The Church of HIV: Inventing the AIDS Virus

Thanks for posting Jean Paul.

There are so many gross logic errors in modern 'medicine' that it is laughable...

Unfortunately, the joke is on the oh so naive public that goes to MDs for the 'treatments'...

The fact that the benefits of and results of these 'treatments' are TOTALLY imaginary does little to slow down the March of the Morons and the MD clowns extolling the virtues of this 'bleeding edge' (emphasis on bleeding! ) approach to treating dis-ease.

I became involved with the medical field while researching the blatant nonsense that was proferred with regards to the diagnosis and treatment of Autism.

I was somewhat distressed that the MDs only looked at a small portion of the demonstrable symptoms of Autism. And could under NO CIRCUMSTANCES be convinced to even look at what was sitting in plain sight.

To make a long story short...

While doing deep research on HIV and it's supposed companion AIDS...

I noticed that 'Autistics' had ALL OF THE SAME SYMPTOMS as terminal 'AIDS' patients.

How could THAT possibly be?

Of course, MDs refused to look at anything which was not part of the Gospel according to MDs.

I DEMANDED answers. (Sometimes to the point of physically confronting these white-smocked priests )

Needless to say, at that point I went off of the reservation...

And went back to square one. And refused to accept any medical beliefs unless it could be DEMONSTRATED to yours truly.

With the standard for success being to CURE (or in the case of autistics to alleviate their secondary symptoms, cuz the original neurological insult is permanent and the only avenue open to an autistic child is an alternative neurological development typically seen in severe brain trauma patients) the person in question.

The results, to a TRULY thinking person, are simply devastating...

The 'disease' model is PURE fiction. Pathogens can only prosper in an ALREADY ill person.

Most 'diseases' are really just the RESULT of environmental factors (including life-style 'decisions') and poor nutrition.

The so-called 'degenerative' 'diseases' (cancer, diabetes, alzheimer's, arthritis, yada, yada, yada) are ALL the RESULT of extreme self-toxicity.

Anyhow this list goes on and on (kinda like me ).

The bottom line is this HIV 'cause' of 'AIDS' is NOT the first time the greatest medical minds of the time (an oxymoron? ) have found the source of a 'disease'. Read up on Pink Disease, also attributed to a mysterious and elusive virus that also ultimately proved to be untreatable, cuz the 'disease' was CAUSED by mercury poisoning! The 'active' ingredient in so-called teething powders of the period.

If you are not yet shocked enough...

Go research a brilliant (and persecuted) Scientist named Gaston Naessens.

Armed with his trusty 'ultra-microscope' he ABSOLUTELY DESTROYS the 'disease model' and just as importantly it's pathogen base.

And... **cou CURES CANCER gh***

Everything you know about the taxonomy of pathogens is PURE FICTION.

You have got to respect individuals such as Peter Duesberg who pretty much implode their careers in the hopeless pursuit of fixing 'medicine' from the inside...

Like anyone who thinks treating a HUMAN BEING with AZT is going to listen to anything he has to say!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


There isn't any logical argument for "what if he was right?". Nearly everything Deusberg has ever theorized has been proven wrong multiple times over.

Duesberg argued in 1989 that a significant number of AIDS victims had died without proof of HIV infection.[16] However, with the use of modern culture techniques and polymerase chain reaction testing, HIV can be demonstrated in virtually all patients with AIDS.[

In his 1996 book Inventing the AIDS Virus and in numerous journal articles and letters to the editor, Duesberg asserts that HIV is harmless and that recreational and pharmaceutical drug use, especially of zidovudine (AZT, a drug used in the treatment of AIDS) are the causes of AIDS outside Africa (the so-called Duesberg hypothesis).

People that are never medicated with HIV medicine still acquire AIDS

He considers AIDS diseases as markers for drug use, e.g. use of poppers (alkyl nitrites) among some homosexuals, asserting a correlation between AIDS and recreational drug use.[29] This correlation hypothesis has been disproven by evidence showing that only HIV infection, not homosexuality nor recreational/pharmaceutical drug use, predicts who will develop AIDS

Again, proven wrong.

Duesberg asserts that AIDS in Africa is misdiagnosed and the epidemic a "myth", claiming incorrectly[33] that the diagnostic criteria for AIDS are different in Africa than elsewhere[34][35] and that the breakdown of the immune system in African AIDS patients can be explained exclusively by factors such as malnutrition, tainted drinking water, and various infections that he presumes are common to AIDS patients in Africa

Duesberg has also argued that nitrite inhalants were the cause of the epidemic of Kaposi sarcoma (KS) in gay men. However, this argument has been described as an example of the fallacy of a statistical confounding effect;[10] it is now known that a herpesvirus, potentiated by HIV, is responsible for AIDS-associated KS.[11][12]

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by cenpuppie


Europeans have a natural resistance to it too, hmmm.

You're not being serious.

Please, someone tell me no one actually believes that.

yes lets look at gaston naessens www.quackwatch.org...

