Origin Of AIDS

[Frankdee20]

That's a wonderful piece, thanks for the link. I definitely believe that if SIV 40 is the origin of HIV, assuming Gallo was correct in correlating this with AIDS, then it jumped ship from primates to humans through this industry.

 

[AJC]

Gallo was incorrect. He staked his scientific career and integrity on proving that retroviruses were the cause of many human diseases such as cancer and AIDS. Official government investigations even came to the conclusion that he committed "scientific fraud" in his original series of 4 papers that ended up netting him the Nobel Prize. There was immense political and financial pressure on the "discovery" of the viral cause of AIDS (for example, Gallo patented a test that could determine if a person was "HIV positive"--and therefore going to develop AIDS--before he even published the papers that "proved HIV causes AIDS"). The full story is presented in "Fear of the Invisible".

"Confirmed by a Western Blot"...again this is testing HIV antibodies. HIV is a retrovirus, and our body produces retroviruses all the time in response to stress (this is why pregnant women, malnourished individuals, and individuals with a multitude of other infections will consistently test positive for the HIV antibody). This test is truly meaningless if HIV doesn't actually cause AIDS (which I believe, after reviewing the history of this "discovery", to be the case.)

AIDS is not fake. However, the claim that HIV causes AIDS, and that therefore we need to give an arsenal of "antiretroviral drugs" to a person with HIV so that they don't get AIDS, is what is fake.

 

[DaveFoster]

yes but it's far far far FAR bigger than that today.

One of the essential points is that "having antibodies" means something. But perhaps it does not mean much of anything. "AIDS positive" is the key point. What the heck does that mean?

Duesberg is extremely well informed and involved in this, and he is quite smart, and he blows apart the current narrative. The book was written some years ago but NOTHING has changed. The AIDS money wagon keeps moving and it's like the cancer money wagon...grabbing more and more people. Now it's poor African women who are victimized by it...

You absolutely speak the truth.

 

[Pointless]

Gallo was incorrect. He staked his scientific career and integrity on proving that retroviruses were the cause of many human diseases such as cancer and AIDS. Official government investigations even came to the conclusion that he committed "scientific fraud" in his original series of 4 papers that ended up netting him the Nobel Prize. There was immense political and financial pressure on the "discovery" of the viral cause of AIDS (for example, Gallo patented a test that could determine if a person was "HIV positive"--and therefore going to develop AIDS--before he even published the papers that "proved HIV causes AIDS"). The full story is presented in "Fear of the Invisible".

"Confirmed by a Western Blot"...again this is testing HIV antibodies. HIV is a retrovirus, and our body produces retroviruses all the time in response to stress (this is why pregnant women, malnourished individuals, and individuals with a multitude of other infections will consistently test positive for the HIV antibody). This test is truly meaningless if HIV doesn't actually cause AIDS (which I believe, after reviewing the history of this "discovery", to be the case.)

AIDS is not fake. However, the claim that HIV causes AIDS, and that therefore we need to give an arsenal of "antiretroviral drugs" to a person with HIV so that they don't get AIDS, is what is fake.

Are you guys saying you can't transmit HIV or any other virus from bodily fluids? How to explain other viruses like influenza? Are flu epidemics caused by "pregnancy, malnourishment, other infections"???

 

[x-ray peat]

By that do you mean engineered/forced 'AIDS' as a faux illness/diagnosis rather than created the HIV virus? As so far based on what I've read, HIV as a cause of AIDS seems to be the medical equivalent of the false corrupt science we are familiar with from the food industry.

There is a lot of disinfo on this but my best guess is that HIV does not cause AIDs but AIDs is real and was developed by the US military.

 

[Frankdee20]

It's safe to assume that the official narrative isn't conclusively definitive and without warranted dispute. I like the rabbit hole though, and I appreciate the videos, keep them coming by all means.

 

[AJC]

"AIDS positive" just refers to a clinical diagnosis of either having your CD4 T Helper Cell count below 200, or having a slew of opportunistic infections (such as kaposi's sarcoma, cryptococcus pneumonia, or a candida overgrowth--most of these are immune malfunctions of the respiratory tract by the way), or if you are in Africa simply filling the criteria by presenting with a certain number of symptoms such as cough, sweating, fatigue out of a larger pool of potential symptoms (sort of how the DSM is set up or Irritable Bowel Syndrome is diagnosed).

