A former AIDS patient speaks out on TV, Atheatos Kosmos

What a bunch of bullshit

There's no bulshit. What she and many people, doctors and scientists have been saying all along is that "AIDS" is not caused by the alleged "HIV" virus. "AIDS" is a syndrome, an ever expanding collection of different but old diseases lumped together and reclassified "AIDS" when a doctor presumes that the patient has "HIV". "AIDS' is multifactorial. "HIV", if it exists, has no T cell killing mechanism, but the "HIV tests" kill many people pychologically and if that doesn't kill them the meds usually will.

If you think AIDS meds save lives think again. The doses have been reduced alright, by over 5 times and the majority of those these days who begin taking them are healthy people. Dr David Rasnick (www.DavidRasnic.com) challenges anyone to provide a peer-reviewed published study showing that a group of patients on the drugs live longer or better lives than another group not on them.

Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance - Einstein

This is the global warming "debate" all over again. There's a broad and long-standing scientific consensus, but since there are financial interests involved and some dude has an isolated piece of evidence , it's GOT to be a conspiracy..

There is no conspiracy Martin. At least no sign as far as my research has taken me based in Uganda for most of the last 6 years. People's health challenges involve malnutrition, lack of clean drinking water and warding off malaria, TB and diarrhoea. What they get from the West is condoms, "AIDS info", "fake tests" and toxic drugs that some patients tolerate and some don;t. These diseases are now simply reclassified ss "AIDS" and it so it is considered by most to be a "new STD", despite the scientific studies of "discordant couples" providing compelling evidence to say the least that "HIV" is not spread seuxally and that "AIDS" has many non-virological causes. Failing going to Africa this is the next best explanation of what is going on in Africa, probably China, Russia and India too, but I don't know. The AIDS activists are spreading "HIV testing" via campaigns and receiving money from drug companies and international "health" agencies.

This is the best documentary revealing what causes "AIDS" and why it is not a conspiracy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1546322203061765598&ei=FC8PS-PjBcem-AbwqvD7BQ&q=aids+inc+gary+null&emb=1#

From the description of that documentary:

"[..]the entire orthodox medical establishment has [...] sought to profit on a system that it knew was flawed from the beginning?"

How is that not the description of an elaborate conspiracy? Supposedly they've known about the "real" causes of AIDS, but they're keeping down the evidence because it's a good way for them to make money.

It's exactly what the "global warming skeptics" are doing.

First you cherry-pick the evidence. In an area as large as Aids research there's bound to be heaps of conflicting evidence - it's what any kind of large-scale scientific research inevitably comes with.

Next you go look who's making money off the problem. Since this is capitalism, money is being in everywhere you go, so that's an easy one.

Then you bundle it all up in a tale of government corruption, financial interests, and suppressed evidence, and you got your conspiracy theory. And if you do it right, it's unfalsifiable.

The Aids debate IS superficial, and it's wrongly singling in on certain aspects of the problem, just as you would expect the debate to be in a capitalist society. The celebrity circus and CNN broadcasts of "Global Challenges" are an abomination. But that doesn't mean the medical basis of it isn't real. Just like the fact that the global warming debate is superficial doesn't mean global warming isn't real.

If you apply these standards of argument to other topics, you can deny global warming, evolution, the earth going round the sun ... pretty much everything that's accepted wisdom. You dismiss decades of research and a long-standing consensus throughout the scientific community just by pointing to personal experience and a few suspicious lines in some document.

Of course it's a conspiracy theory. Denial of that magnitude cannot be done without a conspiracy theory.

And BTW, if that's one of the most respected investigative journalists in Greece, that place is in bad shape.

