[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

It's refreshing to see a quality response, compared to the other ones.

Since you asked about alternatives to the germ theory I answered on what I know of that debate, and indeed I was referring to the microzymas- not cell theory (as the table on whale.to wrongly calls it).

You didn't delve on what you think of it. I don't want to take sides on whether microzymas are partly or wholly true. But what's sure, is if that theory was even remotely true, the implications are enormous.

It means that "people with microscopes saw it", like Rife or Béchamp, but somehow, it didn't make it to the faculty books. Why?
It means that science is being suppressed, evidence is being retained. Who does that?
As for the "How?", we know from Philosophers of Science like Kuhn that a "paradigm" can put enough social pressure on researchers and professionals to lead a whole discipline astray for decades. All it takes is a few watchdogs and the backing of important people. Hierarchy and conformism do the rest.

I'd say the same on the bacteria narrative. Yes we do talk about probiotics, but we're not talking about the implications. If bacteria are not really our enemies, then that's a huge distortion from that century-long germ narrative/paradigm, which can't be explained away by 'progress in science' as some people said it before the narrative and paradigms began.

This is a recurring theme in health news. Claim 1 is reported in the media, there's tons of articles on it, a business is made off it, and it becomes part of the culture and thinking habits. Then, after a while, "it's more complicated than we think", and we start to Claim 1 and -1 at the same time, insofar as two businesses can coexist. Finally, when you're looking for evidence, you start to see 1 was false from the onstart but criticism was suppressed.

Replace Claim 1 with: Cholesterol is bad for your heart, Bacteria are bad for your body. [Latest virus name] will wipe out the planet.

Picture yourself spin doctors juggling with the lies of previous spin doctors. That makes their act much harder, and that's why the whole discipline is implicated to make it sound scientific. But nobody calls out the heap of contradictory claims for the house of cards that it is. (an outside example is "global warming" becoming "climate change" during the 16-year pause)

I won't dwell on bacteria because I wasn't introduced to the critique of modern medicine though it, but through HIV/AIDS.

HIV/AIDS

I discovered, by chance, that among the dozen of conspiracies on AIDS, there was one that stood the test of evidence. In fact, it's the one that asks for the very evidence that HIV causes AIDS, when AIDS is in fact a bundle of diseases that already existed before 1981, each having their own causes.

African AIDS and Western AIDS have nothing to do with one another, just like Hemophiliacs' "AIDS" or Heroin addicts' "AIDS". According to dissident researchers, malnutrition, poppers, blood transfusions and cocaine imports were to blame, respectively. And a drug called AZT, as we'll see.

A good presentation of the crucial first years (81-84) can be found here. It's from John Lauritsen (whale.to) (who is an old-style homosexual, and also a very clever writer and publisher).

He laments on the fact that the dissidents community did not manage to shatter the monument of lies.

But this is partly true. Researching on my own 20 years after, I noticed that there was some back-and-forth between dissidents and Big Pharma. At some point their arguments were powerful enough to force a change in AIDS definitions, to make them look more scientific (African AIDS for the first ten years was just a questionnaire) and also AIDS "medications".

The subject of medication is a scandal in itself. From 1987 up until 1996 AZT was the only drug on the market, given to all HIV-positive people, and dissidents had undeniable evidence, from hundreds of testimonies and previous studies, that the drug was in fact a poison, and was the real cause of the deaths of the many celebrities of the early 90s such as Freddie Mercury. This is "AIDS by medication".

And that's not the biggest pill to swallow. What about the tests? Dissident scientists such as "the Perth Group" also noticed that the so-called "tests" are not testing for the virus at all, but for some "viral particles" supposedly hinting it. Problem is the particles change from country to country and so does the threshold needed for a positive test. This farce is covered in a small-budget documentary called House of Numbers (2008) (archive.org).

I recommend Steve Allen's 1996 two-hour documentary, "HIV=AIDS, Fact or Fraud?" (youtube.com). 1996 was also when new drugs were announced.

If you accept this alternative paradigm, it will be unsurprising to you then to know that there are

hundreds of testimonies of "false positives", and people who were positive and negative and so on, multiple times,
dozens of cases of "HIV transmission" debunked in courts when the defendants asked for a hard proof via electron microscopy,
and of course, hundreds of cases of a cure, given that the diseases branded as "AIDS-defining" each have their separate causes and cures, although some patients were taken too late.

By the 1990s, there were already 100,000+ papers published on AIDS, billions poured in, and the whole society transformed by it. Then Nobel Prize Kary Mullis came in. In the preface of Duesberg's book, he says he needed a reference for his paper, for the assertion that HIV causes AIDS. But he found none! Gallo's 1984 paper had been officially denounced as fraudulent. He asked everyone in the faculty and got no answer. He even came to a meeting of top AIDS scientists. His question was met with silence. He was still waiting for an answer when he died last year. (whale.to)

The first whistleblowers on this were German retrovirologist Peter Duesberg, gay writer John Lauritsen, and investigative journalist Jon Rappoport (blog.nomorefakenews.com) (AIDS Inc, 1988), who is today one of the only voices on the internet to ask for an actual proof of a coronavirus, as he couldn't find for other viruses despite the hyped-up narratives of SRAS, Ebola, Zika, and AIDS.

What's perhaps even more telling, is the non-scientific, media aspect of it. These dissidents are the only conspiracy group on HIV viciously attacked by the media and Big Pharma stooges. They're called "HIV denialists"! You can get away by saying that HIV came out of rhesus monkeys, or that it comes from a vaccine experiment, or from God knows which 'first patient', but you can't ask for an actual proof that AIDS is not a name game.

The vilification goes as far as accusing HIV "denialists" of indirectly killing people by the "hundreds of thousands" in South Africa, even though the country never experienced a statistical hike in untimely death rates. But that's the usual charge for those who dispel the infectious myths.

Not all countries are equally brainwashed. Almost 3,000 researchers from all over the world signed a petition leaning towards HIV denialism, 12 years ago. Here it is (gna.squarespace.com).

That said, I don't take anything on whale.to for granted. I demand logic and evidence like any true skeptic should, and the website tends to mix up apostates and loonies, which can be a disservice to the apostates. It takes a lot of culture and intelligence to see through it.

It's refreshing to see a quality response, compared to the other ones. Since you asked about alternatives to the germ theory I answered on what I know of that debate, and indeed I was referring to the microzymas- not cell theory (as the table on whale.to wrongly calls it). You didn't delve on what you think of it. I don't want to take sides on whether microzymas are partly or wholly true. But what's sure, is if that theory was even remotely true, the implications are enormous. - It means that "people with microscopes saw it", like Rife or Béchamp, but *somehow*, it didn't make it to the faculty books. Why? - It means that science is being suppressed, evidence is being retained. Who does that? - As for the "How?", we know from Philosophers of Science like Kuhn that a "paradigm" can put enough social pressure on researchers and professionals to lead a whole discipline astray for decades. All it takes is a few watchdogs and the backing of important people. Hierarchy and conformism do the rest. I'd say the same on the bacteria narrative. Yes we do talk about probiotics, but we're not talking about the implications. If bacteria are not really our enemies, then that's a huge distortion from that century-long germ narrative/paradigm, which can't be explained away by 'progress in science' as some people said it before the narrative and paradigms began. This is a recurring theme in health news. Claim 1 is reported in the media, there's tons of articles on it, a business is made off it, and it becomes part of the culture and thinking habits. Then, after a while, "it's more complicated than we think", and we start to Claim 1 and -1 at the same time, insofar as two businesses can coexist. Finally, when you're looking for evidence, you start to see 1 was false from the onstart but criticism was suppressed. Replace Claim 1 with: Cholesterol is bad for your heart, Bacteria are bad for your body. [Latest virus name] will wipe out the planet. Picture yourself spin doctors juggling with the lies of previous spin doctors. That makes their act much harder, and that's why the whole discipline is implicated to make it sound scientific. But nobody calls out the heap of contradictory claims for the house of cards that it is. (an outside example is "global warming" becoming "climate change" during the 16-year pause) I won't dwell on bacteria because I wasn't introduced to the critique of modern medicine though it, but through HIV/AIDS. # HIV/AIDS I discovered, by chance, that among the dozen of conspiracies on AIDS, there was one that stood the test of evidence. In fact, it's the one that asks for the very evidence that HIV causes AIDS, when AIDS is in fact a bundle of diseases that already existed before 1981, each having their own causes. African AIDS and Western AIDS have nothing to do with one another, just like Hemophiliacs' "AIDS" or Heroin addicts' "AIDS". According to dissident researchers, malnutrition, poppers, blood transfusions and cocaine imports were to blame, respectively. And a drug called AZT, as we'll see. A good presentation of the crucial first years (81-84) can be found [here. It's from John Lauritsen](http://whale.to/b/lauritsen.html) (who is an old-style homosexual, and also a very clever writer and publisher). He laments on the fact that the dissidents community did not manage to shatter the monument of lies. But this is partly true. Researching on my own 20 years after, I noticed that there was some back-and-forth between dissidents and Big Pharma. At some point their arguments were powerful enough to force a change in AIDS definitions, to make them look more scientific (African AIDS for the first ten years was just a questionnaire) and also AIDS "medications". The subject of medication is a scandal in itself. From 1987 up until 1996 AZT was the only drug on the market, given to all HIV-positive people, and dissidents had undeniable evidence, from hundreds of testimonies and previous studies, that the drug was in fact a poison, and was the real cause of the deaths of the many celebrities of the early 90s such as Freddie Mercury. This is "AIDS by medication". And that's not the biggest pill to swallow. What about the tests? Dissident scientists such as "the Perth Group" also noticed that the so-called "tests" are not testing for the virus at all, but for some "viral particles" supposedly hinting it. Problem is the particles change from country to country and so does the threshold needed for a positive test. This farce is covered in a small-budget documentary called [*House of Numbers* (2008)](https://archive.org/details/houseofnumbersdocumentary). I recommend [Steve Allen's 1996 two-hour documentary, "HIV=AIDS, Fact or Fraud?"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO44ZeDcktA). 1996 was also when new drugs were announced. If you accept this alternative paradigm, it will be unsurprising to you then to know that there are - hundreds of testimonies of "false positives", and people who were positive and negative and so on, multiple times, - dozens of cases of "HIV transmission" debunked in courts when the defendants asked for a hard proof via electron microscopy, - and of course, hundreds of cases of a cure, given that the diseases branded as "AIDS-defining" each have their separate causes and cures, although some patients were taken too late. By the 1990s, there were already 100,000+ papers published on AIDS, billions poured in, and the whole society transformed by it. Then Nobel Prize Kary Mullis came in. In the preface of Duesberg's book, he says he needed a reference for his paper, for the assertion that HIV causes AIDS. But he found none! Gallo's 1984 paper had been officially denounced as fraudulent. He asked everyone in the faculty and got no answer. He even came to a meeting of top AIDS scientists. His question was met with silence. [He was still waiting for an answer when he died last year.](http://whale.to/aids.html) The first whistleblowers on this were German retrovirologist Peter Duesberg, gay writer John Lauritsen, and investigative journalist [Jon Rappoport](https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/) (*AIDS Inc*, 1988), who is today one of the only voices on the internet to ask for an actual proof of a coronavirus, as he couldn't find for other viruses despite the hyped-up narratives of SRAS, Ebola, Zika, and AIDS. What's perhaps even more telling, is the non-scientific, media aspect of it. These dissidents are the only conspiracy group on HIV viciously attacked by the media and Big Pharma stooges. They're called "HIV denialists"! You can get away by saying that HIV came out of rhesus monkeys, or that it comes from a vaccine experiment, or from God knows which 'first patient', but you can't ask for an actual proof that AIDS is not a name game. The vilification goes as far as accusing HIV "denialists" of indirectly killing people by the "hundreds of thousands" in South Africa, even though the country never experienced a statistical hike in untimely death rates. But that's the usual charge for those who dispel the infectious myths. Not all countries are equally brainwashed. Almost 3,000 researchers from all over the world signed a petition leaning towards HIV denialism, 12 years ago. [Here it is](http://gna.squarespace.com/home/the-2729-aids-doubters.html). That said, I don't take anything on whale.to for granted. I demand logic and evidence like any true skeptic should, and the website tends to mix up apostates and loonies, which can be a disservice to the apostates. It takes a lot of culture and intelligence to see through it.

parent
link

(post is archived)

HIV/AIDS