Apparently, HIV Doesn't Cause AIDS

Evidently HIV cause some crazy muther fuc'er to post shit on the internet denying its existance!





Originally Posted by WTF

LOL and don't forget those were paper planes we saw hit the WTC. uggh Must have been some kind of Star Trek warp hole stuff from aliens .

…”

This article deals with pharmaceutical abuse in a children’s home in NYC.

More: http://www.altheal.org/toxicity/house.htm

.

Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

that is gross!

THE DRUG-AIDS HYPOTHESIS

The war on the new AIDS epidemic has been a complete failure in terms of public health benefits: 50,000 to 75,000 Americans develop AIDS per year and over $8 billion are spent annually on AIDS research and treatment by the US taxpayer alone, but there is no vaccine, and no effective drug, and not one AIDS patient has been cured.

It is proposed here that this failure is the responsibility of the hypothesis that AIDS is caused by a virus named HIV. This hypothesis has monopolized AIDS research and treatment since 1984, but it neither explains nor predicts numerous AIDS facts, nor has it produced any public health benefits.

In order to solve AIDS we propose here the drug-AIDS hypothesis. The drug hypothesis holds that all American AIDS diseases that exceed their normal low background are caused by the long-term consumption of recreational drugs, anti-HIV/AIDS drugs or both.

This hypothesis is based on the only new health risk to emerge during the past 25 years in America and Europe: the drug epidemic. In America the consumers of recreational drugs such as cocaine, amphetamines, nitrite inhalants, and heroin soared from negligible numbers in the 1970s to currently 20 millions, or 8% of the population.

In addition, over 200,000 HIV-positives take since 1987 daily prescriptions of inevitably toxic DNA chain-terminators such as AZT and simultaneously consume many other orthodox and unorthodox, toxic anti-HIV/AIDS medications.

All AIDS facts confirm the drug hypothesis:

1) AIDS is new because the drug epidemic is;

2) over 95% of American AIDS patients are long-term users of recreational and anti-viral drugs, because drugs cause AIDS;

3) 9 out of 10 AIDS cases are males because they consume 90% of the drugs;

4) the age distributions of diseases and deaths from drugs and AIDS are both 25 to 54 years because drugs cause AIDS;

5) babies develop AIDS from sharing intravenous drugs with their mothers during pregnancy;

6) Kaposi's sarcoma as an AIDS disease is restricted to male homosexuals because they use carcinogenic nitrite inhalants as sexual stimulants almost exclusively (98%);

7) termination of drug use has prevented and has even cured pediatric, male homosexual and intravenous drug-AIDS cases.

According to the drug-AIDS hypothesis AIDS is preventable by banning anti-HIV/AIDS drugs and by advertising the medical consequences of recreational drugs. Such a program could be as successful as the campaign that has reduced smoking 40% by advertising the medical consequences of tobacco use.

The drug-AIDS hypothesis could save 50,000 to 75,000 lives per year, $8 billion that are annually spent unproductively on AIDS research and therapy based on the virus hypothesis, and much of the $15 billion that is annually spent on supply control in the failed War on Drugs by lowering demand with advertisements that drugs cause AIDS.

The solution to AIDS and the drug epidemic is as close as a very affordable and testable, independent AIDS hypothesis.



Be bold in formulating hypotheses and humble in the presence of facts.

You are a sociopathic coward - the type of social reject who defaces property in the dead of night - and who harasses others for pure deviant enjoyment.

. Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

Hmmm . . . Sa_fartman. I guess this proves Bill isn't wrong all the time.

Deconstructing The Myth Of AIDS



In 1984 we were told that HIV was the cause of AIDS. In his provocative documentary film, “Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS,” Gary Null, Ph.D., challenges virtually every statement ever made by the American medical industrial complex on the virus - including those of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institute for Health (NIH) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

While presenting the findings of Nobel Prize-winning scientists and leading virologists, the film exposes the political maneuvering, conspiracies and cover-ups that have provided obstacles to the study of this human catastrophe from the start.

While presenting the findings of Nobel Prize-winning scientists and leading virologists, the film exposes the political maneuvering, conspiracies and cover-ups that have provided obstacles to the study of this human catastrophe from the start.

For example, there are experts who believe that AIDS is the result of multiple factors, including drug use, stress and nutritional deficiency, but that government agencies made a politically strategic decision to de-emphasize these hypotheses and thus discourage certain researchers and their funding.

Meanwhile, AZT, an infamously failed treatment for cancer, and now the primary FDA-approved approach to treating AIDS, is highly toxic and can produce the very symptoms of the illness it is prescribed to treat.

“Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS” goes beyond medicine and science to question the very foundation of our reliance on government bureaucracies where it concerns matters of life and death.


.

AIDS Inc.




AIDS, Inc. is a film about the multi-billion dollar AIDS industry, and how it profits from continuing fears and misconceptions about the disease. While AIDS grabs the headlines and raises billions of dollars with celebrity endorsements and billionaire endowments, we are no closer to finding a cure than when the scourge first appeared 30 years ago.

Could it be that after so many years of research, and so much money being spent, that the entire orthodox medical establishment has been wrong about AIDS, or even worse, has sought to profit on a system that it knew was flawed from the beginning? Doctor Robert Gallo who discovered the HIV virus said that there is no legitimate dissent when it comes to AIDS.

But there are more than 5,000 physicians, microbiologists, journalists and activists who disagree and say that we have been misled about the real causes of AIDS and the nature of its treatment. The mainstream media has chosen not to provide an outlet for their opinions.

In this important film, documentary filmmaker and health expert Gary Null, traveled to more than 30 countries over an eight year period to seek them out and get their interviews. This is the first film on AIDS that brings the most compelling of their arguments together in one place. Dr. Null blows the lid off the wealthy AIDS industry and shows how greed and corruption have prevented any real progress in fighting the epidemic or its underlying causes.

The film challenges the entrenched notion that AIDS or HIV is an African monkey virus that is spread sexually and can be “treated” with harmful drugs. Instead, the film considers the common underlying conditions of the epidemic, such as malnutrition, unclean water, poverty, illness, and poor lifestyle choices.

The evidence is damning, and a clarion call to the public that the AIDS Industrial Complex is on the wrong track and has become a spending juggernaut completely out of control.



.

Antiretroviral drugs used in the treatment of HIV infection

Drugs Used in the Treatment of HIV Infection

Click on drug brand name for additional information.

Multi-class Combination Products

Brand Name Generic Name Manufacturer Name Approval Date Time to Approval Atripla efavirenz, emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate Bristol-Myers Squibb and Gilead Sciences 12-July-06 2.5 months Complera emtricitabine, rilpivirine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate Gilead Sciences 10-August-11 6 months Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors (NRTIs)

Brand Name Generic Name Manufacturer Name Approval Date Time to Approval Combivir lamivudine and zidovudine GlaxoSmithKline 27-Sep-97 3.9 months Emtriva emtricitabine, FTC Gilead Sciences 02-Jul-03 10 months Epivir lamivudine, 3TC GlaxoSmithKline 17-Nov-95 4.4 months Epzicom abacavir and lamivudine GlaxoSmithKline 02-Aug-04 10 months Hivid zalcitabine, dideoxycytidine, ddC (no longer marketed) Hoffmann-La Roche 19-Jun-92 7.6 months Retrovir zidovudine, azidothymidine, AZT, ZDV GlaxoSmithKline 19-Mar-87 3.5 months Trizivir abacavir, zidovudine, and lamivudine GlaxoSmithKline 14-Nov-00 10.9 months Truvada tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine Gilead Sciences, Inc. 02-Aug-04 5 months Videx EC enteric coated didanosine, ddI EC Bristol Myers-Squibb 31-Oct-00 9 months Videx didanosine, dideoxyinosine, ddI Bristol Myers-Squibb 9-Oct-91 6 months Viread tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, TDF Gilead 26-Oct-01 5.9 months Zerit stavudine, d4T Bristol Myers-Squibb 24-Jun-94 5.9 months Ziagen abacavir sulfate, ABC GlaxoSmithKline 17-Dec-98 5.8 months Nonnucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors (NNRTIs)

Brand Name Generic Name Manufacturer Name Approval Date Time to Approval Edurant rilpivirine Tibotec Therapeutics 20-May-11 10 months
Intelence etravirine Tibotec Therapeutics 18-Jan-08 6 months
Rescriptor delavirdine, DLV Pfizer 4-Apr-97 8.7 months Sustiva efavirenz, EFV Bristol Myers-Squibb 17-Sep-98 3.2 months Viramune
(Immediate Release) nevirapine, NVP Boehringer Ingelheim 21-Jun-96 3.9 months Viramune XR (Extended Release) nevirapine, NVP
Boehringer Ingelheim 25-Mar-11 9.9 months Protease Inhibitors (PIs)

