AIDS, Inc.
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
or... the clap mart
syphilis city
"Drifting is a nut"
defense mechanism
and start thinking criticaly.
Watch this movie and ask yourself what is going on.
Are all these doctors and researchers lying to you about what they have discovered regarding AIDS?
Is it not possible that the entire medical profession has been duped from the top down with faulty science, and bad policy?
Is it not at least POSSIBLE that the entire AIDS scare was conjured up with people with a very real motive and a warped view of humanitarianism, where by large scale eugenics based depopulation programs serve to "solve" poverty by killing off the poor even quicker?
Just open your minds a TAD people.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Profiting from misery. Pretty standard fare nowadays.
The origin of HIV/AIDS is suspicious if you ask me, some doctors have essentially proven the guy who first came out about it has lied extensively about his involvement with it for some reason. Can't remember names....but the whole scenario doesn't seem to add up.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Dr. Robert Gallo.
He "discovered" HIV , but then immediately got sued by a french researcher who claimed that he had sent Gallo the sample of HIV in a petri dish, and that Gallo just stole credit.
However this avoids the real issue of WHERE DID THE SAMPLE COME FROM, what WAS it, and who gave it to the french firm.
WORSE: Dr. Robert Gallo was one of THREE directors of the 1960's US Army TOP SECRET SPECIAL VIRUS PROGRAM that, as its mission, was charged with creating a virus that sounds SUSPICIOUSLY like AIDS.
Fucked up indeed, and Gallo DENIED involvement, but documents have since surfaced PROVING this true.
AIDS Inc rings very true to me.
My only personal comment on it is that i feel we are still with AIDS where we were with Kennedy in the mid 80s.
In other words, we know a good few things that don't add up, and we have a few theories, but we have as of yet COMBINED the theories in to a cohesive explanation of what is going on.
Like, with JFK, we had Oswald (did he do it, did he have help? was he just a dupe?) we had the three tramps (were THEY the assassins? did they have ANYthing to do with it?) , what about the CIA? what about the mob? Well it turns out when you get down to it that the three tramps WERE part of the conspiracy, but not by their own knowledge really (they were mislead, and were decoy), and that the CIA was VERY involved as WELL as the MOB.
So the theories COMBINED.
Now, with AIDS, we have a few researchers that think its the DRUGS that kill, and not a virus. They feel that HIV is just some latent genetic material that these faulty tests are recognizing and that it does nothing.
We have another camp that thinks HIV itself is some animal virus (either cow\sheep or monkey depending on who you ask) that has been altered (radiated?) and THAT is what is doing the damage
and then we have AIDS Inc which posits that HIV is not connected at all (maybe doesn't even exist) and that AIDS Is merely a marketing scam to make billions and relabel poverty related illness in a fashionable way.
HOWEVER,
i think it is more probable,
given the ORIGINAL "outbreak" of HIV in the gay community and in inner city Africa ... ESPECIALY given the surrounding circumstances of the gay victims being ALL involved in Government Heptatits B vaccine programs, and the African victims being involved in World Health Organization smallpox vaccination programs ... that ALL of these theories may be valid.
1. the "HIV" test is a smokescreen. It does NOT test for a virus, but rather for antibodies, and that furthermore it is a non-specific test which recognizes genetic material that may be present in any given person, and is certainly present in higher concentrations in people that have povery related illnesses like tuberculosis and so forth.
2. AZT and many of the later drugs were EXTREMELY toxic and when given to people who were already suffering from weakened immune systems (gay people with numerous STDs, and fatigued immune systems due to constant partying; or Africans who are near death from starvation, malnutrition, famine, and disease) became a fatal cocktail.
3. The ORIGINAL outbreak of "HIV" may very well have been real. In otherwords, the initial scare of sick dying people could actualy have been a government test of a killer virus injected through "vaccine tests". However the virus was a bloodborn NON-sexualy transmitted virus that performed very poorly at spreading via natural methods.
Thus, its entirely plausible that ALL these theories are really valid, just as with JFK many of the theories turned out to mesh in to one true story.
???
I know Roland is the only person who will read this.
so sad.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Unfortunately instead of a govt with an army we now have an army with it's own govt.
I think once the genome was finally decoded someone saw the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
If you're questioning whether there is evidence of the virus, you can just google HIV photomicrograph. Here's a scientific abstract describing them. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=2854553&ordinalpos=199998&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
I have heard of folks challenging the early validation of the ELISA test, because they said it doesn't actually show we can culture the virus from people with positive results for the antibody, but then they go on to say we have ONLY found the RNA or virus particles. HIV is a retrovirus. It's mostly RNA. Finding the RNA is quite conclusive. Beyond that, virus 'particles' don't mean bits and pieces of virus, it's the term used when counting individual virions. So, if folks are refuting it, it is because they simply don't know how to read a scientific paper.;)
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
to be honest "AIDS, Inc" seems to be a bit spotty on its postulate regarding HIV in particular.
In some places the movie indicates that HIV may not be a retrovirus at all, but may infact just be random genetic particulate that has been around and in the human body for hundreds of years.
In other places the video indicates that "HIV may be 10% of the 'AIDS' problem" ...
... but the overarching contention in AIDS, Inc seems to be that the actual condition known as "AIDS" is not a condition brought about by infectious organisms but is an amalgamation of other well known diseases -- like TB, malaria, parasitic infection, lukemia, syphillis, herpes and so forth -- that when attacking an already compromised immune system in concert cause debilitation and death.
