HIV

Ruth

The Living Force
I haven't been able to find any info in the transcripts (doing a cursory search) about HIV. I would like to know what part, contaminated vaccines (possibly polio, maybe others such as vaccine drives in America?) or needles, played in it's rise and spread amongst the human population?

How did it get into the human population in the first place? At it's inception, was it's spread throughout the global community via the process of vaccinations? We know that once it's in the population, it can be spread by blood to blood contact.
 
I'm confused by this as well. The C's have mentioned a few things which baffle me, including that Iodine can cure AIDS. -Baffled, because this would seem to indicate that AIDS is a real thing tied to an actual virus. However, reading more closely, it's true, the umbrella of symptoms which is said to be "AIDS" can probably indeed be dealt with by iodine therapy. This doesn't necessarily mean that AIDS is any one thing, and certainly not what it is propagandized as.

Having taken a keen interest in the subject of the AIDS phenomenon some time ago, I can offer the following bullet points from memory with reasonable confidence...

1. The original version of AIDS launched into infamy was in all probability caused by a drug dubbed, "Poppers". An inhalant drug popular among the gay community, "Poppers" serve to relax the muscles around the anus, making anal sex possible, or at least much easier. The drug is extremely corrosive and after months and years of regular use, it destroys the immune system and causes a host of symptoms including fungal infections around the mouth and lungs. Early explorations into AIDS had many researchers convinced that it was a toxicological problem rather than a virus. However, drugs and sex and addiction being what they are, Poppers were not allowed to be the culprit. So when Big Pharma came along and declared that AIDS was the result of a virus, everybody rejoiced.

2. There is no HIV virus. Nobody has ever offered conclusive evidence of having found one. Anything which has been held up and declared, "This is the virus!" have been questionable bits of evidence at best, but because AIDS is practically a religion in medicine and in the gay community, (because of cognitive dissonance in one and greed in the other), these bits of evidence aren't looked at too closely before being enshrined. How did this come to be? Well, there was this one completely insane, corrupt and opportunistic researcher whose name I have misplaced at the moment. (I'll look it up later). -More memorable than his name is his story: He campaigned and back-stabbed and manipulated his way into owning the first patents associated with AIDS research; the first marketable HIV test among them, and thus enormous wealth. It should be mentioned that he stole the research necessary from a French team, and used various media spin tricks to sell it to the medical community and government before the French could secure their own patent. The fact that the research itself was faulty was lost in the scuffle. Doctor Evil had to submit faked results in order to secure industry and government approval, was actually later caught and indicted for it, but by that point the AIDS industrial steam roller was so far along that backing out now and admitting that there is in fact no AIDS virus was simply not an option.

3. AIDS today, like many of the "vaccine-treatable" diseases in the world, is defined by a loose set of symptoms which changes by region, political necessity and industrial edict, and bears little association with any actual disease. African AIDS, for instance, isn't the same as European AIDS. -They used a checklist with symptoms you could tick off, including such items as weight loss and skin rashes, each symptom assigned a number value. If you scored high enough, pow, you were declared to have "AIDS" and were now treatable with mega-expensive drugs. (All the while ignoring the fact that Africa is full of all kinds of pathogens and microbes which can make people sick, but those sicknesses weren't as profitable as AIDS. There is big money in Africans being diagnosed with AIDS, and so they are.)

4. As it happens, anybody can test positive for HIV, whether you are infected with the make-believe pathogen or not. -The body mechanism which triggers a positive result is not fully understood. It could be, as some suggest, triggered by the common flu. Or by high adrenaline, exercising before a test. You might test positive for HIV one day, and then a week later, negative. It is not clear whether this has anything to do with infections passed through blood. But it's great for business!

5. People who test positive for HIV typically do not show any AIDS-like symptoms until after they begin taking the recommended AIDS drugs. The classic wasting symptoms people associate with AIDS today, (which are somewhat different, btw, from the 80's AIDS symptoms), are in fact often the results of powerful AIDS medications, such as AZT. Being diagnosed with HIV and then being pressured to start an expensive drug regime is what kills people. A make-believe virus has nothing to do with it. -Which is not to say that there may not indeed be viruses involved, but there are lots of viruses out there, especially when your immune system has been destroyed either with recreational drugs or AZT.

Those are just some bullet points.

The starting point for much of this information for me came from a book called, "Fear of the Invisible" by Janine Roberts. I recommend this book to everybody who has an interest in virology.

https://www.amazon.com/Fear-Invisible-Janine-Roberts/dp/0955917727?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0
 
My first question to you Woodsman, would be how can anybody test positive for something that there is no conclusive evidence for?

I'm working with the assumption that HIV exists, because they have taken pictures of it, and they have classified it.
http://remf.dartmouth.edu/HIV_TEM/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV

It's a virus that attacks a component of the immune system, specifically the Helper T Cells (and some others) which once depleted to a certain level, makes a person vulnerable to just about any infection. These are called opportunistic infections.

I feel that AIDs denialists are a bit like flat earthers, no plane theorists, or crisis actors at terrorist events. Distracting and mis-informing and engaging in wishful thinking. I also feel that if normal scientists can't (or won't) comprehend the complexity or function of our immune systems, and think that vaccines are the answer to everything - (as if); then what hope does the ordinary citizen have?

As far as I'm aware, only 1% of all Caucasians are immune to the HIV virus. They simply cannot get it, or are extremely resistant to it, because they have genetically inherited (from both parents) a CCR5-delta32 mutation.

It becomes very apparent that both viruses and humans evolve, and so, the nature of the disease must as well. It becomes a chronic disease that must be 'managed'. Bearing in mind that 20% of Caucasians have some resistance to it, and 1% are more resistant to it.
http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news13
 
There was a doctor that as far as I remember said that HIV don´t cause AIDS, and that HIV is something that comes and goes like many other viruses, so getting tested positive is just having the bad luck of being tested while it is there. He injected himself with HIV positive blood on Spanish TV to prove his theory but convenient for Big Pharma he died of a heart attack shortly after.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Willner

I knew 2 people back in the early 90's that got tested positive for HIV. One took the prescribed medication and died 3 years later from brain cancer, which was one of the listed side effects. The other refused medication and instead ate more seaweed, organ meat and vit C and is still alive.
 
Ruth said:
My first question to you Woodsman, would be how can anybody test positive for something that there is no conclusive evidence for?

I'm working with the assumption that HIV exists, because they have taken pictures of it, and they have classified it.
http://remf.dartmouth.edu/HIV_TEM/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV

It's a virus that attacks a component of the immune system, specifically the Helper T Cells (and some others) which once depleted to a certain level, makes a person vulnerable to just about any infection. These are called opportunistic infections.

I feel that AIDs denialists are a bit like flat earthers, no plane theorists, or crisis actors at terrorist events. Distracting and mis-informing and engaging in wishful thinking. I also feel that if normal scientists can't (or won't) comprehend the complexity or function of our immune systems, and think that vaccines are the answer to everything - (as if); then what hope does the ordinary citizen have?

As far as I'm aware, only 1% of all Caucasians are immune to the HIV virus. They simply cannot get it, or are extremely resistant to it, because they have genetically inherited (from both parents) a CCR5-delta32 mutation.

It becomes very apparent that both viruses and humans evolve, and so, the nature of the disease must as well. It becomes a chronic disease that must be 'managed'. Bearing in mind that 20% of Caucasians have some resistance to it, and 1% are more resistant to it.
http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news13
I am a little taken aback by your response. But I suppose these kinds of sore/blind spots are what these forums are all about.

To that end, I strongly recommend you read the source material linked. It is far better and more completely explained than my bullet point attempts.

What I can assure you of, however, is that the story and rationales involved line up tightly with the elements I have described. This is by no means Flat Earth thinking with its many hopeless logical flaws. Indeed, this knowledge strikes to the heart of the entire vaccine industry. Endeavor to understand AIDS and you will be well situated to understanding how everything else has gone so wrong in the drug industry.

As for your specific questions.., I'd have to dig into my files at home (I'm at work right now) to answer them, but the gist I recall is that medical professionals are under great pressures, both by way of threat and by way of reward, to produce convincing proofs to enable the continuance of their industry and their belief/religion. And thus they have done so in varying degrees. However, it is unwise to take Big Pharma at face value given their long and spotted track record. Any industry which has no problem killing thousands of people for money will have no problem producing stuff and lies. -That's not a very satisfactory response to your specific questions, I realize, because it is a flat out denial of there being any positive value in your offered examples, thus hard to falsify, but.., it is accurate nonetheless, and when taken in context with the many documents and reports and interviews and all the logical extensions and dependencies, it is the only explanation which makes any sense: Liars lie.

I should also point out that I don't have any emotional investment in this issue. I'd be just as rationally satisfied with AIDS existing as not, so for me, wishful thinking has no real bearing on this subject. I just need the logic to hold. -I was just as surprised and skeptical as you upon first encountering the notion.
 
Here is a video of Professor Luc Montagnier. On 6 October 2008, he won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery in 1983 of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

He thinks that HIV was sucked by the pharmaceutical industry and vaccines, while a good imunitaire system, good nutrition, good physical and psychological health can make disappear AIDS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAPZnPuPuwc
 
The lies and corruption of Big Pharma knows no bounds. Considering their history I wouldn't put it past them to manufacture some kind of viral crisis when the real culprit is chronic malnutrition, environmental pollutants, drugs, side effects of medical treatments, etc. If you haven't had a chance to listen to or read the transcript of the H&W show interview with Dr. Köehnlein, one of the authors of Virus Mania you should. It's very eye opening information that these disease scares should never be taken at face value.

Ruth, you may also want to take a look at this video. It highlights many of the points that Woodsman brought up.

 
Perhaps you (and others) may be more interested in this item?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRDsYqvrYgI

I actually have Edward Hoopers book here and sigh :( it really is over 1000 pages long! It's investigating the iotrogenic (medically caused) explanation for HIV. Don't dismiss the use of cointelpro or smoke and mirrors to divert people from the truth....
 
I got home a couple of hours ago, and decided just to scan and upload a .pdf of the relevant chapter I was thinking of.

It details, among other things, the fraudulent nature of the early AIDS research and the conclusions of 5 (five!) investigations into the fraudulent science upon which today's global AIDS protocols are founded.

The whole thing is utterly astonishing, rife with Trump-style in-yer-face psychopathic corruption; "I've discovered the virus, I deserve the patent glory and big $$, but if you want a sample, you have to sign a waiver where you promise not to try to test my claims." (sic)

This is just the tip of the iceberg, with a good deal more damning and fascinating information. I strongly recommend picking up a copy of this book.

Give the attached .pdf a read and see what you think...
 

Attachments

I'm not buying that the meds are actually causing AIDS. The drugs are not without problems, but people are living a lot longer with these medications. I still see very thin people with HIV, but they are able to work, function, get along OK. 25 years ago it was a very different story. People were dying with it.
Amyl nitrate might cause problems, but an awful lot of people have used it, not just the high risk populations.

I heard a while back that the virus got into a certain human population during the testing phase of a different Hep B vaccine in 1970s. I have no way to know if this is true or not. I don't even remember where I heard/read it. Does not seem so far fetched a tale to me.
 
I found this in the transcripts

Feb 22 1995

Q: (L) Well, that is pretty heavy duty. (F) They almost never say anything like that. (L) I would like to know for the benefit of
somebody else who asked the question: What is the origin of AIDS?
A: Simian mutation.
Q: (L) A monkey virus, in other words.
A: Was, but mutated.
Q: (L) Who is the individual or group responsible for this mutation?
A: Not humans.
Q: (L) Well then, who?
A: Lizards acting in conjunction with destined frequency path.
Q: (L) And what is the purpose of the infliction of the AIDS virus on
the human race?
A: Not determined
 
Yupo said:
I'm not buying that the meds are actually causing AIDS. The drugs are not without problems, but people are living a lot longer with these medications. I still see very thin people with HIV, but they are able to work, function, get along OK. 25 years ago it was a very different story. People were dying with it.
Amyl nitrate might cause problems, but an awful lot of people have used it, not just the high risk populations.

As I understand it, "poppers" would destroy people's immune systems after a few years of very regular use (weekly, if not almost nightly). -And during the 1980's, also in a percentage of studied cases, AIDS would become apparent in conjunction with other overlapping types of drug abuse, (crack cocaine and injected drugs).

But it sounds like the nitrate inhalants caused some of the tell-tale specific reactions associated with AIDS at the time, (thrush and fungal infection in the lungs). What motivation would a "lot of other people, not just the high risk populations" have for using a drug on a near nightly basis which was specifically used to enhance/enable anal sex?

If, as you say, people are living longer with so-called "HIV" (which presumably means they are also on medications like AZT), then wouldn't that merely imply that AIDS medications affect people differently than poppers and crack cocaine? Different poisons have different effects, despite their falling beneath the same broad, multi-purpose label.

That being said...

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if there are indeed other, possibly man made viruses at play which can destroy immune systems.

There has been a great deal of mad science and black-ops style virus work done over the decades. Billions of dollars can't be spent on labs without something happening. I just don't think the AIDS story resembles even remotely what we've been taught.
 
Yupo said:
I'm not buying that the meds are actually causing AIDS. The drugs are not without problems, but people are living a lot longer with these medications. I still see very thin people with HIV, but they are able to work, function, get along OK. 25 years ago it was a very different story. People were dying with it.
Amyl nitrate might cause problems, but an awful lot of people have used it, not just the high risk populations.

I heard a while back that the virus got into a certain human population during the testing phase of a different Hep B vaccine in 1970s. I have no way to know if this is true or not. I don't even remember where I heard/read it. Does not seem so far fetched a tale to me.

I don't think the meds alone cause AIDS in a reasonably healthy person, but why would a reasonably healthy person be taking them? But in a person who has a history or drug use and multiple STD's as was the case with the gay population when AIDS first came on the scene, the drugs can make an already compromised immune system even worse.

From the H&W interview linked in my previous post:

Dr. Köehnlein: We say that's indeed a lifestyle problem, not an infectious problem, but it's a lifestyle problem. And these guys suffer from infectious diseases but it's not HIV which makes the immune system go down, but it's the lifestyle of these people. And in fact it was the first idea doctors had when AIDS appeared because these people were suffering from what we call AIDS now, were completely (bad audio) homosexuals who had spent at least 10 years going to parties and taking poppers and amphetamines and things like that. These were the real AIDS victims at that time.

And people then called it GRIDS for gay-related-immune-deficiency. And all of a sudden them along came Gallo and told the world that they had found the virus which is the probable cause of AIDS and they gave this talk at this press conference. They gave it to the world and everybody believed it from that moment on and from that moment on a positive HIV test meant that you are at risk to get AIDS.

And then the next problem came, the therapy against AIDS. That was this AZT problem. We gave AZT to people who were HIV positive, who indeed had antibodies to this virus so they have no problem with this virus because if you develop antibodies to a virus, you are fine. But from this moment on when Gallo said they had found the probable cause of AIDS everybody read antibody the virus was subject to AZT treatment. And AZT treatment is a very toxic therapy which indeed creates the problem which was said that HIV does. That means AZT suppresses the bone marrow. It suppresses it lower and lower and it kills dividing cells. It's from cancer therapy, AZT treatment. It's azidothymidine. It stops DNA so it kills every cell. And the dosage at that time, we started with a dose which was much too high. It was 1,500 mgs and doctors didn't notice the damage because they thought AIDS is the terrible problem and when people wasted away doctors thought at that time it was because of HIV of course. But no doctor believes that the patient is suffering from the treatment of course. The doctor has always believed that the patient dies in spite of the treatment, not because of it. Those patients HIV positive at that time died because they got this 1,500 mg AZT.

And we noticed years later that the dosage was much too high. There was a study published in the Lancet, the famous Concord study and this study showed that those who took more AZT had the higher mortality rates. From that moment on we stopped the AZT and then new drugs came on the market which have less side effects.

And AIDS patients are also starting the drugs later -- when their viral load reaches a certain level -- and this can account for people living longer.

I do believe that there a people suffering from an extremely compromised immune system, but like other disease states multiple factors come into play, not just a viral infection. And I never take anything that the medical industry says at face value.
 
What motivation would a "lot of other people, not just the high risk populations" have for using a drug on a near nightly basis which was specifically used to enhance/enable anal sex?

The product enhances sex in general, and to an unbelievable degree. A sparkler vs Mt Saint Helens. To say more about specific effects would be TMI, I think. And I certainly don't want to encourage anyone to use it. I don't know (in the Biblical sense) anyone that was not using this stuff in the 80s and 90s. I am 100% heterosexual, btw, and so were my partners so far as I know. I would not consider myself or any of my partners to have been particularly adventurous that way. The stuff was as easy to get as condoms.

I was generally concerned about what seemed like intense neuro/vascular effects of it. I had enough sense not to make a real habit of it.
 
Galaxia2002 said:
I found this in the transcripts

Feb 22 1995

Q: (L) Well, that is pretty heavy duty. (F) They almost never say anything like that. (L) I would like to know for the benefit of
somebody else who asked the question: What is the origin of AIDS?
A: Simian mutation.
Q: (L) A monkey virus, in other words.
A: Was, but mutated.
Q: (L) Who is the individual or group responsible for this mutation?
A: Not humans.
Q: (L) Well then, who?
A: Lizards acting in conjunction with destined frequency path.
Q: (L) And what is the purpose of the infliction of the AIDS virus on
the human race?
A: Not determined

Thanks for that! Very interesting. Not determined, huh? Not determined by whom? Perhaps simply not evident, as yet? Were the C's trying to say that the Lizards creating the virus didn't know what they were doing, or why, or even what the outcome would be? I don't think that's too far fetched for STS, even 4th density. They're not exactly blessed with any great insight. Still, its a very curious thing to say. It tends to suggest that 4DSTS doesn't know what it's doing. Almost as if they are deliberately playing Russian Roulette with Nature, instead of in ignorance, like 3D STS would do.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom