrowed the "clickable" area, now only the "Labels" can be clicked on.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Judgment on Psoriasis

    More on medicine:
    that psoriasis (skin disease/skin condition of soreness) must be considered genetic/epigenetic!

    (Judgment laid down per discussion principle and matters of scientific evidence.)

    [Premise to the judgment: Normal, personal cleanliness is maintained.]

    Remark: there may be conditions to the skin that arise from only bacterial reasons, but they can't be considered an illness/a disease by scientific standards as access to personal cleanliness is merely to be in a state of deprivation!

    Remark 2: there are various states of the human being that are explained by the genetics, and among these are 1. being homosexual, 2. having Down's Syndrome, various others, anomalies at birth and so on...

    Remark 3: the genetic explanation "in being a cause to any state" must be considered the lowest level of medicine, such as if any cause above it can be identified, such as bacteria cause or virus cause, then these rate above the explanation of genetic cause.

    Remark 4: /tech-concerns/ of time of writing apply, "as I'm still "electrified" by criminal implants, by deep suspicion, various mental conditions endured for a very long time".

    ReplyDelete
  13. 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)!

    Please, take note of this!

    Remark: look for change "in scientific wording" from 1985 to 1995 as they have stopped using it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 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!

    ReplyDelete
  15. 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.)

    ReplyDelete
  16. The "Cancer-Preventive Measures" (please use CTRL-F) by url: http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2011/10/opinions-on-science-in-expression-of.html .

    ReplyDelete
  17. The last stone to the tower!
    Over HIV/AIDS more:

    The suspected virus type: Green. (W/o the proper paper-investigations yet.)

    "Not to kill anyone", the further antibiotics tests/from bacteria to virus (source determination) still remain. You, however, can move rapidly forward as you will.

    Separation:
    Low cancer-neuro-value → Cancer, Blood cancer (red cancer(?))
    Also to petridish → Not green
    Blood test for virus → Green
    Consequence for virus infection: treatment/medicine to be administered.

    Good?

    US Department of State, everhappy: "now that we've received Closure Principle from earlier (Spring semester, 2000), we are again happy to announce another received idea from this man, Olsnes-Lea (only one of them in Norway). With this idea, we now enter the combatting of viruses with renewed strength and that this New Year's Eve will be a blast greater than ever before!" (Boom of fireworks on the night-sky!)

    (First to my Facebook profile today, CEST.)

    ReplyDelete
  18. The HIV/AIDS Theory so to be announced as "Not valid"?

    Here's more, on top of what I consider a removal:
    I should also inform you that I know about the first paper from a French team, working at the Pasteur Institute in Paris and that they
    have originally been rejected from a publication in US Science journal.

    I should also inform you that papilloma is a finer word for warts and that this enters perfectly into my pocket as symptom for schizophrenia and that
    this can be checked by the level of the neurological value with the patient, being lower or higher than in the healthy person.

    There are other interesting facts about this as well, such as the "papilloma-virus" being dubbed gay virus (GRID), in being detected, dominantly, with gay people.

    Note: The ELISA-Tests are NOT the conventional for testing of virus. The petridishes ARE!
    Note2 "for the children": The attacks are of the intellectual, non-physical kind.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier .

    Luc Antoine Montagnier (born 18 August 1932) is a French virologist and joint re...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteur_Institute .
    The Pasteur Institute (French: Institut Pasteur) is a Frenchnon-profit private f...

    Cancer-Preventive Measures , i.e., the neurological values: http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2011/10/opinions-on-science-in-expression-of.html .

    http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2011/10/warts-of-perversion-taint-of-corruption.html - The papilloma phenomena/the warts...

    ReplyDelete
  19. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Final kill to HIV / AIDS Theory, verdict as status of science.

    By the text above, the logic becomes simple:

    Either the test for virus, any, is positive.

    Or one needs to wait for blood cancer symptoms to appear!

    Also, by this, a Nobel Prize in Medicine, 2008, has been awarded a balloon of "hot air"! There is now a World without any use/sign of this HIV / AIDS Theory!

    (Hah, no fighting over words necessary! The Denialists (logically) win (and happy f*cking too)! So long retarded theory!)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Regarding "Open Letter" to WHO and Others

    You may feel encouraged to write to WHO yourselves, even as "open letter", also by this message to you now. One possible email is this: hiv-aids@who.int .

    The letter needs to contain this:

    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?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Blood cancer: Blood cancer symptoms correlation.

    (This is supposed to stand by itself.)

    ReplyDelete
  23. Why one wants the entire "HIV / AIDS theory" to be left with the oncologists, especially those who are into blood cancer is because all cancers are essentially mysterious. One simply does not understand why cancer happens, except some "indicators" or untraditional causes, one of which is such that "unhealthy bio-systems generate cancer of one kind or several".

    See my "Preventive Cancer Measures" text under Opinions on Science along with Opinions on Physics, please!

    To have "HIV / AIDS theory placed there means that people can relax more and re-approach what has taken place in a more calm and meditated way. I think this will grant the entire World definite scientific and humanistic progress.

    (This must be the final comment now! (?))

    ReplyDelete
  24. Prof. of Sociology, T. Goertzel, backed by many (?) against it since 1994! Again, the judgment of the Nobel Committee for the Prize in Medicine.... Hmmm....

    Some of his work:
    http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v11/n7/full/embor201084.html

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897118/

    Wikipedia reference says:
    ^ a b Goertzel, T. (2010). "Conspiracy theories in science". EMBO Reports 11 (7): 493–499. doi:10.1038/embor.2010.84. PMC 2897118. PMID 20539311.

    Further: a star of his, saying "there is no evidence for HIV / AIDS" and that the HIV / AIDS - proponents are unscientific, resorting to tricks (in subverting the public).

    Warning: Don't mistake Sociology for insightless here! And "backed by many(?)" is to be read, "backed by many Scientists, the BSc, MSc, Dr. Sc.", not the idiots!

    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Utopia for Virology is suspected to have taken place years ago, probably. That is, it isn't foreseeable that anything new can turn up, not even by (Code:) "Dartmouth". Investigate yourself, please!

    Remember that virologists take part with these groups: bacteriologists, epidemiologists, pathologists and with oncologists "on the other side" and that, in that Indian-English accent, "we are very angry with you, HIV / AIDS Theorists, that you need to behave...!"

    The HIV / AIDS Theorists are also facing other uphill battles, such as classification issues, outside all classification conventions elsewhere in all other science that I can think of, representing or presenting their anomaly to system of medicine.

    "Here we have a set of scientists who wage the HIV / AIDS Theory to a World of 7,1 Bn people, more educated than ever before..."
    Then the Hitchcock film starts...?
    YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ6MEM6Ck9I - Psycho Trailer Alfred Hitchcock 1961.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "I never meant to hurt you [HIV / AIDS Theorists]..."
    Prince, Purple Rain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LJlx8mMQ88 - PRINCE - Purple Rain @TOKYO DOME1990(HQ)...

    ReplyDelete
  27. While we are waiting: Why can't HIV be renamed to HIC with C for cancer now? Cancer is known to have a wide scope of side-effects to other aspects of health, especially if it's serious. So HIV to HIC instead? Url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV .

    Note on petridish cultivation time for viruses vs. HIV.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The Death of HIV/AIDS Theory

    The final stages of the theory existing in the World.
    The comparison of leukemia, incl. advanced stages, and HIV.
    This is about the symptoms only, we do not bother with testing and the technical aspects of cells and so on.


    HIV/AIDS symptoms:
    [The LIST! All of it. ICD-10 Listing.]
    (Entering the clinical data. Hypothesis: match exactly or close enough with leukemia. Adjustment for possible data-set tampering. Side-effects from "HIV/AIDS-medication".)

