It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

AIDS Big Lie

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   
When the outbreak of AIDS started in the summer of 1986, homosexuals and injection drug users were they only major communities affected. To receive funding from a conservative, indifferent Reagan adminsitration, gay activists and AIDS researchers created "The Big Lie", that AIDS is spread as easily through penile to vaginal and vaginal to penile contact as injection drugs and anal sex.

Researchers pointed to the AIDS outbreak in Africa which showed equal amounts of women and male AIDS cases and said "That's the future for the US. Give me money!" They lied that no one has anal sex in sub Sahara Africa, and that the AIDS cases were due to heterosexual sex. They ignored facts about needle sharing, unsterilized medical and dental instruments, blood transfusions, and bad hygeine (sharing of razors). They also ignored the facts that most HIV positive women prositutes were injection drug users and placed the blame on heterosexual sex.

The far left acceppted the big lie to get funding for their gay lobby. Gender feminists used it to push their agenda of degrading sex and lower its intimacy through condoms, and equating it to non-gender sex acts (oral and anal).

The far right accepted the big lie to promote absitence and to further the prudish idea that sex is a bad act. They tried to make sure heterosexuals having sex did not enjoy it.

The facts keep validating this point. Numerical, there is not enough sex going on in Africa to support the exploding AIDS cases. The instance of HIV transmission in heterosexual sex is 20% the rate of transmission via anal and blood injection. AIDS cases in prostitutes from Europe and America are much less than AIDS cases in prostitutes in Africa, and AIDS cases in injection drug users. Vaginal tissue, cannot obsorb large molecules and nutrients versuses anal tissue.

Bottom line is that AIDS is not a traditional STD. It transmits mainly from bloodstream to bloodstream and rarely through penile to vaginal and very rarely vaginal to penile contact. The idea that AIDS will attack the heterosexual community with the same intensity as the homosexual and injection drug community was the Big Lie spread by both the far right and far left.




posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I wrote about the emergence of AIDS in 1981, and since I was just a grade 11 highschool student in western Canada, I am sure I didn't hear about it right away. I agree with you about all your other points, and my current feeling is that it was introduced into the human race in the 1950's inside vaccination doses given out in West and Central Africa. My other current feeling is that it is a designed disease targetting those people that they considered bad, detrimental, or of no use. In my view, it is no fluke that it's main victims are IV drug users, homosexuals, sex workers, and people in the developing world.
There are websites that outline the evidence supporting the man made nature of AIDS theory.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I also have heard tons about how AIDS is man-made, but as far as the rest of this information-
do you have any sources?

anywhere you can point us to back this up or so we can learn more?



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   
one distrubing theory was that it was interduce into the humans by a guy having sex with a gorilla and receiving the virus

who knows anymore



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
one distrubing theory was that it was interduce into the humans by a guy having sex with a gorilla and receiving the virus

who knows anymore


That must be one tuff guy cause the gorilla could easily tear his head off. (then go for the one on his shoulders)

The version I heard of ape to human transmision was a bit more tame. They would kill and eat the apes and thats how it spread.

Personally i don't know how it got started. I do agree that every special interest seems to have their own twist on using it to their advantage though.

Its sad really.

Wupy



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
www.uow.edu.au...

www.aidsorigins.com...

On a similar track, you might want to check out the details of the Tuskogee Syphillis experiments that are a precedent setting criminal act carried out by the medical community on unsuspecting US citizens. It is proof that not all lives were considered sacred by the government that was supposed to protect them.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
On a similar track, you might want to check out the details of the Tuskogee Syphillis experiments that are a precedent setting criminal act carried out by the medical community on unsuspecting US citizens. It is proof that not all lives were considered sacred by the government that was supposed to protect them.



will do, if you are really into this stuff, have you spent any time looking into other vaccines that some claim have been given to african nations? such as the theories of where our cancer epidemic originated? or the infertility vaccines disguised as routing anti-deadly disease vaccinations?
That stuff scares the crap out of me! I just hope I didn't get anything bad when my parents got me vaccinated, though I wonder about the possible crohn's/MMR vaccine connection.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
This year I had a thought. If the technology that we are allowed to see, as members of the public is truly 5 to 10 years behind the 'real' level of the military developers, then it is possible that nanotechnology has already reached the point where little microbots could be added to injections. Who knows, we may all have a micro-sized legion of robots travelling around inside us already. Just a thought.
I don't know much more about vaccines, but I do know that Canada was the scene of some horrific brainwashing experiments in the sixties, carried out on unsuspecting patients. It was allegedly funded by the secret agencies from our southern neighbors, and performed in a hospital here.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
I just watched a fascinating documentary called "The Origins of Aids" on this very topic recently. There is a VERY convincing theory that goes like this...

