It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bill Gates, Soros spreading ebola?

page: 12
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 10:37 AM

originally posted by: manna2

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: manna2

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: manna2
I ran into some info where ebola only infects those with the rhesus monkey gene. So what about those who are rh-. Are we immune?a reply to: manna2

But that's not true. I've already posted articles that show a variety of monkeys were infected and vectors.
are you a doctor? Or posing as one? Are you familiar at all with rh- blood types?

Found in Rhesus macaque was classified in the Landsteiner-Wiener antigen system (antigen LW, antibody anti-LW) in honor of the discoverers.

What does that have to do with the point, that Rhesus was not the only monkey species to be effected nor has Ebola been found to have Rh selectivity.

Since you brought it up to the class, please explain blood antigens and how they are classified and how they work and the physiological evidence of blood type in relation to viral transmission. Can you point out any examples of viruses that are Rh specific?
i thought i was fairly clear in ASKING if this could be rh specific. You claim to know the science. So why avoid discussing humans who are rh or rh-?

I have been looking for where I ran into the paper discussing but have not found it yet.

I ask because there seems to be alot of race specific diseases lately, like sars, mers, etc...

That is an excellent question and I thank you for bringing it up.

I guess the point is that the monkeys infected are not just the Rhesus monkey, neither have we any information about RH specificity in human victims.

Most people have Rh-positive blood, meaning that they produce the "Rh factor," an inherited protein found on the surface of their red blood cells. But about 15 percent of the white population and 7 percent of the African-American population lack the Rh factor. These people are Rh-negative.

The importance of the antibodies on blood, and there are a lot more than A,B,O, Rh, there are also 30 more--Duffy, Kell, etc--, is the body's recognition of foreign or "not foreign" proteins.

The question is, could the virus be Rh selective, or actually, does the virus display certain proteins such as Rh factors to "fool the immune system," because it is not the virus that is doing selection, it would be the human's immune system.

In order to determine that, one has first to see if there is a pattern. Of course, most people who get the disease will be Rh+ because most people are Rh+. One would have to see the blood types of the people affected and see if there is some statistically significant patterns. If 93% of those infected were + and 7% - then that would not support that theory as that is the normal spread of the Rh factor in that population. If, say, 60% of those infected were + and 40% were negative (or the reverse) then one could see a pattern that suggests that the virus expresses Rh analog proteins to "fool" the immune system.

No expression is 100% so there is not going to be a definite and exact demarcation, just trends. Consider the fact that people of Scandinavian ancestry are less susceptible to the HIV virus and People of African descent are the most susceptible.

Dr. Harold Burger, of the New York State Wadsworth Laboratory in Albany, and his team found a statistically very significant set of genetic differences between HIV-positive and HIV-negative American women. Their study focused upon 2,047 HIV- positive women, compared with a pool of 558 race- and age-matched HIV-negative women. It isolated a genetic mutation that had previously been shown in men to be protective against HIV infection.

The mutant gene, called delta-32, if inherited from both parents, results in an abnormal, and in this case protective, receptor called ccR5 on the surface of the subject's cells. Because HIV cannot recognize the mutant delta-32 form, it cannot infect the cell. Some individuals inherit the gene from one parent and can be infected with HIV, but some studies in men have indicated that they are less likely to rapidly develop the lethal disease after infection.

This makes sense in that the virus evolved in Africa and evolved to "prey" on the population there. Since it did this, it evolved to fool the immune system of that population. Given that Caucasians also get HIV, one can understand that such expression is not complete.

Diseases seem to be more race specific because different "races" of humans have a slightly different evolutionary background and therefore express different genetic expression based on their evolutionary background. Sickle Cell disease, for example was an evolutionary response to endemic Malaria and those with the trait (one allele) are resistant to Malaria, whereas those who express " too much resistance" and have both alleles for the sickle cell gene, have sickle cell disease.

Many diseases and viruses trend to race specificity most likely because they evolved in regions where there is racial homogeny (say China) and thus evolved to defeat the immune system of the dominant race.
edit on 3-8-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-8-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 10:19 PM
Small pox was never eradicated


Text Smallpox was declared eradicated, yet still infects humans today. By Viera Scheibner, PhD


Print PDF

In 1967, the World Health Organization(WHO) initiated a world-wide eradication campaign against smallpox. In that year, some 131,000 cases of smallpox were reported to WHO from 42 countries. It was understood that this number could have represented only some 5% of the total number of cases. What was the possible motivation for such an ambitious program?

Side effects and ineffectiveness of smallpox vaccination have been the main smallpox issue discussed in medical papers for a long time. In 1928, the British Medical Journal (14 January:74) published an article by Garrow showing that the fatality rate among the vaccinated cases of smallpox in England and Wales in 1923 and 1926, in those over 15 years of age, was higher than among the unvaccinated. This stirred a lively discussion, published on 21 January 1928 (BMJ; 115-116). Among the comments are those of Percy Stocks, who considered waning vaccine immunity the reason for increased mortality among those of 15 years of age. He tried to imply that although dying within 2 months of contracting smallpox, victims could have died of other causes.

Others, such as Wynne, also tried to explain the five-fold higher smallpox mortality rate in the over 15 year old vaccinees during 1923 and 1926 smallpox epidemics by waning immunity. However, he scalded Garrow for broadcasting in the medical press an assertion “…which he must be aware will be quoted, on his authority and without context, by the antivaccinationist press. This kind of action can do nothing but handicap his colleagues who are engaged in combating the present epidemic of small-pox, with its serious burden on the public funds, the loss of wages involved, and the damage to industry quite apart from the detriment to public health, which in my opinion recent experience is becoming more serious as the infection is passed through the human medium.”

So, the main concern not to embarrass the medical profession while showing a complete lack of concern about the blindness to the truth, and to the obvious (a forgotten word in medicine), on the part of the medical profession, was rife already then.

- See more at:

a reply to: VashKonnor

posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 09:04 AM

originally posted by: Murgatroid
According to Dr. Rima Laibow, the UN, CDC and WHO are suppressing a proven cure for Ebola.

The Governments, WHO and their associated minions are lying about this and saying there is no cure or treatment…

The cure is available at any health store.



Oh! Wait! They DID come up with a cure, prevention and treatment for it: 10 PPM Nano Silver. That’s right! OOPS! US Government, WHO and their associated minions are lying! Again!

The US government study (declassified in 2009) which showed definitively that Nano Silver at 10PPM IS the definitive prevention and therapy for Ebola virus “somehow” got “overlooked”. We do not know how long before that the work actually took place. But the US civilian authorities knew not later than 2009 that there is a cure, treatment and prevention for Ebola virus.

And the kill rate for this disease of convenience, genetically engineered to be more deadly than ever before, just happens, I am sure coincidentally, to be the exact number depopulationists like Bill Gates and George Soros have wet dreams about: 90%.

So when I wrote yesterday to the Heads of State of Liberia, Guinea, Nigeria and Sierra Leone (and the Directors of WHO, Doctors Without Borders) and other world leaders, I told them about Nano Silver and offered to provide a protocol for them so they could stop the Ebola outbreak dead in its tracks before any other people died in their tracks.

The response? Silence. Stone, cold silence except for an auto responder from the Ministry of Health in Sierra Leone thanking me for my question. I wasn’t asking a question. I was solving their biggest problem: extermination. So here is my new question: You know and I know that I am not the only doctor who knows that Nano Silver is the Universal Antimicrobial, that it’s safe, inexpensive, self sterilizing, needs no refrigeration and works against every single disease-causing bug its ever been tested on.

Why the UN, CDC and WHO Want You to Believe Ebola Has No Cure or Treatment


<< 9  10  11   >>

log in