    Warning! This clinical set that enters MUST only contain data where no typical virus has been found. Any data containing virus destroys/corrupts the entire data-set we are looking for. Key word: TYPICAL.

    Formal letters by ICD-10 "for placement":

    (B20–B24) Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease

    (B20) Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) disease Resulting in infectious and parasitic diseases
    (B20.0) HIV disease resulting in mycobacterial infection
    (B20.1) HIV disease resulting in other bacterial infections
    (B20.2) HIV disease resulting in cytomegaloviral disease
    (B20.3) HIV disease resulting in other viral infections
    (B20.4) HIV disease resulting in candidiasis
    (B20.5) HIV disease resulting in other mycoses
    (B20.6) HIV disease resulting in Pneumocystis pneumonia
    (B20.7) HIV disease resulting in multiple infections
    (B20.8) HIV disease resulting in other infectious and parasitic diseases
    (B20.9) HIV disease resulting in unspecified infectious or parasitic disease
    (B21) Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) disease Resulting in malignant neoplasms
    (B21.0) HIV disease resulting in Kaposi's sarcoma
    (B21.1) HIV disease resulting in Burkitt's lymphoma
    (B21.2) HIV disease resulting in other types of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
    (B21.3) HIV disease resulting in other malignant neoplasms of lymphoid, haematopoietic and related tissue
    (B21.7) HIV disease resulting in multiple malignant neoplasms
    (B21.8) HIV disease resulting in other malignant neoplasms
    (B21.9) HIV disease resulting in unspecified malignant neoplasm
    (B22) Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) disease Resulting in other specified diseases
    (B22.0) HIV disease resulting in encephalopathy
    (B22.1) HIV disease resulting in lymphoid interstitial pneumonitis
    (B22.2) HIV disease resulting in wasting syndrome
    (B22.7) HIV disease resulting in multiple diseases classified elsewhere
    (B23) Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) disease Resulting in other conditions
    (B23.0) Acute HIV infection syndrome
    (B23.1) HIV disease resulting in (persistent) generalized lymphadenopathy
    (B23.2) HIV disease resulting in haematological and immunological abnormalities, not elsewhere classified
    (B23.8) HIV disease resulting in other specified conditions
    (B24) Unspecified Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Disease

    (1/2)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Leukemia symptoms:
    [The LIST! All of it. ICD-10 Listing.]
    (Entering the clinical data. Hypothesis: match exactly or close enough with HIV/AIDS. Adjustment for possible data-set tampering. Side-effects from special "anti-cancer-medication"/anasthetics.)

    Formal letters by ICD-10 "for placement":

    (C81–C96) Malignant neoplasms, stated or presumed to be primary, of lymphoid, haematopoietic and related tissue

