HIV/AIDS the disease that never was.

After all the hype Texas buyers club is making in Hollywood (watched the movie last night) there is somethings I would like to say about HIV/AIDS. Some will feel repulsion and maybe a lack of respect from my part to all those who died from HIV/AIDS during this read but please if you are going to comment, read the whole thread.

Hundreds of scientists, preferred to take risks on careers that often heralded great promise rather than accepting the many lies and inconsistencies distilled by official bodies regarding HIV/AIDS.

Both the general public and the majority of health professionals are convinced that AIDS is an epidemic phenomenon suddenly appeared at the beginning of the 80s, caused by the emergence of a new virus. The acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or AIDS is not a disease itself. A syndrome is a set of signs and symptoms occurring simultaneously in the patient, which is characterized by a strong reduction or even a collapse of the immune system. For a long time now the two main causes of acquired immunodeficiency were well known and documented: malnutrition and the use of dangerous substances to the immune system (drugs, medications, blood transfusion).

When you take the time (and it takes a lot ) to consult the literature on the virus itself , one is struck by the fact that none of these investigations has never managed to directly detect the presence of any viral particle, and especially not the slightest particle retrovirus in a patient with AIDS.

It was a team from the Institut Pasteur in France led by Luc Montagnier who first announced the discovery of viral activity in 1983 from samples taken from an AIDS patient . The following year , the team of Robert Gallo in the the United States , made a similar announcement. It was discovered later that Gallo had been using for his "discovery" a sample that Luc Montagnier had generously offered him a few months ago. The same thing hapened with Robin Weiss, the great British AIDS specialist , who was forced to acknowledge that his own discovery of the virus resulted from the fact that he had also received a sample of the culture of Luc Montagnier . It can be seen that , on both sides of the Atlantic , the three teams most advanced on the subject, had been able to announce a very vague presumption from cell cultures derived from the same patient! There are also all in the medical literature not a single article in which we could find the conclusion that such a retrovirus has been isolated, and that this virus is the cause of AIDS.

Back to the early 80s. The first cases of AIDS were detected in the United States within the gay community and among intravenous drug users . It is necessary to clarify that it is NOT being homosexual that is a risk factor with AIDS . Only the lifestyle of some gay men is likely to cause immunodeficiency. Different drugs circulating widely (cannabis, coc aine, amphetamines, '___' , barbiturates, heroin ... ), but the undisputed stars were "poppers " containing small vials of amyl nitrite, a potent vasodilator having apparently aphrodisiac attributes. Originally, this was a drug used as coronary stent in the treatment of angina pectoris . The gay community of thwe 80s turned nitrites therapeutic into one of their most popular drug, and that from the 60s. As soon as they are in the blood , nitrite is converted to nitric oxide and damage the inner walls of blood vessels , which explains their involvement in cancer of the capillary : Kaposi sarcoma . Although prohibited , poppers have continued until today to be available , either by borrowing innocent names like " leather cleaner ," or in broad daylight , for example in sex shops . The phenomenon got even worse later when they were adopted by some heterosexual seeking performance. Despite evidence that the use of poppers was associated with the majority of AIDS cases among homosexuals in the United States , some media supported by public health agencies diffused in 1983 with the gay community information totally exonerating nitrites . This attitude can be described as criminal . It was not until 1994 that Robert Gallo, " co -discoverer " of "HIV" and (rich ) promoter of the first test , admits at a conference of NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse ) the Kaposi's sarcoma typical disease of the homosexual community , could be caused by a virus but the poppers were to be the main cause.

In 1987 appeared the first alleged specific antiviral medication to AIDS: AZT. The azidothymidine or AZT, was discovered in 1964 and proposed for use in anticancer therapies. Devastating (and always fatal in laboratory mice!) Effects have attracted a categorical rejection of the authorities responsible for approval of new anticancer drugs. The need to provide AIDS therapy was granted urgently the surprising approval to market AZT, despite its high toxicity as seen in texas buyer's club.

reply to post by Golantrevize



The test type " Western blot " is used to confirm seropositivity when it has been detected by one or two tests of type " Elisa " . This is a test considered more reliable... A Western blot strips comprises ten proteins corresponding to ten of which was typically defined as relating exclusively to "HIV " . International harmonization of diagnosis is non-existent with this test, you can be declared HIV positive in some countries when only two bands reacted ouy of ten . In some countries , it takes three . In other four bands are required. Thus we see that depending on where one lives , the same serum , analyzed under identical conditions , can make a HIV positive or HIV-negative , according to the legislation. But it gets even more interesting. Since ten proteins used in the tests are announced as typical of the "HIV", we can ask the following two questions, totally opposite to each other : Why two to four bands are needed when one should be sufficient to diagnose the presence of virus ? Why only two to four bands are needed while the virus should necessarily involve the presence of ten proteins assigned ? That said, it should be noted that these tests inspire so little confidence in the United States , the FDA (Food and Drug Administration ) has not endorsed any of them (and that says a lot). It is important to remember that without international standard , one can be classified HIV positive or negative depending on the country where you reside. Of the ten test strips that make up the Western Blot , just two are needed to be considered "positive" in Africa. There must be three in Britain and four in Australia. The tests are so specific that the manufacturers themselves announced that their tests cannot be used to confirm or rule out the presence of "HIV". They also report that there are many possible sources of false positives results. The concept of "viral load" was introduced in the USA by Dr. David Ho, also promoter of HAART , hoping to provide an explanation for the fact that nobody was infected by "HIV" directly . The media character ( named " Man of the Year 1996 " by Time Magazine ) then proposed that the virus go undetectable but knew we could still highlight it using the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) technique, which is a the propagation of the DNA. In 1997, David Ho and his colleagues treated a group of twenty patients with a combination therapy of AZT and protease inhibitor. From the beginning of treatment , the famous "viral load" of these patients had fallen to undetectable levels and remained there . This result was presented as evidence that the prescribed combination therapy was effective. According to orthodox scientists themselves, at least 99.8% of the patients measured by the viral load test particles are not infectious ! Where did they come from? Of "HIV" poorly assembled , good for scrap ? The problem is that these lame virus , like those present as virulent , have never been seen by electron microscopy . However, with the large amount of particles found so far , there would be nothing easier . Even better : the inventor of PCR [ PCR testing viral load ] Karry Mullis ( who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993 for this invention) holds for fraudulent use of a method in the search for "viral load" . This authentic and indisputable scientific proof has yet to hit a wall but too many interests and careers are at stake.

All venereal diseases (syphilis, gonorrhea , genital or anal herpes ... ) , once they have been sexually transmitted, infection that causes symptoms are evident after a few days , without making any distinction between individuals. The first five cases of AIDS were observed and described in Los Angeles in 1981. The author of the first report on the five initial cases , Michael Gottlieb , had clearly indicated that these five patients were homosexual and were all use of amyl nitrite ( poppers ) . In addition, he stated that these five patients had never met and therefore could not contaminate each other . How could Michael Gottlieb been thinking he had discovered a new infectious disease ? There is no answer to this question , and the mystery remains unsolved . A parable will help to better understand the importance of the question: suppose a doctor is responsible for monitoring the health of a hundred workers all working in a dye factory . This is an old factory , poorly ventilated , and where an abundance of lead salts are handled. After a few years , the doctor identifies a dozen cases of lead poisoning among the workers. Will it be concluded that lead poisoning is a contagious disease because patients were all working in the same factory ? Or will he conclude that his patients were all exposed to the same toxic risk and therefore have all developed the same disease? The answer is too obvious ... How to explain that Dr. Gottlieb did not reasoned in the same way , and did not immediately realize that five patients had all been exposed to the same toxic drugs , and therefore had all developed the same pathology?

The measles virus is only present in patients with measles , the flu among the ones suffering of the flu , etc. . With "HIV", a new era began : the versatile , all-powerful and polymorphic viruses capable of causing not only a wide variety of infectious diseases (due to immunodeficiency ) , but also pathologies having nothing to do with the immune system . In all, it is thirty diseases caused by this invisible killer coming straight out of a science fiction movie. How biologists and health professionals could swallow this monster which challenged everything they had learned so far? We must believe that their reasoning faculty was anesthetized by the rhetoric coming from mandarins and pharmaceutical laboratories. Because it must be emphasized , as soon as part of the scientific elite can afford to emit the most delusional assumption it is certain to be followed by a set of informed public opinion by media constantly looking for brinkmanship and sensational. The slightest evidence is useless alone against notoriety.

Acute stress sometimes has beneficial consequences because it can respond effectively in the face of immediate danger ( fight or flight ) . In contrast, chronic stress is a source of imbalance causing a cascade of adverse events . Psychological disturbances caused by the announcement of seropositivity and the resulting induce harmful to health physiological reactions and emotional reactions ( will keep some of this for the upcoming cancer thread) , weakening the natural defense of the body. Thus the hormonal regulation loop involving the adrenal glands and some endocrine glands of the brain ( pituitary, hypothalamus , pineal gland ) is strongly perturbed with intense stress, one of the consequences is an overproduction of certain messengers chemical ( neurotransmitter ) , such as cortisol which is immunosuppressive hormone . Therefore the stress weakens the immune system, but also causes many other disturbances.