So yes, the government (CDC, NIH) did "invent" AIDS...the same way they "invent" the diagnostic criteria for a myriad of other diseases, or stages of cancer, or standard of care for bacterial infections, because having AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) is just a convenient diagnostic label that encompasses a broad range of potential immune problems.

Does this make sense?

 

[AJC]

Are you guys saying you can't transmit HIV or any other virus from bodily fluids? How to explain other viruses like influenza? Are flu epidemics caused by "pregnancy, malnourishment, other infections"???

I don't know the story on the other viruses, but in the "Fear of the Invisible" book she mentions a study that was done with HIV. Around 100 couples were sampled, one partner was HIV positive, and the other was not, and these couples were having unprotected sex regularly. The study went on for around 5 years...and I'm pretty sure they didn't find a single case of the HIV positive person infecting the other person with HIV throughout that whole time. This study was not repeated or publicized because it obviously goes completely against the official narrative.

 

[ecstatichamster]

I doubt there is such a thing as an HIV virus. I think it is B.S.

 

[Frankdee20]

"AIDS positive" just refers to a clinical diagnosis of either having your CD4 T Helper Cell count below 200, or having a slew of opportunistic infections (such as kaposi's sarcoma, cryptococcus pneumonia, or a candida overgrowth--most of these are immune malfunctions of the respiratory tract by the way), or if you are in Africa simply filling the criteria by presenting with a certain number of symptoms such as cough, sweating, fatigue out of a larger pool of potential symptoms (sort of how the DSM is set up or Irritable Bowel Syndrome is diagnosed).

So yes, the government (CDC, NIH) did "invent" AIDS...the same way they "invent" the diagnostic criteria for a myriad of other diseases, or stages of cancer, or standard of care for bacterial infections, because having AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) is just a convenient diagnostic label that encompasses a broad range of potential immune problems.

Does this make sense?

Of course it does, and yes these are indeed the criterion for the respective parties.

 

[x-ray peat]

"AIDS positive" just refers to a clinical diagnosis of either having your CD4 T Helper Cell count below 200, or having a slew of opportunistic infections (such as kaposi's sarcoma, cryptococcus pneumonia, or a candida overgrowth--most of these are immune malfunctions of the respiratory tract by the way), or if you are in Africa simply filling the criteria by presenting with a certain number of symptoms such as cough, sweating, fatigue out of a larger pool of potential symptoms (sort of how the DSM is set up or Irritable Bowel Syndrome is diagnosed).

So yes, the government (CDC, NIH) did "invent" AIDS...the same way they "invent" the diagnostic criteria for a myriad of other diseases, or stages of cancer, or standard of care for bacterial infections, because having AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) is just a convenient diagnostic label that encompasses a broad range of potential immune problems.

Does this make sense?

Nothing would surprise me anymore but this theory doesn't fit with my memories of the 80s. I remember a lot of gay people dying of "AIDs." My Mom's boss was one of them. It was definitely something people had never seen before and scared the crap out of the gay community. If it was only the CDC redifining the disease this would not have happened like it did. Moreover today you never see anyone wasting away like they did before AZT etc. I am sure there are but in numbers much smaller than before.

I doubt the official narrative is true but thinking that it was all based on diagnostic definitions doesnt seem to be true either.

 

[Such_Saturation]

"AIDS positive" just refers to a clinical diagnosis of either having your CD4 T Helper Cell count below 200, or having a slew of opportunistic infections (such as kaposi's sarcoma, cryptococcus pneumonia, or a candida overgrowth--most of these are immune malfunctions of the respiratory tract by the way), or if you are in Africa simply filling the criteria by presenting with a certain number of symptoms such as cough, sweating, fatigue out of a larger pool of potential symptoms (sort of how the DSM is set up or Irritable Bowel Syndrome is diagnosed).

So yes, the government (CDC, NIH) did "invent" AIDS...the same way they "invent" the diagnostic criteria for a myriad of other diseases, or stages of cancer, or standard of care for bacterial infections, because having AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) is just a convenient diagnostic label that encompasses a broad range of potential immune problems.

Does this make sense?

Lol this does make aids sound pretty dumb

 

[meatbag]

.

 

[ecstatichamster]

Amyl nitrate "poppers".

 

[meatbag]

Amyl nitrate "poppers".

Ah good call, yup here it is;

" Speaking of poppers, several of the early theorists of AIDS were blaming it on whatever the chemical is, I guess it's nitric oxide, that's produced from the poppers, some kind of nitric compound anyway, and they were arguing that that in itself was enough to account for the AIDS among the people who were using that as a pleasure drug." - Herb Doctors: Nitric Oxide

This is interesting;

"JOHN BARKHAUSEN: The AIDS test, I think, is something like that, isn’t it? "

"RAY PEAT: Yeah. There have been several traditional drugs that alleviate symptoms, but those tend to be suppressed or forgotten, but the so-called virus has attracted very little attention. What they are doing now is using a lab process to amplify a substance that relates to the virus. It isn’t the actual virus, but they call it the viral load, but it’s something they create in the laboratory, and meanwhile they ignore the use or consider them simply additional therapies that could be added to the valuable and profitable drugs that they use to treat the AIDS people"

JOHN BARKHAUSEN: I was going to talk to you about the Chris Masterjohn’s experience in cholesterol today, but maybe we’ll save that for another day. You were going to say something else about the AIDS drugs, Ray?

RAY PEAT: There are a couple very good books. One is Inventing the AIDS Virus by Peter Duesberg and the other one is by Harvey Bialy about Peter Duesberg and the virus and disease. And I have been following it now for, I guess, 20 years and the establishment people just don't want to talk about it. They won’t let these people publish responses to articles in the major journals. So the average doctor reading it thinks they have no answer, but it is just that the editors don’t want to hear their answer and the mainline of virus theory of AIDS people have never answered the criticisms of Peter Duesberg, who basically says the virus is harmless.

JOHN BARKHAUSEN: And that begs the question, what's causing the harm?

RAY PEAT: Yeah. He thinks it’s a drug. I'm inclined to the idea that it’s the interaction of drugs, polyunsaturated fats, radiation exposure and other toxins in the environment.

JOHN BARKHAUSEN: So that would be another case of an environmental problem that’s…

RAY PEAT: Yeah. When you graft the incidence over the last 60 years of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, it’s a straight progressive increase since the bomb tests began after the Second World War. And there was no sudden jump at the time AIDS became official as a disease. It’s a steady increase going back 60 years.
-Politics & Science: Empiricism Vs Dogmatic Modeling

 

[AJC]

Nothing would surprise me anymore but this theory doesn't fit with my memories of the 80s. I remember a lot of gay people dying of "AIDs." My Mom's boss was one of them. It was definitely something people had never seen before and scared the crap out of the gay community. If it was only the CDC redifining the disease this would not have happened like it did. Moreover today you never see anyone wasting away like they did before AZT etc. I am sure there are but in numbers much smaller than before.

I doubt the official narrative is true but thinking that it was all based on diagnostic definitions doesnt seem to be true either.

Sorry if I was unclear. People can and do die from AIDS, or more precisely, they die from the opportunistic infections that AIDS allows to take hold. It wasn't a matter of the CDC "redifining" the disease--they are the ones who defined it in the first place.

The reason AIDS was so shocking in the 80's is because before that time the types of infections those people were dying from (cryptococcus pneumonia, candida, kaposi's sarcoma) were infections that only the severely ill and immunocompromised elderly in nursing homes and hospitals would die from. The fact that it was happening in young, robust, otherwise (supposedly--just have to forget about the extreme drug, unprotected sex, and subsequent antibiotic use) healthy males was what was so alarming about the "AIDS Outbreak" of the 80's.

AIDS is a word that refers to a real set of measurable signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings. However, the question in the 80's was "what is causing this?". Some doctors said it was toxins and unhealthy lifestyle combined with excessive drug and antibiotic use. Theses doctors ended up more or less "curing" AIDS. Then Dr. Gallo came out with his papers that claimed AIDS was caused by a retrovirus (HIV) and since then the only treatment is a drug cocktail and no one is ever cured of AIDS, or allowed to question the narrative.

Today people who die of "AIDS" tend to die of liver failure from the drugs (which used to be chemo drugs, but were pulled from the market because they were too toxic) rather than infections like they did in the eighties. This is probably why you don't see too many people wasting away.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the "diagnostic definition" is precisely how AIDS is diagnosed in Africa--the so called "AIDS capital" of the world. It's a convenient way to blame to symptoms of malnutrition (fatigue, weight loss, sweating, confusion) on so-called unclean sexual practices and a phantom virus.

 

[x-ray peat]

Sorry if I was unclear. People can and do die from AIDS, or more precisely, they die from the opportunistic infections that AIDS allows to take hold. It wasn't a matter of the CDC "redifining" the disease--they are the ones who defined it in the first place.

The reason AIDS was so shocking in the 80's is because before that time the types of infections those people were dying from (cryptococcus pneumonia, candida, kaposi's sarcoma) were infections that only the severely ill and immunocompromised elderly in nursing homes and hospitals would die from. The fact that it was happening in young, robust, otherwise (supposedly--just have to forget about the extreme drug, unprotected sex, and subsequent antibiotic use) healthy males was what was so alarming about the "AIDS Outbreak" of the 80's.

AIDS is a word that refers to a real set of measurable signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings. However, the question in the 80's was "what is causing this?". Some doctors said it was toxins and unhealthy lifestyle combined with excessive drug and antibiotic use. Theses doctors ended up more or less "curing" AIDS. Then Dr. Gallo came out with his papers that claimed AIDS was caused by a retrovirus (HIV) and since then the only treatment is a drug cocktail and no one is ever cured of AIDS, or allowed to question the narrative.

Today people who die of "AIDS" tend to die of liver failure from the drugs (which used to be chemo drugs, but were pulled from the market because they were too toxic) rather than infections like they did in the eighties. This is probably why you don't see too many people wasting away.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the "diagnostic definition" is precisely how AIDS is diagnosed in Africa--the so called "AIDS capital" of the world. It's a convenient way to blame to symptoms of malnutrition (fatigue, weight loss, sweating, confusion) on so-called unclean sexual practices and a phantom virus.

That makes a little more sense, however it seems to me that what happened in the 80s had to be caused by more than just anti-biotics, sex, and poppers etc. If the cure was as easy as to stop taking drugs and cleaning up their lifestyle many many more people with AIDs would have survived. However it was well known to be a death sentence. I still think that there must have been more to the story than just a crazy hedonistic lifestyle.

 

[LUH 3417]

Apparently there is also a link between Jonestown and HIV/AIDS. Michael Meiers' Was Jonestown a CIA medical experiment?, goes into it.

 

[Travis]

I'm reading 'Inventing the AIDS Virus' at the moment. Very interesting

I read that. Duesberg is absolutely great.

Are you guys saying you can't transmit HIV or any other virus from bodily fluids?

The so-called HIV virus may exist, but it doesn't do what they say it does. The Perth Group have interesting things to say about this.

 

[AJC]

That makes a little more sense, however it seems to me that what happened in the 80s had to be caused by more than just anti-biotics, sex, and poppers etc. If the cure was as easy as to stop taking drugs and cleaning up their lifestyle many many more people with AIDs would have survived. However it was well known to be a death sentence. I still think that there must have been more to the story than just a crazy hedonistic lifestyle.

Well, I guess it's true that many more would have survived if the cause of AIDS wasn't pinned on a virus instead of environmental factors. After 1984 (the year the original fraudulent papers by Gallo were published) the only treatment for AIDS or an HIV positive test became a toxic drug cocktail, and the medical establishment stopped treating AIDS as a toxicological disease, which meant patients weren't actually told to clean up their lifestyle/given the proper nutrients and anti-toxins to reverse the harm that had already set in...

The other factor is simply the Public Relations Department of a governmental organization (CDC/NIH) that had a vested interest in garnering as much funding as possible for a so-called epidemic. An example of this is the outlandish figures the CDC gave in response to the question of "how many people would die from AIDS by such and such year in the future?" Their huge estimation never came true and when one of the people who came up with this estimation was asked how they arrived at the figure, he's quoted as saying something like "a bunch of us were just in a room together and someone threw out the number".