    (C81) Hodgkin's Disease
    (C81.0) Lymphocytic predominance
    (C81.1) Nodular sclerosis
    (C81.2) Mixed cellularity
    (C81.3) Lymphocytic depletion
    (C82) Follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (nodular)
    (C82.0) Small cleaved cell, follicular
    (C82.1) Mixed small cleaved and large cell, follicular
    (C82.2) Large cell, follicular
    (C83) Diffuse non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
    (C83.0) Small cell (diffuse)
    (C83.1) Small cleaved cell (diffuse)
    (C83.2) Mixed small and large cell (diffuse)
    (C83.3) Large cell (diffuse)
    (C83.4) Immunoblastic (diffuse)
    (C83.5) Lymphoblastic (diffuse)
    (C83.6) Undifferentiated (diffuse)
    (C83.7) Burkitt's tumour
    (C84) Peripheral and cutaneous T-cell lymphomas
    (C84.0) Mycosis fungoides
    (C84.1) Sézary's disease
    (C84.2) T-zone lymphoma
    (C84.3) Lymphoepitheliod lymphoma
    (C84.4) Peripheral T-cell lymphoma
    (C85) Other and unspecified types of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
    (C85.0) Lymphosarcoma
    (C85.1) B-cell lymphoma, unspecified
    (C88) Malignant immunoproliferative diseases
    (C88.0) Waldenström's macroglobulinaemia
    (C88.1) Alpha heavy chain disease
    (C88.2) Gamma heavy chain disease
    (C88.3) Immunoproliferative small intestinal disease
    (C90) Multiple myeloma and malignant plasma cell neoplasms
    (C90.0) Multiple myeloma
    (C90.1) Plasma cell leukemia
    (C90.2) Plasmacytoma, extramedullary
    (C91) Lymphoid leukemia
    (C91.0) Acute lymphoblastic leukemia
    (C91.1) Chronic lymphocytic leukemia
    (C91.4) Hairy cell leukemia
    (C92) Myeloid leukemia
    (C92.0) Acute myeloid leukemia
    (C92.1) Chronic myeloid leukemia
    (C92.2) Subacute myeloid leukemia
    (C92.3) Myeloid sarcoma
    Chloroma
    Granulocytic sarcoma
    (C92.4) Acute promyelocytic leukemia
    (C92.5) Acute myelomonocytic leukemia
    (C93) Monocytic leukemia
    (C93.0) Acute monocytic leukemia
    (C93.1) Chronic monocytic leukemia
    (C93.2) Subacute monocytic leukemia
    (C94) Other leukemias of specified cell type
    (C94.0) Acute erythraemia and erythroleukemia
    Di Guglielmo's disease
    (C94.1) Chronic erythraemia
    (C94.2) Acute megakaryoblastic leukemia
    (C94.3) Mast cell leukemia
    (C94.4) Acute panmyelosis
    (C94.5) Acute myelofibrosis
    (C94.7) Other specified leukemias
    (C95) Leukemia of unspecified cell type
    (C95.0) Acute leukemia of unspecified cell type
    (C95.1) Chronic leukemia of unspecified cell type
    (C95.2) Subacute leukemia of unspecified cell type
    (C95.7) Other leukemia of unspecified cell type
    (C95.9) Leukemia, unspecified
    (C96) Other and unspecified malignant neoplasms of lymphoid, haematopoietic and related tissue
    (C96.0) Letterer-Siwe disease
    (C96.1) Malignant histiocytosis
    (C96.2) Malignant mast cell tumour
    Malignant mastocytosis
    (C96.3) True histiocytic lymphoma
    (C96.7) Other specified malignant neoplasms of lymphoid, haematopoietic and related tissue
    (C96.9) Malignant neoplasm of lymphoid, haematopoietic and related tissue, unspecified

    (2/2)

    (Intelligence to the targeters out! ;-) )

    ReplyDelete
  30. The Death of HIV/AIDS More!

    * The diagnosis used for leukemia can be limited. Only some categories are used frequently. We mind the number of cases in each: brown and red back again? Fx., physicians only use "C90.1" - "Plasma cell leukaemia" for 99% of the cases.

    * There is still a gene-check in place for disposition to leukemia. Now what if we use this with all, leukemia and HIV/AIDS together as it is much more credible than "these other tests".

    * As before, all cancers get their origin, the cause, from corrupt cells, i.e., when one seeks to an explanation to why cancer has happened, the genes by the person who has been struck with cancer, get the blame.

    * Cancer doesn't happen simply, with white blood cells, to my knowledge. The production of these can only stop, i.e., the marrow cancer. I may be wrong here, though. Also, lymph cancer isn't "white cells leukemia".

    ReplyDelete
  31. Leukemia symptoms:
    [The LIST! All of it. ICD-10 Listing.]
    Letters C81 to C91 are excluded for the data-set we need here. This is a correction.
    We keep the letters of C92 to C96. Note on C95.9.

    Source: ICD-10 by WHO server/domain.

    (I need to make you aware of the fact that I'm by no standard at all working under acceptable/optimal circumstances here. I have no particular library, I do not have the books, I do not have access to the journals and the other data-sets, like the cancer-research-data-bases. Alright? I'm trying to cope too! You need to add to at times, that you need to take this to places yourself so that HIV/AIDS can go out of existence by a larger number of people, not only myself, one person.)

