Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

AIDS is a man made virus !

page: 3
36
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I remember the first indications for AIDS in the early 80's, they called it the "Gay Cancer". I remember when my first friend died of AIDS, then a cousin, then another friend, and another and another. It was frightening and the world just acted like it was some sort of Gay Disease only.

I can remember my first sexual contact with an HIV positive person. I remember the classes I attended and the never ending AIDS tests, every six months. I remember the fear.

I remember my second sexual contact, then the third, fourth, fifth; what were the odds I thought to myself as my friends and community members died around me.

I remember the endless fundraisers, the protesting, the anger.

One thing that does stick in my mind was the endless counseling with each AIDS test I took. I took classes on HIV and was told that the Virus cannot be seen by traditional tests because of the expense, so instead a protein marker is determined that is present with HIV positive people. I was told that they look only for the protein marker to make the initial determination, then more determinate tests could be performed; one of which was called the Western Blot test at the time. I asked if they are looking for a virus and they said yes but that was not true at all. No one had ever seen the virus at that time. They had drawings how a virus connects to a WBC (white blood cell) and transforms it, how it kills the ability to create new T-cells. They always had drawings and we believed them. We were all scared.

Later on I remember reading that only two scientists could verify that the AIDS virus was real and both of them are in dispute over who really "officially" discovered it, one American and one French researcher. It was probably something from a monkey what ever it was.

So I continued testing and over the years the fear released itself from me, I just assumed everyone was positive and that they just hadn't found out yet. I remained negative. It wasn't condoms, it wasn't some magic fairy dust, my reasons for remaining negative were perplexing at best and contrary to all the loss I had to endured, all the loss we all had endured.

I will say this with all honesty and with truth, I am immune from HIV. There is no other explanation, I knew my practices would not grant me safety from such a dreadful disease, unless there is no virus!

The word immune is the key here; you see, the protein markers are immunity markers, if a virus did arrive in the body or the body was compromised by nutritional or outside influences the protein markers show up. They are the elements that say that the body had indeed come in contact with something that stressed it or worked it on the immunity level; it does not mean there is a virus present that will kill you.

Sadly, people of African heritage naturally have these protein precursors show up in their bloodstream. They become when the immune system becomes suppressed. They come when illnesses are fought off. They come when people lack nutrition or sanitary conditions. This is why there is a predominance of Blacks and positive readings, especially in Africa.

The real killers are the Drugs! The real disease was the Community Leaders, Governments, Organizations, and Pharmaceuticals. They all profited of the deaths of Millions across the planet. They systematically began suppressing the T-cells by drugs and then lifting them with other drugs. They slowly killed as they reaped their rewards.

AIDS is real, but HIV is a lie!

If you are positive, there is a cure! Please do not be blinded by the endless cocktails and protease inhibitors, please don't be blind to the real evil that exists. You can recover!

I am sorry if this offended anyone, I am offended because a lifetime of people were taken from me and I miss them so very much!

I know that when the disease first showed up in the Gay Community it expressed itself as Kaposi Sarcoma, or KS; at the time it confused doctors because it was rare and should not be seen in young adults. I also know that in the 70's the use of "Rush", "Silver Streak", or what is called "Poppers", nitrite inhalants were so popular amongst the Dance Crowds and the Sex scenes everywhere. This was what caused the immunities of young people to fail, causing such rare illnesses as KS and inducing pneumonia and death so immediately; it was the prolonged exposure of deadly inhalants!

It took awhile, for the same powers that we deal with today, to take advantage and figure out ways to manipulate this and profit from it. Now they have it down to a science. They are the same ones that took advantage of this "disease", and they are the same ones that are taking advantage of Mankind now, and that is my truth "So help me God".




posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I read the link, and you attempting to link me to that link was just more of your pouty puffery, as you are clearly upset that I have pointed out that HIV is a hypothesis being treated as fact.


All I was trying to say was that isn't it quite the coincedence that the first man to say HIV causes AIDS was also the same man who thought HIV caused leukemia at first? Especially when we factor in the "special virus cancer".



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
It is ironic that you would ask I provide you with links or sources to verify my claims, and you offer up this tidbit without any link or source to back it up. Consider this.


