AIDS denialism

I wonder what people think about it. We could post here any information available to hopefully figure out the truth?
=======================================================
"AIDS denialism refers to the views of a loosely connected group of individuals and organizations who deny that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). HIV/AIDS denialists prefer the terms "rethinker" or "dissident". Some denialist groups reject the existence of HIV, while others accept that HIV exists but argue that it is a harmless passenger virus and not the cause of AIDS.
The causative role of HIV in the development of AIDS has been established by multiple lines of evidence as the subject of scientific consensus . Denialist arguments are considered to be the result of cherry-picking and misrepresentation of predominantly outdated scientific data, with the potential to endanger public health by dissuading people from using proven treatments. With the rejection of these arguments by the scientific community, AIDS denialist material is currently spread largely through the Internet. Public health researchers have raised alarm at the human cost of AIDS denialism; independent estimates attribute 330,000 to 340,000 AIDS deaths, 171,000 HIV infections and 35,000 infant HIV infections to the South African government's embrace of AIDS denialism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism

 

Deconstructing The Myth Of AIDS (Gary Null) (documentary)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3983706668483511310

 

Maybe the people who feel that way should have unprotected sex with people who have HIV, since it doesn't cause AIDS...

 

"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."

--Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology." ​

--Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sanger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, Munchen.

I believe that AIDS and HIV are two different things and completely unrelated. While I no doubt believe AIDS is very real and very deadly, there is no proof linking HIV to the AIDS virus. Many people believe that HIV is the precursor to AIDS, but what if it's the drugs they give people diagnosed with HIV that leads to a destruction of the person's immune system, creating symptoms that are nearly identical to AIDS? This may explain why many people diagnosed with HIV later die after receiving drug treatment with toxic antivirals like AZT, while those treated with diet and vitamins develop no AIDS-like symptoms.​

Food for thought.​

 

Is it some weird coincidence that people who have AIDS had HIV first? Or do we all have HIV?
Where do people get AIDS from?

 

More quotes:

Neither of the "HIV-antibody" tests -- the Elisa or the Western Blot -- has ever been properly validated, which means that no one knows what their results mean. The tests are chemical reactions to antigens, which are substances that provoke an immune response. Many dozens of conditions can produce a positive result on these tests, including drug abuse, flu vaccinations, past infection with malaria, pregnancy, and liver disease. Nevertheless, physicians still use these worthless tests, assume that positive results mean HIV infection, and give their patients doom-diagnoses of "HIV-positive" or "AIDS".

--'AIDS: A Death Cult' by John Lauritsen

"Another problem of the AIDS epidemiology is the following: By now about 30 afflictions all of which were known before, are being renamed to AIDS in the presence of a positive HIV-test. This also is not an increase of diseases of course --but just a redefinition. This circular definition HIV+/TB = AIDS and HIV-/TB = TB makes the correlation HIV-AIDS appear 100%. For example, a patient who suffers from TB and who is also HIV-positive is an AIDS patient today, and a woman who suffers from cervical carcinoma is an AIDS patient today, and a patient with a lymphoma is today not a lymphoma patient but also an AIDS patient if he has antibodies against HIV. "

--Claus Köhnlein(BSE/AIDS/Hepatitis C Infectious or Intoxication Diseases?)

If commerce laws were applied equally, the “knowing is beautiful” ads for HIV testing would have to bear a disclaimer, just like cigarettes: “Warning: This test will not tell you if you’re infected with a virus. It may confirm that you are pregnant or have used drugs or alcohol, or that you’ve been vaccinated; that you have a cold, liver disease, arthritis, or are stressed, poor, hungry or tired. Or that you’re African. It will not tell you if you’re going to live or die; in fact, we really don’t know what testing positive, or negative, means at all.”

--The Hidden Face of HIV – Part 1 By Liam Scheff

“It will surely lead to a scientifically healthier society if the burden of proof for HIV as a deadly pathogen is returned to where it belongs — to those who maintain that HIV causes AIDS — and others are allowed to pursue alternative approaches in the battle for eradication of the disease.”

-- Dr. Beverly E. Griffin, PhD, Director, Department of Virology, Royal Postgraduate Medical School, London (Nature, 20 April, 1989)

"Prior to October of 1997, I believed that HIV was the cause of AIDS based solely on the information that had been reported by the United States Center for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC) and the AIDS establishment. However, my view was unquestionably changed when I evaluated the medical evidence on the worldwide AIDS epidemic. My findings clearly show: 1) The HIV-hypothesis is not supported by any medical fact and AIDS is caused by agents and factors other than HIV. 2) The proponents of the HIV-hypothesis have long overlooked crucial and essential medical evidence that clearly describes the real causes of AIDS. 3) The results of clinical studies on AZT, protease inhibitors, and nevirapine indicate that these agents can cause severe systemic damage, AIDS, and death."

--Mohammed A. Al-Bayati

 

Kary Mullis immediately comes to mind.

 

Monkeys.

 

A government laboratory most likely. But yes, monkeys were involved. It was cultivated in monkeys. This was acknowledged in an interview with microbiologist Maurice Hilleman, where he is actually heard laughing about it.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=327_1195303011

 

“The public will believe anything, so long as it is not founded on truth.”
- Dame Edith Sitwell

"AIDS is gay."
- greenfox2368

 

Why is it wrong for people to post in a forum if they hold a certain belief, yet you are allowed to spam and post stuff like that?

If you have nothing substantive to say, why say anything at all?

It's pretty immature.

PS: The quotes I posted are from renowned scientists and doctors, not from some anonymous person on an internet message board, as you seem to be implying. So your attempts at smearing aren't going to work this time.

 

Just curious, Rat, do you or did you ever know anyone who has died from AIDS? Or is all of your information from the internet...

I've known 3 people who died from it, and one who lives with HIV. His drug cocktails have been keeping him alive for the past 15 or so years...my own uncle died from it in the 80's when there were no such drugs. The other 2 died in the few years are were my age. I don't know how long they waited to get help or anything...

 

Drugs r bad, m'kay?

 

béke

 

No, I don't know anyone who has ever had or died from AIDS personally, let alone anyone diagnosed with HIV. I have, however, heard the stories of many people who were diagnosed.

But since I don't consider myself to be an expert on this, I will refer you to the Gary Null video posted by the OP in the first response following the original post. The video features great interviews and testimony from doctors, scientists and people who have been diagnosed with HIV and reject the "official" pseudo-science behind the notion that HIV causes AIDS. One of the people interviewed is Dr. David Rasnick, Professor of Biology at the University of California at Berkely, who actually helped develop the drugs used to "treat" HIV and AIDS (before he learned the truth). It is a pretty straightforward video. The video is two hours long, but I guarantee that if you watch the first twenty minutes you will want to continue watching it until the end, as it is incredibly informative.

Here is the link once again:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3983706668483511310

 

What does the source matter as long as the information is credible, huh?

Why can't you realize that what I said isn't spam, they are my beliefs and you should have some respect for them.

This is my view on the AIDS denial bit:

AIDS is very real. For the people of Africa, it is all too real. It's all too real for Gene Giant companies like Chiron and Hofmann-La Roche too, who fought for years (16 to be exact) over gene sequences of HIV and Hep C pathogens.

The Human Genome Sciences have a patent on the CCR5 receptor.

Whoever can patent a DNA sequence, for any use, can lock up subsequent uses.

For this reason, a lot of this hogwash about HIV not being connected to AIDS is spinoff rumour philanthropy. You can't get AIDS without first having HIV. You can't even STUDY HIV without the permission of the patent holders and the development of generic anti-viral drugs has been hurrendously blocked by bureaucratic life sciences pharmaceutical companies who patent gene sequences and test methods to dominate a share of the market and control the medical industry.

That's kind of the greater conspiracy here. I'm suprised people have missed that.

 

So this is your opinion...

?????

 

Of course.

So, this is yours

???

 

Yes, that is what I said. Who is greenfox2368?

 

A spokesperson in my mind. Good guy though.