Ewald's book

[Guest guest]

Monte,

 

I can see where you are coming from. But you have been deceived as have

millions of other people on the AIDS issue. I don't know of any

heterosexuals who have been diagnosed with AIDS in my group of

acquaintances.

 

There is so much to this issue, but the problem is that the people on

this forum are not taking the time to educate themselves to the

alternatives. Again I'll put the link of the website that can answer

many of your questions.

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index.htm

 

What people don't know is that they named AIDS a syndrome and not as a

disease. This was convenient for them because they keep on pilling on

new symptoms all the time. It's lots of old diseases combined together.

 

The millions of people in Africa who supposedly have AIDS are just other

diseases simply renamed. Diseases that have always been there in Africa.

 

 

This is somewhat frustrating to me because I am quite familiar with both

sides of the argument, but most people here seem to only know what the

drug makers want them to know.

 

The AIDS Myth is being propagated for greed alone. The medicines they

give people are actually carcinogenic and say it on their warning

labels. How is that supposed to heal anyone? From my perspective it's

the world gone mad. You have to inform yourself because you are falling

for the drug company propaganda.

 

I can't give a substantial argument here because it would take too long.

But being close to New York city and a huge gay and raw community I have

learned much about this.

 

A book that discusses the AIDS problem in Africa is " The Nature and

Purpose of Disease, " by Henry L.N. Anderson. He explains how it's all a

big cover-up. Also the " Why We Will Never Win the War Against AIDS, " by

Peter Duesberg.

 

This stuff is important for people to know because you have to know how

these drug companies work. They'll constantly try to fool you into

thinking you or someone you love needs their useless drugs. And they are

quite successful at this. While their drugs are more damaging than the

so-called AIDS itself.

 

Roger

[Guest guest]

My comments were not about AIDS being or not being caused by the HIV

virus. I was stating that it was a bigoted and uneducated viewpoint

to say that only homosexuals and drug addicts get AIDS.

[RH]

Actually that is (or was) pretty much the viewpoint of Peter H.

Duesberg, professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of

California, Berkeley. He was hired to do research on AIDS and eventually

discovered it was a sham. Duesberg also had some other categories of

people who would get AIDS. But he found that the main people getting

AIDS were the ones who were heavy drug users and people who had taken

blood in an operation. It is known that blood transfusions are often

quite dangerous. It isn't because of any virus but that the body tends

to reject blood besides its own.

 

There are several investigators who feel that people are getting AIDS

from immune compromising activities. Like a very poor diet and from to

many different drugs legal and illegal in their systems. Not only the

drugs but their interactions with each other inside the body can lead to

so-called AIDS symptoms.

+++++

 

I have friends who have AIDS and who have died of AIDS. And not all

of them belong to one of those groups. AIDS is rampant in Africa

where it's mostly contracted by hetrosexuals.

[RH]

I know someone who was diagnosed with AIDS and who it turns out never

had actually had it. The test to determine if you have AIDS is actually

subjective. Depending on how you answer certain questions and in which

country you are taking the test will determine if you have AIDS.

 

The point is that not one single person on the planet has AIDS to begin

with. There are however many people who have comprised immune systems

from living lives against the laws of nature.

 

The actual test for AIDS measures certain proteins in the blood. If you

have a certain number of them they consider you to have AIDS. But that

is only if you fall into certain high risk groups. Other people can have

those proteins in their blood but not be considered to have AIDS.

 

Once you get educated on the alternative theories you may realize that

AIDS is a first class money making scheme. It is making the drug

companies millions of dollars. They are pulling the wool over everyone's

eyes.

+++++

 

I'm not saying that

the spread of the disease wasn't sped up by gay men and IV drug

users - that's clearly where the infection snowballed in the early

1980's. But that was over 20 years ago and it's not the case today.

And to push an antiquated view of the disease is a dangerous and

irresponsible thing to do, regardless of what causes it or how it's

treated in allopathic medicine.

