Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 31st, 2009 #21
DouglasReed
Don't call me Junior
 
DouglasReed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Boston
Posts: 293
DouglasReed
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike in Denver View Post
You are correct, but it's an impossible task to convince people... etc.
All true what you said. Also, Western Medicine is by and large a “genocidal profit-making hoax.” It’s good for trauma. If you come into an emergency room with your arm cut off you really don’t need acupuncture. But hospitals are generally very, very bad for anybody’s long-term health.

Murder By Injection, Eustace Mullins:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...89573281687331

or:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=b15TOBZXYsw

Here’s the book:

http://www.savefile.com/files/2061834

An even better one, World Without Cancer, G. Edward Griffin:

http://www.savefile.com/files/2061825
 
Old April 1st, 2009 #22
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Larry Heinberg
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychologicalshock View Post
Please don't clutter the board with irrelevant posts, if you wont read your opponents evidence then simply don't reply. No one cares about your sophistry.
Don't be silly hahaha.
 
Old October 2nd, 2009 #23
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,352
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Still Not Convinced HIV Is Bogus?

by James Foye

"Scientists may be in the business of laughing at their predecessors, but owing to an array of human mental dispositions, few realize that someone will laugh at their beliefs in the (disappointingly near) future."

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan

Almost 30 years ago, as a new decade dawned, Americans watched in morbid fascination as a small group of gay men in San Francisco began dying of a mysterious disease.

Did you catch my disingenuous use of the word "mysterious" in that sentence? There was nothing mysterious about these deaths, then or now. A bleeding-edge lifestyle, the harmonic convergence of three cultural revolutions, drug, sexual, and gay, took a heavy toll on its most sublime practitioners. They engaged in anonymous sex on an almost unheard of scale, self-administered antibiotics, thinking that this would keep them healthy (useless against viruses but deadly effective against friendly gut bacteria, vital to proper immune system function), and ingested recreational drugs like candy, especially "poppers" (carcinogenic nitrite inhalants, such as you might use to clean your VCR). The drug use, repeated bouts of STDs and parasites, and foreign antigens from thousands of other men floating around in the bloodstream took the inevitable toll on the human body. They literally blew out their own immune systems.

When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, he had a mandate to downsize government, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was an obvious target. The "War on Cancer," declared by Nixon in 1971, had little to show for all the money spent. The CDC had been terribly embarrassed in 1976 when it tried to turn five soldiers having the flu into a potential national swine flu epidemic. A subchapter of this debacle was their attempt to seize on the completely coincidental outbreak of pneumonia among some old men at an American Legion convention in Philadelphia. The CDC used this as an excuse to rush out a vaccine that killed dozens of people, which is dozens more than did the flu itself. (As for "Legionnaire's Disease," it later turned out to be caused by a known microorganism commonly found in building air handlers, and had nothing to do with swine flu. Thousands of people get infected with it every year).

So it was most fortuitous that in 1981, as potential budget cuts loomed on the horizon, the CDC received a report about five young homosexuals dying of immune deficiency disorders (coincidentally, this was exactly the same count as the initial outbreak of swine flu, so the number five seems to be the CDC’s definition of the beginning of an epidemic). If a new deadly disease could be discovered, it would give the CDC new life. The deadlier and the scarier the better; ideally something with some more sticking power than the flu this time around.

The initial name for the new disease, Gay Related Immune Deficiency (GRID), was soon discarded, as besides being horribly politically incorrect, it hardly sounded threatening to the general population. So it was replaced with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). For the cause, French scientist Luc Montagnier "discovered" the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), with failed American cancer researcher Robert Gallo co-discovering it (if you can call finding it a year later co-discovering; Gallo was later investigated for misconduct on this matter). It is likely when the history books are written that Gallo will be portrayed more like the fictional doctor E. Henry Thripshaw from Monty Python's Flying Circus than Louis Pasteur or Jonas Salk.

So AIDS was the disease, and HIV the cause. All it took was a press conference at the CDC to make this story canonical. The CDC was saved, and a new multi-billion dollar industry was born. God help us when a bureaucrat is threatened with losing his job. Even one who has taken the Hippocratic Oath.

In the years since the CDC pronouncement every single person who has tried to question the official story, rather than being lauded for taking the scientific method seriously, has instead been attacked and dismissed as a kook. Still, with nearly 30 years of history in the rear-view mirror, it is becoming more and more apparent that there is something very wrong with the official story.

Filmmaker Brent Leung takes us on a journey through the whole sorry episode, from the beginning to the present, in his riveting new documentary, House of Numbers. Born in 1980, Leung has lived his entire life under the shadow of the AIDS bogeyman. His generation, successors to Generation X, became Generation HIV.

He hits all the important way stations, though necessarily briefly at times, due to the time constraints of a film (but hang on – there are over 300 hours of footage, and the producers are in talks with a cable channel to do a series).

In what may be a real eye opener for many viewers, Leung totally debunks HIV testing. (Can you say "manufacturer’s criteria"?) But who needs faulty HIV testing when the World Health Organization (WHO) has given us the Bangui definition for AIDS which provides a simple list of symptoms to using for diagnosing AIDS without testing? Though moderated nine years later with the admonition that testing should really be done, it did a wonderful job of kick-starting the supposed AIDS epidemic in Africa.

But even with testing, it is quite easy to say that there is more HIV in one place than another, as the tests are interpreted differently in different countries. At one point Leung steps across the Canadian border and cheekily comments, "No other disease behaves differently when you cross the border."

Leung visits South Africa to see the epidemic up close for himself. It’s hard to say what’s more shocking about Leung’s visit to a poor township, the ignorance and superstition that people have about AIDS ("if I get thinner, I may have the disease"), or the flies that travel directly from the open latrines to their lunch plates. Gee, could it be the latter that is making some people sick?

Leung interviews many scientists and doctors in the course of the film. They fall into two groups. The skeptics include, among others, Kary Mullis, who shared a 1993 Nobel Prize in chemistry, Joseph Sonnabend, a physician who has been involved with AIDS research and treatment since the very beginning, and James Chin, an epidemiologist at WHO for five years, whose characterization of that agency’s statistics on the AIDS epidemic in Africa gives the movie its name. And of course Peter Duesberg, who was a star cancer researcher – until he was ostracized for questioning the high priests on HIV.

Arguing for the defense are, among others, Robert Gallo, Luc Montagnier (who makes a stunning statement about HIV near the end of the film; but I won’t spoil it for you), and Anthony Fauci. Doctor Fauci is probably a familiar face to many Americans, as he gets a lot of media exposure due to his position as director of The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). In fact, several days after I saw him interviewed in this film, I saw him again on the national news, helpfully informing us that our children will need not one, but two vaccinations this year against the swine flu. Plus two more for the regular flu. How can we believe anything this guy says? But we are expected to – because he works for the government.

I still remember 1976 when my father, who was an officer in the US Army at the time, received the swine flu vaccine. My dad, who had never missed a day of work in his life, spent the next three days in bed. Needless to say, I will not be vaccinating my kids against swine flu.

But back to the film…this group, speaking for the defense, range in attitude during their interviews from detached to mildly irritated, as they repeat their mantras: the virus exists, there are no co-factors, HIV causes AIDS, everybody is at risk, and anybody questioning this is (by implication) a fool. Occasionally, when pressed for details, they admit to gaps in knowledge about how HIV (the most studied virus ever) works, contradict each other, and in at least one case, the interviewee contradicts himself. None of them can define AIDS in a simple and permanent fashion (the CDC has expanded the definition over the years from the original two defining diseases to over two dozen), explain how HIV works, or will address head-on the problem of so many deaths attributed to AIDS that in fact were caused by the toxic drugs administered to cure it.

Leung (quite correctly) avoids taking one side or the other, and positions himself simply as the annoying gadfly that keeps asking questions. But the answers are painfully obvious to any thinking viewer.

One scientist in the film states bluntly Peter Duesberg’s ideas are killing people. Meet Lindsey Nagel, and decide for yourself. Her story is told in the film.

Born in Romania, she was adopted as an infant by a couple from Minnesota, Steve and Cheryl Nagel. As was standard procedure, she was tested for HIV in Romania prior to the adoption being approved, and she tested negative. Upon arrival in America Lindsey was tested again; and this time, the result was positive. Did I mention that HIV tests are completely unreliable?


Steve and Cheryl Nagel with their daughter Lindsey, taken at the showing of House of Numbers at the Austin Gay & Lesbian International Film Festival on September 13, 2009, in Austin, Texas. Lindsey would not be alive today if her parents hadn’t taken her off AZT and refused to treat her any more for her supposed HIV infection.

