Live on pharmatrix since 27 years : the HIV conspiracy

aids is no different than terrorism being yet another lie to organize yet one more war against you
(me)

nota bene to anyone that never before came across the conspiracy being exposed in this thread :

I am not a doctor (as graduated from a medical university) but I have enough analytical and scientific skills to understand what's at stake here and the mechanism of the fraud.

Please don't overlook nor react emotionally to what you are going to read which could very well happen if you are working in the medical sector or if you are related to people that were/are victims of aids.

If you become shocked or angry at what you read, please become conscious of it so you can start your own research and take perspective to intellectually understand what's going on before making up your mind.
If you don't understand please ask for clarification until you do.

If you have hard proofs (such as honest peer reviewed paper from honest scientist) contesting the facts hereafter you are obviously requested to post those; i'm not interested in being right or wrong, just in the truth.

This is a long thread (9 pages in openoffice) so ride away now or read with attention, thank you.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.
goebbels

1.the official story (wikipedia)

Acquired immune deficiency syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a disease of the human immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).[1][2][3] This condition progressively reduces the effectiveness of the immune system and leaves individuals susceptible to opportunistic infections and tumors. HIV is transmitted through direct contact of a mucous membrane or the bloodstream with a bodily fluid containing HIV, such as blood, semen, vaginal fluid, preseminal fluid, and breast milk.[4][5] This transmission can involve anal, vaginal or oral sex, blood transfusion, contaminated hypodermic needles, exchange between mother and baby during pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding or other exposure to one of the above bodily fluids.
AIDS is now a pandemic

2.robert gallo

Gallo, the supposedly discoverer of hiv, is a top notch businessman. A man driven by ambition and power.

"It's hard to be an honest person in this place." She knew three employees who committed suicide. But this culture of unremitting servitude is apparently not enough for Gallo, who once told a lab member that he likes to hire foreigners because if they don't do what he wants, he can deport them.

but... wait isn't this guy supposed to be an acclaimed scientist ?

Gallo told the Chicago Tribune, "I'm not rewarded by my scientific peers," a state of affairs he attributes to "their own inadequacies." If the top rung of the ladder of American scientific success is the Nobel, the one just below it is membership in the National Academy of Sciences. It is a sign of the relative integrity of the National Academy that Gallo was not admitted until 1988 (six ,years after he won his first Lasker), and even then, only through a special nomination process.

He had been rejected a half dozen times and had taken the rejections very hard. Each year, after being turned down again, he would be absent from his lab for a few days. When he returned sulkily to work, he would say, "Fifteen bastard votes short," or whatever the supposedly confidential result had been. He would attribute the result, as the attributes much of the bad news in his life, too his "enemies."

anyone still trust this man ?

3. The official hiv/aids papers or what the hell happened to popovic work ?

Of course HIV exists--I've seen pictures of it in text books and on the news--and scientists work with it every day. How could there be HIV tests if there's no HIV? What those tests detect, that's HIV...
So goes the typical response from physicians, biologists, and AIDS activists when faced with a very simple question: Does HIV exist?

But like all questions fundamental to the HIV/AIDS model, nobody asked this in 1984, the year Robert Gallo published a group of four papers in Science (224:497-508, May 4) proclaiming the existence of a unique retrovirus, HIV, that causes AIDS.

The simultaneous publication of these four papers by Gallo et al was shortly preceded by a patent application for "HIV antibody tests" and by Reagan’s US Health Secretary’s announcement at a press conference attended by Robert Gallo himself before the world’s media that Robert Gallo and his team had "discovered the probable cause of AIDS".

The first Science paper of May 4, 1984 begins with the fundamental assumption: "epidemiological data suggest that the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is caused by an infectious agent that is horizontally transmitted by intimate contact or blood products" (3). The word ‘probably’ employed by the US minister only a few days before was no longer mentioned by Gallo et al.

The fourth and last Science paper of that date ends with the conclusion: "The data presented here and in the accompanying reports suggest that HTLV-III is the primary cause of AIDS" (6). (HTLV-III = HIV).

oh, political announcement and a patent on the HIV test before the papers were reviewed by peers ! you thought aids/hiv was based on science ? No, no it is a political decision sorry...

but that was just an apetizer, there is so much more :

In the same total confidence, before going abroad, he also made advance arrangements for Popovic's paper, and three others based on it, to be published together in the May 4th issue of Science. He would not return until only two weeks before the papers were to be submitted for publication on March 30th 1984.
I found this most odd  - how could Gallo be absolutely certain of the outcome of these vital experiments before they were carried out! 

and the bomb :

I now had in front of me what Popovic saw when he got back to the laboratory in Washington on Monday 24th March, only 6 days before this key paper had to be submitted to Science.  It was fascinating to see that his 13 page typed manuscript had been absolutely covered in Gallo's scribbled comments, redrafted paragraphs and furious notes in the margins. There were also two extra pages of his rough notes added at the end.
Gallo had changed the title of the paper.  When published it would claim that they had  ‘isolated' the virus.  But there was no mention of isolation in the title originally. I was intrigued. Isolation is said to be a key step in the study of any virus. I looked over the whole draft paper with care and found there were no experiments in it designed to isolate the virus for research purposes.
But where was the justification for calling the virus ‘cytopathic'!  I knew that elsewhere Gallo claimed that it killed T-Cells, But extraordinarily, I could find no trace in this paper, as drafted or as published, of any evidence produced to prove this - despite this claim being made in its title....
...
I shrugged aside my sceptical thoughts and started to read the body of the paper.
On its page three was the famous admission by Popovic that he had used the French virus LAV  ‘which is described here as HTLV-III'. Gallo deleted this and noted alongside: ‘I just don't believe it. You are absolutely incredible.'  It seems he must have previously instructed Popovic not to mention the French origin.
...
But when I turned the page, I was riveted. Gallo had deleted a statement by Popovic saying: 'Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified.'  

better laugh than cry... so the official original paper supposed to prove the causality hiv/aids is no more than a forgery, a sadistic lie, a scam of the higher level.


But I almost forgot the cheese : there is no proof whatsoever in the 4 papers published that hiv can kill t-cells; there is not even any conclusive proof that HIV even exists ! (hiv not aids, don't start an argument on this thanks and also don't bother looking for a photo of HIV, you will find only artist renditions)

Popovic noted in his paper that there was a CD4-CD8 ‘reverse ratio', before Gallo deleted it. Popovic meant by this that when Helper CD4 T-Cells cells fall in number, the population of Killer CD8 T-cells goes up commensurately, and vice versa.  We now know our immune system can change CD4s into CD8s as needed. It needs only a very small surface change to them.  This too might explain why sometimes there are fewer CD4 cells. It may simply be that we need more CD8s.
In some frustration I have since searched for earlier papers in which Gallo or Popovic might have proved LAV, renamed as HTLV-3, able to kill or as cytopathic - but there are none, utterly none. The Institut Pasteur likewise seems not to have proved this. Neither had Popovic or Gallo proved their own virus, HTLV3, able to kill T-Cells.

We can observe an intensive use of the delete button on gallo keyboard...

But please read all that research about the original Popovic papers against the one published by gallo : How the HIV Papers were fixed at the last moment.
it's that important to understand the case.




4.creating the correlation from scratch

There is a correlation between people that get HIV and those that end up with aids but it is the result of the original lie and additional trickery from the start.

The trick is in the order they made things happen.

First we have this syndrom, people dying from rare diseases that they catch before their immune system is out of order. Second we have this businessman that comes up with a virus theory and (even before) with the test for the virus. Third we have politics and media announcing a break through in the explanation of aids to the world even before any serious peer reviewing/confirmation whatsoever of the claimed theories.

So what happen next ? Well easy if you understand the process :

anyone with weak immune system and test positive for aids is declared for statistics as having aids;
then anyone with the same weak immune system but not tested as hiv+ is declared having the disease he caught because of his weak immune system.

And what do we get ? that 100% of AIDS people have hiv.

but it is an illusion, a manufactured correlation.

What about those healthy hiv+ that get aids after hiv is found ? We'll get back to them very soon; a tough bit to digest.


5.the HIV test

What do HIV tests do?

Rasnick: They look for antibodies in your blood to proteins that are taken out of this mixture. Your body produces antibodies as a response to all foreign material - germs, yeasts, viruses, even the food you eat. Viruses are DNA or RNA strands wrapped in protein building blocks. Antibodies grab onto these proteins, immobilizing and destroying the virus. When these antibodies encounter different viral proteins in the future, they'll very often grab onto them, too. This is called cross-reactivity.

Duesberg: Viruses are only dangerous the first time you encounter them. Once you've made antibodies to a virus, you have immunity for the rest of your life, and the virus can't get you sick anymore. This is the opposite of HIV theory, which states: You become infected; you don't get sick; you make antibodies; and 10 years later, you get sick and die.

Rasnick: There are two common HIV antibody tests. One is the Elisa, in which a bunch of proteins from the T-cell mixture are stuck in a series of little plastic wells on a test plate. The other is called Western Blot. In this test, the proteins are separated onto individual paper strips. Your blood is added, and if antibodies from your blood stick to proteins from this mixture, you're said to be HIV positive.

They're assuming the proteins are from HIV; but they never isolated HIV, so how can they say these tests can diagnose HIV-infection?

Rasnick: They can't, and they don't. None of the proteins in the Elisa and Western Blot tests have been proven to be specific to HIV or any retrovirus. For this reason the FDA has not approved a single test for diagnosing HIV-infection.

Richards: There are at least 30 tests marketed to test for HIV. None of them are approved by the FDA to diagnose the presence or absence of HIV. Not the Elisa, not viral load, not Western Blot, not the P24 antigen test. The FDA and manufacturers clearly state that the significance of testing positive on the Elisa and Western Blot test is unknown.

the significance of testing positive is UNKNOWN;

yes brothers when you go make your hiv test 6month after that night when you were so drunk, it's not only that night that you played the russian lottery, it's also right now by making the test !

6.The treatments

Let's have a look at AZT side-effects :

Anemia is a shortage of red blood cells caused by damage to bone marrow. It is most common in newborn infants taking zidovudine but disappears after they stop taking the drug. If you get anemia, your health care provider might reduce your dose or switch zidovudine for another ARV. If the anemia is severe and you have to keep taking zidovudine, you may need a blood transfusion, or you might take the drug erythropoietin. For more information on anemia, see Fact Sheet 552.
Myopathy is muscle pain and weakness. There is no specific treatment for myopathy.
Neutropenia is an abornormally low number of neutrophils, the most common type of white blood cell. Neutropenia increases the risk of bacterial and fungal infections.
Changes in skin and nail color (darkening of skin and nails) can also occur. This is more common in people with darker skin.

hold on a minute here, did i read that well

Neutropenia is an abornormally low number of neutrophils, the most common type of white blood cell. Neutropenia increases the risk of bacterial and fungal infections.

I hope you are realizing what does that mean.

AZT is killing white blood cells

so to fight aids, the pharmacorps and the governments are giving to people a medecine that does the exact same thing than the virus causing aids is supposed to do.

That's the real hard bit and where we get back to those contracting AIDS after being declared hiv+.

Yeah I know it's big what I'm implying and to be honest I have trouble writing it so I won't.

I also have seen close people declared hiv+ going in a few months, end of eighties that was.

At that time telling people they are hiv+ was like putting them a bullet in the head.

one monstrous lie conditioned + the amazing placebo power of the mind + the neutropenia/myopathy/anemia treatment (they were saying "we don't know if it works but if you don't take it you die anyway")

how can anyone survive this ?

Nowadays they have fixed the treatment so people can take their medicine longer so it is much more profits indeed for gallo and the pharmacorps.


7.Going deeper in the matter (for doctors and researchers)

"In Science the authority embodied in the opinion of thousands is not worth a spark of reason in one man."
Galileo

please go through this papers very seriously written and referenced

IN GALLO CASE, TRUTH TERMED A CASUALTY
Report: Science subverted in AIDS dispute
By John Crewdson
Chicago Tribune 1 Jan. 1995


What AIDS Researcher Dr. Robert Gallo Did in Pursuit of the Nobel Prize

WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF HIV?
By Valendar Turner
Department of Emergency Medicine, Royal Perth
Hospital, Perth, Western Australia

THE ISOLATION QUESTION
By Paul Philpott
Reappraising AIDS, June, July, Aug. 1997

DID DR. GALLO AND HIS COLLEAGUES MANIPULATE THE "AIDS-TEST" TO ORDER?
"The hunt for the virus" 1 has degenerated into "clean torture with fatal result" 2
By Heinrich Kremer
Continuum Summer 1998

The AIDS Debate
The Most Controversial Story You've Never Heard
By Liam Scheff

There Is No HIV Virus
An interview with Dr Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos By Christine Johnson
Continuum Autumn 1997


8.If not hiv, what could be the cause of aids then ?

This is entirely speculative and cannot be proven; but it must be consider, so let's speculate.

So far the only truth we can rely on in the aids story is that people with aids have been let down by their immune system.

What about we first look for a simple cause ? Many skeptics like to say « most often, the simplest possibility is the correct one ».

Well I have a simple answer, it's not mine, it's from Duesberg and it does make sense to me so it is indeed consumer lifestyle on the top of my suspect list too.

AIDS has come in society aside the explosion of consumption society, the explosion of chemical meat, recreational drugs, pharmacy drugs and other vaccinations.

Is it far-fetched to consider that (at least) some people may have lose their immune system because of this life-style ?

Now let's accept the hypothesis to move further in the reasoning : you are ptb, you have put this great consumption society thing that makes the people more sheeple than ever but the fallback is that more and more people are prematurely dying because of weak immune system; it's ok good for the pharma business, but not so good for global system because they die too early plus there are so many dying this way that the sheeple may start to notice.

What's going on they might ask ?

What say you if you're ptb ? « it's your lifestyle sheeple, we'll have to revert back to unprocessed food and old non-chemical life to preserve your health »?

no, ptb of course don't speak like this, and ptb « never let a crisis go wasted ». So ptb make up the hiv story, transfer again insanely lots more of the public money to the pharmacorps, put more restraint on your freedom,

and more lies in your reality... welcome to pharmatrix



9.How to beat aids ?

I would really like to find some real factual statistics about this profile of people, but I don't think any has ever been done :

*declared HIV+
*refused pharma hiv treatments
*live in balance and harmony, mind&body, and in a sane, chemical-free environment


In no way I'm advocating for anyone that would be found hiv+ to follow this path.
Please just act as you in all awareness


Peace

sources :

www.virusmyth.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.thebody.com...

www.fearoftheinvisible.com...

www.duesberg.com...

www.altheal.org...

reply to post by XmikaX


I recommend watching the documentary on this, House of Numbers.

Apply a big grain of salt as well, but seemed to present a lot of valid concerns:
1) Depending on the country you're in, you might have AIDS - or not. They tend to have different criteria.
2) There's no definitive test for HIV - all tests say if they show positive, you should have further testing...what if you just get a string of tests with wrong results?
3) The discover of AIDS has admitted that if you have a healthy immune system, you can fight the virus off
4) Researchers apparently can't even agree on what they're trying to ID as HIV

If you haven't seen it, will give you some more fat to chew on here - great post aside from some pickiness I have with your formatting. Don't take anything for granted, but House of Numbers certainly gave me more questions about AIDS than I had before.

reply to post by Praetorius

thanks i'll watch when i can but for those kind of matters I prefer to rely on written article or papers (such as the one i link) by researchers, experts in their field on the basis that they are usually better writer than documentary maker.

Not that I don't trust documentary makers, or youtube videos... but yeah almost

reply to post by XmikaX


I completely understand, but think you'd likely still appreciate this one.

There were accusations of things being taken out of context, of course, but the filmmaker has at least clips from interviews with a lot of the big researcher, so is not just all hearsay on his part. As with anything, sort wheat from chaff!

Thanks friend.

reply to post by Praetorius


also the thing is i cannot watch videos from where i am now (slow gprs connection)... but if you can embed for any reader interested that'd be nice, thanks

reply to post by XmikaX


And...done!



Like I mentioned above, everyone please don't just take this film and run with the whole thing as is hotly contested, but there is likely some good (and definitely thought-provoking) information here.

i have never encountered this theory before and am somewhat agog at the scale of it.
strange that only 1 person had a written response to what even specutively is a huge idea, one would have thought that the ats community would be all over this thread from one side or the other.
maybe there are other threads on the same theme that actually have some discussion going on. guess i will have to search for it.
am gonna flag this anyway just to see if new responders show up.