HIV's 'Patient Zero' wrongly blamed for AIDS epidemic

[hlat]

HIV's 'Patient Zero' wrongly blamed for AIDS epidemic
https://www.sott.net/article/333225-HIVs-Patient-Zero-wrongly-blamed-for-AIDS-epidemic

But the new results show that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which causes AIDS, likely first arrived in the U.S. in New York City in 1970, the researchers said.

I'm confused. This article talks about the origins of HIV causing AIDS in the United States. I thought HIV is not a real virus that causes AIDS.

The Health & Wellness Show: Interview with Virus Mania author Dr. Claus Köehnlein
https://www.sott.net/article/296122-The-Health-Wellness-Show-Interview-with-Virus-Mania-author-Dr-Claus-Koehnlein

But in reality HIV has causally nothing to do with anything.

My understanding is that HIV has never been confirmed to be real because it has never been isolated and seen with an electron microscope; and that AIDS is a label put on a group of symptoms and diseases that reflects immune systems damaged by things like drugs.

 

[Ruth]

For a lot of people the idea that a virus like HIV can cause AIDS is something they are not comfortable with (or 'like'), so they look for evidence to support that it doesn't actually exist, thereby giving them the feeling of more 'control' over their reality? At least that's one conclusion I've come to.

It seems to me that the origin of HIV is shrouded in mystery. There is also a connection, of sorts, to vaccines, possibly Polio as a potential vector for contamination or spread.
Also, in the case of the USA, the Hepatitis vaccine drive that was promoted among homosexuals was possibly a source of spread. Because of the link with vaccines, any scientific study into it's origin is probably strongly discouraged. We can't have anyone questioning the efficacy of vaccines as they are a means of control!

I believe Laura once asked the Cs about the origin of HIV (can't find the original transcript) and they said it originated from 4D sts.

And this from Session 18Jul2015 which relates to 4D 'tinkering' and infection of bloodlines.

(Perceval) When they said that the parasites act as receivers, receivers of what?

A: Waves of information.

Q: (Perceval) The reference to bloodlines becoming parasitically infected, does that refer to certain bloodlines that were particularly targeted for infestation?

A: Yes

Q: (Perceval) As in bloodlines or genetic profiles that were more likely to have an increase in awareness or to be more of a threat to the system?

A: Yes

Q: (L) That's pretty freaking depressing.

(Pierre) That's cunning.

(Perceval) What did they say about the tinkering?

(L) Okay, how is the tinkering done?

A: Most often via viruses.

Q: (L) Is the campaign to vaccinate everyone part of this project to make sure that everybody gets the viruses that are needed to stop them from progressing?

A: Yes

Q: (L) I know you said that the mark of the beast is something that relates to anybody who accepts torture and that sort of thing, but some of those old ideas about the mark of the beast, it's like DNA is code... So, maybe have these virally implanted genetic instructions could be considered as the mark of the beast.

A: It goes together!

It would seem to me that viruses and other parasites (and yes, vaccines too) are an ideal 'vector' to divert/change or 'tinker' with human DNA, especially in an era where 'enlightenment' is more likely. Also, as the disease progresses, some people are going to become immune, or even completely immune as in the case of the Delta32 immunity to HIV(1% of caucasians). It means the virus can't get into the cell to infect it. Also, I think the species infected can adapt. When they first get infected with a new agent, it is very virulent. It may take as many as 60 generations for the species to not even react to the virus (or maybe adapt).

In a global perspective, the majority of cases are in Africa and the Asia/Pacific region. Regions which seem more likely to produce diseases, and less likely to have their immune systems stuffed up by drugs or toxins, as maybe many Westerners have. So, it doesn't really work as an explanation for AIDs in these countries.
http://www.avert.org/global-hiv-and-aids-statistics

 

[theos]

HIV's 'Patient Zero' wrongly blamed for AIDS epidemic
https://www.sott.net/article/333225-HIVs-Patient-Zero-wrongly-blamed-for-AIDS-epidemic

But the new results show that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which causes AIDS, likely first arrived in the U.S. in New York City in 1970, the researchers said.

I'm confused. This article talks about the origins of HIV causing AIDS in the United States. I thought HIV is not a real virus that causes AIDS.

The Health & Wellness Show: Interview with Virus Mania author Dr. Claus Köehnlein
https://www.sott.net/article/296122-The-Health-Wellness-Show-Interview-with-Virus-Mania-author-Dr-Claus-Koehnlein

But in reality HIV has causally nothing to do with anything.

My understanding is that HIV has never been confirmed to be real because it has never been isolated and seen with an electron microscope; and that AIDS is a label put on a group of symptoms and diseases that reflects immune systems damaged by things like drugs.