Not knowing any better at first, the Nagels followed their pediatrician’s instructions to administer anti-retroviral drugs, which at the time meant high dosage AZT. For months the Nagels watched as their initially healthy daughter deteriorated, getting sicker and sicker. Among other things, her growth became stunted. Of course all symptoms were ascribed to her supposed HIV infection, and not the drugs.

After nearly two years of this, the Nagels were alerted to Peter Duesberg’s dissenting view by a relative who read an article about him in National Review. The Nagels became intrigued and wrote to Duesberg. He responded immediately, telling them to take Lindsey off the antiretroviral drugs, or they would kill her. They did, and for that reason Lindsey is alive today.

As for the pediatrician, in 2005 she received an award for her leadership in treating HIV patients. In an interview about the award, she laments

We started on AZT (Retrovir) for a child who was adopted and the parents said it was a poison and they called Peter Duesberg, the man who wrote a book claiming that AIDS isn't caused by HIV and they pulled the child from my care.

That child is Lindsey Nagel, who is alive today precisely because of Peter Duesberg’s intervention. Others were not so fortunate:

There was nothing you could do years ago. Most children back then did not live past seven to 12 years old. And it was hard; these were children that you got attached to. It was really hard. All we could do was provide some supportive care and treat their opportunistic infections. We had many deaths, 10 to 12 in 1994.

The doctor goes on to say that children do better now. But that’s only because the dosage of retroviral drugs has been lowered. These drugs are still nonspecific, toxic, and eventually kill those who take them. And some of them don’t even take very long to kill. Wait until you see the movie and learn about the pregnant woman who was administered Nevarapine and lost her skin and her life in only 37 days.

Of course Lindsey Nagel is not the only one who gets better after getting off antiretrovirals, as I’ve written about before. Africans get better, too.

The treatment for HIV has always been non-specific, DNA destroying drugs. In a supreme irony, the prophecy of a destructive epidemic became, on a small scale, self-fulfilling, as tens of thousands died from the very drugs that were supposed to cure them. Of course, they officially died from the disease itself. All of the defenders of the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy are paid, directly or indirectly, by government (i.e., they work for the government, or a university that is subsidized by government, or a pharmaceutical company whose AIDS drug business depends on people believing what the government says about AIDS, and whose drugs are largely paid for by the government). Dissenters, like Peter Duesberg, are shut out. And people die.

Ignore the blistering attacks in the blogosphere on this movie by the establishment’s designated attack dogs, some of whom even refuse to see the movie. Also ignore incompetent reviews in the mainstream media, such as this one in the New York Times, in which the reviewer compares Leung’s quest to questioning gravity. Consider instead the outstanding work done by journalists such as Celia Farber, Rian Malan, and Liam Scheff, all of whom are interviewed in this film, and none of whom work for the New York Times.

See this film, do some reading, and decide for yourself.

Note: House Of Numbers is currently playing on the film festival circuit. It should get a more general release in the coming months. Be sure and check the film’s website for updates.

October 2, 2009

James Foye [send him mail] is an independent software developer living in Austin, Texas.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/foye8.1.1.html

Last edited by Alex Linder; October 2nd, 2009 at 02:19 PM.
 
Old October 2nd, 2009 #24
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,352
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

"House of Numbers"

http://www.houseofnumbers.com/
 
Old October 2nd, 2009 #25
OTPTT
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,896
Default

I worked an alcohol and drug unit at a large Atlanta hospital and had some time during the night shift to read. This was around 1987 and the subject of AIDS was of interest to me since some of the patients I took care of were diagnosed with AIDS or had been infected with HIV.

One book I read was And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic by Randy Shilts. Shilts detailed a lot of the San Fransisco politics as well as the habits of the homosexuals in S.F. and across the world. Pretty disgusting and at the time it was alarming since it appeared to be blood borne disease. Being in close contact with such patients and having to give them injections and perform other treatments was anxiety producing.

Last edited by OTPTT; October 2nd, 2009 at 02:45 PM.
 
Old October 2nd, 2009 #26
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,352
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OTPTT View Post
I worked an alcohol and drug unit at a large Atlanta hospital and had some time during the night shift to read. This was around 1987 and the subject of AIDS was of interest to me since some of the patients I took care of were diagnosed with AIDS or had been infected with HIV.

One book I read was And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic by Randy Shilts. Shilts detailed a lot of the San Fransisco politics as well as the habits of the homosexuals in S.F. and across the world. Pretty disgusting and at the time it was alarming since it appeared to be blood borne disease.
Yep, read it myself, it was the book back then. One of the first big controversial articles I ever wrote was about the way GRID/AIDS was being played by the media. "Anyone can get it, so we should pour endless research dollars toward it...and it's very hard to get, so no one should discriminate against queers."
 
Old November 19th, 2009 #27
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,352
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The International Campaign to Destroy Medical Hypotheses

Recently the journal Medical Hypotheses, whose editor-in-chief is our friend and frequent commentator Bruce Charlton, a psychiatrist and a professor of evolutionary psychiatry at the University of Newcastle, accepted for publication a paper by the well known HIV "denialist" Peter Duesberg. AIDS activists and researchers hate Duesberg (who by the way has at least one Nobel laureate, Kary Mullis, on his side), and for the grave sin of accepting a paper that dares to question the HIV hypothesis of AIDS, have launched a campaign against Medical Hypotheses and Dr. Charlton.

The group AIDSTruth.org ("The scientific evidence for HIV/AIDS" - no other ideas allowed) recently featured the article Elsevier retracts Duesberg’s AIDS Denialist article, which sets out their successful move to get the publisher of MH to withdraw the article.

AIDSTruth has now opened a campaign to get MEDLINE, the bibliographic database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, which is fully searchable through PubMed, to deselect Medical Hypotheses from inclusion in the database. (The letter requesting this action is here in PDF.) There is now a Facebook page, Cancel your Medical Hypotheses subscription, which urges medical libraries and other institutions to rid themselves of this turbulent publication. Also of note, the group additionally accuses the journal of publishing "offensive" and "racist" articles, the latter of which of course places any publication beyond the pale of an enlightened people. (Funny, really, they missed James Watson's most inconvenient truth (PDF) by Rushton and Jensen. Normally that alone would have caused a massive raising of skirts.)

Dr. Charlton, who has more than doubled the journal's impact factor during his tenure as editor-in-chief, radically decreased author response time, and increased the number of downloaded articles to half a million annually, is in danger of getting the sack.

You can read the specious reasoning that comes out of AIDSTruth yourself, but this is obviously a concerted campaign against a journal and an editor who would dare to publish articles that question politically correct dogma. We've seen similar intellectual thuggery going on among the global warmers, who would shut down "denialists"; that the two groups use the same terminology of "denialism" speaks volumes about their common wish to shout down, silence, and destroy their critics.

AIDSTruth must not be allowed to destroy Medical Hypotheses, a journal unique in medicine, whose venerable tradition allows for the publication of "radical, speculative, and non-mainstream scientific ideas". These, of course, are what groups like AIDSTruth can not abide. Though I'm far from able to pronounce decisively, my impression is that MH commands enough prestige among the scientific community that this campaign will get laughed out of court. Let's hope so.

http://mangans.blogspot.com/2009/10/...o-destroy.html
 
Old November 21st, 2009 #28
George Witzgall
Senior Member
 
George Witzgall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,961
George Witzgall
Default

why does everything have to be a massive cover-up or conspiracy? what's the big deal if a virus causes AIDS? you people disgust me.
__________________
I understand and do not understand.
 
Old November 21st, 2009 #29
Mike in Denver
Enkidu
 
Mike in Denver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Under the Panopticon.
Posts: 4,161
Mike in Denver
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Witzgall View Post
why does everything have to be a massive cover-up or conspiracy? what's the big deal if a virus causes AIDS? you people disgust me.
It is a matter of science, nothing more. If HIV causes AIDS than that is what should be said. If HIV does not cause AIDS, than that is what should be said. The cold scientific evidence strongly indicates the second.

Feelings count for nothing. I'm not even interested in my own feelings, at least not when I'm trying to discern the truth.

Mike
__________________
You have to remember I live in Denver and some things are perfectly legal here that aren't where you live.
 
Old December 2nd, 2009 #30
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,352
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The new film House Of Numbers (reviewed by me here) contains excerpts of interviews with almost everyone of significance in the debate about whether or not HIV causes severe immune deficiency (aka AIDS). In a true scientific debate, the defenders of AIDS orthodoxy would jump at every chance to engage in debate with HIV skeptics, in the hope of either clearly refuting their arguments, or else learning something from them. But instead their mantra is:

"We will not engage in any public or private debate with AIDS denialists or respond to requests from journalists who overtly support AIDS denialist causes."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/foye9.1.1.html
 
Old December 2nd, 2009 #31
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,352
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

So in other words, the AIDS promoters behave exactly like the Holocaust promoters. Which ought to lead the LRC crowd to question the Holocaust. But doesn't. That way danger lies.
 
Old December 17th, 2009 #32
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,352
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

I had met Peter Duesberg in person only at the Conference, but I had been quite familiar with him from many videos. What had always stuck in my mind was his expression of surprise, astonishment, sheer disbelief, as he told what happened to him after he questioned whether HIV could be the cause of AIDS:

I had all the students I wanted . . . lab space . . . grants . . . . elected to the National Academy. . . . became California Scientist of the Year. All my papers were published. I could do no wrong . . . professionally . . . until I started questioning . . . that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Then everything changed.

What happened then was that he got no more grants; his manuscripts were rejected without substantive critiques, just that "everyone knows that HIV causes AIDS"; Robert Gallo, who earlier had talked of Duesberg’s distinction as a leading retrovirologist, now publicly called him dishonest on scientific matters. Defenders of the mainstream view have even held Duesberg responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of South Africans and have described him as the moral equivalent of a Holocaust denier.

What had Duesberg done to bring about that radical change?

Absolutely nothing. He was doing science just as before: gathering data, documenting his sources, making his analyses, presenting his conclusions for comment by others. Of course Duesberg was surprised that suddenly he had gone from lauded leading scientist to discredited crackpot.

Of course Duesberg was surprised, because his experience of suddenly being sent beyond the pale was obviously an aberration. Science isn’t like this. Science is done by the objective self-correcting scientific method. Peer review is impersonal and impartial. Arguments are substantive, not ad hominem. This experience must be unprecedented, unique.

Or, perhaps, shared just by other AIDS Rethinkers, because questioning that HIV causes AIDS is just too outrageous, and quite justifiably it puts AIDS "denialists" outside the norms of scientific behavior and discourse. You wouldn’t find anything like this in other, more normal fields of medicine or science.

Well, actually, you would. You do. Duesberg and AIDS Rethinkers are not alone in this. Duesberg’s experience is not unique, it’s even far from unique.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/bauer1.1.1.html
 
Old February 24th, 2010 #33
Billy M.
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 215
Default

**I didn't realize how old this thread was. This site doesn't get a lot of visitors I guess.

This is all garbage. HIV doesn't exist? Then go have unprotected sex with an HIV+ man or woman. Let's see how well that work out for you.

 
Old February 25th, 2010 #34
Bryan Colby
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 457
Default

I got paid 800 dollars to take an aids drug once a day for a month, I took half the dosage, I thought it would be harmless, those drugs are goddamn poisonous, they destroy your hemoglobin. I can't imagine how bad they would fuck you up at a regular dosage, after a few months, I think you'd be dead. I'm pretty sure the AIDS drugs kill people.
 
Old May 13th, 2011 #35
Jez North
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 274
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Witzgall View Post
this whole aids ("aids") business seems fishy. maybe vox populae can render a judgement?
I think you mean
Vox_populi Vox_populi
 
Old August 28th, 2013 #36
Tintin
∞ 𐌙 λ
 
Tintin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,497
Tintin
Default

Celia_Farber Celia_Farber


An Interview With Celia Farber

http://truthbarrier.com/


Note: Her father
Barry_Farber Barry_Farber
is a jew.
__________________
Quote:
"I die in the faith of my people. May the German people be aware of its enemies!"
Paul Blobel, SS Officer, 1951, last words prior to being executed
 
Old September 2nd, 2013 #37
Samuel Hund
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 338
Default

What this theory are saying is that HIV doesn't cause AIDS? then what causes AIDS? How long a person can live with HIV and how long one can live with AIDS?

I am confused if the point is saying that AIDS it's a hoax or if HIV is not the cause of AIDS
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:25 AM.
Page generated in 0.13936 seconds.