In fact, with the exception of the "not transmitted by a virus", this IS what AIDS is -- a SYNDROME, and not a "disease" in its own right.
However, what the movie is suggesting is that AIDS is really a sick marketing gimmick, a repackaging of basic illnesses cause by poverty and malnutrition.
That, politicaly, this renaming and misdiagnosis serves several purposes:
First, it diverts the focus of the 1st world from basic disease prevention, nutrition and sanitation. It therefore stops funds from going to WORTHY efforts that CAN save lives, like building water treatment, sewage processing, and agricultural infrastruture.
Second, it places the blame squarely on the "aberrant sexual practices" of Africans. It reverts the world to 19th century racist generalization about a people's sexual morality - a generalization that is simply not true. This serves to weaken the global response to conditions in Africa. People think "they deserve it" for being sexualy disgraceful, and therefore are less likely to care.
Third, the rebranding of these illnesses as "AIDS" serves as a massive marketing fraud to benefit the drug companies, testing companies, and fund raising non-profits. The drug companies, under the guise of AIDS research, then make contracts with African nations to allow them (the drug companies) to do massive tests of as-of-yet unapproved drugs on African men, women and children. This massive clinical trial on the poor is unethical and murderous. The fund-raising NGOs are simply transferring wealth and dumping it down a black hole, as there is of yet ZERO progress in the "war on AIDS".
That is the main jist of the movie.
One other major point is that the drugs that have been prescribed for treatment in HIV\AIDS have been another source of mass murder. AZT was a disaster, and clinical trials proved this categoricaly.
I have watched several other films on this, "The Strickler Memorandum" and "In Lies We Trust" and "Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS" (another movie by Gary Null, maker of AIDS, Inc).
These other films come to some different but equally disturbing conclusions about HIV \ AIDS, which we can get in to.
However, since you seem to have some understanding of biology \ retrovirology, i'd like to get in to some of this technical stuff with you a bit more.
Some of the major contentions regarding HIVs role in "AIDS" (both in this movie and in others) is the claim that HIV has never been isolated. That the few electron microscope images of "HIV" that have been released show highly contaminated samples of indeterminite pathology.
Further, many of the doctors are concerned that all of the "HIV" that has been available in labs has been "cultured", and that it has NEVER been ISOLATED from an alleged HIV\AIDS patient, and certainly has never been then cultured after isolation.
In other words, this thing is supposed to be a massively destructive bug, and yet we seem to have trouble getting any images of it in significant quantities, we can't extract it from human tissue, and we cant then grow it from those human cultures.
Why not?
A further major concern is the tests themselves.
Particularly, the Western Blot Test is actualy an ANTIBODY test, and the contention raised is that antibodies are a indication of IMMUNITY. Therefore it seems curious on the face that you could diagnose a contagious disease by identifiying immunity to it.
Even worse, antibodies listed on the Western Blot are alleged to be "non-specific" and several of them have since been discovered to be nothing more than genetic debris found in most humans.
The WBT is VERY prone to giving false positives, particularly in patients that have other diseases (like TB and Syphillis, apparently?) that are common in patients already suffering from immune problems (or living in abject poverty).
Unfortunately i am anything but a qualified biologist or retrovirologist, but i am sure as hell perplexed by some of the claims i'm hearing on these movies.
Another one was the claim that the literature on retroviruses is exhaustive, and that almost ALL retroviruses do NOT cause disease in humans, and that therefore it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that after thousands of years of immun system resistance to all these retroviruses, that suddenly in 1980 a massive outbreak of this strange and hitherto unknown retrovirus would start killing of gay people in new york and san francisco and straight black people in africa.
NOW,
some of the other videos (In Lies We Trust, particularly, and also the Strickler Memorandum) indicate that they believe HIV may be the result of some government virus program (Army Special Virus Cancer Program, SVCP) ...which sure is curious, given that the guy who claims to have discovered AIDS, Dr. Robert Gallo, was indeed one of 3 heads of the SVCP in the 1960s. [you REALLY need to watch In Lies We Trust, around the 40 minute mark!]
This entire theory seems to jive quite well with what Judith Vary Baker claims. JV Baker is the lady who claims she was the mistress to Lee Harvey Oswald (yes i'm connecting AIDS to JFK, okay?)
Baker was a child prodigy of sorts, and was known as "The Cancer Girl" in highschool, because her parents exposed her ad naseum to all kinds of science and laboratory work, and she was doing "cancer research" in highschool.
She claims she was tapped by Dr. Alton Ochsner, then head of the American Cancer Society, to do research. She soon realized the work they were doing was headed in the direction of trying to make an infectious form of cancer. Specificaly, they had begun work to make an accurate test to determine if an injected cancer had "took" in rat and rabbit specimen. Judyth immediately recognized the implications of this. Why in gods name would you want a test to determine whether injecting someone with cancer had caused them to become "infected" with living cancer cells?
Basicaly, the bottom line for the JVB story is she checks out on a LOT of fronts related to Oswald and the whole JFK plot, and therefore her credibility skyrockets. Her claim regarding cancer specificaly is that she was part of a government program to try and make a cancer that they could kill Castro with.
