AIDS is a man made virus !

Aids was created in a lab in the US between 1960 and 1970 to use as population control .

given to unsuspecting people via commen vaccinations such as the hep b shots and smallpox ...


pdfnet.dk...


AIDS is not a natural disease, it is the result of a sinister plan to reduce population. In the 1960s and '70s, when the virus was created in laboratories in the U.S. and spread worldwide, it became increasing population considered a major problem, and under President Carter held a government commission in the report "Global 2000" that about three billion people should be eradicated. AIDS virus has been developed for this purpose


www.originofaids.com...


[edit on 2/8/10 by alysha.angel]

[edit on 2/8/10 by alysha.angel]

Where is your proof? An article in -- what language is that? Scandinavian? -- which is very short and says, I'm sure, almost exactly what you said with no proof either, does not really count. I believe that this is possible, but there's no hard proof of it that we have access to.

Originally posted by Solasis
Where is your proof? An article in -- what language is that? Scandinavian? -- which is very short and says, I'm sure, almost exactly what you said with no proof either, does not really count. I believe that this is possible, but there's no hard proof of it that we have access to.

i am just getting started and i plan to do my own research into this .

but i for one have believed this since i was a teenager .

reply to post by alysha.angel


If AIDS was manmade would they not have made a better job of it, I mean would it not have made sense to make it immune to anti-retrovirus drugs, they could have made something much better.

Here is a link I came across a few months ago. For the record, I agree that AIDS was engineered. Mycoplasma, the linking pathogen. www.whale.to/m/scott7.html

Originally posted by Solasis
Where is your proof? An article in -- what language is that? Scandinavian? -- which is very short and says, I'm sure, almost exactly what you said with no proof either, does not really count. I believe that this is possible, but there's no hard proof of it that we have access to.

Where is you're proof to say otherwise? What logic are you using? from 10 year ago ? which is very short and says, I'm sure, almost exactly what you said with no proof either, Do YOU really count?...NO! I believe that AIDS is the man made proof, since we have dumpt billion of dollars into it and no cure.... what would be the reason behind it?... any smart person would understand it is a man made virus to control population.

THE hard proof is the logic of the fact that after all this time, all this advancement in technology, all the news of cures on cancer and aids from promising new discoveries that where closed and hidden and shut down mean that there is more then the idea of AIDS being just a natural virus that pop up from who knows where fro who knows what reason... CMON!!! wake up!!!

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Moonguy]

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by alysha.angel

 

If AIDS was manmade would they not have made a better job of it, I mean would it not have made sense to make it immune to anti-retrovirus drugs, they could have made something much better.

They would have had to have been mentally ill to NOT have designed some sort of 'medicine' to go along with the 'marketing', ones that, hopefully would add to the suffering and death. This would accomplish several goals. They would appear to be doing 'good'. They would reap trillions in dollars and advertising trappings. They would allow themselves another set of ultimate controls. And, since no one knows what 'it' is, it may be improved, refined, perfected..cause and cure, ad infinitum.

All that matters is the sound byte: a catchy acronym using many vowels, starting with the first letter we all learned as impressionable children, the letter 'A', and dire warnings that 'it kills you'. The rest is just gravy and frosting on the cake.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by davidmann]

reply to post by alysha.angel


Well I did see a doc. where they scientist were working on the polio vacc. in central Africanaz. The issue was they needed kidney samples from a small primate and the miniture primates kidneys were to small to make large cultures. So the scientist began to use Chimpanzez for their larger kidneys.

The scientist denied using chimps. Documented footage was shown where they had camps full of chips to use their kidneys.... This made me question why lie about CHIMPZ... The scientist kept lying and began to administer the TEST POLIO VACCZ. to the local people. And over time all these locations where these scientist were doing their TEST VACCz. at began to spawn the HIV virus. They said it was a simular virus already present in these animals and humanity just synthasyzed it to our kind......

If you look up the polio vaccs. and locations and scientist I am sure you will be able to find this documentary, it is imformative and sad....

[edit on 8/2/10 by Ophiuchus 13]

AIDS is not a virus, nor is it even a disease, it is a syndrome. Hence Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. AIDS has been associated with the HIV retrovirus since 1984 when Dr. Robert Gallo announced to the world that HIV was the cause of AIDS. However, the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, is just that, a hypothesis that is not even treated as a theory, but is instead treated as fact. Never mind the fact that there are people who are diagnosed with AIDS that have never tested positive for HIV.

Never mind the fact that testing positive for HIV means anti-bodies are the evidence of a "positive" testing. Never mind the fact that with virtually all other viruses the presence of anti-bodies indicates that the virus has been contained. Never mind the fact that the so called HIV virus, (in fact a retrovirus), does not act like any other virus or retrovirus known to humanity. Never mind the fact that prior to Robert Gallo advocating HIV as the source of AIDS, he was advocating HIV as the source for a form of leukemia, which is a cancer of the blood, and never mind the fact that cancer is fairly well accepted as being an acceleration of cells, now HIV is considered to deplete cells. Never mind all the valid questions that come with the advocacy of HIV=AIDS paradigm, today the zeitgeist declares it so, so now AIDS is commonly spoken of as if it is a virus. Never mind.

This is not the first time I have heard this story.

The only thing that really confused me about the statement that it was man made is, why would you make a disease that took a few years to kill the person?

Whatever it is, the DNA from the organism that causes AIDS was supposedly created from goat and chicken DNA. The lack of information on this leads me to believe in this conspiracy. The first time I heard of AIDS an evangelist told me it was God's punishment for blacks and gays.

Originally posted by Solasis
I believe that this is possible, but there's no hard proof of it that we have access to.

How about the fact that 100% of the homosexuals who recieved the Hep vaccines in the late 70's are the ones who died of AIDS. No coorelation? Just coincidence?

I'm hearing a whole lot of "supposedly" and "I've believed this since" for a thread with such a declarative title. I put nothing past the more nefarious dregs of modern society, but for this to be taken seriously you're going to need more than (for all I know) a Scandinavian blog and the testament of a man who a) I've never heard of and b) who's credentials haven't been proven. Don't get mad because people aren't jumping on the bandwagon, just come back with more proof after you've done this research you plan to do.

Until then I'm doubting the veracity of this based on the fact that if it was designed as population control, it's proven to be a failure since the first widespread reporting of cases of HIV and subsequent AIDs infection are more than 30 years old and from what I read, your source hasn't even made the distinction between the virus and the syndrome it can, but not always, causes.

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Solasis
I believe that this is possible, but there's no hard proof of it that we have access to.

How about the fact that 100% of the homosexuals who recieved the Hep vaccines in the late 70's are the ones who died of AIDS. No coorelation? Just coincidence?

Now thats deep?
2nd

reply to post by davidmann


Agreed. Just like using radiation to "treat" cancer. There are some "treatments" out there that obviously cause more harm to the body than their health condition itself. Antibiotics in most cases aren't even effective and are not just the cause of many future health problems, but the direct cause of mutating viruses and bacteria to the point where they can live in the body sometimes permanently.

This gets me to the same question I always have had. Are doctors in on it, or just not educated properly? Whether man made or not, the medical system has exploited as many illnesses as possible with some kind of "treatment" drug. We not only see the results when lawsuits are filed, but we are given the information of what "side" effects these drugs cause, so obviously most of the population is both uneducated and mentally ill for choosing products with side-effects which can lead to death and it is just getting worse. I understand everyone wants comfort, and that's what it's all about today, but isn't medicine supposed to be there for your HEALTH? Masking symptoms WILL lead to more problems. You do NOT have to compromise your health to get rid of SYMPTOMS. I know people who are somewhat informed, yet they still make horrible choices. I don't want to criticize them for their own choices, but I can only hope they will change their way of thinking so that they won't pass away many years earlier than they should have.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Never mind the fact that there are people who are diagnosed with AIDS that have never tested positive for HIV.

Can you site some studies and/or references to a scientific study that states this?

Never mind the fact that testing positive for HIV means anti-bodies are the evidence of a "positive" testing.

Antibody tests are the first test. After that, they take your sample and do a viral test. Read it again. A test that actually tests the virus. They can even tell you if you have HIV A, B, C, D, E or F. How can they do this if they can only test for antibodies?

Never mind the fact that the so called HIV virus, (in fact a retrovirus), does not act like any other virus or retrovirus known to humanity.

And this is an argument that HIV is a natural virus?

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Nutter]

Originally posted by bluedrake
why would you make a disease that took a few years to kill the person?

Because if they started dying a week after the shot, wouldn't that look a little suspicious? Also, how would these people pass it along. You would have to vaccinate everyone. This way, vaccinate a few and let them contaminate the rest.

Originally posted by bluedrake
This is not the first time I have heard this story.

The only thing that really confused me about the statement that it was man made is, why would you make a disease that took a few years to kill the person?

The initial marketing rollout was somewhat different, as I recall. They were bleating new disease kills homos, in about 6 months. Months and then one or two years were added to the doomed sufferers days. Forrest Gump was there at the very beginning, and so was Tom Hanks, spouting many messages each week on behalf of 'aids'. Things were quickly altered to include 'incubation periods' of up to decades in length. One would have to be mentally ill to wait on their next word with any hope in mankind remaining, after this. For the first time I was conscious that I was using my mind.

When you are dead they can say you died of whatever they want, particularly if you had previously attended the medical channels for advice regarding what is 'aids'.

But to answer your immediate query: advertising. The controls that can be established through walking, talking billboards is priceless for the nwo. You didn't really think Bono was a great singer, did you? Think of the money to be garnered by an entire populace, worldwide, being screened, and medicated, preferably by voluntary means.

Eventually, it got so bad for tptb, that they started using radio jocks to push for worldwide screening for 'aids'. Two remarks I recall from the howard stern show, circa 2002:

'I say we wipe out the entire middle east'

-Howard Stern, at the height of 911 hoax hysteria, cited here as an example of how marketing and deception work. Unrelated to 'aids', this is an example of market timing.

and

'Maybe we should move toward worldwide testing'~ her exact words

-Robin Quivers

'move' was pronounced like 'mooove'. I cannot recall the specifics of the conversation they were having. I jotted down the date and the exact words. If I knew how to italicize words on my keypad, then 'move' would be italicized.

PS many have advocated the Quivers remark but their names have been protected by mister google. One is a noble in england who likes to put his stick in any important opening. He advocates rounding everyone up who 'tests positive'. It would be worth our while to list these advocates.

This is the tip of the technological age, and the smart nwo decided to make a name, make it catchy, and make it stick. There are countless diversions, studies, papers, all saying nothing. And there are lawyers, lobbyists, and fascists, waiting in the wings to roll you up in your futon and throw you in a hole. Best to stick with those of your mind and substance, and mettle, when mating. You never know what crafted words your little honey is going to hear on the radio or telescreen one fine morning, and you have to wonder why she suddenly offers you 'treats'...



[edit on 2-8-2010 by davidmann]

[edit on 2-8-2010 by davidmann]

how about they did it for the drug manufacters for profit the reasons behind creating it are limitless .

so in the drug cos can make billions on drugs that prolong the illness in whatever form or for whatever reason it is a problem.

[edit on 2/8/10 by alysha.angel]

www.deepspace4.com...

interesting subject.