The public health agencies agree to give apocalyptic information on the progression of AIDS in the world. They are relayed with great convenience ( without verification ) by all the media and organizations such as if AIDS is their reason to exist. This rise of terror is made by successive steps: 1. Assign the acquired immunodeficiency virus was the first step. A decisive step has to impose the idea that AIDS was an infectious disease , so transmitted . 2 . Develop HIV testing was then used to pretend to detect infection in healthy people ( and invent together with homosexual AIDS the heterosexual AIDS) . 3 . In a third step , the number of diseases believed to be caused by "HIV" has progressed in stages from three to thirty in a few years . 4 . In addition , the definition of AIDS has been substantially amended four times ( 1982, 1987 , 1992 and 1998 ) by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ) and WHO (World Health Organization ), each new definition resulting in a catastrophic escalation of the apparent epidemic. 5 . Finally, the statistics based on extrapolations acrobatic have increased yearly figures of contamination, especially in countries where controls are more difficult to operate. What is the current situation, when one is in complexion to the facts ? In both regions of the world where AIDS has made his first appearances , the United States and Western Europe , the so-called epidemic fizzled . In Oceania, it never even started.

Yes, HIV/AIDS was man made. But it only exists in our minds.

I'm done.

I hear this quite often from certain persons.

Seemingly loose promiscuous persons, that seem to be willing to spread their legs easily.

In most instances, they claim to have been told by many other casual lovers over the years, the same.

That it is just to scare them from having 'raw' intercourse. Most brag about never using 'protection'.

Ignorance is truly bliss.

reply to post by gardener


You read in 2 minutes a thread that took me 2 hours to write. Wish I could read this fast...

What about this?

reply to post by boncho


3h30 am now, won't have the time to write an answer worthy of your ATS profile regarding viral proteins your link mentions of but will get at it tomorrow after work.

Best regards.

I have read the whole thread, I have taken on board all I could on this drab Friday morning. It is well written and well presented but the only bit which bothers me properly (most of it did but this one bit the most).

Your last statement

Yes, HIV/AIDS was man made. But it only exists in our minds.

I have watched as a friend was told the news and the slow to rapid decline in health and then death from AIDS. A botched blood transfusion in which the donor blood was never screened.

Thankfully, due to the extreme f*ck up he was well compensated, put in a position where he was able to make sure his family were comfortable after he was gone. The med's he was given to prolong his life barely cost him anything in the end.

But what I am trying to say is, witness it first hand, watch a friend or loved one die due to HIV/AIDS then say "it only exists in our minds" on here.

reply to post by thekaboose


A dear friend of mine died from "HIV/AIDS" in 1998. If you read the thread correctly, the death is very real and the immunodeficiency is very real. The cause of it is what I do not agree with, in this case HIV/AIDS.

reply to post by Golantrevize


I watched Dallas Buyers Club recently too, and was shocked by the way HIV/AIDS was portrayed - it completely challenged everything I thought to be true about the disease. Looking in to historical patients, I was amazed to find that patients being told they had weeks to live dramatically changed their lifestyles, and diets, and were able to keep going for decades.

It almost hurts too much to acknowledge the fact that big pharma have been prevalent in presenting this as a disease - treatable with their special, and expensive, drugs.

In the UK, "poppers" can be bought at almost any corner shop. I know plenty of people who have/do use them, and it's pretty scary to actually read in to the long-term effects. Having experienced them myself on a few occasions, the morning after you just feel like you had been cleaning your nasal passages out with chemical scrubs; not nice, and I don't understand how people can force themselves to continually expose themselves to it. As well as being an aphrodisiac I believe the gay community use them due to their muscle relaxant qualities.

Excellent thread, Golantrevize. You'd perhaps get more activity/response though if you formatted your text a bit better. Without headings/sections, some people find it impossible to absorb a wall of text like this - especially when it is so dense with information.

Star+Flag
Peace

Well, what DOES make people sick then, as they were diagnosed with HIV? Poppers?

All over Africa? Are you serious?!


Really, this denial is more than a problem, it's threatening to hurt people who would believe this and start dropping their guard while having the usual one-night-stands!

How do you evaluate the benefit of using condoms? It should be proven that they actively reduce the propability of transmitting HIV massively. What does this say about "AIDS is only in your mind"?


