The Church of HIV: Inventing the AIDS Virus

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on May, 21 2012 @ 04:39 PM
reply to post by manicminxx

Most vaccines are given in childhood when sexual preferences have not yet been formed or if formed than not expressed as yet so how do they isolate the population to recieve this specific vaccine?????

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 04:45 PM

Originally posted by lordtyp0

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.


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.
edit on 21-5-2012 by lordtyp0 because: Edit to add the last paragraph

I understand about antibodies, I ask why can they not isolate the specific antibody to create a vaccine for this disease? I also understand about T-cells even though I've never studied medicine I read a lot.

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 04:49 PM
reply to post by karen61057

Again, Viruses mutate. There are many strains of HIV and many dangers with anti-bodies in regards to them.
Notice how you have to get a flu shot yearly? Thats because the strain changes/mutates.

Not only that, but there are super strains that occur when some idiot stops taking meds then starts again. Just like anti-biotics creating drug resistant strains.

The vaccines for HIV have to be very complex and take into account that mutation factor. Otherwise-you could get a vaccine for a strain that was existent 5 years ago.

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 04:53 PM
reply to post by lordtyp0

Actually I never get a flu shot and I never have had the flu either. I hardly ever get colds even. My brother has never had a respiratory infection of any kind I swear . We're a strong family in that regards. Also to cancer. No cases as far back as we can get.

So are they creating any vaccines then? The news spoke about some vaccine or perhaps not a vaccine but some drug that could be taken by people at high risk of contracting the disease. This was just this past week.[edit by]edit on 21-5-2012 by karen61057 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 04:56 PM

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by lordtyp0

Actually I never get a flu shot and I never have had the flu either. I hardly ever get colds even. My brother has never had a respiratory infection of any kind I swear . We're a strong family in that regards. Also to cancer. No cases as far back as we can get.

Well, the point was to illustrate

They have to make new flu vaccines yearly because the strain changes. The flu normally only has a couple active strains in a region. Not like HIV.

Everyone gets cancer ALL THE TIME. The issues come when the body loses control of them. Also-statistically every man has or will get prostate cancer, but it is so slow in its growth that for the vast majority it would not be an issue unless they lived a lot longer than a hundred years.

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:01 PM
reply to post by lordtyp0

Well with the way modern science is going they better start working on that prostate cancer drug because we are headed for very long lived people in the not too distant future. I read somethere that the first generation to live to be 200 has already been born. We live in amazing times.
I added an edit to my post above re the flu about another drug just introduced this past month.

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:17 PM
Here is a Dr Hilleman explaining about Merc's part of it

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:22 PM
reply to post by research100

Please is the POSTER CHILD of medical stupidity.

(Thank you for bringing up that Stephen Barrett moron!

Funny story... when I was originally researching methods of uncovering suppressed medical technologies... I used Quackwatch as a reverse index to potentially interesting medical treatments.

It's always good to hear from the medical robots of the world.

Did you even read your own post?

Tell me... what does it matter what a 'medicine' is made of?

Naessens 'new' cancer treatment called 714X (after his initials G=7,N=14) is hardly anything more than camphor!

It is injected into your lymphatic system.

Guess what? It works!

Yes, he was successfully persecuted (not prosecuted
) in France.

Not so successfully in Canada.

His cancer treatments ARE LEGAL in Canada! Did I mention they ARE successful... Hmmm???

I guess Quackwatch missed that part!

Cures are apparently NOT so good for business...

Selling POISONS like AZT and my all time favorite, chemotherapy, as 'treatments'... There is your precious 'medical' 'Science'...

Can you say Ka-ching?

Send in some more AIDS and cancer patients... These ones are.... ah... apparently dead!

I notice you didn't exactly take up my accusation...

That the 'disease' model is a FAIRY TALE.

Or my rant about Pink Disease...


posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:34 PM
First a little background on how I am personally affected by AIDS.

Usually I would not feel the need to make any claims, but since the subject involves so much prejudice and disinformation, I feel obliged to disclose a few facts.

