Hiv/aids "conspiracy theory" question [Archive]

View Full Version : Hiv/aids "conspiracy theory" question

pacoquerak

11-12-2008, 08:33 PM

so you guys believe that there is no aids without people being medicated for hiv???!

thelucifer

11-12-2008, 11:30 PM

so you guys believe that there is no aids without people being medicated for hiv???!

By "medicated for hiv" do you mean man made ?

Check out Leonard Horowitz - Emerging Viruses, Aids and Ebola.

Look him up on youtube or read via google search.

picha

16-12-2008, 08:24 PM

By "medicated for hiv" do you mean man made ?

Check out Leonard Horowitz - Emerging Viruses, Aids and Ebola.

Look him up on youtube or read via google search.

I think he means do the drugs themselves cause AIDS rather than the virus, which IMO they do.

montag

16-12-2008, 08:40 PM

so you guys believe that there is no aids without people being medicated for hiv???!
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19471&highlight=hiv+aids

hagbard_celine

17-12-2008, 04:29 PM

There are virgins who've "caught HIV":eek:. I read in a magazine that a nurse at a medical mission in Africa got it, and died after a course of AZT; this was despite the fact that she was a Franciscan nun and had never had sex. They came up with some daft explanation: that she'd stubbed her toe on a bloodstained piece of furniture in theatre. But how can this be if the virus cannot live in the open air? As Erich von Daniken said: the forest of question marks grows!

The people in Africa "dying of AIDS" are actually dying of the same things anyone die of when they've got no clean drinking water, food or shelter. They are diagnosed with AIDS without a HIV test in most cases. The doctor just observes certain symptoms and says "It's AIDS"; things like chest infections, skin problems, hair loss. The thing is that malnutrician and parasite infestation and other diseases of poverty can also cause those symtoms! But the patient is simply told "It's AIDS" and is sent home with a prescription for an AIDS patient. If...when they eventually die of hunger or water-bourne infections the doctor goes "Oh dear, we just lost another poor man to AIDS"!

The rate of suposed-HIV infection in Africa is anything from 20 to 60%! Those figures are astronomical when you consider that in the West it's a mere 20% of a percent! This vast discrepancy is written off as the fact that you can't get condoms very easily in Africa! In some villages in Natal, the worst supposed-AIDS infected place in the world, there are more people disgnosed with AIDS than those without it! Also Credo Mutwa said in an article in the medical resources of the old David Icke.com main site that Africans never practice anal penetration, not even gay men. Yet this is what is blamed for a HIV infection rate a hundred times the global average!

I remember a long time ago seeing something on Central News about a man who died "of AIDS" after a course of AZT. his wife was making enquieries because he'd been a perfectly healthy guy up till then despite being HIV+ for a few years. Unfortunately the news story never asked the questions we're asking now; and in those days neither did I. But I recall it as relevent today.

dreamweaver

17-12-2008, 05:00 PM

I know a guy who has had the HIV virus for over 20 years and has never contracted full-blown Aids. He has been on combination therapy for years, so the drugs certainly haven't made him develop Aids.

He credits his long-term survival with two things:

1) Having one of the best consultants in the country when he was in London (although he now lives in the north and isn't so impressed with his new consultant).
2) Educating himself about medical issues to the extent that he would probably make a good doctor (but he can never become one because of the virus).

ayomide

17-12-2008, 05:47 PM

They should abolish this HIV test - cause most people die spirtitually when they find out they positive. Also add drugs to it then you got real shit!

Also I would like to make mention of something people mostly say Afrique has the highest rate of HIV/AIDS, I do not agree with that, thats fueling the stigma and negative energy.

Also most Afrique people do not have means to get through life and it's because all our resources are going to the West so that you guys can have a high standard of living. So if you want this to stop - stop consuming from 3rd world countries - because to consume is greedy and it's stealing. Take what you need and not more. Most Afrique people are sleeping and have this mindset of as long as I can just make it through the day and God will do the rest. The continent is becoming barren and desolate like Europe - Europe ran out of resources and they started stealing from the rest of the world.

