AIDS, Inc.

DriftingByTheStorm

HEY:

WATCH THIS

???

[not AIDS, Inc. I switched the link, cause there is too much confusion]

wwfairfield

how about herpes depot
or... the clap mart
syphilis city

DriftingByTheStorm

Folks need to let go of the
"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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

It's all just a money making machine now. Just like the war on drugs.

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.

DriftingByTheStorm

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

It's all just a money making machine now. Just like the war on drugs.

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.

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.

:(

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Yeah I had to break away from watching reruns of American Idol in between drunken sessions of Rock Band.

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.

baraka

Hi Drifting, I couldn't get your video to play, so maybe you could summarize the arguments for me. This is what I know. HIV infects the immune system. AIDS is the syndrome describing when that infection has reached a stage in which is has disabled the immune system making the patient vulnerable to any and every pathogen around them. They are immunocompromised. If any part of the argument is that people don't die from AIDS, that would be technically true. The HIV infection leading to AIDS is what makes folks vulnerable to everything else in the environment, and they die of whatever opportunistic infection they get that they can't fight off. Common pathogens in the environment that most people can fight off easily and have immunity against become deadly diseases for someone with AIDS.

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.;)

DriftingByTheStorm

Well,
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".
?????????????

DriftingByTheStorm

Here, check this out: http://www.boydgraves.com/letters/gao061902.html

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

second link wrote:

Immunogenicity and efficacy of Polio-SIV/HIV-1 hybrid viruses in rhesus macaques

what the hell is that?

DriftingByTheStorm

Alleged AIDS Development Flow Chart
???

DriftingByTheStorm

quote from a classified Department of Defense Appropriations bill for the 1970 Congress

DOD Appropriations Bill 1970 wrote:

Within the next 5 to 10 years it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease ... It is highly controversial and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaken ...

Now.
1970 + "next 5 to 10 years" =
1980

YEAR OF AIDS
?

What the government wants,
the government gets.

:cool:

Kann

I'm not sure you can say a more irresponsible thing than "aids is a corporate conspiracy to hook people on expensive drugs". The most efficient weapon humans have against hiv is prevention so decreasing the risk and importance to the public of this disease is not a good thing.

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.

DriftingByTheStorm

Kann: here check this out, 10 minutes long only
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.

baraka

Drifting, in matters like these, I think it is important to look at the empirical evidence opposed to conjecture. Like I said earlier, you don't die of AIDS, per se, you'll die of the AIDS-associated infection. But how does that change the diagnosis of AIDS to find that someone died of TB, or pneumonia, or encephalitis? It's no different than someone on immunosuppressant drugs to prevent rejection of a transplant acquiring an infection and dying from it. The official cause of death would be the infection they acquired, but the reason they contracted the infection in the first place is that their immune system was suppressed by the drugs they were on. You asked earlier, in your op, about the drugs used and are they dangerous. Medicine in general is a gamble. New medical conditions are often created as a result of a treatment.

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).

baraka

Drifting, you mentioned the AIDS situation in Africa.............the biggest problem here is that most conflate simply having sex with developing AIDS (note the bait and switch?) We know that people can have sex all day if they want, and they won't develop AIDS unless they're infected with HIV. So the issue isn't that the poor in Africa are having more sex than those who are wealthy, it's that the prevalence of HIV in the poor populations is much higher, so when they do have sex (especially with new partners), they can spread the virus, and thus AIDS is much more common in these populations. It's not just the sexual activity, as deniers would have you think the researchers believe, it's sexual activity in those infected with HIV. So this issue is a strawman, a classic science denial.

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.

the wolf

Kann wrote:

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.

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.

VictoryGin

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

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?

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.

NMyTree

I used to listen to Gary Null on the radio, all the time, in the late 80s and through the 90s.

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.

DriftingByTheStorm

baraka wrote:

Drifting, you mentioned the AIDS situation in Africa.............the biggest problem here is that most conflate simply having sex with developing AIDS (note the bait and switch?) We know that people can have sex all day if they want, and they won't develop AIDS unless they're infected with HIV. So the issue isn't that the poor in Africa are having more sex than those who are wealthy, it's that the prevalence of HIV in the poor populations is much higher, so when they do have sex (especially with new partners), they can spread the virus, and thus AIDS is much more common in these populations. It's not just the sexual activity, as deniers would have you think the researchers believe, it's sexual activity in those infected with HIV. So this issue is a strawman, a classic science denial.

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.

DriftingByTheStorm

VictoryGin wrote:

people need to conquer myths and conspiracy theories and promote prevention instead.

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 ???

El_Kabong

baraka wrote:

Hi Drifting, I couldn't get your video to play, so maybe you could summarize the arguments for me. This is what I know. HIV infects the immune system. AIDS is the syndrome describing when that infection has reached a stage in which is has disabled the immune system making the patient vulnerable to any and every pathogen around them. They are immunocompromised. If any part of the argument is that people don't die from AIDS, that would be technically true. The HIV infection leading to AIDS is what makes folks vulnerable to everything else in the environment, and they die of whatever opportunistic infection they get that they can't fight off. Common pathogens in the environment that most people can fight off easily and have immunity against become deadly diseases for someone with AIDS.

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.;)

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