::What does make people sick?

reply to post by Golantrevize


Interesting take on the subject and nicely written. I can't argue it from a US or EU point but didn't AIDS originally come from Africa? I remember a lot of news and articles in that regard and I doubt the Africans were over indulging in poppers. Does that mean they we suffering equivalent immune system stressors from another source?

I'm no scientist and can't begin to discuss this on a truly scientific level. Just wondering about how all that ties in with what we saw in Africa in the 80's.

reply to post by Golantrevize


......really? Hope you never get the fake disease then.

2nd line.

I once watched a documentary on this, it was called "the aid hoax" or something like that. Its on youtube.

On the Africa subject. It showed that in the begining people who had a few symptons were automatically diagnosed AIDS, since no blood test were readily available in most of african countries.

It truly is quite amazing how noone was ever able to actually see the virus. I dunno it sounds kind of strange.
Im going to talk to my sis about this, she a bilogist and could tell me a things or two about it. I once mentioned aids not really being caused by a virus and she looked at me as if i was crazy.

I really started questioning HIV/AIDS when I was looking at the symptoms of it one day many years ago. Everyone I know including myself has at one point in their life had multiple symptoms of HIV/AIDS:
Fever (this is the most common symptom)
Swollen glands
Sore throat
Rash
Fatigue
Muscle and joint aches and pains
Headache

It has been taught in our schools that the virus can lay dormant for 10 years, so essentially anyone who has had unprotected sex at some point of their life is at risk. Another thing I do not like about it is how one's body essentially becomes dependent on AZT and if treatment is stopped one's immune system crashes.

There is just too many inconsistencies with HIV diagnosis. I am convinced that I could get a bunch of HIV tests done at different locations, some of them I say I am a clean living Mormon and others I tell them I am a prostitute who uses drugs and will get both negative and positive results back.

How does this explain the article I read back in summer of 1978 or 79?

It was in the science section of the Detroit News or the Free Press (they were separate newspapers then). The article was titled, "Killer Cell" and had a drawing of a round virus looking "cell".

The article described a biological weapon developed by the U.S. military to disrupt the human immune system by attacking the "killer" T-Cell. I remember the article very clearly and have a friend that showed me the article that would remember it.

I have seen a couple of believable reports that traced the development of this weapon from the 1940s onward as well.

There was the rumors that Luc Montagnier developed it in Africa creating the first human cases, or that President Regan released it to infect drug users and homosexuals with the belief that it would stay in the target population and not spread. I'm not a supporter of either of these theories, just putting them out there.

reply to post by thekaboose

But what I am trying to say is, witness it first hand, watch a friend or loved one die due to HIV/AIDS then say "it only exists in our minds" on here.

I feel for your loss, however look at the ops words in context: The causal link between HIV and AIDS is "what is in the mind"

Many of the symptoms of full blown AIDS are also side effects of the deadly cocktails called Medicine given to HIV people.

Heres some links from respected Scientists who question the HIV=AIDS theory

There are vested interests careers funding at stake

www.virusmyth.com...
aras.ab.ca...

Golantrevize
reply to post by gardener

 

You read in 2 minutes a thread that took me 2 hours to write. Wish I could read this fast...

edit on 22014Fridayam228Fri, 07 Feb 2014 02:02:00 -0600America/Chicagov02 by Golantrevize because: (no reason given)

Now thats some insight into your logic!

0 + 4 = 2 according to you (Even after your editing the statement)

Yea, I did see ur post as soon as it posted.

Anyways? Where is this conspiracy theory going? That if you were a female, had unprotected sex, tested positive for the alleged HIV antibody, and became pregnant:

You would give birth to a possibly HIV+ child by avoiding medical measures, and watch your child succumb to most diseases a healthy uninhibited immune system knocks away? Your child die eventually from a mild cold developing into pnemonia?

Sure =D

I'm not qualified to tackle this one. I'll need to talk to my husband about the testing types. He's very familiar with ELISA type tests and such having worked with them in a professional capacity for over a decade now. If they'd be able to detect the presence of a virus reliably, he'd now since they are used in quality control testing all the time.

reply to post by Golantrevize


Excellent! WELL done on getting this out.

In our household we have know about this (ranking at the top of all world wide hoaxes) we have been aware of this terrible illusion since the late 90s.

Anyone who REALLY want to know the REAL truth about AIDS, buy the book the Great AIDS hoax. Here is a sample:
www.whale.to...

You go well, my friend.