AIDS is a man made virus !

These people creating viruses for population control must be utterly incompetent. The world population has gone from 4.1 billion in 1975 to 6.9 billion today. That's not a very good track record of controlling the population.

reply to post by nataylor


I'm not of the mind set that it was for population control as much as it was for "undesirable" population reduction. I'm not even set in stone on that one either. It could have just been a mistake that needed covering up.

I guess I'm just paranoid like that. I don't know why because governments have always shown that they are all nice, white, fluffy bunny, feel good entities who would never do something like this.

I just had the scariest thought!

Corexit creates the same level of 'symptoms' as what I described in the early 1980's when the US was hit with the "Gay Cancer". The Akyl Nitrites caused rare or unseen cancers, not to mention the immediate pneumonia, although this is still controversial and denied.

Wikipedia on Poppers!

What on Earth will Akyl Nitrites in Oil Dispersants do then?

I have quietly scoffed at the thought that someone would fake the GOM crisis, or that they would purposely create the GOM crisis so they can destroy the Gulf with Corexit (which they still are spraying). I thought ignorance and greed was the motivator behind the use of Corexit; that is until this very moment.

Now with this post, and thinking about my experiences, and thinking about the MSDS sheet on Corexit and the effects on the human body, I am really getting a very frightening thought in my mind.

It is possible that soon, very soon, that people will begin to experience what happened in NYC and San Francisco with the beginnings of the AIDS epidemic. Pneumonia cases will increase and then suddenly rare cancers begin to show themselves. Initially there will be immediate deaths and a panic will overtake the masses. It will be lethal but it will not be from something tangible but considered a form of a compromised system.

I read this on another post but cannot remember that post, they are calling it something like Over exposure Toxic Waste syndrome, but there was an acronym for it. Does anyone else remember that?

Wow, well I am not going to make a new conspiracy but I tell you this is smelling more and more like the Gulf of Mexico than ever before.

Could you imagine that the sick bastards that developed the Mega-Billion Dollar industry of AIDS Medications are on their next development. Create another immune response in people, then cure them with lifetimes of medications to keep them alive (falsely of course).

Just the thought of this curdles my blood and puts my hair on end! Oh God Forbid! The investment the Drug Companies made in Africa by systematically killing as many as necessary will have finally paid off, once they get the majority of Americans on the next regimen of Wonder Drugs!

Please, anyone who wishes to run with this and make a new post, please do so, and if there is another post, perhaps this post needs to be identified so the correlation can be seen. I can see it and it scares the living Elton John right out of me!

reply to post by Nutter

Right in you quote it says they are not testing for the virus
as I said.
Thats a trace sign of the "virus" not a test for the virus.
there is no virus.
this is why the monkeys never came down with the syndrome
except for two that most likely had something else tested on them as well as the "VIRUS".

As I have shown GALLO COMMITTED FRAUD and was supported by the media and the government in perpetrating that fraud...

NOW WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?
there is no proof that the virus causes the syndrome.

AZT causes the synptomes of the syndrome though

Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society
“It was often difficult to distinguish adverse events possibly associated with administration of RETROVIR® (AZT™) from underlying signs of HIV disease or intercurrent illnesses”Retrovir product monograph. GlaxoSmithKline. 2005 Sep 21

aras.ab.ca...

Anyone seen the South Park episode where Cartman gets HIV?

The only cure is injections of large amounts of cash....
I believe what they're saying is only the rich get cured.

I couldn't find the clip i wanted...

Originally posted by Danbones
AZT causes the synptomes of the syndrome though

Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society
“It was often difficult to distinguish adverse events possibly associated with administration of RETROVIR® (AZT™) from underlying signs of HIV disease or intercurrent illnesses”Retrovir product monograph. GlaxoSmithKline. 2005 Sep 21

aras.ab.ca...

I agree that AZT was about the worst medication one could take. But, they haven't been using AZT for years now. People are still dying. Even new cases whom haven't taken AZT.

Also, there are women in this country whom have never taken a drug in their life who have died of AIDS. What they did do was have sex with their cheating husband and they contracted HIV. And please don't make me go looking for a site. The CDC should do.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Nutter]

reply to post by Nutter

A 5-month-old boy was diagnosed with severe thrombopenia. His parents had been engaged in injecting drug use practices (sharing needles) for long time before they married. They had declined testing for HIV antibodies in the past, and both were currently in good health. The paediatrician decided to examine the child's HIV serological status, but subsequently it was suggested that he should perform a viral load test, because the result could be available the next day and the presence of HIV sequences rather than the detection of antibodies, which can reflect passive transfer from the mother, is more accurate for the diagnosis of HIV infection in newborns. The child's plasma viral load was 3044 HIV RNA copies/ml, and he began to receive zidovudine plus didanosine in combination once this information was available. Unexpectedly, days later it was discovered that HIV antibodies were not detected in sera collected from the child or from his parents. Moreover, additional serological screening assays, including Western blot analysis, yielded negative results for HIV antibodies. The plasma viral load was examined in a new specimen using the same technique (HIV Quantiplex, Chiron, Madrid, Spain) and again it gave a positive result of 5120 HIV RNA copies/ml.

This is the opening paragraph to an article published in the Journal of International AIDS Society titled:

False positives for HIV using commercial viral quantification. The article continues:

Since sporadic cases of HIV-1 infection in the absence of specific antibodies have been reported in the literature [1-4], the presence of several HIV genomic regions (gag, env) in the child's plasma was examined using the PCR technique. Negative results were obtained in all instances. Furthermore, p24 antigenaemia was also negative, and CD4+ lymphocyte counts of the child and his parents were in the normal range. A suspicious false-positive viral load result becomes the sole explanation of this controversy.

Since viral load tests have been approved for the quantification of viraemia in already known HIV-seropositive individuals, we were interested to know their specificity. For this purpose, we selected 20 healthy volunteers, all of whom yielded negative results for HIV antibodies using different screening tests. Plasma from all of them were analysed by three different currently available HIV viral load tests: branched DNA (bDNA) signal amplification assay (Chiron), nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA) Nuclisens (Organon Teknika, Barcelona, Spain), and Ultradirect reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR Monitor (Roche, Madrid, Spain). The detection limits of these assays are 500, 40 and 20 HIV RNA copies/ml, respectively. Moreover, we used two different HIV-1 Monitor kits (Roche, Madrid, Spain), one using primers exclusively designed for recognizing HIV-1 subtype B and another with non-B primers

And continues:

In summary, two samples yielded positive results by the bDNA assay, with values of 2020 and 10 620 HIV RNA copies/ml. Another two specimens yielded false-positive results by the NASBA Nuclisens, with values of 150 and 480 HIV RNA copies/ml. Finally, one of the 20 samples was interpreted as positive by the Ultradirect RT-PCR Monitor assay, with a value of 73 HIV RNA copies/ml. Moreover, using the Monitor test with non-B primers, up to four of the 20 samples yielded positive values, ranging from 48 to 253 HIV RNA copies/ml. Results were reproduced in more than half of tested specimens for which plasma volumes were enough for repeat testing. The experiments were all performed by a single well-trained laboratory technician. Furthermore, controls run during the study excluded contamination as a source of false-positive results.

And still continues, later asserting:

Short fragments of cellular RNA can be misleading, being recognized or interfering with the amplification systems used by the different quantification methods. Targeting other nucleic acid sequences could lead to the amplification of background, providing false-positive results, usually with low values, as it was seen in our cases.

Our data support the notion that viral load quantification methods must be used for monitoring plasma HIV-1 RNA levels in patients already known to be HIV-infected. Since their specificity is not well known these tests must not be used for diagnostic purposes (as has been suggested by others [7],substituting the well-probed serological methods.

This is an actual study, as opposed to the Lab Tests Online website you linked, that obviously profits off of the HIV=AIDS paradigm, and it is beginning to look like you also make your money in this field.

Edit to Add: The EX quote box has cut off much of the information quoted from that article, and it occurred to me that the link I provided requires a subscription or that you purchase the article. Here is another link that reprints the article in its entirety:

hivtesttruth.blogspot.com...

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by Danbones
Right in you quote it says they are not testing for the virus
as I said.
Thats a trace sign of the "virus" not a test for the virus.
there is no virus.

It is not a trace sign of the virus. It is the RNA. Which is the genetic makeup of the virus (whis IS the virus). It uses this RNA to attach itself to a normal cells RNA (cell division) making it a hybrid DNA cell. Thus the RNA is really the virus.

Retrovirus:

Any of a group of viruses that, unlike most other viruses and all cellular organisms, carry their genetic blueprint in the form of RNA. Retroviruses are responsible for some cancers and viral infections of animals, and they cause at least one type of human cancer. The retrovirus HIV is the cause of AIDS in humans. The name signifies that they use RNA to synthesize DNA, the reverse of the usual cell process. This process makes it possible for genetic material from a retrovirus to enter and become a permanent part of the genes of an infected cell.

www.answers.com...

Maybe this is why people are getting the wrong idea? It is not a regular virus. It is a retrovirus. It hides in the cells.

i believe it is man made as well. a lot of disinformation up in this thread. obviously some african didn't catch a monkey and f*** it. monkeys are about eighty to a hundred pounds of muscles, teeth, and jaws. and they don't want to be f***ed by us.

If HIV was engineered for population control it has done a LOUSY job!

Think, how many people do you know have died of AIDS? My upbringing was in the ghetto, and I can't think of ONE person who died of AIDS.

HIV isn't the cause of AIDS. HIV is a symptom that something is wrong with the body. My theory is that there are a couple things that causes the body to discharge HIV particles. Those things are anal sex, malnutrition, drugs such as coc aine and heroin, and for some people stress or injury.

HIV hasn't been isolated in the 30 years since its discovery. No other virus can boast this. That should be an alarm in itself.

I had a girlfriend that was HIV+. It scared the crap out of me, because I just assumed I was also positive because we never practiced safe sex. She was placed on medication, etc. I was with her for 5 years and never tested +. Been 5 more years and i'm still negative. And when we had sex, we had real sex....all the nasty stuff. How is it possible I never contracted it?

Here's my secret. I began doing research and came to the conclusion I now have. Along with this, I think doctors use a form of discrimination. What I mean by this is if you're obviously gay and they find signs of this retrovirus, they label you as HIV+. Same thing if you're black and live in a zip code that is labeled as having high occurences of HIV. Remember, the HIV test is a doctors interpretation. We may all have traces of HIV retro in our blood. There's a certain chart doctors use, if your levels are above a certain level, you're labeled as being HIV+. So you can have traces of HIV, but if you're not over a certain level, you're not labeled as being +.

Anyway, back to my case. When I go and get tested i'm well dressed and professional looking. They ask are you married and are you participating in risky activities (I guess to help them in their prejudice) I always answered no. And in ten years I've never been diagnosed as HIV+, even though I had unprotected sex with a + girlfriend for 5+ years.

I don't know if the deception is intentional or not, but I know something isn't right.

For the young man in this discussion who is +, I can guarantee that you were indulging in a activity (possibly one I discussed) that caused your body to emit HIV retro's. Or you may have possibly been in a accident that placed a stress on your immune system.

Look up the case where a young child, I believe around 4 was in a auto accident and tested positive for HIV. There was a big fuss, and the hospital staff were talking about molestation and the childs family was being prosecuted. Then there was a second test that came back negative. The family was sueing the hospital who then screamed that HIV tests aren't reliable and are open to interpretation.

This may go down as one of the biggest boo boo's in mankinds history. How could it ever be disclosed that HIV doesn't cause AIDS and isn't a sexually transmitted disease? It can't! Think of all the people who've committed suicide or submitted themselves to self-exhile. The lawsuits would bankrupt the world.

It will never be admitted that HIV isn't a sexually transmitted disease that will eventually lead to AIDS.

reply to post by alysha.angel

Good luck on your mission,i have a friend whos mother has aids from a bad blood transfusion. I feel so bad for him,its a total disgrace. star and flag

Originally posted by 2weird2live2rare2die
i believe it is man made as well. a lot of disinformation up in this thread. obviously some african didn't catch a monkey and f*** it. monkeys are about eighty to a hundred pounds of muscles, teeth, and jaws. and they don't want to be f***ed by us.

This is classic and sig worthy!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
This is the opening paragraph to an article published in the Journal of International AIDS Society titled:

False positives for HIV using commercial viral quantification.

Did you notice the date? 1998. Let's see what that really means in the timeline of HIV research.

1981: First case of AIDS from the CDC

1998: 17 years later.

2010: 12 years later.

You don't think the times have changed approximately halfway through the research timeline?

and it is beginning to look like you also make your money in this field.

I make my money in other fields.

It's always the last resort of the "conspiracy theorist" to accuse their opponent of being a "spook", government agent, in on the agenda etc. Sad really.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Nutter]

sure- a doctor trying to cut corners used kidneys from the rhesus monkey to make vaccines for humans. greed is the reason- as sinister as that may be.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Dr. Maurice Hilleman

Originally posted by BBC The1
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13

 

I think i saw that to, based on the research of E. Hooper
Found a link to the documentary "The origin"
freedocumentaries.org...

"The River, which proposed the hypothesis that AIDS might be iatrogenic (caused by physicians), and that scientists might have unwittingly started the pandemic through an experimental oral polio vaccine (OPV) administered in central Africa in the 1950s"

www.aidsorigins.com...

Raises some interresting questions, when he keeps getting flamed over his theory ?
"Hooper continues to promote the hypothesis on his website, aidsorigins.com, where he criticizes the research and conduct of many of the scientists involved in the investigation and alleges a Conspiracy to silence the hypothesis"
en.wikipedia.org...

Oh the C word

Yup thats it! Good find friend that DOCUMENTARY had me feeling sick just watching all them people trusting the doctors and they werent to be trusted....

thank you




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

I think aids were created for humans by humans.

And I agree Aids was created to control the population.If people didn't die then we would be over populated.This is a scary fact.If you owned a barn say,and you had a mouse problem.But it was tolerable.5 years later there's thousands of them..what do you do?Do you release them in the wild so they can create millions,until mice are covering the whole planet?What do you do?

There's only a couple options.

Originally posted by nataylor
These people creating viruses for population control must be utterly incompetent. The world population has gone from 4.1 billion in 1975 to 6.9 billion today. That's not a very good track record of controlling the population.

LOL LOL

are u high?

just imagine if Aids didnt existed ... it would be much bigger

imagine Africa

==

about the man made ... who knows, ITS POSSIBLE ... I dont know

I had read sometime recently that AIDS became the disease we know today because of a mutation and that it already existed in humans prior to that, but that it was not lethal in most cases, but that it did trigger an immune reaction with the symptom of pneumonia.

There's a case of a children's hospital in Lithuania in the 1950s when a certain type of pneumonia ran rampant through the ward and that this type pneumonia is the same that is a reaction to the immune system's weakening. I'm having trouble finding a source to back me up, probably because I can't remember the exact year or the exact location (may have been Latvia?). Google is not being my friend on this search...

So, just another thought, feel free to look it up. If I find the book, I'll cite it.

reply to post by Nutter

You don't think the times have changed approximately halfway through the research timeline?

Oh you bet the times have changed throughout that time line. In fact the entire definition of AIDS has changed throughout that time line.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control proposed altering its definition of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) to include those with 200 or fewer CD4 cells. That proposal, scheduled to take effect April 1, 1992, would dramatically increase the number of Americans officially considered as having AIDS. The previous definition relied on a list of specific opportunistic infections, tumors, or itemized manifestations of HIV disease. While eventually the definition of AIDS should be replaced with a definition of HIV disease--which would include all those who are infected with the human immunodeficiency virus--the CDC proposal would be a useful stopgap measure. It would provide access to needed treatments such as AZT to thousands of men and women who now are excluded from reimbursement systems including private health insurance and Medicaid.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

It of course began with the CDC calling it GRIDS, which stood for Gay Related Deficiency Syndrome. Where AIDS was once defined by the opportunistic illness that struck a person, the CDC decided to expand that definition to include a CD4 cell count cutoff to better fit the HIV=AIDS model being advocated. This also allowed more people to be put on AZT regiments.

You want us to believe that the current viral load quantification tests are better? Prove it! Don't just offer up a Lab Testing Company's website, prove that these viral load quantification tests are not experiencing false positives any longer. Don't just suggest that since the report I linked was written in 1998 that it is outdated, and the same viral load quantification tests today are better, prove it. Show a report that demonstrates how they overcame these problems with false positives.