Questioning HIV – some personal reflections
Question:
‘AIDS’ is now a $300,000,000 dollar business. There is your answer. Most ’scientist’ are now employed by large corporations who are in business for one thing only ….PROFIT.
You appear to be claiming that there’s a giant conspiracy of doctors, scientists, lab technicians, and drug company employees and managers to falsify scientific evidence. And, somehow, all those thousands of people manage to keep it a secret. I asked somebody a question. I wanted *his* answer. *You* followed up with an answer to a question I didn’t ask. I think you must enjoy being chronically irrelevant. — David Canzi All it takes to keep a controversy going is one chronically wrong idiot who won’t shut up. A controversy is not evidence that there are actually two sides worth hearing.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Isn’t it time everyone faced up to the truth that the lies the gay establishment has maintained about these issues cannot be kept going forever? If you are gay, it isn’t because of your genes, you weren’t born that way, it’s because of a complicated set of family circumstances that you have not confronted. Balderdash. Well, if it IS the case, then perhaps we can treat the serious psychosocial disease of heterosexuality. The planet is overpopulated and, while famine, war and disease can help reduce the population, these are sloppy and inefficient means for doing so. (Oh…and a bit unethical to promote….) By contrast, curing heterosexuals of their perverse desire to breed by helping them discover their happier, gay nature is indeed a much better approach! Let us find and support the efforts to change heterosexuals a way from their debased and perverted lifestyle. And encourage the many bisexuals to give up their lusts for the opposite gender!
A quicker means would simply to purge all the Fundamentalists of every religion, thus the remaining people who on average only have 2 children ensure that the population shrinks to the point where we are replacing ourselves and not growing. It would be alot simplier, and if you use the heat from burning the bodies to make electricity, atleast the 5cents for the bullet will be paid off through conserving natural and valuable resources like coal and oil. Matt — http://home.iprimus.com.au/matgarnz "Atheism is a non-prophet organisation" "Mays Gilliam didn’t attend the ‘Rally to Fight Cancer’ last year. Does this mean Mays Gilliam is for Cancer? A vote for Mays Gilliam is a vote for Cancer." – Head of State "Baldrick, you are as thick as some extra-clotted clotted cream that has been left out in the rain by some clot, so much that you couldn’t unclot it with an electric declotter." – Edmund Blackadder "I have a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel!" – Edmund Blackadder
Response:
Isn’t it time everyone faced up to the truth that the lies the gay establishment has maintained about these issues cannot be kept going forever? If you are gay, it isn’t because of your genes, you weren’t born that way, it’s because of a complicated set of family circumstances that you have not confronted. Balderdash.
Well, if it IS the case, then perhaps we can treat the serious psychosocial disease of heterosexuality. The planet is overpopulated and, while famine, war and disease can help reduce the population, these are sloppy and inefficient means for doing so. (Oh…and a bit unethical to promote….) By contrast, curing heterosexuals of their perverse desire to breed by helping them discover their happier, gay nature is indeed a much better approach! Let us find and support the efforts to change heterosexuals a way from their debased and perverted lifestyle. And encourage the many bisexuals to give up their lusts for the opposite gender! George M. Carter
Response:
Isn’t it time everyone faced up to the truth that the lies the gay establishment has maintained about these issues cannot be kept going forever? If you are gay, it isn’t because of your genes, you weren’t born that way, it’s because of a complicated set of family circumstances that you have not confronted.
Balderdash. Similarly, you do not have AIDS because you contracted a deadly virus, perhaps through one unlucky encounter; you probably have AIDS because you are a promiscuous, drug-using slut, and your behaviour is wrecking your body.
No kidding. *Damn* those promiscuous junkie babies with AIDS! Not to be too judgemental about it.
Well, *bless* your shriveled l’il ol’ heart! I’ve nothing against anyone being a slut per se, or against drug abuse per se, but let’s face reality.
Yes, let’s. You can start by forgoing your lying.
Response:
And if one couldn’t trust the gay establishment about homosexuality, why should one trust them about AIDS?, I thought.
What is remarkable about your posting is that you didn’t talk about the theory, choosing instead to talk about the theorists. At length. So… How did the evil gay establishment get the scientists — most of whom are straight — on their side? — David Canzi She couldn’t get over the skimpiness of his worldly goods. "Maybe you ought to rethink crime as a career path," she said. "I do, all the time," he said, "but nothing else gives me the same job satisfaction." — Donald E. Westlake, Put A Lid On It
Response:
‘AIDS’ is now a $300,000,000 dollar business. There is your answer. Most ’scientist’ are now employed by large corporations who are in business for one thing only ….PROFIT. This proves the point about AID$ For every mortality: – AIDS gets $2,400 Breast cancer $230 Heart disease $108 Diabetes $28 and these fanatics keep screaming..MORE, MORE, MORE!!
Response:
Great post Sidney, "In both cases, there was vicious intimidatation and ridicule and attempts at censorship directed against those who dared to question the accepted, politically correct view." Censorship is the only way this stupid myth can be kept alive. If the public saw all the evidence not one person would be left believing in the myth of ‘AIDS’ in a month. Best wishes, Paul
Response:
` Hi there, I’ve been interested in the controversies surrounding AIDS for years. I bought a whole lot of books on the issue but didn’t read any of them until very recently. For a long time I was too disturbed and upset by the whole issue to be able to do that. Anyway, having got over my inhibitions (with some difficulty – it was frankly amazing to me how hard it was to work through hundreds of pages of dissident argument about AIDS) and actually read some of those books, although I’m not absolutely convinced yet, I now suspect that the dissidents are more or less right. Partly that’s because of the political context; the HIV theory served the interests of the gay establishment, which I always disliked and distrusted. They had been arguing for years, on the basis of extremely slender evidence, that people are ‘born gay.’ As a fairly gay guy myself, and one whose life fits the Freudian theory of homosexuality perfectly, I knew that was rubbish. If the fact that I had a too-close, over-protective and intimate relationship with my mother and a cold, distant relationship with my father didn’t give the game away, the fact that my sexuality, which had long been exclusively gay, started wobbling back and forth between gay and straight when I was in my mid twenties certainly did. The first gave me strong circumstantial reasons for accepting the Freudian view, and the second cemented it; after all, your sexuality can’t change so much if you’re born that way, can it? And if one couldn’t trust the gay establishment about homosexuality, why should one trust them about AIDS?, I thought. If they could get the one issue wrong, they could get the other wrong as well. A similar process of politicised science may have taken place, leading to similarly distorted results. I realise that the weight of scientific opinion on the cause of AIDS is much stronger than that for homosexuality, but the difference is only quantitative, and the similarities between the two issues are simply too strong to ignore. In both cases, a theory was promoted that served, or was felt to serve, the political agenda of gays. The ‘truth’ about homosexuality and the ‘truth’ about AIDS had to be kept as simple as possible, to avoid confronting some embarrassing possibilities about what might really be making people gay and what might really be giving them AIDS. In neither case could any environmental influence be accepted, because that would look bad. No one wanted homosexuality to be caused by a disturbed family background, or AIDS to be caused by drug abuse and the effects of extreme sexual promiscuity on the body. It had to be all due to genetics, to your personal genetic background, and to the genes of HIV. In both cases, there was vicious intimidatation and ridicule and attempts at censorship directed against those who dared to question the accepted, politically correct view. Isn’t it time everyone faced up to the truth that the lies the gay establishment has maintained about these issues cannot be kept going forever? If you are gay, it isn’t because of your genes, you weren’t born that way, it’s because of a complicated set of family circumstances that you have not confronted. Similarly, you do not have AIDS because you contracted a deadly virus, perhaps through one unlucky encounter; you probably have AIDS because you are a promiscuous, drug-using slut, and your behaviour is wrecking your body. Not to be too judgemental about it. I’ve nothing against anyone being a slut per se, or against drug abuse per se, but let’s face reality.
