AIDS is a man made virus !

reply to post by alysha.angel


Dear alysha.angel

Nice idea but not true, AIDS was discovered in a Liverpool sailor that died in 1947.

reply to post by Solasis

Not sure about the above references... However, here is a link to a Book that I have read, (Online video is also available) that makes a very compelling case for these drugs to have been manufactured, released, re-released and altered.
I suggest you might want to read this, and judge for yourself. I suggest that the author presents his view, backed by reference to public available (documents) proof, to a degree beyond reproach.
Upon questioning the "Doctor" responsible for the AIDS virus at a public convention, said doctor stumbled, lied and attempted to deny and belittle the question.
Check it out, better still read the book.

Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola: Nature, Accident or Intentional

592-pages Description

Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz's national best-seller (that the New York Times refused to review) provides the first in-depth exploration into the origins of HIV and Ebola.


Features
Claims that "emerging viruses," AIDS, Ebola, herpes viruses, Epstein Barr, and the new flu viruses naturally evolved and then jumped species infect humanity seem grossly unfounded in light of the compelling evidence assembled in this monumental text.

Alternatively, the possibility that these bizarre germs were laboratory creations, accidentally or intentionally transmitted via tainted hepatitis and smallpox vaccines in the U.S. and Africa - as numerous authorities have alleged - is investigated herein.

This book reviews the numerous viral vaccine studies conducted simultaneously in New York City and Central West Africa by a narrow network of virologists working for major military-medical contractors under the auspices of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Included is Dr. Robert Gallo, the notorious (alleged) discoverer of the AIDS virus. The text presents bizarre and horrifying facts about the biological weapons race of the 1960s and early 1970s when these researchers developed countless immune system ravaging viruses, and experimented with an assortment of antidote vaccines allegedly for "defense" and cancer prevention.

The book definitively determines with astonishing documentation HIV/AIDS was man-made and vaccine delivered. Dr. Horowitz leaves you, the reader, to draw your own conclusion whether this happened by accident or political and economic intent.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I'd be interested in reading more about what you've said. Do you have good links on this to get me started?

Well if aids was meant for population control, it's not doing a very good job.

6 billion people on the planet

33 million people living with aids

2 million people die of aids each year

Not exactly thinning the herd. Additionally, the majority of these deaths are in poor countries. Aids is much less prevalent in developed countries like America.

Ok folks... many of you want some degree of proof, are you willing to work for it?
Are you serious about wanting to know?
If so here is a snippet that will keep you busy for a while.

If you are learners then here is a real place to start, (loaded with references):

Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola: Nature, Accident or Intentional
By Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz
592-pages

Description

Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz's national best-seller, provides the first
in-depth exploration into the origins of HIV and Ebola.

Features

Claims that "emerging viruses," AIDS, Ebola, herpes viruses, Epstein Barr, and the new flu viruses naturally evolved and then jumped species infect humanity seem grossly unfounded in light of the compelling evidence assembled in this monumental text.

Alternatively, the possibility that these bizarre germs were laboratory creations, accidentally or intentionally transmitted via tainted hepatitis and smallpox vaccines in the U.S. and Africa - as numerous authorities have alleged - is investigated herein.

This book reviews the numerous viral vaccine studies conducted simultaneously in New York City and Central West Africa by a narrow network of virologists working for major military-medical contractors under the auspices of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Included is Dr. Robert Gallo, the notorious (alleged) discoverer of the AIDS virus. The text presents bizarre and horrifying facts about the biological weapons race of the 1960s and early 1970s when these researchers developed countless immune system ravaging viruses, and experimented with an assortment of antidote vaccines allegedly for "defense" and cancer prevention.

The book definitively determines with astonishing documentation HIV/AIDS was man-made and vaccine delivered..... whether this happened by accident or political and economic intent?

Unless you are "seekers of attention", "noise-makers" or just here to cause turmoil, I suspect that you will be reading the book, researching the references or watching the online video for the next couple of days.
That being said, I look forward to discussing what you have to debate, based on an informed subject in the near future.... good reading!

But, at least once, smallpox was used directly as a weapon. This was the infamous case of General Jeffrey Amherst in 1763, for which Amherst Massachusetts is named. The good general was in command of troops in the Ohio area. Certain native tribes in the area had become increasingly hostile. In response, the general wrote a letter to a subordinate outlining a plan to "Extirpate this Execrable Race" via the dispensation of smallpox-infected blankets.

The order was carried out with military efficiency. A smallpox epidemic duly took hold amongst the tribes. Mortality was very high. Some tribal groups virtually vanished, and the rest suffered severe population losses. The virus did a very thorough job in breaking the rebellion.

Ethnic Biological Weapons are not new folks. They been doing it.

academic.udayton.edu...

Originally posted by dietsamcola
Well if aids was meant for population control, it's not doing a very good job.

6 billion people on the planet

33 million people living with aids

2 million people die of aids each year

Not exactly thinning the herd. Additionally, the majority of these deaths are in poor countries. Aids is much less prevalent in developed countries like America.

It's virtually impossible to do it now. Too much intermingling of the races. Unless you get it down to the genetic level and specific genes. That's why the one drop rule is so important. That's why these experiments run amok.

reply to post by Come Clean


Uh...you think this "intermingling" wasn't rampant prior to the 1950s?

Are you kidding me? You DO know what goes on during colonization, don't you? You've never heard the phrase "rape and pillage"? Seriously?

And what do you think the white slave-owners were doing with their black slaves prior to this? You think Thomas Jefferson was the only one who used his female slaves for more than housework?

reply to post by okbmd


I've been doing research on the subject and there are some things that i do not understand, if you believe this so much answer my questions please, what is HIV? if aids is man made and people get tested for HIV, and i know all the crap about HIV testing not being true either, so if HIV isnt real what causes AIDS, I've read that people tested positive for HIV after they start taking the medicine for it, the medicine is what turns HIV into AIDS. Also people that have never been tested for HIV/AIDS before, and therefore have never taken medicine for it, they die from AIDS, if this is true how could someone die from AIDS if they werent given the medicine to produce HIV into AIDS?

total parano BS.

as a matter of fact AIDS probably does exist since always (it is defficiency of immune system, no more no less).

Where you are spot on is that what is killing hiv patient, beside PLACEBO effect, is made in laboratories : the medication they give them are destroying immune system + many vaccines may well do the job.

HIV is a fable like 911
read : (many more science articles about AIDS on same website)
www.fearoftheinvisible.com...

The rest of that page was simply a summary of Gallo's earlier work with the leukaemia-linked HTLV-I. It said: ‘epidemiologic data strongly suggests AIDS is caused by an infectious agent' but presented none of this data to support this. But when I turned the page, I was riveted. Gallo had deleted a statement by Popovic saying: 'Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified.' (images in book - scanned copies of the words as typed by Popovic and changed by Gallo) This was totally unexpected. Nothing I read had led me to expect this. No one had mentioned these deleted words. Not Crewdson, not any of the investigators, no history of AIDS science. No one had reported these words, let alone their deletion by Gallo."

reply to post by alysha.angel


Don't forget, it wasn't long ago they were caught in Africa injecting HIV to little kids.

They got free when their European government put pressure on the government of that country.

Can't be bothered doing the research, I think it was Sudan, but I don't know.

It isn't just you who has this belief, it is also many Afghans.

My mom used to tell me about how they infect people intentionally.

what, you just got the memo.

actually it wasnt made in america. it was made in britain to originally be tested on monkeys and it spread to mankind through monkeys in southern africa, since britain had colonies down in that area, and a women did it with a monkey and spread it on to others

Originally posted by bluedrake
This is not the first time I have heard this story.

The only thing that really confused me about the statement that it was man made is, why would you make a disease that took a few years to kill the person?

The real question is, if the medical industry is trying to make money, why wouldn't they make a disease which takes years to kill?

Think of all the money that the medical industry makes on vaccinations, treatments, etc. If you string a person along for years, you milk them dry of everything that they're worth. Imagine if you did this on a massive scale? 1+1=2

The best thing the medical industry could ever do FOR THEMSELVES is make the perfect disease without "a cure;" especially if they're thinking in long-term profits.

