Apparently, HIV Doesn't Cause AIDS

Thanks for posting.

Originally Posted by SexySeven

You're welcome - thank you for stopping by and commenting.

You know it's kinda scary how most people are oblivious to the real facts surrounding HIV/AIDS. Little does the public realize what's being done to them.

The CDC is headed in the direction of classifying practically everyone in the US as having AIDS. Currently, the CDC and the WHO states that if you've lost weight, have a fever, a cough, diarrhea, night sweats, malnutrition, or other common ailments, you can be diagnosed as having AIDS. And with legislation to quarantine and compel AIDS patients to take AIDS drugs (poisons) including children and pregnant women, this amounts to a genocidal war being waged against the country.

Your only defense is to avoid doctors, don't get tested for HIV and most certainly never submit to taking any AIDS drugs. Research shows that once you begin taking the antiretrovirals, regardless if you stop later, by then the poisons have damaged your body to the extent that you will likely never recover - and you will die a short time afterwards - and your death will be attributed to AIDS (a condition caused by drug use, malnutrition and/or AIDS drugs).

The HIV test is both fake and non-specific - plus there are other dangerous consequences associated with testing HIV positive. You should know a few facts before you agree to take what's called an HIV test - facts that doctors and medical staff probably won't tell you.

READ THE FINE PRINT

Rapid Test Insert: "intended for use as a point-of-care test to aid in the diagnosis of infection with HIV-1." "A reactive test...suggests the presence of antibodies..." (In other words, it's not really an "HIV" test.)

ELISA Antibody Test Insert: "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence and absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood."

Western Blot Confirmatory Test Insert: "Positive blot results using any specimen type should be followed with additional testing."

PCR Genetic Test Insert: "Not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection." (This test is not intended to confirm the presence of the virus?)

bDNA Genetic Test Insert: "Not intended for use as a screening assay for HIV infection or as a diagnostic test to confirm the diagnosis of HIV infection." (This test is not intended to confirm the presence of the virus?)

It's incredible, but the tests are not designed to look for or find HIV, but doctors still use these tests to tell people that they are "infected" with HIV and have, or soon will have, AIDS!

If someone dies of TB or other ordinary causes, they may say they died of AIDS to attract more charity and government dollars for drugs.

AIDS is not even the same thing everywhere. Most cases diagnosed as AIDS in the United States are healthy people with a positive HIV test and low CD4 immune cell count. In Africa you don't even need an HIV test according to the World Health Organization's "Bangui" definition, just fever, cough, weight loss, diarrhea or other generic symptoms of illness, malnutrition or parasitic infections.

A positive result on an HIV test will change your life forever. You could lose friends, your relationships, your health insurance, your job, the custody of your kids. Even your sanity.

A positive result does not mean you are infected with a deadly virus. It can be caused by non-health-threatening factors, although it also may be a warning that your immune system is damaged. If you are sick you may NOT need medications to get well, especially not dangerous AIDS medications.

.

well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black

I'll not bother commenting here anymore, I know you have lots of copy and paste work to do

at least put a hot chick on your avatar

Originally Posted by Sweet N Little

Well, that's okay - you don't have to comment to read the posts! (you only posted once)

Thanks for visiting.

.

Mr. Bill,

Its interesting that you would post something like this but as someone who has been involved in the research and treatment of AIDS victims and as someone who has had family that have lived with, died, or are living with HIV I find it sad that ANYONE would have us believe that HIV/AIDS is not a real and serious threat to the health and well being of people around the world!

DD

Mr. Bill,

Its interesting that you would post something like this but as someone who has been involved in the research and treatment of AIDS victims and as someone who has had family that have lived with, died, or are living with HIV I find it sad that ANYONE would have us believe that HIV/AIDS is not a real and serious threat to the health and well being of people around the world!

DD Originally Posted by DDarkness

With all due respect to you and your family's tragedies, I can understand your perception on the subject - especially given the false data that you - and everyone else - have been exposed to regarding HIV/AIDS over the years. However, without facts to support your assertions, your comments can only be accepted as anecdotal.

What research - and if I may ask, in what treatment were you involved?