I am 39, an engineer who lives in Brazil, happily married to a woman who has been diagnosed with the HIV virus since 1997.

Seldom I have met anyone whose character, honesty and intelligence matches that of my beloved partner. Suffice to say that she is a master pianist, holds a PhD in Psychology, as well as being one of the most candid human beings I ever had the pleasure of living with.

She was infected in her previous marriage. By no means her sexual behavior would ever be deemed immoral, she has no history of drug abuse or any other kind of heckless behavior.

She was unlucky, that is all.

In the beginning of our relationship, as I learned that she was seropositive, I underwent a period of grievance and applied myself to research into the subject.

I must admit that back then I still held many misconceptions and prejudices, not unlike some of the posters around here. I had many doubts to the possibility of fruitful sero-discordant relationship.

Thankfully, I was wrong.

During my research, I did come across many of the wild theories that the OP seems to hold so dearly. This is all old stuff to anyone who takes the subject seriously.

Actually, I do not feel the need to rebuke any specific points of the post, I am confident that others have addressed them much better than I would ever be able to.

What I would like to question, however, is the intentions behind spreading such disinformation.

For those of us to which HIV/AIDS is a life and death matter, which involves beloved ones, it is quite annoying to still be greeted by views endorsed by the OP.

How come after so much time and effort has been spent to educate people, such disinformation still seems to thrive?

I love ATS for its entertainment and informative potential, but there is a limit to what one might accept, a limit that revolves around responsibility and compassion to fellow human beings.

And why is it irresponsible to divulge such disinfo? Because it encourages very dangerous behavior on those most affected by this terrible ailment, especially the recently diagnosed.

My wife's ex-husband was one those influenced by such claims, refusing to take pills and sticking to alternative medicines almost to the very end. He has been dead for almost 10 years now, a very painful and terrible death, I must add.

Being strictly pragmatic, how can anyone deny that adherence to treatment is crucial to keep the infected alive and to curb further spread of the infection?

AIDS is not a death sentence anymore, neither is treatment the unbearable burden it used to be 20 years ago. My wife is a beautiful woman who works, goes to the gym, teaches in the university, and together we raise our beautiful daughter, all thanks to three daily pills and a visit to the doctor every three months.

Her CD4 count (immunity level) is very close to mine, and mind you that I am not affected by any health problem at all. Just to clarify, when she started treatment almost a decade ago, her immunity was running dangerously low.

I repeat: taking the available medicine is paramount to saving lives. This is a fact that no conspiracy theorist should dare deny.

My family is fortunate enough to live in a country where the treatment is offered by the government free of charge to anyone who needs it. Here in Brazil, the patents to the most effective pills have been broken by federal law, so little of the Big Pharma anti-propaganda really holds on.

And Brazil is supposed to be a third-world, underdeveloped country...

Given the recent developments and scientific breakthroughs, my wife and I are more than confident that a therapeutic cure will be available within the next decade, or even much earlier.

At this point of the pandemic, what is the use of crying wolf and depicting Big Pharma as demonic? Do you not realize that such actions are akin to terrorism, encouraging less informed people to stop taking the ARVs, thus condemning them to certain death, worsening the crisis by creating mutant strands of the virus, and exposing their beloved ones to much suffering?

My wife would probably disaprove of my post. She is a quiet girl, who prefers eye-to-eye contact and does not engage in any form of HIV activism. She usually laughs at my interest in the conspiracy subjects which ATS is famous for.

I just hope she does not see this topic, because it would remind her of sore moments in her life.

HIV/AIDS is no laughing matter, and I wish English was my first language to better express my outrage at so much lack of responsibility.

The motto of forum is "Deny ignorance", and on writing this reply I believe I'm doing my part.

All I am asking for is a little compassion, some education and a lot more of pragmatism.

Peace and best regards

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:36 PM
reply to post by halfoldman

The so called "AIDSTruth website is purportedly a site formed by research scientists. It would be nice if these so called "scientists" actually took the scientific method seriously:

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.