    ReplyDelete
  32. It starts here:
    http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/C92 .

    ReplyDelete
  33. "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!

    ReplyDelete
  34. (Death Stage II for HIV/AIDS Theory:)

    Tumors [in conjunction with HIV/AIDS. + HPV?]

    Kaposi's sarcoma
    People with HIV infections have substantially increased incidence of several cancers. This is primarily due to co-infection with an oncogenic DNA virus, especially Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV) (also known as human herpesvirus-8 [HHV-8]), and humanpapillomavirus (HPV).[26][27]

    Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) is the most common tumor in HIV-infected patients. The appearance of this tumor in young homosexual men in 1981 was one of the first signals of the AIDS epidemic. Caused by a gammaherpes virus called Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpes virus (KSHV), it often appears as purplish nodules on the skin, but can affect other organs, especially the mouth, gastrointestinal tract, and lungs. High-grade B cell lymphomas such as Burkitt's lymphoma, Burkitt's-like lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and primary central nervous system lymphoma present more often in HIV-infected patients. These particular cancers often foreshadow a poor prognosis. Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) or KSHV cause many of these lymphomas. In HIV-infected patients, lymphoma often arises in extranodal sites such as the gastrointestinal tract.[28] When they occur in an HIV-infected patient, KS and aggressive B cell lymphomas confer a diagnosis of AIDS.
    Invasive cervical cancer in HIV-infected women is also considered AIDS-defining, it is caused by human papillomavirus (HPV).[29]

    In addition to the AIDS-defining tumors listed above, HIV-infected patients are at increased risk of certain other tumors, notably Hodgkin's disease, anal and rectal carcinomas, hepatocellular carcinomas, head and neck cancers, and lung cancer. Some of these are causes by viruses, such as Hodgkin's disease (EBV), anal/rectal cancers (HPV), head and neck cancers (HPV), and hepatocellular carcinoma (hepatitis B or C). Other contributing factors include exposure to carcinogens (cigarette smoke for lung cancer), or living for years with subtle immune defects.
    Interestingly, the incidence of many common tumors, such as breast cancer or colon cancer, does not increase in HIV-infected patients. In areas where HAART is extensively used to treat AIDS, the incidence of many AIDS-related malignancies has decreased, but at the same time malignant cancers overall have become the most common cause of death of HIV-infected patients.[30] In recent years, an increasing proportion of these deaths have been from non-AIDS-defining cancers.

    One thing is the condition of the blood itself, diagnosed with the specific virus or the leukemia, but here we have them, the pro-HIV-AIDS-Theorists saying that HIV often comes with cases of cancer elsewhere than in the blood. As we know, "uhhh, it's hard to see the cancer or virus in the blood..." We also add some of the data-set, at least, under HPV to the list, if not all of it. However, we are to relieve them of all worries in just some short time from now. Cheers!

    Note: Approach as before, but with them saying "cancer into the mix". I also say "we have them in full (monties)". ("Uhhh, they've stripped us!!")
    Note2: One thing is to scare World population, the other is to be liars! Adding HPV to the list has as premise that any underlying presence of virus can't lead to removal of such papilloma phenomenon on the body, that killing the underlying virus, if any such, can't make the removal of the papilloma phenomenon on the body as well.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Sorry...

    "Tumors"
    "Kaposi's sarcoma
    People with HIV infections... ... ...non-AIDS-defining cancers." End of excerpt from Wikipedia.
    Url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signs_and_symptoms_of_HIV/AIDS . (I usually never forget, but this time...)

    ReplyDelete
  36. HIV/AIDS actually moving downwards

    Treatment Cascade Waterfall by AIDS.gov on Youtube.
    Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNaAlWWMG2k

    If you skip some of the words then it appears how this is supposed to unfold given a bit
    of "damage control" to own profession, outside virology and oncology concerning leukemia.

