PDA

View Full Version : 10 Things The Government Does Not Want You To Know About Swine Flu (H1N1) Vaccines


acerlghp
09-26-2009, 07:50 PM
YouTube - 10 Things The Government Does Not Want You To Know About Swine Flu (H1N1) Vaccines

BlueAngel
09-26-2009, 08:13 PM
As I asked regarding the Gardasil vaccine that supposedly PREVENTS HPV.

How can a vaccine be advertised to prevent a specific illness/disease when it cannot possibly be known that any of the TEST SUBJECTS upon whom the vaccine has supposedly been tested will present with the specific disease/illness at a future date in time?

This would be, in essence, to predict the future health of a test subject.

IMO, this is impossible, scientifcially or otherwise, unless you believe in crystal balls.

The pharmaceutical companies do not advertise that these vaccines CURE a specific disease/illness.

They advertise that the vaccines PREVENT a specific disease/illness.

A vaccine that CURES a specific disease/illness would have been tested under a different scenario.

They would have been tested on those subjects who HAVE the specific disease/illness.

The test subjects would have been monitored until they presented without symptoms.

The vaccines of which we speak are advertised as a PREVENTION for a specific disease/illness and not a CURE.

Mr Blee
09-26-2009, 09:00 PM
The way I understand vaccines work is they take dead virus cells inject them into your body so your body knows what to fight.

And every doctor I have asked has said they are not 100% effective.

BlueAngel
09-26-2009, 09:08 PM
The way I understand vaccines work is they take dead virus cells inject them into your body so your body knows what to fight.

And every doctor I have asked has said they are not 100% effective.

How can the body know what to fight if it is being injected with a DEAD cell?

Mr Blee
09-27-2009, 02:15 AM
Because it looks just like the virus and this is what doctors told me.

acerlghp
09-28-2009, 09:52 PM
:confused:

BlueAngel
09-28-2009, 10:23 PM
Because it looks just like the virus and this is what doctors told me.

What doctors?

Mr Blee
09-29-2009, 12:35 AM
I do not remember their names. But several have told me this. I argued that I wouldn't take the shot cause it would give me the virus and this is when they told me. Telling me a dead virus can't give you the virus.

BlueAngel
09-29-2009, 12:49 AM
I do not remember their names. But several have told me this. I argued that I wouldn't take the shot cause it would give me the virus and this is when they told me. Telling me a dead virus can't give you the virus.

Why do you have more than one doctor?

Mr Blee
09-29-2009, 06:41 PM
I have had many doctors over the past 30 years. One reason is that when they do something out of line I generaly report them. After reporting them your healthcare goes downhill. Another thing the last doctor I saw wound up to be a mason and I will die before I let a mason touch me. Another thing when I get a doctor I like having no medical insurance ends the care. And the care at any type of free clinic is shotty at best. I have given up on healthcare.

galexander
09-30-2009, 03:28 PM
Working in the medical diagnostics industry some years ago I was shocked to find out that they put a mercury containing compound in vaccines as a preservative, Thimerisol. Mercury is a dangerous toxin and can cause brain lesions among other things.

However I also found out the other day from a leaflet put through my door that vaccines also contain formaldehyde (a known carcinogen), anti-freeze as well as a collection of 'live' virus some of which can actually cause disease in people with poor immune function.

As for the HPV vaccine I have heard it claimed by many that there is absolutely no evidence that the human papillomavirus actually causes cancer. Apparently the theory that viruses can cause cancer is out dated. All viruses enter a host cell and play around with the cell nucleus. What's different about HPV?

BlueAngel
09-30-2009, 07:58 PM
Working in the medical diagnostics industry some years ago I was shocked to find out that they put a mercury containing compound in vaccines as a preservative, Thimerisol. Mercury is a dangerous toxin and can cause brain lesions among other things.

However I also found out the other day from a leaflet put through my door that vaccines also contain formaldehyde (a known carcinogen), anti-freeze as well as a collection of 'live' virus some of which can actually cause disease in people with poor immune function.

As for the HPV vaccine I have heard it claimed by many that there is absolutely no evidence that the human papillomavirus actually causes cancer. Apparently the theory that viruses can cause cancer is out dated. All viruses enter a host cell and play around with the cell nucleus. What's different about HPV?

I'm as skeptical about vaccines as you are, but, let's be clear, not everyone who eats fish which contains Mercury becomes ill.

I am interested in your statement that there is no evidence that HPV causes cancer.

galexander
10-01-2009, 12:35 PM
I'm as skeptical about vaccines as you are, but, let's be clear, not everyone who eats fish which contains Mercury becomes ill.

It depends on what you class 'an illness'. If you age quicker, are far more likely to get cancer and heart disease, and are far slower mentally, does that class as a disease?

As for the HPV/cancer connection or lack of one, I was unable to pin down an appropriate website on the internet. However if you think about it it had to be a shockingly embarrassing virus that caused cancer rather than the measles or the common cold.

BlueAngel
10-01-2009, 09:54 PM
It depends on what you class 'an illness'. If you age quicker, are far more likely to get cancer and heart disease, and are far slower mentally, does that class as a disease?

As for the HPV/cancer connection or lack of one, I was unable to pin down an appropriate website on the internet. However if you think about it it had to be a shockingly embarrassing virus that caused cancer rather than the measles or the common cold.

HUH?

galexander
10-03-2009, 02:57 PM
It appears I've dumbfounded you yet again Blueangel!

What I find so strange about vaccinations is if they can develop a 'flu vaccine against new strains (and note the use of the plural) every six months then why did it take 'x' number of years to develop an HIV vaccine that is only partially effective? The maths doesn't quite add up.

And why is it that some vaccines last a lifetime but others only a couple of years? It seems its very much an art form.

And if the reason why we don't become immune to the common cold is because the virus mutates so fast, why does it not mutate also into a different or more severe disease instead of staying the 'same old common cold"?

Laokin
10-05-2009, 10:24 PM
I'm not going to deny that pharm corps. don't try to play up the need for "vaccines" but they definitely DO work.

It's very easy to see if a vaccine works. You inject some one with the vaccine, and then you inject them with the virus it's supposed to nullify.

In the case of the flu, that is exactly what is done.

As for HIV, it's a MUCH more complicated virus. More variables = harder puzzle.

Take a rubiks cube for example. A simple 2x2cube is the easiest. A 7x7 cube is exponentially harder to solve. It's pretty well logic.

Vaccines don't inject you with "dead" viri, they are very much alive. The inject you with a small dose, mixed with antibodies to help the immune system cope with the threat.

If you get a flu shot, chances are you will feel symptoms of the flu. Only MILD symptoms for a short time. It's proven fact that when you fight off a virus your immune system becomes stronger to that particular virus.

Take exoctic snake handlers for example. They inject themselves with small doses of the toxins that could kill you in less than a minute. This builds up their immunity to the toxins, so when they DO (because it's inevitable) get bit by one of these poisonous snakes they don't die.

The same logic applies to vaccines. The only conspiracy with vaccines is making the virus seem like a bigger threat than it is.

For instance, normal influenza kills 250,000 - 350,000 people a year. H1N1 hasn't killed a single person yet. People who died while having H1N1 all had previous health issues, most cases pneumonia. Them having H1N1 wasn't the lethal health issue, them having pneumonia prior was.

Also, do you guys just believe everything you read? If you do read anything off of a website, the person who wrote it must be qualified. If they aren't qualified, then it makes it no different than if I were to open a blog and make up something super scary and claim it as fact, when I know that I am absolutely lying.

How do you guys determine what is valid and what is not when you read "conspiracies"?

The real conspiracy here, is extortion. Make somebody believe with all their brain power that they need something so they pay the premium. Money shouldn't be a primary motive to help people, helping people should be the primary motive for helping people.... we understand that if your going to dedicate your life to saving lives that you will need compensation to support your own families, but this doesn't give them the opportunity to be greedy. Killing people because they can't afford the medicine to save their life is the same as murder. This and this alone is the real conspiracy with health care.

P.S.
I've gotten the flu every year of my life that I didn't have a vaccine. What say you?

BlueAngel
10-05-2009, 10:28 PM
It appears I've dumbfounded you yet again Blueangel!

What I find so strange about vaccinations is if they can develop a 'flu vaccine against new strains (and note the use of the plural) every six months then why did it take 'x' number of years to develop an HIV vaccine that is only partially effective? The maths doesn't quite add up.

And why is it that some vaccines last a lifetime but others only a couple of years? It seems its very much an art form.

And if the reason why we don't become immune to the common cold is because the virus mutates so fast, why does it not mutate also into a different or more severe disease instead of staying the 'same old common cold"?

YOU have NEVER dumbfounded me.

The reason for my "HUH?" comment to your previous reply was because it made NO SENSE.

Therefore, it was dumb.

galexander
10-06-2009, 01:20 PM
Also, do you guys just believe everything you read? If you do read anything off of a website, the person who wrote it must be qualified. If they aren't qualified, then it makes it no different than if I were to open a blog and make up something super scary and claim it as fact, when I know that I am absolutely lying.

Laokin, its not conspiracy nuts who are saying this. This is an extremely common misconception. As a matter of fact it is PhD scientists who are saying this. Check the following link to a well known book exposing the truth about vaccination:

THE POISONED NEEDLE by Eleanor McBean (http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean.html)

Laokin
10-06-2009, 11:08 PM
Laokin, its not conspiracy nuts who are saying this. This is an extremely common misconception. As a matter of fact it is PhD scientists who are saying this. Check the following link to a well known book exposing the truth about vaccination:

THE POISONED NEEDLE by Eleanor McBean (http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean.html)


What is hilarious, is that link contains nothing but ancient information. Secondly, it's not even a professionally put together site. Who put that information up there? Why is the host whale.to?

Get your information from CREDIBLE resources. Not only that, but since it's written in '54, I'm sure there are tons of errors and I'm sure the process of creating a vaccine has been fundamentally altered since then.

One know nothing croc from 1954 vs the thousands of scientists creating these vaccines.

Who am I to believe? I wonder. :rolleyes:

galexander
10-07-2009, 12:51 PM
To be brief Laokin, I find what Eleanor McBean has to say far more impressive and qualified than anything you have said so far.

I think the point Laokin very much is WHY ON EARTH SHOULD WE LISTEN TO YOU!!!!!!

EireEngineer
10-07-2009, 03:51 PM
[quote=galexander;60981]Working in the medical diagnostics industry some years ago I was shocked to find out that they put a mercury containing compound in vaccines as a preservative, Thimerisol. Mercury is a dangerous toxin and can cause brain lesions among other things.

Yes, Ethyl-Mercury is certainly a harmful compound but the Methyl-Mercury in Thimerisol is easily passed by your body.

Duke02
10-07-2009, 03:57 PM
Was the 1918 Spanish Flue man made? What about HIV? I think they were and so does this guy.

"Dead Man Musings" (http://deadmanmusings.blogspot.com/search/label/swine%20flue)

He also points out that the PTB are all Nazis anyway.

"Dead Man Musings" (http://deadmanmusings.blogspot.com/2009/09/socialism-fascism-and-final-solution.html):cool:

EireEngineer
10-07-2009, 04:06 PM
Sorry Duke, but the RNA does not support that hypothesis.

BlueAngel
10-07-2009, 11:06 PM
Sorry Duke, but the RNA does not support that hypothesis.

Who are the RNA and what hypothesis do they not support?

EireEngineer
10-08-2009, 09:34 AM
LOL, RNA is not an organization, it is the medium some virus', such as influenza, use for storing genetic material. It is also the material higher organizms, such as ourselves, use for copying DNA for protein sythesys.

Ratziel
10-08-2009, 02:47 PM
I think the swine flu is a cover for more sinister afflictions such as Anolum-B. "a strain of the zombie virus that inspired the fictional films" Just like that big supposed rabies outbreak in the 80's. Some of these viruses are created specifically to cover up the more threatening ones that would probably cause mass hysteria.

EireEngineer
10-08-2009, 05:36 PM
Sillyness.:)

BlueAngel
10-08-2009, 08:32 PM
LOL, RNA is not an organization, it is the medium some virus', such as influenza, use for storing genetic material. It is also the material higher organizms, such as ourselves, use for copying DNA for protein sythesys.

Do you mean RNAi?

acerlghp
10-08-2009, 10:43 PM
hey guys

what do u guys think of the video ?

:confused:

Duke02
10-09-2009, 10:57 AM
RNA is the genetic code of a virus. It would tell you nothing at all about whether the 1918 Virus was a weapon to be used against the German's in WWI. Anthrax was also weaponized by the Germans to be used against US livestock and cavalry.

Please read the article before responding.

1918 Flue (http://deadmanmusings.blogspot.com/search/label/1918%20flue)

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 01:04 PM
RNA is the genetic code of a virus. It would tell you nothing at all about whether the 1918 Virus was a weapon to be used against the German's in WWI. Anthrax was also weaponized by the Germans to be used against US livestock and cavalry.

Please read the article before responding.

1918 Flue (http://deadmanmusings.blogspot.com/search/label/1918%20flue)
While it is possible that the Germans could have taken a naturally occurring flu strain and somehow weaponized it, it is unlikely. Bacillus
anthracis is a bacteria and therefore much easier to turn into an aerosol or other means of transmission.

As for the "Man-made HIV" theory, we have demonstrable proof that HIV entered the human population around the turn of the century, long before we had isolated DNA, much less begun to manipulate it.

galexander
10-09-2009, 01:43 PM
[quote=galexander;60981]Working in the medical diagnostics industry some years ago I was shocked to find out that they put a mercury containing compound in vaccines as a preservative, Thimerisol. Mercury is a dangerous toxin and can cause brain lesions among other things.

Yes, Ethyl-Mercury is certainly a harmful compound but the Methyl-Mercury in Thimerisol is easily passed by your body.

Thanks for the educated opinion EireEngineer from a degree level scientist. Only problem is not everyone agrees with your opinion. According to some Thimerisol IS extremely toxic. See the following website:

Thimerosal (http://vaccine.elehost.com/thimerosal.htm)

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 01:47 PM
Well...people can choose to believe in opinion, or choose to look at the science. Its their call.:D

Leonardo
10-09-2009, 05:40 PM
Screw Flu Shots!

Screw Thimerisol!

Screw Bird Flu!

Screw Swine Flu!

Screw vaccines too!

Screw it, screw it!

Screw it all!

Duke02
10-09-2009, 06:24 PM
I would be very interested in the "paper trail" that takes HIV back to 1900.

No, offense, but everything I have researched shows that the Eugenics movement has been working on their final solution for quite a while.

"Socialism, Fascism and the Final Solution" (http://deadmanmusings.blogspot.com/2009/09/socialism-fascism-and-final-solution.html)

acerlghp
10-09-2009, 08:49 PM
killuminati

fuck the illuminati

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 08:51 PM
No paper trail needed. We have two samples from infected people, one from 1959 and the other from 1960. The '59 virus is a Family I virus (think first generation), while the '60 case is a Family II virus. Knowing that the rates of genetic drift for a virus like HIV is fairly constant, and that it would take a certain amount of time for the Family II virus to take on its distinctive characteristics, we can logically determine that the Family I virus entered the human population about the turn of the century. I know this may all seem a little esoteric for those of you not in the science trade, but this is how modern virology is done. Not that it will convince the tin foil hat crowd.

HIV's not-so-ancient history (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/081101_hivorigins)

BlueAngel
10-09-2009, 08:52 PM
No paper trail needed. We have two samples from infected people, one from 1959 and the other from 1960. The '59 virus is a Family I virus (think first generation), while the '60 case is a Family II virus. Knowing that the rates of genetic drift for a virus like HIV is fairly constant, and that it would take a certain amount of time for the Family II virus to take on its distinctive characteristics, we can logically determine that the Family I virus entered the human population about the turn of the century. I know this may all seem a little esoteric for those of you not in the science trade, but this is how modern virology is done. Not that it will convince the tin foil hat crowd.

HIV's not-so-ancient history (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/081101_hivorigins)

Who comprises the WE to whom you refer as in "WE" have two samples?

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 09:37 PM
Who comprises the WE to whom you refer as in "WE" have two samples?
Science. Sorry, but I forget that you people think that I must be a shill for our Illuminati-Bilderberger masters lol

BlueAngel
10-09-2009, 09:40 PM
Science. Sorry, but I forget that you people think that I must be a shill for our Illuminati-Bilderberger masters lol

Science is the "WE" to whom you refer as in "WE" have two samples?

Ah, okay.

WE are extremely pleased that you come to this forum as a representative of the SCIENTIFIC community, at large.

Blah, blah, and more blah.

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 09:58 PM
Since you refuse to look at the science, how can you possibly refute it?

BlueAngel
10-09-2009, 09:58 PM
Since you refuse to look at the science, how can you possibly refute it?

What science do I refuse to look at?

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 09:59 PM
My guess is that you have never written a peer-reviewed paper, but you could at least read one once and awhile.

BlueAngel
10-09-2009, 10:02 PM
My guess is that you have never written a peer-reviewed paper, but you could at least read one once and awhile.

And, this is relevant because?

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 10:06 PM
Because you obviously didnt read the article, much less go to the paper. I do love how you childishly say "blah blah blah" though. lol.

BlueAngel
10-09-2009, 10:14 PM
Because you obviously didnt read the article, much less go to the paper. I do love how you childishly say "blah blah blah" though. lol.

It's not childish.

It's blah, blah and more blah.

Kindly post the article and paper to which you refer.

Thanks.

LOL!

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 10:29 PM
Actually I did, but I am guessing your brain tuned out before you got through the whole post.

BlueAngel
10-09-2009, 10:30 PM
Actually I did, but I am guessing your brain tuned out before you got through the whole post.

Post it again.

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 10:36 PM
HIV's not-so-ancient history (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/081101_hivorigins)
HIV/AIDS Emerged as Early as 1880s (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/10/081001-hiv-aids-africa.html)
AIDS Timeline (http://www.avert.org/aids-timeline.htm)

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 10:40 PM
Also interesting:
The Origin of HIV and the First Cases of AIDS (http://www.avert.org/origin-aids-hiv.htm)

And this is where I first read the story, though I cant find a link to the original article.
The Journal of Virology (http://jvi.asm.org/)

BlueAngel
10-09-2009, 10:46 PM
HIV's not-so-ancient history (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/081101_hivorigins)
HIV/AIDS Emerged as Early as 1880s (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/10/081001-hiv-aids-africa.html)
AIDS Timeline (http://www.avert.org/aids-timeline.htm)

Kindly point out in this thread where you previously provided these links.

BlueAngel
10-09-2009, 10:47 PM
Also interesting:
The Origin of HIV and the First Cases of AIDS (http://www.avert.org/origin-aids-hiv.htm)

And this is where I first read the story, though I cant find a link to the original article.
The Journal of Virology (http://jvi.asm.org/)

Kindly point out in this thread where you previously provided these links.

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 10:53 PM
Now you are just playing silly games. you can scroll through the pages like the rest of the trolls.

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 10:54 PM
And yes, I did post a few extra than I originally did, since you seemed to be interested in the subject.

BlueAngel
10-09-2009, 10:55 PM
Now you are just playing silly games. you can scroll through the pages like the rest of the trolls.

If you cannot point out in this thread where you provided information previously that you said I didn't read, WE must ascertain that you are the one who is playing silly games.

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 11:20 PM
I should be on about page four or three by now. Easy to find, its the only one with a green hyperlink in it.

BlueAngel
10-09-2009, 11:26 PM
I should be on about page four or three by now. Easy to find, its the only one with a green hyperlink in it.

If it's easy to find, find it.

BlueAngel
10-09-2009, 11:27 PM
And yes, I did post a few extra than I originally did, since you seemed to be interested in the subject.

I wasn't interested in anything extra about the subject.

I asked for your original post.

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 11:30 PM
Look at page four. Was that really so hard for you?

BlueAngel
10-09-2009, 11:43 PM
Look at page four. Was that really so hard for you?

The following link is from page 4 and, apparently, provides evidence of those two samples to which EE says "WE" have.

Solid evidence, no doubt, of those two samples.

Oh, and, BTW, solid evidence about what two samples?

HIV's not-so-ancient history (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/081101_hivorigins)

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 11:47 PM
It does tend to disprove the claim that somehow the government engineered and released HIV, seeing as the technology to do so didnt exist in 1928, which is the latest likely date.

BlueAngel
10-09-2009, 11:54 PM
It does tend to disprove the claim that somehow the government engineered and released HIV, seeing as the technology to do so didnt exist in 1928, which is the latest likely date.

HUH?

HUH?

HUH?

I think you're confused.

No.

I don't think you're confused.

I know you're confused.

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 11:57 PM
My original reply, if you looked back, was to a guy who claimed that H1N1 AND HIV were released by the government. I cant speak to the validity of the H1N1 claim, since it certainly is possible, but given the evidence I seriously doubt that HIV was intentional.

Forum arguments sometimes go back several pages. .It pays not to be lazy.

BlueAngel
10-10-2009, 12:13 AM
My original reply, if you looked back, was to a guy who claimed that H1N1 AND HIV were released by the government. I cant speak to the validity of the H1N1 claim, since it certainly is possible, but given the evidence I seriously doubt that HIV was intentional.

Forum arguments sometimes go back several pages. .It pays not to be lazy.

There is no EVIDENCE that proves the H1N1 or HIV viruses were released by the government and WE certainly don't consider you to be a viable source who can either confirm or refute that the goverment released these viruses whether through links you provided with information regarding these viruses or the rendering of your own opinion.

Really?

Forum arguments sometimes go back several pages.

Thanks for advising me of this.

I was completely unaware this was the case.

Seriously, like I haven't been a member of this forum since 2005.

As far as your opinion that it pays not to be lazy.

Obviously, I'm not.

I had to do your work for you in order to bring this discussion to an end.

EireEngineer
10-10-2009, 12:16 AM
Well then, how come you couldnt find my previous post when it took me all of 10 sec?

EireEngineer
10-10-2009, 12:23 AM
Oh, and one more thing. I have yet to see you post anything that refutes the claim that HIV is manmade, but I look forward to seeing one.

BlueAngel
10-10-2009, 12:36 AM
Well then, how come you couldnt find my previous post when it took me all of 10 sec?

Since you referenced your previous post, it was your responsibility to supply it.

What makes you think it was my responsibility?

Laziness?

And, it didn't take you 10 seconds to find it.

It took you several comments and then some before you informed me as to what you were referring and the page on which it was contained.

BlueAngel
10-10-2009, 12:40 AM
Oh, and one more thing. I have yet to see you post anything that refutes the claim that HIV is manmade, but I look forward to seeing one.

Why are you of the opinion that anyone who posts on this forum has to refute the claim that HIV is man-made?

EireEngineer
10-10-2009, 12:49 AM
No, I said refute the claim that it is man made, since you seem to be taking argument with it.

BlueAngel
10-10-2009, 12:58 AM
No, I said refute the claim that it is man made, since you seem to be taking argument with it.

Kindly show ME wherein I have taken argument against the theory that H1N1 and HIV are man-made.

Don't be lazy.

EireEngineer
10-10-2009, 01:06 AM
well, you certainly seem to be taking that position when you attack my position the way you have. Oh, and as a side note: You are correct that I accidentally missed typing in the "not" before manmade, but I think it is pretty clear that I am taking the position that it is not and you seem to be the only one trying to pick it apart.

BlueAngel
10-10-2009, 01:20 AM
well, you certainly seem to be taking that position when you attack my position the way you have. Oh, and as a side note: You are correct that I accidentally missed typing in the "not" before manmade, but I think it is pretty clear that I am taking the position that it is not and you seem to be the only one trying to pick it apart.

I never said that you accidentally missed typing in the "NOT" before man-made.

So, why do you say that I'm correct in stating this?

I haven't attacked any of your positions on any topic.

It's called MY OPINION.

EireEngineer
10-10-2009, 01:32 AM
HUH?

HUH?

HUH?

I think you're confused.

No.

I don't think you're confused.

I know you're confused.
Mmmmm.......

acerlghp
10-10-2009, 12:22 PM
huh huh huh huh huh

im confused ????

EireEngineer
10-10-2009, 12:30 PM
Yeah, it was pretty funny last night. So fun to poke the bear. lol

galexander
10-10-2009, 01:39 PM
Sorry to interrupt Blueangel and EireEngineer's rather intense discussion (urrrrgggh!), but is anyone aware of the theory that HIV is a harmless retrovirus? See the works of Peter Duesberg, Ph.D.

Like all retrovirus's HIV does not destroy the host cell it enters and further the virus does not kill T-lymphocytes in a test tube. So how does HIV kill the T-lymphocytes in the human body? Further there are people with HIV who never get AIDS and people with AIDS who don't have HIV. In short HIV fails all the criteria which scientifically links a known virus with a specified disease.

Peter Duesberg argues that AIDS is a lifestyle problem where people have destroyed their immune systems by injecting drugs or through poor diet (Africa). Its well known that you can damage your immune system this way. Take the case of that women in the US you ate nothing but fruit because she thought it was good for her and ended up living in a plastic bubble. Presumably if she hadn't have lived in the plastic bubble she would have got all the symptoms of AIDS.

People have made big money out of AIDS and HIV and it seems Reagan played a leading part in putting the pressure on to increase his popularity ratings.

EireEngineer
10-11-2009, 09:26 AM
HIV is in fact a very harmful vector, and the fact that it is no longer a death sentence is largely due to the improvements in pharmacology to treat it. Part of the reason it kills so many people in Africa is that it is hard to deliver drugs to the patients due to internal strife. It is hard to do anything productive in the land of kleptocracys

BlueAngel
10-12-2009, 02:30 AM
Sorry to interrupt Blueangel and EireEngineer's rather intense discussion (urrrrgggh!), but is anyone aware of the theory that HIV is a harmless retrovirus? See the works of Peter Duesberg, Ph.D.

Like all retrovirus's HIV does not destroy the host cell it enters and further the virus does not kill T-lymphocytes in a test tube. So how does HIV kill the T-lymphocytes in the human body? Further there are people with HIV who never get AIDS and people with AIDS who don't have HIV. In short HIV fails all the criteria which scientifically links a known virus with a specified disease.

Peter Duesberg argues that AIDS is a lifestyle problem where people have destroyed their immune systems by injecting drugs or through poor diet (Africa). Its well known that you can damage your immune system this way. Take the case of that women in the US you ate nothing but fruit because she thought it was good for her and ended up living in a plastic bubble. Presumably if she hadn't have lived in the plastic bubble she would have got all the symptoms of AIDS.

People have made big money out of AIDS and HIV and it seems Reagan played a leading part in putting the pressure on to increase his popularity ratings.

Post whenever you desire no matter what conversations other member of the site are engaged in.

It won't be considered as an interruption.

Urrgggh!

Yes.

I'm certain that those persons who reside in Africa in areas that are considered to be third world countries and are suffering from AIDS/HIV have contracted this virus because they have chosen a poor diet instead of a healthy one.

EireEngineer
10-12-2009, 08:40 AM
While I am sure that dietary concerns play a part in the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa, the fact that most governments are Kleptocracies is probably a greater factor. That, and the almost universal refusal to use condoms even when they are available.

galexander
10-12-2009, 12:43 PM
BlueAngel.

EireEngineer.

You are both missing the main point I raised.

.......or avoiding it.

Does HIV even cause AIDS?

EireEngineer
10-12-2009, 02:17 PM
Yes, it does.

galexander
10-13-2009, 12:35 PM
Yes, it does.

And how can you be so sure?

EireEngineer
10-13-2009, 01:37 PM
Because there is a known mechanism by which it causes the immune system to become so seriously damaged that it succumbs to secondary infections, and that this mechanism is consistant with what we know about cellular biology and virology. Like all things in science, start with the null hypothesis and work forward, not tententiously working backward from a wished for outcome.:)

BlueAngel
10-13-2009, 08:15 PM
BlueAngel.

EireEngineer.

You are both missing the main point I raised.

.......or avoiding it.

Does HIV even cause AIDS?

I'm not missing the main point that you raised.

I don't know if HIV causes AIDS or not and neither do you or Mr. Engineer.

EireEngineer
10-14-2009, 08:46 AM
Maybe not with 100% certainty, but 98% is good enough for most disciplines in life I have found.

galexander
10-14-2009, 01:13 PM
Because there is a known mechanism by which it causes the immune system to become so seriously damaged that it succumbs to secondary infections, and that this mechanism is consistant with what we know about cellular biology and virology.

Wrong EireEngineer. There are a 101 ways the immune system can be damaged by a myriad of chemicals. Have you ever heard of immuno suppressors and I'm not talking about anti-rejection drugs?

For a so-called qualified scientist your view of the world is rather narrowed.

EireEngineer
10-14-2009, 01:57 PM
Wrong EireEngineer. There are a 101 ways the immune system can be damaged by a myriad of chemicals. Have you ever heard of immuno suppressors and I'm not talking about anti-rejection drugs?

For a so-called qualified scientist your view of the world is rather narrowed.

True, there are a million ways the human immune system CAN be damaged, but I am looking at the most probable cause given all the known factors. As they say, when you hear hoofbeats, think Horses not Zebras. Now if you can find me one double blind study showing a correlation between some other vector and AIDS that is well represented across the population of AIDS sufferers, then you would have something.:rolleyes:

Duke02
10-16-2009, 01:12 PM
Squalene is a petrochemical that is the base of the vaccine. It has been proven to be the cause of the Gulf War Syndrome. There are 1,000 times more Squalene in this flue vaccine.

Squalene literally burns out the immune system.

EireEngineer
10-16-2009, 01:17 PM
Squalene is a petrochemical that is the base of the vaccine. It has been proven to be the cause of the Gulf War Syndrome. There are 1,000 times more Squalene in this flue vaccine.

Squalene literally burns out the immune system.

Squalene is a natural and vital part of the synthesis of cholesterol, steroid hormones, and vitamin D in the human body.

There have been attempts to link squalene to Gulf War Syndrome. One study found that deployed Persian Gulf War Syndrome patients are significantly more likely to have antibodies to squalene (95 percent) than asymptomatic Gulf War veterans (0 percent; p<.001); however, the study concludes with the following statement: "It is important to note that our laboratory-based investigations do not establish that squalene was added as adjuvant to any vaccine used in military or other personnel who served in the Persian Gulf War era." A later study reported that many humans have squalene antibodies in their blood, regardless of whether or not they received squalene from a vaccination.

The World Health Organization and the US Department of Defense have both published extensive reports that clearly state that squalene was not present in any vaccines (Anthrax or otherwise) given to soldiers during the Gulf War, and emphasize that squalene is a chemical naturally occurring in the human body, present even in oils of human fingerprints. WHO goes further to explain that squalene has been present in over 22 million flu vaccines given to patients in Europe since 1997 and there have never been any reported adverse reactions. Both WHO and the US DoD conclude that squalene is completely safe.

iHIMself™
10-17-2009, 06:28 AM
squalene is not safe. Neither is inducing your body with ANY known chemical or mineral naturally produced within the body. Living forms evolve. If you induce your body with testosterone, for example, the body will eventually STOP producing it naturally, because there is no necessity. Once you STOP inducing yourself, your body will NOT produce testosterone again. It will continue to expect the inducement externally.
This is very evident in psychotic patients who are prescribed with chemicals, so-called 'imbalanced' in the brain. They will be dependant on these drugs for the rest of their lives. And they cannot have children without also the need for these drugs. Just like coke babies. Except it's not an addiction, it is an absolute necessity in order for the body to function normally. Or 'so-called' normally.
If you're going to play god with the human body, be prepared for generations. Most babies today are born to at least 2 injections of 'vaccines', preventative or otherwise. And then more throughout childhood. Without them, the children may die, or be prone to serious diseases. 'So-called' anyway.
The human body is perfect the way it is. And if it isn't, then it's probably come up with a perfect solution to the problem already.

EireEngineer
10-17-2009, 08:28 AM
squalene is not safe. Neither is inducing your body with ANY known chemical or mineral naturally produced within the body. Living forms evolve. If you induce your body with testosterone, for example, the body will eventually STOP producing it naturally, because there is no necessity. Once you STOP inducing yourself, your body will NOT produce testosterone again. It will continue to expect the inducement externally.
This is very evident in psychotic patients who are prescribed with chemicals, so-called 'imbalanced' in the brain. They will be dependant on these drugs for the rest of their lives. And they cannot have children without also the need for these drugs. Just like coke babies. Except it's not an addiction, it is an absolute necessity in order for the body to function normally. Or 'so-called' normally.
If you're going to play god with the human body, be prepared for generations. Most babies today are born to at least 2 injections of 'vaccines', preventative or otherwise. And then more throughout childhood. Without them, the children may die, or be prone to serious diseases. 'So-called' anyway.
The human body is perfect the way it is. And if it isn't, then it's probably come up with a perfect solution to the problem already.

Quite the rambling stream of consciousness there. Life expectancies in the developed world continue to climb, while the same is not true in the developing world. The reason for this is simple: those of us in the developed world have access to modern medicine and pharmacology, while others do not. It is a gross overstatement to say the human body is perfect the way it is: often it needs help to survive.

acerlghp
11-16-2009, 05:57 PM
dont take the vaccines

EireEngineer
11-16-2009, 08:53 PM
dont take the vaccines
Pssst....already did. lol:D

acerlghp
12-18-2009, 09:07 PM
Pssst....already did. lol:D

lol

kerry
02-17-2010, 09:52 AM
sounds like they want you to think your protected from the flue with the vaceen
to qull fears and pannic. where the only vaceen that will work is one that can mutate like this flue is doing. i havent had any shots in 50 years and i only get at the worst a mild cold. the whole trick is wash your hands when you get home and dont eat out. dont use publick rest rooms. or drinking fountons. dont wait in big lines. stay away from crouds. and at all times keep your hands away from your face. in other words no kind of contact.. when you buy meat at the store.. the butchers had there hand all over it. meat is unclean durin a flue outbrake. drink lots of orange juce. stay away from milk if you have a stuffy nose and a headace. wash your hands after geting your mail. things like that

kerry
03-11-2010, 06:35 PM
Because it looks just like the virus and this is what doctors told me.


are you saying that by injecting dead virus cells it will fight live virus cells because the dead virus cells know what the live virus cells look like.
lol ong theres no need for this forum to go furthure. im comvinced the
needle is a hoax

BlueAngel
03-12-2010, 01:28 AM
I have had many doctors over the past 30 years. One reason is that when they do something out of line I generaly report them. After reporting them your healthcare goes downhill. Another thing the last doctor I saw wound up to be a mason and I will die before I let a mason touch me. Another thing when I get a doctor I like having no medical insurance ends the care. And the care at any type of free clinic is shotty at best. I have given up on healthcare.

How is it that you found out your last doctor was a Mason?

Did he disclose this to you during a casual conversation?

i love my shlong
03-15-2010, 02:52 AM
those are the reasons that i didnt get it

kerry
03-19-2010, 08:49 PM
if you put your finger on the side of your neck between your ear and shoulder.. and you feel pain on the two sodes of your neck in the same place
it is the first signe of many things.

jane doe
03-20-2010, 07:37 AM
it is the first signe of many things.

what things? What's wrong?

iHIMself™
03-20-2010, 09:12 AM
Quite the rambling stream of consciousness there. Life expectancies in the developed world continue to climb, while the same is not true in the developing world. The reason for this is simple: those of us in the developed world have access to modern medicine and pharmacology, while others do not. It is a gross overstatement to say the human body is perfect the way it is: often it needs help to survive.

Life expectancy perhaps. But quality of that life has deteriorated incredibly fast. Schizophrenia is the largest growing disease in the world. Should I even bother with all sorts of cancers??
To say the undeveloped world is dying off sooner is the gross overstatement. They lived fine for thousands of years before man decided to build fences and trap these people from doing what was absolutely necessary for survival. Go where there is food. We keep them poor, so that we can be rich. But are we??
We are what we are physically and biologically, because it was absolutely necessary, for us to survive. Life will ALWAYS find a way. e.g. If we don't use our legs, to survive, we will lose them. Not now, not tomorrow....but generations to come. Because it isn't an absolute necessity for our survival anymore. We will evolve without them.
You can grow more living cells in your body, to help you fight certain illnesses or disfunctions, whatever, but those cells will be weaker in comparison to the original, fewer cells. That can be said the same for your life expectancy. You may live longer, but you are weaker, you just don't know it. You think you are alive, but you are probably more dead than dead.
god, i do ramble dont i? lol

iHIMself™
04-15-2010, 04:34 AM
It does tend to disprove the claim that somehow the government engineered and released HIV, seeing as the technology to do so didnt exist in 1928, which is the latest likely date.

Didn't the Spanish almost anihalate the entire native population of the america's back in the 16th Century with all sorts of viruses?

Besides the HIV tests themselves are quite questionable. Google it.

superted
04-15-2010, 06:48 AM
"Didn't the Spanish almost anihalate the entire native population of the america's back in the 16th Century with all sorts of viruses?

Besides the HIV tests themselves are quite questionable. Google it." ihimself

...dear god, what a gross misunderstanding of a simple concept! Due to 1000s of years of micro human immuno evolution between the native Americans and Europeans due to the Atlantic ocean, the natives had never come into contact with these completely natural viruses before and so had not built up maternal supported immune defences like the Europeans. Simple as that! You've totally misunderstood and then skewed it to assume HIV was man-made....crazy!

superted
04-15-2010, 07:38 AM
"If we don't use our legs, to survive, we will lose them. Not now, not tomorrow....but generations to come. Because it isn't an absolute necessity for our survival anymore. We will evolve without them." ihimself

...really now...dear god!!! This is even worse, go back to primary school and ask your first teacher to simply explain evolution!

We will not lose our legs, lol, ever! Fortunately science does not work they way you think... Men have nipples, have had them forever, yet we still have them? I really could go on but this point alone should be enough to highlight how wrong you are!

I've realised that so many people on this site basis their strange opinions in science subjects yet haven't even got the faintest grasp of primary school science! lol

iHIMself™
04-17-2010, 09:01 AM
We will not lose our legs, lol, ever! Fortunately science does not work they way you think... Men have nipples, have had them forever, yet we still have them? I really could go on but this point alone should be enough to highlight how wrong you are!

I've realised that so many people on this site basis their strange opinions in science subjects yet haven't even got the faintest grasp of primary school science! lol

I think YOU have the primary school science. It's quite evident in the language you use. But at least you have a grasp of it. well done. Now, you can go read some books, and learn how evolution really works.

Yes, man has nipples. But you don't know why do you? google it. little man. The fact you believe we will NEVER lose our legs is reason enough for me to to understand where your science has taken you. Nowhere.

iHIMself™
04-17-2010, 09:20 AM
dear god, what a gross misunderstanding of a simple concept! Due to 1000s of years of micro human immuno evolution between the native Americans and Europeans due to the Atlantic ocean, the natives had never come into contact with these completely natural viruses before and so had not built up maternal supported immune defences like the Europeans. Simple as that! You've totally misunderstood and then skewed it to assume HIV was man-made....crazy!

where did I say HIV was man-made? All I was pointing out, which you falsely claim was mere coincidence, that the Spanish almost annihalated the entire native population with all sorts of viruses.

Perhaps not developed in a controlled laboratory, they were, nonetheless, isolated, and unleashed as a weapon. Not coincidence. I know, I know, the powers that be would never do something like that. Jumping to conclusions, my bad.

HIV falls into a different category. For one, the tests they use to confirm positivity, are flawed. This is common knowedge.

I'm still trying to find the skew.

I find it still hard to believe aids even exists. All it takes is a few doctors, lined to some powerful drug networks, agreeing to a formula, and voila!! An industry is born. Like cancer.

Most HIV positive patients themselves have said they were pretty healthy before they were told they had HIV and began their drug induced AIDS. <---THERE's the skew!!! HA!!