(Emphasis Added)

Scientists should not belong to any side of a controversy, and when a scientists challenges a hypothesis, this should not be controversial. The HIV/AIDS controversy doesn't exist because Deusberg and others questioned the likelihood of HIV being the "probable cause" of AIDS, the controversy exists because when this hypothesis was challenged institutions and their scientists circled the wagon and began a massive propaganda campaign.

Am I really being so unreasonable in my expectation that AIDSTruth be truthful about these so called "denialists" and at the very least call them HIV denialists. Why is it, do you think, these highly biased "research scientists" are using the phrase - ad nauseum - "AIDS denialists" instead of HIV causes AIDS denialists? Is it possible that by employing this blatant propaganda tool they accomplish two goals: 1, the establish in peoples mind that HIV does cause AIDS, and 2, by calling the scientists who are questioning this "AIDS denialist" instead of what they truly are, they make these scientists look absurdly stupid. Instead of actually addressing the claims Deusberg, et al are making, here is what your non-neutral "research scientists" have done; they have created a page called "Debunking denialist myths". However, here is how the begin that page:

AIDS denialists claim that HIV does not cause AIDS, that the risks of antiretrovirals outweigh their benefits or that there is not a serious HIV epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa. This webpage explains why these views are wrong.

We have deliberately kept the refutations of these myths on this page short. Instead of providing detailed scientific notes, we usually summarise key scientific findings and then provide links to more detailed refutations for readers who are interested. Additional material will be added to this site over time, to debunk other AIDS denialist myths. We recommend you monitor the site on a regular basis.

These so called "research scientists" cannot be bothered to use the site to provide actual scientific study, but instead "deliberately" keep the "refutations" short, because after all, this is a propaganda website, not an actual scientific website. Sure, they provide links, but as is evidenced in this thread, few take the time to actually bother going through those links, yourself included. The only member I've seen in this thread who does not agree with Duesberg, et al, but has taken the time to follow through on links is Realspoke. If other members who disagree with Deusberg have followed the links, it is not so readily apparent.

It is also no where near the truth that there are "many more denialist websites" than there are websites advocating the HIV = AIDS paradigm. This is such a blatant misrepresentation of the truth as to be fairly called shameful. What in God's name makes you think there are more "denialist" websites than there are non-questioning HIV causes AIDS websites. Do you really want to get into a pissing match on that one? Do you doubt for a single second that for every on "denialist" web site I can produce a dozen believers in HIV = AIDS websites?

Further, to reduce my complaint that "AIDSTruth" willfully lies about who they disagree with by labeling them "AIDS denialist" is hardly me dismissing that website as suspect because it disagrees with a certain viewpoint. When I wrote this thread, I fully expected to get disagreement - although many seem to want to disagree with "denialists" more than they want to disagree with what I am actually contending, which is that using logical fallacies, such as ad hominem attacks on those they do disagree with is hardly scientific.

I will continue in the next post with some of "AIDSTruth's refutations".


posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:36 PM
reply to post by halfoldman

In "AIDSTruth's" Debunking denialist myths the "deliberately" keep "myth" #1 short:

Myth #1: HIV does not cause AIDS Fact: HIV has been shown beyond reasonable doubt to be the cause of AIDS. There is an abundance of evidence showing HIV is the cause of AIDS. With very few exceptions, the human immunodeficiency virus itself or antibodies to HIV are detected in people with AIDS. Studies of people who are HIV-positive show they are more likely to develop AIDS symptoms and more likely to die at younger ages than people without HIV. Scientists can now describe in great detail how HIV infection occurs and causes AIDS. For detailed explanations see:

The Evidence That HIV Cause AIDS

NIAID: The Relationship Between the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

"Avert's succint and simple explanation of how we know HIV causes AIDS

TAC's Magazine, Equal Treatment Issue 19, which explains the science of HIV (This is a PDF file so for the very few who are actually following these links go to "AIDSTruth" page I linked to get that file)

First, let's examine "AIDSTruth's" claim that "With very few exceptions, the human immunodeficiency virus itself or antibodies to HIV are detected in people with AIDS." This sloppy and poorly communicated sentence is actually referring to Idiopathic CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia (ICL) which is otherwise known as "non-HIV AIDS":

Idiopathic CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia, or ICL, is an immunodeficiency syndrome in which human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, cannot be detected. Because HIV is the causative agent of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), ICL can be referred to as Non-HIV AIDS. As in AIDS patients, Non-HIV AIDS patients exhibit reduced numbers of CD4+ T-lymphocytes, and many Non-HIV AIDS patients have developed the opportunistic infections or otherwise rare cancers associated with AIDS.

Non-HIV AIDS patients may comprise perhaps one percent of all AIDS patients. While the majority of Non-HIV AIDS patients do not belong to any of the risk groups such as blood transfusion recipients, male homosexuals, and intravenous drug abusers in which AIDS was first identified, some Non-HIV AIDS patients do belong to these groups. This suggests that Non-HIV AIDS may also be transmissible.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about ICL:

Idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia (ICL) is a very rare medical syndrome in which the body has too few CD4+ T lymphocytes, which are a kind of white blood cell. ICL is sometimes characterized as "HIV-negative AIDS" by AIDS denialists, though in fact its clinical presentation differs from that seen with HIV/AIDS. People with ICL have a weakened immune system and are susceptible to opportunistic infections, although the rate of infections is lower than in people with AIDS

Of course, as "AIDSTruth" pointed out at the beginning of their "debunking" page, Duesberg and others are arguing that the antiretrovirals come with more risks than benefits, and of course, Deusberg has flat out insisted that AZT is a poison and cytotoxic. The history of AZT show irrefutably this poisonous aspect, so much so that you yourself begrudgingly admit this in your initial post by slyly claiming the early dosages used on AIDS patients is now irrelevant since they've since reduced those dosages. Imagine that! In the early stages of AIDS, when doctors patients were dropping off like flies, these doctors pulled back and thought: Gee, maybe we should reduce the dosage to this highly poisonous and cytotoxic drug.

Maybe those with ICL are surviving longer than those diagnosed with HIV because they're not put on the same AVR's.

I am again running out of character space, and if I am to actually address each and every link "AIDSTruth" provided, it will take me more than all day to do so, so I can only address them as time permits.

Indeed, a member has complained that I "stopped digging", seemingly unaware of the immense amount of time it takes to do this research, not to mention how annoyingly time consuming it is to provide links that oh so few even bother to read. I am taking the time to do this, not to advocate a contrary view to the norm, but only to reveal that the "norm", in this regard, has apparently eschewed fact and scientific method and replaced it with propaganda, and of course, for an industry that is quite profitable.

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:36 PM
Development of Aids was funded in 1969
For the seven (G-7)
and injected into 100 million Africans in ‘77

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:49 PM
reply to post by SamKappler

I don't buy your story.

I can't help but notice you are a little light on the specifics...

AND you seem to paint with a very large brush.

So to summarize your opinion.

Big Pharma = good.

People who take the Big Pharma meds = good.

People who dispute the merits/opinions of those two camps. = disinformation agents.

Did I get that right?

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 06:11 PM
robert gallo is an evil man. he basically sold his soul to the devil for fame. i wonder how sleeps at nights telling lies for almost 3 decades and wonder how many adults and babies he indirectly killed for forcing them to take azt?

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 06:12 PM
samkepler, that was a heartfelt response, you write really well, I had no idea that english was a second language.

You ask a really good question......of course they do not answer....Are people really that ignorant.... are people doing this they enjoy posting erroneous info that the uninformed will fall the detriment of their health,and possibly their lives.......I don't get it.

the person who responded to you was rude........

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 06:21 PM
I see. You do not "buy" into my story? Was I selling anything? Not to my knowledge.

Listen, my dear one, in the past I have often quarrelled about this subject countless times, to the point that my wife has made it clear that she does not want to see me taking part in these disputes. They are fruitless, she says, and she is right.

I suppose people like you are here in order to prove a point, to you this may be a matter of winning an argument. To me, on the other hand, this is a matter of having my wife alive next to me to raise our daughter to adulthood.

My wife is alive because of Biovir and Efavirenz, her CD4 count now is above 1000, whilst five years ago it was below 300. And it will remain above 1000 for many years to come, because she has more sense than you (or me).

Facts are facts, the medication works, I really don't know how can you dispute that.

I'm not sure about your intentions either. In fact, I came to realize that it is indeed pointless to argue only for the sake of argument.

Have I said Big Pharma is altruistic or intrinsically good? Have I said that anywhere? Again, not to my knowledge. That's just more sophistry from you, a mere diversionary tactic.

Of course I want to be sketchy about the situation, I want to protect my family. Do you think it would be easy for my wife to be pointed out as seropositive by her fellow teachers, her patients, friends and students?

Do you really think this is a light matter, a mere exercise of argumentation skills? Do you think you are still in a high school debating class?

I sincerely hope you and none you love are affected by HIV, not because of the obvious health issue, but simply because you do not seem to understand what social stigma means. For those such as you, I am afraid that only feeling the plight is one's own skin would be enough, if anything.

But please do not take this as a curse.

All I am asking is to think about those who are personally affected the next time you decide to take up a cause.

I do not intend to further rebuke anything you say, so I will not keep replying. Go ahead, keep up your disinfo work, you seem to be good at it. But please be aware of the bad you are doing, possibly misleading people from living normal and productive lives.

I did my part, I gave my testimony.

Peace and best regards.

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 06:23 PM
reply to post by SamKappler

Before I continue with Halfholdman's posts, and address some others, I am compelled to address you and your inexcusable dishonesty. I cannot know if you are telling the truth about your girlfriend, but I can know that you have willfully misrepresented my O.P., ignoring my contention - which is that reputable scientists began asking valid questions about HIV and a propaganda machine was built to shout those scientists down, and even destroy their careers.

More inexcusably is your deceitful way in which you attempt to present this thread as being some sort of anti-HIV advocacy. I have repeatedly made clear that I have no idea what the truth is about HIV, and if you and the huge propaganda machine were being honest you would state the same. I have gone on record in stating that there is overwhelming evidence that HIV has some connection with AIDS, but have also made clear that correlation does not prove causation. What you are purposely doing is ignoring the fact that I've stated that there is overwhelming evidence that there is a connection to HIV and AIDS, and simply just focus on my skepticism about some of the very non-scientific methods that have been used to advocate the HIV paradigm.

You quite deceitfully present my thread as advocating people diagnosed with HIV refuse treatments. This is a willful lie on your part, and one has to wonder that if you are so willing to lie about something so easily refuted, how truthful are you actually being about your "background"?

I have presented information about scientists who have questioned the HIV hypothesis, and have provided information that shows that people who do ask these questions are soon confronted with a propaganda machine that willfully maligns and defames those asking the questions, and now here you are doing the same.

Your post only underscores my claims.

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 06:25 PM
reply to post by SamKappler

i'm confused. so does your wife have hiv or aids?

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 06:30 PM
reply to post by research100

I should have more sense and not reply to the OP, but sometimes this subject just makes me mad. To think that one day I had similar views, how ignorant could I have been?

Thank you for the support, somehow your reply has made things much easier for me. That is what I mean by compassion: to think about the other side not as a contestant, but as a fellow human being. You made me understand that there is still hope out there.

Thank you, in my name, and in the name of my family.

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 06:32 PM
It would seem improbable that anyone "invented" the AIDS virus, considering that retro-viruses themselves were not known to exist until only about 1975. It may well be that there were AIDS deaths prior to 1980 but these were not identified as such nor did the disease spread far because, prior to 1980 and especially prior to 1970, most gay men were deeply closeted, would never have identified themselves as such even to their doctors, and probably had far fewer sexual partners before the go-go years of the late 1970s. Therefore their deaths might have seemed unusual, maybe inexplicable or attributed or misattributed to other diseases, and unrelated to any other deaths.

new topics
top topics
active topics
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


$('#skin').click(function(){ window.location.href = ""; });