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.

 

The idea that HIV causes AIDS could be a Rockefeller scam - Note : Read before judging

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Thought I'd have a quick look into the possibilities of HIV being cured naturally by a healthy immune system several hours ago, little did I know the ride I was about to go on. It's rarer nowadays that I research something that changes my perception in such a big way so quickly, but this has done.

Here's a couple of quotes to start :


"HIV is an ordinary retrovirus. There is nothing about this virus that is unique. Everything that is discovered about HIV has an analogue in other retroviruses that don't cause AIDS. HIV only contains a very small piece of genetic information. There's no way it can do all these elaborate things they say it does." - Dr. Harvey Bialy, Molecular Biologist, former editor of Bio/Technology and Nature Biotechnology

"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document." - Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry


The source is here, and I read something else from this site that really made me look at things differently, which I'll go into next : Virus Myth - Controversy


Ok, so now we get to the thing I just finished reading. It's quite a long page, but if you have the patience to go through this and you don't already know about a lot of the facts contained within it, be prepared to have your outlook on things altered.

It goes through how the drug AZT was first pushed as a treatment for AIDS, how Robert Gallo pushed the idea that HIV created AIDS, how the Rockefellers are involved, the FDA, British Medical Associations, The State Department and several other American organizations, how AZT got through trials in 18 months that can take up to 12 years, how the Wellcome Foundation influenced UK ministers, how ATZ got approved in dozens of countries so quickly, and a lot more on various people and organizations.

All I ask is that you take the time to read it instead of judging the idea that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and prepare to have your eyes opened to some of the insanity and corruption in the world of medicine, science, and the supposed authorities that are supposed to protect people but seem to be doing the complete opposite. So here's an extract, then have a read if you want :


The Rockefeller Foundation, America's largest Trust, which pioneered scientific medicine at the turn of the century, often had British representatives on its board, as did the Carnegie Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller Institute financed British hospitals, British universities and British scientific and social research. Rockefeller Institute work with the Wellcome Foundation and later the Wellcome Trust had gone on since the early days of a British and American presence in Africa, China and South East Asia. Following the second ‘world war’, the Wellcome Trust which was almost bankrupt relied upon American financial support to get back on its feet. By the end of the 1950s, Rockefeller interests and those of Wellcome covered many overlapping areas.

The power and influence of the Rockefeller Foundation in the years between the ‘world wars’ and up until the late 1960s was considerable. Not only did the empire influence and manipulate many of America’s biggest corporations but it also had influence within the CIA, the FBI and all the most powerful institutions of the US government, from the State Department to the NIH.

After development of AZT was dropped it became an ‘orphan drug’, one with no pharmaceutical company parent to rear it and it languished, on the shelves of the National Institutes of Health. The decision to test AZT in 1985 for anti-viral properties was not due to farsightedness or any sixth sense -- in 1985 and 1986, inside NIH research establishments everything which came to hand was being tested for antiviral qualities. AZT was sent to Burroughs Wellcome where Dave Barry, head of research, suggested that AZT should be sent to an investigator to be tested for anti-retroviral qualities. The commissioned report was positive. Wellcome then put the drug in the hands of Sam Broder, head of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) -- part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Since 1984, Broder had been Clinical Director of the NCI Special Task Force on AIDS.

Burroughs Wellcome had two good reasons for giving the drug to Sam Broder -- first Robert Gallo worked at the NCI and secondly, Wellcome knew that Broder would see the drug through the regulatory hoops. With Wellcome apparently playing a back seat role, the drug became the official cure for AIDS, promoted by the US government. To help Broder work AZT through the regulatory process, and to secure their ownership of the drug, Burroughs Wellcome gave the NCI $55,000 in 1985 and $25,000 in 1986.


Source : AZT : An Aids Defining Drug


If you managed to read through it : have a think now about how science and medicine shape our world view, the people that fund both and who are often pulling the strings, and all of the things that we think are true but might not be very true at all. It's a thought that can change the way you look at things quite a lot.
edit on 28-6-2012 by robhines because: added




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by robhines
 

Its a good case no doubt.
Given that this is a skeptic site I doubt people will properly discuss it but oh well, some people will probably learn something.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
In 1993, this would be an eye-opener about the way the medical profession and science works.
Politics and profiteers, plotters and backstabbers. And I am sure that still goes on.

However, don't consider it current medical fact, no matter the politics of the past debate. This is only past history at a time when there was no proof, and now there is proof.