Brand Name Generic Name Manufacturer Name Approval Date Time to Approval Agenerase amprenavir, APV GlaxoSmithKline 15-Apr-99 6 months Aptivus tipranavir, TPV Boehringer Ingelheim 22-Jun-05 6 months Crixivan indinavir, IDV, Merck 13-Mar-96 1.4 months Fortovase saquinavir (no longer marketed) Hoffmann-La Roche 7-Nov-97 5.9 months Invirase saquinavir mesylate, SQV Hoffmann-La Roche 6-Dec-95 3.2 months Kaletra lopinavir and ritonavir, LPV/RTV Abbott Laboratories 15-Sep-00 3.5 months Lexiva Fosamprenavir Calcium, FOS-APV GlaxoSmithKline 20-Oct-03 10 months Norvir ritonavir, RTV Abbott Laboratories 1-Mar-96 2.3 months Prezista darunavir Tibotec, Inc. 23-Jun-06 6 months Reyataz atazanavir sulfate, ATV Bristol-Myers Squibb 20-Jun-03 6 months Viracept nelfinavir mesylate, NFV Agouron Pharmaceuticals 14-Mar-97 2.6 months Fusion Inhibitors

Brand Name Generic Name Manufacturer Name Approval Date Time to Approval Fuzeon enfuvirtide, T-20 Hoffmann-La Roche & Trimeris 13-Mar-03 6 months Entry Inhibitors - CCR5 co-receptor antagonist

Brand Name Generic Name Manufacturer Name Approval Date Time to Approval Selzentry maraviroc Pfizer 06-August-07 8 months HIV integrase strand transfer inhibitors

Brand Name Generic Name Manufacturer Name Approval Date Time to Approval Isentress raltegravir Merck & Co., Inc. 12--Oct-07 6 months
Approved and Tentatively Approved Antiretrovirals in Association with the President's Emergency Plan (PEPFAR)

-

Hmmm . . . Sa_fartman. I guess this proves Bill isn't wrong all the time.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Oh shit...did you make a joke? ...but yes, there is some deviant enjoyment in harassing whack jobs like you and Mr. Bill. You who believes the government has wire tapped your brain and this idiot who believes 9/11 was a joke and HIV is a conspiracy.

Thank you Mr Bill (or mods) for removing those images of grossly damaged babies. I was deeply offended, and if they did not violate the ECCIE policy on images, then that policy needs changing. The images will remain with me unfortunately for a long time.

A little surprised after that that Mr Bill was not banned, but maybe the thoguht is that given enough rope he wil hang himself. I think he has already done that 8 times.

THE AIDS BLUNDER

By David Rasnick, PhD



The contagious, HIV hypothesis of AIDS is the biggest scientific, medical blunder of the 20th Century. The evidence is overwhelming that AIDS is not contagious, sexually transmitted, or caused by HIV. I have come to realize that embarrassment is the main obstacle to exposing this simple fact.

So why are we barraged, almost daily, by an endless litany of AIDS horrors and HIV statistics? Why do virtually all doctors and public health officials profess their unswerving allegiance to the unproven hypothesis that AIDS is contagious and sexually transmitted when the evidence is greatly against it?

There are more than 100 thousand doctors and scientists who have built their careers and reputations by simply accepting the articles of faith about AIDS. At this late date, it is simple human embarrassment that is the biggest obstacle to bringing the AIDS insanity to an end. It is the fear of being so obviously and hopelessly wrong about AIDS that keeps lips sealed, the money flowing and AIDS rhetoric spiraling to stratospheric heights of absurdity.

The physicians who know or suspect the truth are embarrassed or afraid to admit that the HIV tests are absurd and should be outlawed, and that the anti-HIV drugs are injuring and killing people. We are taught to fear antibodies, and to believe that antibodies to HIV are a harbinger of disease and death ten years in the future. When you protest this absurdity and point out to health care workers that antibodies are the very essence of anti-viral immunity your objections are met with either contempt or embarrassed silence.

The National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the Medical Research Council of South Africa, and the World Health Organization are terrorizing hundreds of millions of people around the world by their reckless and absurd policy of equating sex with death. Self preservation compels these institutions to not only maintain but to actually compound their errors, which adds to the fear, suffering, and misery of the world-the antithesis of their reason for being.