Not to sound discriminating but this is something that people are warned about here - not to sleep with any of the tourist that come from the West - this is due to the fact that many healthy African woman and men contracted HIV from Westerners.

I also believe it's a man-made thing - like most here. You can be positive and healthy and accomplish many things there was a Lady here in Namibia, 1st lady to make her status known and she broke a barrier and she lived well and I think she still is:)

But just so you on the safe side - be responsible if you the promiscuous type - I got a feeling that theres more to HIV and AIDS:)

picha

18-12-2008, 07:35 PM

I just wanted to paste this excellent article here written by Dr Culshaw who is a mathematical biologist, is basically explains why HIV=AIDS=DEATH is complete and utter bullshit:

As I write this, in the late winter of 2006, we are more than twenty years into the AIDS era. Like many, a large part of my life has been irreversibly affected by AIDS. My entire adolescence and adult life – as well as the lives of many of my peers – has been overshadowed by the belief in a deadly, sexually transmittable pathogen and the attendant fear of intimacy and lack of trust that belief engenders.

To add to this impact, my chosen career has developed around the HIV model of AIDS. I received my Ph.D. in 2002 for my work constructing mathematical models of HIV infection, a field of study I entered in 1996. Just ten years later, it might seem early for me to be looking back on and seriously reconsidering my chosen field, yet here I am.

My work as a mathematical biologist has been built in large part on the paradigm that HIV causes AIDS, and I have since come to realize that there is good evidence that the entire basis for this theory is wrong. AIDS, it seems, is not a disease so much as a sociopolitical construct that few people understand and even fewer question. The issue of causation, in particular, has become beyond question – even to bring it up is deemed irresponsible.

Why have we as a society been so quick to accept a theory for which so little solid evidence exists? Why do we take proclamations by government institutions like the NIH and the CDC, via newscasters and talk show hosts, entirely on faith? The average citizen has no idea how weak the connection really is between HIV and AIDS, and this is the manner in which scientifically insupportable phrases like "the AIDS virus" or "an AIDS test" have become part of the common vernacular despite no evidence for their accuracy.

When it was announced in 1984 that the cause of AIDS had been found in a retrovirus that came to be known as HIV, there was a palpable panic. My own family was immediately affected by this panic, since my mother had had several blood transfusions in the early 1980s as a result of three late miscarriages she had experienced. In the early days, we feared mosquito bites, kissing, and public toilet seats. I can still recall the panic I felt after looking up in a public restroom and seeing some graffiti that read "Do you have AIDS yet? If not, sit on this toilet seat."

But I was only ten years old then, and over time the panic subsided to more of a dull roar as it became clear that AIDS was not as easy to "catch" as we had initially believed. Fear of going to the bathroom or the dentist was replaced with a more realistic wariness of having sex with anyone we didn’t know really, really well. As a teenager who was in no way promiscuous, I didn’t have much to worry about.

That all changed – or so I thought – when I was twenty-one. Due to circumstances in my personal life and a bit of paranoia that (as it turned out, falsely and completely groundlessly) led me to believe I had somehow contracted "AIDS," I got an HIV test. I spent two weeks waiting for the results, convinced that I would soon die, and that it would be "all my fault." This was despite the fact that I was perfectly healthy, didn’t use drugs, and wasn’t promiscuous – low-risk by any definition. As it happened, the test was negative, and, having felt I had been granted a reprieve, I vowed not to take more risks, and to quit worrying so much.

Over the past ten years, my attitude toward HIV and AIDS has undergone a dramatic shift. This shift was catalyzed by the work I did as a graduate student, analyzing mathematical models of HIV and the immune system. As a mathematician, I found virtually every model I studied to be unrealistic. The biological assumptions on which the models were based varied from author to author, and this made no sense to me. It was around this time, too, that I became increasingly perplexed by the stories I heard about long-term survivors. From my admittedly inexpert viewpoint, the major thing they all had in common – other than HIV – was that they lived extremely healthy lifestyles. Part of me was becoming suspicious that being HIV-positive didn’t necessarily mean you would ever get AIDS.