I thought most people would have already thought of this.


[edit on 3-8-2010 by PsychoX42]

Originally posted by bluedrake
This is not the first time I have heard this story.

The only thing that really confused me about the statement that it was man made is, why would you make a disease that took a few years to kill the person?

JMO. So that they could make money off of a person during that few years through the medical and drug industry.

EDIT: And also gain 'cure' donations to fund whatever else they have going on.

[edit on 3-8-2010 by nlouise]

Horowitz has been severely discredited lately, After his attacks on Dr Peter Duesberg which turned out to be completely fraudulent.

George Whitehurst Berry is one of the few economists who knows what is really going on. He has a really good section on what is the real story on AIDS

I suggest any one who wants to know go here and scroll down the the aids section
sounds like the truth will surprise many

as Mika among others have pointed out like people like Gallo has been PROVEN to be a fraud, so is the viral definition of AIDS

www.hearitonline.com...

[edit on 3-8-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 3-8-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 3-8-2010 by Danbones]

Originally posted by PsychoX42

Originally posted by bluedrake
This is not the first time I have heard this story.

The only thing that really confused me about the statement that it was man made is, why would you make a disease that took a few years to kill the person?

The real question is, if the medical industry is trying to make money, why wouldn't they make a disease which takes years to kill?

Think of all the money that the medical industry makes on vaccinations, treatments, etc. If you string a person along for years, you milk them dry of everything that they're worth. Imagine if you did this on a massive scale? 1+1=2

The best thing the medical industry could ever do FOR THEMSELVES is make the perfect disease without "a cure;" especially if they're thinking in long-term profits.

I thought most people would have already thought of this.


[edit on 3-8-2010 by PsychoX42]

I think that's why they've created a diabetes epidemic. (to string along for years on meds)

A short term killer puts population in fear. A person might fear something more that would kill in 3 years as opposed to 20 years. Then they would want a cure NOW for it. Hence all the big $$$ donations flowing in to find a cure for something so deadly. JMO

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

You mean, the ones you could find a "virusmyth.com" link for, right?

Of course, and again, virusmyth.com is just one of the many links I provided to show actual scientific reports made by actual doctors and scientists. This whole fallacious attack on virusmyth.com is no different than the stupid nonsense people engage in over the MSNBC/FOX News links, or Alex Jones versus Huffingtonpost. It is a misdirection and done so by amateur magicians such as yourself. David Blaine your not.

The reports and papers I cited were written by research scientists such as Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, from the Department of Medical Physics, Valendar F.Turner, from Department of Emergency Medicine, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Western Australia; John M. Papadimitriou, from Department of Pathology, University of Western Australia; and David Causer, also from the Department of Medical Physics, all belonging to the Perth Group.

I have cited a report by Etienne de Harven, MD, is Emeritus Professor of Pathology, University of Toronto; which was not from the site virusmyth.com but from the site hivskeptic.wordpress.com. I cited data from a site called healtoronto.com. I have cited Roberto A. Giraldo, MD from his own website, and I have cited a study titled; False positives for HIV using commercial viral load quantification assays de Mendoza, C; Holguín, A; Soriano, and all you have been able to do is attack one site that posted some of these studies. Hardly scientific.

I quoted and touched on every part of your post.

Post? I have made several posts all the way back from the second page, and in fact had to go back and retrieve multiple links just so you could not bother to read them again.

The "claims" made on that site are easily explained by basic science. I'll go through them right now for you, if that will stop you from posting further screed.

And here is you ignorance in full swing, as I have fully demonstrated it is not really I who is making any claims, other than valid questions have arisen from this hypothesis treated as fact, and have instead allowed the doctors and scientists I have cited to make the claims. How ironic that after you smugly cut and paste a patent post of yours that was nothing more than a screed you make this remark.

First link: This article, written by Etienne de Harven is nothing but more of Dr. de Harven's insane ramblings.

Oh yeah, there's a real scientific rebuttal for you. Now you're a psychiatrist diagnosing this Dr.'s mental state of mind.