HIV controllers exhibit potent CD8 T cell capacity to suppress HIV infection ex vivo and peculiar cytotoxic T lymphocyte activation phenotype
Some rare HIV-1-infected individuals, referred to as HIV controllers (HIC), have persistently undetectable plasma viral load in the absence of therapy. This control of HIV-1 replication has been associated with a strong, multifunctional specific CD8+ T cell response. However, no direct link between this immune response and the control of viremia has so far been provided. We investigated parameters of specific CD8+ T cell response and in vitro susceptibility to HIV-1 infection in 11 HIC. We found high frequencies of HIV-specific CD8+ T cells.




Again. How does that counter what I said about CD8+ T-Cells being more proliferent in HIV positive people?

You want a link? Here you go.


In contrast to CD4 cells, people with HIV often have elevated numbers of CD8 cells, the significance of which is not well understood.



Lab reports may also list the T-cell ratio, which is the number of CD4 cells divided by the number of CD8 cells. Since the CD4 count is usually lower and the CD8 count higher than normal, the ratio is usually low in people with HIV. A normal T-cell ratio is usually between 0.9 and 6.0. The expected response to effective combination anti-HIV treatment is an increase in CD4 count, a decrease in CD8 count, and an increase in the T-cell ratio.


www.thebody.com...



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I thought I would give a more in depth reply as the ignorance surrounding HIV/AIDS is quite staggering, I recently completed a course on the management of blood born infections that included the big on HIV but this information might be a bit off, a doctor or somebody studding biology should be able to give more accurate information, or 10 minutes on google.

HIV and AIDS are different, HIV in lemans terms is a virus that that attacks the body’s immune system, the antibodies that we use to fight a virus. Specifically it goes after a group called the Helper T-lymphocytes and attaches its self via a glycoprotein. The virus then injects viral RNA into the cell which manipulates the cell metabolism to produce more viral RNA and other component of the virus. The helper T-lymphocytes are responsible for activating other cells vital for fighting off other infections and as more and more T-lymphocytes are eaten away by the HIV the more change there is of an opportunistic infection taking hold. It’s a member of the retrovirus family and also called a lentivirus sometimes

It is when a multitude of these opportunistic infections take hold that HIV becomes known as AIDS. More specifically this is also dependant on the T-lymphocyte count and when a person is said to have one or more of a specific opportunistic infection this criteria may fluctuate but include things like TB, phenomena, herpes simplex and so on.

Traditionally HIV has been treated with pharmacological interventions, mainly using anti-retrovirus drugs which inhibit the enzyme reverse transcriptase which is a necessary component in the reproduction of HIV with in an infected cell. In recent years the pharmacology has vastly improved and now other drugs are available such as entry inhibitors which actively prevent the HIV binding with a target cell and thus slowing the reproduction of the viruses and lengthening a person’s life. Most recently intergrase inhibitors have been introduced which prevent the HIV from entering a cell

As for the origins of HIV, well I really don’t think it was manmade. Its origin is believed to be in the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus found in monkeys due to its staggering resemblance to HIV. The question that remains unresolved is how it crossed over most say that it might have been hunters eating infected meat.

If it were to have been manmade as I have already stated what would the point when a easier virus could have been produce that could have been even more deadly, why not just for example just wait 40 years or so and then start to slowly reintroduce the small pox virus. AIDS is a big killer but not the biggest it can be condoled with medication, and it is not reducing the population in anyway so “they” really have not done very well. Then how would they control it, assuming that no vaccine exists, how would they ensure they keep enough people alive. No doubt you will tell me that a vaccine exists that they are keeping secret but the truth is there isn’t.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 





All I was trying to say was that isn't it quite the coincedence that the first man to say HIV causes AIDS was also the same man who thought HIV caused leukemia at first? Especially when we factor in the "special virus cancer".


It is not really a coincidence at all. If you know much of the Luc Montagnier/Gallo controversy, then you know that Montagnier, who had discovered a correlation between AIDS patients and a particular virus he had found, knew that Gallo was doing research on the same virus so he sent Gallo samples of the virus he had found. The controversy, was that Montagnier had challenged Gallo's ethics over his rush to declare the correlation as cause, and actually sued Gallo and the CDC.

A settlement was reached where Montagnier and the Pasteur Institute received the lions share of the profits from the HIV test patents, and presumably a gag order was placed on Montagnier, because after this he stopped asserting that there was no factual evidence to support the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS. After all, correlation is not causation.

More than two decades later there is still no proof that HIV causes AIDS, but there is enough of a correlation that it is understandable why so many believe that HIV is a factor in the cause of AIDS. What is not so understandable is the knee jerk reaction so many people have when someone begins asking valid questions regarding this hypothesis. It appears that modern science is less concerned with falsification than they were once were. It appears the scientific method is not nearly as stringent today as it once was, and it appears that Koch's postulates are not as respectable today as they once were. Even so, the vehement attitude of certain advocates of scientific theories can be pretty damn dogmatic.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greensage
I know that when the disease first showed up in the Gay Community it expressed itself as Kaposi Sarcoma, or KS; at the time it confused doctors because it was rare and should not be seen in young adults. I also know that in the 70's the use of "Rush", "Silver Streak", or what is called "Poppers", nitrite inhalants were so popular amongst the Dance Crowds and the Sex scenes everywhere. This was what caused the immunities of young people to fail, causing such rare illnesses as KS and inducing pneumonia and death so immediately; it was the prolonged exposure of deadly inhalants!


What deadly inhalants are the heterosexuals inhaling to get AIDS? I also doubt that "rush" or "poppers" are very popular in Africa.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


There is no knee jerk reaction. 99% of people who develope AIDS have HIV. The other 1% have the other viruses that can cause AIDS.

Remember AIDS is a syndrome. Not an illness or a virus.

Common cold virus causes stuffy, running nose, fever, aches etc.

Flu virus causes stuffy, running nose, fever, aches etc.

Does not mean that the flu virus hasn't been associated with the syndrome of fever, aches, running nose etc. just because there are other viruses that do the same thing.

The difference is the whole syndrome vs. illness/virus.

Influenza is the illness. The fever is the syndrome.





[edit on 2-8-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 





Again. How does that counter what I said about CD8+ T-Cells being more proliferent in HIV positive people?


That is not what you said, here is what you said:




Actually, when HIV is first introduced into the system there is an "abnormal increase of blood cells" called CD-8+ T-cells which attack the infected CD-4+ T-cells.


The link I provided contradicts that statement, at least for certain people infected with HIV, and what it further shows is how little anyone knows about HIV.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Can somebody please tell me about this idea that somehow a person can get AIDS without first having HIV, because form my limited knowledge of AIDS diagnosis, one must first have HIV. I would like a link and case study.

Just to add it is possible for somebody to live a long live with HIV without knowing about it until they develop AIDS, that is rare and also does require the presence of HIV might be some people are getting confused with that.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 





Remember AIDS is a syndrome. Not an illness or a virus.


This is the exact point I made in my first post in this thread. Why would you assume I have forgotten that?

Whatever the percentage actually is of people who test "positive" for HIV that have AIDS, you have done nothing to show that testing "positive" actually means there is an actual virus. You have merely made this claim. You attempted to challenge me, first by asking for sources, then by attempting to dismiss the sources I provided, that challenge the current paradigm.

Your little explanation of common colds and flu's is just more disingenuousness on your part. The point about viruses is that when a person is infected with chicken pox, measles, the common cold or influenza, the virus acts the same in all instances, but not so with HIV. This is an anomaly that brings up valid questions.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Want more links?


The first stage of HIV, known as the primary or acute infection, is the most infectious stage of the disease, and it typically lasts several weeks. During this phase, the virus replicates rapidly, which leads to an abundance of the virus in the bloodstream and a drastic decline in the number of CD4 T-cells. The CD8 T-cells (cells that kill abnormal or infected body cells) are then activated to destroy HIV-infected body cells and antibodies are produced. An estimated 80-90% of HIV patients experience flu-like symptoms during this stage.


www.wellness.com...


Following initial infection with HIV, the rapid emergence of cytolytic T-cell responses, largely CD8+ T-cell responses, is associated temporally with a decrease in plasma levels of HIV.(21) CD8+ T cells may help control HIV replication in several ways.


hivinsite.ucsf.edu...


HIV disease progression correlates with increased proportions of highly differentiated CD8+ T-cells, which exhibit characteristics of replicative senescence and probably indicate a decline in T-cell competence of the infected person.


www.plosbiology.org...:doi%252F10.1371%252Fjournal.pbio.0020020

Shall I continue or is that enough?



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by alysha.angel
 


I read something a while back that changed my mind, I believe it definetly has certain properties and origin that point the finger towards a man made virus, which is something I do not find to hard to believe. If you #ed up that bad, you woulden't tell anyone, so it's not like you'll ever know.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
you have done nothing to show that testing "positive" actually means there is an actual virus.


I guess you missed where I stated that the antibody test is the first test. After you test positive for the antibodies, you go through many tests that actually identify the VIRUS. They can even tell you which type of HIV you have.

How can they do this if there is no way to test the virus or if there is no virus at all?


HIV viral load tests are reported as the number of HIV copies in a milliliter (copies/mL) of blood.


www.labtestsonline.org...

How else can they determine if someone is "undetectable"? But, being undetectable for the virus, one would still test positive to the antibody test.

Do you understand yet? There is a test that tells which type of HIV virus a person has and how many are present.


The point about viruses is that when a person is infected with chicken pox, measles, the common cold or influenza, the virus acts the same in all instances, but not so with HIV. This is an anomaly that brings up valid questions.



Yes and the valid question is: How does this prove that HIV is natural? Since it doesn't act in a natural fashion.

We are on a thread where we are discussing whether HIV is man made or not. NOT whether HIV causes AIDS.

Either get to the topic or stay off the thread.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
The whole notion of AIDS being man-made is similar to the hysteria over global warming. Some argue that AIDS is not man-made, while others are certain that it is. Both arguments have loopholes. So, I do not know what to believe.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


You didn't read what I said, you heard what you wanted to hear. Initially the first to show up were gay men. Do you not know this? Well now you do. Initially they were being hit with a rare form of skin cancer. Did you not know this? Well now you do. Initially pneumonia took them within days!

Over the course of nearly a decade is what brought us to Africa and the development of the Drugs! Did you not know this? Well now you do. Africans died slowly and methodically, not overnight like the original victims. So no, Africans weren't partying it up with nitrites; mostly at first it was the gay community selling nitrites in the bars! If there were straights involved back then they were attending places like Studio 54, and they can hardly be called Straight now could they?

As for straights, well it was inevitable that they too would be hit, but far differently, why? Well, let us say coc aine, ICE, synthetics, and heroin; all the fabulous things that suppresses the immune system and causes a positive reading on a supposed 'precursor'.

Do I need to go over why an African would experience an Immune deficiency? No, I did that!

Please try to read a bit more intently!

by the way, I hate your signature!



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 





I guess you missed where I stated that the antibody test is the first test. After you test positive for the antibodies, you go through many tests that actually identify the VIRUS. they can even tell you which type of HIV you have.


No I did not miss that, in fact quoted that statement, and offered data that challenges it. Want more links?


PROBLEMS WITH ISOLATING HIV How can we best help Africa? How can we set priorities aimed at bringing under control what is described as an AIDS epidemic? For twenty years, all AIDS research has been based on the HIV hypothesis. Do we now have reasons to question this hypothesis? Yes, because there is a major problem with isolation and purification of HIV. The major problem being that, in spite of innumerable claims to the contrary, this retrovirus has never been isolated nor purified in a scientifically acceptable manner that would satisfy the classic requirements of virology.


hivskeptic.wordpress.com...


The authors of these studies concede that their pictures reveal the vast majority of the material in the density gradient is cellular contamination. HIV expert Hans Gelderblom of Berlin's Robert Koch Institute, whose photos of non-banded 'HIV' material have been the industrial benchmark since 1987, co-authored the first paper which describes the contamination as "an excess of vesicles" - particles of cellular proteins, that may contain DNA or RNA. In a consecutive paper, a U.S. research team from the AIDS Vaccine Program in Maryland reveal carefully, "It is unknown how these cellular proteins associate with the virus" and warn, "The presence of microvesicles in purified retroviruses has practical implications". Both teams discuss the resulting nonspecifity of HIV tests, all of which are based on early unchecked "purified HIV".


www.healtoronto.com...

From that same site:


Isolation is the only direct and unambiguous evidence of a virus, and isolation of a virus from the uncultured plasma of a patient is the only proof that a person has an active viral infection. Cultures are artificial laboratory environments that contain replicating microorganisms or cells.

Normally, true isolation can be achieved without difficulty as people with an active viral infection will have lots of viruses in their plasma. This is not the case with HIV. In fact, there is no evidence that anyone has ever found what is called HIV in fresh plasma. Instead, AIDS researchers are only able to find what they call HIV when plasma or immune cells (co-cultures) and stimulating chemicals are added to cultures. Since artificially stimulated cultures can induce viral DNA to produce viruses even when the patient's plasma contains no virus, finding virus under these circumstances does not constitute evidence that patient plasma contains virus. True virus isolation requires using fresh, uncultured plasma.



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.com...


At the IFAS Satellite Meeting held at PALEXPO, in the evening of Sunday June 28th a team of scientists in Perth, Australia, led by Eleni Papadopulos, bio-physicist and chairwomen of the Board of Scientists of IFAS demonstrated that to date there has been no isolation of the "human immunodeficiency virus" ("HIV"), according to the scientifically approved standards and steps for retroviral isolation: a) Purification through density gradient banding, b) Identification of the banded material using electron microscopy and c) Introduction of pure particles into a virgin culture and, by repeating the above steps, showing that identical particles are produced.

None of the so-called "HIV-markers", biomedical or genetic, seen in human subjects labelled "HIV positive" and/or having "AIDS" has been known to be specific for "HIV".


www.virusmyth.com...


The definite existence of any virus, including a retrovirus, can be proven only by isolating it. For nearly half a century retroviruses have been isolated by banding in density gradients. It is accepted that the procedures incorporated into this method, which is by no means perfect, have not been followed by the researchers who claim isolation of the human immunodeficiency virus, HIV-1. Nonetheless, it is said that at present, there is ample evidence that HIV has been isolated and shown to be a unique exogenous retrovirus.(1) In this critique we have analysed the relevant data that purport to prove that HIV has been isolated. To simplfy the presentation for readers of this article, the major arguments (1) for HIV isolation are used as the headings in the discussion. Since the topic is both complex and controversial it is necessary to present substantial original data and sometimes to repeat it in order to critically assess the basis for the view that HIV has been isolated.


www.virusmyth.com...


The authors of both papers concede that the particles which are present in the banded material and which are said to be HIV represent only a very small fraction of the total material. Gelderblom et al. state that the material contains "an excess of [cellular] vesicles with a size range 50-500nm, as opposed to a minor population of virus particles...cellular vesicles appear...to be a major contaminant of HIV preparations enriched by sucrose gradient centrifugation".


www.virusmyth.com...


You may recall a flurry of media hoopla a month ago over some dramatic *disneyworld* images of "HIV" attacking a Tcell. These reports are more like the fuzzy footage supporting UFO sightings and either fall apart under scrutiny of are impossible to substantiate.

"The pictures of the virus that have appeared around the world are artists' impressions and computer simulations, based on indirect observations by molecular biologists, not isolation of the virus itself," points out Neville Hodgkinson.


www.healtoronto.com...



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Wow - your only around 3 decades behind with your 'revelation'.

This is the kind of crap that annoys the hell out of me - in some way i am glad you are posting about this - on the other hand, everyone should know this already, they fact that people dont know - or even that they contest the issue is .. words fail me - the world is not what you see on TV, but that is the only reality that most know.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by alysha.angel

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 .


Strange.. even I always thought there was something fishy about AIDS virus.. since the first time I heard about it.. amazing synchronicity!



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
If you take this from a detectives point of view, the AIDS virus for sure seems man made. Look at how it is transmitted. Sex. The one drive that we dont have much control over. The one thing the only thing that keep our species going on, the one thing that is so psychologically damaging in the long run.

To have the thing that creates life, sex being the way this virus kills you is diabolical and obviously created by man.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Moonguy
 


He doesn't need to prove anything. It's the OP who is making the claims. It's up to the OP'er to backup, as best they can, their claim.





new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join