BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE DOCUMENTARY amount at stake - $40 billion in US aids research funding alone top scientists pointed out HIV is not the cause - this was suppressed by media, dismissed by govt, disputed by pharma lobby aids research failed not bcos it has not found the cure, but bcos it never found the cause 100000 aids research papers but still no proof that hiv -> aids 1981 - aids affected gays, iv drug, hemophiliac, tb, blood transfers. the US govt under pressure to find cure - changed "politically incorrect stance" that aids is behavioral (related to unsafe ***, drug use, unhygienic needles etc) and took the more popular stance that it is an "infectious epidemic" (caused by an unknown virus) dr gallo's earlier virus theories on cancer had proved a failure in helping patients - headapted his virus theory claim to fit the aids virus theory - suddenly the proposed cause of cancer became the cause of aids medical theories are usually announced at medical conferences where other scientists can dispute - the aids virus theory was announced at A PRESS CONFERENCE - april 23, 1984 while the conference was going on, a patent was filed for the hiv blood test - with hefty royalties going to gallo REASONS WHY HIV CANNOT CAUSE AIDS 1. when a virus attacks, human body develops antibodies to fight it. hiv - like all viruses - becomes harmless after human antibodies attack it. the hiv test checks for presence of antibodies, not the virus. (so if a person is hiv+ it actually means his body has already fought the virus.) 2. hiv does not kill the cells it infects 3. hiv does not infect large enough no. of cells to cause aids (equivalent of saying someone died from a shaving cut) 4. hiv has no special aids-causing gene & is genetically identical to other retroviruses - so why do other retroviruses not cause diseases? 5. there is no such thing as a slow virus or delayed reaction - hiv's generation time is 3 weeks but aids is alleged to happen even 10-12 years after hiv infection 6. hiv is not a *new* virus so it cannot cause a new epidemic suddenly - it is older than america itself 7. hiv fails fundamental test (koch's postulates) - virus must be found in all cases of the disease (10-20% have zero HIV, rest have v. low HIV count) - virus must cause disease when introduced into healthy body (hiv does NOT cause aids when injected into healthy body) 8. aids has remained contained in original risk groups for 20 years - not the behaviour of a viral infection also, US male/female hiv+ ratio is 50:50 but male/female aids ratio is 90:10 (interestingly male/female drug user ratio is 80:20) 9. international profile is not consistent (e.g. flu in india shd be same as flu in USA) - US male/female aids ratio is 90/10 but Africa male/female aids ratio is 50/50 - 97% of cases are in high-risk groups; there is no high-risk group in africa and infection is random - 62% microbial diseases in us; 90% in africa - 38% non-microbial in us; 10% in africa - there were 14 million hiv+ in africa when aids originated - so africa shd grow at 14 times greater than US; instead US aids cases grow 10-20 times greater than africa many aids cases were reported in africa mainly to get UN funding - if a person in africa has diarhhea it is ignored by the West, if the same person is said to have aids-related diarrhea, he gets UN funding 10. aids can happen without being hiv+ and many hiv+ people never develop aids - if hiv causes aids it shd cause similar diseases in all people but drug users with aids get TB, gays with aids dont get TB (they get kaposi's sarcoma) - in other words aids is caused by behavior and not by a virus - if a drug user had TB but was hiv-, he was given medicines for TB. but if a drug user had TB and was hiv+, he was given medicines for aids (e.g. birds sit on powerlines but that does not mean birds cause power failures) the "medicine" of course was AZT, a poison whose side effects, even the manufacturers admitted was "aids-like symptoms". the tragedy of this is that healthy people including pregnant mothers who are tested hiv+ are pressurised to take AZT to "prevent" aids, and end up dead HIV+ africans who are healthy and do not have aids - 97% HIV+ people worldwide who are healthy and do not have aids - 95% (WHO Report 1996)
- being hiv+ means nothing - aids is real but the cause is behavioural not viral, the current diagnosis (checking for antibodies) is meaningless - medicines shd be given for the diagnosed condition e.g. HIV+ patient with TB symptoms shd be given medicines for TB, not AZT for an imaginary killer virus
aids exists but it is (most likely) caused by self destructive behaviour patterns (e.g. consumption of immuno suppressant aphrodisiacs, and of course the well know IV drug use, unsafe *** etc) that bring foreign proteins into the blood stream - aids is not a viral infection caused by HI virus
Okay. What you're saying does not sound very far-fetched. Since my internet is too slow to look at the links you've provided, can you tell me if this theory has any weight with the powers that be? Is it being considered a possibility, is it very new or has it been debunked?