In 1967, the American Cancer Society published a detailed report on its investigation of Naessens [3]. The report stated:

Naessens had proposed two treatments for cancer and leukemia. The first called G.N. 24, was found by a Swiss pharmacist to contain mineral salts and methylene blue. The second, called Anablast, attracted worldwide attention in 1963 when Naessens used it to treat a 4-year old boy.

Although Naessens claimed to have studied biology at the University of Lille, the school records fall to verify this.

In 1956, Naessens was convicted of illegally practicing medicine. He was fined 300,000 old francs and made to pay 600,000 old francs to the doctors' "ordre" and "syndicat." After that, made it a condition that a doctor should administer his treatment.

In 1964, Naessens agreed to a test of Anablast by Professor Pierre Denoix, Director of the Gustave-Roussy Institute at Villejuif, France. Denoix concluded that Naessens was mistaken in the premise on which the serum was based, and that an investigation of cases of cancer and leukemia treated with Anablast bad proved that the serum had no therapeutic value. (In every allegedly successful case Denoix was able to investigate, the patient had first received standard therapy.) Soon afterward, Naessens was indicted for practicing medicine and pharmacy illegally [4].

Denoix reported that the particles he had seen were well known by hematologists to be products of red-cell disintegration. He also concluded that microorganisms that Naessens cultivated were the result of secondary contamination of the material studied.

In 1985, two researchers at Ontario Veterinary College concluded that 714X was ineffective against lymphomas in dogs and cows [5]. The Canadian Health Fraud Branch regards 714X as "an unproven product for which evidence to support treatment claims is lacking." [6] No clinical trial has ever been reported, and no peer-reviewed scientific journal has published data showing that 714X is effective against any health problem. In 1998, the Task Force on Alternative Therapies of the Canadian Breast Cancer Research Initiative concluded that "Naessens's theories about the underlying causes and mechanisms of cancer are clearly not consistent with current scientific opinion."

[7] In November 1999, I searched Medline and Stedman's Electronic Medical Dictionary and found no mention of the term "somatid."

Government Regulation

I saw this pretty informing Doco on this subject, it has some pretty top notch interviews with some of the people in the OP. It goes from the US to South Africa asking everyone in between to define HIV and AIDS and what correlations they have.

It answered a lot of my questions and the conclusion was unexpected. But yeah check it out: House of Numbers

Originally posted by jollyjollyjolly
AIDS/HIV/Whatever you want to call it was around in the 1940's and 50's. They have found it in sailors cryogenic frozen blood samples from WWII.

HIV has been around for millions of years in it's more benign counterpart commonly found in 33 species of monkies including chimps, S.I.V. for Simian Immuno Virus with one major exception, SIV doesn't kill it's host the way HIV does by decimating it's hosts white blood cells with one excepction, the asian rhesus macaque in which it cant mutate into SAIDS or Simian AIDS. In the other 33 species of monkies and apes SIV does nothing.

My memory is a bit fuzzy, so perhaps someone more versed in the subject can chime in and correct me or add to this... but I believe I read before, on the origin of AIDS, and why homosexuals were predominantly infected...

There were some experimental hep-b vaccines going around marketed to specifically those with homosexual lifestyles. And the outbreak of AIDS happened more or less concurrently in clusters around the three vaccine test sites, one in California, and two on the east coast (Virginia and New York, I believe)?

If that is true, it screams of being bioengineered. But maybe someone can add to this?

Here is one website that gets into the hep-b vaccine and the origin of AIDS...

www.originofaids.com...

reply to post by timetothink


By taking in the existing virus, does that mean through vaccines??

Some of this is coming together to paint a very colorful picture huh?

IMO, i really don't feel too bad for some people. If you are born or catch the virus as a child, i am sorry thats a horrible thing. I believe tptb had actually developed it as an extermination method, like to get rid of drug addicts/poor underclass citizens....just a thought lol i do believe there is a thread or two somewhere that has proof of existing vaccines for it, although i may be wrong.

reply to post by sdocpublishing


I dont know if this is true either but I wouldnt be surprised...I am sure there are frozen/preserved samples from many time periods such as 1918 flu etc.

reply to post by PsyMike91


As far as the theory of spreading it? That I do not know, but I do think more and more that evidence points to bio engineering...imo.

Either that or somebody was getting down with the monkeys...

I always looked at it as pop. control also...especially because of the target pop.

reply to post by SeventhSeal


Its actually true. At least-sort of. A small percentage of euro stock has a mutation on the t-cells causing the protean receptors that HIV use-to not work right or are simply not there.

As I said though a SMALL percentage are immune to infection-this is how that guy got cured a couple years ago. He received a bone marrow transplant from an immune person.

Quick note: existence of anti-bodies does NOT mean the disease was "contained". It means the body reacted to the presence of a threat.