I think if you take a real, hard, honest look at anyone dying or dead from 'AIDS,' you would see they were damaged by, or have succumbed to either drug usage, malnutrition, AIDS drugs, or a combination of these - not HIV/AIDS - or their untimely passing was due to an already well-known disease, now classified as 'AIDS.'

Kindly read back through the posts in this thread and de-program yourself. There's no need to feel shame or guilt any longer. Instead, get angry, be appalled and speak out loudly that you were deceived by your government, the news media and the medical community at large.

peace

If you're referring to HIV, there are thousands of untold stories where the individual, upon taking another 'HIV test' years later, tested negative. This only proves further that the HIV = AIDS/Death propaganda is a bald-faced lie.

. Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

No, it just proves that there are false positives.

What research - and if I may ask, in what treatment were you involved? Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

...and the same may be said to you. Copying and pasting does not make you a researcher.

Like I said, you're so emphatic yet refuse to walk-your-talk. Show us your willing to get HIV to prove your case. Until then...stfu before impressionable minds go condom less due to your stupidity.

Yes, people are too stupid to think for themselves. Thank GOD we have Sa_artman to tell us what is true and what is not.

I am stunned that this thread has been allowed to remain open. It's author is not only presenting patently false and misleading information but his intent is clearly to "reprogram" or desensitize the users of this board to the dangers of one of the deadliest diseases ever to threaten the global community.

I do believe this board has a responsibility to protect its population against dangerous and mind-numbing propaganda. The threat and potential harm of even one individual reading this and becoming a doubter far outweighs the danger of one individual having his rights transgressed by the thread being censored.

I will reiterate my call once again to have this thread closed and removed. It has run it's course and ECCIE has been more than fair to allow the OP a voice. I believe it would be a responsible statement now to say, "we will no longer allow our forums to be used to disseminate dangerous and 100% false and illegitimate medical information." For it is indeed that. And you can take that to the bank.

PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE IN THE LABORATORY

CAN YOU REALLY TRUST HIV TESTING?
By Christine Johnson


"It was the most terrifying experience of my life. I just freaked out."

"When she found out, she went up to the roof of the hospital and jumped off."

"To me, the emotional impact was immeasurable; the fear was unmanageable."

Are these people talking about being diagnosed with AIDS? No, these are the reactions of healthy people without symptoms whose HIV test came back positive. The effects of getting a positive HIV test are so profound that no one should bear that kind of burden without knowing with absolute certainty that the test is a true and meaningful measure of the presence of HIV in the body. This statement introduces and states the purpose of a ground-breaking paper from Australia, "Is a Positive Western Blot Proof of HIV Infection?" published in the June issue of the Bio/Technology journal.

The authors, Drs. Papadopulos- Eleopulos, Turner, and Papadimitriou, demonstrate that even though we have been told that we can depend on the accuracy of these "AIDS tests," in fact we cannot. They discuss the tests and how they came to be accepted as virtually unquestioned proof that a person is infected with HIV. They also critique these tests on several different grounds: 1) the tests are not specific, 2) there is no standard way of interpreting them, and 3) the results are not reproducible.

In order for an antibody test to be scientifically valid, it must meet these three criteria, and these three in turn must be validated by an independant means, namely the "gold standard".

Read more: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/chjroulette.htm

.

Ok, I am not sure HIV causes AIDS, but I'm not going to believe it because the government says it's so. Government tends to lie to protect their contributors. However, until I am convinced otherwise, I'm going to practice as if HIV does cause AIDS.

To be honest, I don't avoid BB because of AIDS. I avoid it because of genital herpes. In fact, I tend to avoid FS for that reason, unless I have a pretty good relationship with the provider.

So, read and learn! The truth will not be harmed by opposing opinions, in fact, what we know is the truth will either be strengthened by opposing opinions, or exposed as not the truth. Both are good outcomes. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It's pretty much a given never to take the government's word for anything. But as for the validity of HIV/AIDS, who the hell can you believe? Besides trusting in ''symbols of authority,' what can we fall back on instead - what else can we rely upon?