She believes that her proposition towards the end of this process may have been the catalyst for AIDS research. Namely, they were running short of time towards their October 1963 deadline to come up witha successful cancer agent. By the way, they were combining may strains of cancer amd RADIATING it profusely in order to do this. (keep in mind that HIV is allegedly the most quickly mutating retrovirus ever known, which would seem to make sense if it was the product of RADIATION) ...
and anyhow, they were failing to come up with a cancer that would "take", so Judyth suggested that they did not NEED to actualy get Castro to HAVE cancer. All they needed to do was make an injectable cancer strong enough that it would stick around live in the blood long enough to fool doctors.
Once Castro's doctors did blood tests and found cancer in his blood stream (regardless of the fact that this cancer would then probably die, since they couldn't get it to "take") the doctors would then put Castro on a stict regimen of radiation therapy.
Mary's proposal was to MIX the cancer with SOME OTHER IMMUNE SYSTEM SUPRESSING AGENT -- either viral or toxic. This poison\virus would cause Castro's immune system to drop.
The radiation therapy that the Doctors would order for the "cancer" would then KILL Castro, because the poison or virus would have sufficiently weakend his immune system in the first place.
Judyth believes that THIS may have been the catalyst for AIDS research.
And if you think about what HIV\AIDS is, it sure fits the bill.
Gay people in NY and SF and blacks in africa both already have compromised immune systems (the gays who first got "HIV" in NY and SF were ALL in a government HEPATITIS B vaccine test) and AZT was a failed and VERY TOXIC chemotherapy agent.
So what they did, effectively, was target populations that were ALREADY predisposed to "immuno-deficiency" and give them drugs that were REALLY TOXIC.
The further implication is that these original "AIDS" patients may indeed have been injected (during these "vaccine" administrations) with a REAL retrovirus that further weakened the immune system.
When you get in to the documents and see what the government admits to having expirmented with in its Special Virus Program, NONE of this is hard to believe.
We are talking about things like Influenza-Lukemia
??? INFLUENZA-LUKEMIA ???
WTF?
Anyhow.
There is your long ass response.
You really should watch one, some, or all of those videos.
Its fucking insane.
Someone tell me this is all bullshit
???
PS -- if you made it this far, i would also add that AIDS, Inc. has some discussions with some seemingly VERY prestigious people who have been blacklisted because of their "AIDS Dissident" status.
Notably, Kary Banks Mullis, Ph.D.
He is the man who INVENTED Polymerase Chain Reaction, which is used to measure AIDS viral load.
Ironicaly he has since backtracked on his own original beliefs, and is on record with the following quote:
"No one has ever proved that HIV causes AIDS. We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV."
All i'm saying is that a LOT of EXTREMELY smart people seem to have SIGNIFICANT disagreements and misgiving about "AIDS".
?????????????
If I opened it now would you not understand?
and also:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:KeYhMTc1qLUJ:dpz.eu/pr/pr60/viroenw00.pdf+polio+siv&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
what the hell is that?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
???
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Now.
1970 + "next 5 to 10 years" =
1980
YEAR OF AIDS
?
What the government wants,
the government gets.
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
HIV diagnostic tests :
I don't know how it's done in the US but here to diagnose HIV you need 2 different positive tests. Biological tests are either very specific (low chances of false positives but high chances of false negatives) or very sensitive (high chances of false positives but low chances of false negatives). One HIV test looks for antibodies (ELISA technique - not western blot) directed towards the virus. If it's postivie (presence of antibodies) it's doesn't mean you have immunity (if it were the case you'd never be sick), just that your body encountered the virus. It's a sensitive test. So if you're positive you do a second more specific test to be sure you're not a false positive. That's the western blot part and as the wikepedia page on the technique states it's "a method to detect a specific protein". In this case a very specific protein produced by the viral genome. If you're positive with this too, there's a 99.9% chance that you are in fact infected.
Seeing viruses by microscopy :
This is not a proof of the existence of a virus. Molecular biology is kind of like astrophysics. It's impossible to witness directly the actors and events going on. What you can do is observe consequences of the events and activities of these actors : if you want to prove the presence of a virus you're not going to look a miles of human flesh through a microscope to make sure. You do an ELISA test.
AIDS = Acquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome
The virus comes in and destroys a respectable part of your immune system. That's all it does. But without immune system (immunodeficiency) well you're pretty much fucked. Like fighting tanks with a stick, you're open for any invasion and will lose badly.
Now I can't prove HIV causes AIDS, but if you see me messing around your stuff and later discover you've been robbed who are you going to accuse?
Isolating a virus and mutability of stuff :
Never read anything about isolating (or not) the HIV, but let's say it never was isolated. A single argument vs. the 25+ years of documentation on the consequences of the virus? seriously? A patient with the virus slowly sees his white blood cell count get reduced while the concentration of the viral proteins (the WB ones) goes higher, prone to opportunistic diseases etc. If everything points to a viral infection think virus not international conspiracy.
And of course viruses mutate, that's why you have the flu every year and never gain immunity towards it.
why you shouldn't make fun of HIV :
The only "conspiracy" part I'd agree on is that the drugs used today bring in much more money than looking for a vaccine and the private labs may not be working as hard as they could. But everyone is looking, and not finding stuff happens, especially in medecine - or have we found a cure against every disease?
Prevention is right now the only tool we have against the virus. So dismissing the virus as a looney idea is irresponsible. If people are aware of a mortal virus, they use protection, reduce the infection rate and do their part to help.
