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.

 

AIDS is a man made virus !

page: 7
36
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by bluedrake
 


Why make it slow-acting? My guess is that the disease is manufactured in such a way that the victims can spread it round a bit before they:

a) Are aware they have it;
b) Expire...

Here's a quote regarding Dr Moore - very vocal opponent of the artificial origins of AIDS:


“Burden of Proof” and the Origin of AIDS

The most vocal opponent of the OPV and HB vaccine theories of HIV/AIDS origination is Dr. John Moore, affiliated with Rockefeller University’s Aaron Diamond Research Center in New York. As reported in Medical Hypothesis, following a presentation advancing the HB vaccine theory of HIV/AIDS at the XI International Conference on AIDS, in 1996, Dr. Moore flippantly rebuked this thesis in the Canadian press.



A few years later, he did the same regarding the Edward Hooper’s book, The River, which he alleged was historically inaccurate, potentially damaging to the public’s trust in western medicine, and harmful to his colleagues “efforts to make AIDS vaccines for use in Africa.”



When this author personally contacted Dr . Moore in an effort to begin scientific discourse following his Canadian press interview, Moore refused any formal discussion. Responding later to prodding, he wrote me from the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center saying, “I explicity denied you an interview when you requested one. . . . I said to you that I had ‘no interest’ in your . . . grotesque theories . . .



For the record, I know what your views are, and I reject them. Indeed, I dismiss them as uninteresting, incorrect and downright stupid.” In the Vancouver Sun, Moore was further quoted as saying, “HIV is transmitted from monkeys to humans. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. It’s hard scientific reality.” In fact, according to scientific consensus, the defining zoonosis for the origin of HIV occurred between chimpanzees and humans, not monkeys.2



It should be noted that Dr. Moore’s institutional benefactors include the Rockefeller family which, along with the Rockefeller Foundation and its institutional affiliate—the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Cancer Center in New York—has heavily invested in viral cancer research, vaccine developments, propaganda programs, population control efforts, and the Merck pharmaceutical company in particular. Thus, Moore’s bias is strongly suggested...


Source = Origin of AIDS


The above speaks volumes about the way in which modern scientists are bound by their patrons... In regards to an issue of such vast importance, knowing who's on the PTB payroll is extremely important....



Noah.

EDIT = quote formatting

[edit on 2-8-2010 by NoahTheSumerian]




posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by RRJ58
 


A CURE? Don't let me laugh!

A pile of chemical sh*t that flips the body totally out of balance and makes zillions of dollars for the chemical industry that makes pills and pills and pills.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greensage
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".


I know there's a guy here who offered to take us down the rabbit hole, and in stages. But it just sounds like textbook dribble (if it's in a book, it's probably a mass produced falsehood re 'aids'). But your thoughts reminded me of the stress factor. Once the marketing was in play, you had to have one finger in Betty and another in Veronica at the same time or you were 'gay', or had bought 'it'. It was as if a race were on for heteros to see how many mouths they could stick their tongue in. Evidence of this evolution may be found on any of the pop culture shows, such as VH1's 'Brett Michaels looking for Love'. The implication is 'aids test' amongst participants. People were taunted into doing as many partners as possible in order to prove they were all right.

Consider that what is happening is a deliberate stressing out of everyone (I never considered this; I knew). Those protein markers will go wild and the only way is up as far as the medical corporations are concerned. Am I off topic? Man made or natural? I deny that they even keep it the same. 'It' becomes whatever they want, however they can make it happen. Fear is their ally.

All the while they control the variables like hot and cold running poison. Now ya get it from spit, no, semen, any body fluid, even tears! The poetry ran wild. Twenty years before ya even know if ya got it and so on. Just a tweaking of the Rh factor, probably.

If they can assign guilt, all those drugs you mentioned, partners, then even better. You basically expect to be shot down the second you consider the marketing 'package'.

I'm thinking along the lines of a interface with your mind that speeds along, or drags, based on your own thoughts, acceptances into your thoughts. It is very difficult to convince a 'sufferer' that they spent too much time reading about 'aids' and not 'aidshoax'. It's as if they literally paid for it, and won't give it up. There's a guy on that hideous new star trek (ten-15 years old) series who, one day, was struggling with a Chinese finger puzzle...Data is his name? That was the only few seconds of the series I'd seen. I liken it to that. An artificial intelligence interface, a judge, if you will. The more you struggle, the more trapped you become. It wasn't until the 80's that biology textbooks even admitted that silicon is marbled throughout the human body. Why would this be?