It was all theories in 1993. It was legitimate to question if it was a virus. There were no facts, no real tests, no way to identify survivors, no way to see a virus. But a lot of history has passed since this, and the research went on while the suits played the games, and science advanced even without their help.

So as past history it is worth study on the way NOT to conduct legitimate research, and how research is too influenced from outside corruption and profits, and politics.

As current medical fact it would be a hoax. The profiteers that decided HIV was a virus won, because somewhere, there were some honest researchers that kept working while all that showboating was going on in press rooms, and the researchers got new shiny technology from the profiteers racing to get to the cash cow (the treatment), and therefore the honest researchers worked hard, then their work proved it, then they could find the drugs to slow it down, and then millions quit dying on them, and they proved it.

And the whole time that shiny technology got bigger / faster / stronger, and got past that ugly truth of 1993 that there was no 'picture to prove it' as the ATS skeptics say. Yes, they do now have tests that find the virus, not the antibodies, they have ways to see it, dissect the genetic code, map the receptors on the surface. Study the molecular structure of antibodies created by identified survivors that established immune protection without assistance. Long past the sifting of 'viral particles' and measuring molecular weight.

Old science and more than common politics. That is the 'history lesson' in the articles of the OP.

Now many in the general public still know what they knew before 1997, because after the hubbab over the new 'cocktails' the general public went back to sleep and didn't keep up, got slow, hell some teens now think it's 'cured' they got so stupid. They think Magic Johnson is cured, no he isn't, he takes his pill every night, lot easier thatn the three times-daily doses of the late 90's.

The general public doesn't learn. Unless they were forced to. But it didn't go away, and neither did the research, and the profiteers. Atripla is the most profitable drug in the world now. (and no it don't have any AZT in it, thats so old school)

SO I might ask the OP, if he has anything to comment about the history of the articles he posts that would make this a current topic, as I surely wouldn't think he would be promoting this as a current medical fact without current research and current scientific documentation.

I wouldn't think you would promote a HOAX, would you?
edit on 28-6-2012 by lakesidepark because: maybe the earth is flat? I ain't seen it, only took some smart man's word for it. He said he seen it.

edit on 28-6-2012 by lakesidepark because: and he is one of those eggheads, I don't trust him.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by HumanCondition
 


Yeah the whole thing is a pretty insane situation when you read the page, I was just researching nutrition then I ended up there and found it hard to take in all the information, but what did sink in seemed to fit with so much of the corruption I've read about over the last few years. It just doesn't surprise me any more if the whole thing really is a scam. There's a lot of people making a lot of money, there's no proof HIV causes AIDS, and a lot of people have died after having AZT treatment.

And they even have a label for people don't they? Those nutcases, the "AIDS deniers". Maybe that's the punishment for checking into the facts yourselves. It could actually turn out to be one of the biggest conspiracies of our times, that's if enough people end up finding their way to the information, of course.

These things only seem to happen becaus the general public have no idea of the type of facts that are laid out on that page, it's just accepted for some reason that HIV = AIDS, and it's accepted like there's proof of it somewhere, even though they have no idea of where that proof actually is. Some of the medical organizations say it's the case, so therefore it must be.

It's the blind trust and lack of research into important issues that's causing Humanity so many problems.
edit on 28-6-2012 by robhines because: typo



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
So if not HIV, what causes AIDS?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thunderheart
So if not HIV, what causes AIDS?


Apparently there's theories that AIDS can be a result of several factors, like drug use, bad immune system and so on. Then there's some that think a lot of the current "AIDS" is developed by HIV positive people (HIV tests apparently don't find anything but antibodies, that they then say means you have to have HIV.) having the AZT treatment which then ruins their immune system, then when they die of something because their immune system has stopped working they just say it must be because of AIDS.

A lot of us have read up on the cancer industry killing people with chemo, the same type of thing is said about AZT as far as I can tell, it's just not debated as much.

This is also interesting :


Dr. Willner is author of Deadly Deception: The Proof that Sex and 'HIV' Absolutely Do Not Cause 'AIDS'. So determined was Dr. Willner to prove to the world that 'AIDS' was not spread sexually or through blood contamination, that he stunned the nation of Spain in 1993 by inoculating himself on TV with the blood of Pedro Tocino, a haemophiliac said to be 'HIV positive'. The footage was broadcast throughout Europe. Encouraged by the coverage he was receiving, Willner repeated his performance with different patients in front of the cameras of ABC and NBC. Surprisingly no US network reported this dramatic news on national television. Up until his untimely death, Dr. Willner remained 'HIV negative' in spite of constant testing.