That was long. Have a nice day!
edit : the most stupid thing I've heard on this virus is it would be a supposed human creation. While I'm sure we could achieve something similard today, this was technically impossible in the 1970's! Like claiming Jesus went to the desert on a motorcycle.
snippets of "In Lies We Trust"
I chopped up a few of the really hard hitting parts of Len Horowitz's "In Lies We Trust" (ILWT) to show you the other side of the "AIDS, Inc" coin.
I think there are two things going on here for starters.
And where AIDS, Inc falls short, i think the ILWT picks up.
But as far as understanding the public marketing of the whole thing, and explaining how psychologicaly the stigma of "AIDS" works to the advantage of those in control, i believe AIDS, Inc makes a strong case. That is why AIDS is so "great", because from a public policy perspective, all governments have to do is tell their citizens, "don't do IV drugs, and have safe sex"! Well, i mean, who could argue with that?
AIDS, Inc raises some particular concerns with the connection between HIV\AIDS and sex though, namely -- IS there a connection? It sure is fishy that there are only around 40-60 thousand HIV cases in the US each year, but MILLIONS in 3rd world countries. Why is that? Are they sick sick sick sexual deviants in Africa? Surely Americans don't exists on a level of sexual saftey THAT much greater than Africans. Right?
Once again, i'm no expert, and i can't claim absolute truth in any of this.
I only know what my gut tells me, and my gut tells me there is something here.
Watch that clip i posted.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If most of the 'deniers' took a look at the broader picture of infectious disease epidemiology, they'd see how silly this is. With every pathogen known to man (with the possible exception of rabies), we know people who are infected but never develop disease symptoms. Look at tuberculosis, for example. Approximately a third of the world is infected with this bacterium. However, only a small fraction of that go on to develop disease symptoms, and only a fraction of those die in any given year. To AIDS deniers, then, because many people carrying TB remain 'alive and well,' Mycobacterium tuberculosis therefore doesn't cause TB, right? Obviously that's incorrect, but that's one of the big denier arguments against the idea that HIV causes AIDS.
I would also say that even medical science doesn't say that all people who are HIV+ will develop AIDS. We know of groups of people who have been HIV+ for years, yet are apparently just fine (even without antiretroviral drugs). These are known as 'long-term nonprogressors,' and are a group that's actively being studied to see just how they're holding the virus in check. What is it about them that keeps them OK, whereas other people succumb in just a few years if they're not treated? AIDS deniers see a group like this and think they found an consistency and conclude that these people aren't dying of AIDS, therefore HIV doesn't cause AIDS. But, infectious disease epidemiologists, virologists, and immunologists see this as an expected outcome that we see with every other pathogen, and an opportunity to better understand the host/virus interaction.
Similarly, there are people who are repeatedly exposed to the virus, but never seroconvert. Why not? Deniers again cry foul with regard to HIV causation of AIDS, but meanwhile scientists have found factors (such as a mutation in the CCR5 gene, a protein on cells that helps the virus bind and invade host cells) that make a host resistant to infection in the first place. Again, these are things we'd expect with a broader understanding of infectious disease epidemiology, but deniers (wrongly) think it presents a challenge for the HIV/AIDS paradigm.
As far as testing, no test is perfect. None....... All have a rate of false positives or negatives associated with them. With HIV (like Kann mentioned earlier), that's why we use an original screening test, followed by a secondary (more specific) test. The first one will weed out most of the people who are negative (and do so fairly cheaply), the second (more expensive) test will confirm those who are positive.
Deniers like to say that there are all these conditions that will result in false positives. And indeed, a number have been reported in the literature, but do they mention that these reports are typically associated with 'one case'? So while they say things like 'there are 60 different conditions that have resulted in false positive results,' that means that there have simply been about 60 (ok, I'll be generous and even give them a few hundred) people, with certain conditions, whose condition has been associated with a false positive HIV test (and again, I'll note they are 'associated' with this result, not necessarily 'causal'). It's a BIG red herring, because again, we see this with pretty much EVERY diagnostic test. But the HIV test is given to tens of millions of people, and the error rate is very small overall (for the ELISA, on the order of .2% give a false positive; for the Western confirmatory test, false positives occur more like .00001% of the time, with false negatives a bit more commonly at .001% of the time). I've performed the test myself and it is a damn good test, and can additionally be followed up with RT-PCR to determine viral load (even more specific than the protein tests).
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
As far as testing in Africa, yes, diagnosis of AIDS, especially in very impoverished areas, is often on symptoms rather than a molecular test. This fact also appears to be fodder for deniers. Let's think about this one.....when was the last time you went to your own physician and were diagnosed with influenza? Did he/she do a molecular test? It's usually about 50/50 in the US. Physicians get pretty damn good at diagnosis based on symptoms alone, and in Africa, they do as well. A single bout of malaria or diarrhea won't cause a physician to suspect AIDS, even in Africa. It's when those are frequent, and accompanied by other signs (such as severe weight loss, etc.) that the physician begins to suspect AIDS.
Finally, on HIV denial more broadly, it's interesting to me, from what little I have read on the topic, but even among the deniers, they can't agree. Does HIV even exist? Some say absolutely, others say no way. Is AIDS then caused by drugs? Oxidation? Another virus? None of the above, all of the above? It's much like creationists arguing amongst themselves about the age of the earth and common descent. They can't agree on anything except that the scientists are wrong.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Kann, im not agreeing or disagreeing with you on this , but this statement always kinda bothers me.