    Note on 1.2 million people living with HIV, the first level of this theory, of a nation with some 312 Mn people.

    Therefore, the main segment of this information video from AIDS.gov is: 0:11 s to 0:46 s of a total 1:55 min:sec.

    The celebration has clearly started! Take care!

    Additional info to the video.
    Published: 2013-01-24.
    This 2-minute animated video provides a brief overview of HIV in the United States and illustrates how improvements along each step of the treatment cascade can help us achieve an AIDS-free generation. It focuses on a number of key steps that are consistent with the National HIV/AIDS Strategy.

    http://aids.gov/federal-resources/national-hiv-aids-strategy/overview/ .

    Other information, unconfirmed:
    CD4 (+, T-Cell) count for normal people: 800 - 1000 mm(2)/ml(?), CD4 count < 200 = AIDS. Regardless, AIDS contracted automatically based on CD4 count, can this be!? My goodness!
    Care for your CD4 count, please, or they come and take you AWAY! :-(

    Other more:
    In providing use to the organisations, I merely ask these questions: What is the CD4 count for a longitudinal study of a person with Leukemia vs. one with HIV/AIDS? To squeeze the HIV/AIDS from both sides, what is the CD4 count for people who have acquired a virus infection of the typical kind, one that enters the typical virus "from petri-dish" description? What is the difference of the HIV/AIDS footage from the microscopes compared to the footage of Leukemia? Can the HIV/AIDS theorists certify that HIV/AIDS is different from Leukemia? There can only be one answer: HIV/AIDS theory has FALLEN, is busted!!

    Also, government has the duty to provide scientifically accurate information.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Presenting the team of people:
    http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/denialists

    Harvey Bialy - former journal editor
    Henry Bauer - professor emeritus, Virginia Tech
    Lawrence Broxmeyer, MD
    Rebecca Culshaw - professor at University of Texas-Tyler
    Stephen Davis
    Peter Duesberg - professor at UC-Berkeley
    Celia Farber - writer
    Roberto Giraldo - laboratory technologist
    Christine Maggiore
    Andrew Maniotis - University of Illinois
    Kary Mullis - chemist
    Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, nuclear physicist
    David Rasnick - biochemist
    Matthias Rath - vitamin salesman
    Valendar Turner, physician

    Time is running. In the end, my belief is that this is a Victorious team.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Note as mode of behaviour that as the "bacteria cause bacteria AND virus" has been withdrawn (to some extent) from literature so also the cochlea nature of eyes when in fact the cochlea nature exists for BOTH eyes and ears, an attempt, dubiously so, to deceive the general reading audience for this. No, dear readers, there are many idiots in the World and they come with titles too, former "career" as garbage handler or not.

    These people are NOT gods either, no, they appear more stupid than before, reluctant to relate to proper history account, trading in blindness of history for illusion of stardom!

    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hernia - A hernia is the protrusion of a portion of an organ or tissue through an abnormal opening in the wall that normally contains it. (Medical definition. May require a reference. Forgotten it for now.)

    Hernia cancer
    Given the later reports of the medical science, the physicians or dr. physicians do not seem bullet-proof. That criticism may stand valid on a number of open questions, especially ours, the criticism of HIV/AIDS, "here and now", from 80s sometime and with the Soviet Union to go, not political history writing this time, but "teaching Johnny history as proper".

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hernia cancer, another success story over the ongoing "take down" of HIV/AIDS, getting classified under these, by suspicion, holding NO, no (no x2), MSc. Med. degree or higher, (not even an honours doc., for mSomatism, yet...):

    C16.1
    Fundus of stomach
    C16.2
    Body of stomach
    C16.3
    Pyloric antrum
    Gastric antrum
    C16.4
    Pylorus
    Prepylorus
    Pyloric canal

    (Watch up for separation of malignant/benign, the above being malignant)

    That I believe parts or entire Hernia discussion of the 80s got its solution by one part being added to the class of cancers, so too with HIV/AIDS, that it has to go with Leukemia, initially and by entire data-set transferral, at least as copy, considerations because otherwise "one stands nakes, less credible"... Heh-heh-heh, "where are you?"

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Some concepts to watch" by “the doctors/physicians are no angels”:
    Lobotomy – Anorexia (not to be mentioned in big cities/metropols again) - Locked-In Syndrome - HIV/AIDS

    Diabetes Type 2 with no symptoms meaning/entailing no disease. Cure possible today, against common belief, I think.

    Eugenics – Craniology (vs. Viscerology, injuries, hospital abuse, abuse of medical science)!

    Also watch up for some type of Spinal cancer, bone cancer on the spine!

    ReplyDelete
  42. I'm also with this group, an excerpt from Wikipedia article, HIV/AIDS Denialism:
    "Several scientists have been associated with HIV/AIDS denialism, although they have not themselves studied AIDS or HIV.[9] One of the most famous and influential is Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, who since 1987 has disputed that the scientific evidence shows that HIV causes AIDS.[21] Other scientists associated with HIV/AIDS denialism include biochemists David Rasnick and Harvey Bialy. Kary Mullis, who was awarded a Nobel Prize for his role in the development of PCR, has expressed sympathy for denialist theories.[58] Biologist Lynn Margulis argued that "there's no evidence that HIV is an infectious virus" and that AIDS symptoms "overlap...completely" with those of syphilis.[59] Pathologist Etienne de Harven also expressed sympathy for HIV/AIDS denial.[60][61]" [Also with the scientists of the entire Soviet Union before its break-up! After World first Gagarin, astronaut/kosmonaut and Laika, the dog to space.]

    Add, please:
    "Additional notable HIV/AIDS denialists include Australian academic ethicist Hiram Caton, the late mathematician Serge Lang,[62] former college administrator Henry Bauer, journalist Celia Farber, American talk radio host and author on alternative and complementary medicine and nutrition Gary Null, and the late activist Christine Maggiore, who encouraged HIV-positive mothers to forgo anti-HIV treatment and whose 3-year-old daughter died of complications of untreated AIDS.[63] Nate Mendel, bassist with the rock band Foo Fighters, expressed support for HIV/AIDS denialist ideas and organized a benefit concert in January 2000 for Maggiore's organization Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives.[64] Organizations of HIV/AIDS denialists include the Perth Group, composed of several Australian hospital workers, and the Immunity Resource Foundation.[65]"

    ReplyDelete
  43. Leukemia is described by Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_lymphoblastic_leukemia
    Acute lymphoblastic leukemia
    "Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)
    Classification and external resources
    Acute leukemia-ALL.jpg
    ICD-10 C91.0
    ICD-9 204.0
    ICD-O: M9835/3
    DiseasesDB 195
    eMedicine med/3146 ped/2587
    MeSH D054198"
    "Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or acute lymphoid leukemia is an acute form of leukemia, or cancer of the white blood cells, characterized by the overproduction of cancerous, immature white blood cells—known as lymphoblasts.[1][2] In persons with ALL, lymphoblasts are overproduced in the bone marrow and continuously multiply, causing damage and death by inhibiting the production of normal cells—such as red and white blood cells and platelets—in the bone marrow and by spreading (infiltrating) to other organs. ALL is most common in childhood with a peak incidence at 2–5 years of age, and another peak in old age.[2]"

    ReplyDelete
  44. I acknowledge that HIV, the virus, is classified as it is, as a virus, under lentivirus and (as subgroup of) retrovirus).
    However, my point has been to cut through possible waste of words and theory in order to see for real. As the contest is now clear, it's just to sit back and wait for the results.
    It starts: Leukemia 0 - HIV/AIDS 0, as every soccer match.

    I remain open-minded. The truth always serves the World the best!

    ReplyDelete
  45. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  46. 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?

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

    ReplyDelete