[RH]

Yes I agree and I think you are doing just that. (I'm sure you are

however doing it with the best of intentions.) In my opinion, I believe

your information to be incorrect on AIDS. Of course, this is what most

people believe and are told about AIDS. But I have a different

understanding on this than the average person, due to multiple sources

of knowledge on this AIDS Hoax.

+++++

 

Even the man who discovered the HIV virus said on his deathbed that

his theory was probably bunk. I'm not questioning that. What is

truly upsetting to me is that there are actually people on this

planet who are so ignorant as to call an epidemic that has killed

millions of people a gay men's or drug user's disease.

[RH]

This is not ignorance, this is understanding. It is not bigoted to say

these things if one believes they are scientifically based. Again the

with the gay men it was only the gay men who were intense drug users.

Taking those poppers, etc.

+++++

It has

nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with

compassion. And risking the backlash of not being compassionate

myself, I have to say that the comments I read on this board earlier

today made me sick to my stomach.

[RH]

So far I haven't read anything that has made me sick to my stomach. But

I have read many posts that I believe to be ignorant on the facts. I

don't see anyone acting in a bigoted manner in the past few days.

 

 

Debate the germ theory all you like. I'm all for it. In fact, I'll

join in. But if you're going to throw religion or bigotry into the

mix, take it somewhere else. This isn't the place for it, and at

least on this end, it's completely unwelcome.

[RH]

Well I'm glad you're back with the group. If you just ignore the group

for a few days then this issue will die down and you won't have to pay

attention to it anyway.

[RH]

Take care, Roger

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Brigitte,

 

I am in sympathy with you.

 

Before the Aids virus came out a couple of decades ago, nobody suffered

it. Given that all those who contracted it were found to have made

contact with others who had it, I have trouble believing that Aids is

not a disease and that homosexual lifestyle is or ever was a

contributory factor of the cause. We can play with the semantics of the

word " disease " , to intimate that Aids is or is nor a disease or believe

in the well-known concept of the nineteenth century of the " miasma " as

in the notion that cholera transmits through the stink but does either

notion merit attention?

 

I recall reading long ago about how the only way to get Aids was to

break the skin and pass fluid. The day that it is found that a sufferer

of Aids can have sex with a raw foodist without a risk of an Aids

transmission... ...newspapers will gain circulation... ...I will

review my lifestyle.

 

The good news is that you are staying with us.

 

Peter

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bridgitte [syndactylcat]

14 October 2003 04:24

rawfood

[Raw Food] Re: Ewald's book

 

 

 

> [RH]

> Hello Bridgitte,

>

> I hope you don't decide to leave the group. Have you done any

reading

> about the AIDS hoax to be so sure about your beliefs in regard to

this?

> There are over 100 world-class scientists who believe that AIDS is

not

> caused by the HIV virus.

>

My comments were not about AIDS being or not being caused by the HIV

virus. I was stating that it was a bigoted and uneducated viewpoint

to say that only homosexuals and drug addicts get AIDS.

 

I have friends who have AIDS and who have died of AIDS. And not all

of them belong to one of those groups. AIDS is rampant in Africa

where it's mostly contracted by hetrosexuals. I'm not saying that

the spread of the disease wasn't sped up by gay men and IV drug

users - that's clearly where the infection snowballed in the early

1980's. But that was over 20 years ago and it's not the case today.

And to push an antiquated view of the disease is a dangerous and

irresponsible thing to do, regardless of what causes it or how it's

treated in allopathic medicine.

 

Even the man who discovered the HIV virus said on his deathbed that

his theory was probably bunk. I'm not questioning that. What is

truly upsetting to me is that there are actually people on this

planet who are so ignorant as to call an epidemic that has killed

millions of people a gay men's or drug user's disease. It has

nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with

compassion. And risking the backlash of not being compassionate

myself, I have to say that the comments I read on this board earlier

today made me sick to my stomach.