T-Cells identify a threat and release chemical signatures that tell the other immune cells what to attack. Those chemical signatures are the anti-bodies. Because it is so difficult to find the viruses themselves, they always look for anti-bodies. Course-once you have anti-bodies they are always there. This is why during treatment they check viral load.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I know another cancer drug, interferon was also introduced as a drug to fight ( fight not cure) the virus.
On a note about antibodies, if this is where you think the research goes wrong. Antibodies show up when a person has had exposure to a certain virus. Like chicken pox. Once you are exposed to the chicken pox virus and you have the disease, you body developes antibodies so that upon future exposure to the same virus your body already knows how to fight off the disease and you dont get a second bout of chicken pox. Its the same science that is used to create vaccines. They inject a mild form of the disease, one that gives just enough for you to develope antibodies without having the disease itself.

Or like the guy above me said.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by windword

 

The controversy, as I see it, is that a vast machine exists to shout down and shut up anyone who questions the hypothesis, regardless of their expertise or knowledge.

I agree with this, but why did you quit digging? I believe Peter Duesberg is wrong. Dr Mullins no longer supports the notion you quoted in your OP. There has been enough data and scientific research done since these claims were made, that prove without a doubt, HIV causes AIDS. It is 100% fact.

It meets the four Koch postulates ect. I believe Peter was doing the correct thing by questioning the hypothesis in the beginning, but his competitive, stubborn nature has caused him to continue to deny what is painfully obvious to anyone who has studied this. Peter has a beef with Gallo, because Gallo beat him to it.

I think posting things like this is dangerous and shouldn't be tolerated on ATS. There is zero doubt that HIV causes AIDS.

It's too bad that naive people believe these things, I bet you Christine Maggiore's family regrets it.

reply to post by karen61057


Important to note about cancer drugs-Cancers of all types are extremely common in late stage HIV and AIDS patients. A healthy person gets hundreds of cancers a day that the body deals with. Immuno compromised, not so easy.

reply to post by lordtyp0


So not only kaposi sarcoma but other cancers as well? Interesting. What other virus causes cells to grow out of control ?
And if this is truly a virus (100 % sure I just read above somewhere) why cant the antibodies be isolated so that a vaccine can be created?

there are a bunch of strains, so are really strong and people died....some strains are really wimpy and people don't get very sick at all.

: What is it about the HIV virus that makes vaccine development so much more challenging than other kinds of infections?

A: There are a number of unique characteristics about HIV that make the development of an AIDS vaccine challenging. One is the extreme variability of the virus as it circulates around the world. With polio, for example, there are just a couple of different variations. With flu, at least every season, there are only one or two major strains that affect everyone. But with HIV, there’s a larger number of different molecular species existing at any one time, so we can’t just go after one specific target. The subtype of virus that affects most people in the U.S. is different than the subtype that affects people in South Africa. The molecular structure of HIV varies within a country and even within an individual, which gives the immune system a very challenging target.

Another challenge is that HIV disables the very system that is designed to reject it—the immune system. This means that any vaccine we design will have to strike at HIV as early as possible, well before it has a chance to begin killing the very soldiers of the immune response that the vaccine must harness.

Third, HIV incorporates itself into the DNA of the host. This means that unless every infected cell is removed and rejected by the system, there’s always a seed that allows the virus to come back. Those are very big problems faced by HIV vaccine researchers.



Read more: sciencespeaksblog.org...

reply to post by timetothink


See the thing with bioengineering these diseases is that they would show a specific marker. A tag if you will so that the originator is known. Also, many years have passed since the outset of the epidemic, if this was bioengineered, then the scientist should have already introduced their miracle cure which would be just as easy to engineer by attaching the antigens from the original disease to live cells that would just go in and eat up the bad ones. But they havent yet so either they feel that several decades is not long enough to bury their trail or this was a natural disease that perhaps mutated from a form that was not as virulent or as deadly.

reply to post by research100


This is true. Which is why we have a chicken pox vaccine but not a herpes simplex vaccine. Even though veracella is a form of herpes.

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by lordtyp0

 

So not only kaposi sarcoma but other cancers as well? Interesting. What other virus causes cells to grow out of control ?
And if this is truly a virus (100 % sure I just read above somewhere) why cant the antibodies be isolated so that a vaccine can be created?

quick cancer link has some details, but it was the 10 second search. When the immune system becomes compromised everything becomes a threat. Colds can kill etc.

The anti-bodies are not the threat. They are a good thing. The body makes them to identify and attack maladies.
Unless you are asking why can't they make anti-bodies synthetically to make it?

The nature of HIV is sinister. Not only does it mutate like all viruses (there are many strains of HIV) but the virus hijacks the t-cells. The cells that identify threats to the body. This is the factor that causes the immune dangers. The t-cells are no longer looking for threats and getting the word out so to speak. They are busy making more virus.

Quick analogy: Our bodies are constantly under siege. Fungals, Viruses, Bacterium (oh my). The T- Cells tell rest of the immune system including phages, plasts and memory cells who the threats are. When the T-Cells no longer work it is like the guards at the gates went to sleep and just let everyone in-and without the warning alarms the body ignores the dangers. Hence: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

Edit:

All diseases run rampant. The virus does not cause cancers to run rampant and out of control. The virus causes the body to not respond to the cancers allowing them to throw parties.