By Bill Freeman
Jon Rappoport just posted an article that asks an interesting question: In all germ-related illnesses, when you have developed antibodies it means your body has been successful in fighting the disease. You are not going to get sick.
Why then is it, that when we talk about HIV and Aids, the presence of antibodies means something completely different? Are the standard rules of medical treatment not valid for Aids? Something to think about…
And another question: If we were to have an Aids Vaccine tomorrow, and people were to start making HIV antibodies AFTER receiving a vaccine, would those antibodies still signify that they should be treated with deadly AZT?
Jon Rappoport just posted an article that asks an interesting question: In all germ-related illnesses, when you have developed antibodies it means your body has been successful in fighting the disease. You are not going to get sick.
Why then is it, that when we talk about HIV and Aids, the presence of antibodies means something completely different? Are the standard rules of medical treatment not valid for Aids? Something to think about…
And another question: If we were to have an Aids Vaccine tomorrow, and people were to start making HIV antibodies AFTER receiving a vaccine, would those antibodies still signify that they should be treated with deadly AZT?