The U.S. govt. always has the ability to do things long b4 the public knows about it.
we had "stealth" ability long b4 the world knew about it.
we have had the ablity for the last 8-10 years to get 100 miles per gallon of gas. but your just now starting to hear about that.
as far as the 70's ? we were walking on the moon by then, the ability was there to do more i think.
just my 2 cents.
i just think by saying "we did not have the ability" is a gross miscalculation, of what the U.S. Govt. is doing without our knowledge.
"To question your government is not unpatriotic --
to not question your government is unpatriotic."
-- Sen. Chuck Hagel
try telling the young girls who are raped in south africa that there is no connection between hiv/aids and sex. myths do exist there such as sex with virgins cures aids or that condoms are already infected with the aids virus (from foreign governments nonetheless). it's not just irresponsible to spread this kind of misinformed bullshit, it's dangerous.
sexual activity is one way this can be spread. people need to conquer myths and conspiracy theories and promote prevention instead.
cross the river to the eastside
The guy is brilliant.
By listening to his show, his advise and his eating habits talk; I discovered there were several foods and ingrediants that were hurting my body.
After adjusting my eating habits/intake I started feeling great and some small issues disappeared. Also helped me with my workouts and my playing hockey in recreational leagues.
I guess my questions is, if HIV\AIDS truly is an equal opportunity killer, and you are acknowledging that black Africans are in no discernably higher risk category for the disease than white Americans, WHY then is the prevelance of HIV in these poor countries HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of times greater than in America?
Should HIV not be spreading like wildfire through the developed world, just as it is through the poverty stricken regions of earth?
Does HIV just like to hang out with the poor?
Did you check out the little 10 minute clip?
Does it concern you that the guy who "discovered" HIV is the same guy who was working on a top secret government bio-weapons program with a stated aim of developing an infectious organism eerily similar to HIV?
???
Also, regarding sexual transmission.
Are the people in these videos who quote studies showing that HIV requires an average sexual contact rate of about ONE THOUSAND CONTACTS TO CONTRACT flat out lying to you?
Because if that is true, HIV is certainly NOT considered a sexualy transmitted disease.
It would be a considered a bloodborne pathogen that spreads by fluid exchange.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I'm all for prevention.
I would just like to draw attention to the fact that it seems highly plausible that the government had a hand in the creation of and spread of this illness. [In Lies We Trust]
What AIDS, Inc does is address the other side of the coin, which is that the medical industry may be mislabeling people who don't have HIV as AIDS patients for reasons other than the best interest of the patients.
Of course, it's also possible that AIDS, Inc is the HIV equivilant of the "No Planers" or "No Jewers" to the 911 Truth movement -- in otherwords, it could be a counter intelligence distraction.
However, i believe Gary Null means well, and may be partialy correct, but partialy incorrect.
??? But trying to explain this to people who have no intention of watching the videos is a bit hard, since they don't even really understand the material that is discussed within ???
If I opened it now would you not understand?
do you know how closely cat AIDS or FIV is to ours? i know we can't spread it between cat to human or human to cat
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
As for the part on world depopulation, if the government really created the hiv towards that goal, well they're even bigger loosers than you think : why create a virus which stays silent for 10 years if your plan is to create massive depopulation? This allows the virus to spread everywhere, and not only in 3rd world countries.
And, if I may, the fact that infection rates among black people in 3rd world countries are much higher than in europe is easily explainable through prevention : after the major outbreaks of aids in western countries our government put in place very efficient prevention policies. This was not the case in Africa, where they not only had little information on the virus but also had little access to stuff like clean needles, condoms etc. Before you know it the infection rate explodes (like it would have in Europe without these policies) .
This argument is non refutable, kind of like if you took my first example and said : "Well jesus could have created a motorcycle, he made miracles before that". So I don't know what to say?
Are you aware that rates of all diseases (STDs or HIV) are higher in poorer populations? It's not a matter of the virus 'discriminating by race,' it's that the poor are more likely not to receive as much education about STD prevention or have the means (sanitation issues, etc) to prevent diseases. You can find the latest AIDS stats here http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#aidsrace, showing that about half the new infections in 2004 were in blacks, ~30% in whites, and ~20% in hispanics. If you scroll down further, you can also see the data that show it's increasing among heterosexual women, so the claim that the 'everyone is at risk' idea was just implemented as a scare and fund-raising tactic is silly.
Are you talking about Gallo? ha ha...........He's a jerk, but no, he doesn't concern me. Gallo discovered another retrovirus (the one responsible for Hepatitis.) His involvement in the HIV retrovirus is shady. Gallo was/is nothing more than a big egomaniac that was/is interested in nothing more than scientific prestige.
1000 to 1? Are you sure about that? I agree that HIV is not as virulent, as say Hepatitis C. But 1 in a 1000? I'd like the link to those scientific papers, I think. The central gist of AIDS denial is a fundamental misunderstanding of the germ theory of disease. Deniers will point out, for example, that immunodeficiency is possible without HIV, and use this as a 'blow' against the idea of HIV causation of the disease. This is, of course, patently ridiculous. Just because Streptococcus pneumoniae causes pneumonia, that doesn't rule out the fact that Staphylococcus can cause it too. This also explains why there are conditions such as so-called 'HIV-negative AIDS.' Immunosuppression in the absence of HIV could be due to a number of other things, including, potentially, other viruses. Conversely, the fact that not everyone who is HIV-positive develops AIDS is also to be expected. There are very few, if any, pathogens that cause disease in every single person who is infected. Every other disease has people who are infected, but healthy. We call this the 'carrier state.' There's no reason this couldn't happen with HIV as well. It's already been shown that people carrying a certain mutation appear to be resistant to AIDS. There are likely other factors that contribute to this as well. For instance, it's been suggested that other viruses may play a role in progression of AIDS, either speeding it up or slowing it down. Additionally, differences in viral strains may make some more virulent and the progress to AIDS quicker. There certainly can be other factors we just don't know about yet either. Disease is a complicated process.
It is a blood borne pathogen AND it can be transmitted sexually.
Look, scientists do not suggest that we know everything about HIV. Indeed, as with every subject, there are gaps in our knowledge. In typical creationist fashion, though, deniers exploit these gaps in an attempt to discredit the entire HIV-AIDS connection, suggesting thousands of scientists, doctors, and public health officials are either mistaken, incompetent, or lying about HIV as the cause of AIDS and therefore, we should just throw our hands up in the air and discard the whole theory, rather than working to fill these gaps in with additional knowledge.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I believe it is a different kind of virus.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feline_immunodeficiency_virus
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Yes Kann, SERIOUSLY.
In case you didn't really get the message correctly,
the reference to LYMPHOMA VIRUS is directly off of a GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT.
Its called "SPECIAL VIRUS CANCER PROGRAM" and its real.
Even Dr. Gallo didn't deny THAT. :cool:
Its not conjecture on the part of Horowitz.
Look, i'm not a scientist, but after having watched several of these movies, and several of them several times, it seems to be the case that some of these "cancers" and HIV both share one common factor at least: REVERSE TRANSCRIPTASE.
As far as i can tell that is a pretty major connection, and if it is on a government document that they were crossing these, i fully believe that the government was doing what it said it was doing.
Why do you shoot the messenger?
He showed you the proof.
?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Okay for starters, the rest of your post is stuck on the "HIV doesn't exist" line of thought, which i'd like to drop completely for right now, and move to the postulate by Horowitz that i linked (check the OP now) ... i can try to explain how both of these run together (in fashion of sorts) later, but lets at least get a base line going.
As for the above quote, you've now mixed up the game (i'm not attacking you, i'm just trying to get you to see some things that you are actually stating, just still avoiding, seemingly) ...
so...
yes, i am aware that almost ALL diseases are higher in poor countries. However, MANY of those diseases ARE discriminatory against the poor in that they are diseases that spring from lack of sanitation. Others like malaria are due to regional conditions, and then finaly you have the STDs which you correctly describe as occuring more in poor areas due to lack of education.
However, HIV is affecting Africa at nearly EXPONENTIALY higher rates than it is America. North America continues to have less than 60,000 HIV cases per annum. Africa has several MILLION (5.4 million new AIDS cases in 1999) .... that is one MASSIVE MOTHERFUCKING DISCREPANCY.
Man, people in the US must use the shit out of some condoms. ???
How did a disease which (strange a bizzare and non sensical as it is) popped up in GAY white men in America and STRAIGHT black men in Africa at the exact same time -- and by the way, a disease which literature seems to show transmits MUCH more effectively via anal intercourse -- how did this disease skew so dramaticaly against Africa in just a few years???
Now.
This is all just questions and conjecture,
but the point is, Dr Gallo ... yes, Dr Gallo.
DID YOU WATCH THAT 10 MINUTE CLIP YET?
Do you not find it extremely suspect that he would DENY his involvement with SVCP, even though he was 1 of 3 directors, and then mysteriously 'discover' HIV some 15 years after this position was held? Keep in mind that Special Virus Cancer Program had as its mission the creation of a disease "descrptionaly and functionaly identical" to what we now call HIV.
???
Also, the bottom section of your above quote is now an admission that HIV IS IN FACT A DISRIMINATORY DISEASE THAT TARGETS BLACKS.
Are you agreeing with this thesis?
Please people,
(and this isn't you Baraka, you are VERY kind to oblidge here)
you don't have to believe "me", and you don't have to agree with every or any thing i say even,
but PLEASE don't just dismiss shit like this out of hand without first giving it some consideration.
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS PROVE THAT THE US DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WAS OVERSEEING A PROGRAM TO COMBINE CANCERS AND VIRUSES ON A SCALE UNIMAGINABLE.
Why is it so hard to think that, with a description of a disease IDENTICAL to HIV, that they may have in fact created HIV?
That doesn't seem to take much of a stretch, imho.
???
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Also you are aware that things like Kaposi's Sarcoma (a cancer), according to MAINSTREAM literature, is CAUSE BY A VIRUS!
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma -- a CANCER -- is linked very closely with a VIRUS.
So CLEARLY there is a link between some cancers, and some viruses.
At what point that "link" blurs and the line between "causing" and "becoming" i have ZERO idea.
But i don't think either one of us has a complex and high level understanding of microbiology.
I'm sure Baraka could posit some ways that these two "different" life forms could come together.
Also, keep in mind, that one of the governments favorite tricks back in the 60s and 70s was to expose their experimental viruses or cancers to RADIATION.
You wanna talk about a quick way to mutate the shit out of something.