This man, working with President Mbeki, has cause the deaths of nearly half a million Africans due to his denialist views.

Uh-huh. Can't be bothered to back that up with any hard scientific data can you? Just ad hominem attacks on an actual Dr. who has challenged the current consensus regarding HIV. Real scientific.

As for the material of the article, he misleads the audience by constantly referring to technology and biology from the 1970s and early 1980s, rather than modern technology and biological markers being used at the time of the article's writing, 2003.

Okay, so when Robert Gallo announced in 1984 with undeniable certainty that he had isolated an HIV virus and declared it the cause of AIDS, this was okay with you, because he has now supposedly been vindicated because technology has since caught up with his less than ethical procedures in skipping vital steps to isolation then. Right. This is the same story all the advocates tell; "The technology is better now...really...it is I tell you...the technology is better I say!"

HIV has still never been successfully isolated! Your vaunted new technology has not been able to change that fact.

Why would he do that? Could it be because he knows that using modern references would destroy his argument?

What modern references are you talking about?

Second link: The author of this link mischaracterizes the papers they are citing. They claim the two papers are meant to show "isolates" of HIV, when really, if you look at the actual papers (linked at the bottom of the article) they are meant to show that microvesicles can and do often contaminate the samples, adding an extra consideration to future research. The articles are not, however, claiming that these images are isolates of HIV, nor are they calling into question previous images of HIV.

I can only assume that by the second link you mean the one from healtoronto.com, and it is also fairly assumed that you did not click the link that told you to do so to find further discussion by Eleni Papadodulos-Eleopulos, who say's this:

"They bear only the vaguest resemblance to retroviral particles. For sure they look more like retroviral particles than all the other particles and material but even if they looked identical to retroviral particles you cannot say they are a retrovirus. Even Gallo admits to the existence of particles which band at 1.16 gm/ml and which have the appearances and biochemical properties of retroviruses but which are not retroviruses because they are incapable of replicating."

Further, the author does not at all "mis-characterize" and flat out states in the paragraph directly below the image it is speaking to:

The authors of these studies concede that their pictures reveal the vast majority of the material in the density gradient is cellular contamination.

It is you who is "mis-characterizing", not they.

Third link: This is nothing but a press release, citing no sources, referencing no data, no studies, no images, no...anything. You might as well have just posted an editorial.

Sigh. You made me go back and fish out all the links I had all ready posted in this thread, and you now make this ridiculous remark? It is a press release that tells a little about Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, which I thought prudent when I first linked it. Thus far you have dismissed Etienne de Harven as being "insane", offering absolutely no medical or psychiatric data to back up that claim, you have mis-characterized the author of the healtoronto.com report by claiming that author mis-characterized the two papers it references, when no such thing happened at all, and now you want to get pithy about a press release.

Fourth link: Again, another press release with no data, no soruces, no anything. It's simply a statement explaining that one scientist has claimed there is no isolated HIV, but he provides no rebuttal to any of the currently standing science. Once again, nothing but an editorial.

This press communique was linked originally because it speaks to the valid questions that arose due to the HIV advocacy.

Due to lack of evidence of "HIV" having been isolated, and due to the fact that after 15 years, work there is still no sound demonstration in the medical literature proving that a retrovirus named "HIV" is the cause of what is called "AIDS", the "HIV-AIDS hypothesis" has failed.

This press communique was written in 1998 so of course it isn't rebutting any of the "currently standing science", but then again, you aren't really speaking to the "currently standing science" yourself, only pretending to do so. The fact is, as it was then, that HIV has never been successfully isolated. This little fact you keep diligently avoiding.

Fifth link: Same scientist, this time actually trying to support his argument.

Uh-huh. His? By his do you mean; Valendar F.Turner, or do you mean; John M. Papadimitriou, or do you mean; David Causer? Certainly you don't mean; Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos who is female, but all of them were authors of that paper, so you can understand my skepticism that you actually read the paper before criticizing it.

He claims that because the "Pasteur method" wasn't followed (a method which hasn't been used for decades due to it's cumbersome, inefficient approach), HIV can't be said to exist.

He, being the Perth Group wrote a dissertation more than fifty pages long and you are speaking to the second paragraph of that paper, which addresses Luc Montagneir's (et al) 1983 study, but then goes well beyond that study to address Gallo's so called "isolation" and Levy's so called "isolation", and then continues for another 45 pages point by point making a case that HIV has not been successfully isolated. Further, Dr. Peter Deusberg, of whom Gallo once called "the golden boy" of retro-virology, seems to still use the Pasteur rules, even if they are "too cumbersome", and certainly does not agree with you that they are an "inefficient approach".

He then goes on to make wild claims about reverse transcriptase not being specific, and that the Western blots for HIv glycoproteins were falsified, all of which he justifies through small snippet quotes from sources, most of which he is taking out of context to support his claims.

Yeah right. He, being the Perth Group, in a dissertation more than 50 pages long, only uses "snippets of quotes in the rest of the dissertation, and of course taking these 251 sources referenced, "out of context". Of course, you can't be bothered to speak to all of that, and it is highly doubtful you bothered to read the dissertation beyond the first few paragraphs. What are you a speed reader? Read the report before have you? We should just take your word for it that you actually read the paper, and believe you that it is all out of context referencing. Right. The paper has been linked for anyone who wants to read it for themselves, or they could just take your word for it, which might not be such a good idea.

Continued...

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Continuing...

Sixth link: Same article, just summarised. The scientist also dismissed an HIV isolate because he didn't like how they looked in a sucrose gradient, showing his obvious ignorance to the fact that the process of getting such a particle in a sucrose gradient can affect the membrane and protein projections. Maybe he should have spent a little more time in the lab and less time on conspiracy sites.

Of course, this summary is of the dissertation written by four different scientists, one of whom is female, and yet you still insist on referring to that paper and now the summary as being written by "he", and we are supposed to believe you were paying attention when you "read" this paper and its summary.

As to your claim that "the process of getting such a particle in a sucrose gradient can affect the membrane and protein projections", this didn't seem to be a problem for the Collaborative Research Group on Multiple Sclerosis, in their paper Molecular identification of a novel retrovirus repeatedly isolated from patients with multiple sclerosisMolecular identification of a novel retrovirus repeatedly isolated from patients with multiplesclerosis

Extracellular virion purification and sucrose density gradients were performed as described (9–11). From each sucrose gradient, 0.5- to 1-ml fractions were collected; 60 μl was used for RT activity assay, and the rest was mixed with 1 volume of buffer containing 4 M guanidinium thiocyanate, 0.5% N-lauroyl sarcosin, 25 mM EDTA, and 0.2% 2-mercaptoethanol adjusted to pH 5.5 with acetic acid. These mixtures were frozen at −80°C for further RNA extraction or were directly processed according to Chomczynski (13). RNA was dissolved in 20–50 μl of diethyl-pyrocarbonate-treated water in the presence of 1–2 μl of recombinant RNase-inhibitor (Promega) and 0.1 mM DTT. Aliquots (10 μl) were used for each RT-PCR.

Maybe you should spend some more time in a lab instead of on conspiracy sites, unless you now want to claim that the Collaborative Research Group on Multiple Sclerosis spends too much time in a conspiracy site. Of course, we know who is spending all their time in a conspiracy site when it comes to doctors, and it isn't The Perth Group or the Collaborative Research Group on Multiple Sclerosis, it's...why, it's you!

Seventh link: A discussion board post (really?) that claims proteins don't crystallize in the human body (false) and that they function through vibration (false). If your source has two lies back to back, I toss it. Sorry.

Oh...okay, so now John Moore, Senior Scientist, Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center, Rockefeller University, New York, NY is a liar. Yeah you're a real piece of work, you who spends an awful lot of time in a conspiracy site.

So, I've addressed all seven of your articles. Can you address a single one of mine, now?

Okay, let's review; you diagnosed Etienne de Harven as being insane, you lied about the second link and mis-characterized what that author wrote by claiming that author mis-characterized the two papers that were referenced, you dismissed the third link because it was a press release that gave some information on who Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos is, even though you insist on calling her, he. You dismissed the fourth also for being a press release, even though it made the claim then, (1998), that HIV has never been successfully isolated, and it still hasn't, you dismissed the fifth link by lumping the four scientists of the Perth Group who authored that dissertation, and took that more than 50 page paper and reduced it to a claim that the Pasteur rules were not used, then insisting that those rules were too "cumbersome", you dismissed the summary that followed making the outlandish claim that sucrose gradients were not appropriate for isolating retroviruses, and concluded with calling John Moore, Senior Scientist of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center, a liar.

I, of course, posted all those links to have these insane and lying scientists address your points, but what you really want is for me in my own words to address your points, isn't that right? And why are baiting me in this way? Let's analyze a little further and see what you have to say about yourself:

I learned at a medical school, a university hospital, and now a public hospital.

Uh-huh. And, of course, you continue with this nonsense:

Statistics are absolutely vital to diagnosis. Nothing is as simple as "oh, the patient has these three symptoms, it must be this disease". Every single patient is a veritable stew of conditions, diseases, infections, and unique responses. You have to look at the data you can gather from physical exams, bloodwork, and imaging, and then decide what, statistically, is most likely to be wrong with them. If five of the symptoms point to esophageal cancer, but four also point to strep throat, you order an imaging study to rule out esophageal cancer immediately, rather than waiting a month to see if antibiotics clear up what might be strep.

Why do I call your blather nonsense? Well it is not because I am a doctor, and to be sure, what I am about to relay to you is partially anecdotal, but it is an experience that led me down path of taking medical matters into my own hands in learning to never trust a doctor just because they declare themselves knowledgeable. In the '90's I was a bartender who had quite an active social life, and dated many women of whom I met in the bars I worked. Because of this active lifestyle, and because at some point I began having a burning sensation when I urinated, that I went to the doctor and after answering truthfully the questions asked of me, and a test was taken, I was diagnosed with chlamydia.

The pain of chlamydia was not nearly as painful of the fact that I had to go to all the women I had sex with and relay this information, as well as take an HIV test, wait several days for an answer, and then listen to the lecture of how just because it came back negative did not mean I was in the clear. Of course, the women of whom I relayed this embarrassing information to in the interest of disclosure stopped talking to me and their friends would look at me funny, but this is what I got for being sexually active, or so the doctor told me. I slowed down on the sexual activity, made damn sure to sue a condom the next time I had sex, but lo and behold, the next time I had sex, the burning sensation came back!

I went to the doctor, swore up and down to my skeptical doctor that I wore a condom, and he suggested that maybe the condom was defective, tested me again, confirmed it was chlamydia, insisted I take another HIV test, and that I tell the girl I had sex with that she had chlamydia. The HIV test came back negative, but again I listened to the lectures of how I should test every three months for the next year, and the girl of whom I diligently told about the unfortunate chlamydia came marching into the bar a week later, slapped me in the face and told me she was clean and did not test positive for chlamydia, and asked me what kind of game I was playing with her.

I went back to my doctor and relayed this story. He nonchalantly shrugged his shoulders and told me that she was probably lying and was embarrassed, or that maybe she wasn't lying and I simply had a relapse because maybe I didn't take the penicillin regiment as prescribed, or the dosage wasn't strong enough. A lot of maybe's if you ask me, but I stupidly accepted this offer, and nodded my head obediently when he reminded me not to forget to come back in a few months for another HIV test. I then sort of took on a self imposed celibacy for a time, went back for that stupid HIV test, which were costing me almost $100 a pop, and looked for a nice girl I could settle down with and be monogamous.

I finally met this nice girl, of whom we dated several weeks before consummating our passion for each other, and lo and behold, a few days later, the burning returned! I agonized for a few days before going to the doctor. When I went I insisted that I had been abstinent up until that moment of consummation, and just couldn't believe that the last three girls I had sex with all had chlamydia. This didn't seem to be of any concern to my nonchalant doctor who simply tested me again, both for chlamydia and HIV, came back positive for the chlamydia, negative for the HIV, listened to the standard lecture about HIV, and diligently, albeit reluctantly, told my new girlfriend I had chlamydia. She was naturally upset, but I went to her doctor with her only to discover she did not have chlamydia! She was furious with me and thought that I had been having indiscriminate sex with other girls and put her at risk for HIV.

Needless to say that relationship was over. I went and found a doctor to get a second opinion about what was going on with me. She listened to me patiently, and after hearing my story decided that maybe I should be tested for a bladder infection. Lo and behold! It was a bladder infection I had, not chlamydia!! I was furious and relayed my anger to my new doctor about my old doctor, but she defended him telling me that he never tested me for a bladder infection because of my sexual activity and that the tests for bladder infections were more costly. More costly? I asked my doctor if she could fathom the cost I had taken by telling all these girls I had chlamydia, the stress I had gone through. While she was not nearly as nonchalant as my old doctor, she seemed to be more sympathetic to my old doctor than me.

Cont...

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Continued...

This was not my first bad experience with doctors, it was just the straw that broke the camels back, and between that experience with the ridiculous amount of penicillin I had to take, and all the side affects that come with taking that much penicillin, combined with an abscessed tooth I had during that time, which meant even more penicillin, I began doing my own research on medicine, and this is how I wound up taking the white pill, (penicillin of course), and going down the rabbit hole.

I was all ready vaguely aware of the controversy between Gallo, Montagnier, the CDC and the Pasteur Institute over the HIV debacle, and I began doing some research on that as well as other things related to medicine. I began to learn many disturbing statistics about doctors and misdiagnosis causing death, and I learned a new medical term; Iatrogenocide. So, when you smugly tout your "credentials" why don't you consider these statistics:

An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records that was released today by HealthGrades, the healthcare quality company.

And these statistics:

The HealthGrades study applied the mortality and economic impact models developed by Dr. Chunliu Zhan and Dr. Marlene R. Miller in a research study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in October of 2003. The Zhan and Miller study supported the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) 1999 report conclusion, which found that medical errors caused up to 98,000 deaths annually and should be considered a national epidemic.

And these statistics:

The HealthGrades study finds nearly double the number of deaths from medical errors found by the 1999 IOM report "To Err is Human," with an associated cost of more than $6 billion per year. Whereas the IOM study extrapolated national findings based on data from three states, and the Zhan and Miller study looked at 7.5 million patient records from 28 states over one year, HealthGrades looked at three years of Medicare data in all 50 states and D.C. This Medicare population represented approximately 45 percent of all hospital admissions (excluding obstetric patients) in the U.S. from 2000 to 2002.

And this statistic:

"If the Center for Disease Control's annual list of leading causes of death included medical errors, it would show up as number six, ahead of diabetes, pneumonia, Alzheimer's disease and renal disease," continued Dr. Collier. "Hospitals need to act on this, and consumers need to arm themselves with enough information to make quality-oriented health care choices when selecting a hospital."

How about these statistics:

Doctors' sloppy handwriting kills more than 7,000 people annually. It's a shocking statistic, and, according to a July 2006 report from the National Academies of Science's Institute of Medicine (IOM), preventable medication mistakes also injure more than 1.5 million Americans annually. Many such errors result from unclear abbreviations and dosage indications and illegible writing on some of the 3.2 billion prescriptions written in the U.S. every year. Read more: www.time.com...

I guess taking the time to write a prescription in a clear and understandable handwriting style is just too "cumbersome" for some doctors. So, by all means, be smug about your "credentials", it just reminds me of the tag line for the remake of The Fly where Gena Davis warns; "Be afraid, be very afraid." And so we all should be if you are any example of what people must face when trusting their doctor. How many doctors, I wonder, spend a great deal of their time crying victimhood from members who challenge their smug assertions? Certainly we know you are one, but you seem to believe "he" that is four doctors from the Perth Group also frequent conspiracy sites, and it isn't as if they are taking seriously all the very real concerns people have about death by doctors, questionable advocacy of dubious hypothesis presented as fact, and the typical condescending attitude they portray. Yep, be afraid, be very afraid.