AIDS

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Since first being diagnosed in 1981, AIDS has killed about half a million Americans, most of them believed to be homosexuals and intravenous drug users, though people outside these high-risk groups are now on the rise with about 40,000 Americans contracting HIV each year. Much of the 80's were spent by prominent leaders such as then Republican Senator Jesse Helms denying the disease posed any threat to heterosexuals. Even as late as 1988 Helms continued to lead the Republican fight against research and prevention funding citing that "there is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy."

With the tide of disease contraction now having turned, one may arguably point to the recent rise among heterosexual AIDS as stemming at least in part from the decade long stall on prevention by Helms and others. An intriguing opinion of some remains "there is not one single case of heterosexual AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to Jesse Helms and the faith based fight against funding research and prevention."

CDC Cites Alarming Trends in Heterosexual AIDS

So if it is a weapon, the REPUBLICANS are evil and released it on the US public in the 1980's. If it's not a weapon, the REPUBLICANS are just stupid. Jesse Helms should be shot. Reagen is responsible too. THOUSANDS of new HETEROSEXUAL infections per year, many among teen girls and the DEMOCRATS TOLD YOU SO JESSE! You too REAGEN! Window seats in hell for both of you.




posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aliceinwonderland

>>>wrong I disagree with this 1 conspiracy and NOT all of them. I am not going let you box me in with your black and white logic.


Why is it black and white logic if it is an opinion? I disagree with your world view and could easily say you view things black and white also, but I don't because of course you are entitled to your opinion.


>>>are you trying to say no one is allowed to question statements[/quote[

There is nothing wrong with citing opinion. And there is nothing wrong with questioning concepts. I just felt your first post was of debunking nature as opposed to a discussion(especially for a first post but thats my opinion). You have questions or objections by all means state them. Sorry if I made it seem as if you aren't able to question theory or belief.


I am all for theorys and such but not when they try to insinuate that people are not at risk for hiv if they arnt black or gay, and thats not cool. it just fuels the epidemic.


I never insinuated any such thing. All I said is that it has hit the minority community the hardest(statistics show this to be fact). But that doesn't mean that others out of the risk zone aren't able to contract it....to say that would be ignorant. Anyone can get it. But lets not kid ourselves to think that upper mid to upper class are hit as hard as the lower mid to working class with old and new infections.

PS To lazy to spell check as it is really late(or should I say early morning ).


well I am not going to nit pic at spelling as I am dyslexic lol

did you know in africa people were saying haveing sex with a virgin would cure the virus? yeah a doctor I know who was there for a while was telling me this.
so you can imagine what happend when people were hearing this and believing it.

btw I read back a bit on this thread and wanted to let you know I am sorry hiv has effected your life as I know first hand how hard it is.

stay strong and be well, peace



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Thank you. And if what you say about Africa is true then that is tragic. Lack of education on the subject just ignites the flames.

Peace and be safe.



posted on Feb, 25 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ME
The most alarming fact that I recently ran across was the Dept. of Defense Appropriations for 1970. An actual documentation from congress (H.B. 15090).

AIDS is MUCH older than that.


Other alarming facts are there seem to be small pox vaccinations going on in Africa, and in America homosexuals were given hepetitus vaccinations.

And so was nearly everyone else in the early to mid 1900's. I've gotten several (I'm not homosexual, but you have to realize that nobody ASKS your sexual orientation before they give you a shot.)


It seems strange due to the fact that they say it started in Africa with a man being bit by a monkey or doing a monkey and then it spread to millions of humans in Africa. At the same time it affected homosexual communities in America.

Well, given that they've found it in tissue samples from the 1930's (and earlier), don't you think that was enough time for a sexually transmitted disease to transmit?

And given that many African societies practice a belief picked up from the Europeans -- that sex with a virgin will cure you of your sexually transmitted diseases -- are you surprised that it got so far?

I'm surprised that you don't also count the fact that once the woman is infected, she transmits the disease to *all* her subsequent children (in poor areas of the world they tend to have larger families)


How could one person start an epidemic in that short amount of time? They couldn't. The way the virus spread suggest that it was simotanously contracted by thousands.

As others say, it's a slow-moving sexually transmitted disease. Look at the statistics on syphillis sometime for comparison (the difference is that we have currently a good treatment for siphyllis... we don't for AIDS.)


Furthermore, why would an epidemic of this magnitude be so selective in where and who it infected? The report I read, if I remeber right, attemted to find out how many of the vaccinated homosexuals contractid HIV and the numbers were shocking.

Because it's also spread by needle-sharing. And it's epidemic in Russia among the HETEROsexual drug users. Not the homosexuals.


Now if the Gov. is going to produce a virus that could wipe out an entire race and possibly infect the very creators don't you think they would have came up with a vaccine before deploying?

It's not race-specific.


[Edited on 25-2-2004 by Byrd]



posted on Feb, 25 2004 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by JustAnIllusion
I think the government created HIV as a biological weapon or a form of population control. AIDS is the only ethno-selective disease on the planet. That should tell you something right there.


Given that my very Caucasian nephew died of it and my cousin's Significan Other (also very Caucasian) is dying of it, I find that statement difficult to believe.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Aids doesnt kill, the medicine does. Ive been with HIV since birth from a blood transfusion in 1982, im 23 today and have never taken meds. I would advise those who have HIV to stop taking those toxic pills!



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Please - do not advise others about potentially life-threatening health decisions unless you're qualified to do so. Or, at the very least, can offer reasons why other than "I did it and it worked". I'll refer you once again to just two very well known examples - Magic Johnson and Holly Johnson (no relation). Two HIV+ public figures who are still alive despite being dx many years ago, and despite (perhaps because of) taking years and years of anti-viral cocktails.

That's not denying ignorance - that's approaching reckless.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Charlie, also remember that everyone handles the virus differently. Some people can go 20+ years without treatment and some cannot. Just because you arent taking anything and nothing bad has happened yet, doesnt mean the drugs dont work for millions of others.

Fatalities have dropped substantially since the beginning of haart medications in the USA. That is fact.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Yes , the people taking those cocktails will eventually die from their liver not functioning, because of all these pills being flushed into their systems...not AIDS. I asked my doctor if he knew the long term effects on the meds, they DONT know. They are still experimenting! I know from experience, from watching friends die while on these drugs, i am alive and well, why because i have not popped a single pill.
AIDSmythexposed.com



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by charlie1
Yes , the people taking those cocktails will eventually die from their liver not functioning, because of all these pills being flushed into their systems...not AIDS. I asked my doctor if he knew the long term effects on the meds, they DONT know. They are still experimenting! I know from experience, from watching friends die while on these drugs, i am alive and well, why because i have not popped a single pill.
AIDSmythexposed.com


Charlie - you keep saying this, providing a long-debunked website, and offering little else.

We never know the real long term effects of ANY drug (heart drugs, antibiotics, you name it) until long after they've been approved and in use. That's how it works. That's just how it is.

Why you're still alive and well might have more to do with the method of transmission than anything else.

How about the people who don't take AZT? Many still die. From what?

How does your theory explain that?

Look. I appreciate both your candor and your desire to see others remaining healthy; but you can't in good faith advocate a treatment plan that's simply unproven.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Just thought I'd throw this out there. It's a 213 page book in pdf format you can read on line.

www.hdfoster.com...

This isn't about how AIDS spreads, it's about the cause. In a nutshell, acid rain caused selenium depletion in the soil. Of course, that really doesn't do it justice. It IS 213 pages. The author is Harold Foster, a tenured professor and PhD at the University of Victoria in Canada.

I thought it was interesting when I read it a year ago.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   
I'm going to have to read that.

This is the guy who says selenium depletion is the cause of cancer, AIDS, schizophrenia and Alzheimer's (to name but a few).

I shall report back



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   
I'll look forward to your take on his info. Obviously, there's a little more to it than my one-line synopsis.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   


Viruses do not remain dormant for five years, six months or whatever, that's total b.s., that's not how viruses work. What monkey are you talking about? if I recall correctly it was supposed to be a green monkey that was the original host, unfortunately there has never been an original host found for HIV, same goes for ebola.
more things ... do you know that HIV has never been observed popping? what's popping? when a virus goes into a cell it takes over the cell and makes it reproduce more virus cells, and more virus cells until the cell can no longer hold all of these cells and pop, the cell explodes and release's all of the new viruses out to infect other cells. that is how a virus spreads, but not HIV.


Umm I hate to say this but viruses can remain dormant in your system for years. Shingles and EBV are prime examples of viruses that remain dormant and can later cause an outbreak. Epstein-Barr Virus is mono and a person can have several remissions of this virus through out their life. Shingles usually occurs in older adults but is caused by the Varicella Zoster virus (chickenpox) lying dormant for years at the nerve roots. HIV isn't what kills people. What makes HIV so dangerous is that it kills and causes of immune cells to be destroyed leaving us suseptible to other viruses and bacterias, which in the long run causes our demise.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Don't forget, groupies, that AIDS is not technically a "virus" ---it is in fact a RETRO-VIRUS which is not normally found in "nature" i.e. in the wild or at least among humans.

So the normal "rules" of Virology do not always apply to AIDS (which is after all a "syndrome" AID-S). Which makes one suspect that it was "designed" or at least "re-engineered" from some existing pre-virus found in certain animals like Monkeys.

I (for one) suspect that the US Government (black ops military etc.) back in the 1970s deliberately designed (or at least "tweeked") an existing "viral like entity" found in nature to become a series of AIDS like viruses and then tested them on animals---then on humans beginning in 1978-1979---especially targeting select groups of people who were known to be "promiscuous" which people in the CIA etc. consider to be "expendable" (i.e. blacks and male homosexuals etc.) to see how fast their new "germ" would spread and the best ways to l. spread it (i.e. against an enemy during war time) and also 2. to control/stop its spread in case it started infecting those in power or otherwise got out of control.

I think Africa was targeted as a test ground for this pernicious Retro-Virus because )at least for racist groups like the American CIA or the Israeli Mossad or the Britsh MI-6) the continent of Africa is only good (in their eyes !) for its natural resources, and the "indigenous" peoples living and multiplying on the land were therefore considered "nuisances that were just in the way anyway...."

I also believe that the CIA and their ilk around the world wanted to see the retrovirus spread in the "real world": e.g. they targeted the gay communities in the US in Europe and the UK where "Hepatitis B shots" were really AIDS infected concoctions(remember how black males were treated/medically experimented on as "expendible test subjects" with the so called Tuskeege experiment in the 1920s?)...

There might well be a "cure" for AIDS actually in existence by now, but it would behove the pharmaceutical companies worldwide (and they are worth TRILLION$$) to wait until desperation for access to it would naturally drive the price up to outrageous proportions ("you wanna live? Then pay us the $50,000 a year for these shots !!")

I don't think this disease just sprang up out of existence without a little help from our devious world planning commissions....and if it targets the "darker" or "weaker" races, so much the better, according to their own twisted logic.

Just some thoughts off the top of my head this afternoon....



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
Don't forget, groupies, that AIDS is not technically a "virus" ---it is in fact a RETRO-VIRUS which is not normally found in "nature" i.e. in the wild or at least among humans.


I think you might be misunderstanding what a retrovirus is. Or maybe not; it just seems misused in your above sentence.

We initially thought that transcription (the process where a DNA sequence is copied to produce a complementary RNA molecule) only occured from DNA to RNA; we now know that this copying can happen by reverse transcription from RNA to DNA. Thus the use of "retro" in "retrovirus" - all it means is the copying process is reversed.

Retroviruses were already known by the 1970s; FeLV (feline leukaemia virus) was first discovered in the 1960s, just as one example (though it might have taken awhile for the term to be used).



So the normal "rules" of Virology do not always apply to AIDS (which is after all a "syndrome" AID-S). Which makes one suspect that it was "designed" or at least "re-engineered" from some existing pre-virus found in certain animals like Monkeys.


Which rules are those? Koch's Postulates? Can you clarify?


I (for one) suspect that the US Government (black ops military etc.) back in the 1970s deliberately designed (or at least "tweeked") an existing "viral like entity" found in nature to become a series of AIDS like viruses and then tested them on animals....


Except we have tissue samples from the 1950s showing the presence of HIV.


I think Africa was targeted as a test ground for this pernicious Retro-Virus because )


If the virus was known to exist in Africa in the 1950s, how did the CIA design it in the 1970s?




[edit on 18-8-2005 by Tinkleflower]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join