The only way we can free ourselves from the AIDS blunder and bring an end to the tyranny of fear is to have an open international discourse and debate on all things AIDS. Anger will be a natural response to facing the enormity of the scandal of AIDS. Anger has its place but it should be put aside quickly. It is a mistake to focus on villains and on whom to punish. The AIDS blunder is a sociological phenomenon in which we all share a measure of responsibility.

Ultimately, the AIDS blunder is not really about AIDS, nor even about health and disease, nor even about science and medicine. The AIDS blunder is about the health of our democracies. A healthy democracy demands that its citizens keep a skeptical, even suspicious, eye on its institutions in order to prevent them from becoming the autonomous, authoritarian regimes they are now.

The AIDS blunder shows that we need to rethink and restructure our institutions of government, science, health, academe, journalism and media. We must replace the National Institutes of Health as the primary gatekeeper of research funding with numerous competing sources of funding. We must restructure the peer review processes of scientific publishing and funding so that they do not promote and protect any particular dogma or fashion of thought or exclude competing ideas. A robust and mean investigative journalism must be revived, rewarded and cherished.

Finally, as citizens we must take back the authority and responsibility for our own health and well being and that of our democracies.

.

Thank you Mr Bill (or mods) for removing those images of grossly damaged babies. I was deeply offended, and if they did not violate the ECCIE policy on images, then that policy needs changing. The images will remain with me unfortunately for a long time.

A little surprised after that that Mr Bill was not banned, but maybe the thoguht is that given enough rope he wil hang himself. I think he has already done that 8 times. Originally Posted by essence

As am I.

David Rasnick - how to lie with Powerpoint
HERE'S A QUICKY, from Highly Competent, Even Distinguished Scientist and Scholar David Rasnick’s execrable little lecture on antiretroviral drugs - the one he gave at last year's HIV/AIDS denialists' conference RA 09, and which Celia Farber later posted on youtube so he can mislead and misinform the general web-surfing public.


It begins with him rehearsing many of the usual denialist canards such as the "skull and crossbones label on laboratory AZT" (that's Canard #016 for AIDS Denialist Bingo players) but this malodorous little nugget is toward the end of the video, starting at 4.30.


Highly Competent, Even Distinguished Scientist
and Scholar David Rasnick.

He tells us:

"Aids peaked in the USA years before the availability of so-called Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy became available. This is the Centers for Disease Control data:"

At this stage, Rasnick points to one of his Powerpoint slides, which is unfortunately - or perhaps fortunately - not visible on the video. But as luck would have it, some kind soul slipped a copy into Snout's kennel. Here it is.


t


"You can see that AIDS peaked around 1992 - the years are down here - years before as I said the appearance of HAART - which is shortened to ARV these days, for antiretroviral drugs."

Well, yes the estimated annual incidence of new AIDS diagnoses did, in fact peak in the years 1992 and 1993 at around 76,000 and 75,000 respectively. This is most likely due to a peak in incident HIV infections a little under a decade earlier. However, the US AIDS prevalence has yet to peak: it’s currently over half a million.

"The important thing to notice here is that there was a natural decline in AIDS and AIDS deaths prior to the appearance of these antiretroviral drugs – these combination drugs."

Here’s where Rasnick stuffs it up completely. First of all, he has not read the y-axis scale correctly. The peak in AIDS deaths is the data point representing the 12 month period to the end of 1995. The next data point is for the year ending December 31 1996, the next for the year ending 1997, etc. Death numbers began to fall in 1996, with the first decline being noted in the first six months of 1996, in comparison to the first six months of 1995.

They fell even further during 1997, and a little more during 1998 before more or less leveling out at around 16,000 to 18,000 per year, despite the rapidly rising prevalence of AIDS.

"But even more – uh sinister I guess – is notice that within months of the appearance of these therapies, the natural decline in AIDS and AIDS deaths stopped abruptly. This is exactly the opposite of what you would expect if these drugs were actually uh promoting health and reducing mortality."

Rasnick places the “appearance of HAART” in “late 1996”. In fact the first protease inhibitor saquinavir was licensed by the FDA in December 1995, and the second, ritonavir, less than three months later on 1st March 1996, and both drugs had limited availability pre-approval. Bizarrely, he places the line on the graph representing the licensing of the first protease inhibitors just before the data point representing deaths to year end 1997.

"And in fact the CDC’s own data makes a strong case for the fact that the antiretroviral drugs are very dangerous things and causing AIDS and killing people."

Fail, David. In fact, the CDC’s own data shows the opposite. The first recorded decline in AIDS deaths occurs in the period immediately following the licensing of the protease inhibitors that made the first HAART combinations possible, and deaths continue to decline markedly with the rollout over
the following two to three years. Even after that, when total death numbers remain fairly stable, they are occurring in an ever increasing population of PLWAs: the risk of death per person is actually continuing to fall.

Oh well, perhaps it's time for David to give up his lecturing career, and return to his true calling as boom operator and gopher for House of Numbers director Brent Leung.

David Rasnick fails to declare conflict of interests
31 July 2009


David Rasnick is a co-author with Peter Duesberg and others of an article in Medical Hypothesis which claims that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. The abstract of the article states, "we call into question the claim that HIV antibody-positives would benefit from anti-HIV drugs, because these drugs are inevitably toxic and because there is as yet no proof that HIV causes AIDS." [1]

We note an undeclared conflict of interests in this article by David Rasnick. Rasnick was a researcher for a company called the Rath Health Health Foundation Africa. This organisation promoted and distributed (and in terms of South African law, sold) micronutrient products as alternatives to antiretroviral treatment in South Africa. It also conducted an unauthorised clinical trial using these products as alternatives to antiretrovirals on people with HIV. The company never published the results of this trial in a peer-reviewed medical journal, but instead published adverts purporting to report the trial's results, a practice that is considered unethical in medical research. Rasnick is described in these adverts as one of the researchers on the trial.

A case was brought by the Treatment Action Campaign and South African Medical Association against the company's owner, Matthias Rath, the Rath Health Foundation Africa, Rasnick and others in the Cape High Court in which the court was requested to interdict the unauthorised trial from continuing. The court found in favour of the plaintiffs and ruled that the defendants, including Rasnick, had indeed conducted an unauthorised clinical trial. [2] Several deaths occurred on the trial which have been documented by the TAC and others. [3] This is not the first time Rasnick has been involved in academic misconduct. He has previously misrepresented his affiliation with the University of California Berkley. [4]

The Nuremberg code was established partly in response to Nazi experimentation on human subjects during World War II. It establishes the minimum standards experiments involving humans should adhere to. It states:

...

2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur ... [5]

The unauthorised trial in which Rasnick was involved breaches nearly every clause of the Nurember code, particularly those above. Proper informed consent from the trial participants was also not obtained. There can be few crimes by a medical researchers as heinous as running an unauthorised experiment on human beings. While the court ruling in South Africa was a civil one, there can be little doubt that Rasnick is guilty of a grievous crime for which he should be prosecuted.

References:
1. Duesberg, P.H., Nicholson, J.M., Rasnick, D., Fiala, C. & Bauer, H.H. HIV-AIDS hypothesis out of touch with South African AIDS - A new perspective. Med. Hypotheses (2009). doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2009.06.024 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19619953

2. Zondi J. Judgment in TAC and Others v. Matthias Rath and Others. 2008. http://www.tac.org.za/community/file...ntJudgment.pdf
3. TAC. Analysis of deaths on Matthias Rath illegal clinical trial. 2005. http://www.tac.org.za/Documents/ns02_11_2005.htm
4. TAC. The Citizen's publicity for AIDS denialists is irresponsible. 2006. http://www.tac.org.za/community/node/2214
5. Nuremberg Code. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Vol. 2, pp. 181-182.. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949.

See the helpless children used for testing AIDS chemicals - tortured and killed.


.

From The BBC - 'Guinea Pig Kids'
The House That AIDS Built





In New York's Washington Heights is a 4-story brick building called Incarnation Children's Center (ICC). This former convent houses a revolving stable of children who've been removed from their own homes by the Agency for Child Services. These children were poor. Many of their mothers had a history of drug abuse and have died.

Once taken into ICC, the children become subjects of drug trials sponsored by NIAID (National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease, a division of the NIH), NICHD (the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) in conjunction with some of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies - GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Genentech, Chiron/Biocine, others.

The drugs given to the children were toxic - known to cause genetic mutation, organ failure, bone marrow death, bodily deformations, brain damage and fatal skin disorders. If the children refused the drugs, they were held down and force fed drugs. If the children continued to resist, they were taken to Columbia Presbyterian hospital where a surgeon put a plastic tube through their abdominal wall into their stomachs. The drugs were injected directly into their intestines.

This story received coverage in the New York Post + the New York Press. It served as the basis of investigation for the BBC film "Guinea Pig Kids" and prompted further investigation by the Associated Press.



.