Is HIV Actually Harmless??

Have you guys heard about this? It's a theory put forth by Peter Duesberg at Cal Berkeley. You can find his Web site here:

www.duesberg.com...

Some interesting points about this.. Duesberg wrote a book on this topic, called "Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS".. The Feds banned the book(!) In fact, to the best of anyone's knowledge, this appears to be the first time in history that the Feds have EVER banned a book.. which I suppose goes to show that the content contained therein is pretty explosive..

Below I summarize some info from the Duesberg Web site.. not that I believe 100% of it (although a lot of it makes a lot of sense), but it's definately interesting:

HIV is completely harmless. HIV is a retrovirus.. if HIV does in fact cause AIDS, it would be the first and to date only known retrovirus that causes a fatal, or any serious, disease in man. Humans have a very highly evolved immune system. Retroviruses are super primitive, even by viral standards.. they're basically little more than strands of RNA. To think that a simple little retrovirus could cause such a litany of immunologicaly disorders, esp ones involving the brain (retroviruses cannot cross the blood-brain barrier) stretches the imagination.

What happens when you're infected w/ HIV? You might come down w/ some mild flu-like symptoms for about 3-5 days. Or, you might notice anything at all. In either case, your immune system springs into action and successfully fights off the virus.

Fact: 98% of all AIDS "tests" do not test for the prescence of HIV; they test for the prescence of HIV antibodies. If you catch the common cold, you're going to carry antibodies against that virus for the rest of your life. Same w/ HIV. If you're infected w/ HIV, and you come down w/ the mild flu-like symptoms, your immune system will fight it off, and you'll carry antibodies against HIV for the rest of your life. THAT'S WHAT YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO DO!! This explains these "miraculous survivors" who are somehow able to live for 10 years, 15 years w/ HIV "infection" and somehow "magically" never develop symptoms of full blown AIDS.

So why do so many people get "sick" w/ AIDS? Post-1984, when Gallo "discovered" HIV as the "cause" of AIDS, the medical establishment has evolved a new way of treating diseases. If you come into the hospital w/ TB, you'll be treated for TB (and probably recover). If you come into the hospital w/ TB, and you test positive for HIV antibodies, suddenly you're an "AIDS" patient.. They'll immediately start on a regime of hard-core AIDS drugs like AZT.. drugs which, for the most part, COMPLETELY DESTROY YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM. AZT (for example) was developed as chemotherapy against leukemia and other cancers that infect the immune system.. these drugs are, by definition, designed to destroy immune cells.

After a couple weeks/months on the AIDS "treatment", your immune system has been thoroughly weakened, your body has been thoroughly toxified, and suddenly you start developing a whole host of immune-related disorders. After another year or two, you're dead and a statistic.. cause of death: AIDS.

Remember Ryan White? Hemophiliac poster boy for AIDS back in the 1980s? Innocent kid who happened to catch HIV from a blood transfusion and later succumbed to "AIDS"? Congress passed some big federal spending bill for AIDS research in his honor.. guess what? Ryan White didn't die of AIDS. In the first place, hemophiliacs suffer from a general degeneration of their immune system anyway.. that's been documented for centuries, ever since physicians have known about hemophilia.. (hemophilia is after all a blood disease, and immunology is centered in the blood).. secondly, Ryan White died (I think, can't quite remember based on my reading..) from liver complications stemming from one his transfusions.. whatever it was (can't quite remember right now), it certainly wasn't from AIDS-related immune system collapse..

So what gives? What the heck is AIDS? AIDS first surfaced in San Francisco.. gay men suddenly started coming down w/ Kaposi's sacroma, a very rare form of skin cancer usually only seen in patients w/ highly compromised immune systems (like those who have been on chemotherapy, etc). Researchers were at a loss for what to call it.. eventually, HIV was isolated in some of those patients, and so the hypothesis was formed that HIV might be the "cause" of this weakened immune response..

So doctors started testing for HIV more routinely.. soon people from the general population were testing positive for HIV.. and if they happened to have some wierd, rare, disease not usually seen in the general population.. well.. they must have AIDS! Start them on the AZT treatment! Oops! They died already!? AIDS is such a killer! Notice that the biggest risk groups for AIDS, however, ARE people who are going to tend to have comprosed immune systems to start w/: drug addicts, heroin users, hemophiliacs.

As for gay men, guess what? You know those nitrous "poppers" that some people (esp, it seems, gay men) love to take before having sex?? Medical studies have been conducted that suggest a correlation between nitrous "popper" use and an increased risk in developing Kaposi's sacroma. Moreover, many gay men in San Francisco apparently hit antibiotics really hard (for some reason.. not sure why.. I think there might be antibiotics that kinda get you high or something).. abuse of antibiotics is (very well) known to weaken the immune system. So you have a bunch of gay men, abusing prescription drugs, doing nitrous poppers, and coming down w/ a rare cancer.. a cancer that is in no way (probably) related to HIV, and yet somehow the whole "mistake" goes out into the public as a brand new, fearful, terrifying disease we have to watch out for called "AIDS"

There are a whole host of other "medical" issues related to this that I cannot do justice to (like explaining the apparent "communicability" of AIDS, etc, and explaining the other apparent immune-related disorders that seem to be popping up in the population, etc), soo.. I'll defer to Duesberg on those:

www.oralchelation.com...
www.virusmyth.net...
www.virusmyth.net...
www.virusmyth.net...
www.virusmyth.net...
www.virusmyth.net...
www.virusmyth.net...

Now that's the science part. The federal government, for the most part, isn't interested in science, and they wouldn't ban a book just b/c of scientific content...

So why did the Feds ban the book? (something completely unprecendented in the 200-some-odd-year history of the United States)?? Duesberg suggests in his book that the Feds want to cover this up. There are lots of obvious reasons for this.. In the first place, spreading fear and paranoia throughout the general population is a good thing when soulless International Bankers are running your country. They learned this from Orson Well's 1939 reading of "War of the Worlds", and have been using it ever since.

Also, it's good to spend money if you're the federal government. B/c of the nature of the relationship between the federal government and the federal reserve bank, Washington has an obligation to SPEND AS MUCH MONEY AS IT POSSIBLY CAN. The more money Washington spends, the more in debt it goes, the better it is for the overall system. Doesn't matter if you're spending money on war, drugs, poverty, crime, AIDS or cancer. The goal is to spend money. Period. AIDS is a great thing to spend money on.. the Feds don't want to lose that.

The final reason that's been suggested for why the Feds would want to cover it up is far more sinister, and more speculative, but.. also plausible.. and that's the AIDS "crisis" in Africa. In the first place, Duesberg suggests that there is no genuine AIDS crisis in Africa. True, many Africans are infected w/ HIV, but so is much of the general population everywhere on Earth, often w/o knowing it. wehn an African contracts AIDS, he comes down w/ the "Slim" wasting disease.. when a gay man in SF contracts AIDS, he comes down w/ Kaposi's sarcoma.. gay men in SF don't get Slim, and black Africans don't get Kaposi's sacroma.. which suggests that Duesberg that neither disease is related to HIV and that you're dealing w/ two separate pathologies altogether (the African Slim disease probably has a lot more to do w/ complications from malnutrition, in Duesberg's opinion, as well as other co-factors.. there could be a communicable agent responsible, but at best HIV is a co-factor).

But the final suggestion (made in the banned book) is, what of all this news from Africa about how AIDS (or, more accurately, Slim Wasting Disease) is destroying entire villages and cities? Well.. Duesberg suggest, it *could* be Slim that's killing off entire villages and cities.. oor.. more onimously, you could also have U.S.-government-sponsored death squads roaming the African countryside, murdering entire villages and blaming it on "AIDS".. (U.S.-sponsored death squads have murdered tens of thousands in Central America, so it's been known to happen before.. ) The U.S. has standing "depopulation plans" in place for the Third World, the most famous of which is known as NSSM 200 and was drafted by none other than Henry Kissinger himself. The author suggests there may be ongoing de-population activities occurring in Africa right now, using AIDS as a cover..

