Does the Cause of AIDS, Actually Cause AIDS, and Why?

avatar
(Edited)

Before I launch right into this article, it's only fair that you should know that I almost chose the title: 'Does AIDS Even Real?' However, out of fear that you wouldn't pick up on the smarm I wanted to convey, I decided to be more accurate in the language.


Why is this, you ask? Well, because, of course, AIDS is real. To demystify the acronym; All that it means is that somehow, way, shape, or form, an individual managed to acquire the state of immune deficiency. Generally speaking, poisons or toxins, natural or human-made, can effectively run down one's immune system.


Let's get into the more popular viral theory of AIDS. The disease often gets linked to the alleged human retrovirus called HIV. I'm not a scientist, and I can't tell you that I've seen or isolated HIV. Some are staunch believers that all viruses are fake and that this is impossible.

I won't go that far with it, and this is because if I cannot isolate a virus in a lab, how could I possibly go about disproving a thing that I cannot prove exists? As they say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Additionally, evidence of absence is not necessarily proof of absence.

Where there is smoke, there's fire, is a truism. However, it's only a generality. I say this because maybe the fire got freshly extinguished. Or perhaps you see a building with no smoke at all, and a fire has just begun in a small trash can somewhere.

The point being is there is a lot of nuance in all of the things. Something that may seem black and white from one wo/man's perspective could appear more on the spectrum of a grey gradient to others. What they both see could be true but also not true and meaningless upon further examination.

Did you see an older woman or a younger lady, and does it even matter? Perhaps you see Cinderella, and it means you will find a new love in your life. Or, if we're still on the topic of fairy tales, mayhaps you see a wicked witch, and it conjures an image in your mind of a poison apple, and this means that you ought to be wary of who serves you food over the next couple of days.

Essentially, our subjective realities are malleable based on how we view things. Where some see a dead end, or an absolute positive or negative, others walk right through that thing because, for them, it's not even there. So let me just put bookends on this real quick because it got written on the fly, and I wasn't exactly sure what I wanted to do, but now I do.

Due to the latest COVID-19 revelations, there may be a renewed push to get people vaccinated. And this push could quite possibly get the vaccine-hesitant to walk into charlottes web. And one ought not to think that she's as kind as they portray her in the books. Charlotte is a spider, and unless you're of Zuckerman you don't want to be the pig.


Hmm, what to do?


Much like snakes, spiders do spider things. First, they will entrap your mind with a problem. Let's say the spider says, you caught the AIDS flu, and unless you take this medicine that comes from my fangs, you'll most certainly die. So you struggle, and you try desperately to get out of the web to no avail. And this is because you know the web will lead to your demise, and you're also not sure that you trust the spider.

However, if you shift your thinking just a little, maybe the web isn't so bad. Perhaps it is not preventing you from moving at all? Maybe Charlotte isn't 100% good or evil and has a tiny bit of a conscience. Maybe, she has a peculiar set of ethics. What if she will only eat those with her painless toxin if she can convince them to volunteer themselves as the main course.

All of the above was a short story to prime you for the below video. Make of it what you will. It's either outright blasphemy and shows complete irreverence to modern science. Or, perhaps, the men in the white coats are the spiders, knowingly or otherwise.

Good luck!


The Truth About HIV/AIDS/COVAIDS?


TY for stopping bye!
What is @frankbacon?
The Business of Disease
(Thank you @logiczombie!)
10 Part Megamix on Health Secrets!
(Thanks for sharing this @ryzeonline!)
How Peer Review Studies Ruined Science
Doctors Discuss the Cult of Modern Medicine
(Thx to @paradigmprospect for the above link!)
Dr. Robert Willner Sticks Himself with "HIV" on TV
(Thank you for sharing the above video, @active-truth!)
Anthony Fauci, HIV, the Serpent, and the Rainbow 📰
Highlighting the Absurd Fauci/Daszak/Wuhan Connetion 📰



0
0
0.000
80 comments
avatar

Great article I am rather concerned that fraudci had something to do with the early treatments that are now contorversial for this so called virus also, maybe this was the one they hoped would isolate people, yet it failed miserably.

I find it hard to trust anything that has come from these so called medical anti-proffessionals over the past 25-30 years, we need to sit down and have an honest discussion with people unrelated or connected to these doomed establishments like the NIH, NIAID, CDC an THE WHO

To much sidestepping and biased has gone on in favour of those that fund these shitshows.

Time we pulled the plug and demanded honesty


Posted via proofofbrain.io

0
0
0.000
avatar

I agree with you 100% @jaxsonmurph, and a large part
of why, is what I witnessed in this video clip right here!

0
0
0.000
avatar

I know it's crazy that these people will one day or are in fact actually running our scientific institutions, research labs, medical colleges and universities.

I would trust traditional medicine before listening to a clown that believed his peer reviewed papers. It has become a sad state of affairs when a so called professional is in fact just an ignorant twat, that believe what they are told instead of learning themselves.

Shit that make me a rocket scientist Lol

0
0
0.000
avatar

I also agree. I am highly suspect of these bureaucratic "medical" organizations. To many that are part of them are in bed with Big Pharma and it seems to be mostly about funding and money, not about public safety.

0
0
0.000
avatar

For sure we need new uncompromised blood providing a truthfull honest opinion on all these fake viruses.

We need an end to corrupt funded organisations that care about nothing other than the funding they recieve.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I've only read a couple of your posts and I have to say, I love the style and flavour of the way you write. You put your own creative spin on it. Great post!

0
0
0.000
avatar

wanting to share some more commentary to complement the video you posted, in case you haven't seen it - main topic is also HIV and AIDS but it can be totally applied to today's madness.
what we are presented with today is simply another reiteration, nothing fundamental has changed but people still haven't caught on it seems. Until these points are thoroughly refuted anything the "mainstream" claims about this whole affair is simply hot air.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hey buddy, @paradigmprospect! LT
no see! It's so good to see you again!
Thank's so much for sharing the vid!

0
0
0.000
avatar

likewise, we always come back somehow don't we?
couldn't think of anyone better to provide this video for. it's quite a gem, much like most other vids on the curious life channel.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Nobody gets out of this place without
singing the (HIVE blockchain) blues!
Unfortunatly for me, I cannot sing.
Great vid, added to post. Thank ya!

0
0
0.000
avatar

i'm gonna be honest with you ...
... I need half this stuff read to me.

simplified!

Like my work... only better.

Screenshot 2021-06-04 1.53.29 PM.png

0
0
0.000
avatar

i've been looking for this

0
0
0.000
avatar

aye me too, it was super buried but it is quite the commentary isn't it?

0
0
0.000
avatar

yeah, i saw most of this stuff many years ago on VHS

0
0
0.000
avatar

:smirk: vhs...

THAT's where I saw your TRUMP reference amigo!

0
0
0.000
avatar

any chance you might be able to record it off a tv screen and drop it on odysee ?

0
0
0.000
avatar

-% chance of that happening...

I'm not going to mandella effect my novel for YOUR grip on reality!
Screenshot 2021-06-04 4.41.25 PM.png
GOVENOR!

0
0
0.000
avatar

zoiks

0
0
0.000
avatar

https://dollarvigilante.tv/videos/watch/1be6e1c1-a715-4777-b4ac-b453acb0b686

44,900,000 results (0.42 seconds)
Revelation 21:16, KJV: "And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal." ... He measured the city with the rod at 12,000 stadia. Its length, width, and height are equal."

Screenshot 2021-06-04 1.54.32 PM.png

0
0
0.000
avatar

I love how you presented some narratives and possibilities, then concluded with a 'cliffhanger' of sorts, basically asking: "Are the men in white coats predatory spiders, benevolent spiders, somewhere in between, or another animal entirely?" "You decide."

Interestingly, I've been healthy for two decades, not so much as a cold, even during my homeless years. I make a point of studying people like Wim Hof and Joe Dispenza. I even made a 2 hour health video documentary that got banned on YouTube.

Point is, I'm passionate about elevated health, immune-systems, and well-being, and there's some really great food for thought here.

Thanks for another insightful post! 🙏

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hey, that's sounds like either an informationwar
or deepdives topic, if you ever post about that
please either use those tags or let me know.
I'll make sure the communities can see ya!

0
0
0.000
avatar

You make a very good point. I'm now highly considering a post in one of them. I'll spend some time exploring them first, with the aim of making a smooth debut there when I write/share. :)

Thanks for the heads up! 🙏

0
0
0.000
avatar

In the 90's one doctor tried to expose Fauci and his mates as criminals over the HIV fraud. He was mysteriously dead a few months later. Listen to this speech and tell me this isn't the exact same scenario as we are seeing today. Forget this 'bio-weapon' nonsense all the bigmouth truthers are shouting about. It's a diversion as well as a lie to hype the fear factor again. You people are just not fearful enough it seems. History is definitely repeating itself and we need to learn from history or what is the point of it.


Posted via proofofbrain.io

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Thanks, @active-truth, I'll have a looksie.
Update: Finally got to viewing this, thank you!
That's an extraordinary find, worth watching!

0
0
0.000
avatar

make sure to cross-post this on odysee and theta and any other free video host that is not youtube

0
0
0.000
avatar

I don't know how to cross post from YT to other channels? There used to be a download button on YT but it only seemed to last a week and was gone again.

0
0
0.000
avatar

https://engine.presearch.org/search?q=onlinevideoconverter

don't hit the "download" button

right-click the "download" button and select "save target as"

0
0
0.000
avatar

Tried that too, no option called that in drop down menu. Dang

0
0
0.000
avatar

Perhaps this will help, @active-truth & @logiczombie

https://www.dropbox.com/s/r7tcigujzhosj5y/Dr%20Robert%20Willner%20Injects%20HIV%20into%20himself%20on%20TV.mp4?dl=0

I've stored the video on my dropbox temporarily if you'd like to download it, feel free. (I'm only able keep it on there for a few days though.) 🙏

0
0
0.000
avatar

I won't go that far with it, and this is because if I cannot isolate a virus in a lab, how could I possibly go about disproving a thing that I cannot prove exists? As they say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Additionally, evidence of absence is not necessarily proof of absence.

I appreciated that section in particular. I have been struggling with explaining to those advocating for the non-existence of the immune system, or viruses, etc. why it doesn't sit well with me. You explained it exactly in that one paragraph. Oddly enough it is something I have pointed out about science numerous times.

Science can only be applied to things that can be observed.

It is useless when being applied to things it cannot observe.

Often people will state things do not exist because they cannot observe them.

Then we learn to observe them or create tools that enable us to do so and it turns out they do exist.

POOF did they suddenly come into existence because you could now observe them oh wonderful scientist?

Truth of the matter is stating things do not exist because you cannot observe them has nothing to do with science.

It's opinion.

Likewise stating something does exist that we cannot observe is also not science.

It is opinion, or speculation.

It could be wrong. It could be correct. It could be partially wrong. It could be partially correct.

I don't disagree with the people saying there are no viruses. I simply am not convinced. Though they have made me consider it a possibility which I hadn't really considered before. That is something at least...

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hey, thank you. This is all very well stated!
The post was amended with these two
links. (1), (2), the first of which is
short and will knock your socks off!
You would totally dig RAW's work!

0
0
0.000
avatar

That first video. Spot on. Exactly what I think both you and I have been concerned about for some time. You should do a post just as a transcript of that video that people can read. It is definitely worthy.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Great idea, if you want to, I'd def reblog it.
Otherwise might have to wait for later.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yeah. I can't now. Doing some things for work.

0
0
0.000
avatar

If it hasn't been proven or observed it is only a hypothesis. Stefan Lanka has challenged the world to produce the proof of any virus. Science has made the claim that viruses exist and built whole industries on it.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Sagan
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" Hitchens
No evidence, no existence.....

0
0
0.000
avatar

You are correct. Just a hypothesis.

As to "Evidence". That depends upon what people decide is evidence. You and I have already agreed on how they will dismiss anecdotal evidence.

Often people say things do not exist. Why? They haven't been able to find a way to measure it and make a repeatable experiment to back up their claims.

Yet later they learn to measure it and it did in fact exist.

Science is useless at disproving things unless it can observe them. It is completely based upon observation.

If the person decides they do or don't trust the source that tells them anecdotal information ultimately tends to be what leads them to say "it doesn't exist", "it exists", or just keep their mouths shut.

When one group, or person is the arbiter of what constitutes evidence then it becomes authoritarian. They begin dictating the rules.

It is fine if they personally have chosen to state "it doesn't exist".

That doesn't mean it is true.

Likewise, while the various razors are indeed pretty cool and useful for making decisions they are not always correct and treating them as such is a guaranteed path to eventual mistakes. How big a mistake... could be small, could be big. It depends upon what impact that mistake has.

I do like that Occam's Razor does leave the possibility in it for not being an absolute.

I've also been fond of Hanlon's Razor.

I do indeed like them. Yet I view them a tool that often (but not always) works.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yes Occams Razor is my fave too, I use it a lot as well as 'common sense' which seems to be rare these days.
A friend just posted these 2 memes on my wall which are so relevant to our convo. I think you will like them too.
They certainly are in line with what I've been looking at lately.......
image.png

image.png

0
0
0.000
avatar

Feynman's is interesting. It is a lot like how I think about things. I try to understand though.

0
0
0.000
avatar

The saying "there is no such thing" is not necessarily to dismiss. It is a strong expression of the will that such things shall not exist. Has it occurred to you that the statement of "non-existence of things" could be worth considering, even though these things nevertheless exist? Alone because one's own will and the will of the many resists their existence?

There is always a reason for resisting a thing. Whether this reason makes sense or no sense from the individual's point of view. As I understand it, the mental aspect is not sufficiently taken into account here. People bring things into this world, especially thoughts and ideas, and through that they become real. The sheer strength of the ideas brought into the world makes them objects of mental activity. I think many things have been brought into the world in this way.

You said you had doubts about the statement that there are no viruses. I would like to note, before all efforts at proof, that it is the idea that gives a thing a name in order to drive the event further. However, a scientific experiment stands and falls with the very meaning of a word/name.

If you look at the origin of the word virus here, what does that trigger?

The will for something not to exist would be irrelevant if you applied it to gravity, for example. All earthlings could be against gravity existing, but they would still be subject to gravity.

The virus issue is a different matter. The very fact that it is different allows for something: doubt. The doubt begins, for example, where the first numerous scientific experiments seemed to start. Insofar as sufficient records can be found and the history is reasonably comprehensible, one may give room to doubt.

What are the weaknesses of the scientific method in biology? From my point of view, the weakness lies where it also has its strength. In its repeatability. Laboratory conditions must be created for a repetition of the method. That is also a weakness. Under laboratory conditions, one can only work with limited factors.
Another weakness. The limitation of the factors that influence or are assumed to influence.
Also: how easy it is to falsify the results of research.

The human (organism) is unique and eludes any generalisation, since everything about it is not only incomparable in purely anatomical terms, but also its social imprinting, upbringing and acquired mentality does not occur in the same way in any other individual.

This is how one works with probabilities and averages. So far, so good. But here a reversal has taken place in medicine. Instead of putting the uniqueness of a person first, a superficial doctor puts probability first. Why? He has no other chance, because as a rule he does not know his patient personally and long term. Just like the other way round.
Without a relationship to each other, the parties involved have no choice but to take probability and averages as primary. I think, that's wrong. They should be secondary.

If you take a headache pill and your headache goes away afterwards, what is the decisive reason for this for you? That you took the pill? Isn't it just as likely that you drank the glass of water or ate something or that the air pressure changed or that you lay down in a darkened room or that you received a phone call that brightened your mood? Or that the headache made you stop what you were doing or slow down? Or the fact that you believed the pill would make the pain go away? The problem with pharmaceutical products is that the evaluation of results can be based on so many subjectives and impressions that you can't reconcile them.

What good does it do you personally to believe that viruses are dangerous, what good does it do you to believe that all diseases are dangerous? Does that make you happy or calm? For my part, it does the following: It makes me overcautious, makes me tiptoe through life, even little things seem to cause discomfort. Can I touch the body of a traffic light or the handle of the stairway? Is it already damaging to my ears if the music is too loud?

What about the clinics that are the size of their own villages in every big city? Where do all the patients come from? Why are there so many there in the first place? Why is the Pschyrembel as thick as a law book?

Why do subjects drop out of the experiment when they are an exception to other like effects? Isn't it precisely the exception that would be particularly interesting?

Sorry, that got long :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

People bring things into this world, especially thoughts and ideas, and through that they become real.

Of course. That is what I was getting at with my words are Legos post. We build larger ideas out of the simpler ideas. As we assign a word to the larger idea we can then use that larger idea as a building block without needing to talk about all of the smaller things that produced it. This is a powerful thing. Without it we'd be nowhere near where we are. We'd be lost in simple thoughts because to have complex thoughts would require juggling mentally so many things.

0
0
0.000
avatar

What are the weaknesses of the scientific method in biology? From my point of view, the weakness lies where it also has its strength. In its repeatability. Laboratory conditions must be created for a repetition of the method. That is also a weakness. Under laboratory conditions, one can only work with limited factors.
Another weakness. The limitation of the factors that influence or are assumed to influence.
Also: how easy it is to falsify the results of research.

All of those things are true. Yet it is not a weakness of the scientific method. That is simply a tool.

In fact, the scientific method when followed accounts for that. We are supposed to challenge everything. Even the current models. An important requirement is that the data and methodology be provided such that other people can perform experiments and see if they come to the same conclusions OR NOT.

Society and people who are not following the scientific method do indeed falsify data. Yet that is not the problem of the tool. That is someone not using the tool and claiming they did.

The scientific method does have a weakness though. It can only be used on things that are observable. Thus, someone saying science disproves the idea of something that cannot be observed is automatically a false statement.

It is only useful with things we can observe.

There are other tools and methodologies and practices people use to try to explain things that cannot be observed but ultimately those are all simply speculation and mind exercises much like the simulation hypothesis since there is no observational data to back it up.

As we learn to observe new things then we introduce new things that the scientific method can be used on.

This is how one works with probabilities and averages. So far, so good. But here a reversal has taken place in medicine. Instead of putting the uniqueness of a person first, a superficial doctor puts probability first. Why? He has no other chance, because as a rule he does not know his patient personally and long term. Just like the other way round.
Without a relationship to each other, the parties involved have no choice but to take probability and averages as primary. I think, that's wrong. They should be secondary.

I think all things should be considered. Then the people need to make a choice. Yet I do know that medicine is deeply corrupted and ruled by people who are manipulating and getting wealthy and also pursuing other agendas they find appealing.

That isn't the scientific method either. They just like to throw the label SCIENCE around because they've conditioned people to shut up, and not question when they see that label. Nothing to do with science but since people don't question they blindly go along with it an repeat it because they were told it is SCIENCE.

As soon as you challenge it they try to destroy you. That is another obvious indicator it is not science because asking questions is the most important part of the scientific method. If the idea cannot survive the questions then it needs to be replaced. Instead they have made it so the questioner cannot survive the act of asking questions.

Why do subjects drop out of the experiment when they are an exception to other like effects? Isn't it precisely the exception that would be particularly interesting?

I agree completely. So does the scientific method.

I wish people were publishing failures just as they publish successes. We learn a lot from failures. If you hide them then people repeat a lot of the same mistakes and don't know it.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I have not much to ad.
Science in the true sense I do respect. I am a scientist myself, only without a lab. lol.
I would prefer to work in the fields anyway if I were an official scientist.

If I could live my life again, my choices were different ones. I would like to have several lives and for each I would choose a different profession. One ingredient though always would be there, which is art.
... I think we all are artists and we all have great potentials to find things out on our own, to be curious and inventive.

It's so much fun to improvise, to solve a practical problem and to rely on ones experience and confidence.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Agree. Me too.

As to the scientist. I am one sometimes. When I am following the scientific method.

Sometimes I am not and I am just speculating.

I like to discuss a lot of things that the scientific method can't really be applied to YET.

That doesn't mean they are impossible. It also does not stop them from being entertaining to think about.

0
0
0.000
avatar

BTW - Tip. I'd avoid GIFs that flash like that one does. I have family members that things like that trigger migraines. Some people with epilepsy can also have a seizure triggered. I'm hyper aware of it only due to family members...

We'll be watching videos and it is not uncommon for me to hear Arghhsdf why do they have to do the flashing?

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Hi @thoughts-in-time :),

I stumbled right away over this sentence

how could I possibly go about disproving a thing that I cannot prove exists?

I would like to ask back:
How many things are there which you can neither prove nor dis-prove?
Isn't it another expression of "I am not an expert"? I don't want to be a pain... but we've heard this argument so many times theses days, that I feel great resistance against it.

Is it, because when I ask: "Why can't I chose whether I want to believe in a thing, may it be Aids or any other disease?" that also includes those who DO believe in the voices of experts and that leads to the dilemma that it's then all about beliefs?

I I solve this question for myself in the only way that seems sensible and possible to me: insofar as a disease afflicts me, I only believe that it has a lethal or dangerous effect when I am close to death. Otherwise, I say it is a matter of taste what I prefer to be afraid of. It sounds strange, I know. I am someone who prefers to let things unfold and wait and see is actually the better option in my terms and experience. Only, since I'm not alone in the world, this weakens my attitude, if no one else is also prepared to wait and a - as they say, critical mass - decides in favour of action, then I've probably pulled the card of misfortune.

The question that drives me is that if so many people believe in the safety of vaccination and they really think that they are helping not only themselves but others through it, are they then committing a huge self-deception or is the field that is created through it actually a field influenced by the psyche? Within which, despite possible poisons in the injections, the individuals convinced of the positive vaccination effect actually become "immune"? Where does it begin that the mind is able to influence matter? I don't think it is possible to know for sure, only to assume, that there is more to human consciousness than pure materialism suggests. Rupert Sheldrake, though, wants to inspire to do research on this. It's discredited as para-psychology, but for me that makes it all the more interesting.

I ask myself this because my reaction to people who say they have already been vaccinated is always the same. Once they have done the act, I don't want to burden them with my negative thoughts because my scepticism might worry them and they might doubt the good effect. How to a dear person we do not want to arouse doubt about a treatment when he himself firmly believes in it, do we not?

It is only very painful when, conversely, one experiences that this tolerance of the opposite way of thinking - one does not believe in the positive effect - is swept off the table in such a hard-hearted, imperious and inconsiderate way.

What do you think?

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hey there, @erh.germany! It's a little bit more involved than "I am not an expert." Many of the proponents that disregard the virus theory of disease claim that isolation of the virus in the lab is impossible. That said, it is two-fold depending on what you believe, if you believe the assertion that the virus is impossible to isolate without the improper utilization of Kary Mullis' invention. It means that even if you are an expert, you don't have anything other than the wrong tool to do the job.

It's like, that's a nice hammer, but I cannot use it as a floodlight to light my path in a forest. I'm at the losing end of both of these arguments. I am not an expert. However, even if I were, I would not try and use a hammer as a flashlight. However, that doesn't mean there's not something in the forest that's causing people to die, either. But without the right tools, I'm just a blind man in the dark, subject to the unrestricted confines of not only mine but also everyone else's imagination.

I chose not to go with the original title because I think the immune system exists. I tend to believe, correctly or incorrectly, that it can get run down for many different reasons, not just the potential HIV hypothesis, whether that is true or untrue. That got a bit intricate and wordy, but I hope it helped more than it harmed in conveying my take on the matter. I don't claim to know the whole truth about anything, only what seems to be true to me at the time. And I'm with you on this one. I'm not taking the vaccine.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thank you for further explaining what you think.

I'm at the losing end of both of these arguments.

I see it the same way. And that's why I have a hard time being confronted with such a strong front, those people who state that they talk about "facts".

What do you understand by an "immune system"? That's crucial, I think.

I think of something which can perhaps use this term "immunity". But I tend to see it both material and non material. For the lack of a better term I would call it "mind in connection with matter-influence". In this whole debate it seems that the "mind"-thing has been forgotten. It's all about materials.

To not lose myself (in nihilism) I have made up my mind.

Sincere greetings to you.

0
0
0.000
avatar

P.S. I really liked your original head-line :) I'd say "go for it", it's just funny.

0
0
0.000
avatar

i'm not looking for minds that believe everything

i'm looking for minds that are willing to entertain and critique everything

0
0
0.000
avatar

Here's the relevant snippet from my contagion article for my personal point of view in a nutshell.....

image.png
HIV/AIDS
You could say this one plandemic was the one which started us all questioning the existance of all viruses because there were ructions going on in the science world over who had discovered the HI virus or even if they had at all. It also turned the immune theory on it’s head which should have been a mistake that exposed all their theories by stating that the presence of antibodies meant you HAD HIV not that you were IMMUNE to it. The disease it’s meant to cause (AIDS) was first seen in the gay community of Los Angeles where the men were presenting to doctors with sick livers (hepatitis) from all the alcahol and drugs they took. Doctors then added antibiotics to the mix for the perceived STD’s but the real stinger came when they tested out a new vaccine for Hepatitis B on the community.

After the vaccine their whole bodies seemed to shut down which they claimed was an immune system shut down so called it AIDS. “Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome” Where was it ‘acquired’ from? Couldn’t possibly be the new vaccine on trial could it? nooooo. Where did they follow up those trials and where did AIDS next reappear? Yeh Africa. Big pharma’s favourite playground full of human guinea pigs. What do they use to test if you have HIV? The PCR test. Just like now with covaids it can find any genetic sequence they want to find in anyone at anytime if they do enough cycles. Even it’s inventor was screaming from the hilltops that this was scientific fraud. So what happens if you get a positive test for HIV AND you are gay? They prescribe a failed chemo drug AZT (killed too many cancer patients) and voila, you have a new victim who’s whole body shuts down from systemic poisoning. AIDS is death by poisoning. The HI virus does not exist, it was never isolated, Gallo lied. Fauci was also involved in that scam.
Interestingly – In 1990, a UK survey involving 598 doctors revealed that over 50% of them refused to have the Hepatitis B vaccine despite belonging to the high risk group urged to be vaccinated. (British Med Jnl, 27/1/1990)

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I agree with a lot of this, but I think the HIV
retrovirus may exist (based on the video
you shared)
but is probably inert and
does not lead to AIDS on its own.
Thx for sharing this great video!

0
0
0.000
avatar

If it's 'inert' as you say then it's NOT a virus. Definition of a virus is pathogenic.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I'm only speaking to which Dr. Robert Willner Sticks
pointed out about dealing with the retrovirus but
also did not think it had power over his well being.

0
0
0.000