Discussion in 'Opinions, Beliefs, & Points of View' started by me1, Mar 22, 2009.
Here's one that should start an interesting discussion:
That's a pretty bold claim. I've heard of HIV deniers but those that doubt all medically important viruses in general? What accounts for illnesses that are spread by infection but without the presence of bacterium as a source? Maybe I missed it but, out of curiosity, did this doctor provide any probably alternative
I'd have to consult other sources to verify if its true. Good job on putting it out there.
Yeah... It's well known that viruses can not be isolated. I learned that in like, grade 9. Viruses are NOT living organisms. They are somewhere between life and death. But you can definitely see the effects of it... It's either that or all the cells in a virus-infected organism's body spontaneously acquire a different set of protein-synthesis instructions.
If not a virus what would he call it?
AIDS deniers really do piss me off, fortunately they have a unique tendency to die of completely HIV unrealted pneumonia or Kaposi's sarcoma around 40.
In a very interesting interview about the Bird Flu hoax he touches upon the subject, albeit briefly and rather vaguely, in two paragraphs:
Full interview here:
I'll check it out, thank you!
Tell me, if Viruses do not exist what do you then propose causes smallpox? chicken pox? HIV? foot and mouth?
That was what I was wondering. Apparently that other link he put up in response to my question mentions something about that, purportedly.
You're right! It should start an interesting discussion, which should be over quickly because in the first sentence of the article it states that this "Dr." Lanka is an internationally know aids dissident. His viewpoint and any scientific testing, which is arbitrary at best, is slanted at it's outset. Also, while I am not a scientist, biologist or virologist, I know enough about viruses and science to know that there is a either a virus, disease, bacteria, malady or condition, which has it's own defining charactersitics serious enough to cause death in both gay and straight individuals. Although I am not gay, I have had many, many friends, mostly gay, some straight, who have barely survived or have died from this "disease", viral or otherwise. I also find it interesting that it is German documentation which backs up his claim. Interesting because the good "Dr." denies the virus and is backed up by German's (many of whom still deny that the holocaust took place).hmy:
Hey, racism! Nice!
It does, but how is this relevant? You could equally argue that pro-HIV 'scientists' are, as stated, 'pro-HIV', and as such will be biased. All that ultimately matters is what the evidence tells us, and there is no direct evidence for the existence of the HI virus. Why?
Do you 'know' that no 'medically relevant' virus has ever been isolated, biochemically characterised and photographed? That is to say, there is no -direct- evidence that they even exist. Would you accept the existence of the yeti, based upon some indirect evidence, such as samples of excrement and a few broken twigs?
Would you care to clarify what these universal 'defining characteristics' are in ALL AIDS patients. Please dont say that they are 'Immuno deficient' as this can caused by a wide variety of factors. (i.e. drug abuse, immuno-compromising blood products, stress, inappropriate nutrition, et al)
A completely irrelevant statement. What point are you trying to make here. That you know people that have died or almost died tells us nothing about what the cause is.
Well, given the fact that he is German himself, it isn't at all surprising that he would interviewed in his own country.
I dont see what relevance the holocaust has to a discussion about viruses. His point about them being that there is no direct evidence for their existence. It doesn't seem unreasonable to not believe in them given this fact. Is there something in common between viruses and the holocaust, that i am missing? :huh:
Maybe I missed it, but what about the perfectly healthy people that get HIV? While some people like this Dr. Lanka and South Africa's Thabo Mbeki seem to think AIDS is the result of poverty, the fact of the matter is that it is a pandemic that afflicts a wide demographic of people of different income, diet, ethnicity, etc.
totally off subject but i wanted to throw this out there
take some time to check out how the holocaust was a hoax
its actually pretty interesting and pretty feasible too
not sure if its true but still a thought provoker
Mike, I don't mean to have a go at you, but I would be interested to hear why you think than many Germans deny the holocaust took place. Persoanly speaking I was born in Leipzig and then spent the next 15 living in Germany.
The conditions termed 'AIDS' in Africa are not the same as the ones in the western world that get labelled 'AIDS'. There are some 27 conditions or more, and rising, that, accompanied by a 'positive' test for HIV, and depending on the country, an additional T-cell count, constitute a diagnosis of 'AIDS'. T-cell counts of, i think it was under 200. This despite the fact that T-cell counts vary wildly within different groups of people, and no properly understood relationship between them and the health of the immune system has ever been established. Indeed, it is not unknown for perfectly healthy people to have T-cell counts below 100, and conversely, people to have counts ABOVE 200 and be sick.
As for the positive test for 'HIV', whilst it would be wrong to say the result is 'meaningless', it is a gross over-simplication to claim that it 'proves' the presence of HIV. Antibody tests can involve cross-reactions between proteins. As a result just about anything can, at any given time, cause a 'positive' test result. It has been shown that ever having had the flu, been pregnant, or if there was simply proteins on the test paper, can lead to you being diagnosed 'HIV Positive'. That is not to say the diagnosis of 'HIV positive' is ALWAYS meaningless. There are two main risk groups in the western world: homosexual men and drug addicts. Due to the dangerous recreational behaviour of these two groups (the use of poppers in the case of the former) their bodies contain many foreign proteins that can cause a positive reaction, in an HIV test. But it doesn't mean that they have a never directly proven to exist virus. Only that the body is the perfect terrain, what with all those foreign proteins, to produce an 'HIV positive' diagnosis. The real reason these people develop their AIDS is the destructive effect of poppers, in the case of homosexual men, and whatever the drugs are, in the case of the drug addicts.
Whereas, in Africa, the underlying conditions are all symptoms of malnourishment/starvation, absence of clean drinking water, etc. No-one there is suffering from toxic drug deficiency disease. In fact, in the absence of proper nourishment, the drugs are even more lethal, as the the immune-system requires sufficient amounts of nutrients to allow for the process of detoxification/elimination of the poison, or 'medication', as the establishment has brainwashed us into seeing them. Whenever you read a medical text and see terms like conjugation or oxidation, these refer to processes utilised by the body to detoxify and remove a toxic substance from the organism.
The conspiracy is that the elite invented the 'AIDS problem' as a multi-pronged assault on the general population in their ongoing depopulation agenda. They have been adding conditions to the list that 'cause' 'AIDS' at a steady rate ever since to make the number of cases increase, as well as tinkering with the diagnostic criteria (i.e. the introduction of the T-cell counts - which have no known meaning) to also make the problem seem like it is escalating, when it isn't. It is in fact a manufactured illusion, artificially contrived with the intent to terrorise and decimate the human population by the rulers of our world. 'AIDS' is nothing more than a whole host of separate conditions cobbled together and unified by a completely inaccurate and useless antibody 'test'. The only significance of which being that the more unhealthy your lifestyle, the more foreign proteins in your body with which to cause a cross reaction on the test and have you diagnosed 'HIV positive'.
'HIV' has never been isolated from any 'HIV positive' person. The concept of interpreting the presence of antibodies, supposedly for the virus, but, as explained above, not in reality, as the test is non-specific, flies in the face of their other dogma, that antibodies are to be generated by injecting what is supposedly a virus, but is probably just cellular debris, and a toxic 'carrier', containing such health building substances as mercury and formaldehyde, as the presence of antibodies is supposedly indicates 'immunity' from the disease in question. Why the contradiction?
The 'positive' test results indicate that 'HIV' is still 'contained' within the two main risk groups, when it should have spread by now (if it existed as an independant entity) through sexual activity. Sexually transmitted diseases have all increased substantially over the same period of time, so claims of safe sex clearly do not add up.
'HIV' is said to be a 'retrovirus' and they have been studied extensively and found to be non-cytotoxic and that they 'infect' i.e. enter, only 1 in 1000 cells. As they dont enter enough cells and arent harmful to cells, how can 'HIV' 'cause' 'AIDS' ? Another mystery requiring rationalisations to overcome.
The whole thing is a total fraud.
Interesting argument but honestly I just don't see how all the research and data surrounding AIDS and HIV can be utterly fabricated or otherwise false. I think its giving too much credit to a nefarious few or too little credit to the thousands of scientists and medical professionals that have confirmed its existence.
Besides, AIDS is hardly the most effective means of depopulation if that was what this cabal of elites was after. Too call it all a fraud, to me at least, is just too bold.
And what of the Epistemic bias in all this? Out of curiousity (not to call you out), what makes your sources more credible than ours? How do you know what you're observing and taking in as fact isn't false or that men like this Dr. Lanka are just part of a fringe, however certified?
First, I'm about 50 yrs of age; I've already suffered through the taunts of people calling me a "dirty jew" throughout much of my life so I'm very sensitive on this subject.
Second, I am apologizing for my statement limiting the issue to only those of German descent. Some of the books on 'Holocaust Denial' have been written by non-Germans; infact, there are some jews who also deny it, though there are few.
I can make a general statement, just as anyone else on this forum...evidently.
Wait...I changed my mind! Simply go to Wikipedia, type "HOLCAUST DENIAL" in the search window, and behold the wonders to be found, along with the evidecne to the contrary. Then get back to me any way you want if you wish to continue the discussion. It is not feasible!~!!
Please see my apology above; I should not have limited my comments to Germans as there are many of varyiing descent who have made the same statements regarding the issue, including jews.
Please see the history of the subject at Wikipedia. Type "HOLOCAUST DENIAL" in the search engine and behold the wonders. Thank you for bringing it up in a non-persoanl manner. You and I have agreed many times in the past on many subjects and I should not have spouted off against Germans in general.
I wasn't offended, more interested, the reason being was whilst I was growing up, the history of Germany in the GDR started at 1945. We never were taught about the atrocities that occured prior to the formation of the GDR. We of course heard rumour's but it wasn't until my family fled to West Germany that we found out. Of course my parents new more than we did but it was never discussed for fear of being informed on.
On the whole I think there is a great deal of shame of the past rather than a denial which is a shame, as by openly talking about it, it may go some way in ensuring in doesn't happen again and also highlight the absurdity of the ideologies of current right wing organisations.