There you go.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Here is a great article written by an African physician about HIV in his country. Seeing how they are on the front lines here, it might answer some of your questions http://www.aegis.com/news/vv/2000/VV000701.html
Some highlights from the article:
"Let me take you back," says Sewankambo. In the beginning, the high proportion of Ugandans with HIV puzzled him. "My thinking was very much affected by the North: This is a gay disease. But if there wasn't that much homosexuality in our community, and we knew there wasn't any, really, then what was the mode of transmission? I was expecting mosquitoes."
The mosquito hypothesis was easy to test. Sewankambo and others examined households in which at least one person had AIDS, testing everyone, including children and grandparents. If AIDS was spread by mosquitoes, the virus should be present almost randomly, and certainly it should be in many children, who are the most susceptible to malaria.
Nothing of the sort was found. Of the sexual partners of the AIDS patients, a striking 71 percent were infected. Yet of the other people living in the household, with whom the patients were not having sex, only two out of 100 of were infected—a woman who was sexually active and her two-year-old son. "It did certainly suggest strongly that it was sexually transmitted," says Sewankambo.
Yet in their letter to Mbeki, Geshekter and Rasnick insisted that the sexual spread of HIV is "merely a very popular assumption," and pointed to a study conducted among couples in California showing that the odds of a man transmitting HIV to a woman during a single act of intercourse are slightly less than one in a thousand. From such first-world studies, they concluded that HIV is not frequently transmitted among heterosexuals anywhere.
"Outrageous," says the lead author of that study, Nancy Padian, who is also conducting research in Zimbabwe. "It's more likely that the epidemiology of a disease would differ in different locations than be the same—just look at cancer and heart disease."
As for African research, it leaves no doubt that HIV is spread heterosexually. The sex and age distribution of HIV on the continent mirror patterns seen with other STDs. Risk factors for having HIV include more sexual partners, being a prostitute, having had sex with a prostitute, and a history of STDs. In Uganda, two studies stand out. In one, wives were more than 100 times more likely to contract HIV if their husband had the virus than if he didn't. The other study, coauthored by Serwadda and Sewankambo, looked at couples in which one partner had HIV and the other didn't. What they found was shockingly simple: The higher the level of HIV in the infected partner, the greater the chance of transmitting it. This study suggests that if a vaccine could merely reduce the amount of HIV in the bodies of infected people, the epidemic could be curtailed. Clearly, this has tremendous implications for the whole world—and it came from research in Africa."
The above is an example of one NOT understanding or misrepresenting science and/ or infectious disease epidemiology.
And to be honest, I do not buy into the whole 'HIV was created and planted' theory, so other than thinking he is an asshole, I have no concerns about Gallo. This is what I believe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_origin
http://www.avert.org/aids-africa-questions-1.htm#q1
As far as why the incident of HIV is higher in Africa? From the link above: "No-one really knows the full answer to this question. However we do know there are many factors that influence the rate at which HIV is transmitted. Such factors include poverty; economic disparity; social instability; gender inequality; sexual violence; other sexually transmitted infections (which facilitate HIV transmission); lack of male circumcision; high mobility; rapid urbanisation and modernisation; and ineffective leadership during critical periods in the epidemic’s spread. Some scientists believe that differences between HIV subtypes also have an effect on transmission rates.4 5
People in sub-Saharan Africa don't have many more lifetime partners than people in other parts of the world. However, researchers have found that in some areas it is not uncommon for people to have two or more regular sex partners at the same time. Someone is most likely to transmit HIV during the period shortly after they are infected, when they have very high levels of virus in their body. Therefore someone who has two or more concurrent partners is more likely to transfer HIV between their partners than someone who has a series of monogamous relationships. This too may help to explain why HIV is more widespread in Africa."
There is a book called, 'HIV and AIDS in Africa: Beyond Epidemiology.' It is pretty good at describing the higher incident. From the book:"AIDS is devastating many areas of sub-Saharan Africa. Over 12 million people in the region have died of AIDS in the past decade. Over 22.5 million people in the region are infected with HIV, and of the 11 people who contract HIV each minute in the world, 10 live in sub-Saharan Africa. With no known cure and no vaccine yet available, an estimated 60% of Africans under the age of 18 today will be dead of AIDS before they are 45 years of age. Most prevention programs have failed, in part because the research behind them has focused primarily on "risk groups, " behavioral change models, and flawed understandings of cultural practices. HIV/AIDS in Africa is a collection that shifts the predominant understandings generated by biomedical and epidemiological research, recognizing that HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa is a complex and regionally specific phenomenon rooted in local economies, deepening poverty, migration, gender, war, global economies, and cultural politics. International contributors from across the social sciences further our understanding of AIDS by looking at the epidemic from angles previously not explored adequately. Ultimately, the underlying message of every contributor to this book is that AIDS will not diminish in Africa until social, gender, and economic inequities are addressed in meaningful ways."
I'm all about discussing and answering questions about testing methodology, infectious disease epidemiology, or other issues that allow diseases like HIV to thrive, but I can't entertain conspiracy theories that place superstition ahead of empirical evidence. But you know I like a good conspiracy, drifting, and you tell them better than anyone!
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Okay.
I have a lot of respect for you, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is your willigness to respond to this thread.
However i need to address the first portion of your response and i may get a bit aggrevated trying to do so; please bare with me.
I tried explaining earlier my opinion on the disparity of beliefs concerning HIV. As an open minded person, what is really frustrating to me is to see people insult those who have questions, simply because they don't have answers as well.
What i'm trying to say is best sumarized by taking another example, so look to JFK. This WAS a conspiracy. You may as well call anyone who believes Oswald was the LONE assassin a "JFK Denier" at this point. But 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago you mention ANY theory on how JFK was mudered by conspiracy and you were met with: "Oh yeah. So WHICH THEORY is it? Was it the CIA? Was it the Mob? Was it the russians? The Anti Castro Cubans? The Pro Castro Cubans? IT CANT BE ALL OF THEM. YOU CANT EVEN AGREE ON WHICH GROUP DID IT. YOU'RE SO STUPID!"
Well, what did the truth turn out to be?
The CIA hired the mob. Thats documented by the government in the Jewel Files. PROVEN. The CIA hired the mob, and the CIA was also entagled with a large group of ANTI-Castro cubans. Also proven at this point. Oswald was mixed up with ALL of these folks.
But then the government covered its tracks by sheep-dipping Oswald, sending him to Russia (DOCUMENTED! Declassified CIA documents prove he went to russia as CIA!) and also putting him in contact with PRO-Castro cubans.
The government then used Oswald's PRO-Castro and Russian connections to STOP open investigation in to the assassination by telling the Warren commssion that for "national security" we can't let the public know about the "russian conspiracy". But the truth was the opposite.
So what is my point here?
My point is you can NOT expect the inquisitive folks who EVENTUALY DISCOVER THE TRUTH to automaticaly know it from the word "jump". It has still only been 25 years or so, adn while a lot seems to be known, and a lot more seems to be in question, we aren't all the way there yet.
And unlike JFK, where much of the puzzle could be solved with any one with investigative sense and the ability to make contacts (uncover documents or witnesses), the AIDS\HIV "conspiracy" requires the skills of a MUCH more limited groups of individuals ... namely highly trained health care professionals.
Unfortunately, as AIDS, Inc shows many of these highly trained people (molecular biologists and retrovirologists, etc) are being BLACKLISTED and defunded and have their careers jeopardized for even daring to ask questions.
THAT KINDA MAKES IT HARD TO COME TO ANY CONSENSUS.
But, it is really disingenious to start making fun of people, just because they ask questions.
You get my flow?
Its offensive.
Its unfair.
And its counterproductive.
... next post for topical discussion
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Ahh. Jesus.
I don't even know where to start, girl.
I'm so riled up, and so much of what you quoted (i assume the bottom of that last post was quoted?) is disingenious information.
Instead of addressing this directly, i want to RE-DIRECT you BACK to the 10 minute video i posted, which i still don't think you've watched. If you had, i think you may have some questions yourself.
To add on top of that.
HERE IS A quote FROM DR. GALLO, HIMSELF:
-AIDS: A Doctor's Note on the Man Made Theory
So,
while Dr. Gallo emphaticaly denies ANY involvement with the possible creation of AIDS, he had NO problem passing the buck on to the World Health Organization, implying that the use of their smallpox vaccines may have somehow activated a "dormant" virus.
Hmm.
Look.
All i'm saying is we do NOT have all the facts.
Every response of yours has made that clearer and clearer.
For example:
and
Look, lets just cut down to it.
America: 40,000 infections in one year
Africa: 4,500,000 infections in one year.
That is 11,250% MORE infections in Africa than in America.
ELEVEN THOUSAND PERCENT.
You're admitting that Africans aren't necessarily any more or less sexualy promiscuous, and yet you some how want me to believe that a sexually transmitted disease ... not a disease with any relationship to sanitation, water supply, nutrition and which does not spread due to casual contact or through the air ...
a disease that travels from a penis to a hole or from a hole to a penis ...
the poor africans are ONE HUNDRED AND TWELVE TIMES more likely to contract this?
And the scientific reason given is ???
WTF?
WTF does that mean?
Seriously. Yeah its some words on paper but just THINK about it. Just THINK. A sexually transmitted disease, that is 112 times more prevalent on one continent than another ... and the attempted rationalization is that "local economies" have something to do with this ??? Poverty? MIGRATION ??? War ???? "global economies" WTF? Cultural politics !!??!?
A SEXUALLY transmitted disease, and the alleged reason that Africa has 11,250% more infections than America is?
They are poor, have more wars, and their economy ???
WHAT?
Call me ignorant,
but wtf?
To briefly explain "my" position,
i'm tempted to believe that the government was heavily involved in creating this virus, and i also think the test (Western Blot) is faulty, being used subjectively, and may be causing many false diagnosis in Africa and around the world. On top of that the drugs that have historicaly been given for HIV were and are highly toxic. Its not a stretch to think if you give a highly toxic drug to someone who is already seriously malnourished and ill that they might die, is it?
Now.
Please watch that 10 minute video, and acknowledge it.
I don't think you really know who Dr. Gallo is.
He was involved with some SERIOUSLY fucked up shit.
???
Thanks Baraka!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
not sure that this will help, considering, but it's essential to point out that not all of africa is the same. it seems that's getting missed in certain posts. it is a very large continent with what, almost 1 billion people at this point? and baraka's posts mentioned sub-saharan africa (because they are the most affected region). and when you look at what baraka says about why the prevalence is greater in certain regions, it makes sense.
http://www.unaids.org/en/CountryResponses/Regions/SubSaharanAfrica.asp
also i feel the need to point out that just because something is sexually transmitted, it's not necessarily the only way it's transmitted. i believe that it was mentioned above that this is blood borne and sexually transmitted.
cross the river to the eastside