Post: #1

Hey guys,

I am curious to see what you think about this article:

http://www.altheal.org/overview/liamscheff.htm

It is pretty damn long, but very interesting. It is broken into 3 parts, so you can always take a break in the reading.

Normally I have to say that I am very sceptic about conspiracy-theories and pseudo science, but this appears to be more than just an 'interesting' story.

Post: #2

There are a few solid facts, but it's mostly garbage. Namely the 3rd section. No, TB is not used as a diagnosis of HIV/AIDS in Africa. Tb is indicative, but a diagnosis based solely on this (as Mr. Scheff says) would be irresponsible for even the most jaded doctor. And while Kaposi's sarcoma can be a physical symptom of HIV, it is not possible to diagnose infection from physical symptoms alone.

I study medicine/medical research and generally any source that doesn't cite published data is considered suspect; I couldn't find any studies to look to for further info. I didn't bother to read too much into detail, but my conclusion is that this was simply the ramblings of someone who noticed a few basic patterns in public health epidemics.



Also, more than once I've heard guys on here mention that if you bang a girl without a condom your chances of catching something aren't that high. THIS IS BULLSHIT DUDE. Wrap your shit. If you met some of the people I have worked with who are HIV positive, or the ammount of VD you see in a clinic in one day you would shit your pants.

Post: #3

Hey Feomuerto, I am glad someone with a background in natural science is willing to discuss this. I don't know anyone with hiv, and I don't know anybody that knows anybody with the disease - that's why it can be a bit difficult to relate to.

The main points in the article (if I understand it right) is:

a) Being HIV+ is a very blurry diagnosis is in the first place
-there are about 60 normal conditions (for example pregnancy) that can result in false positive.
-The HIV test does not conclude that one is HIV+ - it just concludes that there is antibodies in your blood - that is what is called an 'indirect' proof. It is very dubious to act based on indirect proofs.

b) the link between HIV and AIDS is impossible to show. AIDS is just 29 different symptoms that all existed before the diagnosis 'AIDS' was invented.

Therefore a person has AIDS, when he shows 1 out of 29 symptoms and has tested positive in a test that is already suspicious.


c) BUT - if one should test positive - the medical industry will fill you with loads of medicine that will kill you anyway. That way 1 of the 29 symptoms of AIDS will not kill you, but most likely liver failure (which is a sideeffect of the AZT-drug)

d) the story of the people who 'invented' the hiv=aids hypothesis (Gallo&montaigner) is VERY sketchy! Read up on it.

e) There are numerous causes that can explain the diseases that are all put under the 'comfortable AIDS bracket'

-for example: the gays and their abuse of drugs and poppers is probably the reason for Kaposi's sarcoma - even the 'inventor' of HIV, Gallo, admits that.

- Most of the AIDS symptoms are normal conditions in Africa, caused by malnutrition, bad water and hygienic and Malaria.

- AIDS patients do DIE - but because of the medicin that they get.



A thing that is worth considering as well, but is not mentioned in the article, is that there are not really any breakthroughs in finding a cure nor a vaccine for AIDS, in almost 20 years!

That is a long time. But if you work from a wrong premise within a wrong paradigm, suddenly it is not such a weird thing.

OH, and BTW, the guys being interviewed are not mr anybody. Peter Duesberg is one of the leading cancer scientists and he is backed up by Kary Mullis (nobel prize winner, chemistry 93)

But as they say, HIV/AIDS is a BIG business, so obviously there are alot of people taking an interest in not changing the paradigm.

Post: #4

(10-22-2010 06:08 AM)beebopaloo Wrote:  a) Being HIV+ is a very blurry diagnosis is in the first place
-there are about 60 normal conditions (for example pregnancy) that can result in false positive.
-The HIV test does not conclude that one is HIV+ - it just concludes that there is antibodies in your blood - that is what is called an 'indirect' proof. It is very dubious to act based on indirect proofs.

Here is an interview of Prof. Luc Montagnier, the guy who discovered HIV. He finally admits that people can cure of AIDS with a healthy lifestyle, without treatment.

It's all about having a good immune system. In Africa hundreds of thousands of people who have a depressed immune system test positive for aids yet they don't have aids (whatever that is...)

Drugs (including some anti-aids therapy), lack of sleep, some antibiotics, lack of healthy food, diseases, etc. will all weaken your immune system

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbru8n_...veste_news

Post: #5

Wow, that is a pretty scary interview: Luc Montaigner is basically admitting that the hiv/aids hypothesis is wrong!

Hey Feomuerto, I just happened to find an article with the scientific reference that you requested:

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/slartefact.htm

Post: #6

AIDS denialists who have died:
http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/dead_denialists

AIDS denialism is a psychological defense mechanism for those who have it or those who are high risk. nothing more.

Post: #7

i had a condom break on me once while i was boning a female of a high risk background

the next 3 months were a fucking nightmare i can tell you until i got the 100% clearance

no pussy is worth that

does anyone on here know anyone with HIV/AIDS and how they got it??

Post: #8

(10-23-2010 12:37 AM)Roosh Wrote:  AIDS denialism is a psychological defense mechanism for those who have it or those who are high risk. nothing more.

Well you don't have to deny AIDS or be HIV positive to find it interesting that the guy who discovered HIV (whether that is only a synonym of depressed immune system or not) is saying, in his interview above, that it is hard to get AIDS if you have a healthy immune system and that you can cure naturally from AIDS with a healthy immune system and lifestyle.

AIDS might be a disease in itself (yet the connection to the HIV test has not been objectively proven, apparently) or some combination of (25) diseases like tuberculosis, Kaposi syndrome, herpes, etc., I don't know.

But personally, I am not saying that fucking without a condom is safe (lots of STD anyways) nor that some ARV therapies don't work to cure the symptoms of AIDS. However, many many sources indicate that some ARV therapies and antibiotics are responsible for further weakening of the immune system, like other (recreational) drugs in fact.

Post: #9

The bottom line: Wrap it b4 you tap it.

Post: #10

(10-23-2010 06:34 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  The bottom line: Wrap it b4 you tap it.

Yeah, I wrap it b4 I tap it - but, it sux!! I usually try to get a "good girl" whose history I know semi-well (since you will never know a womans true history), and raw-dog it.

I live a healthy lifestyle, and will try my best to protect myself, but eventually we will all die, and 100 years from now, nobody on this forum will be alive - so, sometimes, you just got to say fuck it and roll the dice; if you accept the risk.


Mixx

Post: #11

Strange thing is that like Roosh pointed out most girls are willing to fuck without it... sometimes they even want it without.. that is really a red flag that should make you have one on a all time fucking that one.. since she have been around and unprotected random encounters from girls that have been with bi-sexual men will increase risc.. but I agree its better without, and I cant say I stay protected at all times, but its always a good topic for us that fucks more than average amount of bitches

Post: #12

Well it depends on where you are from Quasi. For instance even though I wrap anywhere I am, some places like Mexico or deep into South America (with the exception of Coastal Areas Venezueala, Coastal Colombia and Port Cities in Brazil) are relatively HIV free. If you look at the AIDS rate in a place like Mexico its very very very low (like 1 in 10,000) and that is still mainly Gay men and/or Heroin users. Compare that to a place like even inner city DC (around 1-20...mostly black, gay and/or IV drug users still in the lead but its creaping over into straight life with all the "down low" brothers running around DC trying to bang anything that moves, man, woman, or child)

So what I'm thinking is that an old school Catholic upbringing coupled with the fact they don't have aids scares all over the place is reason for people to relax in some of these places. Its not so out of the ordinary to have a slip up even in USA but imagine if you lived in Mexico, it was like USA in the early 80's....all you had to worry about was herpes and people had just started hearing about other diseases.

What scares me actually are dudes from boards like this one and dudes like (won't name a particular poster here) going and raw dawging in heavily infected places like Africa then hopping over to clean place and tyring to raw dog it's natives, just for a "flag" or a cheap thrill. That shit is just wrong to me.

Post: #13

Nevertheless, when I see this table, the probability to catch it seems very low !

Post: #14

(10-23-2010 12:37 AM)Roosh Wrote:  AIDS denialism is a psychological defense mechanism for those who have it or those who are high risk. nothing more.

What is HIV?

What is AIDS?

"HIV as turned out not to be the cause of AIDS. HIV has turned out not to be."

http://www.houseofnumbers.com/site/

Post: #15

(01-05-2011 01:16 PM)Lika Wrote:  "HIV as turned out not to be the cause of AIDS. HIV has turned out not to be."

And here is the full documentary:

Part 1:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xfvmjx_...from=embed

Part 2:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xfvmrs_...n-pt2_news

Part 3:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xga2rw_...ers-3_news

Part4:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xga2se_...ers-4_news

Part5:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xga2te_...ers-5_news

Part6:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xga2yh_...r-fin_news

Post: #16

I've seen similar videos claiming Americans didn't land on the Moon. Same bullshit.

Post: #17

(01-05-2011 05:59 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  I've seen similar videos claiming Americans didn't land on the Moon. Same bullshit.

Except you did not watch these ones on AIDS...

Post: #18

The media has lied about so many things , it is up to western media to prove it's claims about anything . By default I assume anything it says about AIDs and moonlanding is a lie.

A lot depends on your own psychological state and if you want to believe the neo-religions based on pseudo-science.
Also most people don't have the curiosity and attention span to hunt down dissident literature , which is often hard to get while media lies are hard to avoid and it is hard to admit one has been made a fool of.

Myself I don't see the evidence for AIDs being caused by HIV. I see certain sets of people with lifestyle caused immune problems AND A GENERATION OF US WHO GOT A LOT LESS SEX THAN OUT FATHERS BECAUSE OF AIDS PROPAGANDA.

Peter Duesberg. His book is worth a read.

When I heard that the official figure for vaginal transmission was 1 in 10000 I said to myself they have fooled us again with yet another system hoax.
in totalitarian societies which have passed religious stage , pseudo-science and pseudo-history become the new methods of social control.

English woman at Stonehenge came up behind me and grabbed my bags.But typical masculined english women. She was cute and blonde but worked at a man's job as medical journal reviewer or something. So by time we reached the bus she hated me for raining on her parade and trying to explain AIDS dissent to her. Maybe if I had acted beta I would have got a shag.

AIDS dissent. Read up and master it and it will realise some women of any neurosis caused by AIDS propaganda.


Moon hoax. Simple question is if they went their why did they not go back? Why has not even a monkey circled the moon? Space radiation. America had the media power and tech to fake it. USSR faked loads of things.Fake photos from them. Jarrah White is australian with many Moon Hoax Youtubes and I watched them all trying to find a mistake on his side but the more I look at this topic the less I believe NASA.

Post: #19

You don't believe we landed on the moon?

Post: #20

Post: #21

(03-22-2014 04:50 PM)dnoone Wrote:  Myself I don't see the evidence for AIDs being caused by HIV.

AIDS is a lot of different symptoms. HIV has not been proven scientifically.
If you do a HIV test in Africa and your immune system is low at that time, you will be diagnosed HIV positive, if you do a HIV American or European test at the same time, you will be diagnosed HIV negative. I have real life proof of that from African patients I know that were sent to Europe for medical operations.

(03-22-2014 04:50 PM)dnoone Wrote:  I see certain sets of people with lifestyle caused immune problems

mainly bad nutrition, drugs/antibiotics abuse (including poppers and extasy) and bad lifestyle.

(03-22-2014 04:50 PM)dnoone Wrote:  When I heard that the official figure for vaginal transmission was 1 in 10000 I said to myself they have fooled us again with yet another system hoax.

A scientific study was made with about a hundred couples in which one of the partners was HIV positive and they had unprotected sex for a year. The result was that ZERO partner got infected with HIV (watch the documentary above for details)


As for the moon... maybe they will go (back) there one day and go around it and show us what is there

Post: #22

quite sure weve proved that hiv causes aids

Post: #23

Obscure new members bumping year old threads withseem to be the new black.

Post: #24

(03-22-2014 05:47 PM)Vicious Wrote:  Obscure new members bumping year old threads withseem to be the new black.

Probably better than creating dupes.

Post: #25

In order to add conspiracy theories?