or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › 32 million Americans now have antibodies that target their own tissues
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

32 million Americans now have antibodies that target their own tissues - Page 2

post #21 of 67

I didn't come here today to talk about measles.  So no, I didn't even look.  

 

The link on my second photograph works just fine for me.  

 

If you assert that these EM photographs are something other than EM images of HIV, please provide appropriately cited, labelled photographs of what you think they are from reputable, corroborated sources for evidence.  

 

 

 

Quote:
The first EM photograph are of endogenous particles, not the isolated virus and the second photograph leads to a broken link and therefore I have no way of knowing what it is but I suspect they are they same. These structures are well known and serve the intra- and intercellular transport. Unlike viruses of the same kind - that are always the same size and same shape (consistency) and therefore cannot be isolated.

 

I have to check my databases and corroborate with some sources to be sure, but I *think* it's possible that this paragraph involves you suggesting that what you say you are looking for - a primary research article that explains how HIV was isolated - is impossible to find because certain kinds of viruses can't be isolated, and therefore I didn't find it because you deliberately asked for something you know to be scientifically impossible.  

 

If that's not the case, I need some further explanation about what you mean here.  

post #22 of 67
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

I didn't come here today to talk about measles.  So no, I didn't even look.  

 

The link on my second photograph works just fine for me.  

 

If you assert that these EM photographs are something other than EM images of HIV, please provide appropriately cited, labelled photographs of what you think they are from reputable, corroborated sources for evidence.  

 

 

 

 

I have to check my databases and corroborate with some sources to be sure, but I *think* it's possible that this paragraph involves you suggesting that what you say you are looking for - a primary research article that explains how HIV was isolated - is impossible to find because certain kinds of viruses can't be isolated, and therefore I didn't find it because you deliberately asked for something you know to be scientifically impossible.  

 

If that's not the case, I need some further explanation about what you mean here.  

 

The second photo did not provide any information as to what it was, and when I clicked it the link was broken.

 

I warned you I was being facetious. There is no primary research article on HIV because it never has been isolated; no human, animal or plant virus has, so it isn't just the case of certain kinds of viruses, it is all viruses. So that then leads to the question, what exactly is in viral vaccines?

 

post #23 of 67

You did warn me you were being facetious. I think we may be running into trouble over the word "isolate."  Virologists use this term to refer to the process of growing a viral culture in a lab.  Because of the nature of viruses, this does not mean complete and total isolation from all other organisms.  

 

Since there is, at this time, no vaccine for HIV, there's not much cause for worry about how whether or not it can be isolated and purified, is there?  But since "primary research article" means "first hand account from the scientists involved in the research" there are primary research articles on it.  

 

I think the answer to your question about what is in vaccines would depend on the vaccine and could probably be found on the package insert.  I know one common answer is eggs.  People with egg allergies should not be vaccinated.  

post #24 of 67

"There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important."
- Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 28, 1997, Testimony before Congressional Committee

 

Although he makes it sound like other "terrorist" countries are to blame, you can be sure the USA is right in the middle of it all. When you examine vaccines and the strange viruses found in them, is it all accidental? To be safe, you should never give these people the benefit of the doubt. Never allow any person in a position of power to have a free pass!

 

Side note......"alter the climate" quote........have you looked in the sky recently? Don't you notice some days when the "contrails" spread out and haze over the sky, lingering for hours? What the heck is that all about, hmm? It's called Geoengineering, it's real, it's happening throughout the world every day, so look it up please.

 

Difficult to stay on just one topic, when so many problems are related.

post #25 of 67


HIV is older than you think. HIV appeared long before we had an technology to manipulate viruses to the degree that we have now. It is not man made.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/10/02/2379984.htm

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post



Ok, I've seen the subject of HIV/AIDS pop up recently, and I have to ask....How are you sure that HIV is not man made? Really,

It could have been man made and deliberately released, or it could have been an unfortunate, accidental side effect that got out of control. Reminds me of the SV40 in the early polio vaccine.

 

Now honestly, I know very little about HIV and AIDS (plan to learn more soon), but I do know this--question everything you think you know, and  look at the issue from all sides, even if it makes you uncomfortable. People are capable of more than you care to imagine. Hey, maybe a terrorist lab created it!?!

 

Why, look at everything we know about, and then ask yourself if it is within the realm of possibility that HIV might have been created.

*Cloning

*GMO

*Biological Weapons--yes, weapons. They exist. Could HIV be one? Why not?  Is it impossible because you can't believe it's true? Is that your only reason?



 

post #26 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alenushka View Post


HIV is older than you think. HIV appeared long before we had an technology to manipulate viruses to the degree that we have now. It is not man made.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/10/02/2379984.htm

 



 



I am sorry that article is pure fiction. The HIV virus has never been isolated, purified or characterized (see my posts above) so how can they say they found the virus in tissues from an African woman dating back to 1960. And as for computer generated image of what is supposed to be HIV. Fake. nono.gif

post #27 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alenushka View Post


HIV is older than you think. HIV appeared long before we had an technology to manipulate viruses to the degree that we have now. It is not man made.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/10/02/2379984.htm

 

Let's assume HIV is completely natural. I am concerned about the way it has spread so rapidly throughout the world. I believe this is "man-made"-- that HIV may have been artificially introduced to the public, much like the SV40 from the early polio vaccines.

 

Perhaps the early HepB vaccines accidentally contained HIV. Promiscuous men were used for the trials--I'm not being mean, it was a requirement to find promiscuous men. They were given tainted vaccines, then off it went, spreading rapidly throughout the land. How do we know HIV was not "accidentally" in the early HepB vaccines? It happened before with the SV40 in the polio vaccines, which spreads from mother to child, infecting millions with a cancer causing virus. HIV might have been introduced the exact same way, by accident.

 

From the article,

"At the time of this writing, the U.S. Homeland Security Act passed the Senate virtually unanimously. Mysteriously incorporated in its text was a vaccine injury indemnity clause that freed drug companies from liabilities associated with specific vaccine ingredients, such as HIV precursors in the HB vaccines."

http://www.originofaids.com/articles/early.htm  *Seriously, read this.

 

There ya go. How much more obvious can it get? At the very least, the virus mistakenly found its way into the vaccine, which is oh so common. The worst, it was added on purpose to aid in the global depopulation agenda, and isn't it working nicely?  Kissinger would be so proud!

 

 

 

 

post #28 of 67

bigeyes.gif

post #29 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Let's assume HIV is completely natural. I am concerned about the way it has spread so rapidly throughout the world. I believe this is "man-made"-- that HIV may have been artificially introduced to the public, much like the SV40 from the early polio vaccines.

 

Perhaps the early HepB vaccines accidentally contained HIV. Promiscuous men were used for the trials--I'm not being mean, it was a requirement to find promiscuous men. They were given tainted vaccines, then off it went, spreading rapidly throughout the land. How do we know HIV was not "accidentally" in the early HepB vaccines? It happened before with the SV40 in the polio vaccines, which spreads from mother to child, infecting millions with a cancer causing virus. HIV might have been introduced the exact same way, by accident.

 

From the article,

"At the time of this writing, the U.S. Homeland Security Act passed the Senate virtually unanimously. Mysteriously incorporated in its text was a vaccine injury indemnity clause that freed drug companies from liabilities associated with specific vaccine ingredients, such as HIV precursors in the HB vaccines."

http://www.originofaids.com/articles/early.htm  *Seriously, read this.

 

There ya go. How much more obvious can it get? At the very least, the virus mistakenly found its way into the vaccine, which is oh so common. The worst, it was added on purpose to aid in the global depopulation agenda, and isn't it working nicely?  Kissinger would be so proud!

 

 

 

 




Given that cases of AIDS and HIV have been identified going back to the 1950s, the disease did not actually spread all that rapidly. 

 

And nothing seems to be making a significant impact on global depopulation.  AIDS isn't helping, but the globe went from 6 billion to 7 billion in under 20 years, and exploded during the 20th century despite two world wars and a series of pandemics.  The Great Flu of 1918, for example, killed 10 percent of the world's population.  The world's population bounced back, despite a massive shortage of young men in Europe.  So if there is a global depopulation conspiracy, their work is crap. 

 

Congress does weird things all the time.  I think that history has clearly shown that the pattern there is linked to lobbyists.  A lot of bills are Christmas Trees, where everyone hangs their favorite pork project on a branch of something that is guaranteed to pass.  I don't know whose pet project that was, but I'm sure there was someone. 

 

As a historian, I love the way conspiracy theories reveal people's anxieties.  They aren't any good for explaining events, though. 

post #30 of 67

The disease did not spread rapidly until the 70's, when the HepB vaccine trials began. Throughout the 80's it picked up--there's even a Golden Girls episode about AIDS!  It has spread quite rapidly if you think about it. Why don't you read the link I provided? The virus could have been natural, but added to the vaccines as a type of weapon. This is 100% possible. You do not believe it is probable, but it is indeed possible.

 

As a Conspiracy Theorist, I love the way mainstream historians worship their authorities. You just cannot believe you have been lied to by your history fairy tale books.

post #31 of 67

Everything I have found outside of mainstream media does suggest that the HepB vaccine was linked with the spread of HIV.  

post #32 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

The disease did not spread rapidly until the 70's, when the HepB vaccine trials began. Throughout the 80's it picked up--there's even a Golden Girls episode about AIDS!  It has spread quite rapidly if you think about it. Why don't you read the link I provided? The virus could have been natural, but added to the vaccines as a type of weapon. This is 100% possible. You do not believe it is probable, but it is indeed possible.

 

As a Conspiracy Theorist, I love the way mainstream historians worship their authorities. You just cannot believe you have been lied to by your history fairy tale books.



As a mainstream historian, I'm not allowed to worship "history fairy tale books" - I have to go to the archives and find the primary documentation there instead of taking other people's word for it, because history books lie all the time.  When I use a secondary account, I have to check it.  I have to evaluate the origin, purpose, value, and limitations of every source I use, and I have to seek out corroborating accounts before I trust anything, or explain and defend my choice to accept a non-corroborated account as credible.  How about you?  Have you gone into the archives and found the first hand accounts that support your belief that AIDS was spread by the HepB vaccine trials, or did you read about that in a "fairy tale book" published by someone who agrees with you, or maybe taught you about the "conspiracy" in the first place? 

 

Several TV shows had eps about AIDS in the mid-to-late 80s.  They've also done eps about other diseases.  That doesn't mean anything about how rapidly the diseases are spreading.  I have thought about it.  I have examined the stats from the CDC and the WHO.  Many things are possible, but I don't have to give them credibility just because they exist somewhere within the realm of possibility.  It's possible there is a teapot orbiting the sun, but I don't believe there is one. 

 

The beginning of the AIDS outbreak in the US was centered on three groups of people - Haitians, homosexual men, and hemophiliacs.  Haiti is known for serious problems with its public health infrastructure that result in many people being completely unable to access health care.  Many Haitians would be completely unvaccinated because of this issue with public health infrastructure.  Hemophiliacs generally go unvaccinated because injections cause bleeding.  Homosexual men were also medically under-served in the 70s and 80s because of social stigmas surrounding homosexuality, but many would have been vaccinated as children, at which point it would be hard to tell the difference between them and the heterosexual population, which was not as seriously impacted by the AIDS outbreak in North America until later on.  For the North American continent, the pattern of the AIDS outbreak does not match the pattern of Hep B vaccination.  You've posted a map of AIDS rates in the low-risk population in Africa and the location of Hep B vaccination trials.  This is missing some crucial pieces of information that are needed to support your conclusions, like dates of the trials, dates of the AIDS outbreaks, and rates of HIV infection/AIDS in the population in aggregate.  Lacking that information, the map is just a pretty picture.  Where did you get it?  Did it come from a corroborated source, or a "fairy tale book"?

 

I appreciate that you are making your position on this issue very clear and transparent.  Understanding the prejudices of a source is very important when evaluation that source's value and limitations in re. someone's personal decision on vaccines. 

post #33 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

 

I appreciate that you are making your position on this issue very clear and transparent.  Understanding the prejudices of a source is very important when evaluation that source's value and limitations in re. someone's personal decision on vaccines. 



You're welcome! I openly admit my beliefs--see my signature, avatar, and profile info. No secret about that!

I do have a prejudice, and it is against the CDC, WHO, FDA, you name it. I openly admit that I do not trust these organizations. My faith in them has been lost.

 

 

post #34 of 67
Thread Starter 

stik, I asked you for the primary research paper that shows the isolation, purification and characterization of HIV, you were unable to provide it because it doesn't exist. Without that, nothing in mainstream or alternative medical science about HIV/AIDS is credible.

post #35 of 67

We don't appear to agree on the definitions of the terms "isolate" (as it applies to the study of viruses), and "primary research paper."  I'm absolutely satisfied that the links I have provided contain those things.

post #36 of 67

http://history.nih.gov/nihinownwords/assets/media/pdf/publications/Koch_Postulate.pdf

 

This is a paper exploring Koch's postulates as applied throughout the last hundred years, and how they've been adapted to viruses and new technology. It's worth reading. The evidence that HIV is the virus that causes AIDS has only become more convincing since 1992, when the linked article was published. This is an old debate and it has long since been settled.

post #37 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post



You're welcome! I openly admit my beliefs--see my signature, avatar, and profile info. No secret about that!

I do have a prejudice, and it is against the CDC, WHO, FDA, you name it. I openly admit that I do not trust these organizations. My faith in them has been lost.

 

 



I can clearly see that.  Please share a little more  What is the underlying reason for your distrust in those organizations?  

post #38 of 67

You're asking me to explain why I don't trust them? As if you have no clue? Have you not read any of my past posts? This is all I ever talk about. The corruption, coverups, and dishonesty permeates the entire system. Here are a few examples--

 

Revolving door politics, lobbyists who control politicians, Rumsfeld-Aspartame-FDA approval, fluoridated water, downplay of vaccine reactions, government sponsored terror, aka "false flag", most recently how the infamous " Christmas Day Underwear Bomber" was admittedly escorted on the plane by our government in order to create more 9/11 style terror in an effort push for the addition of body scanners at airports, which emit harmful radiation despite the lies claiming they don't.....deep breath lol......

lies lies lies by presidents (Clinton, Obama, Bush to name a few in my recent lifetime) How in the WORLD do you trust these lying sacks of ..... I learned at a very young age, thank you Bill Clinton, that powerful people can and do lie under oath, so there is really no sacred trust to be had in any of these people.

**My favorite ones are Aspartame and Fluoride, so start there**

 

Just because an organization claims to be for the good of humanity does not give you the right to bury your head in the sand and deny any form of their wrongdoing. Look at the recent claims of abuse by the UN peace troops in Haiti. There are too many examples to list, and I do not expect you to ever believe them. You are probably a lost cause, but there are others who will read this and be inspired to look for themselves.

 

And, since you're a historian, have you ever looked into the true history of the Nazis in America, and their ties to the Bush family? The eugenics practices that went on, and are most likely still happening today? Here's a paper written by a true historian, who was not afraid to uncover disturbing facts. If you care about true history, then you'll have to come to terms with the fact that you have much more to learn. http://www.scribd.com/doc/39881353/Webster-Griffin-Tarpley-The-Bush-Family-Ties-to-Eugenics-and-Race-Hygiene

 

We need good, honest people to press for the truth. It is the only hope we have!

 

 

post #39 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

You're asking me to explain why I don't trust them? As if you have no clue? Have you not read any of my past posts? This is all I ever talk about. The corruption, coverups, and dishonesty permeates the entire system. Here are a few examples--

 

Revolving door politics, lobbyists who control politicians, Rumsfeld-Aspartame-FDA approval, fluoridated water, downplay of vaccine reactions, government sponsored terror, aka "false flag", most recently how the infamous " Christmas Day Underwear Bomber" was admittedly escorted on the plane by our government in order to create more 9/11 style terror in an effort push for the addition of body scanners at airports, which emit harmful radiation despite the lies claiming they don't.....deep breath lol......

lies lies lies by presidents (Clinton, Obama, Bush to name a few in my recent lifetime) How in the WORLD do you trust these lying sacks of ..... I learned at a very young age, thank you Bill Clinton, that powerful people can and do lie under oath, so there is really no sacred trust to be had in any of these people.

**My favorite ones are Aspartame and Fluoride, so start there**

 

Just because an organization claims to be for the good of humanity does not give you the right to bury your head in the sand and deny any form of their wrongdoing. Look at the recent claims of abuse by the UN peace troops in Haiti. There are too many examples to list, and I do not expect you to ever believe them. You are probably a lost cause, but there are others who will read this and be inspired to look for themselves.

 

And, since you're a historian, have you ever looked into the true history of the Nazis in America, and their ties to the Bush family? The eugenics practices that went on, and are most likely still happening today? Here's a paper written by a true historian, who was not afraid to uncover disturbing facts. If you care about true history, then you'll have to come to terms with the fact that you have much more to learn. http://www.scribd.com/doc/39881353/Webster-Griffin-Tarpley-The-Bush-Family-Ties-to-Eugenics-and-Race-Hygiene

 

We need good, honest people to press for the truth. It is the only hope we have!

 

 




I have spent a lot of time looking into the links between the Holocaust and US industry and the worldwide eugenics movement.  It's very closely tied to one of my major areas of study (gender and construction of the family) Nothing in the article you linked was in the least bit surprising to me. Some of the concerns read as a little hysterical, but the overall thesis, that the Bush family with its ties to the US oil industry is also tied to companies that were tied to the Holocaust, and we ought to still be questioning why corporations that profited from genocide are still doing so well, is sound.  It's unusual to see an article of this sort that doesn't also take a few whacks at the Roosevelts, and at Kraft, Volkswagen, and practically everyone who has ever manufactured aspirin.  All of that stuff is available from widely cited, reputable, corroborated source that are widely available to the public in a variety of media.  It could have gone a lot further without leaving the realm of well-established historical consensus on those particular topics.

 

Tell me more about your feelings on flouride.  What do you think flouride is doing?  Where did you first learn about it? 

post #40 of 67

Sorry teach! I can't do your homework for you.  wink1.gif

The fluoride used in water supplies and oral care is poison, and you can read all about it on the internet. I'll send you off with my favorite video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2886269353175462948

 

Thanks for reading the Bush eugenics link!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › 32 million Americans now have antibodies that target their own tissues