'They can be made to bond...they can be forced...then with a flourish he scrawled SiN..'

Not to mention all the lawyers and laws about throwing people in jail for attempted (or actual) murder. These are the usual suspects, sucking at the teat of immorality and power. Everyone knows that laws, and property taxes, never come down. So everywhere you look you see nothing but proof and more proof etc.... They expected people to run about expressing sexuality, so they could then open the H faucet a crack.

Therefore my emphasis is that today's technology enables them to handle this 'virus' in any way they wish. The whole system must come down. It would be better to fear quantum entanglement than some nwo spectre when considering partners.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by davidman

[edit on 2-8-2010 by davidmann]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 





Among HIV denialists, there are four claims: (1) AIDS is man made, (2) HIV tests are not reliable, (3) HIV has never been reliably identified, and (4) antiviral therapy given to HIV patients results in AIDS, not the virus itself.


The use of the term "denialist" to describe the four examples you gave is disingenuous. The term is actually a rethink of the HIV advocates who began by calling those who questioned the HIV paradigm as "dissenters", but given that the term "dissenters" is a political term, it was too revealing as to what the HIV advocates really were, and thus, they changed the term to something less political, and now we have "denialist".




MYTH 1: AIDS IS MAN-MADE


Let's just get something straight here. I don't really care that a general consensus has come to agree that the word "myth" is to be equated with falsehood or lie. The word myth is a specific word that describes a specific sort of tale that describes either the origins of humanity, or describes the heroic deeds of some individual, and is often told with a supernatural bent. The lazy and sloppy use of this word "myth" to replace falsehood and/or lie is the first clue that in spite of your lengthy two part post, you are not a critical thinker as much as you are a follower of the common zeitgeist.




First, we should correct an error of notation in the original post. AIDS is a syndrome (hence the S in AIDS).


First? You're a little late for first my friend, and it has all ready been pointed out.




MYTH 2: HIV tests are not reliable Again, we have an error, either of notation or omission, by the original poster.


Oh come on! Do you think your disclaimer at the beginning excuses this shoddy nonsense? The O.P., of course, made no assertions that HIV tests are not reliable, and therefore did not make any error of notation, nor of omission, unless you want to count the fact that the O.P. made no reference at all about the reliability of the HIV tests as an omission, and I suppose an error because that omission didn't quite fit into your pre-written and saved post. If you are so lazy that you can't even be bothered to actually address what was actually said by the O.P., and instead just pretend that your post you saved for just this occasion, somehow speaks to the limited arguments the O.P. made, then why should we trust that this saved post of yours is actually filled with trustworthy data? After all, lazy is as lazy does.




The Rapid Test is typically used in "minute clinics" and general practitioner settings. It can be performed orally, and measures the presence of anti-HIV antibodies. The drawback to this test is that it requires the person to have been infected for 3-4 months, as your body needs to have mounted some level of an immune response. This test is 99.5% sensitive (meaning few, if any, false negatives) and over 99.9& specific (meaning very few, if any, false positives). This data has been demonstrated both by clinical trials, as well as by the CDC and FDA



Oh is that so? Then why do pharmaceutical companies acknowledge that HIV tests are not specific for HIV?


The pharmaceutical corporations that manufacture and commercialize these test kits acknowledge the inaccuracy of the tests. This explains the seemingly surprising statement included in the kit inserts: "Elisa testing alone cannot be used to diagnose AIDS, even if the recommended investigation of reactive specimens suggests a high probability that the antibody to HIV-1 is present" (Abbott 1997).




The insert for one of the kits for administering the Western blot warns: "Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection" (Epitope Organon Teknika).



In like manner, the insert that accompanies a very frequently used test for PCR Viral Load warns: "the Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection" (Roche 2003).



Interestingly, the only valid method of establishing the sensitivity and the specificity of a diagnostic test in clinical medicine is to compare the test in question with its gold standard. The only possible gold standard for the HIV tests is the human immunodeficiency virus itself, HIV. Since HIV has never been isolated as an independent, free and purified viral particle, it is not possible to properly define either the sensitivity or the specificity of any of these tests. Currently, the sensitivity and the specificity of the tests for HIV are arbitrarily defined, not by comparison to purified HIV itself, but by comparison of the tests in question with the clinical manifestations of AIDS, or with T4 cell counts.



"At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence and absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood. Therefore sensitivity was computed based on the clinical diagnosis of AIDS and specificity based on random donors" (Abbott 1997).


www.robertogiraldo.com...




As shown above, HIV testing is a multi-level and multi-platform process. It isn't one, single test, and it isn't something done haphazardly.


Uh-huh. Sigh:


HIV has never been either isolated or purified as a real virus.


The most frequently used technique for isolation and purification of retroviruses includes the following primary steps: (1) Concentration of the viral particles by centrifugation; (2) Electron microscopy monitoring of the concentrated viral particles; (3) Biochemical and genetic analysis of the purified viral particles; (4) Controlling the experiments to avoid misinterpreting endogenous retroviruses as exogenous infectious retroviruses; and (5) Biological tests to ascertain if the isolated retrovirus is indeed potentially pathogenic and virulent (O’Connor et al 1964; De Harven 1965a,b, 1974).



However, neither Montagnier, nor Gallo, nor Levy et al. had adhered to these techniques when they claimed to have isolated “the AIDS virus” in 1983 and 1984 (Barré-Sinousi et al 1983; Papovic et al 1984; Gallo et al 1984; Levy et al 1984). The first two steps were omitted; they did not provide the electron microscope evidence that particles from the “infected” culture supernatant, sedimenting at 1.16 gm/ml of sucrose, were composed primarily of viral particles (concentrated viral particles). Instead, they provided electron microscope photographs of stimulated/activated cultured lymphocytes releasing particles similar to retroviruses.


Continuing with that paragraph:


These same particles, however, can be released by “non infected” stimulated/activated lymphocyte cultures (Dourmashkin et al 1993). Unfortunately, the experiments were not properly controlled; where were the electron microscopy photographs of “infected” as well as “not infected” culture supernatants sedimenting at 1.16 gm/ml of sucrose, EM micrographs required to determine whether or not viral particles were concentrated at that gradient? Additionally, where were the electron microscopy pictures of “non infected” lymphocytes grown under identical culture conditions?



So-called “HIV proteins” are not specific markers of HIV.

Gallo’s group from the National Cancer Institute performed Western blot using “lysates of HTLV-III producer cell clones” and serum diluted 1:500, and, also without having previously purified viral particles, arbitrarily decided that, “antigens newly expressed after viral infection and recognized by the human serum used included p65, p55, p41, p39 and p24. A large protein with a molecular weight of approximately 130,000 and a protein of 48,000 were also detected” (Schüpbach et al 1984). However, they also concluded that, “these results show clearly that the antigens detected after viral infection are either virus-coded proteins or cellular antigens specifically induced by the infection” (Schüpbach et al 1984).



Levy’s group of researchers, from the University of California in San Francisco, performed standard indirect immune fluorescence procedures using HTLV-1, LAV and ARV “infected cells” and serum diluted 1:10. They found that antibodies against what was supposed to be ARV (AIDS Related virus) in 88% of AIDS with Kaposi’s sarcoma, 100% in AIDS with opportunistic infections, in 93% of male sexual partners of AIDS patients, and in 57% of clinically healthy homosexual men (Levy et al 1984).



So-called HIV-RNA is not a specific marker of HIV.

The HIV viral load test is an amplification genetic test that makes copies of fragments of RNA that arbitrarily have been regarded as parts of the HIV genome. These fragments of RNA are found in culture supernatants or in patient’s blood. They are never, however, extracted directly from purified viral particles. What is known as “HIV RNA” might just as well originate from cultured cells or be present in the blood of persons undergoing stress. It could also originate from endogenous, non-infectious retroviruses.



False positive reactions on the HIV tests.

There are abundant scientific publications explaining that there are more than 70 different documented conditions that can cause the antibody tests to react positive without an HIV infection (Johnson 1993, 1995, 1996a,b; Hodgkinson 1996; Turner 1996, 1997/8; Shenton 1998; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al 1993; Giraldo 1997d, 2000a; Giraldo et al 1999).


www.robertogiraldo.com...\

I could continue with another post, as I am running out of space in this one, but why bother? You will undoubtedly dismiss I, and the reports author of which I have cited as being "denialists", while you pretend it is a "myth" instead of science.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moonguy

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 youre proff to say otherwise? What logic are you using? from 10 10 year old ? which is very short and says, I'm sure, almost exactly what you said with no proof either, Do YOU really count?...NO! I beleive that AIDS is a man made proof, since we have dumpt billion of dollards 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.

Eh, because you can't prove that something isn't it proves it is!!!!!!!!!!! I can't prove that mice made of chocolate are pilots of the moon which is really a spaceship. So by your logic it must be true. In fact I could on and on with all sorts of madcap theories which are totally impossible to disprove . That is not how proof works. proof works as follows:

1. x is not if there is no proof. (NOT the double negative as you state)
2. Proof increases.
3. Proof becomes reproducable (especially with experimentation)
4. The increasing volume of proof turns an original theory into near fact.

The OPPOSITE which is what you are advocating means that everything lunatic is true!!!!!!!

We have dumped millions in fact billions into cancer research and still have no cure. Therefore it is man made! Your logic is madness.

Now ironically enough I believe it is man made for a few reasons:

1. It first occurred in San Francisco NOT AFRICA!
2. Africa was a smokescreen to distract attention from the illegal tests on prison inmates in S.F.
3. Proof? History. Go back and check.
4. Infection rates and incubation mean we can work out when ground zero occured and when. Answer : San Francisco in the early 80's
5. Africa became infected due to sex tourism which was a highly convenient occurance for whoever caused the original US infection.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Screw looking through the posts.

AIDS isn't a virus, genius. It's a syndrome (condition) caused by a virus known as HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus). AIDS is short for Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. It does not kill. It causes one to have such a weak immune system (the system of the body that fights disease) that one cannot fight diseases, even something as normal as the "common cold".

Whether or not HIV was created in a lab, I don't know, but I highly doubt it. AIDS isn't even bad enough to be considered "population control". Sure, it's bad in Africa, but they have horrible medical facilities and little prevention against the spread of STD's. If anything is "population control", Cancer is, and I am 99% sure that the rampant spread of Cancer is due to the thousands of nuclear explosions we have wrought upon our beloved Planet Earth.

As far as AIDS, no.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
First? You're a little late for first my friend, and it has all ready been pointed out.






Oh come on! Do you think your disclaimer at the beginning excuses this shoddy nonsense? The O.P., of course, made no assertions that HIV tests are not reliable, and therefore did not make any error of notation, nor of omission, unless you want to count the fact that the O.P. made no reference at all about the reliability of the HIV tests as an omission, and I suppose an error because that omission didn't quite fit into your pre-written and saved post. If you are so lazy that you can't even be bothered to actually address what was actually said by the O.P., and instead just pretend that your post you saved for just this occasion, somehow speaks to the limited arguments the O.P. made, then why should we trust that this saved post of yours is actually filled with trustworthy data? After all, lazy is as lazy does.


I pointed out that my post was a blanket, catch-all post about the "AIDS is a hoax" topic. It is meant to cover the four main areas that people attack. I absolutely admit I forgot to take out references to the post I originally replied to with that post (hence the references to an OP that doesn't match this threads).

If you're willing to throw out all my work and references over a silly editing error, I guess we can see where your bias lies.





Oh is that so? Then why do pharmaceutical companies acknowledge that HIV tests are not specific for HIV?


Please read my post in its entirety. You'll see that no diagnosis of HIV is made without several tests (usually three), all using different methods. This reduces the chance of a false-positive to nearly zero. Each individual test has a higher than zero chance of a false positive, but when you combine predictive values of the three tests, it reduces this chance greatly.

This is basic statistics.


Uh-huh. Sigh:

HIV has never been either isolated or purified as a real virus.


Please see my related images and links. It has absolutely been isolated as a "real virus".



False positive reactions on the HIV tests.


I have never denied that false positives are possible. However, the standard procedure now is to combine antibody tests with PCR and viral load tests before confirming a diagnosis. Again, basic statistics shows that the chance for a false positive when combining these various methods is nearly zero chance of this happening.


I could continue with another post, as I am running out of space in this one, but why bother? You will undoubtedly dismiss I, and the reports author of which I have cited as being "denialists",


No worries. I've reported your ad hominem attack earlier in this post and responded to the points you've made. I'm not sure what else you want from me.


[edit on 8/2/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by OrphenFire
 


You hit it right on the nose, aids is not a virus and does not kill, the opprotunistic infections kill.


and to the previous poster saying it first showed up in san francisco that is rediculous.
The first know case of hiv infection was man from the congo, who died in 1959. It was diagnosed through a preserved blood sample.
then a 15yr boy died of aids in 1969 at st louis city hospital

then there was a norwegian sailor whom presented sypmptoms in 1969 then died in 1976.

Its is also known that HIV evolved from simian(monkeys/apes) imunodeficiency virus, which inturn evolved from feline (cats) imunodeficiency virus which inturn evolved from bovine(cattle) imunodefiency virus.

So the disease first shows up in in african cattle then jumps to the large predatory cats through predation of cattle. It then jumps to the simian population again via large cat predation, and finally to humans through humans hunting and eating monkeys and apes.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   

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.



Aids has devastated Africa. It has done its job "nicely".



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 





If you're willing to throw out all my work and references over a silly editing error, I guess we can see where your bias lies.


I of course, did not "throw out all (your so called) work and references" and spoke to much of it in my post, which you clearly know since you lazily speak to my arguments.




Please read my post in its entirety. You'll see that no diagnosis of HIV is made without several tests (usually three), all using different methods. This reduces the chance of a false-positive to nearly zero. Each individual test has a higher than zero chance of a false positive, but when you combine predictive values of the three tests, it reduces this chance greatly.


I did read your post in its entirety! Quit being so self involved and certainly don't think that pretending I did not read your entire post before responding will work as an appropriate rebuttal. Indeed, it appears you are merely accusing me of your own crimes, and did not read what I posted. I listed several citations making it perfectly clear of the arbitrary definitions, and the lack of an isolated virus. It matters not if it is three or thirty different tests that are done, if those tests are all designed based on arbitrary definitions, and lack an actual isolated virus as a gold standard.




This is basic statistics.


Statistics do not make a diagnosis.




Please see my related images and links. It has absolutely been isolated as a "real virus".


Oh for crying out loud! Your arrogance knows no bounds. Either you have not read all of my posts in this thread, or you haven't bothered to read the links I provided, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Of course, since you couldn't be bothered to read through those links the first time they were posted, why should anyone expect you will read through them this time?




I have never denied that false positives are possible. However, the standard procedure now is to combine antibody tests with PCR and viral load tests before confirming a diagnosis. Again, basic statistics shows that the chance for a false positive when combining these various methods is nearly zero chance of this happening.


And again, basic statistics does not a diagnosis make.




No worries. I've reported your ad hominem attack earlier in this post and responded to the points you've made. I'm not sure what else you want from me.


It would have been nice if you had actually taken the time to read through the entire thread before copying and pasting a post from a different thread into this one as if it somehow offered any thing other than your own personal bias.

As to the ad hominem attacks, you began with the whole "denialist" crap. Hell, if you want to play the "denialist" game, surely you must know that the Catholic Church put Galileo on trial for being in denial about a geocentric solar system. Using the term "denialist" is an ad hominem attack on those who question the veracity of the claims such as those that you have made. It is a political game you are playing, not a scientific one.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by alysha.angel
 


HIV virus was/is a huge failure then. maybe we'll get it right next time. personally I dont buy it, I have more faith that the PTB could kill off the population



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faiol

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
Sorry, but total AIDS-related deaths since 1981 are around 25 million. Assuming the same percent increase of 4.1 billion to 6.9 billion (a factor of 1.68), 25 million becomes 42 million. Still a minuscule percentage of the overall population. So no, it wouldn't "be much bigger."



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I of course, did not "throw out all (your so called) work and references" and spoke to much of it in my post, which you clearly know since you lazily speak to my arguments.


You certainly ignored a good chunk of my points, and didn't refeernce a single one of my sources. This leads me to believe you didn't read my post, especially since you are trying to make arguments that were fairly well-explained in my post, such as the math and science behind testing methods.


I did read your post in its entirety! Quit being so self involved and certainly don't think that pretending I did not read your entire post before responding will work as an appropriate rebuttal. Indeed, it appears you are merely accusing me of your own crimes, and did not read what I posted. I listed several citations making it perfectly clear of the arbitrary definitions, and the lack of an isolated virus. It matters not if it is three or thirty different tests that are done, if those tests are all designed based on arbitrary definitions, and lack an actual isolated virus as a gold standard.

Statistics do not make a diagnosis.


Statistics are vital to a diagnosis. If we have three methods that are 75% specific of sensitive, but using the three tests in combination with the same blood samples increases the sensitivity and specificity to 99.9%, this is a wonderful application of statistics and science. Why is this difficult to understand? It's not different then trying to identify an individual. If you are able to search by name, by phone number, and by address, why would you use only ONE less powerful method, as opposed to using all three? Same scenario.



Oh for crying out loud! Your arrogance knows no bounds. Either you have not read all of my posts in this thread, or you haven't bothered to read the links I provided, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Of course, since you couldn't be bothered to read through those links the first time they were posted, why should anyone expect you will read through them this time?


Most of your links are from "virusmyth.com"...yeah, no pre-determined goal in THEIR data, huh? Can you please explain the very clear, obvious electron micrographs of HIV I have posted? Why won't you just look at the photos and tell me what they are, if not HIV?

I've provided scientific explanations for every point made about HIV/AIDS being a hoax. I have cited sources from various journals, studies, and universities, and I have provided clear, concise explanations. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but attack me and ignore my sources, posting your own that have obvious agendas.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I think I remember Coast to Coast talking about this a few times. I also remember reading about it in the book Conspiranoia. Someone with the WHO stated that they were close to developing a virus that attacked the immune system, killed 100 % affected, and yada yada.

Who knows? Maybe it's just another sign that we should be monogamous and not running around like pervs.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
I have done research on this and followed up many medical documents on AIDS that state the disease was indeed created in a lab. i wish i had the links and info to share. just know that it is out there. look for medical journals on aids research and they speak of AIDS as if it is common knowledge it was created by man in a lab. many diseases are distributed through vacs. look at cancer and autism and alot of other diseases that started up after the 80's. when didn vaccinations start? HMMM.... makes you wonder whats in that stuff...

i 100% Agree with you that AIDS was man made in a lab and distributed into the populus through vaccinations at county hospitals and health clinics to depopulate the human race where it needed it most. the poor. it started in parts of Africa through the red cross and was considered "ok" for population controll by 1982. in the late 70's they started in Africa. these are facts that can be found.

I have done the research and had actually documents to support these claims so i know you can find them. i will do what i can and see if i can find them. it was many computers ago and none of that has been saved and carried over to my current computer.

medical journals are filled with proof.

good luck in your search. the truth isnt that hard to find on this subject.

i will add what i can when i can

**im not stating that cancer is distributed through vaccinations i am saying that something given in VACS cause the human cells to become at risk and more succeptable to cancers**

[edit on 2-8-2010 by DONNYxMC]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
That's interesting that you would take the time to research which lab the AIDs vires was created.

To save yourself time, skip looking for American labs. Check Chinese labs that created the AIDs virus during the Vietnam War. AIDs was spread to American soldiers via Vietnamese prostitutes and Chinese prostitutes posing as Vietnamese working girls.

Good luck.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
I have not read this entire thread.
Along time ago, I read that all retrovirus were all man made.
If that is true, then HIV would seem to, have to of also been man made.

I also know for fact, that Kissinger, and other in US were attempting population control in the 70s.
I will provide souces, if anyone wants them, that are unaware of these facts.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I have always had the belief that hiv/AIDS was manmade. Although i always believed that the germans created hiv/AIDS during WWII to decrease the the population of the U.S. Althoug many may think it inhumane, there needs to be a way to control the population otherwise humans will overpopulation and use up all the earth's resources.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
They made a Virus to kill off "3 billion people"(Aids hasn't even killed remotely close to that number since its discovery) which can be prevented by simply using a condom?

Flawless logic, I honestly can't believe how down right silly some people are and how insane some of their theories can be.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Gakus]







 
36
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join