- gut instinct
- life experience
- logic
- common sense

If the original truth (about HIV/AIDS) is a lie (the seed), then all subsequent data/proof (the fruit) will also be a lie. It's common logic; you can't get a peach from a thorn tree.

Science today is controlled by special interests and their influence over publication of data - it's all about perception - not unbiased facts - and this control over publication is especially relevant to the HIV/AIDS image.

Think of how you arrived at your conclusion that HIV = AIDS. You must have read about it somewhere, or watched a TV show - over and over again for years on end - you've been bombarded with the inescapable declaration that HIV = DEATH - and likely, queers fucking monkeys are responsible.

Yet when you reverse engineer all the rhetoric - to ask how does anyone get facts on HIV/AIDS - or better yet, where do physicians get their facts, it all leads back to control over publication in scientific journals - which are regarded as the gold standard by doctors, media reporters and on the bottom rung, the general public.

Here is the post which vividly illustrates this problem...
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?...60#post21300 60


Throughout this thread, I've posted a ton of evidence - which point to a plethora of lies, corruption, greed and malfeasance - that if digested with an open mind should cause the independent thinking man to suspect something is gravely wrong.

You must ask yourself, what do the following traits tell you?

- gut instinct
- life experience
- logic
- common sense

.

Joan Shenton

Joan Shenton, director of the London production company Meditel, has produced over 50 documentaries on health issues for UK network television, including 7 on AIDS. Shenton's programs have been made for the BBC, Channel 4, Thames TV, and Sky TV.

Go here to watch the 'The AIDS Catch' documentary.

The documentary about AZT medication can be watched here.

Shenton went to Africa. Here you can watch the 'AIDS and Africa' documentary.

Go here to watch a news report about the reliability of the AIDS tests.

She interviewed South African President Thabo Mbeki about AIDS. Watch the interview here. You can find her report about the first South African Presidential AIDS Panel meeting here.

Shenton is the author of the book 'Positively False; Exposing the myths around HIV and AIDS'.

Go here for more...

.

INTERVIEW: RODNEY RICHARDS
Why the "HIV Tests" Can’t Tell You Whether You Have HIV
By Mark Gabrish Conlan
Zenger’s Newsmagazine Oct. 2001



Rodney Richards, Ph.D., didn’t start out as an AIDS rebel when he began his career as an organic chemist in 1982. The company he started to work for that year -- then known as Applied Molecular Genetics and now called Amgen, the world’s largest biotech company -- originally had him work on synthesizing DNA. In 1984 Amgen started working on a joint venture with Abbott Laboratories, the first licensee of the ELISA [Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay] test for HIV antibodies from inventor Dr. Robert Gallo, in which Amgen would help Abbott develop new technologies for diagnostic tests. (Contrary to popular belief, as Dr. Richards explains below, ELISA and the other "HIV tests" are neither licensed nor marketed as diagnostic tests.) "That’s how I got started with the HIV/AIDS business," Dr. Richards recalled.

Dr. Richards’ view of AIDS went through a dramatic change in 1991. Amgen’s partnership with Abbott had ended, and he had been assigned to develop a competing technology to the so-called "viral load" test for HIV. As he explained, it was a company tradition at Amgen that before a new product was developed they would invite consultants on both sides -- those who felt the company shouldn’t do the product as well as those who felt it should. As one of the "devil’s advocates," so to speak, Dr. Richards invited UC Berkeley professor Peter Duesberg, Ph.D., to make a presentation on his view that HIV couldn’t cause AIDS and therefore a test purporting to measure HIV levels would be useless in fighting AIDS. He also invited Kary Mullis, Ph.D., who had won the Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR technology on which the "viral load" was developed, and who told his Amgen audience about his fruitless struggle to find a scientific reference actually establishing HIV as the cause of AIDS.

Though Dr. Richards was stunned that the other Ph.D.’s at the company actually boycotted Duesberg’s presentation, and the people who did come "went back to their bosses and were re-indoctrinated into the mainstream principles," he himself was inspired to study the issue further. The more he read, the more he decided that Duesberg and Mullis were right about HIV and AIDS, and all the mainstream sources were wrong. Because of his background, he has concentrated on debunking all the major HIV tests -- ELISA and Western Blot antibody tests, p24 antigen, PCR "viral load" and branch DNA [bDNA] -- and explaining how they can’t actually establish whether or not a person has an active HIV infection, much less how many viruses are supposedly "infecting" them.

