The Truth About The AIDS Virus

[Astroboy]

I understand your position as far as HIV/AIDS deniers goes. However, I was simply trying to illustrate that the figures in regards to HIV infection worldwide are skewed based on the testing methods and the socio-political agenda of some groups that lobby for funding for the disease.

Please don't try to weasel out of this with that lame excuse. My argument with you has never been over the statistical interpretations of AIDS infections and mortality rates in Africa or the agenda of people trying to get funding for AIDS research.

Your previous posts have repeated the lies of AIDS Deniers and clearly you support their position which is largely based on the tenet that HIV does not cause AIDS. That, sir, makes you an AIDS Denier.

Prove me wrong by just saying "Yes, I agree. HIV causes AIDS". Otherwise, you are without doubt a Denier.

This isn't some innocent esoteric discussion of philosophy here. This is far worse than saying prayer will heal you and you don't need medicine. You are spreading a lie that kills. You are minimizing the danger of HIV by endorsing the views of people who say it is harmless.

 

[Anubis]

This isn't some innocent esoteric discussion of philosophy here. This is far worse than saying prayer will heal you and you don't need medicine. You are spreading a lie that kills. You are minimizing the danger of HIV by endorsing the views of people who say it is harmless.

Do you think you can get anymore dramatic?

Please explain how doubting people that are obviously lying to you, or at the very least, are manipulating the truth makes me culpable for even just one AIDS-related death. I'll save you the trouble: you can't.

As for "minimizing the danger of HIV by endorsing the views of people who say it is harmless", I think it goes without saying that the people I have quoted, as either disputing an HIV-AIDS link, or the inflated figures of world-wide HIV infection, are far more qualified to make such statements than you are to dispute them.

BTW: Calling me an "AIDS Denier", much like branding me a "Global Warming Denier" is quite offensive to survivors, and families of survivors, of the Holocaust. The original "Denier" was used to describe those who perpatrate the myth that 12 million did not die during the Holocaust. It truly is sad that you would equate the systematic murder of 12 million men, women and children to an overhyped syndrome that kills less people in Canada per decade than influenza does in any single year.

 

[Astroboy]

Do you think you can get anymore dramatic?

Please explain how doubting people that are obviously lying to you, or at the very least, are manipulating the truth makes me culpable for even just one AIDS-related death. I'll save you the trouble: you can't.

As for "minimizing the danger of HIV by endorsing the views of people who say it is harmless", I think it goes without saying that the people I have quoted, as either disputing an HIV-AIDS link, or the inflated figures of world-wide HIV infection, are far more qualified to make such statements than you are to dispute them.

BTW: Calling me an "AIDS Denier", much like branding me a "Global Warming Denier" is quite offensive to survivors, and families of survivors, of the Holocaust. The original "Denier" was used to describe those who perpatrate the myth that 12 million did not die during the Holocaust. It truly is sad that you would equate the systematic murder of 12 million men, women and children to an overblown syndrome that kills less people in Canada in a decade than influenza does in a single year.

Do you or do you not support the idea that HIV causes AIDS? Don't dance around this.

Neither you or I are experts so let's just deal with evidence. I've provided a multitude of source information as evidence to support the idea that HIV causes AIDS with detail medical explanations on how it works. I could fill pages and pages of evidence to support my position.

What do you have? You have the unsupported opinion of a LSD taking former Nobel Laureate who other scientists think is a joke now. He also has never done research or submitted any papers for peer review to support the opinion that HIV does not cause AIDS. You've quoted him on something he is too cowardly to post on his website http://www.karymullis.com and was said 14years ago when AIDS research was still in its infancy. Can you even honestly say that he still supports this position today?

I didn't make up the term AIDS Denier so don't try to turn it on me as if I'm the one minimizing the Holocaust. It's been widely used to refer to people whose views you support. I find Holocaust Deniers reprehensible and it is a rather unfortunate fact that "Deniers" is a term that is used to describe people like Kary Mullis but it is what we are dealing with.

You keep repeatedly refer to issues of alleged overblown statistics of AIDS which is just a smokescreen for you to avoid the main issue. Let me repeat. I am not discussing the political agenda of AIDS funding research advocates or statistics. Let's focus on the relationship between HIV and AIDS.

 

[A. Warren Johnson]

Oh Astro. Your just as narrow minded as the rest of the unquestioning public. The quote from 1984 came about because appearently nobody knows where this quote came from, well it's pretty clear to me that the first person to say the probable cause of AIDS was Margaret Heckler in 1984, thus making sense that a pubic relations writer would have came up with the phrase. As for your link with retro-viruses caught on microfilm, are you that quailified to tell me that that is for 100% certainly HIV and not a different retro virus? Now with the anti-AIDS drugs, the new ones are just as harmful and possibly more so then AZT! Are you seriously trying to get me to believe that a label that reads side effects include death is going to help me live longer if I were HIV+? I seriously think you should look into them a little more. As for the Syndrome, why bother calling it anything at all if it's not called by it's proper name? That's the point, plain and simple. The best part of all is that you actually beilieve in your Government! I'm sorry that you feel so strongly for your CEO, but seriously wake up. Governments are controlled by private bankers, and since AIDS generates revenue, why in all honestly would Governments piss off their corparate masters? One last thing, the article in Paranoia only sparked my interest in the topic, it didn't provide facts.

 

[A. Warren Johnson]

I felt I should expand on what I mean controlled. I mean Monetarily controlled, since we live in a debt based society. Oh and Astro, you may want to look into watching the other side of AIDS, maybe you'll see the point we are trying to make here. As for Kary Mullis, his view is more that PCR doesn't work for screening for HIV which is what it's main use is for. I also find when your family phisican states that risk groups haven't changed in 30 years, it helps support the credibilty of these statments a bit. I doubt highly you'll even consider another view since you seem quite content in your nice little confort zone, but you may just want to look into these views a little more be for claiming we are wrong to question the establishments view. You may also consider looking up Peter Duesburg, I'm very interested in what you have to say about him. Really! I am!

 

[Astroboy]

Oh Astro. Your just as narrow minded as the rest of the unquestioning public. The quote from 1984 came about because appearently nobody knows where this quote came from, well it's pretty clear to me that the first person to say the probable cause of AIDS was Margaret Heckler in 1984, thus making sense that a pubic relations writer would have came up with the phrase. As for your link with retro-viruses caught on microfilm, are you that quailified to tell me that that is for 100% certainly HIV and not a different retro virus? Now with the anti-AIDS drugs, the new ones are just as harmful and possibly more so then AZT! Are you seriously trying to get me to believe that a label that reads side effects include death is going to help me live longer if I were HIV+? I seriously think you should look into them a little more. As for the Syndrome, why bother calling it anything at all if it's not called by it's proper name? That's the point, plain and simple. The best part of all is that you actually beilieve in your Government! I'm sorry that you feel so strongly for your CEO, but seriously wake up. Governments are controlled by private bankers, and since AIDS generates revenue, why in all honestly would Governments piss off their corparate masters? One last thing, the article in Paranoia only sparked my interest in the topic, it didn't provide facts.

If you mean I am narrow minded because I do independent research for evidence from agenda-free source material beyond the handful of true believers and cultists then you can call me narrow minded all day long. Can you claim the same thing?

I am no blind follower of the government. I am always skeptical but that doesn't mean I'm irrational. I don't like to take anyone's word on anything for granted unless I can verify it myself. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof as they say.

As for me being in a "comfort zone" I think the dangerous comfort zone is not believing HIV is harmful or causes AIDS or is a widespread problem. Would you want to test your own convictions regarding the deadly effects of HIV by going to Bangkok and have unprotected sex? I hope not. If you get infected (I hope you don't) I hope you do more than pray and consider some of the current treatments that are effective at keeping the virus at bay but does not cure it.

 

[musictomyears]

The causality between HIV and AIDS is not clear. This makes HIV/AIDS different from other infectious diseases.

"AIDS, in short, has become a schizophrenic disease. Some people with diseases identical to those classically used to define the syndrome, such as disseminated tuberculosis, are not AIDS patients in the absence of HIV. Some people are AIDS patients if they develop opportunistic infections even in the absence of evidence of HIV. And in the presence of HIV, almost any rare disease is diagnostic for AIDS regardless of whether the person has other, more fundamental causes of immune suppression."

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/rrbdef.htm

 

[Anubis]

Do you or do you not support the idea that HIV causes AIDS? Don't dance around this.

Maybe I am a masochist, so I'll bite this final time. I doubt it will do any good however, as you seem only interested in reading the parts of my posts that you directly disagree with and focusing on them.

Do I believe HIV causes AIDS? I do not know. The points I have posted as to my overall doubt of the impact and/or existance of this syndrome are as follows:

AIDS/HIV infection numbers are inflated. The testing methods used on the African subcontinent simply check for levels of antibodies present in a given sample of blood. They do not check for the presence of HIV. If the white cell count is below a certain level, it is assumed the patient is infected with HIV/AIDS with out ever needing to test for the presence of the virus. Low immunity levels can be caused by not only AIDS, but also malnutrition, disaease, parasites and drugs abuse. All of which are serious problems in Africa.

Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis stated in 1994 that there was no demonstrated link between HIV and AIDS, and challenged his peers to prove said link. The challenge was never answered. Mullis went on to state that in his qualified opinion, AIDS was likely a mutated form of syphillis. Whether or not Mullis was correct is irrelevent. The fact that one of the world's leading authorities on blood disorders went on record in 1994 to claim there was no HIV/AIDS link shows that much of what is believed about the disease was based on assumptions.

AIDS has become the biological schizoprenia. When AIDS was first diagnosed in the early 80s, there were 7 rare diseases associated with it (in the presence of HIV). When Mullins gave his speech in 1994, there were 23. Each of these conditions is rather rare when compared with other kinds of infections, and are usually very hard to treat and/or terminal. If you suffer from one of these afflictions without the presence of HIV, you are an anomaly. However, if you suffer from one in the presence of HIV, you are diagnosed with AIDS.

The risk of death in Canada as stated by the AIDS activists does not even remotely reflect the actual rates compiled by Health Canada. In fact, the rate of death by AIDS is far less than diabetes and influenza, which are far more common. This misinformation was widely distributed for political gain to scare the middle-class into voting in favour of funding research for a disease that they were at minimal risk of contracting.

Now, I ask you, when someone continually lies about a subject over and over, why exactly would you trust what they say anymore?

 

[valiens]

<hr style="color: rgb(209, 209, 225); background-color: rgb(209, 209, 225);" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --><!-- message --> Did you guys know that in Africa as opposed to this country, AIDS is largely a heterosexual disease?

What does that mean?

Doesn't it mean that in African millions of people, whose cultures support the idea of big families, have unprotected sex?

And up until AIDS, unprotected sex was the norm for gay men here in America. I dunno about now.

 

[A. Warren Johnson]

To touch on something Anibus said, (I'm sorry if I spelled that wrong), about the mutated Syphilis theory is the only correlating link between HIV being spread sexually, whenever you go and get a supposed test for HIV they will automatically test you for Syphilis. But Astro just so you know, in my personal views, if HIV were the cause of AIDS would there not be a standardized test not a group of tests that claim to test for HIV? The western blot test is unreliable because ALL retro viruses have the same genomes, and not to mention that they co-culture your blood sample for reactivity of Anti-Bodies. I also find it a little hard to believe that they would test for Clymidia for the actual virus grown from a pure culture, yet a deadly infection as HIV they only test for Anti-Bodies. And as for that T-Cell count of below 200, why is that not the standard everywhere? It's only in the states that it applys. The reason I find you narrow minded is that you seem like you haven't even bothered looking into the matter of alternative theories on this matter. HTMV-III has been linked closer to causing Cancer rather then immune deficiency. I would strongly recommend you view Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS. You want some facts from my point of view, this will help you see my point of view.

 

[Astroboy]

Do I believe HIV causes AIDS? I do not know. The points I have posted as to my overall doubt of the impact and/or existance of this syndrome are as follows:

Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis stated in 1994 that there was no demonstrated link between HIV and AIDS, and challenged his peers to prove said link. The challenge was never answered. Mullis went on to state that in his qualified opinion, AIDS was likely a mutated form of syphillis. Whether or not Mullis was correct is irrelevent. The fact that one of the world's leading authorities on blood disorders went on record in 1994 to claim there was no HIV/AIDS link shows that much of what is believed about the disease was based on assumptions.

You still cannot show any research by Mullis specifically on this issue. I guess when you get a Nobel Prize everything you say becomes gospel even if you don't actually do any scientific research on the subject. If I get a Nobel Prize I can claim pigs will fly out of my ass and you'd believe it. You keep quoting him but provide no evidence other than an "opinion" expressed 14 years ago. Where is his evidence? All scientist need to back up their opinions with hard research and submitted for peer review. I guess you don't need this minimal requirement to believe.

An opinion by someone with a degree and an award constitutes evidence for you. I can show you a list of people considered geniuses throughout history who have said many crazy erroneous things. This doesn't diminish their accomplishments but proves no one is infallable. http://www.cracked.com/article_16559_7-eccentric-geniuses-who-were-clearly-just-insane.html

I have provided real scientifically back research as evidence. If you want to ignore that then that is your perogative. Who is really narrow minded here?

This will be my final post on this subject because according to you and others on this thread HIV either doesn't exist or is not a problem. Therefore I have nothing to worry about and I'm just wasting my breath on a problem that apparently doesn't exist. And on top of that Global Warming or Climate Change isn't a problem either. What a comforting world we live in.

 

[Capnkumquat]

The First was proposed in the infamous Report from Iron Mountain that essentially said that World peace is not a desirable thing. So, instead of beginning another catastrophic war that would undoubtedly end in nuclear annihilation, they proposed a series of small, ongoing, isolated wars. In fact, did you guys know that at times there have been over 39 different wars taking place in the World? And it wasn't just coincidence. And you have to ask yourself, who are the people fighting these wars? The answer - young, foreign men that are most likely to reproduce.

__________________________
Sorry to go all the way back to the beginning of this thread, but there is a problem. The Report from Iron Mountain WAS A DELIBERATE HOAX! Its author (Leonard Lewin) , the writer of the forward, has long been suspected as its writer.

http://www.outthereradio.net/archives.htm

Go to the link provided and download program 12..."The problem with peace." The entire episode is on "The Report from Iron Mountain". Enjoy.

Beware this thread, as anyone siting this book as real has likely been a bit too credulous in their research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_From_Iron_Mountain

 

[Anubis]

This will be my final post on this subject because according to you and others on this thread HIV either doesn't exist or is not a problem. Therefore I have nothing to worry about and I'm just wasting my breath on a problem that apparently doesn't exist. And on top of that Global Warming or Climate Change isn't a problem either. What a comforting world we live in.

That is probably the best thing. You seem to be a fanatic with an agenda, and that combination makes it difficult to discuss anything rationally.

 

[Astroboy]

That is probably the best thing. You seem to be a fanatic with an agenda, and that combination makes it difficult to discuss anything rationally.

You'd be surprised to know that I used to believe just like you that Climate Change or Global Warming was bogus until I looked at the evidence. I also could care less about AIDS funding. I don't know anyone close who is HIV positive or gay. I have no agenda. I like to deal with facts and evidence. If the proof is compelling enough I can and do often change my mind. I doubt this is true with you. I used to believe in Greer and Sitchin as much as I hate to admit it but did the research and changed my mind.

A fanatic is someone who sticks to their belief system despite the facts and evidence. You should look in the mirror.

 

[Anubis]

You'd be surprised to know that I used to believe just like you that Climate Change or Global Warming was bogus until I looked at the evidence. I also could care less about AIDS funding. I don't know anyone close who is HIV positive or gay. I have no agenda.

I have looked at the "evidence" as well, and came away with an opinion that differs from yours. I am quite OK with that. You, on the other hand, insinuate I am an idiot, resort to name calling and try to get the thread banned. In my world, that is an awfully strange reaction for someone who claims to have no agenda about the topic being discussed.

 

[Astroboy]

I have looked at the "evidence" as well, and came away with an opinion that differs from yours. I am quite OK with that. You, on the other hand, insinuate I am an idiot, resort to name calling and try to get the thread banned. In my world, that is an awfully strange reaction for someone who claims to have no agenda about the topic being discussed.

I suppose you would be OK if you convinced an HIV positive person that they will not contract AIDS and don't need to take the proper medication. If the person died as a result of your advice I guess it wouldn't bother you, right?

Forgive me if I find this type of action alarming and morally reprehensible. Does this mean I have an agenda? I guess I do. I don't want someone to die needlessly. It's too bad that you find this reaction awfully strange.

You claim that your position on this issue is that you don't know yet your actions in fanatically defending it says otherwise. I think you are being intellectually dishonest.

What is your agenda? Do you hate gays and Blacks?

 

[Anubis]

What is your agenda? Do you hate gays and Blacks?

So you want to paint me as a racist and bigot now, simply because I posted articles that question the worldwide rate of HIV infection on a conspiracy website discussing such issues?

I no longer suspect you are a fanatic... I am convinced of it.

 

[Astroboy]

So you want to paint me as a racist and bigot now, simply because I posted articles that question the worldwide rate of HIV infection on a conspiracy website discussing such issues?

I no longer suspect you are a fanatic... I am convinced of it.

You are the person who brought up issues of agenda in the first place. You questioned my agenda so I stated my position. I find it only fair that I question your agenda. And yet you refuse to answer.

You've done more than just talk about inflated statistics, so again, don't be intellectually dishonest. You presented "evidence" to support a claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Why did you do this if you only cared about stats? Why keep posting quotes from and AIDS denier when your alleged position is "I don't know"?

Why keep bringing up the issues of alleged inflated stats of AIDS over and over and over again when you know very well it was never an issue in our arguments? I never challenged you on it and it never bothered me. You are trying to play innocent and distance yourself from the denial of HIV as a cause of AIDS.

Don't try to throw a smoke screen over your own fanaticism. You're not fooling anyone.

 

[Anubis]

It is obvious that you have neither read, nor understood, any posts I have made during this debate. I posted the Mclean's article long before you started turning this into something personal. Why would I would post an article about inflated infection stats unless that was exactly what I was discussing prior to you getting your panties in a bunch about this entire topic? Do you even read what someone's point of view is prior to firing off personal attacks accusing others of racism and bigotry?

I have posted all the reasons as to why I feel that we have not heard the truth about this alleged "epidemic". Everyone else here seems to understand my points except you, and I don't feel like repeating myself ad nauseum simply because you have some personal agenda that matters only to yourself. You are focusing on only one point I made, and even that has been taken out of context. Don't accuse me of "intellectual dishonesty" when you have spent this entire debate desperately trying to turn it into something it never was in the first place. Find another game, son. I have no interest in feeding trolls.

 

[Capnkumquat]

The origination of the Georgia Guidestones is steeped in bizarre mysticism. They were said to be paid for by an anonymous man with the unlikely name of R.C. Christian back in 1979. Indeed, the name of the donor has remained a secret ever since. As folk legend would have it, a certain Mr. Christian came to town out of nowhere and just as quickly returned to nowhere.

Dude, the Georgia guide stones were paid for by a private institution (R.C. Christian...Rosecruscian?) and had nothing to do with the government. In fact it is thought that R.C. Christian actually had been coming to town for years and knew a couple of people there...Likely other lodge brothers.

The person who cut the stones at the quarry is the only person who supposedly knows the real name of "R.C. Christian." He said that he would not start such an expensive undertaking without knowing who he was doing business with. He has never talked.

Georgia guidstones...bizarre yes, evidence of conspiracy, absolutely not! Why on earth would a person who is perpetrating a secret experiment to create a virus to wipe out large portions of the world advertise that fact in a dinky little Georgian town on the edge of a cotton field?

http://www.outthereradio.net/
Try listening to episode 8 - "10 commandments for the new world order."