You say many people have HIV but not neccessarily AIDS, where does the virus come from? Or is it like any other virus, which one may 'just catch'. Also, the part where it says that HIV does not cause AIDS when injected into a healthy body.. Is it even legal to try that :S I'm asking 'coz I'm curious.
the answer is in the first line of the movie - there is $40 billion at stake. today the figure is $100+ billion of american taxpayers money - it is unlikely that the powers-that-be will want to give up their slice of the pie very easily the latest news is here https://www.rethinkingaids.com/
THe way you say it, it looks like there's no such thing as AIDS. Drug users seem prone to get TB and homosexuals seem prone to that other thing u mentioned. So, no AIDS?
no no what happens is their immune system is damaged by their behaviour (consumption of inhalants/antibiotics by gays, hard drugs etc) - then their body is unable to fight any disease at all - then the body is ravaged by one disease after another - tho there is a relation between the kind of disease they actually get and the particular behaviour pattern e.g. TB in IV drug users, sarcoma in gays etc.
it is like any other virus of its kind (retroviruses) there are apparently 100s of em n they've been around for ages... they tested by injecting hiv into chimpanzees interestingly they also injected the "medicine" into a group of hiv+ volunteers and a dummy vaccine into another hiv+ group ... the group taking medicine started deteriorating fast, while the dummy group were stable.... then the powers-that-be quickly got into the act, injected the dummy users also with the "medicine" - in effect the whole experiment was made worthless
I have not being following this discussion, but hey, why would anyone pop Antibiotics like some Vit C pills? As far as I remmeber, antibiotics are not the same as hormones + they dont give a high. Besides, all you get after having antibiotics is an upset stomach. BTW even I am skeptic about these so called 3rd World epidemic diseases like AIDS / Hepatitis and what not. Interestingly, it seems only Africa and Asia is targeted by such diseases.
Oh I just moved back one page. And what Zing has posted is a quite accepted fact taht HIV and AIDS do not have one to one correlation. Being HIV+ does not imply that you are gonna get AIDS. All the docs and medicine literature will claim is that your probability of getting AIDS withing 10 years increases. Now what the phuck is htat supposed to mean? Are we that clueless, that we cannot even say with conviction that YOU HAVE HIV, YOU HAVE AIDS! Now what I need to know is that is there any documented "fact" that whenver there has been an occurence of AIDS, the same person was also found to be carrier of HIV.
Whenever someone is tested positive for HIV, he's pressurized to take AZT which in turn kills him labelling HIV as the culprit. But one thing I don't understand is if AZT is causing the death and not AIDS then why don't doctors ponder over this?
No, I don't think that has been said (or has it?). From what I can make out of the discussion, AIDS does exist and cause death. AZT also causes death. However, they are two seperate entities not related to each other in any way.
^What I meant was - In cases where he mentioned that the "Medicine" is killing the HIV+ patients, Do the doctors label it as "He died of AIDS"? or what?
If all this is true, then I don't really get what AIDS is :S So, people catch some diseases coz of unhealthy habits, what's so AIDSy about that. Also, what's with the "consumption of antibiotics by gays"? If you said they are in the high-risk category coz of multiple partners & unsafe sex, that'd make more sense
If I try to concord with his views, what's AIDSy is that people take up drugs n stuff and that destroys the immune system of the Human body. OK. One may now ask why doesn't the human body generate antibodies for these drugs/antibiotics or whatever?
But according to him, depending on which high-risk category they belong to, they catch certain diseases, but not others. Or did I get him wrong?