The interview: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/mcinterviewrr.htm

.

Not sure what Mr. Bill's agenda is here, posting up this insane, dangerous advice. But, he's a fucking nut and ought to be shut down by the mods IMHO.

Celia Farber

Celia Farber has written on the issues and controversies surrounding HIV and AIDS for more than a decade. She is a regular contributor to Esquire, Spin, USA Today, and Gear, among other U.S. publications.

Go here for an interview with Farber.

Click here for a story about the HIV-AIDS controversy, and here for an article about the AIDS industry.

Farber wrote several articles about AZT, you will find them here, here, here and here.

Here is an article about 'cocktail' therapy, and here a more recent one about its failure.

Here is her article about HIV and breastfeeding, and here is an article about HIV positive pregnant women.

An article about the HIV-AIDS tests can be found here, another one here.

For the story of her journey to Africa go here and here. An article about the recent developments concerning HIV-AIDS in South Africa can be found here, another one here.

Go here for still more...

.

I am stunned that this thread has been allowed to remain open. It's author is not only presenting patently false and misleading information but his intent is clearly to "reprogram" or desensitize the users of this board to the dangers of one of the deadliest diseases ever to threaten the global community.

I do believe this board has a responsibility to protect its population against dangerous and mind-numbing propaganda. The threat and potential harm of even one individual reading this and becoming a doubter far outweighs the danger of one individual having his rights transgressed by the thread being censored.

I will reiterate my call once again to have this thread closed and removed. It has run it's course and ECCIE has been more than fair to allow the OP a voice. I believe it would be a responsible statement now to say, "we will no longer allow our forums to be used to disseminate dangerous and 100% false and illegitimate medical information." For it is indeed that. And you can take that to the bank. Originally Posted by JDNorthface

JD,

This thread should remain open, not closed.

This thread contained a lot of info I was unaware previously. I did have a skepticism about the nature of hiv/aids which sounded like a "magic virus" when it first came out. The big clincher was Magic Johnson, he was said to have HIV but was never afflicted with AIDS. He's something of a fly in the ointment as well as other people like him.

I didn't know this thing about Dr. Gallo, his fraudulent papers, nor what was going on in africa.

Dr. Gallo, who first came out with the claim on HIV/AIDS in the early 80's, was investigated by a number of agencies including the Secret Service. They determined that his claim was fraudulent. If that is the case, what does this say about the research that came from Gallo which was supported as fact by the "mainstream" scientists.

And finally, someone said that "viruses knows no borders". I don't know about you, but I find it strange that there are 3 different definitions of AIDS, the American version, the European version which is similar to the American version with some differences and finally the African version which is even more bizarre since no HIV test is required for diagnosis. Hows is it that AIDS is the exception to the rule when it (affects everyone the same way) governs many different types of virus like Gonorrhea, Syphilis, TB & etc.

And the fact that there a fair number of people who were identified as having HIV were given AZT medication which was a banned anti-cancer chemo-therapy drug in the 50's. Its a powerful poison, patients were getting sick and dying from it with no chance of recovery. They realized that they were getting sick because of the medication and got off it. Their return to health really pretty much says it.

HIV/AIDS has a lot of parallels with climate change/global warming. Money is probably a driving factor in both of them, only difference between them is the weather and viruses.

What bothers me the most is that these doctors are committing a form of malpractice by giving their patients AZT derivatives on the basis of their them having HIV without checking to see if they really need it or to see of other causes for their sickness. Basically, their position is, you got HIV, you need to take AZT derived drugs.

I think listening to the government over this is dangerous. Doesn't hurt to have an open mind on this. And it shouldn't be a closed issue, allow others to make up their own minds on this.

if you think Mr. Bill is so full of shit for posting this material, feel free to debunk this by posting proof of HIV/AIDS connection which Dr. Duesberg, and Dr. Mullis never found.