Hi Martin,
If this debate seems new to you I can understand. It was also new to me until I arrived in Uganda as a tourist 6 years ago. But even before that, for many years, having been socially close to the gay community in Copenhagen it occurred to me that the gays who got sick were those who took drugs, drank too much,smoked, didn't sleep enough and did't have a good diet. I recalled our government funded scare campaigns and wondered why this new syndrome remained confined to people who abused drugs. It therefore didn't surprise me that "AIDS" didn't hit the heterosexual community at large. Yes, heterosexuals also use drugs, but they weren't the ones being advised to test. I remember the days when, prior to the test being done, the clinician would ask the client " Do you normally have sex with men or women? It made me wonder, for years, if the answer to that question effected the test result. Well, what do you think?
Any here we are now in 2009 and I would like to ask you Martin (I presume you are in UK or somewhere in EU) Where is the "AIDS epidemic", the sexually transmittable "AIDS" in Western Europe? Even without doing research, as I hadn't done until 2004, I didn't see or hear of anyone (white and non-drug using) being diagnosed "HIV+" or with "AIDS" for the last 27 years. Did you? You are forgiven for thinking that the debate is new and therefore must be a conspiracy:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6917298.ece

HIV drug study needs volunteers with dark hair
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2009%2F11%2F04%2FBA6I1AELVM.DTL

Govt starts door-to-door HIV/Aids testing
http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/news/Govt_starts_door-to-door_HIV_Aids_testing_71775.shtml

CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE
By Neville Hodgkinson
The Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994
http://www.duesberg.com/media/nhconspiracy.html

AIDS: are we being deceived?
http://www.nrc.nl/international/Opinion/article1984104.ece/AIDS_are_we_being_deceived

The exploitation of Aids
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/12/aids.health

Our misdirected fight against AIDS
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=583268

The Aids Epidemic That Never Was
Why Political Correctness Influences Too Much Medical Spending
From a UK Guardian report by Karol Sikora, 21st November 2007
http://imgay.com/viralmania.htm

Health expert calls for end to UN HIV programme
Friday, 09 May 2008 08:17
http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/austria/countries/switzerland/health-expert-calls-end-un-hiv-programme-$1222028.htm

Aids in Africa: a call for sense, not hysteria
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/327/7408/184-a

If more are needed let me know. No matter what you our perspectives are about global warming I think it is inappropriate to confuse the two. Different subjects, different dissidents.

Einstein was a dissident and probably suffered for it. Otherwise why would he be quoted as having said: "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."

This debate isn't new for me at all. I've read about the nonsense for years.

"I hadn't done until 2004, I didn't see or hear of anyone (white and non-drug using) being diagnosed "HIV+" or with "AIDS" for the last 27 years."

Anecdotal evidence is the first ingredient of every bad theory.

And as for conspiracies -- again, what you believe is happening CANNOT BE DONE without a conspiracy. The entirety of the medical sciences has been wrong for 27 years, supposedly knows about it but continues in the old path to make a buck? How is that not a conspiracy theory?

Some of the debate on the vaccine is reasonable, and some of it is raving mad.

Here in Europe, vaccine opponents (which form a very strong crowd, particularly in the german-speaking parts) are shrieking their heads off. Even before the vaccines had hit the market, they were busy making up stories about microchips and carcinogenic nano-particles being injected along with the vaccine. Also, they're mistranslating White House press releases to make it look like Obama's daughters weren't vaccinated because of the risk involved.

So yes, there's plenty of misguided "skepticism" in that debate too.

If you like I can upload some of the recorded video interviews I made in Uganda this year during my 9 month stay. One of the girls I got to know a bit there and saw a few times had already decided to leave the meds alone. She was told she was positive about three years ago after separation from her husband. The result came back positive and was advised to take toxic antibiotic called septrin, one of the common side effects of which, is T cell depletion. She had no symptoms, she was healthy. It made her so sick within three days that her doctor ordered cessation of it. She has been fine ever since. With her permission I recorded her answers and comments regarding our having had unprotected sex together and her discovering afterwards that my propensity is to test "negative" on the so call HIV tests. In the dialogue it comes out that she could never understand herself why she should test positive, because she had had only two partners before me. One was at school 14 years ago, sex between them only occurred twice and the man is fine. Then her husband who since their separation is settled down with a new wife and they have a baby together. At least the mother and child have tested "negative". (I am only referring to the tests and their results here, because almost everybody else believes that they detect what one expects them to), so one of my questions to her while the camera is rolling is why do you worry that you may have "infected" me when you can't explain why you are "infected" or from where? Then you can see a struggle for the brain to process conflicting information knowing that the answer is going to be illogical.