True, but it doesn't mean that the mainstream view of HIV/Aids does not still prevail. In my view, the article supports the alternative view that "AIDS" in the US's gay population was more related to rampant drug use, promiscuous sex leading to STD's and multiple treatments of those STD's, the use of poppers (in AIDS cases with Kaposi's sarcoma) and the AIDS medications themselves. Not to say that there was no virus or something involved -- which could have resolved itself with the cessation of the above -- but I think there is much more to the story than "HIV" causing "AIDS".

 

[Ruth]

True, but it doesn't mean that the mainstream view of HIV/Aids does not still prevail. In my view, the article supports the alternative view that "AIDS" in the US's gay population was more related to rampant drug use, promiscuous sex leading to STD's and multiple treatments of those STD's, the use of poppers (in AIDS cases with Kaposi's sarcoma) and the AIDS medications themselves. Not to say that there was no virus or something involved -- which could have resolved itself with the cessation of the above -- but I think there is much more to the story than "HIV" causing "AIDS".

There is always more to the story than mainstream presents, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, since certain things would not be accepted as true, if not based on current scientific facts or knowledge as it stands. Not that there is anything wrong with challenging the mainstream at all, but it has to be done with positive assertions (facts with proof) rather than negative assertions (i.e. that something doesn't exist because I don't believe it exists, therefore it's not true). :(

Why is is just the AIDs-HIV link that people have such trouble with and why only with a minority of the world's sufferers (those in America and those that are more likely to be homosexuals)? Shouldn't the minority (and that which effects them, such as lifestyle and environment) be a side note to any reality, and not the main cause behind it?

Currently, I see people who deny a link between HIV and AIDS as wishful thinkers who use semantics to justify a belief. Technically speaking they are correct in what they say! Let me explain by allegory. It's like saying that going up in a light aircraft to 10000 ft won't kill you if you jump out without a parachute. Well, yes that is correct, a person in such a position is killed by gravity, which in and of itself, is usually a fairly benign factor, unless you have a really bad fall. They just find themselves in a position (with HIV) were it can kill them. That's all HIV is to me. It completely removes (eventually) any person's immunity. How long this takes to occur, may be a reflection of viral and host evolution, as well as part of the individual infected person's genetics.

 

[monotonic]

As for lots of AIDS cases in Africa, away from toxins, disproving the drug connection, I may be out of my depth here but I remember some interesting lines from a recent SOTT article:

It turns out that there are many things—more that 70—that can cause a false-positive HIV test. Some of them are vaccinations, particularly the influenza, tetanus, and hepatitis B vaccines; rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and other autoimmune diseases; malaria; renal failure; multiparous pregnancy; and African ancestry. More than 40 percent of people with lupus will test positive for HIV.

The system used to diagnose AIDS in an African sufferer is quite different than that used in the West. A simple symptom checklist is employed, including items like weight loss, weakness, prolonged fever, skin rash, enlargement of lymph nodes. Each symptom is assigned a point value. If a subject gets 12 points or more, they are considered to have AIDS and be candidates for expensive AIDS drug treatments.

The problem is that all of the symptoms on the African checklist can be caused by any number of the many ailments common throughout Africa.

 

[nicklebleu]

I know that it's a difficult jump to do - I know that from myself, having been raised within the mainstream medical paradigm.

But your take that the stance of HIV-deniers is mere wishful thinking is a bit shortsighted and also maybe a bit premature. I'm am not saying that you are necessarily wrong, I myself haven't completely decided which camp I'm in, but at present I lean towards the deniers.

There are some very prominent scientists - or maybe I should say infamous - in that camp, for instance Prof. Peter Duesberg, a molecular biologist/ virologist. One of his main arguments is that any infectious disease has to fulfill the Koch postulates, which HIV does not, eg the virus has never been cultures and what we detect is not the virus but surface proteins (ELISA) or genetic sequences (PCR) that supposedly form the virus.

Then there is Luc Montaignier who is not a denier per se, but maintains that HIV spontaneously resolves in most subjects within 6-8 weeks, if their immunity system is not completely wrecked. Which just goes to say that a lot of info gets suppressed, even from relatively mainstream scientis.

So again, I think it's way more complicated and I think that the verdict at the moment is still out on that.

 

[monotonic]

I suspect it is the sexual aspect of HIV/AIDS that polarizes the discussion so much. After all that is the main feature of the propaganda. Challenging a person's views on this indirectly challenges their moral beliefs.

 

[Iron]

I suspect it is the sexual aspect of HIV/AIDS that polarizes the discussion so much. After all that is the main feature of the propaganda. Challenging a person's views on this indirectly challenges their moral beliefs.

I agree. As I said before, the HIV testing is highly unreliable, and I'm not convinced of a rather small (in terms of genetic material) and ordinary retrovirus being able of doing all the things it supposedly does. At least not without other factors being present.
Curiously, despite Hep C being way more lethal than AIDS, people don't get as much worked about it than they do about AIDS.