Hi Dave,
I'll argue this point only hesitantly, because I have no delusions of
expertise on the subject! But, the fact that it has a vague name (i.e.
generalities, and ending in "syndrome") is really neither here nor there.
That doesn't mean that it *isn't* a specific, definable disease. (Which
entirely begs the question of its homeopathic treatment, anyway.)
It is only *certain* types or presentations of "immune deficiency" that
could be even momentarily suspect as part of AIDS; e.g. "getting lots of
colds" wouldn't cut it, nor would "catching every bug that passes thru".
The "immune deficiency" of AIDS deals with far deeper levels of resistance,
and altho there are a number of paths it can follow (including no path!),
these are only of a fairly specific small number, as I understand.
Including e.g. the disorders that are *rare* in the non-infected, but orders
of magnitude more common among the HIV-infected. etc., etc.
I was not aware that the majority of HIV+ never develop AIDS. (And what do
you mean by "never"? That's a long time!) My understanding has been that
we're seeing *more* who show the infection even for years without developing
"the disease", and I think that's consistent with the natural "adaptation"
that pathogens of certain types and populations go thru. (I think it is
accepted that HIV is only weakly infective, and that most who are exposed,
will not acquire the infection (esp. if the starting immunity is normal),
but that's a different matter.)
I'm afraid I can't remember now (and don't want to take the time to find the
prior post) why I thought it mattered whether we called AIDS (or anything
else) "chronic" or "acute" or "half-acute", except that an "acquired" miasm
(i.e. something you "caught") could be expected to be (I think) less
overlaid, and tangled-up, and commingled with the patient's entire life,
heredity and etc. (Note I said *less* tangled; I admit that the patient is
certainly part of the picture!). But the HIV situation seemed to me much
more similar to Will's examples, of Lyme's, rabies, etc. (something that was
"caught") than to inborn results of one's ancestors' histories. And
therefore perhaps treatable by a smaller group of remedies (more similar to
treating acutes), compared with treatment of Psora, sycosis, etc.
This is long-winded, sorry...
Shannon
on 11/10/02 8:28 PM, Dave Hartley at
dave@localcomputermart.com wrote: