The Great HIV/AIDS Hoax

Discussion in 'The ChitChat Lounge' started by zing, Aug 4, 2007.

  1. alpha1

    alpha1 I BLUES!

    Does anyone here knows the history of discovery of AIDS?
     
  2. bjr

    bjr Lady of the Evening

    Not really....except that it originally comes from (rhesus?) monkeys. I'm really not sure about my facts though and slow internet does not let me research.
     
  3. zing

    zing Machine Head

    on the contrary 95% of HIV+ people never get AIDS (WHO Report)

    to prevent/cure infections resulting from unsafe *** - however in large doses antibiotics suppress the immune system

    AZT is the medication given to AIDS patients

    the side effects of AZT are vastly suppressed / debunked by media - to make things more confusing, the side effects of AZT are very much like the symptoms of AIDS - so when a patients starts dying, the doctors say "what do u expect? he's got aids right?" - how many doctors have the expertise in retrovirology to even understand, much less challenge, a hyped "wonder cure" for a disease about which so little is known?

    dont expect politicians/corporates/media to shut down a $100 billion industry

    yes!

    whats AIDSy is that they would not have caught those diseases if their immune system had not been destroyed

    couldn't understand whats the confusion...can u clarify?

    watch the movie :))
    video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9070469211931216625

    rhesus monkeys were around since ages... why didnt our ancestors have AIDS?

    far more likely is that AIDS is caused by use of hard drugs/antibiotics/inhalants n such chemicals... but this is unproven bcos all researchers (well funded by the political/corporate/media triad) are busy barking up the HIV virus' ass!!

    more here ... [text-only link so u shd be able to view w/o problem :)]
    https://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/kmreason.htm
     
  4. bjr

    bjr Lady of the Evening

    hurray for domination.

    This should explain the crux a little:


    Another interesting point:

    And one last thing:


    <3 to you, zing.
     
  5. elfascinating

    elfascinating risqué

    I'm still skeptical but a good discussion nonetheless.
     
  6. CrYpTiC_angel

    CrYpTiC_angel Rebelle!

    WHat I meant to say was, they catch certain diseases coz of certain things they do. Isn't that the case with all the diseases? You get sick coz ur immune system cant fight it off.

    Like you said, TB patients without HIV are treated for TB whereas the ones with HIV are treated for AIDS. So, if HIV does nothing, that's just TB, isn't it? What's AIDS got to do with it. Is it the same for the other diesases (say, in homosexuals or drug addicts)?

    It'd help if you'd gimme your definition of AIDS. That'd clear this up.
     
  7. zing

    zing Machine Head

    aids is a set of 30 or so diseases -- specific high risk groups get affected with one or more of these diseases due to a breakdown in their immune system

    so a "normal" TB patient gets sick bcos of e.g. smoking/pollution etc but an AIDS TB patient get sick bcos his immune system has been damaged by some chemicals (maybe drugs/antibiotics whatever)

    HIV has NOTHING to do with AIDS -- so testing AIDS patients for HIV is like relating the color of a vehicle with the chance of having an accident -- skeptics may wonder why would the so-called vested interests ignore this?

    bcos if u look at the real (possible) causes, then the cure/prevention is simple -- dont take hard IV drugs, dont practise unsafe ***, dont be unhygienic, improve living conditions in africa -- lives might get saved BUT NOBODY MAKES ANY MONEY

    on the other hand, if u say AIDS is caused by a virus, no matter how far-fetched the claim, it suddenly becomes a $100 billion business opportunity -- nobody's gonna fight against a "wonder cure" coming from a "reputed organisation" supported by leading media and govt -- the public dont have the knowledge to argue, the aids patients will clutch at any straw (except changing their self-destructive lifestyle), dissenting voices will be cut down (duesbergs funding was abruptly cut) -- and hey presto! a lot of people become billionaires overnight...
     
  8. elfascinating

    elfascinating risqué

    How would you justify the spreading of AIDS through Unsafe ***?
     
  9. CrYpTiC_angel

    CrYpTiC_angel Rebelle!

    OK, that seems to make sense.

    @elf Zing said something about foreign proteins entering the body, earlier. Maybe that's how, although I don't know much about this sort of thing, so I can't really agree/disagree with it.
     
  10. zing

    zing Machine Head

    unsafe *** can cause foreign proteins to enter the blood stream which leads to infection -- many gays take strong antibiotics to cure the infection -- the side effect is that their immune system breaks down leading to extreme STD (***ually transmitted diseases)

    in todays common scenario,
    if such a person is HIV- then he will be treated for STD and may get cured
    if he is HIV+ he will be given AZT etc which seals his fate
     
  11. alpha1

    alpha1 I BLUES!

    PS: I would like to add here that though unsafe s3x passes HIV is an accepted fact, no medical literature says that unsafe s3x "passes" AIDS.

    Anyway this thread just reinforces my skepticism on HIV-AIDS link and in general the economics of pharamceutical industry.
     
  12. alpha1

    alpha1 I BLUES!

    PS: the more I read about AIDS on internet, the more I realize that:

    1. The researchers (most probably the docs) have had little or no training on how to conduct exhaustive experiments and how to deduct unbiased conclusions

    2. The researchers evidently fall short of logic IQ, such that they are unable to see the ambiguity in all AIDS related cases.



    PS: Infact the conclusion that HIV causes AIDS appears to me no different from those that you come across everyday, some as stupid as smelling coffee beans results in primarily female offsprings etc.
    It might be a true case, but the way study is done, it is childish, and hence the conclusion drawn - equally ridiculous.
     
  13. bjr

    bjr Lady of the Evening

    I think you are underestimating researchers here.
     
  14. alpha1

    alpha1 I BLUES!

    Or that I am (quite often) coming across stuff by ppl belonging to anti-HIV/AIDS nexus
     
  15. bjr

    bjr Lady of the Evening

    Think about it...it's like a red pill/blue pill situation. I've often said that given a choice, I'd rather not know and live a blissful yet meaningless existence rather than know and suffer.

    Now that you have been handed this information, can you honestly say that, once you're diagnosed with HIV, you will refuse the doctor's prescription (assuming that doctors are bound to heed to norms)? Would you take a chance and hope to live or take a chance and hope to live (considering that the currently accepted theory has not been refuted by professionals)?

    Also, could you make this same choice for someone else?

    NOTE: I'm not saying that this particular bit of information did not interest me but it does throw me into a dillemma.
     
  16. zing

    zing Machine Head

    the documentary had interviews with people who faced the same dilemma, refused to take the medication inspite of pressure to do so, and got well - so there can be a happy ending i guess
     
  17. bjr

    bjr Lady of the Evening

    Honestly, I don't believe too many people will be open minded enough to be able to try that. Personally, I'm not going to cross this bridge just yet.
     
  18. zing

    zing Machine Head

    anybody notice a glut of HIV "awareness" ads all over the place?
     
  19. CrYpTiC_angel

    CrYpTiC_angel Rebelle!

    What, we're still talking about this?
     
  20. zing

    zing Machine Head

    is that a yes?
     

Share This Page