'Deadly Deception the Proof That Sex And HIV Absolutely Do Not Cause AIDS'.

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
To know what you know, and to know what you do not know. That is true knowledge."
-Confucius

"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
-Rene Descartes

http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Deception-Proof-Absolutely-Cause/dp/0964231611

The HIV hoax ripped to shreds
By Laura B. on March 3, 2014
Format: Hardcover Verified Purchase
I can't recommend this book highly enough. It is heartbreaking that the public is completely unaware of the terrible crime against humanity that has been committed by our own governments. Dr Robert Willner was a very brave man who died trying to expose the truth about HIV. The truth is this: HIV is a harmless retrovirus that was shamelessly used by the US government to kill a lot of people with AZT, scare the general public into using condoms ( population control ), and make a hell of a lot of money for the pharmaceutical companies. Read this book and see that George Orwell's 1984 has come to pass after all.

Incidentally, there is a great video from 1994 on Youtube in which Dr. Robert Willner explains the HIV hoax to the press corps and then sticks his own finger with a needle that is potentially HIV infected. He put his money where his mouth is to help average people to see the truth.

 
Last edited:
Hmmmm! I remember a lot of people dying before AZT was invented. Also, it seems that people now live a very long time on AIDs treatment.

Is Dr. Wilner still around?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hmm... one of Loren's many context-free posts, hanging around to cause trouble. Obviously the material he posted is very one-sided. I believe that AIDS is a complex syndrome, but HIV certainly plays a role.

Willner died of a heart attack the year after he injected himself with HIV, so we'll never know whether or not he was going to get AIDS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Willner
 
Hmm... one of Loren's many context-free posts, hanging around to cause trouble. Obviously the material he posted is very one-sided. I believe that AIDS is a complex syndrome, but HIV certainly plays a role.

Willner died of a heart attack the year after he injected himself with HIV, so we'll never know whether or not he was going to get AIDS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Willner
How is this free of context?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Craig,

What I mean is that there's a huge amount of information available about HIV and AIDS, and that there's a lot of evidence that the danger of HIV is no hoax, but that it certainly does contribute to AIDS. Maybe not the only factor, but probably an essential factor IMO. Also, there's some significant evidence HIV was invented in a government lab and then released to the wild, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Wilner and Duesberg published their arguments back in the 1990's, and as far as I know, literally nobody has advocated for their viewpoint in the last decade (aside from youtube video commenters and Amazon book reviewers and the like.)

Loren didn't address any of that, but just posted all those links.
 
Hi Craig,

What I mean is that there's a huge amount of information available about HIV and AIDS, and that there's a lot of evidence that the danger of HIV is no hoax, but that it certainly does contribute to AIDS. Maybe not the only factor, but probably an essential factor IMO. Also, there's some significant evidence HIV was invented in a government lab and then released to the wild, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Wilner and Duesberg published their arguments back in the 1990's, and as far as I know, literally nobody has advocated for their viewpoint in the last decade (aside from youtube video commenters and Amazon book reviewers and the like.)

Loren didn't address any of that, but just posted all those links.
I've think you have some good points there but I just didn't see the context issue. I get accused sometimes of doing this, often it's called a bias in my case. I don't represent the other side. I fail to see the point though mostly because everyone knows the commonly held main stream views so why reiterate them? Different subjects and different complaints i guess but I can relate to Lorens point too, if that was his reason for not presenting a rounded info dump. Have you seen Kerry Mullins position on it? I don't know if he shares Duesberg, but he can plainly demonstrate how PCR testing (his invention), is not able to demonstrate a larger causality with HIV/AIDS. It actually resembles a correlative fallacy if I am remembering correctly. The thing I always liked about Duesbergs work is he has some speculative ideas about drug impaired immune response etc, but his base issue with the whole thing is the causation not being proven. It violates Koch's postulates of germ theory and immune response.

Anyway I agree it's a cofactor, and tend to subscribe to Richardsons and Jordan's hypotheses, that these deseases are probably all prion/serum sickness related amd biowarfare in nature, but the biowarfare surrounding them never end. Also AZT was a crazy idea, and had to be scaled down as it was killing the patients faster than the aids was, which should demonstrate where the moral compass was at with that; on profits and prolonged deaths.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle, as they say. I hadn't heard of Kary Mullis' position on HIV. He's certainly a prestigious, well-qualified advocate. Also, I see that Duesberg has a paper published in 2011, along with eight colleagues:

http://www.immunity.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2011-IJAE-AIDS-since-1984-.pdf

The argument in the paper is subtle. To the extent I understand it, I think it's not debating all the scientific evidence saying HIV is a co-factor in AIDS. It's just saying (based on statistical grounds) that it must not be a very important co-factor, and that AIDS in Africa is not acting like a viral epidemic. Mullis is conspicuously absent from the author list on the new paper, though I believe he's never changed his opinion that the HIV->AIDS link is unproven.
 
Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle, as they say. I hadn't heard of Kary Mullis' position on HIV. He's certainly a prestigious, well-qualified advocate. Also, I see that Duesberg has a paper published in 2011, along with eight colleagues:

http://www.immunity.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2011-IJAE-AIDS-since-1984-.pdf

The argument in the paper is subtle. To the extent I understand it, I think it's not debating all the scientific evidence saying HIV is a co-factor in AIDS. It's just saying (based on statistical grounds) that it must not be a very important co-factor, and that AIDS in Africa is not acting like a viral epidemic. Mullis is conspicuously absent from the author list on the new paper, though I believe he's never changed his opinion that the HIV->AIDS link is unproven.
You are aware HIV testing in Africa is almost non-existant for an AIDS diagnosis? To my knowledge it is based all on symptomology, and subsequent diagnosis of the collection of associated deseases. That's part of the rediculous of that "viral epidemic", no one is getting tested for the actual virus they're only getting tested for the subsequent syndrome and the associated diseases that come after that, which you can obviously have any of those diseases without having HIV AIDS, especially when you're living in a pretty bad environment with no nutrition pollution etc.. That's ridiculously fallacious. What else is also just patently ludicrous is the excuse used is that the HIV test costs too much money, but the AZT drug cocktails to treat the people with AIDS somehow is less than an HIV test on the monetary scale? I've heard plenty of NPR amd NatGeo reporting on this decades long plague (that still fails to stop population growth or even register plague like death rates), but they always talk about the western drugs being used to treat the AIDS. Sounds like a pretty fantastic mythology to me.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Craig,

This also speaks to my complaint that Loren's original post was context-free. I know very little about HIV-AIDS, and what little I do think I know could easily be wrong; and Loren's post wasn't helpful to get everyone up to speed. I remember reading that AIDS seems to have a different set of symptoms and a different epidemiology in Africa compared to America, and that perhaps the poverty in Africa has something to do with that. I was under the impression that AZT is no longer the favored treatment in the US; is it still part of the cocktail in Africa? So now our alternate theory is that basically healthy people in Africa are being given this drug cocktail, and then they die?

I can understand the argument that HIV doesn't propagate like a virus should, and that this epidemic of AIDS in Africa may not be caused by HIV or any other viral agent. But is anybody questioning that massive numbers of people have been dying in Africa after getting an AIDS diagnosis? And as rapid as the population increase in Africa might be, wouldn't it be even faster without this AIDS problem? (I know, that's asking for speculation about a counter-factual, but isn't that the basis of this whole argument that AIDS is not an epidemic?)
 
Hi Craig,

This also speaks to my complaint that Loren's original post was context-free. I know very little about HIV-AIDS, and what little I do think I know could easily be wrong; and Loren's post wasn't helpful to get everyone up to speed. I remember reading that AIDS seems to have a different set of symptoms and a different epidemiology in Africa compared to America, and that perhaps the poverty in Africa has something to do with that. I was under the impression that AZT is no longer the favored treatment in the US; is it still part of the cocktail in Africa? So now our alternate theory is that basically healthy people in Africa are being given this drug cocktail, and then they die?

I can understand the argument that HIV doesn't propagate like a virus should, and that this epidemic of AIDS in Africa may not be caused by HIV or any other viral agent. But is anybody questioning that massive numbers of people have been dying in Africa after getting an AIDS diagnosis? And as rapid as the population increase in Africa might be, wouldn't it be even faster without this AIDS problem? (I know, that's asking for speculation about a counter-factual, but isn't that the basis of this whole argument that AIDS is not an epidemic?)
Good points all around.
 
Top