"Surprisingly no US network reported this dramatic news on national television." I don't think that's a surprise at all to be honest, here's a clip of him doing it though :


edit on 28-6-2012 by robhines because: added



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by robhines
 

Very interesting, thank you for this thread, you have opened my eyes to a conspiracy I have never heard of.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by robhines
 





Thought I'd have a quick look into the possibilities of HIV being cured naturally by a healthy immune system several hours ago,


Focus on anything that either makes T-cells more responsive, or enables other cells (killer B-cells) to become more aggressive....once it gets into the memory cells and hides in the tissues, it is like ckickenpox, nothing's getting it out.

You got bogged down in old politics. The medical theories they were fighting over have been resolved long ago.

Actually chickenpox is a good parallel, it does eventually come back to make you itch again as shingles, and nothing gets rid of it. Are there any natural remedies that prevent it? Can you find them?

Lot easier to test, and the penalty for being wrong can be helped with lots of cheap calamine, and politicians can just let the poor people itch.
edit on 28-6-2012 by lakesidepark because: flat earth? I think so, I don't trust nutting any egghead tells me.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
The vast majority of the people on the planet who are diagnosed with AIDS have not been tested for it. Testing is expensive.

They've been diagnosed based on meeting enough symptom criteria. The list of symptoms is pretty wide.

It seems very interesting that people have pushed to get drugs to help with managing HIV into second and third world countries, while never actually addressing the minor detail that these people have not been tested for the thing that the drugs are supposedly curing.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by lakesidepark
Focus on anything that either makes T-cells more responsive, or enables other cells (killer B-cells) to become more aggressive....once it gets into the memory cells and hides in the tissues, it is like ckickenpox, nothing's getting it out.

You got bogged down in old politics. The medical theories they were fighting over have been resolved long ago.


The older politics and the history behind the drug first being pushed out tells quite a lot about how messed up the whole thing is though. But yeah, I do admit I'm almost completely new to this. It just looks like there's some seriously dodgy stuff going on with the whole thing. Seeing the Rockefellers involved instantly got my attention too.

As for defence against it, yeah that probably makes sense what you've said there, and researching into how to keep your immune system in good shape is always a good thing to do too. I think zinc plays a big part in at least one of the parts you listed there as it's important for the immune system quite a lot as far as I remember. Have just been skipping around from subject to subject with nutrition lately as there's so many different aspects to it, but it all relates to general health and the immune system anyway so will hopefully learn more as I go on.
edit on 29-6-2012 by robhines because: typo



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Wow, this passed pretty quietly, thought there'd be quite a fuss kicked up actually. I sometimes think with it being such a sensitive topic for obvious reasons it can at times reach the levels of the Zionism/Jews problems where there's a lot of namecalling and accusations, but there's a lot of evidence of well known figures and big business really manipulating things behind the scenes.

Just as a clear point from me though : I don't deny the existence of HIV or AIDS, I'm more interested in researching the link between the two. Could be seriously interesting when the whole truth comes out about what's actually happened here.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by robhines
 


Welcome to the club! Might it be a very small and unacknowledged club, it is still a group of people who managed to used their own minds, sidestep extremely heavy propaganda and learn the truth about this issue. Your mind is open!

Thanks for posting.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by robhines
Wow, this passed pretty quietly, thought there'd be quite a fuss kicked up actually. I sometimes think with it being such a sensitive topic for obvious reasons it can at times reach the levels of the Zionism/Jews problems where there's a lot of namecalling and accusations, but there's a lot of evidence of well known figures and big business really manipulating things behind the scenes.

Just as a clear point from me though : I don't deny the existence of HIV or AIDS, I'm more interested in researching the link between the two. Could be seriously interesting when the whole truth comes out about what's actually happened here.


Its seems there is no fuss because there is no conspiracy. If you read the poster above you he/she is basically saying you are 20 years too late and that the issues you raised have been proven and substantiated now. I have a feeling you didn't actually read their first post.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve

Originally posted by robhines
Wow, this passed pretty quietly, thought there'd be quite a fuss kicked up actually. I sometimes think with it being such a sensitive topic for obvious reasons it can at times reach the levels of the Zionism/Jews problems where there's a lot of namecalling and accusations, but there's a lot of evidence of well known figures and big business really manipulating things behind the scenes.

Just as a clear point from me though : I don't deny the existence of HIV or AIDS, I'm more interested in researching the link between the two. Could be seriously interesting when the whole truth comes out about what's actually happened here.


Its seems there is no fuss because there is no conspiracy. If you read the poster above you he/she is basically saying you are 20 years too late and that the issues you raised have been proven and substantiated now. I have a feeling you didn't actually read their first post.


No. I have a feeling you've not researched properly.

Explain to me the Rockefeller involvement. They will not get away with this.

Substantiate the Rockefeller involvement please, they work with secret groups and they're going down.
edit on 1-7-2012 by robhines because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Ok for fun lets say you are right. How are you going to bring down the Rockefellers? How would their involvement disprove the science that proved the correlation in the last 20 years according to the above poster?

I noticed that you didn't really comment on that posters information, are you dismissing their post as less correct as your own after 24 hours of research? I am not trying to say you are wrong and they are right. But my common sense says that if there was such a connection as you are saying and that the above poster is totally wrong you wouldn't be the first to recognize this.

I don't care enough at this point to try and do all the necessary investigation but we obviously have some conflicting information here in this thread.

I realize it would be helpful to figure out what "that other posters" name instead of referring to them as that other poster =)



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   
Before getting all nonlinear and starting in the Rockefellers, how about some more calm and reliable evidence.

www.avert.org...

www.niaid.nih.gov...

The clinical evidence is pretty clear. People with untreated HIV get AIDS. People who have HIV who then take medications which are specifically designed to block molecules on HIV get AIDS much less.
edit on 1-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Sorry guys if im not pickin this up properly. So the guy in the video put the needle in himself with blood from a HIV positive person and subsequently remained HIV negative?

So it begs the question how is HIV transmitted then?



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by robhines

Originally posted by sputniksteve

Originally posted by robhines
Wow, this passed pretty quietly, thought there'd be quite a fuss kicked up actually. I sometimes think with it being such a sensitive topic for obvious reasons it can at times reach the levels of the Zionism/Jews problems where there's a lot of namecalling and accusations, but there's a lot of evidence of well known figures and big business really manipulating things behind the scenes.

Just as a clear point from me though : I don't deny the existence of HIV or AIDS, I'm more interested in researching the link between the two. Could be seriously interesting when the whole truth comes out about what's actually happened here.


Its seems there is no fuss because there is no conspiracy. If you read the poster above you he/she is basically saying you are 20 years too late and that the issues you raised have been proven and substantiated now. I have a feeling you didn't actually read their first post.


No. I have a feeling you've not researched properly.

Explain to me the Rockefeller involvement. They will not get away with this.

Substantiate the Rockefeller involvement please, they work with secret groups and they're going down.
edit on 1-7-2012 by robhines because: (no reason given)


I would also say he didn't read my FIRST post either. The question and correlation between HIV and AIDS is long ago proven, substantiated, correlated, imaged, dissected, and everything else while the Rockefellers played their games. And the medical history within the research you bring forth is from the time prior to when they had the solid medical proof to substantiate anything about the virus and the disorder.

The information of the OP is simply political history, but contains NO CURRENT MEDICAL SCIENCE. So there is only the discussion of how some tried to manipulate the research and stop it. There was a lot more opposition to the research, from a lot of different sources, during that time, and most of it was NOT 'AIDS deniers'. In fact, some of the sources for the information of the dissidents....dare I say that it was fed to them by other opposition (religious groups and moralists that treated it like a curse rather than a disease).

Why this history comes up NOW (the history of 'dissidents' against HIV=AIDS), and the rest of the history stays buried (like the protestors and organizations fighting Congress demanding access to the drugs and research into treatments, when Big Pharma didn't care about their problem)?? If you ask why the Rockefellers were involved, it wasn't to use a 'hyped up' conditiion to make money....it was to PREVENT any progress on SOLVING the problem and any of what they felt to be a waste of money.

All of these same postings that quote past dissidents questioning the proven fact HIV=AIDS, should be asking a different question - and the question is NOT if it really exists - thats where the fools fail to research, and fail to accept any of the evidence found since 1993....

Instead, question WHY were they trying to stop any progress in treating this disease???? Why were they trying to BLOCK the research into HIV=AIDS????



new topics




 
5

log in

join