If you are familiar with this debate I can only imagine you took the same stance to it then as you are doing now. Or maybe you are referring to the man-made AIDS virus theory that originated with Dr Strecker which Horowitz and Boyd Graves repopularised. That would probably come under your definition of a conspiracy theory. The drug abuse/malnutrition/multifactorial hypothesis of "AIDS" I doubt you have come across, because everything is based on orthodox medical and scientific literature. I posted some articles earlier and hoped that you would notice that BMJ, The Times, The Guardian etc are some of the sources.
Now I am curious: Why does it bother you either way what causes "AIDS"? I mean what difference does it make in your life? You reminded my about something with all this banter about global warming. The proponents of man-made global warming are mainly of the "evironmentalist" ilk, but environmentalists are the most consuming people on the damn planet. They hven't sold their cars and wouldn't even intend to. They are just busy campaigning challenging people's behaviour when they could be opposing the industries that guide our sheep like lifestyles in the first place. Disposable items are on the increase, because of/in spite of/for the "envionmentalists". Where are the demonstrations? None, because there are no privileges or money to be made protesting outside factory gates. Big polluters are also wars, action film producing, space research and car manufacturing, but where are the protesters to try to ban the source of a lot of future pollution? None, for same reason. People like to be part of an ideology, they love the challenges especially if they concern "health" "freedom", "peace" and "rights". Look what happened to the war on cancer! Suggesting that the "campaigns are supposed to be counterproductive causes bad vibes, ask why the problem (in this case cancer) has increased exponentially coinciding with the rate at which the cancer industry has grown and people will give you a daft answer. I think it's only daft because it's one they had never heard asked before, but if they have lost relatives to cancer and this has inspired them to donate regular sums of money to charities that promise to find a "cure" they are probably immersed in that religion and simply live in hope that a "cure" will be found before they end up succumbing to it. They tend to shun those who try to tell them that cancer is preventable , reversible and curable using natural elements and therapies by referring to bad genes or something.

www.VirusMyth.com

I did not bother reading all the comments i must admit.

I think it is sad to watch what I thought was a intelligent torrentsite concerning politics, ideology and current affairs, turn into this.

quote ricci1003:
"Even without doing research, as I hadn't done until 2004, I didn't see or hear of anyone (white and non-drug using) being diagnosed "HIV+" or with "AIDS" for the last 27 years."

I live in Norway, right above Denmark you know, and I remember white teenagers dying of AIDS in my country during the late nineties.

This is getting ridiculous. Now there is misinformation and there is MISinformation !
Why not go over to http://tracker.concen.org/, some people will fit right in.

Borrowing quotes from dead geniuses does not make you smart !

The question is not whether people died or not but the causes of death. Unless you are familiar with how the definitions of "AIDS" have changed over the years, that homosexual men are taking fewer immuno-suppressive drugs today than they were in the early eighties, that the doses of AIDS medications have been reduced by up to five times, that the problem of "AIDS" is still 90% a male problem then why would you be concerned with the difference between a sexually transmitted disease and a lifestyle phenomenon? Besides would you be interested to know the circumstances and some of the many names of those from that period who survived and live today to say what I am writing: www.WeAreTheLivingProof.org I can send you their email addresses if both parties agree. Believing that all those young men died because they were foolish enough to "infect" themselves with a "deadly virus" is no better than the survivors of that era saying that they died because they were foolish enough to abuse themselves with drugs and alchohol for long enough to cause problems.

Are you at all concerned why there are no vaccine, safe treatment or cure after 27 years and who stands to gain? Or why "AIDS" is not behaving like an infectious disease? Why it hasn't spread via the general population and why all predictions continue to fail or where UN gets its figures from?

As for borrowing quotes what about reading the articles that have been published in BMJ and The Times?

thanks