 

Debate the germ theory all you like. I'm all for it. In fact, I'll

join in. But if you're going to throw religion or bigotry into the

mix, take it somewhere else. This isn't the place for it, and at

least on this end, it's completely unwelcome.

 

Bridgitte

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Try the CDC. The official government statics ending

Jan 2002: 77% of all reported AIDS cases were either

Gay men, or IV users. 10% were not identified

(probably the same) The remaining 13% were people who

had sex with an IV user, or received blood from gay

men or IV drug users. The conclusion is that gay men

and IV users spread this disease, and all cases could

be traced back to one or the other. The common

misconception is that it is no longer a gay or IV

disease. It still is, only that it has become so

prevalent in both groups, that there is inevitable

" spill over " to the heterosexual and people who need

blood transfusions.

 

please take a look at the statistics. Most people

react to this issue with emotions rather then fact.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm

 

Rufus

 

 

--- mavalkyrie <mavalkyrie wrote:

> This is absolutely NOT TRUE! Any one can get Aids,

> not just

> homosexuals or IV drug users. How can you possibly

> believe

> otherwise? It is completely illogical. Why do they

> now screen blood

> donations? Because it can be transmitted by blood

> transfusions. I

> agree that at one time, the majority (possibly all)

> were homosexual

> or IV drug users, but it is so far beyond that now.

> I mean no

> offense, but wake up. Currently the fastest growing

> demographic for

> contracting HIV\aids is not IV drug users or

> homosexual, it is

> heterosexual men and women. Please don't just take

> my word for it,

> research, look it up.

>

> Monte

>

>

> rawfood , Rufus Shaw

> <rufus10_99> wrote:

> > I got a big kick out of all the angry responses to

> > this e-mail. We have truly become a society

> poisoned

> > by political correctness. Mimi is exactly right

> when

> > she says that aids is a disease that effects only

> > homosexuals and intravenous drug users. I have

> been

> > to two aids funerals, one a homosexual friend, and

> one

> > an intravenous drug user. Political correctness

> > condemns this truth, because we have to accept

> > everyone and everything in this politically

> correct

> > society we live in. The odds of a monogamous,

> hetro

> > couple getting AIDS is extremely low. The odds of

> a

> > homosexual, or intravenous drug user getting aids

> is

> > extremely high.

> >

>

>

 

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

[Guest guest]

Bridgette,

 

Take a look at the United States Center for Disease

Control website http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm

 

I have nothing at all against homosexuals. My best

friend happens to be a gay man. I guess I don't have

anything against IV drug users either.

 

The first funeral I ever went to was for Ron Ricci who

was an IV drug user for years. He was also the first

adult who ever took me fishing, and taught me how to

play baseball when I moved here from a foreign

country. I only wish that Ron did not do the things

that led to his premature death. He left 2 children

without a farther. besides his IV drug use, we all

knew that he was a wonderful person who only did

rotten things because he was powerless over drugs.

 

I try not to let my emotions cloud my thinking The

statistics speak for themselves.

 

I agree with Roger when he said:

" What people don't know is that they named AIDS a

syndrome and not as a

disease. This was convenient for them because they

keep on pilling on

new symptoms all the time. It's lots of old diseases

combined together. "

 

Today's feel good crowd want to believe that AIDS is

just random, and that anyone can get it. Although

there is spill over, sexual promiscuity and IV drug

use is still the predominant factor.

 

Paul Theroux wrote a book about his last trip to

Africa (he has spent years traveling there) I found it

fascinating how he described the industry growing

around AIDS. It is now the biggest business in

Africa. The feel good groups insist that we dump tons

of money into teaching them how to use condoms. This

has been a failure, because is runs counter to their

culture. A neat fact has come to light. Africans are

now so scared of death of AIDS, that they are starting

to practice monogamy for the first time ever. This

was self taught. Not bought with western funds.

 

Rufus

 

 

 

 

--- Bridgitte <syndactylcat wrote:

> > [RH]

> > Hello Bridgitte,

> >

> > I hope you don't decide to leave the group. Have

> you done any

> reading

> > about the AIDS hoax to be so sure about your

> beliefs in regard to

> this?

> > There are over 100 world-class scientists who

> believe that AIDS is

> not

> > caused by the HIV virus.

> >

> My comments were not about AIDS being or not being

> caused by the HIV

> virus. I was stating that it was a bigoted and

> uneducated viewpoint

> to say that only homosexuals and drug addicts get

> AIDS.

>

> I have friends who have AIDS and who have died of

> AIDS. And not all

> of them belong to one of those groups. AIDS is

> rampant in Africa

> where it's mostly contracted by hetrosexuals. I'm

> not saying that

> the spread of the disease wasn't sped up by gay men

> and IV drug

> users - that's clearly where the infection

> snowballed in the early

> 1980's. But that was over 20 years ago and it's not

> the case today.

> And to push an antiquated view of the disease is a

> dangerous and

> irresponsible thing to do, regardless of what causes

> it or how it's

> treated in allopathic medicine.

>

> Even the man who discovered the HIV virus said on

> his deathbed that

> his theory was probably bunk. I'm not questioning

> that. What is

> truly upsetting to me is that there are actually

> people on this

> planet who are so ignorant as to call an epidemic

> that has killed

> millions of people a gay men's or drug user's

> disease. It has

> nothing to do with political correctness. It has to

> do with

> compassion. And risking the backlash of not being

> compassionate

> myself, I have to say that the comments I read on

> this board earlier

> today made me sick to my stomach.

>

> Debate the germ theory all you like. I'm all for

> it. In fact, I'll

> join in. But if you're going to throw religion or

> bigotry into the

> mix, take it somewhere else. This isn't the place

> for it, and at

> least on this end, it's completely unwelcome.

>

> Bridgitte

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

[Guest guest]

Just so you all get it, I was responding DIRECTLY to this quote by

Mimi:

 

" Why would a virus (like HIV) only spread amongst the homosexuals

or drug addicts? "

 

That is a false statement. It may have been true 25 years ago, but

it's not now.

 

Bridgitte

[Guest guest]

> I have nothing at all against homosexuals. My best

> friend happens to be a gay man. I guess I don't have

> anything against IV drug users either.

 

Well, I do. Homosexuality and drug usage are both destructive behavior.

The main purpose behind sex is procreation - and that doesn't happen with

homosexuality. It is unclean to put body parts in a place they don't

belong. It isn't natural and it can't be good for the body physically,

spiritually, or emotionally. Drugs don't do anything but destroy either.

~Wendy

[Guest guest]

Roger, could you please do something about these posts, I try to just delete

what I don't like to read, but am finding it very hard to ignore messages

like this which make me so angry that I'm now shaking with fury, rather than

reading messages about raw foods and related issues. I do not wish to

exasibate the problem by replying, please help out.

Love Shell.

 

-

" ky_wendylynn " <ky_wendylynn

<rawfood >

Saturday, October 18, 2003 3:44 PM

Re: [Raw Food] Re: Ewald's book

 

 

>

> > I have nothing at all against homosexuals. My best

> > friend happens to be a gay man. I guess I don't have

> > anything against IV drug users either.

>

> Well, I do. Homosexuality and drug usage are both destructive behavior.

> The main purpose behind sex is procreation - and that doesn't happen with

> homosexuality. It is unclean to put body parts in a place they don't

> belong. It isn't natural and it can't be good for the body physically,

> spiritually, or emotionally. Drugs don't do anything but destroy either.

> ~Wendy

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Roger, could you please do something about these posts, I try to just

delete

what I don't like to read, but am finding it very hard to ignore

messages

like this which make me so angry that I'm now shaking with fury, rather

than

reading messages about raw foods and related issues. I do not wish to

exasibate the problem by replying, please help out.

Love Shell.

[RH]

Hi Shell,

 

Try to not to react to a message you disagree with. I see messages every

day that I don't agree with but if I get angry I only hurt myself. We

could use a little more acceptance and tolerance of differing

viewpoints.

 

As for moderating her post, I don't think it is necessary at this time.

I actually agree with some of what she said but not completely either.

 

If people have the desire to be gay then I say let them do it. They are

adults and have free will. They aren't hurting anyone by their actions.

But it may not be a very healthy choice. I think one of the reasons we

have so many people who are gay may have to do with the poor health of

their parents.

 

I suspect that if all parents were living according to the laws of

nature that there would be much fewer people who turn out to be gay. I

don't think we se so many gay animals out in nature as we have gay

humans. A poor diet can interfere with the hormone's and the sex

orientation. I'm not dogmatic on this point it's just my theory.

 

Personally, I believe sex is more than for just procreation. Some people

have very conservative religious views and that is ok. As long as we

don't spend all of our time pushing these theories down each others

throats. Also the main thrust of this board is health via a Vegan Raw

Food Diet and not religion or morality per se. But sometimes those paths

seem to cross.

 

I would say that we wouldn't want to see continuous posts along these

lines. That certainly would be overkill.

 

Thanks, Roger

[Guest guest]

Roger,

 

Very well said. I think that during the past month or

so we have had some great debates. I very much

enjoyed our germ debate, as well as the back-and-forth

about mucoid plaque. We have had some intelligent new

people join and the level of information exchange has

increased. I was worried that this forum might

become noting more then a recipe exchange.

 

Thanks to everyone, I am always eager to read the

latests posts.

 

Also, someone once told me that behind all anger is

fear. At first this didn't make sense to me, but

after a lot of work I now understand the concept, and

am relieved of anger. I would recommend anyone who is

angry to explore this concept. It is truly a Raw

concept. Cooked food has an impact on all aspects of

our being.

 

Thanks

 

Rufus

 

 

 

--- Roger Haeske <roger wrote:

>

> Roger, could you please do something about these

> posts, I try to just

> delete

> what I don't like to read, but am finding it very

> hard to ignore

> messages

> like this which make me so angry that I'm now

> shaking with fury, rather

> than

> reading messages about raw foods and related issues.

> I do not wish to

> exasibate the problem by replying, please help out.

> Love Shell.

> [RH]

> Hi Shell,

>

> Try to not to react to a message you disagree with.

> I see messages every

> day that I don't agree with but if I get angry I

> only hurt myself. We

> could use a little more acceptance and tolerance of

> differing

> viewpoints.

>

> As for moderating her post, I don't think it is

> necessary at this time.

> I actually agree with some of what she said but not

> completely either.

>

> If people have the desire to be gay then I say let

> them do it. They are

> adults and have free will. They aren't hurting

> anyone by their actions.

> But it may not be a very healthy choice. I think one

> of the reasons we

> have so many people who are gay may have to do with

> the poor health of

> their parents.

>

> I suspect that if all parents were living according

> to the laws of

> nature that there would be much fewer people who

> turn out to be gay. I

> don't think we se so many gay animals out in nature

> as we have gay

> humans. A poor diet can interfere with the hormone's

> and the sex

> orientation. I'm not dogmatic on this point it's

> just my theory.

>

> Personally, I believe sex is more than for just

> procreation. Some people

> have very conservative religious views and that is

> ok. As long as we

> don't spend all of our time pushing these theories

> down each others

> throats. Also the main thrust of this board is

> health via a Vegan Raw

> Food Diet and not religion or morality per se. But

> sometimes those paths

> seem to cross.

>

> I would say that we wouldn't want to see continuous

> posts along these

> lines. That certainly would be overkill.

>

> Thanks, Roger

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

[Guest guest]

I find your view point on gay people having made an unhealthy choice to be

gay to be quite unbelievable. In the first place gay people are just gay,

they don't make a choice it is just who they are and how can it be unhealthy

to love another person? Secondly, your blaming it on having unhealthy

parents leaves me speachless, as if it were something like a disease. I

appologise for asking for that post to be moderated and will not speak on

this subject again as I see where this lists simpathies lie and am very

disappointed.

Love Shell.

 

-

" Roger Haeske " <roger

<rawfood >

Sunday, October 19, 2003 4:16 PM

RE: [Raw Food] Re: Ewald's book

 

 

>

> Roger, could you please do something about these posts, I try to just

> delete

> what I don't like to read, but am finding it very hard to ignore

> messages

> like this which make me so angry that I'm now shaking with fury, rather

> than

> reading messages about raw foods and related issues. I do not wish to

> exasibate the problem by replying, please help out.

> Love Shell.

> [RH]

> Hi Shell,

>

> Try to not to react to a message you disagree with. I see messages every

> day that I don't agree with but if I get angry I only hurt myself. We

> could use a little more acceptance and tolerance of differing

> viewpoints.

>

> As for moderating her post, I don't think it is necessary at this time.

> I actually agree with some of what she said but not completely either.

>

> If people have the desire to be gay then I say let them do it. They are

> adults and have free will. They aren't hurting anyone by their actions.

> But it may not be a very healthy choice. I think one of the reasons we

> have so many people who are gay may have to do with the poor health of

> their parents.

>

> I suspect that if all parents were living according to the laws of

> nature that there would be much fewer people who turn out to be gay. I

> don't think we se so many gay animals out in nature as we have gay

> humans. A poor diet can interfere with the hormone's and the sex

> orientation. I'm not dogmatic on this point it's just my theory.

>

> Personally, I believe sex is more than for just procreation. Some people

> have very conservative religious views and that is ok. As long as we

> don't spend all of our time pushing these theories down each others

> throats. Also the main thrust of this board is health via a Vegan Raw

> Food Diet and not religion or morality per se. But sometimes those paths

> seem to cross.

>

> I would say that we wouldn't want to see continuous posts along these

> lines. That certainly would be overkill.

>

> Thanks, Roger

 

[Guest guest]

I find your view point on gay people having made an unhealthy choice to

be

gay to be quite unbelievable.

[RH]

First of all I did not say that. So please represent what I said

accurately. I did say it MAY be unhealthy. That means I think it is a

possibility. I wasn't claiming it was unhealthy.

 

I certainly don't think that anal sex for instance is a healthy thing,

whether it is done by gay or straight people. I also don't think

colonics are very healthy for similar reasons.

 

But being gay doesn't necessarily entail those activities. And anal sex

is probably much safer than eating cooked food. Except for the possible

physical damage that act could do.

 

I can't believe I am even talking about this. To be quite frank I

haven't even put much thought into this (anal sex). Just what seems like

common sense.

+++++

 

In the first place gay people are just gay,

they don't make a choice it is just who they are and how can it be

unhealthy

to love another person?

[RH]

Yes I tend to think many people who are gay genuinely feel an attraction

to the same sex. I also know people nowadays who experiment with it just

because it is in vogue. Again if they wish to do that I don't

particularly care.

 

Secondly, your blaming it on having unhealthy

parents leaves me speachless, as if it were something like a disease.

[RH]

It is quite true that our parents diets have made us very unhealthy. I

think the number of gay people has increased tremendously over the

years. So has the number of sick people in western cultures. In my

opinion, there is a correlation there. There is plenty of scientific

proof that people can have an excess of testosterone or estrogen and

this is related to dietary choices.

 

I'm just projecting that it may be related to diet. I don't say it

because some religion told me to do so. It just seems less than natural

since in order for the species to propagate it can't be done with people

of the same sex. So as I've stated this is just my theory. I don't even

think it is a big deal.

 

I have male friends I love but I also don't have any sexual desires

associated with them. Love and sex are not the same thing.

 

I think part of your biases Shell is that you may not have read the

information I have read. There is a lot of science behind what I'm

conjecturing. I'm not coming from a moralistic viewpoint on this or on

just about anything for that matter.

 

Roger