Food for thought..

Originally posted by mongoose
Have you guys heard about this? It's a theory put forth by Peter Duesberg at Cal Berkeley. You can find his Web site here:

www.duesberg.com...

Some interesting points about this.. Duesberg wrote a book on this topic, called "Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS".. The Feds banned the book(!) In fact, to the best of anyone's knowledge, this appears to be the first time in history that the Feds have EVER banned a book.. which I suppose goes to show that the content contained therein is pretty explosive..

Below I summarize some info from the Duesberg Web site.. not that I believe 100% of it (although a lot of it makes a lot of sense), but it's definately interesting:

HIV is completely harmless. HIV is a retrovirus.. if HIV does in fact cause AIDS, it would be the first and to date only known retrovirus that causes a fatal, or any serious, disease in man. Humans have a very highly evolved immune system. Retroviruses are super primitive, even by viral standards.. they're basically little more than strands of RNA. To think that a simple little retrovirus could cause such a litany of immunologicaly disorders, esp ones involving the brain (retroviruses cannot cross the blood-brain barrier) stretches the imagination.

HIV has nothing to do with the brain. Its in the blood, it kills white blood cells in the blood.

What happens when you're infected w/ HIV? You might come down w/ some mild flu-like symptoms for about 3-5 days. Or, you might notice anything at all. In either case, your immune system springs into action and successfully fights off the virus.

Fact: 98% of all AIDS "tests" do not test for the prescence of HIV; they test for the prescence of HIV antibodies.

If you catch the common cold, you're going to carry antibodies against that virus for the rest of your life. Same w/ HIV. If you're infected w/ HIV, and you come down w/ the mild flu-like symptoms, your immune system will fight it off, and you'll carry antibodies against HIV for the rest of your life. THAT'S WHAT YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO DO!! This explains these "miraculous survivors" who are somehow able to live for 10 years, 15 years w/ HIV "infection" and somehow "magically" never develop symptoms of full blown AIDS.

No. The long term survivors are on a veritable cocktail of anti hiv anti aids drugs and that is why they are alive. I, personally, would be that some people might have something like an immunity to it. In order to even begin to tlak about HIV not causing AIDS you need to find people who have HIV, don't take medicine of any sort, and don't get any AIDS sypmtoms and people who have full blown AIDS but do not have HIV. This assinine assertion that AIDS isn't caused by HIV (and why exactly, because its a 'wimpy primitive virus', are you serious?) is a waste of everyone's time. If you actually beleive it, or anyone else for that matter, go get an injection of blood from someone with the living HIV virus and see what happens. No one will do it, because no one beleives it. It would be trivially easy for a legitimate researcher to perform this test on themselves.

This kind of uniformed, ignorant, and plainly stupid 'reporting' is dangerous. Go to the literature, look at the studies, not some book written by someone who obviously doesn't beleive his own 'theory'. Millions of people on this planet are dying, and frauds like the person you are talking about are probably trying to get their hands on grant money to back up their insane, contradicted, and completely unsupported 'theories'. Meanwhile people are dying

I'm not saying it's my theory, nor am I saying I agree w/ it..

I'm just presenting what I've seen from Duesberg's Web site.. AND I'm noting that the Fed's saw fit to ban the book, which is highly interesting..

About the HIV/Brain thing, apparently HIV "does" have something to do w/ the brain (at least according to the official version), since it can cause "dementia" in some patients.. Duesberg suggests AIDS dementia might just be undiagnosed syphillis..

About the injection w/ HIV thing, that's precisely Duesberg's point: most health care workers who are accidently infected w/ HIV (from stuck needles, etc) don't get sick w/ AIDS, unless they're already in some other high-risk group to start w/ (which suggests the AIDS might not be coming from the accidental HIV "stick'.. Duesberg cites studies..)

About long term survivors.. well.. Magic Johnson is still HIV-positive, as he has been since 1991, and he's still alive and doing well. I don't think he's on any drug cocktail.. (could be wrong, though).

so when does he plan to inject himself with some tainted blood and start his "I still feel fine" diary. rofl. Utter nonsense. Move on.

Before reading too much into Duesberg's theory, you should read up on the following:

Retrovirus pathogens

and

How does HIV cause AIDS

and better yet

Why do some say HIV does not cause AIDS?

I worry that the next sexually active generation will (is not) taking the necessary precautions to avoid HIV infection either because there are drugs out there or they don't think HIV is the cause. We could see a huge resurgence in in HIV infections if there is not a new push in education.

BTW - Magic Johnson went on the cocktail the day he found out he was HIV postive.

Edit: grmr

[edit on 16-8-2004 by Bleys]

Hey mongoose...thanks for taking the time and effort to work on this topic. I read through ALL the links you provided and most if it struck an already familiar chord in me.

I worked for many years for a doctor who shared a similar theory on AIDS. The clinic we worked in had a rather large number of HIV Positive patients, all gay males, come in on a regular basis. The majority of them were being treated with AZT, and not unlike many of the AZT users mentioned in Duesberg's therory...eventually all of them developed full-blown AIDS-like symptoms and died.

I'll make a long story short here, but the gist of it is...the doctor I worked for began his own research into the efficacy of AZT on HIV. He had his own suspicions that the AZT was itself somehow responsible for the almost hasty deaths of the patients using it, and did suspect that toxicity was the culprit...especially since the patients didn't feel sick till after starting the AZT. It wasn't difficult for him to find enough willing participants. Many were fed up with the toxic effects the AZT had on them and blamed it directly for their feeling so unwell...especially since they had all felt very well prior to using the AZT. The results were remarkably amazing. A third of the participants continued to use the AZT. Another third were given placebos. The final third received no treatments of any kind other than to pay attention to their nutritional needs.

The AZT group all became very ill with AIDS-like symptoms and eventually they all died. The placebo group showed no symptoms of AIDS whatsoever. The untreated group also did not show any symptoms of AIDS, but in fact noticed slight overall general health improvements which was attributed to the properly balanced diets.

This "covert" study went on for almost three years. It ended when the last AZT patient died. It was obvious that the use of the AZT played a huge role in the demise of the HIV Positive patients who were using it, since the placebo and untreated patients continued to live and thrive without it.

Say what you will...but I saw it first-hand. Duesberg's not a quack out to hurt anyone...he's a bloody genius. AZT is toxic waste and it destoys the immune system...and that's a known scientific/medical fact.

Originally posted by Romeo
so when does he plan to inject himself with some tainted blood and start his "I still feel fine" diary. rofl. Utter nonsense. Move on.

Romeo, if you go to Duesberg's website, that very question is answered there under FAQ.

[edit on 17-8-2004 by Wyzewun]

I am going to link to post a list of evidence that HIV causes AIDS, from this factsheet. That link also contains explanations and references to medical journals.

1. HIV fulfills Koch's postulates as the cause of AIDS.
   
2. AIDS and HIV infection are invariably linked in time, place and population group.
   
3. Many studies agree that only a single factor, HIV, predicts whether a person will develop AIDS.
   
4. In cohort studies, severe immunosuppression and AIDS-defining illnesses occur almost exclusively in individuals who are HIV-infected.
   
5. Before the appearance of HIV, AIDS-related diseases such as PCP, KS and MAC were rare in developed countries; today, they are common in HIV-infected individuals.
   
6. In developing countries, patterns of both rare and endemic diseases have changed dramatically as HIV has spread, with a far greater toll now being exacted among the young and middle-aged, including well-educated members of the middle class.
   
7. In studies conducted in both developing and developed countries, death rates are markedly higher among HIV-seropositive individuals than among HIV-seronegative individuals.
   
8. HIV can be detected in virtually everyone with AIDS.
   
9. Numerous studies of HIV-infected people have shown that high levels of infectious HIV, viral antigens, and HIV nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) in the body predict immune system deterioration and an increased risk for developing AIDS. Conversely, patients with low levels of virus have a much lower risk of developing AIDS.
   
10. The availability of potent combinations of drugs that specifically block HIV replication has dramatically improved the prognosis for HIV-infected individuals. Such an effect would not be seen if HIV did not have a central role in causing AIDS.
    
11. Among HIV-infected patients who receive anti-HIV therapy, those whose viral loads are driven to low levels are much less likely to develop AIDS or die than patients who do not respond to therapy. Such an effect would not be seen if HIV did not have a central role in causing AIDS.
    
12. Nearly everyone with AIDS has antibodies to HIV.
    
13. Numerous serosurveys show that AIDS is common in populations where many individuals have HIV antibodies. Conversely, in populations with low seroprevalence of HIV antibodies, AIDS is extremely rare.
    
14. The specific immunologic profile that typifies AIDS - a persistently low CD4+ T-cell count - is extraordinarily rare in the absence of HIV infection or other known cause of immunosuppression.
    
15. Newborn infants have no behavioral risk factors for AIDS, yet many children born to HIV-infected mothers have developed AIDS and died.
    
16. The HIV-infected twin develops AIDS while the uninfected twin does not.
    
17. Studies of transfusion-acquired AIDS cases have repeatedly led to the discovery of HIV in the patient as well as in the blood donor.
    
18. HIV is similar in genetic structure and morphology to other lentiviruses that often cause immunodeficiency in their animal hosts in addition to slow, progressive wasting disorders, neurodegeneration and death.
    
19. HIV causes the death and dysfunction of CD4+ T lymphocytes in vitro and in vivo.
    

I don't know much about AZT, so I'm not going to say anything about that. However, the page I linked above provides evidence against the claim that AZT causes AIDS.

mongoose has brought up an interesting article, though id like to point something out. everyone nowadays is pretty much convinced that if you get HIV/AIDs, your pretty much f#cked, well, there are so called treatments, but just think about the fact of how everyone percieves it. how will we ever find a cure for something that we mostly believe to be cureless? such is the power of suggestion, or so this is how i see it. in that sense, this duesberg may just be onto something. think about it.

and since we're speaking along the lines of the immune system, is anyone aware of the product "transfer factor" by 4life? im just curious, as to peoples takes on it, is all. i've taken it before and have been virtually healthy all the time during it, no sick, no cold, nadda, zilch. hmmm, or am i just on another trip of this power of suggestion?

thoughts?

Originally posted by mongoose
I'm just presenting what I've seen from Duesberg's Web site

Well do you or don't you agree with it?

it can cause "dementia" in some patients

HIV/AIDS is the destruction of the immune system, it doesn't need to cross the blood/brain barrier to cause dementia.

most health care workers who are accidently infected w/ HIV (from stuck needles, etc) don't get sick w/ AIDS, unless they're already in some other high-risk group to start w/

If someone doesn't get it when pricked with an infected needle, all that means is that they didnt get infected with it. If this duenes joker actually beleives this garbage, then all he has to do to prove his 'theory' is inject himself with a load of the HIV virus. He hasn't (apparently).

Magic Johnson is still HIV-positive, as he has been since 1991, and he's still alive and doing well. I don't think he's on any drug cocktail.. (could be wrong, though).

You are wrong. The massive drug load that HIV/AIDS patients get keep the virus down and aid the immune system. Thats why they are alive, because the HIV virus is kept in low numbers. If it increases inside the body, they get aids. Thats because the disease AIDS is caused by the HIV virus.

wyzewun:
The AZT group all became very ill with AIDS-like symptoms and eventually they all died. The placebo group showed no symptoms of AIDS whatsoever. The untreated group also did not show any symptoms of AIDS, but in fact noticed slight overall general health improvements which was attributed to the properly balanced diets.

This "covert" study went on for almost three years. It ended when the last AZT patient died. It was obvious that the use of the AZT played a huge role in the demise of the HIV Positive patients who were using it, since the placebo and untreated patients continued to live and thrive without it.

And this doctor never published his results because....?

Duesberg's not a quack out to hurt anyone...he's a bloody genius. AZT is toxic waste and it destoys the immune system...and that's a known scientific/medical fact.

If you beleive this then volunteer to be injected with HIV positive blood. Find the people in the 'control' group and exhange blood with them.

deafence#:
such is the power of suggestion, or so this is how i see it. in that sense, this duesberg may just be onto something. think about it.

People who have HIV and don't treat it get the disease AIDS and die. People without HIV never get the disease AIDS and don't die from AIDS. People with HIV who get drugs that control the population of HIV in them and keep the numbers low are able to survive and at least delay the onset of AIDs. Think about it.

From what I understand HIV and Aids are now known to be the same thing. Aids is simply a later stage of illness caused by the HIV. My dad used to be a chemist at Abbott Labs one of the companies that produces one of three protease inhibitors used to fight the damage caused by HIV so he was always excited during the 90's when they found more about the virus.

HIV is a simple virus like influenza or anything else and we all know now how it is transmitted. Normally when a virus attacks the body identifies the virus (each virus or strain of virus has a unique protein profile) and then the body produces specific white cells that are only good for destroying this exact virus. Afterwards your body will have a supply of anti-bodies for this exact strain of virus and you will be immune to this strain.

However unlike the flu when HIV enters the body and is identified and is being destroyed by the white cells it will mutate its protein profile thus rendering the current batch of white cells useless. Your immune system then has to produce a different set of white cells and the HIV will mutate yet again, and the process continues indefinately. Unfortunately the human immune system was not designed to continuously produce different white cells and over time it will fail and not be able to fight off any infection at all which is why HIV sufferers normally die from secondary infections. A simple cold will lead to pneumonia or the body is so stressed it will produce defective cells that will cause cancers.

During the 90's it was discovered HIV will start draining the immune system from day one and this is what was causing the immune system to fail around 10 years later not a seperate Aids disease. So the hunt was on for a treatment that would stop the virus from mutating or changing its protein signature. Well Abbott and two other companies found such a drug (protease inhibitors) so if you catch the virus early on you can take these drugs in combination and you can live a healthy life before your immune system is permanently damaged. After taking these drugs for 6 months tests on patients found them now to be totally HIV free. However after stopping these meds it was found the virus would return. The virus would hide in different glands and start reproducing throughout the body once again when the patient was off the meds. So patients must take these very expensive drugs for the rest of their lives.

Interestingly a tiny percentage of caucasians are naturally immune from this virus and their bodies can destroy it just like the flu however they can still pass it on to others. For these lucky few the virus is harmless just like it is harmless for the primates where the disease originated. People of African descent are especially vulnerable to the virus.

In the late 90's it was discovered that the HIV was mutating at a rapid rate as it was transmitted around the globe. Instead of 3 strains there are now hundreds. The problem is the latest strains popping up in Africa and Southeast Asia are immune to the protease inhibitors so there is no treatment available at all for these strains (not that any of these people could afford the meds anyway). Here in the US the fastest growing population carrying the virus are heterosexual teenagers. In Africa, India and Southeast Asia the percentage of the population carrying the disease is ridiculously high with 50% of children in some African countries orphans as a result of the disease (without treatment an unborn baby has a 50% chance of catching the virus from an infected mother). Lets hope it never reaches these epidemic proportions in the US which is why the Feds may have banned this ridiculous book for a start.

Once again mother nature produces a very effective form of population control. Don't kid yourself this virus is devestating for most humans.

Is there any concern from anyone that the Federal Government saw fit to ban the book that Duesberg wrote? To me, that's the most shocking aspect of this whole thing..

I'm not a physician, and I'm certainly not an AIDS specialist, so I can't really discuss whether or not HIV causes AIDS much beyond what I read in the news and/or what I read on a Web site like Duesberg's..

however, I am a U.S. citizen, and if the federal government is beginning to randomly ban books that don't fit in w/ its "view" of how the world should be ordered, that's a cause for grave concern for me..

Like I said before, this is (to my knowledge) the first book that's been banned by the U.S. government.. that alone, IMHO, both very alarming and, perhaps, gives some insight into what the Feds think about Duesberg.. after all, if he is wrong, then why not just let him look like a "crackpot" and let hypothesis that HIV doesn't cause AIDS die a natural death? Why go to the trouble of banning a book that he wrote??

He actually submitted papers for grants allowing him to infect healthy humans with a virus that kills people and is surprised that he can't get funding?

I'll pay for the single needle and the vial of infected blood so he can inject himself.

also, he sounds quite the homophobe to me.

How is HIV harmless if its killed thousands if people. Thats the name of the topic.

Originally posted by AD5673
How is HIV harmless if its killed thousands if people. Thats the name of the topic.

Duesberg contents that HIV is at best a cofactor in AIDS, not the direct cause of it.. have a look at his Web site.. moreover, the federal government seems concerned enough about this information to ban books that discuss this topic.

There is, however, another book on a similar topic.. it got good reviews on Amazon:

What if Everything You Thought You Knew about AIDS was Wrong?

www.hiddenmysteries.com...

viruses replicate by using the organs of a cell to make new viruses with their DNA.when the millions of new viruses are "born" they burst out of the cell causing it's destruction then the new viruses search for more cells to destroy.

the HIV virus attacks white blood cells.white blood cells are the cells that destroy hostile bacteria that enter the body,they also get rid of any foreign objects.

by destroying them,the defensive system is weakened,and vulnerable to any attack.any disease can kill then.

HIV virus kills you indirectly really

I've known a few people who have been diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. The ones that wasted away and dies took the drug cocktail and seemed to age at a faster rate, i.e. only 40 and looking like 60; and they continued bad habits like smoking and illicit drugs they wasted away and died. I do know a few people who have been diagnosed and gave the drug treatent the middle finger because they feel healthy and all they have done is watched their diet, generally all natural foods, quit smoking and drugs, and excersize heavily. Those I know who follow that lifestyle with the virus are still healthy today and are not aging prematurely. This is just a small number of people I have observed so its not scientific, but still an important observation IMO.

I know if things really go against me and one day I get diagnosed with HIV, there is no way I am taking the "drug cocktail" that is used unless I am sick and dying.

Cool were can I get a copy. Were does it say they have banned the book at. That might actually increase sales.

By the way did you know there are cures for aids out there? Like the australian doctor who won a 10 million $ lawsuit against cedar sinai.
I'm working on getting a fundraising project to assist the doc. they actually tried to whack him and sprayed stuff in his face.

I've got a copy of the newscast they broadcast about the case on a cbs local outlet pretty damning, if I do say so myself. Looks like the powers that be are about to lose won on this issue cause this cures cancer and heart disease too. Too many people out there that need this.

This is my first post but I think this conspiracy stuff is cool You guys get any death threats yet? Just kidding but seriously you guys got to be getting some sort of BS coming your way with all these posts.

I would think that the NWO guys are crapping in their pants with all the stuff pooping up on the net about them.

This view gained some credibility recently among the conspiracy-minded when a contract dispute between Duesberg and co-author Bryan Ellison interrupted publication of their book, entitled Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS, a court decision that was characterized in some circles as a book-banning in the US.

Sorry to ruin some fun, but the book was never banned. It was merely a publishing contract dispute, no real government banning.

LINK: www.forteantimes.com...

[edit on 8/22/04 by RedDragon]

[edit on 8/22/04 by RedDragon]