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.

 

HIV conspiracy

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 03:23 AM
link   
On a positive note:

33 million people on earth are living with AIDS or infected with HIV:
(www.cia.gove...)




SCIENCE
Potential cure for HIV discovered


Fri, 29 Jun 2007

In a breakthrough that could potentially lead to a cure for HIV infection, scientists have discovered a way to remove the virus from infected cells, a study released on Thursday said.

The scientists engineered an enzyme which attacks the DNA of the HIV virus and cuts it out of the infected cell, according to the study published in Science magazine.

The enzyme is still far from being ready to use as a treatment, the authors warned, but it offers a glimmer of hope for the more than 40 million people infected worldwide.cooltech.iafrica.com...


----------------------------------
Trimmed quote and added 'ex' tags



[edit on 9/9/07 by masqua]




posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Sure thing, I'll look forward to it


Peace



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
On a positive note:

33 million people on earth are living with AIDS or infected with HIV:
(www.cia.gove...)


On another positive note, the vast amount of knowledge we have learned about our immune system as we battle HIV is tremendous. Sometimes it takes a big reason to push the limits of science forward.

On a side note...

To the ones who think it is god’s way to get at the sinners of the world what then about the babies born with HIV? About 1/3 of all births from HIV mothers are also HIV. I could just easily say that the common cold is a slap on the wrist from god for us getting too close to each other.

To the ones who think it is a government conspiracy. It acts too slowly to be an effective bio weapon. With 10 year incubation time period and then any number of years/decades before AIDS with also one of the strains that doesn’t even produce AIDS this is not a very effective weapon. Ebola would be much more effective since it has about 48 hours to kill and infect it could be contained due to its extremely rapid burnout rate. The extreme quickness of the Ebola virus to kill is actually detrimental to itself for the infected can’t travel very far from the point of infection to the point they are basically incapacitated.

The one that will wipe 80% of the population on the plant will be an air born in between the HIV and Ebola burn rate. If one comes along with about 2 weeks of burn rate it will wipe the planet.


[edit on 8-9-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   
This is all interesting talk. I'll state what I have heard about HIV...and my beliefs about it later on.

What I've heard:
1: It was created by man to control homosexuality.
2: It was created by man to control the minorities(especially blacks).
3: It was a virus taken from monkeys, mutated by man & infected into man (mainly for the minorities and homosexuals).

I've heard that...the people who did this didn't really think this through and thought that same people only have sex with their own sectors. Later...they found that their theory wasn't exactly correct.

What I believe:
1: I believe the HI Virus & AIDS do help control the population(but I doubt it was created[if it was created] for that).
2: I also believe that their is a cure for both diseases.

And that's all I have to say about that.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   
There are better methods of population control than a disease that can incubate for many years before causing symptoms, and then taking years to kill someone. That does not make sense at all. I've been HIV+ for at least 16 years and I have two children. So much for control of the population in my household.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
There are better methods of population control than a disease that can incubate for many years before causing symptoms, and then taking years to kill someone. That does not make sense at all. I've been HIV+ for at least 16 years and I have two children. So much for control of the population in my household.


Ya I agree, and it is not like Africa needs population control since there was already every disease known to man already wiping them out. Ground zero was a gay flight attendant that infected 600 plus gay men around the world on his travels. This moved over to bisexuals, drug user, prostitutes and blood supply and then on to main stream.

It just happened to go that way. From many accounts it has been with us a long time but didn’t really breakout until the flight attendant. As I stated before if they really wanted to create one it would not be one that one day could get their kids too. As of right now there is no control on aids and no one is immune.

A true population control would be one where there is a vaccine but only the chosen ones get it. Kind of stupid to invent and release the disease first and not have the cure or vaccine.

[edit on 9-9-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Look at it from cause and effect. Whether you like it or not...the virus does help control the population. many things help control the population...whether from being slightly...to very effective. I know many people who abstain from sex simply because of STDs. Whether or not a virus was created for that particular purpose or not...it still helps to control the population...whether it be by killing 100 people year, preventing the births of 2 children per year or killing 2 million people a year it's population control.

You'd be surprised to know exactly how much all the minor diseases and accidents can sum up thousands to millions of lives a year...or even every 2 years. The point is...some control is there, whether intentional or not.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:21 AM
link   
The HIV origin model of Edward Hooper in his book "The River" is that the use of chimps in polio vaccine trials in the Congo in the early 1950s is what led to AIDS. Hooper notes the quite-early-on spread of AIDS in the Congo, so - "voila" he has the answer. The best the medical Establishment can rebut is to cite the presence of the AIDs virus in very old (1930s) blood specimens which has not been totally convincing. I believe Hooper's model is wrong, but the real rebuttal of it would require deep insight into occult practices especially voodoo in Haiti and Africa. Orthodox medical scientists don't have that insight. -In the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the latter 1970s, it started among Americans vacationing in Haiti who came from a "athhouse" subsulture in NY & San Francisco. -I believe the natives had a benign form of HIV to which they normally developed immunity pre birth from maternal antibodies, then acquired active immunity as children from eating monkey meat. But then the benign form of AIDS mutated vigorously when new non-immune Americans superimposed a novel route of virus transmission (sexual) in haiti in the 70s. Then it went to the Congo from Haiti. The natives were now no longer immune because the virus had mutated so fast.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by michaelanteski
The HIV origin model of Edward Hooper in his book "The River" is that the use of chimps in polio vaccine trials in the Congo in the early 1950s is what led to AIDS. Hooper notes the quite-early-on spread of AIDS in the Congo, so - "voila" he has the answer. The best the medical Establishment can rebut is to cite the presence of the AIDs virus in very old (1930s) blood specimens which has not been totally convincing.


Aids was not created as a disease caused by gays visiting Haiti, I am answering that way because you offered the rebuttal in the same context as to how it was created IE; Hooper. So you offer a generally well known factoid about gays bringing it back from Haiti. Hooper was debunked unequivocally right here in this thread by Jazz and Major (I did not know you had that Major and am very happy to hear you have been keeping it under control)



Orthodox medical scientists don't have that insight


Orthodox medical scientists would own any voodoo, witch doctor or Santeria chicken choking zombie.



I believe the natives had a benign form of HIV to which they normally developed immunity pre birth from maternal antibodies, then acquired active immunity as children from eating monkey meat.


Sounds like the perfect template for a cure?
So why isn't it being done?

Let me guess orthodox medical scientists don't have that insight



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by sdrawkcab
Look at it from cause and effect. Whether you like it or not...the virus does help control the population. .


I think I speak for all of us when I say we know that AIDS effects the population by killing off an arbitrary million or so but I wouldn't call that a control when it is a mechanism that is OUT of our control. It is also a effect in one direction without a mechanism to increase population. If Aids were a control devise or mechanism like a steering wheel it would be the kind that only makes left turns and only when it feels like it.

If you read Majors answer, it was in the context regarding the postulate that aids was created for population control. This suggests a mechanism which can used to get something out of control, under control. EXAMPLE we use aids to lower population where numbers are too high. AIDS will lower them whether the area needs it or not.

It is irrational therefore to think of it in the context of a control of any kind and is why the assertion it was invented or created for that reason is bunk. Someone smart enough to design something like that surely would be smart enough to have thougt of conventional methods of existing population controls.






[edit on 9-9-2007 by Conspiriology]



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Lets face it...

Anyone who thinks HIV was created for the means of "Wide spread" population control is simply dreaming...

There is much evidence in this thread and elsewhere to suggest the earliest likely human cases of this virus occurred circa the 1920's-1930's...

To suggest it was created much later for nefarious purposes seems on balance, highly unlikely...To suggest it was created by "god" is simply ludicrous...In fact, I find it very insulting to those who have HIV, whichever way they may have acquired the virus to suggest such a thing


BTW Conspirology, where's my link to the Egyptian thingo ?
Any search web wise draws a blank on this one, which to my mind makes it very unlikely given the reach of the web these days on matters such as the HIV "conspiracy"

Peace


[edit on 9-9-2007 by Rilence]



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   




Well as a matter of fact I have found many on the web. May I ask how you make your search query?

The reason I ask this is because the book I read the mummy's found were many that had TB, Kaposi's Sarcoma hepatitis -B etc.

Since HIV has never been seen in any cells and dead people can't be interviewed for questions about drug use, gay sex, etc. they can't be tested the same way that Elisa western blot or other virus load test would otherwise determine a positive for HIV. Ill post one of the debates that was given between a Doctor and an actuary who was the Doctors patient and had tested positive for HIV.

It's a provocative argument .








[edit on 9-9-2007 by Conspiriology]



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   

HAS GALLO PROVEN THE ROLE OF HIV IN AIDS?

Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM. Emergency Medicine [Australia] 1993;5: 113-123.

ABSTRACT

The evidence that Robert Gallo and his colleagues presented on 4th May 1984 regarding HTLV‑III (HIV) isolation and the role of HIV in the pathogenesis of AIDS is critically analysed. It is concluded that the evidence does not constitute proof of the isolation of a retrovirus, that the virus is exogenous or that the virus is causally related to AIDS.

www.virusmyth.net...


Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 9/9/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF HIV AND THE HIV ANTIBODY TESTS

Geneva, June 28th 1998


The only way to prove the existence of a virus is to isolate its particles. It is only by doing this that we obtain pure particles to inspect, and analyse, and to introduce into fresh cell cultures to prove particles make more of the same. After all, no matter how viral-like they may look, this is what particles must show us before they ever earn the title, virus.

Have HIV experts gone to all this trouble? No. The only reason we have HIV is antibodies. A few antibodies amongst the plethora in AIDS patients that react with a few proteins present in the lymphocyte cultures of AIDS patients. When it is all said and done, it’s not just that antibodies are used to prove some individuals are infected with HIV. For the HIV protagonists, antibodies are the proof that they have isolated HIV.

www.virusmyth.net...


--------------------------
Trimmed quote and added link

[edit on 9/9/07 by masqua]



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   
When I am told that HIV was caused by Africans eating monkey brains makes me believe there is a conspiracy.
Monkey brains....... sure.......

US Labs



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Not a one person in this thread said anything about monkey brains being eaten as the vector of HIV entering the human population.

There is no conspiracy. There's just a bunch of paranoid people who want to blame someone for nature's taking its course and evolving a virus that crossed species barriers, just like smallpox, tuberculosis and other diseases have done in the past.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Jazz? Major? whatis going on here? You seen any of this ?



www.virusmyth.net...



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Yeah, i've heard all that stuff before, Conspiriology. That's the tack that several African nations are taking so that they don't have to supply medicines for their people (because they're too expensive). Note that site hasn't been updated in four years.

Every person I know who's died of AIDS had HIV first. That's enough information for me until and unless the medical journals themselves come up with an alternative theory.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Here, the truth about why they believe HIV leads to AIDS:

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases factsheet



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Not a one person in this thread said anything about monkey brains being eaten as the vector of HIV entering the human population.

There is no conspiracy. There's just a bunch of paranoid people who want to blame someone for nature's taking its course and evolving a virus that crossed species barriers, just like smallpox, tuberculosis and other diseases have done in the past.


In the 90s thats what everyone was told, repeated and repeated on the news.
HIV is not natural, human created.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join