By a rather curious twist of fate, it was on my way to a conference to present the results of a model of HIV that I had proposed together with my advisor, that I came across an article by Dr. David Rasnick about AIDS and the corruption of modern science. As I sat on the airplane reading this story, in which he said "the more I examined HIV, the less it made sense that this largely inactive, barely detectable virus could cause such devastation," everything he wrote started making sense to me in a way that the currently accepted model did not. I didn’t have anywhere near all the information, but my instincts told me that what he said seemed to fit.

Over the past ten years, I nevertheless continued my research into mathematical models of HIV infection, all the while keeping an ear open for dissenting voices. By now, I have read hundreds of articles on HIV and AIDS, many from the dissident point of view but far, far more from that of the establishment, which unequivocally promotes the idea that HIV causes AIDS and that the case is closed. In that time, I even published four papers on HIV (from a modeling perspective). I justified my contributions to a theory I wasn’t convinced of by telling myself these were purely theoretical, mathematical constructs, never to be applied in the real world. I suppose, in some sense also, I wanted to keep an open mind.

So why is it that only now have I decided that enough is enough, and I can no longer in any capacity continue to support the paradigm on which my entire career has been built?

As a mathematician, I was taught early on about the importance of clear definitions. AIDS, if you consider its definition, is far from clear, and is in fact not even a consistent entity. The classification "AIDS" was introduced in the early 1980s not as a disease but as a surveillance tool to help doctors and public health officials understand and control a strange "new" syndrome affecting mostly young gay men. In the two decades intervening, it has evolved into something quite different. AIDS today bears little or no resemblance to the syndrome for which it was named. For one thing, the definition has actually been changed by the CDC several times, continually expanding to include ever more diseases (all of which existed for decades prior to AIDS), and sometimes, no disease whatsoever. More than half of all AIDS diagnoses in the past several years in the United States have been made on the basis of a T-cell count and a "confirmed" positive antibody test – in other words, a deadly disease has been diagnosed over and over again on the basis of no clinical disease at all. And the leading cause of death in HIV-positives in the last few years has been liver failure, not an AIDS-defining disease in any way, but rather an acknowledged side effect of protease inhibitors, which asymptomatic individuals take in massive daily doses, for years.

The epidemiology of HIV and AIDS is puzzling and unclear as well. In spite of the fact that AIDS cases increased rapidly from their initial observation in the early 1980s and reached a peak in 1993 before declining rapidly, the number of HIV-positive individuals in the U.S. has remained constant at one million since the advent of widespread HIV antibody testing. This cannot be due to anti-HIV therapy, since the annual mortality rate of North American HIV-positives who are treated with anti-HIV drugs is much higher – between 6.7 and 8.8% – than would be the approximately 1–2% global mortality rate of HIV-positives if all AIDS cases were fatal in a given year.

Even more strangely, HIV has been present everywhere in the U.S., in every population tested including repeat blood donors and military recruits, at a virtually constant rate since testing began in 1985. It is deeply confusing that a virus thought to have been brought to the AIDS epicenters of New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles in the early 1970s could possibly have spread so rapidly at first, yet have stopped spreading completely as soon as testing began.

Returning for a moment to the mathematical modeling, one aspect that had always puzzled me was the lack of agreement on how to accurately represent the actual biological mechanism of immune impairment. AIDS is said to be caused by a dramatic loss of the immune system’s T-cells, said loss being presumably caused by HIV. Why then could no one agree on how to mathematically model the dynamics of the fundamental disease process – that is, how are T-cells actually killed by HIV? Early models assumed that HIV killed T-cells directly, by what is referred to as lysis. An infected cell lyses, or bursts, when the internal viral burden is so high that it can no longer be contained, just like your grocery bag breaks when it’s too full. This is in fact the accepted mechanism of pathogenesis for virtually all other viruses. But it became clear that HIV did not in fact kill T-cells in this manner, and this concept was abandoned, to be replaced by various other ones, each of which resulted in very different models and, therefore, different predictions. Which model was "correct" never was clear.

As it turns out, the reason there was no consensus mathematically as to how HIV killed T-cells was because there was no biological consensus. There still isn’t. HIV is possibly the most studied microbe in history – certainly it is the best-funded – yet there is still no agreed-upon mechanism of pathogenesis. Worse than that, there are no data to support the hypothesis that HIV kills T-cells at all. It doesn’t in the test tube. It mostly just sits there, as it does in people – if it can be found at all. In Robert Gallo's seminal 1984 paper in which he claims "proof" that HIV causes AIDS, actual HIV could be found in only 26 out of 72 AIDS patients. To date, actual HIV remains an elusive target in those with AIDS or simply HIV-positive.

This is starkly illustrated by the continued use of antibody tests to diagnose HIV infection. Antibody tests are fairly standard to test for certain microbes, but for anything other than HIV, the main reason they are used in place of direct tests (that is, actually looking for the bacteria or virus itself) is because they are generally much easier and cheaper than direct testing. Most importantly, such antibody tests have been rigorously verified against the gold standard of microbial isolation. This stands in vivid contrast to HIV, for which antibody tests are used because there exists no test for the actual virus. As to so-called "viral load," most people are not aware that tests for viral load are neither licensed nor recommended by the FDA to diagnose HIV infection. This is why an "AIDS test" is still an antibody test. Viral load, however, is used to estimate the health status of those already diagnosed HIV-positive. But there are very good reasons to believe it does not work at all. Viral load uses either PCR or a technique called branched-chained DNA amplification (bDNA). PCR is the same technique used for "DNA fingerprinting" at crime scenes where only trace amounts of materials can be found. PCR essentially mass-produces DNA or RNA so that it can be seen. If something has to be mass-produced to even be seen, and the result of that mass-production is used to estimate how much of a pathogen there is, it might lead a person to wonder how relevant the pathogen was in the first place. Specifically, how could something so hard to find, even using the most sensitive and sophisticated technology, completely decimate the immune system? bDNA, while not magnifying anything directly, nevertheless looks only for fragments of DNA believed, but not proven, to be components of the genome of HIV – but there is no evidence to say that these fragments don’t exist in other genetic sequences unrelated to HIV or to any virus. It is worth noting at this point that viral load, like antibody tests, has never been verified against the gold standard of HIV isolation. bDNA uses PCR as a gold standard, PCR uses antibody tests as a gold standard, and antibody tests use each other. None use HIV itself.

There is good reason to believe the antibody tests are flawed as well. The two types of tests routinely used are the ELISA and the Western Blot (WB). The current testing protocol is to "verify" a positive ELISA with the "more specific" WB (which has actually been banned from diagnostic use in the UK because it is so unreliable). But few people know that the criteria for a positive WB vary from country to country and even from lab to lab. Put bluntly, a person’s HIV status could well change depending on the testing venue. It is also possible to test "WB indeterminate," which translates to any one of "uninfected," "possibly infected," or even, absurdly, "partly infected" under the current interpretation. This conundrum is confounded by the fact that the proteins comprising the different reactive "bands" on the WB test are all claimed to be specific to HIV, raising the question of how a truly uninfected individual could possess antibodies to even one "HIV-specific" protein.

I have come to sincerely believe that these HIV tests do immeasurably more harm than good, due to their astounding lack of specificity and standardization. I can buy the idea that anonymous screening of the blood supply for some nonspecific marker of ill health (which, due to cross reactivity with many known pathogens, a positive HIV antibody test often seems to be) is useful. I cannot buy the idea that any individual needs to have a diagnostic HIV test. A negative test may not be accurate (whatever that means), but a positive one can create utter havoc and destruction in a person’s life – all for a virus that most likely does absolutely nothing. I do not feel it is going too far to say that these tests ought to be banned for diagnostic purposes.

