Medical Industry Holding Back Cures for Major Diseases

Originally posted by XanaX
ZZZ...where is your proof? You say she says it was found in 1959 in a human and where is the proof of that? Your proof has no written evidence or documentation.

Ahhh, don't you love ignorance? I personally love denying it. One minute of research and I can give you six references. Would you like more?


Oldest AIDS case found; Scientists say 1959 blood sample contains virus
Researchers trace first HIV case to 1959 in the Belgian Congo
An African HIV-1 sequence from 1959 and implications for the origin of the epidemic.
Earliest Documented HIV Virus: Collected by UW Center Deputy Director in 1959
The Origins of AIDS & HIV
The Origin of AIDS: On the Trail of an Epidemic: Searching for the Origin of AIDS

Mine has a document from the DOD to back it up.

Which could be just as "fabricated" as the CBS President Bush documents. If you think your "proof" is so glaring, then why hasn't the world, the entire scientific community called this into play? You think they are all in the conspiracy?

So you have someone trying to prove that BEFORE we had the genetic technology to create the virus, it was created even when it just happened to be around naturally?
Well, that sure is a twist.

Originally posted by XanaX
Method of curing AIDS with tetrasilver tetroxide molecular crystal devices

Abstract
The diamagnetic semiconducting molecular crystal tetrasilver tetroxide (Ag.sub.4 O.sub.4) is utilized for destroying the AIDS virus, destroying AIDS synergistic pathogens and immunity suppressing moieties (ISM) in humans. A single intravenous injection of the devices is all that is required for efficacy at levels of about 40 PPM of human blood. The device molecular crystal contains two mono and two trivalent silver ions capable of "firing" electrons capable of electrocuting the AIDS virus,

That, right there, should have had you rolling on the floor with laughter.

* the device actually doesn't exist.
* four atoms can't "electrocute" something that's composed of nearly a million atoms. There's not enough energy. Nor are they the kind of material that the virus binds to.
* It's something cooked up by the folks who sell you "colloidal silver." In this case, they were trying to convince you that they could cure you of HIV, cancer, warts, and unpopularity by selling you this drink. Those who drank it turned a strange bluish color, but aren't any healthier (and are often less healthy) than the rest of us.

Originally posted by XanaX
the rest of the essay is at: www.rense.com...

Bah! Rense with a regurgitation of the same "DOD document" from before.

Copy of the memo outlining the Haig-Kissinger "Depopulation Policy"

web.archive.org...://www.africa2000.com/SNDX/nssm200all.html

It's a long one.....and it's obviously been reproduced......so take it for what you want.

So you have someone trying to prove that BEFORE we had the genetic technology to create the virus, it was created even when it just happened to be around naturally?

It SUPPOSEDLY had already been around......it had similar properties but it was not the same. Take the information I've provided for whatever you want. You asked for information and it's been provided. There's quite obviously massive evidence of a conspiracy......

And whoever you are with the dead INXS lead singer as your Avatar....the info I posted on a possible cure is just that a possible cure...the headline reads: IS THIS A CURE??...did I say it was a cure? NO. Is there a cure out there? Probably. Do the powers that be have a reason to keep that cure a secret (if it exists)? Absolutely!

Originally posted by XanaX

You asked for information and it's been provided. There's quite obviously massive evidence of a conspiracy......

No, no there really isn't.

Sorry. There just isn't anything to even vaguely qualify as "evidence", let alone "massive evidence".

There just isn't anything to even vaguely qualify as "evidence", let alone "massive evidence".

I have to laugh. This is a site that quote likes to "Deny Ignorance" and yet, there are so many ignorant people on it. AIDS was quite obviously man-made. Believe what you want. I'll continue to live in the real world while you all live in La La Land......PEACE!!

This thread seems to be going down the same dead end road which every other conspiracy thread does. All I can say is that "proof" and "conspiracy" hardly ever walk hand in hand. Afterall that's the nature of a conspiracy.

Peace

Originally posted by XanaX
It SUPPOSEDLY had already been around......it had similar properties but it was not the same. Take the information I've provided for whatever you want. You asked for information and it's been provided. There's quite obviously massive evidence of a conspiracy......

Ok, so you have no belief that a virus can change. Just because there is mad-cow and it seems related to the deer variant or the human variant...maybe they were just created? Science would disagree.

As for the second part of your statement, I believe you said:
"The whole made up story about it coming from Africa is such a joke. AIDS was developed in this country to do the same thing - control the population. And yes, it was manufactured here in the United States. There are White House documents and memos to prove it. They can be found on the internet quite easily!!"

So you found conjecture and speculation and want to label that as "massive proof?" You stated pages ago that someone else didn't argue a credible arguement. In fact you said:
"but nothing he said and nothing in his manner of debate showed him to be above the average intellect"

So a person of "above average intellect" would take conjecture and speculation from places like Rense and claim THAT is "massive evidence?"

Very interesting quote from PBS.org:

Gallo tried throughout 1983 to get the AIDS virus to grow in culture, using the same growth factor that had worked in growing HTLV, but he was not successful. Finally, a member of Gallo's group named Mikulas Popovic developed a method to grow the virus in a line of T-cells. The method consisted, in effect, of mixing samples from various patients into a kind of a cocktail, using perhaps ten different strains of the virus at a time, so there was a higher chance that one would survive.

www.pbs.org...

In the 80's they couldn't grow or create the AIDs virus. Wonder how it was miraculously created prior to that.


You also don't see your "massive evidence" coming from places like the Pasteur Institute in France which has been studying AIDs/HIV for 20 years. Maybe they should call Rense.

I have to laugh. This is a site that quote likes to "Deny Ignorance" and yet, there are so many ignorant people on it. AIDS was quite obviously man-made. Believe what you want. I'll continue to live in the real world while you all live in La La Land......PEACE!!

So what is "quite obvious" to you is not proven or obvious to anyone else? It's conjecture. It's documented on sites like Rense for "credible" backing and WE live in La La Land?

I suggest you seriously think about the Deny Ignorance part. It means look at the credible proof. It means not letting your imagination or WANT of a conspiracy to overtake rational thought.

By providing us with 5-10 cut and paste jobs from sources such as Rense and very little of your own critical thinking other than to cover your ears and say "I'll continue to live in the real world..." you have actually provided "massive evidence" as to why a site like ATS needs to exist.

In conclusion, your "above average intellect" has chosen the often used position of "I'll take my ball and go home" which is no suprise to some of us lower-thinkers who do the research, insert our own lines of thinking and don't run when the going gets tough. In light of the last two pages of discussion and your final comment...I believe I rest my case.

Here is some information that I found on another website's thread. It seems to have fuel for both sides and somewhat documented:


The generally accepted theory is that AIDS is caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). There are two different versions of HIV: HIV-1 and HIV-2. These viruses are believed, on the basis of their genetic sequences, to have evolved from the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV), with HIV-2 being much more similar to SIV. Several years after the initial HIV infection, the immune system is weakened to the point where opportunistic infections occur, resulting in the syndrome of AIDS. A good reference for more information on the "mainstream" view of AIDS is:

The Science of AIDS : readings from Scientific American magazine. New York : W.H. Freeman, c1989.

Strecker's theory is that the CIA made HIV in the 1970's by combining bovine leukemia virus (BLV) and sheep visna virus (OLV). The evidence for this theory is that the government was looking at biological warfare around then, and that there are some structural similarities between HIV and BLV and visna. The evidence against this theory is:


We didn't have the biotechnology back then for the necessary gene splicing. (But maybe the CIA has secret advanced technology?)

The genetic sequences for HIV, SIV, BLV, and OLV are freely available (e.g. from genbank). You can look at them and compare them yourself. The HIV sequence is totally different from BLV and OLV, but is fairly similar to SIV, just as the scientists say.

There used to be a third point here: that the earliest documented AIDS case dated back to 1959. See question 9.2.
One school of thought holds that the "AIDS was a U.S. biological warfare experiment" myth was extensively spread as part of a dezinformatsiya campaign by Department V of the Soviet KGB (their `active measures' group). They may not have invented the premise (Soviet disinformation doctrine favored legends originated by third parties), but they added a number of signature details such as the name of the supposed development site (usually Fort Meade in Maryland) which still show up in most retellings.

According to a defector who was once the KGB chief rezident in Great Britain, the KGB promulgated this legend through controlled sources in Europe and the Third World. The Third World version (only) included the claim that HIV was the result of an attempt to build a "race bomb", a plague that would kill only non-whites.

Duesberg's theory is: HIV is a harmless retrovirus that may serve as a marker for people in AIDS high-risk groups. AIDS is not a contagious syndrome caused by one conventional virus or microbe. AIDS is probably caused by conventional pathogenic factors: administration of blood transfusions or drugs, promiscuous male homosexual activity associated with drugs, acute parasitic infections, and malnutrition. Drugs such as AZT promote AIDS, rather than fight it. His theory is explained in detail in "Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome: Correlation but not Causation", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA V86 pp.755-764, (Feb. 1989).

Virtually the entire scientific community considers Duesberg's AIDS theory to be unsupportable, although he was a respected researcher before he proposed it. There is no suggestion that his theories are the result of a political agenda or homophobia.

Details of the debate can be found in published rebuttals to Duesberg, such as in Nature V345 pp.659-660 (June 21, 1990), and in Duesberg's debate with Blattner, Gallo, Temin, Science V241 pp.514-517 (1988).

Also see the sci.med.aids FAQ.

What About the Sailor with AIDS in 1959?

(The following information is from The Independent, 24 March 1995)

There is now good reason to think that the evidence for this case was fraudulent. The patient was David Carr, a 25 year old man. Most reports describe him as a sailor, but in fact his only known trip abroad was during his national service, when he visted Gibralter aboard HMS Whitby for two weeks. It is possible he visited Tangier at this time, but there is no evidence either way. There is also no evidence that he was gay (although firm evidence would have led to his arrest).

Carr died on 31 August 1959 in Manchester Royal Infirmary, almost certainly of an immune deficiency. His case was written up in The Lancet of 29 October 1960 by Trevor Stretton, John Leonard (his doctors) and George Williams (the pathologist). It was just a minor medical mystery. Then in the late eighties, Williams sent samples of tissue from Carr's body to his hospital's virology unit to be tested for AIDS. They tested positive. The test was repeated with a blind control. Still positive. The doctors went public with a short letter in the Lancet on 7 July 1990.

In 1992 Professor David Ho of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Centre in New York asked for tissue samples from Carr in order to sequence the viral DNA. He succeeded, but found that the sequence was identical to strains circulating in 1990. Further checks revealed that the tissue sample was from a recently deceased person, and that other samples, alledgedly also from Carr but with no sign of the virus, were actually from a different person.

At the very least these facts cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the diagnosis of AIDS in David Carr. They also give strong reason to suspect a case of scientific fraud.

Source: home.xnet.com...

Just some info i pulled up on the three AIDS theories.

your "above average intellect" has chosen the often used position of "I'll take my ball and go home" which is no suprise to some of us lower-thinkers who do the research, insert our own lines of thinking and don't run when the going gets tough. In light of the last two pages of discussion and your final comment...I believe I rest my case.

ZZZ...whatever. I'm not taking my ball and going anywhere. I'm right here. I did plenty of research. I have before. I will again. I know the truth. Again, believe what you want and I'll do the same. Is this taking my ball and going home? I don't think so. I think it's me telling you to take what you want and leave the rest. Why don't you stop worrying about my balls and go about your business there cowboy. Fair enough?

At the very least these facts cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the diagnosis of AIDS in David Carr. They also give strong reason to suspect a case of scientific fraud.

Thanks Pugman.....Gosh ZZZ, it looks like the 1959 case of AIDS you describe or that your wife described may have been made up to distract people from the truth. Which is so unusual in our wonderful world. Like Lee Harvey Oswald was used to take our minds off the truth of the JFK assassination. Such things are so unusual in such a free and wonderful country as ours.....

Nice to see someone else is Open-Minded not Close-Minded......and willing to DENY IGNORANCE!

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Originally posted by XanaX
It SUPPOSEDLY had already been around......it had similar properties but it was not the same. Take the information I've provided for whatever you want. You asked for information and it's been provided. There's quite obviously massive evidence of a conspiracy......

Ok, so you have no belief that a virus can change. Just because there is mad-cow and it seems related to the deer variant or the human variant...maybe they were just created? Science would disagree.

I cannot do this justice (no time) - but I can't not post either.

Xanax and ZZZ - seems to me you're both partly right, and both partly wrong.

...The way a prion disease manifests partly results from its point of entry - respiratory; digestive; skin; other mucous membranes; or vascular. ...but whatever the entry point, it quickly becomes vascular, and thus also involves the immune system (basic anatomy) - and then, becomes sytemic.

...Run a search on "a smooth muscle actin" (ASMA) - and then search for an article titled "Actin' like actin."

If you persist, you will find that virtually every leading cause of death and disability today results from diseases linked to ASMA - including cancer, heart disease, stroke, obesity, depression, and various forms of dementia - all resulting from ASMA takeover of stem cells for connective tissue and smooth muscle. ...ASMA also is linked to genetic mutations, and ASMA infected cells are found in a range of diseases like Down's, Parkinson's, Grange syndrome, and immune disorders like Ehler's Danlos syndrome.


In addition, ASMA is able to hitchhike on and penetrate microbes, because of its structural similarity to common actin cytoskeleton/membrane proteins - and thus, new disease mutations are born. Without the necessity of tinkering. Which is not to say such tinkering did not take place.


IMO - both of you need to get back to your microbiology and anatomy texts. It's all there. And it's all (relatively) simple.

Very interesting quote from PBS.org:

Gallo tried throughout 1983 to get the AIDS virus to grow in culture, using the same growth factor that had worked in growing HTLV, but he was not successful. Finally, a member of Gallo's group named Mikulas Popovic developed a method to grow the virus in a line of T-cells. The method consisted, in effect, of mixing samples from various patients into a kind of a cocktail, using perhaps ten different strains of the virus at a time, so there was a higher chance that one would survive.

www.pbs.org...

In the 80's they couldn't grow or create the AIDs virus. Wonder how it was miraculously created prior to that.

Takes specific "catalytic cofactors" - and they obviously weren't using the right ones

You also don't see your "massive evidence" coming from places like the Pasteur Institute in France which has been studying AIDs/HIV for 20 years.

This whole thing is so completely scary that no one talks about it openly. Those that do, often end up dead. [Ie., search dead microbiologists.]

Still, it's searchable, with the right terms. Ie., a-smooth muscle actin; myofibroblasts; connective tissue; smooth muscle; fibrosis; fibroplasia; hyperplasia; dysplasia; immune; catalytic cofactors;

HINT: A disease called fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD) appears to be the stage where ASMA uses the vascular and immune systems to spread through mammals' bodies to infect connective tissue and smooth muscle in various locations.

...and brush up on that anatomy, plus, take a good look at actin.


Apology - wrote quickly - please forgive tone, possible errors - also have much more to say...

.

[edit on 15-9-2005 by soficrow]

Thank you soficrow. That was intelligent and non-antagonistic! Thanks for the info and I'll enjoy delving into it......

quote:
Very interesting quote from PBS.org:

quote: Gallo tried throughout 1983 to get the AIDS virus to grow in culture, using the same growth factor that had worked in growing HTLV, but he was not successful. Finally, a member of Gallo's group named Mikulas Popovic developed a method to grow the virus in a line of T-cells. The method consisted, in effect, of mixing samples from various patients into a kind of a cocktail, using perhaps ten different strains of the virus at a time, so there was a higher chance that one would survive.

www.pbs.org...

In the 80's they couldn't grow or create the AIDs virus. Wonder how it was miraculously created prior to that.


Takes specific "catalytic cofactors" - and they obviously weren't using the right ones

Very interesting ZZZ, "Takes specific "catalytic cofactors" - and they obviously weren't using the right ones."

I love how you think everything you post is correct and everything I post is incorrect. Is this one of the prerequisites of being a mod? Why not try being open-minded? One learns a lot more with an open mind. In the words of one of the immortals:

"When you're green, you're growing. When you're ripe, you're dead."

- Einstein

Originally posted by XanaX

LaLaLa Land

Once more:

You've provided material from Rense, David Icke (who you've admitted in other threads to thinking is a complete lunatic...), WWN, whale.to - and suggested that these are reliable sources of the information.

Fine.

When others have provided material from sources such as (even non-US) medical sites, for example, you immediately rush to paint that source as obviously biased, prejudicial and/or downright "in on the conspiracy".

Fine.

However, when you take the route of "Well, the source isn't the important thing...it's the information that's important!", you kind of shoot your own argument down.

Because, in the face of the above statement (from an early post of yours, which I paraphrased, being somewhat short on time atm), you leave a very obvious message:

"Sources are ok, but only when I want to cite them. Otherwise they're not relevant". Perhaps more importantly, when we disregard the actual sources and look solely at the information, what is going to appear more credible? Several non-medical opinions based upon a lot of rumour and conjecture, or several medical/professional opinions* with a few hundred years of research between 'em?

Why are your sources ok, but those of others are not ok? Do you, or do you not, think the credibility of a source is a valid concern?

Please - don't answer "because everyone else is part of the conspiracy". Please. I beg of you.

(sorry Mods, derailing a little, just genuinely, utterly baffled as to the logic here)

Sofi - thank you, as always, for those links. I'll be readin' 'em shortly.

* I'm the first to agree that medical does not automatically equal reliable, by any means. Though in terms of medical opinions, it does somewhat suggest a little more credibility. Then again, sources are moot.

Tinkleflower, sometimes your views and viewpoints are enought to drive me to drink.

On the other hand, I love your posts, and the way you can use logic rather than rhetoric to get you points across.

Of course, given the fact that you are often incorrect (translation: you don't always agree with me) in your evaluations of events, I realize that it would take at least three or four all-night bull sessions and a couple cases of Dos Equis beer for me to be able to set you straight.

Nonetheless...

You have voted Tinkleflower for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Originally posted by XanaX
Very interesting ZZZ, "Takes specific "catalytic cofactors" - and they obviously weren't using the right ones."

I love how you think everything you post is correct and everything I post is incorrect. Is this one of the prerequisites of being a mod? Why not try being open-minded? One learns a lot more with an open mind.

Nice of you to accept anything that supports your version of "truth" and completely dismiss anything counter to that. I simply said it was an interesting quote although in the long run, it has no more "proof" than anything you have supplied.

My entire history of posts simply counters that what you state as "massive evidence" is in fact...not. It doesn't deny your theory. Perhaps if you were to see that it IS a theory and not "massive evidence" or absolute "truth" as you say...then we have a more common ground.

You have stated it a few times, but having an "open-mind" cannot be achieved with a closed-door policy.

you immediately rush to paint that source as obviously biased, prejudicial and/or downright "in on the conspiracy".

Never said any such thing or eluded to any such thing.

"Sources are ok, but only when I want to cite them. Otherwise they're not relevant".

I never said this....how dare you post a quote and tell anyone on here it came from me. These are not my words and I challenge anyone on this site to find these words in any of my posts!