In 1957, a team of doctors including one Paul Osterieth, began a massive polio vaccination campaign in and around the Belgian Congo. Osterieth and his team of doctors built a massive lab in Congo for the purpose of growing polio vaccine in tissue culture. Despite knowing that it was dangerous to grow vaccines using simian kidneys for the tissue cultures, they forged ahead and produced polio vaccine; enough to inoculate over one million souls. The campaign continued until 1960.

In 1959, the first case of Aids was reported in the same region of Africa. The present theory is the contaminated polio vaccine caused it.

Years down the road, other scientists started asking questions about how the polio vaccine was grown. Osterieth's team first admitted using monkey kidneys for tissue culture purposes, then later denied doing that very thing. We do know however that Osterieth's team DID use tissue cultures derived from monkey kidneys, and that there is a very good chance that HIV is simply a version of SIV (Simian Immunodefiency Syndrome) which mutated when it was introduced to a human host, via the Polio vaccine.

Just a couple of years ago, a US scientist decided to try to find out once and for all by acquiring a sample of the polio vaccine which was distributed in the Belgian Congo and testing it for HIV and related contaminants. When he approached the Government to acquire a sample, he was told it no longer exists, and that all of the work he was speculating about had already been done, and there was no link. He was forced to take that at face value since he could not test the vaccine himself.

Skeptics have tried to disprove the theory by claiming to have traced HIV all the way back to the 1930's, which would mean the virus pre-dates the polio campaign, but that fact is still disputed.

Today, Osterieth refuses to give interviews, and still vehemently denies using monkey kidneys for tissue culture, despite hundreds of witnesses and lab workers who recall tending to chimps, and even slaughtering and autopsying them when ordered to.

I would highly reccommend the documentary "The Origins of Aids" if you can find it.

Also, the first person to publicly float this theory is a journalist who got his story of the same name published in Rolling Stone circa '92 or '93 I think.

Could doctors have accidentally created the scourge of the new millennium? I'm starting to become a believer.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 05:26 AM
link   
' Could doctors have accidentally created the scourge of the new millennium? I'm starting to become a believer. ' TroyDayton

I have read the Nazi's were working on an ethnospecific fatal disease that they could use to help with their final solution plans for the Jewish people. Then, I read that in South Africa, they were researching a similar project to develop a disease that would only affect ethnic Africans. I remember a bit more about the brain erasing experiments, it was in Montreal, and a Dr. Cameron was in charge, I believe. Unsuspecting hospital patients had their memories erased........ without even asking their permission.
The Tuskogee Syphillus crime only increases the possibility that the gov't would attempt such a heinous thing as creating AIDS on purpose to control the overpopulation seen to be coming faster than it did. I sure hope that it is proven that AIDS was not a designer disease, and also the hemmorhaggic fatal diseases like Ebola, which are also, at the very least, intriguing, in their lack of a specific origin, and relatively recent arrival on the scene.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by blanketgirl
such as the theories of where our cancer epidemic originated?


What cancer epidemic?

We've always had cancer. We hear about it more, as it's reported with much more consistency than previously, and the past 100 years or so have seen a massive increase in the use of carcinogens (nicotine, anyone?)...but I'm not seeing where this suggests any kind of deliberate epidemic.

And we're also seeing people live longer - the older you get, the more likely you are (by simple default) to get cancer.

Check out this site, too



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   
First of all, I agree, longevity is bound to play a role, seniors are far more likely to die of cancer than young adults.
I feel that cancer is just a catch all term for 'death'. Lung death is called lung cancer, skin death - skin cancer, stomach death... you get the idea. It is just a label arbitrarily assigned by us to define the death of a system. It is all just death imho.
And I also think that our poorer diets, with less nutrients, and more fat, sugar, etc. play a role. As do chemicals, additives, preservatives, pesticides, herbicides, etc. And pollution accumulation in our environment which we cannot help but absorb. Also, our lack of physical aerobic activity compared to past times, may weaken our immune system too. Anyway, the doctor's average lifespan is 58 years, and a bus driver's is 75, so I will be asking my bus driver how to live a longer life, for purely statistical reasons.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   
You're right in as much as cancer often leads to death....but it's not synonymous with death.

Lung disease isn't called cancer unless the characteristics of cancer are in place; generally speaking, this relates to tumour formation...the same goes for skin cancer, etc etc.

Perhaps more to the point though is that the cancer cells don't die of their own accord. That's actually the problem with cancer - it's a disruption of the growth/death cycle of a cell; more specifically it results from the cells no longer following the usual growth/death sequence. So, you get too many cells, and these cells do not follow the correct system of apoptosis, so they don't die when they should.

I'm also intrigued by the lifespan claim..you wouldn't happen to have a link to where I could find this, would you?



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Of course, many folks beat cancer, but, cancer will kill you if you don't fight it, hence my cancer = death comment.
The quoted lifespans are from "Dead doctors don't lie" by a doctor. Joel Wallach? not sure of his name, but I really learned a lot from him.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
...I feel that cancer is just a catch all term for 'death'. Lung death is called lung cancer, skin death - skin cancer, stomach death... you get the idea. It is just a label arbitrarily assigned by us to define the death of a system. It is all just death imho.
And I also think that our poorer diets, with less nutrients, and more fat, sugar, etc. play a role. As do chemicals, additives, preservatives, pesticides, herbicides, etc...Anyway, the doctor's average lifespan is 58 years, and a bus driver's is 75, so I will be asking my bus driver how to live a longer life, for purely statistical reasons.


Your comment about cancer is a very interesting point of semantics, but scientifically innacurate. If anything, cancer is life, not death. It is just undisciplined, purposeless life. Cancer cells metastasize into tumors by reproducing indiscriminately and in an undifferentiated fashion: the cells that grow are not skin cells, nor organ cells, nor bone, they are just...cells, of no particular function or purpose. Thus they have no blood vessels growing through them to feed them and carry away the poisons of their metabolism. Sometimes this works in the body's favor. My brother was diagnosed with folicular cancer at the age of 35, and he chose to follow a nutritional regimen to combat the disease rather than standard aliopathic treatments. While this course of action did not succeed in quelling the cancer, it did keep him healthy enough to survive until the cancer overgrew its limited blood supply.

In particular, the large tumor in his armpit overgrew itself to the extent that a massive die off of the cancer cells ensued. This was discovered by the doctors when he was finally hospitalized by his condition. The first task of the doctors was to take a biopsy of this large tumor. Once its outer perimeter was pierced, a gout of gangrenous dead cancer cells poured out of the wound. The remnants of that tumor were easily removed, and he submitted to the standard radiation and chemo therapies to be rid of the other, smaller tumors. His nutritional regimen also gave him the strength to withstand those treatments, and happily he is cancer-free today at age 43.

But this thread is about AIDS, not cancer. There is strong evidence to suggest that the polio eradication program undertaken in Africa is the source of AIDS infection and its primary means of spreading into the human population. I recall a radio interview with several health workers that admitted that they did not have near enough sterile syringes to perform the innoculations for small pox, and it was decided that they would reuse the needles they had "until they became clogged with plugs of flesh" and were too dull to be used. At the time, they felt this was a necessity as the disease they were fightiing was so much more insidious than anything that could be passed via a dirty needle.

How wrong they were.

There is also a paper available via the 'net entitled AIDS-war.txt, or by its rightful title "AIDS as a weapon of War, by Dr. William Campbell Douglas, M.D."



The scientific party line is that a monkey in Africa with AIDS bit a native on the butt. The native then went to town and gave it to a prostitute who gave it to the local banker who gave it to his wife and three girlfriends and what!

50 to 75 million people became infected with AIDS in Africa and throughout the world. This is an entirely preposterous story, and it is preposterous because:

1. The green velvet monkey of Africa doesn't get human AIDS. You can't reproduce the disease in monkeys even by injecting AIDS virus directly into them.

2. After injecting the virus into monkeys, you can't transmit it to other monkeys, much less to humans.

3. Genetically, AIDS (HIV-1) is not even close to the monkey form of immunodeficiency virus.
[For references on the three items above,
see: Seale, Dr. John J.,
Royal Society of Medicine, Sept. 1987,
Seale, Dr. John J.,
The Origin of AIDS -- International
Conference on AIDS, Cairo, March 1988.]

4. AIDS started not in the villages but in the cities of Africa, where there are no wild monkeys.

5. The doubling time of AIDS infection being about 12 months, one monkey biting one native and then spreading the disease would have taken 20 years to reach a million cases. Seventy-five million Africans became infected practically simultaneously. At the same time, the disease became rampant in the U.S., Haiti and Brazil.

It is obvious that one monkey couldn't have done that (or one homosexual, either). There had to be some sort of simultaneous seeding process.

The only worldwide simultaneous seeding going on at the same time was the smallpox vaccine program of the World Health Organization (the WHO).

The early epidemiology of the AIDS pandemic fits the smallpox vaccination project of the WHO -- AND NOTHING ELSE -- with the exception of the U.S., which we will examine subsequently.)

The AIDS virus was created in a laboratory by combining lethal animal "retroviruses" in human cancer (HeLA) cell cultures. These viruses have never before caused infection in man.

The "species barrier" has always been nature's way of keeping a deadly virus from wiping out the entire animal kingdom, including man. ...

The virologists deny that the AIDS virus, HIV-1, is of animal origin. I am sure that you see the paradox here. Aren't monkeys animals?

They are also united in saying that it's not possible for the virus to have been engineered in a laboratory. If it didn't come from other animals and it didn't come from a laboratory, and they now admit privately that the monkey couldn't have done it, then it must have come out of thin air. That's a theological position and hence beyond argument. It's certainly not scientific.


In regards to vaccines, he has this to say:



AIDS was not the first germ warfare attack against Americans.

In the early '60s, millions of unsuspecting Americans took either Salk injected polio vaccine or the live Sabin polio vaccine, which was taken by mouth.

BOTH WERE LACED WITH S.V.-40, A CANCER-CAUSING MONKEY VIRUS.14

With an incubation period of 20 years, we are only now seeing the grim results of this bio-attack against Americans, largely in the form of brain tumors and leukemia.

Salk didn't like the Sabin vaccine and Sabin didn't like the Salk vaccine. I think they are both right. It is interesting to note that polio was rapidly disappearing WITHOUT a vaccine (J. Trop. Pediat, env. Child. Health 21, 11) ....


Interesting stuff, hmmmm?

Please forgive me for the overlong quote from the paper, but I do not know where it can be linked to online. There is no copyright information included with the document that I have, other than to say that it is intended for electronic copying and distribution.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Original lots of the polio vaccine have been tested for the presence of HIV using certain tests that were not available 1950s. These same PCR tests (polymerase chain reaction) are used today to diagnose HIV infection in children, adolescents, and adults; when tested, no HIV was present in any of those lots.

In addition (and perhaps more importantly), HIV has been found in the frozen samples of people infected before the polio vaccines were created.

You might find these threads of interest


Origin of AIDS

Another here



[edit on 8-9-2005 by Tinkleflower]



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Dr. Douglas wasn't suggesting that the polio virus and AIDS were connected, he was suggesting that the polio vaccine is in part responsible for the widespread epidemic of cancer plaguing the Baby Boomers and late-bloomer Baby Boomers. I merely thought that the point was interesting, and worth including, considering the amount of space that we had given to cancer in this thread. Sorry I didn't segue into that information more clearly.


But I do thank you for the links to the other thread, which I started to read this afternoon. Very interesting, although the beginning of that thread seems to support at least part of Dr. Douglas' theory. After learning something of the "shadow government's" MKULTRA program over the last few years, Dr. Boyd E. Graves timeline does not seem too far-fetched to me. The link in that thread to the information presented by Dr. Graves is no longer valid, by the way; his site is now here: www.boydgraves.com..., and his timeline covering the history of euqenics research and germ warfare in the US can now be found here: www.boydgraves.com....

To be honest, during the 80's and 90's I was reluctant to believe that AIDS was a biological weapon, but considering the virus' seeding patterns--and a few years ago I saw a special on PBS where they showed graphically how the AIDS infection followed the path of the smallpox eradication program--and the "normal" course of a sexually-transmitted infection through a population, it is hard to dismiss the idea as "just another conspiracy theory."

I will post back here with more thoughts on this once I have had a chance to read the other thread.




posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Look forward to it


(doing more reading on it all myself
)



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Original lots of the polio vaccine have been tested for the presence of HIV using certain tests that were not available 1950s... no HIV was present in any of those lots.

In addition (and perhaps more importantly), HIV has been found in the frozen samples of people infected before the polio vaccines were created.



Actually Tink, in the 90's when they tried to go back and test the polio vaccine used on the African population in the 50's, they were told no samples of the vaccine exist anymore. To the best of anyone's knowledge, the actual polio vaccine used in the 50's has never been tested using modern means and there's a strong implication that the powers that be are stonewalling with the help of the governement for fear of what would happen if the truth came out.

Regarding your comments about the "pre-polio" AIDS cases, according to the aforementioned documentary film "The Origins of AIDS" there has been only ONE reported case of HIV prior to the 50's polio inoculation era (in Germany no less), and it was never confirmed with hard science. The implication that HIV cases already existed before the polio inoculation campaign is the company line that has been touted for years. They've never been able to prove it to my knowledge.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   
It does make sense of what you are saying...i guess it could be true...i'll look it up.



new topics




 
0

log in

join