The real victims in this mess are those whose lives are turned upside-down by the stigma of an HIV diagnosis. These people, most of whom are perfectly healthy, are encouraged to avoid intimacy and are further branded with the implication that they were somehow dreadfully foolish and careless. Worse, they are encouraged to take massive daily doses of some of the most toxic drugs ever manufactured. HIV, for many years, has fulfilled the role of a microscopic terrorist. People have lost their jobs, been denied entry into the Armed Forces, been refused residency in and even entry into some countries, even been charged with assault or murder for having consensual sex; babies have been taken from their mothers and had toxic medications forced down their throats. There is no precedent for this type of behavior, as it is all in the name of a completely unproven, fundamentally flawed hypothesis, on the basis of highly suspect, indirect tests for supposed infection with an allegedly deadly virus – a virus that has never been observed to do much of anything.

As to the question of what does cause AIDS, if it is not HIV, there are many plausible explanations given by people known to be experts. Before the discovery of HIV, AIDS was assumed to be a lifestyle syndrome caused mostly by indiscriminate use of recreational drugs. Immunosuppression has multiple causes, from an overload of microbes to malnutrition. Probably all of these are true causes of AIDS. Immune deficiency has many manifestations, and a syndrome with many manifestations is likely multicausal as well. Suffice it to say that the HIV hypothesis of AIDS has offered nothing but predictions – of its spread, of the availability of a vaccine, of a forthcoming animal model, and so on – that have not materialized, and it has not saved a single life.

After ten years involved in the academic side of HIV research, as well as in the academic world at large, I truly believe that the blame for the universal, unconditional, faith-based acceptance of such a flawed theory falls squarely on the shoulders of those among us who have actively endorsed a completely unproven hypothesis in the interests of furthering our careers. Of course, hypotheses in science deserve to be studied, but no hypothesis should be accepted as fact before it is proven, particularly one whose blind acceptance has such dire consequences.

For over twenty years, the general public has been greatly misled and ill-informed. As someone who has been raised by parents who taught me from a young age never to believe anything just because "everyone else accepts it to be true," I can no longer just sit by and do nothing, thereby contributing to this craziness. And the craziness has gone on long enough. As humans – as honest academics and scientists – the only thing we can do is allow the truth to come to light.

March 3, 2006

Rebecca V. Culshaw, Ph.D. [send her mail], is a mathematical biologist who has been working on mathematical models of HIV infection for the past ten years. She received her Ph.D. (mathematics with a specialization in mathematical biology) from Dalhousie University in Canada in 2002 and is currently employed as an Assistant Professor of Mathematics at a university in Texas.

Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com

johngr

18-12-2008, 08:55 PM

The whole AIDS paradigm imo is no accident that continues because of momentum in spite of epidemiological evidence and common sense, but rather was constructed out of whole cloth as a psyop and carefully planned and stage-managed from the start. It is the 911 of the '80s but still not recognized as such even by the most of the dissenters (Duesburg alluded to to this at least and of course was ridiculed for it), whom the official story people in Orwellian fashion call "denialists".

As with most such enterprises, the ton of money to be made off it was an added bonus. It would take a PhD in semiotics to properly deconstruct the memetic layers of bullshit and assess the impact on the people growing up with AIDS (the propaganda, not the condition). The fear was targeted at heterosexual people whom they had believing would be dropping like flies. It had to because that's where most of the funding and political support would come from.

AIDS spawned, in addition to numerous charities and astroturfed political pressure groups, whole industries and legions of professional managers, experts, social engineers and various and sundry do-gooders. The people at the top, down to and including Heckler and Gallo knew what they were doing. They could not have not known.

filip

18-12-2008, 09:02 PM

so you guys believe that there is no aids without people being medicated for hiv???!

Kind of... HIV medicine (AZT) is so poisonous that it completely destroys the immune system. Heroin, "Poppers" (Amyl nitrite) and other street drugs can have the same effect.

HIV does not cause AIDS

angel147

26-12-2008, 05:39 PM

so you guys believe that there is no aids without people being medicated for hiv???!

I believe thin man disease in Africa to be primarily starvation. A few aids cases may exist, but I believe most aids deaths are hits through doctors/hospitals, on junkies, gays, people of color and those otherwise judged not to have a right to live. when you are percieved to be able to die of any sickness, then any sickness or poison can kill you without being questioned. Stop going to doctors/hospitals. Some are absolutely good, but it is the evil ones you will need to avoid, whom are quite scrupulous and dedicated to their causes.

mister lister

13-01-2010, 04:00 AM

Sorry guys, but there is no such thing as HIV. HIV has never been isolated and the only reason positive tests exist is because HIV tests including western blots test only for proteins (that are supposed to be unique to the composition and presence of), and antibodies (that are supposed to be unique to the presence of) related to HIV. They don't actually detect a virus itself. Say a western blot test puts you down as positive for the p24 protein. Well there's other medically proven reasons to have such a protein totally unrelated to HIV. I am an HIV skeptic and proud of it.

Read Duesburg and Rappoport to be sure. But they proclaim the existence of HIV. It's a mistake. Try reading instead Maria Papagiannidou St-Pierre (http://www.rethinkingaids.com/Default.aspx?tabid=157), Janine Roberts, Stefan Lanka, Henry Bauer (http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/) and finally, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos of the Perth Group (http://www.theperthgroup.com/aboutpg.html), who maintain to this day that HIV was never isolated and that Gallo knowingly committed fraud (http://www.fearoftheinvisible.com/gallodefendsemai) when he submitted his articles and photos to those scientific magazines in the eighties. Hell, the head of Electron Microscopy in America told Gallo, these are not retroviruses you have. These are not viral particles. No matter. Gallo said it was anyway. Soon he will be put in prison and fined once more people catch on to his lie.

I also suggest you guys watch the new film coming out soon made by a canadian journalist called HOUSE OF NUMBERS. They are panicking so much that the frenchman Luc Montagnier, whom Gallo ripped off his 'HIV retrovirus' discovery from, and almost got busted for it but was saved on a technicality, says himself in the film, HIV is harmless and you can cure yourself of it with a good immune system and diet. THE AIDS INDUSTRY IS PANICKING.

HIV HAS NEVER BEEN ISOLATED FROM AIDS PATIENTS
h ttp://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Unhived_Mind_II/index.php?showtopic=11186

HIV DOESN'T EXIST SAYS EXPERT
h ttp://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Unhived_Mind_II/index.php?showtopic=5855

THE FRAUD OF WESTERN BLOT TESTS
h ttp://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Unhived_Mind_II/index.php?showtopic=9458

GP120 PROTEIN IN NOVARTIS'S SWINE FLU VACCINE
WILL FLAG YOU AS HIV+ ON QUACK TESTS!
h ttp://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Unhived_Mind_II/index.php?showtopic=18777

Top Scientists Ask Medical Journal Science To Retract Original AIDS Papers
h ttp://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Unhived_Mind_II/index.php?showtopic=9450

janine roberts on robert gallo's paper on cause of aids
janine roberts on robert gallo's paper on cause of aids - YouTube
Transcript:

I have a draft of the key paper printed worldwide as proof that HIV causes AIDS. I have it as it was typed by Popovic after he had done the key experiments in the absence of his boss. Gallo had gone to Europe and...lectured at the Pasteur Institute, said that my... did it not yours. He told the BBC that he found the AIDS virus.

We now come back to find Popovic finished the experiment and made a typed manuscript reporting the experiment that was supposed to go into the science Journal and then he went to Utah to ski and Gallo started reading it.

This paper is the reason it was proven that it a French virus. We know it had Montagnier's changes upon Gallo. We know the paper was typed by Popovic. But I turned the page to page three. And I found Popovic had typed, "Despite the best of research efforts. We can not find the causative agant of AIDS." It was crossed out by Gallo. He was absolutely furious.

Two lines down Popovic descrbes it as AN ASSUMPTION, Gallo's theory that a retrovirus causes AIDS. Again Gallo crossed it out. He must be getting madder and madder.

And then got to the conclusion, Popovic said that all he meant to do was to get some spikes of RT which he took to be of the retrovirals, was intermittently present in this culture. He says it look like we're managing to grow the virus at least intermittently. This makes it possible for the vital immunological and other genetic code experiments are done to impro - in the future. That is the last line in the paper. So the experiment to prove it causes AIDS, popovic points it out as a possibility for the future using this culture. That's all the paper says. At no point does he try to prove a virus causes AIDS. There is no test. No pathogen. No isolation. There's no experiments. Gallo added to the title of the paper the word ISOLATION. Gallo completely rewrote the conclusion.

It gets worse. When the paper was published, it had micrographs in it credited to Ganda (sp?) head of electromicroscope in National _____ Institute. Among these papers I found was a letter from Ganda to Gallo and Popovic saying those samples you sent me saying it had the AIDS virus in them, and for microscoping for publication, have no virus in them, less alone any retroviruses. No particles of the right shape. It's only got cellular debris in there. That letter is dated four days before Gallo handed in the papers for publication with photographs from Ganda, which Gallo puts underneath and says these are HIV.

This is clear evidence of scientific misconduct. I'm hoping we can get prominent scientists to call for the withdrawl of these papers. We've never had so clear cut evidence before.

I'm afraid that David Icke's new article (http://www.naturalnews.com/027922_AIDS_David_Icke.html) on the AIDS lies, which came out in time for the new movie, HOUSE OF NUMBERS, while great to read, is nothing too new. But better later than never for some who aren't up to date I guess. Remember, HIV doesn't just not cause AIDS. IT DOESN'T EXIST. IT WAS NEVER ISOLATED. GALLO KNOWINGLY LIED.

e7304

14-01-2010, 03:23 PM

First came across the lie bck in the 1980s early 90's through Nexus magazine and read articles by Vladmir Turner and a virologist named Popodopolous (or something like that), plus Duesberg and a few videos (one was called Monkey Business and was quite good what I remember, as it highlighted the whole AIDS "industry". Tried telling folks but as usual just the blank looks one gets when you challenge their dogmatic paradigm.)

The BBC actaully did a couple of docos on the "business", that exposed Glaxo/Welcome and Oz four corners showed them, but that was a long time ago....and the bbc has become a joke.

I wait to see the movie House of Cards but expect it to be of limited release.

revealerofsecrets

14-01-2010, 04:34 PM

rydeon

14-01-2010, 06:14 PM

The HIV / AIDS scare pretty much killed off the happy-go lucky vibe of the 80s that had been present in the 60s and 70s.
In fact its led to wrong path taken in life by society as it's caused fear and distrust of fellow human beings.
But this is just one factor of many negative things... :(

accuracy

16-01-2010, 10:52 AM

http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Unhived_Mind_II/index.php?showforum=11

nightwriterk

17-01-2010, 09:04 AM

I remember seeing an article in an American Medical Journal about 10 years ago here in the U.S. that showed the cause of infection with AIDS. The vast majority of infections were caused by the white coats themselves!

It was admitted - in black and white - in one of their own magazines.

But, the fact is that it was all created in a lab... it had to be.

Similar to the Swine Flu and the old so-called Spanish Flu - it was created in a lab by a bunch of sadistic psychopaths who have the same mentality and intellectual level of a kid with a magnifying glass killing ants with sunlight.

They think they are so clever - but they are just common killers.

hagbard_celine

17-01-2010, 01:56 PM

Sorry guys, but there is no such thing as HIV.

I think it's possible that the virus itself exists. It would be a very top-heavy conspiracy if the tests detected proteins or antibodies for something that just wasn't there:confused:. But I've no doubt that if HIV exists then it's completely harmless:). It's one of many completely harmless strains of virus that pass through our bodies all the time, but we never hear about them because doctors are not interested in them.

mister lister

20-01-2010, 09:31 AM

It would be a very top-heavy conspiracy if the tests detected proteins or antibodies for something that just wasn't there
Um I believe that is just what I have implied. That the tests are bunk and don't actually look for a virus, but start with a conclusion and basically work backwards. Seriously, what planet are you on if you don't think conspiracies involving large people can exist in the corrupt medical field if it can exist in banking, media control, intelligence agencies, pedophile rings, etc? Why the hell are you on this board even if you're going to say something like that. Study my links please. There IS NO VIRUS. ALL HIV TESTS ARE FRAUDS!!!

glacidtek

20-01-2010, 10:54 AM

There IS NO VIRUS. ALL HIV TESTS ARE FRAUDS!!!

I have studied your links.... I would love to believe HIV is a fraud.... I would love to see irefutable evidence to back this up.

This is an extremely emotive subject - looking at it rationaly, I have not been convinced either way.

hagbard_celine

20-01-2010, 05:51 PM

Um I believe that is just what I have implied. That the tests are bunk and don't actually look for a virus, but start with a conclusion and basically work backwards. Seriously, what planet are you on if you don't think conspiracies involving large people can exist in the corrupt medical field if it can exist in banking, media control, intelligence agencies, pedophile rings, etc? Why the hell are you on this board even if you're going to say something like that. Study my links please. There IS NO VIRUS. ALL HIV TESTS ARE FRAUDS!!!

I will, and then we'll talk, but I need to ask you something first:

Would you like to edit your post a bit... and remove the rude remarks. In answer to your question, I'm just somebody on this board who doesn't like being patronized and overreacted upon.:mad: Thanks.

hagbard_celine

20-01-2010, 05:52 PM

I have studied your links.... I would love to believe HIV is a fraud.... I would love to see irefutable evidence to back this up.

This is an extremely emotive subject - looking at it rationaly, I have not been convinced either way.

It's a tough one I know:(. To get it wrong either way will cost thousands... no millions of lives.:eek:

I have carefully considered it, and I think HIV is indeed a fraud. It may exist, but it's harmless.

dude111

20-01-2010, 09:16 PM

I know a guy who has had the HIV virus for over 20 years and has never contracted full-blown Aids. He has been on combination therapy for years, so the drugs certainly haven't made him develop Aids.He has probably not let them try to treat this which is why its most likely not hurting him....

Virus's DO NOT LIKE BEING ATTACKED and if they are,they usually lash out and get worse!!

A lady in cali i heard about years ago also had HIV..... SHE DID NOT LET THEM TREAT HER.. (It had stayed in remission (I hope it still is now))

decided

20-01-2010, 09:34 PM

Bayer distributed HIV

but then there is this -

AIDS hoax?

HIV hoax?

decided

20-01-2010, 09:45 PM

And here is the one by Dr. Leonard Horowitz

Robert Gallo: The Man Who Created AIDS

glacidtek

21-01-2010, 08:58 AM

hagbard_celine

25-01-2010, 10:27 AM

Thanks for the further links and info....

its off topic, I know... BUT.....

What if yourself or a loved one were diagnosed as HIV+...... how many of the millitant HIVhoax theorists have to live with the spector of HIV.

Its easy to speculate when your on the outside.... what would your possition be if that was not the case?

(Its kindof like the recent Banking Crash - I didnt realy lose anything from the crash.... so I can call the bankers greedy self serving twats who have manipulated us...... what would my possition be if I had lost everything?)

I know, mate. It's a very tricky subject.:( The consequences of getting it wrong are so terrible. It's the same with cancer. The medical establishement is so adament that the "CIOAPTS" method (Cut-It-Off-And-Poison-The-Stump) is the only thing which gives you a chance of being saved from cancer that it's easy to say intellectually that this is not true, but when you're sitting in the oncologists' surgery being told you have it, it's very different.:eek: