FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
AIDS or biowarfare to commit genocide with deniability
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> AidsIsOver!
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
John Muir



Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:42 pm    Post subject: AIDS or biowarfare to commit genocide with deniability Reply with quote

AIDS is a biowarfare weapon that is being used to exterminate Africans and South East Asians. Here is a snippet fron the defense appropriation committee hearings of fiscal year 1970. The beauty of using biowarfare agents to commit genocide is the plausible denial that they engender. Its easier to cover-up this genocide technology than the trains and gas used to kill the Jews in Eastern Europe. Its reminicent of how the British and then the Americans used small pox to exterminate Native Americans. So, History is having one of its nasty repeats in Africa and South East Asia.


http://panindigan.tripod.com/aidsdodhear.html

SYNTHETIC BIOLOGICAL AGENTS
There are two things about the biological agent field I would like
to mention. One is the possibility of technological surprise. Molecular
biology is a field that is advancing very rapidly and eminent biologists
believe that within a period of 5 to 10 years it would be possible to
produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally
exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired.
MR. SIKES. Are we doing any work in that field?
DR. MACARTHUR. We are not.
MR. SIKES. Why not? Lack of money or lack of interest?
DR. MACARTHUR. Certainly not lack of interest.
MR. SIKES. Would you provide for our records information on what
would be required, what the advantages of such a program would be,
the time and the cost involved?
DR. MACARTHUR. We will be very happy to.
(The information follows:)

The dramatic progress being made in the field of molecular biology led us to
investigate the relevance of this field of science to biological warfare. A small group of experts considered this matter and provided the following observa- tions:
1. All biological agents up the the present time are representatives of naturally
occurring disease, and are thus known by scientists throughout the world. They
are easily available to qualified scientists for research, either for offensive or
defensive purposes.
2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new
infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from
any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might
be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we
depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.
3. A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed
in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10 million.
4. It would be very difficult to establish such a program. Molecular biology
is a relatively new science. There are not many highly competent scientists in the
field. Almost all are in university laboratories, and they are generally adequately
supported from sources other than DOD. However, it was considered possible
to initiate an adequate program through the National Academy of Sciences -
National Research Council (NAS-NRC).
The matter was discussed with the NAS-NRC, and tentative plans were plans were made
to initiate the program. However decreasing funds in CB, growing criticism
of the CB program, and our reluctance to involve the NAS-NRC in such a con-
troversial endeavor have led us to postpone it for the past 2 years.
It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such
research should not be undertaken lest it lead to yet another method of massive
killing of large populations. On the other hand, without the sure scientific
knowledge that such a weapon is possible, and an understanding of the ways it
could be done, there is little that can be done to devise defensive measures.
Should an enemy develop it, there is little doubt that this is an important area
of potential military technological inferiority in which there is no adequate
research program.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7902

PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry John, bu tthere a couple of problems with that theory.

When we look to see what is actually killing the AIDS diagnosed
we find that in the West most die from AIDS Drugs.

Such as AZT at 1200mg day which killed most gays who died
early on in the US. It continues with new drugs which cause liver
failure, to the extent that there are more prople in US hospitals
with AIDS drug effects than AIDS.

When we look around the world we find that the real causes of
so-called immune suppresion are DNA de-Methylation, and
Metabolic Oxidative Stress. This drives the HIV expression
from within the junk in the DNA. Most of us have the HIV
genome in there. You have to be in pretty bad shape for it
to express though. Yeah, HIV is endogenous. Within.
Not infective. It's driven by body metabolism.

And when we look at the HIV itself as a disease-causing agent
we find it is singularly ineffective. Only managing to kill of
half of the body's normal replacement rate of the key T-Cells
--according to the mainstream research that is.

And of course it doesn't kill you immediately, but only after years.
Supposedly.

So if this is a biowar agent, it grossly ineffective.

Around the world the only ones dying are IV drug users,
those with other similar metabolic disorders and gays presumptively
disgnosed with AIDS and feed the cocktails. Not infectious.

If it was the hookers would be all dead.
But the only hookers dying are the ones who shoot up.

(No offense to the girls meant by the term 'hooker'.)

I spent a lot of time over 4 years looking into this.

The biowar thing is Disinfo desighed to promote fear and
to make the HIV virus look like it might actually be a real
infective agent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
DrewTerry
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Question Please, just to clarify, for me, if you don't mind:
Fintan wrote:
"The biowar thing is Disinfo designed to promote fear and to make the HIV virus look like it might actually be a real infective agent."

Arrow Which obscures and legitimizes the public perception of its status as a 'treatable condition' for which are prescribed ('sold') a helluva lot of pharmaceuticals.....most paid by insurance?

How is that a factor to the Rx industry? (I could see the Rx having a hidden hand in the 'skyrocketing medical costs' as another way to tax people that are already 'taxed well beyond their means')

When will it be the trend to borrow and OWE as much debt as possible when the time comes Wink instead of estates and estate taxes we can be the first generation to see who can owe the most that was never paid back...what the hell, its only 'goddamn piece of paper whats the big deal?'
Like the pitch for life insurance (unless you have dependents) ah, sorry, but - about what should I be concerned? That I will leave a bad impression (pun intended!!)

Warren Buffett used to be one gazillionaire in whom I had the least bit of faith left that there could be one out of a generation that would actually 'give it all away' because thats what he always preached that he would do...but he couldn't wait, I guess, and besides jumping the gun what does he do? Give it to the 'other' richest guy in the the world (Bill Gates Foundation?) Besides the obvious contradiction of meaning and illusion of intent, when one says 'give it all away' does not imply (in my mind) to one person or entity!! That only serves to further concentrate wealth in the few remaining hands who already have most of it! But, of course, they are not really human so I can't expect them to be other than what they are.
Back to top
John Muir



Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is a very effective biowarfare agent. When you look at it from a Plausible Denial point of view. Everyone is conditioned to believe that the military is interested only in agents that work immediately not over the course of years or tens of years. Its AIDS long incubation period that gives it its cover or plausible denial. Its not a mutually exclusive proposition for AIDS to be a killer and for the drugs that supposedly treat it to kill also. But if it is the drugs that are deadly then how do you explain why so many Sub-Saharan Africans are dying from the disease? They are not recieving the drugs aimed at treating it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hocus Locus



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 850
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John Muir wrote:
It is a very effective biowarfare agent. When you look at it from a Plausible Denial point of view. Everyone is conditioned to believe that the military is interested only in agents that work immediately not over the course of years or tens of years. Its AIDS long incubation period that gives it its cover or plausible denial. Its not a mutually exclusive proposition for AIDS to be a killer and for the drugs that supposedly treat it to kill also. But if it is the drugs that are deadly then how do you explain why so many Sub-Saharan Africans are dying from the disease? They are not recieving the drugs aimed at treating it.

It might be because more sub-Saharan Africans and SE Asians have perfect genes.

A comparitively recent genetic mutation is retarding expression into 'AIDS' (whereas BFN is unanimous that the leeches' so-called 'treatments', if one can call them that in the medical sense at all, haven't been helping and some have been lying about it.). There is a obviously deceptive mis-management of science here that is still going on, but there is also a genetic mystery unfolding too. See my BFN post on CCR5-D32,

I'm curious to know how how the gene hunters' research fits with what Fintan has discovered...! And of course if there are holes in my logic. We begin with a mutation, a 'mistake' that arose some ~700 years ago.

The good news: "The study showed that when people inherited [CCR5-D32] from both parents, they appeared to be resistant to infection with HIV. (The gene is considered defective because a portion of it is missing, and it thus cannot produce a functional CCR5 receptor.) Some people may inherit a single defective version of the gene from one parent, but there is insufficient information to know whether this confers partial protection against infection. It has been shown that people with the partial CCR5 defect may progress to HIV disease more slowly than someone without the CCR5 defect. This study was extremely small, however, and the defective receptor was found in only two of fifteen people who were thought to be exposed to HIV, yet remain uninfected.

The mutation occurred in a single individual, in Europe during the plague, historically recently. By then all of mankind's major nomadic branches had already migrated to their various continents, in enough numbers (or in environments free of radiation and mortality pressure brought on by virus attack) and their ancient base genome CCR5 remained intact. Which means aside from the area where the mutation arose, only areas and populations where descendants of those 'European mutants' colonized and mixed genome and made mixed babies, there will be greater trouble to those exposed to HIV.

Now the bad news (from this theoretical angle, for the CCR5D32/AIDS connection is still under investigation) because the mutation is recent and European colonization is also recent, the mutation is absent in large populations: "DNA samples were taken from thirty-eight different ethnic groups from Europe, the Middle East, and North America. These were typed for CCR5 and the results (Table 1) show a north to south gene frequency gradient (Stephens, et. al. 1998). The highest of the frequencies was in northern Europe and the lowest was in Greece. These data confirm the high frequency of CCR5-Delta 32 among northern European Caucasians, a gene frequency cline across Europe and Asia reflecting recent population admixture, and virtual absence of CCR5-Delta 32 among native Africans, East Asians, and American Indians (Stephens, et. al. 1998). (from Kampis, February 23, 2005)

The number of copies of CCL3-L1 in the genome has also been shown to affect onset, which also seems to have a 'racial' bias. Until all the genome variations affecting HIV's cycle are understood there could be some serious causation confusion!

So these then are populations who, from the angle of this theory, save other factors yet to be discovered -- are going to experience higher mortality, given the 'same' conditions of exposure to the HIV virus.

And the worse news, for those populations: 'partial' genetic carriers of the gene defect will have delayed onset of AIDS. In the epidemic sense this is bad because before onset of 'AIDS' they have far greater opportunity -- could be years -- to make others HIV-positive.

Compare it to a full-spectrum immediate onset pathogen like Ebola: alarms everybody, outbreaks are extremely dangerous but it fortunately every one so far has remained localized and has 'burned itself out' (a species of bat has been identified as the likely natural unaffected carriers of Ebola between outbreaks, direct exposure to placentae of birthing bats, a rare event, a likely vector/trigger to monkeys and humans).

The mutation being a chance event -- if it had occurred in Africa along with a prevelance of HIV transmission, from the early days of slave trading -- the events of today might be quite different. Through pressure of mortality the advantage of survival in North America for AIDS would favor those with more melanin, not less.

Being a 'long-term carrier' issue -- we have to find a way so everyone exposed to HIV can live the full lifespan with no ill effect. This is the only rational approach in this case, more rational than merely trying to 'stamp out HIV' alone. As with any possibly unwinnable war, such 'cauterization' approaches seem to lead to dreary 'final solution' approaches, where eliminating carriers becomes an end in itself -- and of course, it does not help to equip us with the tools to solve the next 'pathogen' problem that comes along. It just helps us develop the technology to target and eliminate people more effectively.

And we already have enough of that to last a lifetime. I think I just broke that expression, but you get my drift.

Bad medicine is bad medicine. Biowarfare is biowarfare. This is bad medicine. Unless we call things by their most honest descriptive names there is no chance that the right people -- anyone who understands the distinct difference between these things -- will even realize the problem exists, let alone help. Because they'll think you're talking about something else.

Bad medicine applied to populations selectively for political purposes, is simply
bad medicine applied to populations selectively for political purposes.

___
Whether populations differ in their susceptibility to HIV has never been studied, but this seems biologically plausible. CCR5 is a co-receptor of HIV. Individuals with a CCR5D32 deletion (8-11% of Europeans and white Americans) are relatively resistant to HIV (Dean et al. 1996; Huang et al. 1996; Samson et al. 1996; Philpott et al. 2003). It has been argued that the absence of this genotype in Africans might have contributed to the spread of HIV (Martinson et al. 1997; Schliekelman et al. 2001; Sullivan et al. 2001).
~From the Old World to the New World:
an ecologic study of population susceptibility to HIV infection
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John Muir



Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its so gene specific that when you synthesize that with Dr. MacArthur's testimony. It looks like the U.S. has fielded a gene specific weapon. I dont think that the CIA had anything to do with his testimony. Even black programs have to be funded hence recorded. Its also interesting to me the timing of it all. It was more or less ten years after Dr. MacArthur's testimony that AIDS/HIV started to appear.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hocus Locus



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 850
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Its so gene specific that when you synthesize that with Dr. MacArthur's testimony. It looks like the U.S. has fielded a gene specific weapon. I dont think that the CIA had anything to do with his testimony. Even black programs have to be funded hence recorded. Its also interesting to me the timing of it all. It was more or less ten years after Dr. MacArthur's testimony that AIDS/HIV started to appear.

You don't see too many places in history where the mortality of population is chronicled with any accuracy, let alone symptoms detailed enough to base good assumptions on. It's certainly sketchy ~700 years ago. We have no way to know how many of any ancient population were HIV-positive.

I'd be surprised if any doctor testified that something such as AIDS 'appeared' at any point in time. Oh they'll say that all right, but what they mean, and what other doctors hear, is that is when enough consensus was formed for a diagnosis to be made. For maladies under study, a diagnosis of a syndrome is a way for doctors to flag patients: for study as well as treatment; it also flags the doctors as those who may have access to such patients. They certainly got the name right, being a syndrome is medicine's way of saying (stay tuned! We're not completely sure what this is!). If this consensus and labelling process did not exist we'd all still be dying of consumption (my favorite disease)

When people die of AIDS, what do they actually die from? Any number of things, some of which have specific names that reach back over the centuries. In such an environment, it's easy to see how a single doctor whose patient finally lost the fight to say, some volley of symptoms or treatment that impaired liver function. And in an environment where one expects a progression of symptoms, that doctor might likely conclude based on literature of the field, that the patient had lost the battle despite the positive efforts of the chosen treatment. And not be the wiser, unless they cycled through many patients and treatment approaches.

Doctors rely on statistical aggregation and correlations laid out by respected researches they consider to be amply supported by studies and backed by real experience -- call it a type of "calculated faith".

Now what would happen the people who compile and publish the statistics, bring doctors together, have a voice through funding of certain publications and persons, perhaps even a few editors completely in the pocket waiting for orders (wouldn't take many) are the people who own the patents on, directly fund and have financial interest in the drugs and treatments used? I'll throw in vestments in the insurance and malpractice liability industries too. What a cocktail, even without psyop.

You have a system of 'best behavor' or 'worst'. But it gets worse: they fund the studies, can take advantage of different policies inter-country and intra-country (the bad anthrax vaccines given to Gulf soldiers were not FDA-approved).

But it gets worse. They have enough capital, outreach and distributed portfolio holdings to float (or sink) a medium sized country. Or stay afloat in economically troubled times that just may be exacerbated by health care issues and not as bad for some as for others.

If corruption happens at these levels, your trusted doctor -- even an AIDS specialist -- might be as in the dark about what really works and what doesn't as you are. Fact is, so-called 'uncurable' diseases are the litmus test of such a system. I think there is big nasty afoot, and it will be difficult to untangle.

Doctors and researchers (even those deeply embeded in corrupted companies but pure of heart, many if not most) need to form arbitrary and casual back-channel networks with others in their field, away from the scripted and centralized 'Big Pharma' apparatus. The Internet makes this feasible. Call them pools of 'medical militias'. Share their own statistics and trends.

Even if this occurs purely within the diagnostic community, whose conduct is not as much bound to secrecy as those doing funded research -- situations such as AZT+AIDS would gather consensus more quickly and more ethically than in places where such might be delayed or supressed outright.

And what if something does get loose from a laboratory? Besides try to survive it and help others do so, I mean.

___
I brake for midwives, wiccans and other misunderstood and mistreated wimmins.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Damian Flynn



Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 219
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The AIDS virus is not real. It's just a racist anti-sex, demonic possession cult run by government intelligence agencies and promoted thru NGOs, T.V. and education. It's just one of many government cults, like E.T. life, Global Warming, Ozone Hole, Peak Oil, Cholesterol, Jesus TV, Jihad, Over Population, and probably any global "time bomb" that's ever been mentioned on TV. The whole AIDS is a biowarfare thing is simply CIA propaganda. They're the same kind of people who promote UFOs. Before you know it, they'll by claiming that HIV came from aliens.

There are some interesting documentries on google video if you have a search. Try "AIDS Hoax" and "The Other Side Of AIDS". After all this time and money has been spent on HIV, no one has been able to find a mechanism by which HIV can cause AIDS or any other sickness. If you'd like a second or third opinion, you can find some here,


www.aras.ab.ca/aidsquotes.htm

Anyway, here's an interesting article I found today, about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,4205044,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MichaelC



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 2129

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, Fintan and Damian, for much needed clarity on what is - along with "911/terrorism/war on drugs" - the biggest hoax of the last 25 years.

And it especially pisses me off because it has ruined my sex life!

(I don't like rubbers)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MichaelC



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 2129

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Bill Gates foundation plans to send tons of "HIV/AID$" drugs to Africa:

Just what is this creepy slob-nerd's role in the NWO plan?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Toto



Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 348

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MichaelC wrote:
Thanks, Fintan and Damian, for much needed clarity on what is - along with "911/terrorism/war on drugs" - the biggest hoax of the last 25 years.

And it especially pisses me off because it has ruined my sex life!

(I don't like rubbers)


One of the first books i read about this subject was Queer Blood:The Secret AIDS Genocide Plot By Alan Cantwell Jr., M.D. Since then i have conlcluded that this man is Cia all the way. Rense is always promoting this guy :
http://www.rense.com/ufo4/manmade.htm
Also Cia is Dr. Leonard Horowitz i think. They all promote a fear message.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John Muir



Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cantwell can be CIA and yet it can still be true that AIDS/HIV is a biowarfare agent. Just like it can be true that Hopsicker or Alex Jones are CIA. Yet, it can still be true that 9-11 was a Government concieved and implemented attack. And If the pattern of CIA operations is to take control of groups that are critical of it. Then it would be in keeping with that pattern that the AIDS/HIV biowarfare truth groups are being co-oped the same way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> AidsIsOver! All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.