View Single Post
Old 06-07-2018, 10:55 AM   #48
da2255
Senior Member
 
da2255's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 276
Likes: 154 (100 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
After the highly toxic AZT was quickly approved for an AIDS-medicine, it was also quickly advised for HIV-positive victims, without any symptoms of AIDS.
We have really come full circle as in 2018 the ARV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) is pushed for HIV-negative promiscuous gays (and some other “high-risk” individuals)…

PrEP was first a treatment for HIV-positive victims, but now this PrEP (a blue pill sold as Truvada) has become the miracle drug that will prevent HIV-infections. PrEP is now instead ONLY given to HIV-negative people and NOT to HIV-positive victims. This requires an HIV-test (get your test now!)…
Following The Matrix movie from 1999, the blue pill represents “blissfull ignorance”!
I haven’t found a single story that tries to explain how PrEP could prevent an infection with the (magical) HIV “virus”.
I neither have found any good story that exposes PrEP for the fraud it is (besides stories on adverse effects).

It is claimed that when promiscuous gays take PrEP daily it is almost 100% effective in preventing an HIV-positive test.
Because of the fake story that HIV causes AIDS, not a single trial on PrEP has been done to see if it prevents AIDS (but instead only if it prevents HIV-positive tests)…

The following 2016 report is the “best“ scientific-looking on PrEP that I found.
No placebo was used, so the trial is worthless…

They took 544 HIV-negative gay men who had anal intercourse without a condom in the previous 90 days. About half of them got the daily PrEP tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine and the others nothing (for “control”).

The participants were enrolled between 29 November 2012 and 30 April 2014. Based on early “evidence” of effectiveness, the trial steering committee quickly recommended on 13 October 2014, that all participants would get PrEP, effectively stopping the evaluation of PrEP. Just like the AZT trials…

The “evidence” was that only 3 subjects in the group on PrEP got an HIV-positive test versus 20 in the “control” group. HIV-positive was decided based on the (unreliable) HIV antigen–antibody test. Although they were also tested with the HIV RNA test, these results were ignored for some (unexplained) reason...
There were 28 adverse events caused by PrEP, the most common: nausea, headache, and arthralgia.

Sheena McCormack – Pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent the acquisition of HIV-1 infection (PROUD): effectiveness results from the pilot phase of a pragmatic open-label randomised trial (2016): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4700047/


I’ve found an interesting literature review that has a lot of information on AIDS from AIDS-whistleblowers.
It includes information that shows that HIV tests aren’t reliable, which automatically discredits the “scientific” evidence that PrEP prevents an HIV-infection (not even counting that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS)…

In 1996, Johnson reported more than 60 factors that can cause a false-positive HIV-positive test result.
No fewer than 5 different criteria have been used by different groups in the US to decide if somebody is HIV-positive. The criteria for a HIV-positive test are p41 and p24, protein–antigens that are found in the blood of “healthy individuals”. This means that criteria used to “flag” the presence of HIV aren’t “specific to HIV or AIDS patients [and] p24 and p41 are not even specific to illness”. In other words, healthy victims can test HIV-positive but without ever being “infected” by HIV...

There are significant differences worldwide in how the test results are interpreted. If someone tests positive for p160 and p120 he/she would be sentenced as HIV-positive in Africa, but not in Britain. On the other hand a test reaction to p41, p32, and p24 would be considered HIV-positive in Britain, but negative in Africa.
Celia Farber comment cynically:

In 2010, the scientist Etienne de Harven added to the debate that none of the images of particles supposedly representing HIV ever show HIV-particles coming from an AIDS-patient.

Kay Mullis, who won the 1993 Nobel Prize for chemistry for inventing PCR for detecting DNA, explained that PCR couldn’t be used to test for HIV:

According to Mullis, AIDS is caused by “system overloads”, maybe the result of a “chain reaction”. His hypothesis assumes that AIDS is caused by: “

Patricia Goodson – Questioning the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis: 30?Years of Dissent (2014): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172096/
(archived here: http://archive.is/sOXts)
Aids according to Dr Duesberg was caused by heavy Amyl Nitrate abuse, it was never even originally supposed to be a specific disease but a surveillance tool.

Its really obvious to me that they stoked up the fear as much as possible so everyone would be pleading and begging for a solution, which would in turn guarantee employment in the AID$ industry.
If I'm right then id have to say its a really despicable thing to do, and I also wouldn't be surprised that when I saw Freddy Mercury looking so ill that it was the results of the AZT poisoning.

Last edited by da2255; 06-07-2018 at 10:57 AM.
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote