# Stuff and Things > COVID & VACCINES >  According to this guy and the blood work, Vaccines are causing AIDS?

## WarriorRob

Olin Live: Covid Vaxxers Are Developing A.I.D.S. (Bloodwork Proof)


I've heard the "vaccines" destroy your immune system, is this proof :Thinking:

----------

Big Bird (11-22-2021),Old Ridge Runner (11-23-2021),phoenyx (11-22-2021)

----------


## nonsqtr

:Geez:

----------

WarriorRob (11-22-2021)

----------


## 12icer

It seems to suppress it I know of a few besides myself and wife who have experiences of getting things we never had before like back to back severe colds, injection site pain 6 months later, stiffness, headaches, constant sinus drainage. ONANDON. Just had another good friend die WAS Healthy, Got the shot, month later got Pneumonia got better enough to get out of the hospital right back in a couple of weeks, They could find no reason for his immune system not stopping the Pneumonia, or why it got progressively worse besides the SHOT. In and out a couple more times and got him.

I actually think I am starting the cycle, but I had the PNEU 13. not stopping it though, it gets worse every time and lasts longer.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (11-23-2021),phoenyx (11-22-2021),WarriorRob (11-22-2021)

----------


## nonsqtr

Yeah but, this is fear mongering.

AIDS is something specific, you get these little purple blotches called Kaposi's sarcoma... it's not just "generalized suppression of the immune system".

----------

12icer (11-22-2021),Old Ridge Runner (11-23-2021),Old Tex (11-22-2021)

----------


## Old Tex

Nonsqtr your totally right. And once you see something like this in an article you know that it's slanted & can't be trusted. Sadly both the left & the right use this method to scare people.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (11-23-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Yeah but, this is fear mongering.
> 
> AIDS is something specific, you get these little purple blotches called Kaposi's sarcoma... it's not just "generalized suppression of the immune system".


Even mainstream literature doesn't say that Kaposi's sarcoma is only caused by AIDS, let alone that you must have Kaposi's sarcoma if you have AIDS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaposi%27s_sarcoma


I think the name AIDS hints at the truth- that it's not caused by a virus at all. There's a good "rapid response" article in the bmj (biomedial journal) that there is no solid evidence that AIDS was caused by HIV, but that it is caused by other factors:

https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2...ly-causes-aids

I don't see why these vaccines couldn't be added to the list of causes.


Incidentally, Anthony Fauci played a large role in the creation of the AIDS virus myth as well:

30 Yrs Ago, Dr. Robert Willner Accused Anthony Fauci Of Genocide, He Created AIDS  Aimless News

----------

12icer (11-22-2021),East of the Beast (11-26-2021),Old Ridge Runner (11-23-2021),WarriorRob (11-22-2021)

----------


## nonsqtr

:Geez: 

You don't get Kaposi's sarcoma from Covid vaccines.

Unless you have some evidence to the contrary?

----------

12icer (11-22-2021),Old Ridge Runner (11-23-2021),WhoKnows (11-22-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> You don't get Kaposi's sarcoma from Covid vaccines.
> 
> Unless you have some evidence to the contrary?


Not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that I was suggesting you get Kaposi's sarcoma from the Covid vaccines. You said "_AIDS is something specific, you get these little purple blotches called Kaposi's sarcoma..._"  I took that to mean that you were suggesting that you could tell who really had AIDS because they got Kaposi's sarcoma.

----------


## WhoKnows

You can't get AIDS unless infected with HIV. So unless these vaccines are inoculating people with HIV, this article is BS.

----------

12icer (11-22-2021),Sunsettommy (11-23-2021)

----------


## 12icer

I have no doubt that it has nothing to do with AIDS. I have been told by many of the people who treat the patients that the vaccine suppresses the rest of the immune system and it has a targeted response receptor that has only one target, That would leave a person in an immunosuppressed condition for any other type of virus or bacteria and vulnerable to contract an illness that may not generally be too bad and not be able to fight it off.

----------

msc (11-29-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> You can't get AIDS unless infected with HIV.


I used to believe that too. Then I started looking at the evidence that this isn't true. Here's an article from bmj.com (Biomedical Journal) that the HIV virus (assuming it exists at all) does not cause AIDS:

https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2...not-cause-aids

----------


## WhoKnows

> I used to believe that too. Then I started looking at the evidence that this isn't true. Here's an article from bmj.com (Biomedical Journal) that the HIV virus (assuming it exists at all) does not cause AIDS:
> 
> https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2...not-cause-aids


Evidence that HIV causes AIDS:

https://www.thebody.com/article/evid...iv-causes-aids

----------

Sunsettommy (11-23-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Evidence that HIV causes AIDS:
> 
> https://www.thebody.com/article/evid...iv-causes-aids


How about we quote sections from our respective links that we think constitutes good evidence. I'll quote the introduction and the first 2 findings (he has 10) from the article I linked to:

**
The AIDS establishments have spent the last twenty years focusing on
the HIV and not on the real causes of AIDS. The correct approach for
investigating the cause(s) of a disease is by evaluating all medical
evidence that considers infectious, chemical, nutritional, and metabolic
factors. As a pathologist and a toxicologist, I evaluated the published
literature on the worldwide AIDS epidemic and found that HIV does not
cause AIDS. In my book Get All the Facts: HIV Does Not Cause AIDS, I
described the multifactorial causes of AIDS in the world and explained the
pathogenesis of AIDS in different risk groups [Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati,
'Get All The Facts: HIV does not cause AIDS' Toxi-Health International,
Dixon CA 1999, 183 pages ISBN 0-9673536-0-2]. My findings include:
1) The HIV-hypothesis is not supported. HIV is a harmless virus in both the in
vivo and the in vitro settings.
2) AIDS in drug users and homosexuals in
the U.S. and Europe is actually caused by the heavy ancillary use of
glucocorticoids and other immunosuppressive agents to medically treat the
wide range of chronic serious illnesses of the respiratory system,
gastrointestinal system, and other organs, malnutrition, release of
endogenous cortisol, and opportunistic infections in these persons. The
appearance of "AIDS" in the U.S. and Europe has coincided with the
approval of glucocorticoid aerosoll use in 1976, the introduction of crack
cocaine, the use of heroin by inhalation, and the use of alkyl nitrites by
homosexuals to enhance sexual activities.
**


I also found the trailer to a documentary that gets into evidence that AIDS is not caused by the HIV virus:

----------


## WhoKnows

> How about we quote sections from our respective links that we think constitutes good evidence. I'll quote the introduction and the first 2 findings (he has 10) from the article I linked to:
> 
> **
> The AIDS establishments have spent the last twenty years focusing on
> the HIV and not on the real causes of AIDS. The correct approach for
> investigating the cause(s) of a disease is by evaluating all medical
> evidence that considers infectious, chemical, nutritional, and metabolic
> factors. As a pathologist and a toxicologist, I evaluated the published
> literature on the worldwide AIDS epidemic and found that HIV does not
> ...


I do not believe what you believe in this regard. Sorry, but there are hundreds, if not thousands of scientific journal articles in PubMed concerning this topic. I can't post them all. I've presented my evidence. I'm not here to convince you one way or another.

----------

Sunsettommy (11-23-2021)

----------


## Traddles

:Geez:  Covid vaccines were around and used mainly by gays in the 1970s, when AIDS was spreading like wildfire among gays?  :Geez: 

Is no ridiculous _anti-Covid-vaccine_ claim too ludicrous to be rejected by _anti-Covid-vaccine_ folks?  :Geez: 

Ya know, there's a lot of pressure on little ol' vaxxed me. I'm "supposed to be" dying of _vaccine-caused_ heart failure, _vaccine-caused_ blood clots, and  _vaccine-caused_ hemoglobin depletion. And now I'm supposed to be dying of _vaccine-caused_ AIDS, too?  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  I don't know if I can handle all this pressure!!!  :Smiley ROFLMAO:   :Smiley ROFLMAO:   :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

nonsqtr (11-23-2021),Old Ridge Runner (11-23-2021)

----------


## teeceetx

One thing is for sure:

We do NOT know what the long term effects of these vaccines will be.

But we WILL soon be finding out.

Until then, everyone can just calm down.

----------

12icer (11-23-2021),East of the Beast (11-26-2021),Old Ridge Runner (11-23-2021),WhoKnows (11-22-2021)

----------


## crayons

Some of us knew the covid had a HIV1 gain of function stitched
to it almost 2 years ago (intel-courtesy Dr Francis Boyle)

Rand Paul confirmed it recently.

The HIV1 gain of function purpose was to spread the 'covid'

But if one had/has underlying issues and a poor immune system,
I imagine anything is possible

----------

Old Ridge Runner (11-23-2021)

----------


## WarriorRob

If it's true that the "Vaccines" lower the immune system, wouldn't lowering your immune system be very similar to having Aids, even if it isn't actually Aids :Thinking:  I think that's what he was trying to get at, don't think he should've said the "Vaccines" cause Aids, should've said that "Vaccines" lower your immune system so much that you will have similar symptoms as having Aids, my opinion :Dontknow:

----------

12icer (11-23-2021),Old Ridge Runner (11-23-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> Olin Live: Covid Vaxxers Are Developing A.I.D.S. (Bloodwork Proof)
> 
> 
> I've heard the "vaccines" destroy your immune system, is this proof


All this is evidence of is the fact PT Barnum was right.

----------

Traddles (11-23-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> Olin Live: Covid Vaxxers Are Developing A.I.D.S. (Bloodwork Proof)
> 
> 
> I've heard the "vaccines" destroy your immune system, is this proof


Ok if this is true by New Years everyone over fifty that has been double vaccinated will be dead by January and those from 20-50 dead by no later than Jully 1st.

Let's all bookmark this thread and see how accurate the claims made by the cited anti vaxxer lunatic hold up.

----------


## phoenyx

> I do not believe what you believe in this regard. Sorry, but there are hundreds, if not thousands of scientific journal articles in PubMed concerning this topic. I can't post them all. I've presented my evidence. I'm not here to convince you one way or another.


Alright, fair enough.

----------

Sunsettommy (11-23-2021),WhoKnows (11-23-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Ok if this is true by New Years everyone over fifty that has been double vaccinated will be dead by January and those from 20-50 dead by no later than Jully 1st.
> 
> Let's all bookmark this thread and see how accurate the claims made by the cited anti vaxxer lunatic hold up.


WR... if we spent time going through their posts, I'm sure we can find them predicting that we would be dead by now.


They are like the climate alarmists...."it's gonna happen.... you just wait...  any day now you'll be dropping like flies..... it's gonna happen..... you'll see...."

----------


## Wildrose

> I used to believe that too. Then I started looking at the evidence that this isn't true. Here's an article from bmj.com (Biomedical Journal) that the HIV virus (assuming it exists at all) does not cause AIDS:
> 
> https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2...not-cause-aids


Seriously? Did you bother checking the source material and who is putting it out?

The guy is a communist and Black Nationalist peddling complete BS that would never get past an elementary science teacher to people who think the local witch doctor is the state of the art in medical knowledge.

There's absolutely no scientific basis for these idiotic claims, it's just conspiracy nonsense to blame South African Whites for the staggering rates of HIV infection in blacks in S. Africa and Zimbabwe.

Just more hate and voodoo to keep the race war in Africa growing until every white on the continent can be killed off or driven into the seas.

----------

nonsqtr (11-23-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by WhoKnows
> ...


I didn't buy his book, but he's not actually the first source that I've heard this theory from. There is also the documentary trailer that explores the evidence as well. Did you read the article?

----------


## Wildrose

> WR... if we spent time going through their posts, I'm sure we can find them predicting that we would be dead by now.
> 
> 
> They are like the climate alarmists...."it's gonna happen.... you just wait...  any day now you'll be dropping like flies..... it's gonna happen..... you'll see...."


Unless you're living in a sterile bubble a human isn't going to last a week with no immune system.

They screwed up this time and put down hard dates.  I do not gamble but I'd be willing to put everything I own on the line betting this doesn't happen.

Too bad we just made our Annual Charity donations, I coulda really cleaned up.

----------


## Wildrose

> I didn't buy his book, but he's not actually the first source that I've heard this theory from. There is also the documentary trailer that explores the evidence as well. Did you read the article?


There is no "evidence" to support these idiotic claims.  These folks are the bottom dwellers of the conspiracy nut cesspool.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I didn't buy his book, but he's not actually the first source that I've heard this theory from. There is also the documentary trailer that explores the evidence as well. Did you read the article?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "evidence" to support these [insults removed]



How would you know? I doubt you've read his book or seen the documentary I'm referring to.

----------


## Wildrose

> How would you know? I doubt you've read his book or seen the documentary I'm referring to.


Because everything known to Bio/Medical/Pharmacological sciences on the subject refutes them.

----------


## nonsqtr

> How would you know? I doubt you've read his book or seen the documentary I'm referring to.


Sorry. No time for idiotic bullshit like this.

YES, it's an insult. Own it.

There's nothing "alternative" in the alternative theories.

There's a lot of STUPID in them, is what there is.

----------

Wildrose (11-23-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> Sorry. No time for idiotic bullshit like this.
> 
> YES, it's an insult. Own it.
> 
> There's nothing "alternative" in the alternative theories.
> 
> There's a lot of STUPID in them, is what there is.


Oh hell, you're a bad boy.  Now we'll get another 30 pages on "feelings".

----------


## Wildrose

> It seems to suppress it I know of a few besides myself and wife who have experiences of getting things we never had before like back to back severe colds, injection site pain 6 months later, stiffness, headaches, constant sinus drainage. ONANDON. Just had another good friend die WAS Healthy, Got the shot, month later got Pneumonia got better enough to get out of the hospital right back in a couple of weeks, They could find no reason for his immune system not stopping the Pneumonia, or why it got progressively worse besides the SHOT. In and out a couple more times and got him.
> 
> I actually think I am starting the cycle, but I had the PNEU 13. not stopping it though, it gets worse every time and lasts longer.


Probably because what you had was not one of the 13 the vaccine is effective against.

Did they do cultures to see what was causing the PNE?

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Wildrose
> ...


Your arrogance frequently astounds me. As if you actually knew "everything known to Bio/Medical/Pharmacological sciences".

----------

WhoKnows (11-23-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> How would you know? I doubt you've read his book or seen the documentary I'm referring to.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. No time for [insults removed]


Do you honestly think you contributed anything of value in this conversation with that line of insults?

----------

WhoKnows (11-23-2021)

----------


## nonsqtr

Too stupid for words.

Not to mention a completely callous and heartless INSULT to the thousands of people who've died from the HIV virus.

Don't complain about insults, you started it.

You insulted the AIDS patients, and you have nsulted the HUNDREDS of scientists who gave of themselves to ensure these people had a fighting chance.

Which they now do. NO thanks to you and your kind.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Do you honestly think you contributed anything of value in this conversation with that line of insults?
> 
> 
> 
> Too [insult removed] [snip]


I guess you just don't care.

----------


## Traddles

> Ok if this is true by New Years everyone over fifty that has been double vaccinated will be dead by January and those from 20-50 dead by no later than Jully 1st.
> 
> Let's all bookmark this thread and see how accurate the claims made by the cited anti vaxxer lunatic hold up.


 @Wildrose, the "Dead within ________," pig-crap claims I've seen range between 2 and 4 years, though the, "The Covid vaccine destroys immune systems," pig-crap claim implies mass deaths much sooner. I've linked one of the *"Dead within 3 years"* claims in my signature and have been taunting the claim with running events' names, dates, and my finish times. I didn't include my most recent 10K finish time, because I wasn't being aggressive. OTOH, I'm hoping for an update to it this coming weekend, and will continue to update it over time.

----------

Wildrose (11-23-2021)

----------


## 12icer

> Probably because what you had was not one of the 13 the vaccine is effective against.
> 
> Did they do cultures to see what was causing the PNE?


Tell you what, since you have no idea what difference this   NON "vaccine" has made in my health kindly do not ass-u-me you have any idea what is going on. You are pushing a NON vaccine made by a company that has tort immunity and is not really tested to a sufficient extent to determine the possible negative effects it has on the population it is being given to. My friend had every test in the world run on him he was a local electrical board member, retired from TVA had enough money to buy most people, was a really good person and HEALTHY as a HORSE he took the shot and a few months later the cycle started. They could find NO reason for the immunosuppressed state unless it was the SHOTS!! These are real people not some damn conjecture, I am in the same damn boat, never sick, never had a cold, sinus problems always light, and maybe a week of being moderately troublesome. Now it is bloody dark severe drainage. serious cough, no end in sight even with 4x500 mg Keflex daily and Mucinex, Therea flu like generic, and all types of immune boosters. ALL in eight months since the damn shit shots. I also have pink eye, never had that before either. SO anyone pushing this shit for bidet and the drug companies, GET real like the people that are trying to get their stories out but YOUR FRIENDS IN THE WHITE HOUSE ARE TAKING THEIR VOICE AWAY.   HIV is one virus  thing,  but AIDS can be ACQUIRED BY OTHER MEANS such as many types of IMMUNO SUPRESSANT DRUGS, CHEMO, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not JUST the disease HIV. I cannot say that is not the case with these NON-VACCINES. Seems like a lot of 1st amendment suppressed people are having the problem.

----------

phoenyx (11-23-2021),WhoKnows (11-23-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> HIV is one virus  thing,  but AIDS can be ACQUIRED BY OTHER MEANS such as many types of IMMUNO SUPRESSANT DRUGS, CHEMO, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not JUST the disease HIV. I cannot say that is not the case with these NON-VACCINES. Seems like a lot of 1st amendment suppressed people are having the problem.


I don't believe that HIV can actually cause AIDS at all, but I agree with the rest :-)

----------


## Sunsettommy

> Evidence that HIV causes AIDS:
> 
> https://www.thebody.com/article/evid...iv-causes-aids


It is amazing that this long established fact are still disputed by a few people, it is even insulting because as YOUR links shows HIV is known to do one thing specifically, reduce the hosts ability to ward off infections that lets secondary infections come in that eventually maims or kill the host.

----------

WhoKnows (11-23-2021)

----------


## WhoKnows

> It is amazing that this long established fact are still disputed by a few people, it is even insulting because as YOUR links shows HIV is known to do one thing specifically, reduce the hosts ability to ward off infections that lets secondary infections come in that eventually maims or kill the host.


As far as I'm concerned, people can believe whatever they like. It doesn't effect me at all. Science doesn't rely on belief, per se. It shows the facts. People can chose to ignore them, or take them at face value. Yes, science evolves with time and some "facts" known today, may be discounted in the future, but it is better to understand science and what the facts behind it are today.

----------

phoenyx (11-26-2021),Sunsettommy (11-23-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> As far as I'm concerned, people can believe whatever they like. It doesn't effect me at all. Science doesn't rely on belief, per se. It shows the facts. People can chose to ignore them, or take them at face value. Yes, science evolves with time and some "facts" known today, may be discounted in the future, but it is better to understand science and what the facts behind it are today.


Science as an ideal, I agree. The problem is that the way science is practiced is frequently far from ideal. I've posted an article elsewhere that I think really gets into this:
The Corruption of Science | An International Issue - Resilience

----------


## WhoKnows

> Science as an ideal, I agree. The problem is that the way science is practiced is frequently far from ideal. I've posted an article elsewhere that I think really gets into this:
> The Corruption of Science | An International Issue - Resilience


Just because SOME isn't practiced in an ideal way, doesn't mean ALL is practiced that way. And if that's the case, how can anyone say that the science they present doesn't suffer from the same problem. That's where critical thinking and the scientific method comes into play. 

For "science" to work, there has to be a hypothesis, and it has to either be confirmed, refuted, or more study is needed to do either of those. 

Your hypothesis is that HIV does not cause AIDS. You presented your data, and then it is up to others to accept your data or not and discuss why. If they are so inclined. 

My hypothesis is that HIV does indeed cause AIDS. I've presented my data, and then it is up to others to accept that data, or not, and discuss why. If they are so inclined. 

That's why I don't get into it much. Whether you accept my data or not, I accept the data I've reviewed and deem it to be factual. And based on that data, there is no way to change my mind about it. You accept your data as factual, and that's good enough for me. That's doesn't mean I do, but ultimately, as I've mentioned, I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I'll just present my data and let the chips fall where they may. 

That is the only way to have reasonable casual discourse on these things.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Science as an ideal, I agree. The problem is that the way science is practiced is frequently far from ideal. I've posted an article elsewhere that I think really gets into this:
> The Corruption of Science | An International Issue - Resilience
> 
> 
> 
> Just because SOME isn't practiced in an ideal way, doesn't mean ALL is practiced that way.



Agreed.





> For "science" to work, there has to be a hypothesis, and it has to either be confirmed, refuted, or more study is needed to do either of those.



Also agreed.




> Your hypothesis is that HIV does not cause AIDS.


I'd call it a theory because I believe there's evidence behind it. I'd heard this theory before from a few sources. For a while, my medical journalist friend was believing it as well. She switched back to believing the conventional theory, and for a while I was torn what to believe, but after a while, I came to believe that this theory fit the available evidence best. 





> You presented your data, and then it is up to others to accept your data or not and discuss why. If they are so inclined.



Agreed.




> My hypothesis is that HIV does indeed cause AIDS. I've presented my data, and then it is up to others to accept that data, or not, and discuss why. If they are so inclined.



Also agreed :-).




> That's why I don't get into it much. Whether you accept my data or not, I accept the data I've reviewed and deem it to be factual. And based on that data, there is no way to change my mind about it. You accept your data as factual, and that's good enough for me. That's doesn't mean I do, but ultimately, as I've mentioned, I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I'll just present my data and let the chips fall where they may. 
> 
> That is the only way to have reasonable casual discourse on these things.


Agreed :-)

----------

WhoKnows (11-23-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> Your arrogance frequently astounds me. As if you actually knew "everything known to Bio/Medical/Pharmacological sciences".


No arrogance, just fact.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Your arrogance frequently astounds me. As if you actually knew "everything known to Bio/Medical/Pharmacological sciences".
> 
> 
> 
> No arrogance, just fact.


maxresdefault.jpg

----------

WhoKnows (11-23-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> @Wildrose, the "Dead within ________," pig-crap claims I've seen range between 2 and 4 years, though the, "The Covid vaccine destroys immune systems," pig-crap claim implies mass deaths much sooner. I've linked one of the *"Dead within 3 years"* claims in my signature and have been taunting the claim with running events' names, dates, and my finish times. I didn't include my most recent 10K finish time, because I wasn't being aggressive. OTOH, I'm hoping for an update to it this coming weekend, and will continue to update it over time.


This time they made the mistake of setting hard dates in December and June/July.

Of course like all the good little conspiracists when no such thing happens, they'll blame it on some new conspiracy theory like, "Well he was just a deep state plant trying to make us all look bad".

----------


## Wildrose

> Tell you what, since you have no idea what difference this   NON "vaccine" has made in my health kindly do not ass-u-me you have any idea what is going on. You are pushing a NON vaccine made by a company that has tort immunity and is not really tested to a sufficient extent to determine the possible negative effects it has on the population it is being given to. My friend had every test in the world run on him he was a local electrical board member, retired from TVA had enough money to buy most people, was a really good person and HEALTHY as a HORSE he took the shot and a few months later the cycle started. They could find NO reason for the immunosuppressed state unless it was the SHOTS!! These are real people not some damn conjecture, I am in the same damn boat, never sick, never had a cold, sinus problems always light, and maybe a week of being moderately troublesome. Now it is bloody dark severe drainage. serious cough, no end in sight even with 4x500 mg Keflex daily and Mucinex, Therea flu like generic, and all types of immune boosters. ALL in eight months since the damn shit shots. I also have pink eye, never had that before either. SO anyone pushing this shit for bidet and the drug companies, GET real like the people that are trying to get their stories out but YOUR FRIENDS IN THE WHITE HOUSE ARE TAKING THEIR VOICE AWAY.   HIV is one virus  thing,  but AIDS can be ACQUIRED BY OTHER MEANS such as many types of IMMUNO SUPRESSANT DRUGS, CHEMO, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not JUST the disease HIV. I cannot say that is not the case with these NON-VACCINES. Seems like a lot of 1st amendment suppressed people are having the problem.


Don't bring things up for discussion if you don't want to discuss them.

I'm not now, nor ever have pushed any vaccine on anyone.

Let me try one more time, did they run any cultures and did they identify the causative agent?

No vaccine can cover every possible threat, that's just a fact of immunology and pharmacology.

Only one thing can cause AIDS, that is HIV.

HIV/AIDS - Symptoms and causes - Mayo Clinic

----------


## Wildrose

> Your arrogance frequently astounds me. _As if you actually knew "everything known to Bio/Medical/Pharmacological sciences"_.


So when and where have I ever made such a claim?  Links?

That of course is yet another red herring since that was never the substance of the discussion we've been having.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Wildrose
> ...


I've included the quote of yours I'm referring to in the nested quotes.

----------

WhoKnows (11-23-2021)

----------


## crayons

> Of course like all the good little conspiracists when no such thing happens, they'll blame it on some new conspiracy theory like, "Well he was just a deep state plant trying to make us all look bad".


We conspiracy-realists know there are global powers that want to take down the western world as we know it.

WE know Faux-Chi-Minn's Controllers PAID Fauci the 'sickle man' to  finance BSL3 and BSL4 labs throughout the U.S. and China to continue 'gain of function' research as well as >>> HIV experiments on black children that killed approx 400 out of 500 at last count

Lets Not forget FT Detrick and their Ebola
Experiments on Africans in Sierra Leon.

Lets Not Forget that Pfizer Blackmails AND has continued to try and Blackmail More sovereign countries
for their hard assets in return for >>> supplying slow kill mrna clot-shots

Lets Not forget the Tuskegee Experiments.

I'm sure there's a heck of a lot more we'll eventually know about >>> cuz >>> Where there's smoke there's fire 'baby'

----------

WhoKnows (11-23-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> I've included the quote of yours I'm referring to in the nested quotes.


Which of course show I never made such a statement.

----------


## Wildrose

> We conspiracy-realists know there are global powers that want to take down the western world as we know it.
> 
> WE know Faux-Chi-Minn's Controllers PAID Fauci the 'sickle man' to  finance BSL3 and BSL4 labs throughout the U.S. and China to continue 'gain of function' research as well as >>> HIV experiments on black children that killed approx 400 out of 500 at last count
> 
> Lets Not forget FT Detrick and their Ebola
> Experiments on Africans in Sierra Leon.
> 
> Lets Not Forget that Pfizer Blackmails AND has continued to try and Blackmail More sovereign countries
> for their hard assets in return for >>> supplying slow kill mrna clot-shots
> ...


Or as is almost certainly the case the Conspiracists are simply once again blowing smoke as usual.

----------


## Wildrose

> We conspiracy-realists know there are global powers that want to take down the western world as we know it.
> 
> WE know Faux-Chi-Minn's Controllers PAID Fauci the 'sickle man' to  finance BSL3 and BSL4 labs throughout the U.S. and China to continue 'gain of function' research as well as >>> HIV experiments on black children that killed approx 400 out of 500 at last count
> 
> Lets Not forget FT Detrick and their Ebola
> Experiments on Africans in Sierra Leon.
> 
> Lets Not Forget that Pfizer Blackmails AND has continued to try and Blackmail More sovereign countries
> for their hard assets in return for >>> supplying slow kill mrna clot-shots
> ...


I'm pretty sure this will bear no fruit but I'll roll the dice anyhow.




> Lets Not forget FT Detrick and their Ebola
> Experiments on Africans in Sierra Leon.


What exactly are you claiming was done there other than providing them with an Ebola Vaccine?

----------


## crayons

> I'm pretty sure this will bear no fruit but I'll roll the dice anyhow.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly are you claiming was done there other than providing them with an Ebola Vaccine?


There's no reason for Ebola Vaccines unless a certain gubmint agency was purposely exposing Africans and usin
them as test subjects. Sierra Leon was ground-zero for the
now defunct Ft. Detrick crowd and from what I remember they
had a makeshift Bio-lab there that has since been abandoned

----------


## Wildrose

> There's no reason for Ebola Vaccines unless a certain gubmint agency was purposely exposing Africans and usin
> them as test subjects. Sierra Leon was ground-zero for the
> now defunct Ft. Detrick crowd and from what I remember they
> had a makeshift Bio-lab there that has since been abandoned


What the hell?  There have been repeated outbreaks of Ebola in Africa since at least as far back as the 70's, with a fatality rate around 50%.  

That's why the need arose to come up with a vaccine for Ebola.

----------


## crayons

> What the hell?  There have been repeated outbreaks of Ebola in Africa since at least as far back as the 70's, with a fatality rate around 50%.


Yep and the sicko's from Maryland were there.

The project was abandoned because they figured out 
that Ebola is not a cost effective bioweapon.  Too much trouble...Now the POX virus's are the future accordin ta frontman Gates...MonkeyPox sounds scarier with all them illegal alien tourists/transients = monkeys in the bushes.

----------


## Wildrose

> Yep and the sicko's from Maryland were there.
> 
> The project was abandoned because they figured out 
> that Ebola is not a cost effective bioweapon.  Too much trouble...Now the POX virus's are the future accordin ta frontman Gates...MonkeyPox sounds scarier with all them illegal alien tourists/transients = monkeys in the bushes.


There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever supporting such a claim.

The research could not have began began without there first being an outbreak.

If you have any hard evidence to back up your claims, please, by all means share it.

----------


## crayons

> There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever supporting such a claim.
> 
> The research could not have began began without there first being an outbreak.
> 
> If you have any hard evidence to back up your claims, please, by all means share it.


Ebola is hard to catch, One must be in real close contact and exchange fluids, it doesn't work as well as todays
modern 'covid-brews' with 'gain of function tech'

Today the luci's n' Ol' BillyBoy Gates heart is set on the Pox viruses.

As far as hard evidence on the internet about Ebola bioweapons research, I would imagine it's fairly thin nowadays. 30 years ago folks were reporting on it
and you could pull it up fairly EZ. Today? I dunno, 
Give it a shot.

----------


## Wildrose

> Ebola is hard to catch, One must be in real close contact and exchange fluids, it doesn't work as well as todays
> modern 'covid-brews' with 'gain of function tech'
> 
> Today the luci's n' Ol' BillyBoy Gates heart is set on the Pox viruses.
> 
> As far as hard evidence on the internet about Ebola bioweapons research, I would imagine it's fairly thin nowadays. 30 years ago folks were reporting on it
> and you could pull it up fairly EZ. Today? I dunno, 
> Give it a shot.


40, 30, 20, 10 years ago or tomorrow, there's simply no evidence anywhere to support claim that we invented Ebola and spread it to Africa.

That's straight up bullshit from Farrakhan and communist rhetoric from the Kim Family.

There's still no proof that Covid spreads by any route other than close, prolonged, intimate contact with someone who is contagious putting nurses, doc's, and parents particularly at risk.

----------


## Wildrose

> Ebola is hard to catch, One must be in real close contact and exchange fluids, it doesn't work as well as todays
> modern 'covid-brews' with 'gain of function tech'
> 
> Today the luci's n' Ol' BillyBoy Gates heart is set on the Pox viruses.
> 
> As far as hard evidence on the internet about Ebola bioweapons research, I would imagine it's fairly thin nowadays. 30 years ago folks were reporting on it
> and you could pull it up fairly EZ. Today? I dunno, 
> Give it a shot.


How does this provide any evidence to support your claims we created it in a lab, weaponized it and used it in Central and Eastern Africa?

Nobody was reporting on it because it wasn't happening, to claim we did so is utterly baseless and completely irresponsible.

----------


## crayons

> 40, 30, 20, 10 years ago or tomorrow, there's simply no evidence anywhere to support claim that we invented Ebola and spread it to Africa.
> 
> That's straight up bullshit from Farrakhan and communist rhetoric from the Kim Family.
> 
> There's still no proof that Covid spreads by any route other than close, prolonged, intimate contact with someone who is contagious putting nurses, doc's, and parents particularly at risk.


I never said 'WE' invented Ebola, the Ft Detrick crowd played with the original strain n' tried ta tweek it to 
their advantage...are ya followin me here? 

keep it simple I'm on a shaky 50 mile repeater;
Ya copy?

----------


## Wildrose

> I never said 'WE' invented Ebola, the Ft Detrick crowd played with the original strain n' tried ta tweek it to 
> their advantage...are ya followin me here? 
> 
> keep it simple I'm on a shaky 50 mile repeater;
> Ya copy?


That isn't what you stated previously and I still have yet to see a shred of supporting evidence for any of these claims.



> There's no reason for Ebola Vaccines unless a certain gubmint agency was purposely exposing Africans and usin
> them as test subjects. Sierra Leon was ground-zero for the
> now defunct Ft. Detrick crowd and from what I remember they
> had a makeshift Bio-lab there that has since been abandoned

----------


## crayons

> That isn't what you stated previously and I still have yet to see a shred of supporting evidence for any of these claims.


Again>>>Ft. Detrick set up shop in Sierra Leon and had a lab
there >>> They used the locals as test subjects.

The sicko's from MD were doing their best to make a bioweapon and it wasn't cost effective and they closed 
up shop...U copy?

----------


## Wildrose

> Again>>>Ft. Detrick set up shop in Sierra Leon and had a lab
> there >>> They used the locals as test subjects.
> 
> The sicko's from MD were doing their best to make a bioweapon and it wasn't cost effective and they closed 
> up shop...U copy?


Repeating it doesn't make it true and I have yet to see any evidence supporting the claims.

We had a temporary on site lab for the development of treatments and vaccination against the virus, nothing more, nothing less.

----------


## Wildrose

> Again>>>Ft. Detrick set up shop in Sierra Leon and had a lab
> there >>> They used the locals as test subjects.
> 
> _The sicko's from MD were doing their best to make a bioweapon and it wasn't cost effective and they closed_ 
> up shop...U copy?


There is of course no factual support for this claim to be found anywhere.

----------


## crayons

> There is of course no factual support for this claim to be found anywhere.


I don't doubt it, thank the mountain view marxists over at
google scrub

----------


## Wildrose

> I don't doubt it, thank the mountain view marxists over at
> google scrub


Google can't scrub anything but their own servers.  There are many other places to look.

----------


## crayons

> Google can't scrub anything but their own servers.  There are many other places to look.





> Google can't scrub anything but their own servers.  There are many other places to look.


Don't kid yerself.

I had an office across the alley from a covert googler office 2001-2004
Also parked my coach there and watched all the nonsense
goin on in that alley. It got so bad there were standoffs
in the alley weekly between local city police and the 
corrupt federales. The night the googler crowd moved out
they hit All of us in the office park including our servers
with 'stuxnet' >>> they did it cuz they knew we knew we
knew what they were doin

----------


## Wildrose

> Don't kid yerself.
> 
> I had an office across the alley from a covert googler office 2001-2004
> Also parked my coach there and watched all the nonsense
> goin on in that alley. It got so bad there were standoffs
> in the alley weekly between local city police and the 
> corrupt federales. The night the googler crowd moved out
> they hit All of us in the office park including our servers
> with 'stuxnet' >>> they did it cuz they knew we knew we
> knew what they were doin


They cannot screw with the other search engines.

Conspiracists crack me up.

----------


## crayons

> They cannot screw with the other search engines.
> 
> Conspiracists crack me up.


Googler kin do anything they want, especially 
anything to do with phones > look at yer apps 
and services in yer phone, they literally own 
'android' today > googler captcha is everywhere,
googler chrome is a smartphone disease

I learned a lot from googler back then, that's
why the machine you're hearing me from is totally
devoid of googler scripts and I block everything 
googler, using professional googler blocklists

----------


## Wildrose

> Googler kin do anything they want, especially 
> anything to do with phones > look at yer apps 
> and services in yer phone, they literally own 
> 'android' today > googler captcha is everywhere,
> googler chrome is a smartphone disease
> 
> I learned a lot from googler back then, that's
> why the machine you're hearing me from is totally
> devoid of googler scripts and I block everything 
> googler, using professional googler blocklists


No, you just found someone willing to feed  you new conspiracies to drive you even more mad than you already were.

Google is not the only search engine, if you don't like it, turn it off or uninstall it and download a new one.

----------


## crayons

> No, you just found someone willing to feed  you new conspiracies to drive you even more mad than you already were.
> 
> Google is not the only search engine, if you don't like it, turn it off or uninstall it and download a new one.


Most all the old sites don't exist anymore > IE: I used to post news to ""CommieBlaster"" 

O'Bozo threw a hissy fit and told the world that a certain
site was tryin to start a world-war...So the site had to be dissolved and the 'commieblaster' URL was sold to the 'ChiComs'

Even if one were to look it up on the "WayBack-Machine"
You'll find very little.

----------


## Wildrose

> Most all the old sites don't exist anymore > IE: I used to post news to ""CommieBlaster"" 
> 
> O'Bozo threw a hissy fit and told the world that a certain
> site was tryin to start a world-war...So the site had to be dissolved and the 'commieblaster' URL was sold to the 'ChiComs'
> 
> Even if one were to look it up on the "WayBack-Machine"
> You'll find very little.


Typical conspiracist.  When confronted with fact you always have a new twist to add to the conspiracy making it impossible to prove false.

There are several search engines other than google, pick one.

----------


## crayons

> Typical conspiracist.  When confronted with fact you always have a new twist to add to the conspiracy making it impossible to prove false.
> 
> There are several search engines other than google, pick one.


  I quit usin search engines > per-Se

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I've included the quote of yours I'm referring to in the nested quotes.
> 
> 
> 
> Which of course show I never made such a statement.


Apparently going through a few nested quotes was too much for you. I'll quote the relevant portion:



> Because everything known to Bio/Medical/Pharmacological sciences on the subject refutes them.

----------


## Wildrose

> Apparently going through a few nested quotes was too much for you. I'll quote the relevant portion:


Which of course doesn't support your claim in any way.

----------


## phoenyx

> Which of course doesn't support your claim in any way.


I strongly disagree.

----------


## nonsqtr

> I guess you just don't care.


Not enough to waste time with this silly nonsense.




> I don't believe that HIV can actually cause AIDS at all, but I agree with the rest :-)

----------


## Wildrose

> I strongly disagree.


Of course you do, facts are irrelevant.

Read carefully what differs between your claim and what I actually wrote?




> Your arrogance frequently astounds me. _As if you actually knew "everything known to Bio/Medical/Pharmacological sciences"._





> Because _everything known to Bio/Medical/Pharmacological sciences on the subject_ refutes them.

----------


## phoenyx

> As far as I'm concerned, people can believe whatever they like. It doesn't effect me at all. Science doesn't rely on belief, per se. It shows the facts. People can chose to ignore them, or take them at face value. Yes, science evolves with time and some "facts" known today, may be discounted in the future, but it is better to understand science and what the facts behind it are today.


I agree with all of that- we may quibble on what the science shows us, but not to the point of insulting each other, which I think is so incredibly important in discussions.

----------


## phoenyx

> Of course you do, facts are irrelevant.
> 
> Read carefully what differs between your claim and what I actually wrote?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I just didn't include the last few words in your quote. I still think your arrogance here is strong, if not quite as strong. Do you really believe you know "everything known to Bio/Medical/Pharmacological sciences on the subject"?

----------


## Wildrose

> I just didn't include the last few words in your quote. I still think your arrogance here is strong, if not quite as strong. Do you really believe you know "everything known to Bio/Medical/Pharmacological sciences on the subject"?


I never made such a claim.

What I do know for certain is that viruses cause disease, they are not the product of disease made by our own immune system.

If that were true we'd have never defeated such diseases as Polio and Smallpox through mass vaccination.


If that were true we could not culture viruses in the lab and test different anti virals and other treatments on them in a test tube or petri dish.

Once again we even have electron micrographs of various viruses so we know they exist and we know they are not manufactured in our bodies as part of an immune response.

----------


## East of the Beast

> Too stupid for words.
> 
> Not to mention a completely callous and heartless INSULT to the thousands of people who've died from the HIV virus.
> 
> Don't complain about insults, you started it.
> 
> You insulted the AIDS patients, and you have nsulted the HUNDREDS of scientists who gave of themselves to ensure these people had a fighting chance.
> 
> Which they now do. NO thanks to you and your kind.


If they are dead why do they care?

----------

phoenyx (11-27-2021)

----------


## East of the Beast

> *I never made such a claim.*
> 
> What I do know for certain is that viruses cause disease, they are not the product of disease made by our own immune system.
> 
> If that were true we'd have never defeated such diseases as Polio and Smallpox through mass vaccination.
> 
> 
> If that were true we could not culture viruses in the lab and test different anti virals and other treatments on them in a test tube or petri dish.
> 
> Once again we even have electron micrographs of various viruses so we know they exist and we know they are not manufactured in our bodies as part of an immune response.


You may have not made that claim per se, but the arrogant, dismissive tone you take with everyone who does not agree with you, says you are in fact, a know it all.Not only that you intimate that they are liars

----------

phoenyx (11-26-2021),Physics Hunter (11-26-2021),WhoKnows (11-26-2021)

----------


## Physics Hunter

> You may have not made that claim per se, but the arrogant, dismissive tone you take with everyone who does not agree with you, says you are in fact, a know it all.



This is the problem @Wildrose.

----------

phoenyx (11-26-2021),WhoKnows (11-26-2021)

----------


## East of the Beast

> This is the problem @Wildrose.


Well he does have company.There are a few others.

----------

WhoKnows (11-26-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I just didn't include the last few words in your quote. I still think your arrogance here is strong, if not quite as strong. Do you really believe you know "everything known to Bio/Medical/Pharmacological sciences on the subject"?
> 
> 
> 
> I never made such a claim.



In point of fact, you did:



> Because everything known to Bio/Medical/Pharmacological sciences on the subject refutes them.

----------

WhoKnows (11-27-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by Wildrose
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by phoenyx
> ...


Personally, I believe he made this exact claim. Here's his exact quote:



> Because everything known to Bio/Medical/Pharmacological sciences on the subject refutes them.



Regardless of whether you agree with me here though, I definitely agree with you that he's almost always being arrogant and dismissive with those he disagrees with. He also tends to respond to my quotes a lot more than anyone else, though, so I find myself responding to him a lot anyway :-p.

----------

WhoKnows (11-27-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> In point of fact, you did:


No I didn't which has already been shown.  "On the subject".

----------


## Wildrose

> Personally, I believe he made this exact claim. Here's his exact quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of whether you agree with me here though, I definitely agree with you that he's almost always being arrogant and dismissive with those he disagrees with. He also tends to respond to my quotes a lot more than anyone else, though, so I find myself responding to him a lot anyway :-p.


Yet you know this isn't true just as you were shown last night so why are you now lying?

I've never claimed to know everything on any subject.

----------


## WhoKnows

> Yet you know this isn't true just as you were shown last night so why are you now lying?
> 
> I've never claimed to know everything on any subject.


Sorry, but when you make the claim that "everything known...", you very well know that the implication is that you've read "everything known". If you haven't, then the claim you make is erroneous. And subject to scrutiny.

If you're going to resort to hyperbole, then you better be ready to be called out about it.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by nonsqtr
> 
> 
> Too stupid for words.
> 
> Not to mention a completely callous and heartless INSULT to the thousands of people who've died from the HIV virus.
> 
> Don't complain about insults, you started it.
> 
> ...


I imagine he believes in the afterlife, which is fine. I'm a Pantheist myself- I'm actually not sure what your average Pantheist thinks, but I've been a fan of shows like Ghost Hunters for a while, so I do think there -can- be an afterlife. Perhaps Keanu Reeves said it best when asked what he believed happened after someone died- something like "I know that the people who cared for us will miss us". No one can argue that :-p. Anyway, If HIV -isn't- the cause of AIDS though, I imagine they (or those that cared for them) would be pretty upset that they were fooled into believing that HIV was the cause.

----------


## East of the Beast

> I imagine he believes in the afterlife, which is fine. I'm a Pantheist myself. If HIV -isn't- the cause of AIDS though, I imagine they (or those that cared for them) would be pretty upset that they were fooled into believing that HIV was the cause.


Oh, I definitely believe in the hereafter, but the dead have no knowledge of this world.

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.   Ecc. 9:5

----------


## phoenyx

> Oh, I definitely believe in the hereafter, but the dead have no knowledge of this world.
> 
> For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.   Ecc. 9:5


Interesting. A friend of mine who... used to be? catholic once made a type of reference to that passage I believe in a song of his. His watching Zeitgeist really opened his eyes to other possibilities, but I don't know what he is now. For those not familiar, that's a line from the bible. I'm a Pantheist, which from what I have been able to gather, is rather ambivalent about death, which is fine by me. I added a bit to the post since you quoted me:
"I'm actually not sure what your average Pantheist thinks, but I've been a fan of shows like Ghost Hunters for a while, so I do think there -can- be an afterlife. Perhaps Keanu Reeves said it best when asked what he believed happened after someone died- something like "I know that the people who cared for us will miss us".

Turns out, it seems Pantheism is also rather ambiguous about death. Here's what appears to be the scientific branch of pantheism:
https://www.pantheism.net/paul/


He quotes Carl Sagan saying this:
A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.Carl Sagan, _Pale Blue Dot_ (1994)

----------


## East of the Beast

> Interesting. A friend of mine who... used to be? catholic once made a type of reference to that passage I believe in a song of his. His watching Zeitgeist really opened his eyes to other possibilities, but I don't know what he is now. For those not familiar, that's a line from the bible. I'm a Pantheist, which from what I have been able to gather, is rather ambivalent about death, which is fine by me. I added a bit to the post since you quoted me:
> "I'm actually not sure what your average Pantheist thinks, but I've been a fan of shows like Ghost Hunters for a while, so I do think there -can- be an afterlife. Perhaps Keanu Reeves said it best when asked what he believed happened after someone died- something like "I know that the people who cared for us will miss us".
> 
> Turns out, it seems Pantheism is also rather ambiguous about death. Here's what appears to be the scientific branch of pantheism:
> https://www.pantheism.net/paul/
> 
> 
> He quotes Carl Sagan saying this:
> A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.Carl Sagan, _Pale Blue Dot_ (1994)


Sagan did not understand the awe of the universe that Christians have because it is through faith that we know it. The Bible defines faith.......Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen....Hebrews 11:1

----------


## phoenyx

> Sagan did not understand the awe of the universe that Christians have because it is through faith that we know it. The Bible defines faith.......Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen....Hebrews 11:1


I like this conversation, but I realized that we're way off topic for this thread. So I made a new one, here:
https://thepoliticsforums.com/thread...t-was-he-like?

----------


## squidward

> You don't get Kaposi's sarcoma from Covid vaccines.
> 
> Unless you have some evidence to the contrary?


Acquired
Immuno
Deficiency
Syndrome 

Why are you hooked on the specific immunodeficiency syndrome caused by HIV? 

any syndrome that arises from an acquired immunodeficiency is technically AIDS. Doesn't have to be the AIDS associated with HIV

----------


## Wildrose

> Sorry, but when you make the claim that "everything known...", you very well know that the implication is that you've read "everything known". If you haven't, then the claim you make is erroneous. And subject to scrutiny.
> 
> If you're going to resort to hyperbole, then you better be ready to be called out about it.


And you are just once again lying and trolling.  Go peddle it elsewhere.

----------


## WhoKnows

> And you are just once again lying and trolling.  Go peddle it elsewhere.


What EXACTLY am I lying about? Are you going to start that again? When someone challenges you, you spew out insults all over the place without actually addressing their questions?

----------


## Wildrose

> Acquired
> Immuno
> Deficiency
> Syndrome 
> 
> Why are you hooked on the specific immunodeficiency syndrome caused by HIV? 
> 
> any syndrome that arises from an acquired immunodeficiency is technically AIDS. Doesn't have to be the AIDS associated with HIV


Because HIV Human Immuno Virus is the only thing known to cause AIDS Which is what the nutters are claiming is caused by the vaccines absent the slightest bit of proof.

----------


## squidward

> Because HIV Human Immuno Virus is the only thing known to cause AIDS Which is what the nutters are claiming is caused by the vaccines absent the slightest bit of proof.


There are no acquired immunodeficiencies other than that caused by hiv?

----------


## Wildrose

> There are no acquired immunodeficiencies other than that caused by hiv?


Can you not read what is written? If you can't what's the point of further explanation?

----------


## phoenyx

> Can you not read what is written? If you can't what's the point of further explanation?


Let's see if you can read this:
**
Contrary to popular belief, *HIV* is not necessary to explain acquired immune deficiency and the illnesses associated with AIDS. To understand why this is so, it is first necessary to understand what AIDS is. AIDS is not a new disease or illness; it is a _new name or designation for 29 previously known diseases and conditions._As the NIH states in its comprehensive report on AIDS, "the designation 'AIDS' is a surveillance tool." Since 1981, the surveillance tool AIDS has been used to track and record familiar diseases when they appear in people who have tested positive for antibodies associated with HIV.

The AIDS virus hypothesis supposes that the health problems renamed AIDS develop as a result of infection with HIV; that the virus somehow disables the body's defense system that protects against opportunistic illness, allowing the development of one or more of 29 diseases, such as yeast infection, certain cancers, pneumonia, salmonella, diarrhea, or tuberculosis, which are then diagnosed as AIDS. However, every AIDS indicator disease occurs among people who test HIV negative, none are exclusive to those who test positive and all AIDS diseases existed before the adoption of the name "AIDS."**

Full article:
It's Not HIV - What Can Cause AIDS?

----------


## squidward

> Can you not read what is written?


Yeah, you were wrong.
You said only HIV causes an acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.

----------

phoenyx (11-28-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Yeah, you were wrong.
> You said only HIV causes an acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.


There is some debate as to whether HIV causes AIDS, but we're in agreement that other things can cause AIDS.

----------

squidward (11-28-2021)

----------


## squidward

> Let's see if you can read this:
> **
> Contrary to popular belief, *HIV* is not necessary to explain acquired immune deficiency and the illnesses associated with AIDS. To understand why this is so, it is first necessary to understand what AIDS is. AIDS is not a new disease or illness; it is a _new name or designation for 29 previously known diseases and conditions._As the NIH states in its comprehensive report on AIDS, "the designation 'AIDS' is a surveillance tool." Since 1981, the surveillance tool AIDS has been used to track and record familiar diseases when they appear in people who have tested positive for antibodies associated with HIV.
> 
> The AIDS virus hypothesis supposes that the health problems renamed AIDS develop as a result of infection with HIV; that the virus somehow disables the body's defense system that protects against opportunistic illness, allowing the development of one or more of 29 diseases, such as yeast infection, certain cancers, pneumonia, salmonella, diarrhea, or tuberculosis, which are then diagnosed as AIDS. However, every AIDS indicator disease occurs among people who test HIV negative, none are exclusive to those who test positive and all AIDS diseases existed before the adoption of the name "AIDS."**
> 
> Full article:
> It's Not HIV - What Can Cause AIDS?


The poster doesnt know the difference between HIV positive and AIDS.
Similar to SARS-COV-2 positive and Covid-19

----------

phoenyx (11-28-2021)

----------


## WhoKnows

Here's the problem. There are many things that can cause individual aspects of AIDS. That is clear in the article.

That being said, when we look at AIDS, as a systemic illness, and as a whole, there is a commonality with everyone who has it. HIV infection. This is undisputable. 

"AIDS is caused by infection with HIV. HIV infection has been the only common factor shared by persons with AIDS throughout the world, regardless of sexual preferences, lifestyle, health, sexual practices, age or gender."

from this article: AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) | Cedars-Sinai

Yes, someone can get certain symptoms of AIDS individually, as one of the articles posted, but that's not considered to be AIDS. 

Now if we were talking about Kaposi's Sarcoma, that's a different story. It's technically not caused by AIDS, although it is associated with it. AIDS hits the immune system, and the the virus that causes KS can infiltrate.

----------


## Wildrose

> Let's see if you can read this:
> **
> Contrary to popular belief, *HIV* is not necessary to explain acquired immune deficiency and the illnesses associated with AIDS. To understand why this is so, it is first necessary to understand what AIDS is. AIDS is not a new disease or illness; it is a _new name or designation for 29 previously known diseases and conditions._As the NIH states in its comprehensive report on AIDS, "the designation 'AIDS' is a surveillance tool." Since 1981, the surveillance tool AIDS has been used to track and record familiar diseases when they appear in people who have tested positive for antibodies associated with HIV.
> 
> The AIDS virus hypothesis supposes that the health problems renamed AIDS develop as a result of infection with HIV; that the virus somehow disables the body's defense system that protects against opportunistic illness, allowing the development of one or more of 29 diseases, such as yeast infection, certain cancers, pneumonia, salmonella, diarrhea, or tuberculosis, which are then diagnosed as AIDS. However, every AIDS indicator disease occurs among people who test HIV negative, none are exclusive to those who test positive and all AIDS diseases existed before the adoption of the name "AIDS."**
> 
> Full article:
> It's Not HIV - What Can Cause AIDS?


Another logical failure.

If AIDS is not caused by the HIV virus how is it that it can be controlled even to the point of no measurable viral load in the patients being treated with modern Anti Virals?

Those patients then return to such a state of health that in many cases it's as though they were never sick to start with.

----------


## Wildrose

> Let's see if you can read this:
> **
> Contrary to popular belief, *HIV* is not necessary to explain acquired immune deficiency and the illnesses associated with AIDS. To understand why this is so, it is first necessary to understand what AIDS is. AIDS is not a new disease or illness; it is a _new name or designation for 29 previously known diseases and conditions._As the NIH states in its comprehensive report on AIDS, "the designation 'AIDS' is a surveillance tool." Since 1981, the surveillance tool AIDS has been used to track and record familiar diseases when they appear in people who have tested positive for antibodies associated with HIV.
> 
> The AIDS virus hypothesis supposes that the health problems renamed AIDS develop as a result of infection with HIV; that the virus somehow disables the body's defense system that protects against opportunistic illness, allowing the development of one or more of 29 diseases, such as yeast infection, certain cancers, pneumonia, salmonella, diarrhea, or tuberculosis, which are then diagnosed as AIDS. However, every AIDS indicator disease occurs among people who test HIV negative, none are exclusive to those who test positive and all AIDS diseases existed before the adoption of the name "AIDS."**
> 
> Full article:
> It's Not HIV - What Can Cause AIDS?


Which of course is fabricated BS not supported by any actual data or even theory.

----------


## Wildrose

> Yeah, you were wrong.
> You said only HIV causes an acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.


Another lie.  Tell all the lies you want about yourself but don't attribute things to me I never said.

----------


## Wildrose

> The poster doesnt know the difference between HIV positive and AIDS.
> Similar to SARS-COV-2 positive and Covid-19


It's always sad to see the blind leading those who refuse to open their eyes to the truth.




> On 23 Feb 2020, the lock-down of Wuhan, a central city in China, has alarmed people all over the world of an emerging novel coronavirus that is posing a major public health and governance challenges. _The novel virus, previously called the 2019-novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), is currently designated as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). As of 27 Feb,_ this emerging infection has been reported in 47 countries, causing over 82,294 infections with 2,804 deaths (Fig. ​(Fig.1)1) 1. This novel virus is also becoming a mounting threat to Chinese and global economies.


SARS-CoV-2: an Emerging Coronavirus that Causes a Global Threat

----------


## phoenyx

> Here's the problem. There are many things that can cause individual aspects of AIDS. That is clear in the article.
> 
> That being said, when we look at AIDS, as a systemic illness, and as a whole, there is a commonality with everyone who has it. HIV infection. This is undisputable.


And yet, people are disputing it.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Let's see if you can read this:
> **
> Contrary to popular belief, *HIV* is not necessary to explain acquired immune deficiency and the illnesses associated with AIDS. To understand why this is so, it is first necessary to understand what AIDS is. AIDS is not a new disease or illness; it is a _new name or designation for 29 previously known diseases and conditions._
> As the NIH states in its comprehensive report on AIDS, "the designation 'AIDS' is a surveillance tool." Since 1981, the surveillance tool AIDS has been used to track and record familiar diseases when they appear in people who have tested positive for antibodies associated with HIV.
> 
> The AIDS virus hypothesis supposes that the health problems renamed AIDS develop as a result of infection with HIV; that the virus somehow disables the body's defense system that protects against opportunistic illness, allowing the development of one or more of 29 diseases, such as yeast infection, certain cancers, pneumonia, salmonella, diarrhea, or tuberculosis, which are then diagnosed as AIDS. However, every AIDS indicator disease occurs among people who test HIV negative, none are exclusive to those who test positive and all AIDS diseases existed before the adoption of the name "AIDS."**
> ...


You have any evidence that it's "fabricated"?

----------


## Wildrose

> You have any evidence that it's "fabricated"?


Yes, which I already provided and explained.  Try actually reading the thread.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> You have any evidence that it's "fabricated"?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, which I already provided and explained.



Ah yes, the evidence is "out there". Classic Wildrose :-p.

----------


## WhoKnows

> And yet, people are disputing it.


I'm not trying to belittle you or minimize your position by saying what I'm about to say. We can all believe what we wish. 

There are people that dispute that the Earth is round. And that the moon landing never occurred. 

As I said, people are free to believe what they wish. I don't believe what you believe. And that's okay.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by WhoKnows
> ...



Thank you Whoknows :-). If only everyone here were like you.





> We can all believe what we wish.



For sure.





> There are people that dispute that the Earth is round.



I have a friend who actually believes that. I actually tried to persuade him otherwise for a bit, before giving up. The way I see it, if he believes the world is flat, it doesn't really change much in the world, so no point in disputing it. I think the best solution for those who believe the earth is flat is to have a representative of theirs go on a round the world expedition.





> And that the moon landing never occurred.



Now on -that- issue, I'm more hesitant. I have heard that -some- of them were real, and some were faked. There's even an old Wired article that suggests that some or all of it wasn't real (it's been a while since I read it, but it's here: The Wrong Stuff | WIRED )




> As I said, people are free to believe what they wish. I don't believe what you believe. And that's okay.


Agreed. On some issues, you may wish to challenge someone else's beliefs, on others, you may not. It's always up to you. I really like the fact that you don't feel the need to insult those whose beliefs don't always coincide with yours- I just never see the point in doing that.

----------

WhoKnows (11-29-2021)

----------


## WhoKnows

> Thank you Whoknows :-). If only everyone here were like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For sure.
> 
> 
> ...


Bold mine. Thank you and likewise! 

I am always interested in hearing other people's perspectives, even if I disagree with them. That is how we learn. 

That being said, being impolite and insulting towards others about their opinions and beliefs only reflects badly on the person being impolite and insulting. Especially when it is pointed out to them, and not only do they not agree they are being this way, but continue the behavior. And sometimes amplify it.

----------


## Jen

Vaccines may cause the body to turn on itself. 

Many people received placibos......saline solution.  We don't know all the information. Some has been kept from us.  Some just isn't known because the vaccine is new.

----------

phoenyx (11-29-2021),WhoKnows (11-29-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Bold mine. Thank you and likewise! 
> 
> I am always interested in hearing other people's perspectives, even if I disagree with them. That is how we learn. 
> 
> That being said, being impolite and insulting towards others about their opinions and beliefs only reflects badly on the person being impolite and insulting. Especially when it is pointed out to them, and not only do they not agree they are being this way, but continue the behavior. And sometimes amplify it.


For sure. I think we're both thinking of a very particular person here, lol :-)

----------


## phoenyx

> Vaccines may cause the body to turn on itself.



Yes. This is a premise that is thoroughly explored in a book I read called "How Vaccines Wreck Human Immunity". The kindle edition is just $2.99, well worth a look in my view:
Amazon.com: How Vaccines Wreck Human Immunity: A Forbidden Doctor Publication (1) eBook : Stockwell CGP, Dr. Jack, Stockwell CGP, Mary: Kindle Store




> Many people received placibos......saline solution.



I have heard this as well. I did a duckduckgo search and found a few people who had received saline solution instead of a Covid vaccine:
Six people injected with saline instead of COVID-19 vaccine at Ontario clinic in June | CTV News 

As far as I know, the above cases may have been accidents. However, there was one nurse in Germany who apparently did many swaps, apparently because she felt the covid vaccines were too harmful:
German nurse accused of swapping Covid-19 vaccines with saline solution - CNN


I'm not sure if she should have done that or just quit her job, but I definitely recommend either of those to administering the covid vaccines. 





> We don't know all the information. Some has been kept from us.  Some just isn't known because the vaccine is new.


True. However, I also think there is a lot of information that is out there. Sites like Children's Health Defense and Mercola.com and Off Guardian have a lot, and there are other sources too, such as various books that have been written on it and those behind the push to get everyone to get these injections. I think that ultimately, the biggest obstacle to people learning is having the time and inclination to do more research on the information that's already out there.

----------


## Jen

> Yes. This is a premise that is thoroughly explored in a book I read called "How Vaccines Wreck Human Immunity". The kindle edition is just $2.99, well worth a look in my view:
> Amazon.com: How Vaccines Wreck Human Immunity: A Forbidden Doctor Publication (1) eBook : Stockwell CGP, Dr. Jack, Stockwell CGP, Mary: Kindle Store
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard this as well. I did a duckduckgo search and found a few people who had received saline solution instead of a Covid vaccine:
> Six people injected with saline instead of COVID-19 vaccine at Ontario clinic in June | CTV News 
> 
> ...


I don't want to just leap to believe conspiracy theories any more than I want to leap to trust our government.  That said...........it is quite possible that the real bio weapon is the vaccine.

----------


## phoenyx

> I don't want to just leap to believe conspiracy theories any more than I want to leap to trust our government.  That said...........it is quite possible that the real bio weapon is the vaccine.


From everything I've read, I've come to the conclusion that there is no Cov 2 virus. Now, that doesn't mean that a lot of people saying that it exists don't believe it. It doesn't even rule out the possibility that it in fact exists. It just means that the evidence that this virus exists has no solid foundation. My favourite article on just how tenuous the evidence for its existence is was written by Iain Davis, and can be seen below:

COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud | Off Guardian


Now, that doesn't mean that a condition that's been labelled Covid 19 isn't fairly new. Personally, I strongly suspect that EMFs (Electro Magnetic Frequencies) are involved, particularly those coming from cell phone towers. I think the addition of thousands of 5G installations in Wuhan was what triggered the initial wave. I get into the evidence that this may have been the initial trigger that started this whole Covid thing here:

https://thepoliticsforums.com/thread...to-5G-networks


I certainly don't have as much evidence as I'd like, but based on what I have read, including evidence that viruses themselves are either non contagious and/or are actually exosomes, it's what fits best. For a book the goes into evidence that viruses are not contagious and probably exosomes, you may want to read the following thread:
https://thepoliticsforums.com/thread...isease-Spreads


If one believes that viruses/exosomes are not in fact what's causing the problem, but are instead of trying to get rid of the -real- problem, that is, toxins, be they from EMF radiation or other sources, such as pollution or vaccines, then the idea that at least some of the alleged Covid variants are actually being -caused- by vaccines makes sense.

----------


## Jen

> From everything I've read, I've come to the conclusion that there is no Cov 2 virus. Now, that doesn't mean that a lot of people saying that it exists don't believe it. It doesn't even rule out the possibility that it in fact exists. It just means that the evidence that this virus exists has no solid foundation. My favourite article on just how tenuous the evidence for its existence is was written by Iain Davis, and can be seen below:
> 
> COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud | Off Guardian
> 
> 
> Now, that doesn't mean that a condition that's been labelled Covid 19 isn't fairly new. Personally, I strongly suspect that EMFs (Electro Magnetic Frequencies) are involved, particularly those coming from cell phone towers. I think the addition of thousands of 5G installations in Wuhan was what triggered the initial wave. I get into the evidence that this may have been the initial trigger that started this whole Covid thing here:
> 
> https://thepoliticsforums.com/thread...to-5G-networks
> 
> ...


My research is leading me to the same conclusion as yours.  

And again, this points to the Contrived Reality we are expected and programmed to believe vs the Real Reality that is hiding beneath the surface.

Even though some of us might have our eyes open to the Real Reality, we still have to deal with the Contrived Reality since many of our friends and family strongly believe it is real.  Does this make sense?  I hope so.

----------

phoenyx (11-29-2021)

----------


## fmw

> Olin Live: Covid Vaxxers Are Developing A.I.D.S. (Bloodwork Proof)
> 
> 
> I've heard the "vaccines" destroy your immune system, is this proof


No it is garbage.  A vaccine can't create a virus.  It can only help the immune system develop antibodies for a particular virus.  It is possible to be infected with both covid and aids concurrently.  But neither has anything to do with a vaccine.

----------


## phoenyx

> My research is leading me to the same conclusion as yours.  
> 
> And again, this points to the Contrived Reality we are expected and programmed to believe vs the Real Reality that is hiding beneath the surface.
> 
> Even though some of us might have our eyes open to the Real Reality, we still have to deal with the Contrived Reality since many of our friends and family strongly believe it is real.  Does this make sense?  I hope so.


Yes, it definitely makes sense :-). Today my father was going on about how the covid vaccines were solving the problem and I told him, "Well, you know what -I- think of that logic", laugh :-p. He went on about how his friend was an example and I went on to point out that his friend had a pretty bad case of Covid after getting vaccinated :-p. So did his partner (he calls her his wife, but last I heard, they never got married, so I tend to just call her his partner).

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by WarriorRob
> 
> 
> Olin Live: Covid Vaxxers Are Developing A.I.D.S. (Bloodwork Proof)
> 
> I've heard the "vaccines" destroy your immune system, is this proof
> 
> 
> 
> No it is garbage.  A vaccine can't create a virus.



Vaccines don't need to create viruses to mess up your immune system. If you'd like to see how they can accomplish this, I recommend taking a look at the following book:
Amazon.com: How Vaccines Wreck Human Immunity: A Forbidden Doctor Publication (1) eBook : Stockwell CGP, Dr. Jack, Stockwell CGP, Mary: Kindle Store





> It can only help the immune system develop antibodies for a particular virus.



I definitely agree that vaccines can get the body to produce antibodies, but I think people tend to forget why the body produces antibodies to begin with- they do it to defend against elements that the body considers to be harmful. Just because vaccines are good at getting people to produce antibodies does -not- mean that those antibodies will be good at dealing with other foreign pathogens. There's also a lot of evidence that the vaccines people take are damaging them in many ways, and that this has been true for a long time. Based on what I've read, I don't believe that viruses are contagious and may well all just be exosomes, but there are still bacteria, which are much larger and easier to distinguish from molecules formed within the body, and they can certainly cause problems. But from what I have read, i've come to believe that vaccines don't actually help with pathogens at all. 





> It is possible to be infected with both covid and aids concurrently.  But neither has anything to do with a vaccine.


AIDS is technically not an infection. It is more the -result- of various things. Some believe that only HIV can cause AIDS, but there is a growing body of evidence that many things can cause AIDS and there is also evidence that, as with the Cov 2 virus, there is little if any solid evidence that an HIV virus actually exists. There are various websites with information on this alternative theory to the mainstream one, one of which is here:
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/index.htm

----------


## Wildrose

> You have any evidence that it's "fabricated"?


Yes. 


> _As the NIH states in its comprehensive report on AIDS, "the designation 'AIDS' is a surveillance tool."_


Provide a link to the document and the exact quote from NIH.

----------


## Wildrose

> Vaccines don't need to create viruses to mess up your immune system. If you'd like to see how they can accomplish this, I recommend taking a look at the following book:
> Amazon.com: How Vaccines Wreck Human Immunity: A Forbidden Doctor Publication (1) eBook : Stockwell CGP, Dr. Jack, Stockwell CGP, Mary: Kindle Store
> 
> 
> I definitely agree that vaccines can get the body to produce antibodies, but I think people tend to forget why the body produces antibodies to begin with- they do it to defend against elements that the body considers to be harmful. Just because vaccines are good at getting people to produce antibodies does -not- mean that those antibodies will be good at dealing with other foreign pathogens. There's also a lot of evidence that the vaccines people take are damaging them in many ways, and that this has been true for a long time. Based on what I've read, I don't believe that viruses are contagious and may well all just be exosomes, but there are still bacteria, which are much larger and easier to distinguish from molecules formed within the body, and they can certainly cause problems. But from what I have read, i've come to believe that vaccines don't actually help with pathogens at all. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The average human lifespan has increased by about 10 years since we began vaccinating for serious communicable diseases which pretty much destroys your entire theory.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Wildrose
> ...


Let's see it then.

----------


## Jen

> Yes, it definitely makes sense :-). Today my father was going on about how the covid vaccines were solving the problem and I told him, "Well, you know what -I- think of that logic", laugh :-p. He went on about how his friend was an example and I went on to point out that his friend had a pretty bad case of Covid after getting vaccinated :-p. So did his partner (he calls her his wife, but last I heard, they never got married, so I tend to just call her his partner).


I had an interesting thing happen over Thanksgiving.  I told my husband's mother and sister some things (regarding Covid and other things not pertinent to this thread).  They didn't believe I was right, but they couldn't hold up their side in a discussion......I didn't push........I just stated my thoughts and stopped there.   Then the last night we were there, my sil's best friend (for years and years) and her husband came to visit.  He told them all of the exact things I had been telling them.  You should have seen their eyes bug out.

----------

phoenyx (11-30-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> Vaccines don't need to create viruses to mess up your immune system. If you'd like to see how they can accomplish this, I recommend taking a look at the following book:
> Amazon.com: How Vaccines Wreck Human Immunity: A Forbidden Doctor Publication (1) eBook : Stockwell CGP, Dr. Jack, Stockwell CGP, Mary: Kindle Store
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely agree that vaccines can get the body to produce antibodies, but I think people tend to forget why the body produces antibodies to begin with- they do it to defend against elements that the body considers to be harmful. Just because vaccines are good at getting people to produce antibodies does -not- mean that those antibodies will be good at dealing with other foreign pathogens. There's also a lot of evidence that the vaccines people take are damaging them in many ways, and that this has been true for a long time. Based on what I've read, I don't believe that viruses are contagious and may well all just be exosomes, but there are still bacteria, which are much larger and easier to distinguish from molecules formed within the body, and they can certainly cause problems. But from what I have read, i've come to believe that vaccines don't actually help with pathogens at all. 
> 
> ...


Stockwell, a quack with absolutely no medical training.  Hell of "source".

----------


## phoenyx

> I had an interesting thing happen over Thanksgiving.  I told my husband's mother and sister some things (regarding Covid and other things not pertinent to this thread).  They didn't believe I was right, but they couldn't hold up their side in a discussion......I didn't push........I just stated my thoughts and stopped there.   Then the last night we were there, my sil's best friend (for years and years) and her husband came to visit.  He told them all of the exact things I had been telling them.  You should have seen their eyes bug out.


Lol :-). I definitely agree that your approach is the way to do it. My dad knows I disagree with him and I've provided him a link to my favourite article that explains the scant evidence that there's actually a Cov 2 virus. Originally he said he'd read it, then he changed his mind and decided he didn't have time to do it. But he knows it's there if he ever wants to read it. My father took the first Covid shot. At first, he told me that he missed taking the second. Now he doesn't want to specify whether he got the second. All I know is that he's still alive and seems to be alright. He still jogs up and down the stairs sometimes- for 70 that's pretty good I'd think. I still worry that even if he didn't take the second covid shot, the first alone may have done damage, but I can't change what's been done, just see how things play out.

----------

Jen (11-30-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> **
> [snip]As the NIH states in its comprehensive report on AIDS, "the designation 'AIDS' is a surveillance tool."[snip]
> **
> 
> Full article:
> It's Not HIV - What Can Cause AIDS?
> ...


I couldn't find it on the NIH site, but I -did- find the exact words used on another site that appears to be a copy of a document from the NIH published in 2009. I'll quote part of it with the exact quote:

**
*The Relationship between AIDS and HIV*
U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesJune 5, 2009





*Contents*IntroductionThe Definition of AIDSThe Designation AIDS Is a Surveillance Tool

[snip]
**

Source:
https://www.thebody.com/article/relationship-aids-hiv

Unfortunately, while the first 2 links work (in the original article above), the third one does not.

----------


## Wildrose

> I couldn't find it on the NIH site, but I -did- find the exact words used on another site that appears to be a copy of a document from the NIH published in 2009. I'll quote part of it with the exact quote:
> 
> **
> *The Relationship between AIDS and HIV*
> 
> 
> U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesJune 5, 2009
> 
> 
> ...


It can't be found on either site.

There are HIV surveillance tools and AIDS surveillance tools, neither the virus nor the disease themselves are "surveillance tools".

They are even working on comprehensive HIV/AIDS surveillance tools but they themselves have very specific names that actually mean things.

Look up the definitions of each of them.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Vaccines don't need to create viruses to mess up your immune system. If you'd like to see how they can accomplish this, I recommend taking a look at the following book:
> Amazon.com: How Vaccines Wreck Human Immunity: A Forbidden Doctor Publication (1) eBook : Stockwell CGP, Dr. Jack, Stockwell CGP, Mary: Kindle Store
> 
> 
> 
> Stockwell, [insult removed] with absolutely no medical training.


You might be surprised to know that doctors learn very little when it comes to vaccines, other than that the usual "safe and effective" mantra.

Here's a quote that I think speaks volumes as to modern medical research:

**
The first step is to give up the illusion that the primary purpose of modern medical research is to improve Americans health most effectively and efficiently. In our opinion, the primary purpose of commercially funded clinical research is to maximize financial return on investment, not health. John Abramson, M.D., Harvard Medical School
**

Source:
Kennedy, Robert F.. The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health (Childrens Health Defense) (p. 23). Skyhorse. Kindle Edition.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I couldn't find it on the NIH site, but I -did- find the exact words used on another site that appears to be a copy of a document from the NIH published in 2009. I'll quote part of it with the exact quote:
> 
> **
> *The Relationship between AIDS and HIV*
> 
> 
> ...


The quote is certainly found on the site I linked to. Unfortunately, as mentioned, the link itself doesn't work.





> There are HIV surveillance tools and AIDS surveillance tools, neither the virus nor the disease themselves are "surveillance tools".



Perhaps the NIH just made a typo. I'll even grant that perhaps the site above made the typo and that's the original source of the quote. You wanted me to find the original source of the quote, I did the best to find it.

----------


## Wildrose

> You might be surprised to know that doctors learn very little when it comes to vaccines, other than that the usual "safe and effective" mantra.
> 
> Here's a quote that I think speaks volumes as to modern medical research:
> 
> **
> “The first step is to give up the illusion that the primary purpose of modern medical research is to improve Americans’ health most effectively and efficiently. In our opinion, the primary purpose of commercially funded clinical research is to maximize financial return on investment, not health.” —John Abramson, M.D., Harvard Medical School
> **
> 
> Source:
> Kennedy, Robert F.. The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health (Children’s Health Defense) (p. 23). Skyhorse. Kindle Edition.


Immunology is both a prerequisite undergrad course and a course required by every med school.

Your supposed quote of Dr. Abramson doesn't seem to appear anywhere other than one of your anti vax nutter sites.

----------


## Wildrose

> The quote is certainly found on the site I linked to. Unfortunately, as mentioned, the link itself doesn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the NIH just made a typo. I'll even grant that perhaps the site above made the typo and that's the original source of the quote. You wanted me to find the original source of the quote, I did the best to find it.


The original source would be the NIH, it can't be found anywhere on the NIH site, the CDC, the NIID, nor FDA sites.

It's a fabrication.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> You might be surprised to know that doctors learn very little when it comes to vaccines, other than that the usual "safe and effective" mantra.
> 
> Here's a quote that I think speaks volumes as to modern medical research:
> 
> **
> The first step is to give up the illusion that the primary purpose of modern medical research is to improve Americans health most effectively and efficiently. In our opinion, the primary purpose of commercially funded clinical research is to maximize financial return on investment, not health. John Abramson, M.D., Harvard Medical School
> ...



Fine, but what do they actually learn concerning vaccines, other than that they are allegedly "safe and effective"? Even immunologists don't learn nearly enough, which is something I discovered by reading a book from an immunologist called The Vaccine Illusion. A description of the book can be found here:
https://www.tetyanaobukhanych.com/vaccine_illusion.html




> Your supposed quote of Dr. Abramson doesn't seem to appear anywhere other than one of your [insult removed] sites.


The quote is from Robert Kennedy Jr.'s book, which you would have known had you bothered to read what I wrote directly below the quote. I doubt Mr. Kennedy would be using this quote in his introduction to his best selling book if Mr. Abramson hadn't actually said it. What's more, Dr. Abramson is known to have written a book titled "Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine", which suggests that he is not exactly thrilled with the direction of modern commercial medical research.

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Abramson

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> The quote is certainly found on the site I linked to. Unfortunately, as mentioned, the link itself doesn't work.
> 
> Perhaps the NIH just made a typo. I'll even grant that perhaps the site above made the typo and that's the original source of the quote. You wanted me to find the original source of the quote, I did the best to find it.
> 
> 
> 
> The original source would be the NIH, it can't be found anywhere on the NIH site, the CDC, the NIID, nor FDA sites.


Even if it can't -currently- be found anywhere on those sites, that doesn't mean it wasn't there before. Site content can change. The bottom line, however, is that the quote -was- found on a site that made it appear like it originally came from the NIH. What's more, that site didn't even seem to be disagreeing with what it said.

----------


## Wildrose

> Fine, but what do they actually learn concerning vaccines, other than that they are allegedly "safe and effective"? Even immunologists don't learn nearly enough, which is something I discovered by reading a book from an immunologist called The Vaccine Illusion. A description of the book can be found here:
> https://www.tetyanaobukhanych.com/vaccine_illusion.html
> 
> 
> 
> The quote is from Robert Kennedy Jr.'s book, which you would have known had you bothered to read what I wrote directly below the quote. I doubt Mr. Kennedy would be using this quote in his introduction to his best selling book if Mr. Abramson hadn't actually said it. What's more, Dr. Abramson is known to have written a book titled "Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine", which suggests that he is not exactly thrilled with the direction of modern commercial medical research.
> 
> Source:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Abramson


The quote cannot be verified nor it's original source.

What do you think Immunology is?  It's the only specific area of study in which you delve deeply into vaccination.

----------


## Wildrose

> Even if it can't -currently- be found anywhere on those sites, that doesn't mean it wasn't there before. Site content can change. The bottom line, however, is that the quote -was- found on a site that made it appear like it originally came from the NIH. What's more, that site didn't even seem to be disagreeing with what it said.


That statement cannot be found on any of the sites I listed.  It's a fabrication that doesn't even make any sense.

----------


## phoenyx

> The quote cannot be verified [snip]


What makes you believe that?

----------


## Wildrose

> What makes you believe that?


The fact it can't be found anywhere else is a really good clue!

----------


## phoenyx

> What do you think Immunology is?  It's the only specific area of study in which you delve deeply into vaccination.


Here is the introduction to immunology on Wikipedia:
**
*Immunology* is a branch of biology and Medicine[1] that covers the study of immune systems[2] in all organisms.[3] Immunology charts, measures, and contextualizes the physiological functioning of the immune system in states of both health and diseases; malfunctions of the immune system in immunological disorders (such as autoimmune diseases,[4] hypersensitivities,[5] immune deficiency,[6] and transplant rejection[7]); and the physical, chemical, and physiological characteristics of the components of the immune system _in vitro_,[8] _in situ_, and _in vivo_.[9] Immunology has applications in numerous disciplines of medicine, particularly in the fields of organ transplantation, oncology, rheumatology, virology, bacteriology, parasitology, psychiatry, and dermatology.
The term was coined by Russian biologist Ilya Ilyich Mechnikov,[10] who advanced studies on immunology and received the Nobel Prize for his work in 1908. He pinned small thorns into starfish larvae and noticed unusual cells surrounding the thorns. This was the active response of the body trying to maintain its integrity. It was Mechnikov who first observed the phenomenon of phagocytosis,[11] in which the body defends itself against a foreign body.
Prior to the designation of immunity,[12] from the etymological root _immunis_, which is Latin for "exempt", early physicians characterized organs that would later be proven as essential components of the immune system. The important lymphoid organs of the immune system are the thymus,[13] bone marrow, and chief lymphatic tissues such as spleen, tonsils, lymph vessels, lymph nodes, adenoids, and liver. However, many components of the immune system are cellular in nature, and not associated with specific organs, but rather embedded or circulating in various tissues located throughout the body. When health conditions worsen to emergency status, portions of immune system organs, including the thymus, spleen, bone marrow, lymph nodes, and other lymphatic tissues, can be surgically excised for examination while patients are still alive.
**


Notice how vaccinations aren't even mentioned? In the entire article, they only mention vaccines and vaccinations 3 times, all in a single paragraph in the  "developmental immunology" section.

----------


## Wildrose

> Here is the introduction to immunology on Wikipedia:
> **
> *Immunology* is a branch of biology and Medicine[1] that covers the study of immune systems[2] in all organisms.[3] Immunology charts, measures, and contextualizes the physiological functioning of the immune system in states of both health and diseases; malfunctions of the immune system in immunological disorders (such as autoimmune diseases,[4] hypersensitivities,[5] immune deficiency,[6] and transplant rejection[7]); and the physical, chemical, and physiological characteristics of the components of the immune system _in vitro_,[8] _in situ_, and _in vivo_.[9] Immunology has applications in numerous disciplines of medicine, particularly in the fields of organ transplantation, oncology, rheumatology, virology, bacteriology, parasitology, psychiatry, and dermatology.
> The term was coined by Russian biologist Ilya Ilyich Mechnikov,[10] who advanced studies on immunology and received the Nobel Prize for his work in 1908. He pinned small thorns into starfish larvae and noticed unusual cells surrounding the thorns. This was the active response of the body trying to maintain its integrity. It was Mechnikov who first observed the phenomenon of phagocytosis,[11] in which the body defends itself against a foreign body.
> Prior to the designation of immunity,[12] from the etymological root _immunis_, which is Latin for "exempt", early physicians characterized organs that would later be proven as essential components of the immune system. The important lymphoid organs of the immune system are the thymus,[13] bone marrow, and chief lymphatic tissues such as spleen, tonsils, lymph vessels, lymph nodes, adenoids, and liver. However, many components of the immune system are cellular in nature, and not associated with specific organs, but rather embedded or circulating in various tissues located throughout the body. When health conditions worsen to emergency status, portions of immune system organs, including the thymus, spleen, bone marrow, lymph nodes, and other lymphatic tissues, can be surgically excised for examination while patients are still alive.
> **
> 
> 
> Notice how vaccinations aren't even mentioned? In the entire article, they only mention vaccines and vaccinations 3 times, all in a single paragraph in the  "developmental immunology" section.


I didn't ask you for a cut and paste quote from a dictionary.

Immunization is a huge part of immunology as it is immunology that gives us our understanding of vaccination it's purpose, and it's limitations.

Epidemiology would be the other field in which it's looked at heavily but only as a tool.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Even if it can't -currently- be found anywhere on those sites, that doesn't mean it wasn't there before. Site content can change. The bottom line, however, is that the quote -was- found on a site that made it appear like it originally came from the NIH. What's more, that site didn't even seem to be disagreeing with what it said.
> 
> 
> 
> That statement cannot be found on any of the sites I listed.



As I said before, I found it here:
https://www.thebody.com/article/relationship-aids-hiv

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Wildrose
> ...


First of all, just because -you- can't find it anywhere else doesn't mean that the quote can't be verified. For starters, I think that you are unaware that verifying something doesn't just mean to prove that something is true. It also means to find out if something is true:
"to prove, show, find out, or state that (something) is true or correct"

Source:
Verify Definition  Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Furthermore, the quote was displayed prominently in Mr. Kennedy's book and the alleged author of the quote literally wrote a book criticizing american medicine, strongly suggesting that this is exactly the type of thing he might say.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Here is the introduction to immunology on Wikipedia:
> **
> *Immunology* is a branch of biology and Medicine[1] that covers the study of immune systems[2] in all organisms.[3] Immunology charts, measures, and contextualizes the physiological functioning of the immune system in states of both health and diseases; malfunctions of the immune system in immunological disorders (such as autoimmune diseases,[4] hypersensitivities,[5] immune deficiency,[6] and transplant rejection[7]); and the physical, chemical, and physiological characteristics of the components of the immune system _in vitro_,[8] _in situ_, and _in vivo_.[9] Immunology has applications in numerous disciplines of medicine, particularly in the fields of organ transplantation, oncology, rheumatology, virology, bacteriology, parasitology, psychiatry, and dermatology.
> The term was coined by Russian biologist Ilya Ilyich Mechnikov,[10] who advanced studies on immunology and received the Nobel Prize for his work in 1908. He pinned small thorns into starfish larvae and noticed unusual cells surrounding the thorns. This was the active response of the body trying to maintain its integrity. It was Mechnikov who first observed the phenomenon of phagocytosis,[11] in which the body defends itself against a foreign body.
> Prior to the designation of immunity,[12] from the etymological root _immunis_, which is Latin for "exempt", early physicians characterized organs that would later be proven as essential components of the immune system. The important lymphoid organs of the immune system are the thymus,[13] bone marrow, and chief lymphatic tissues such as spleen, tonsils, lymph vessels, lymph nodes, adenoids, and liver. However, many components of the immune system are cellular in nature, and not associated with specific organs, but rather embedded or circulating in various tissues located throughout the body. When health conditions worsen to emergency status, portions of immune system organs, including the thymus, spleen, bone marrow, lymph nodes, and other lymphatic tissues, can be surgically excised for examination while patients are still alive.
> **
> ...



First of all, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Second of all, I am making a point that I think is well made by quoting Wikipedia's introduction to the term, namely that vaccines are definitely not the main theme in immunology. 




> Immunization is a huge part of immunology



It's certainly a very -lucrative- part of immunology, but that doesn't mean it's the part that is studied much in medical school. 





> as it is immunology that gives us our understanding of vaccination it's purpose, and it's limitations.



Again, I highly recommend The Vaccine Illusion, written by an immunologist, for an alternative point of view. Quoting from the  description of the book:
**
Driven by her need to understand why she ended up contracting some of the childhood diseases despite being fully vaccinated, Dr. Tetyana has undertaken a thorough investigation of the available knowledge on vaccination and naturally acquired immunity.  In _Vaccine Illusion_, Dr. Tetyana articulates a science-based view that challenges the mainstream dogma of life-long vaccine immunity.
**Source:
https://www.tetyanaobukhanych.com/vaccine_illusion.html

----------


## WhoKnows

> *Immunology is both a prerequisite undergrad course and a course required by every med school.*
> 
> Your supposed quote of Dr. Abramson doesn't seem to appear anywhere other than one of your anti vax nutter sites.


Bold mine. 

Incorrect. There is no "Immunology" course in Med School, and it is not one of the pre-requisite courses to get into Med School. You do learn Immunology in the Microbiology and the Pathology courses in Med School, but it is not a singular course in and of itself.

----------

phoenyx (11-30-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Bold mine. 
> 
> Incorrect. There is no "Immunology" course in Med School, and it is not one of the pre-requisite courses to get into Med School. You do learn Immunology in the Microbiology and the Pathology courses in Med School, but it is not a singular course in and of itself.


Thanks for pointing that out- since I've never trained to be a doctor, I just assumed that he was right.

----------


## WhoKnows

> Thanks for pointing that out- since I've never trained to be a doctor, I just assumed that he was right.


You're welcome. He is wrong about a lot of things. Very wrong. 

As much as he bashes you about the evidence you provide, at least you provide something an interested party can read and come to their own conclusions. All he does is spew BS, most of the time, and expects others to just take it at face value. Then never admits or addresses that he is wrong, other than saying he is right because he says so. He holds others to different "evidence standards" than he holds himself. And he also thinks no one notices. Everyone does. Which is why most here don't interact with him at all. And when they do, they eventually get so fed up with his BS, that they stop.

----------

phoenyx (11-30-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> You're welcome. He is wrong about a lot of things. Very wrong. 
> 
> As much as he bashes you about the evidence you provide, at least you provide something an interested party can read and come to their own conclusions. All he does is spew BS, most of the time, and expects others to just take it at face value. Then never admits or addresses that he is wrong, other than saying he is right because he says so. He holds others to different "evidence standards" than he holds himself. And he also thinks no one notices. Everyone does. Which is why most here don't interact with him at all. And when they do, they eventually get so fed up with his BS, that they stop.


Yeah, a lot of what you say rings true. However, he tends to respond to my posts more than anyone else and I tend to really get drawn in to that part. Plus, his viewpoints are frequently opposed to mine- let's face it, a conversation where both parties either agree or agree to disagree don't last very long :-p.

----------

WhoKnows (11-30-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> As I said before, I found it here:
> https://www.thebody.com/article/relationship-aids-hiv


Which is not any of the sites I listed much less the site it was attributed to.  What part of that do you not understand?

----------


## Wildrose

> First of all, just because -you- can't find it anywhere else doesn't mean that the quote can't be verified. For starters, I think that you are unaware that verifying something doesn't just mean to prove that something is true. It also means to find out if something is true:
> "to prove, show, find out, or state that (something) is true or correct"
> 
> Source:
> Verify Definition  Meaning - Merriam-Webster
> 
> Furthermore, the quote was displayed prominently in Mr. Kennedy's book and the alleged author of the quote literally wrote a book criticizing american medicine, strongly suggesting that this is exactly the type of thing he might say.


If it can't be found anywhere else nor confirmed by the person it's attributed to it's not verified and unverifiable.

Anyone can print anything, that doesn't mean it's true.

----------


## Wildrose

> First of all, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Second of all, I am making a point that I think is well made by quoting Wikipedia's introduction to the term, namely that vaccines are definitely not the main theme in immunology. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's certainly a very -lucrative- part of immunology, but that doesn't mean it's the part that is studied much in medical school. 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That again?  Seriously?

If vaccines do not work how have we defeated viruses such as Smallpox, Polio, Measles, Whooping Cough, and even Rabies?

----------


## squidward

> It's always sad to see the blind leading those who refuse to open their eyes to the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> SARS-CoV-2: an Emerging Coronavirus that Causes a Global Threat


You're welcome.

----------


## squidward

> Another lie.  Tell all the lies you want about yourself but don't attribute things to me I never said.


You said "lie", cute

----------


## Wildrose

> You're welcome. He is wrong about a lot of things. Very wrong. 
> 
> As much as he bashes you about the evidence you provide, at least you provide something an interested party can read and come to their own conclusions. All he does is spew BS, most of the time, and expects others to just take it at face value. Then never admits or addresses that he is wrong, other than saying he is right because he says so. He holds others to different "evidence standards" than he holds himself. And he also thinks no one notices. Everyone does. Which is why most here don't interact with him at all. And when they do, they eventually get so fed up with his BS, that they stop.


Once again proving you're nothing but a blowhard.

Those making bold claims that fly in the face of what is known to science are responsible for proving their case.

That's how science works.

As for your statement above I just went  through the curriculum of 3 med schools all of which have immunology coursework and clinical rotations.

I may have been wrong about it being required, but it's certainly taught.

----------


## Wildrose

> You said "lie", cute


You lied, period.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Wildrose
> ...



True, but the site suggests that it was originally on the NIH's web page.

----------


## Wildrose

> You have any evidence that it's "fabricated"?


Just everything that has been learned about HIV/AIDS since 1981.

----------


## Wildrose

> True, but the site suggests that it was originally on the NIH's web page.


Of course they are, we're well aware of that.  They can say anything but the claim cannot be corroborated can it?

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> First of all, just because -you- can't find it anywhere else doesn't mean that the quote can't be verified. For starters, I think that you are unaware that verifying something doesn't just mean to prove that something is true. It also means to find out if something is true:
> "to prove, show, find out, or state that (something) is true or correct"
> Source:
> Verify Definition  Meaning - Merriam-Webster
> 
> Furthermore, the quote was displayed prominently in Mr. Kennedy's book and the alleged author of the quote literally wrote a book criticizing american medicine, strongly suggesting that this is exactly the type of thing he might say.
> ...



How are you so sure, on either count?





> it's not verified



Just because you haven't verified something doesn't mean it hasn't been verified.





> and unverifiable.



That is the most untenable of your claims. It is remotely conceivable that there was a misunderstanding and somehow, Dr. Abramson didn't actually say what Robert Kennedy Jr. quoted him as saying in his book. But your claim that no one will ever be able to verify whether or not Dr. Abramson actually said it stretches credulity to its limit.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Again, I highly recommend The Vaccine Illusion, written by an immunologist, for an alternative point of view. Quoting from the  description of the book:
> **
> Driven by her need to understand why she ended up contracting some of the childhood diseases despite being fully vaccinated, Dr. Tetyana has undertaken a thorough investigation of the available knowledge on vaccination and naturally acquired immunity.  In _Vaccine Illusion_, Dr. Tetyana articulates a science-based view that challenges the mainstream dogma of life-long vaccine immunity.
> **Source:
> https://www.tetyanaobukhanych.com/vaccine_illusion.html
> 
> ...



Yep.




> If vaccines do not work how have we defeated viruses such as Smallpox, Polio, Measles, Whooping Cough, and even Rabies?


I suggest taking a look at the following article by Gary Krasner:
Smallpox  A Historical Perspective | vaccinechoicecanada.com

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Wildrose
> ...


When will you learn that just saying that x or y is true isn't exactly a great way of getting credibility for your claims?

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Wildrose
> ...


I'm glad that you are at least asking a -question- instead of just stating what you believe as if everyone would just automatically agree with you. In answer to your question, I really don't know.

----------


## Wildrose

> How are you so sure, on either count?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you haven't verified something doesn't mean it hasn't been verified.
> 
> 
> ...


So provide the verification for the quote.

----------


## Wildrose

> Yep.
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest taking a look at the following article by Gary Krasner:
> Smallpox – A Historical Perspective | vaccinechoicecanada.com


How about you give a straight answer?



> Originally Posted by *Wildrose* 
> _If vaccines do not work how have we defeated viruses such as Smallpox, Polio, Measles, Whooping Cough, and even Rabies?_

----------


## Wildrose

> When will you learn that just saying that x or y is true isn't exactly a great way of getting credibility for your claims?


You are challenging the credibility of the entire medical and scientific communities.

Exceptional claims require exceptional proof.

A long winded mealy mouthed explanation from a third party that doesn't even give us a single verifiable fact to support their claim doesn't come close.

----------


## Wildrose

> I'm glad that you are at least asking a -question- instead of just stating what you believe as if everyone would just automatically agree with you. In answer to your question, I really don't know.


Then you need to quit presenting it as fact.  Facts are verifiable, can be corroborated, and in science they are repeatable.

----------


## Dan40

Once again,  the (pro-vax) authorities have told us the science said to wear a mask!  Don't wear a mask!  Wear two masks!  Wear one mask!  Wear a N95 mask if they were available,,, (from China)!  And the "SCIENCE" has told us that the vax will provide lifetime immunity! ---'-- A few years immunity! ---------- Some months immunity! ------- No immunity!  You can get and transmit covid WHILE being fully vaxxed! --------- But you might not get as sick or as dead! ---------- You will need a booter,,,,,,,, or boosters!!!       There is no reason anti-vaxxers need to say a thing.  The contradictions by the "authorities" should be enough for anyone even slightly intelligent to be suspicious.  As far as not getting as sick with the vax is concerned, we are now dealing with the Delta variant primarily that means the virus is not as strong.

----------


## Wildrose

> Once again,  the (pro-vax) authorities have told us the science said to wear a mask!  Don't wear a mask!  Wear two masks!  Wear one mask!  Wear a N95 mask if they were available,,, (from China)!  And the "SCIENCE" has told us that the vax will provide lifetime immunity! ---'-- A few years immunity! ---------- Some months immunity! ------- No immunity!  You can get and transmit covid WHILE being fully vaxxed! --------- But you might not get as sick or as dead! ---------- You will need a booter,,,,,,,, or boosters!!!       There is no reason anti-vaxxers need to say a thing.  The contradictions by the "authorities" should be enough for anyone even slightly intelligent to be suspicious.  As far as not getting as sick with the vax is concerned, we are now dealing with the Delta variant primarily that means the virus is not as strong.


I don't remember any claims of lifetime immunity from any of these vaccines.

----------


## Dan40

> I don't remember any claims of lifetime immunity from any of these vaccines.


You seem to miss much.

----------

phoenyx (12-01-2021),WhoKnows (12-01-2021)

----------


## crayons

> You seem to miss much.


Danno Has Won the Thread

----------

phoenyx (12-01-2021),WhoKnows (12-01-2021)

----------


## Jen

> It seems to suppress it I know of a few besides myself and wife who have experiences of getting things we never had before like back to back severe colds, injection site pain 6 months later, stiffness, headaches, constant sinus drainage. ONANDON. Just had another good friend die WAS Healthy, Got the shot, month later got Pneumonia got better enough to get out of the hospital right back in a couple of weeks, They could find no reason for his immune system not stopping the Pneumonia, or why it got progressively worse besides the SHOT. In and out a couple more times and got him.
> 
> I actually think I am starting the cycle, but I had the PNEU 13. not stopping it though, it gets worse every time and lasts longer.


It's possible that the vaccine wrecks the immune system.  I've been fine since having it. I do have that nasal drainage also for some odd reason and I feel like I am coming down with a cold that never materializes.  Sometimes I  lie down and feel like I am about to die.....more tired than I ever thought was possible.

Here is a video I received tonight.  I skipped through it until I got to the part about EDTA cream as something that will allow the body to eliminate the graphene oxide. This may be helpful.

https://sonsoflibertymedia.com/ameri...e-oxide-video/

----------

phoenyx (12-01-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> How are you so sure, on either count?
> 
> Just because you haven't verified something doesn't mean it hasn't been verified.
> That is the most untenable of your claims. It is remotely conceivable that there was a misunderstanding and somehow, Dr. Abramson didn't actually say what Robert Kennedy Jr. quoted him as saying in his book. But your claim that no one will ever be able to verify whether or not Dr. Abramson actually said it stretches credulity to its limit.
> 
> 
> ...


When did I ever say that I had verified the quote? You are the one who asserted that it's a fabrication, therefore it's up to you to -prove- that it is a fabrication. You've never done so, suggesting that you don't really care that much if your claims are actually true.

----------


## phoenyx

> It's possible that the vaccine wrecks the immune system.



Agreed.





> I've been fine since having it. I do have that nasal drainage also for some odd reason and I feel like I am coming down with a cold that never materializes.  Sometimes I  lie down and feel like I am about to die.....more tired than I ever thought was possible.



Doesn't sound like you've actually been fine since having it. 




> Here is a video I received tonight.  I skipped through it until I got to the part about EDTA cream as something that will allow the body to eliminate the graphene oxide. This may be helpful.
> 
> https://sonsoflibertymedia.com/ameri...e-oxide-video/


Thanks for that. For those who'd like to know, the EDTA bit kicks in at about 32 minutes. Looks like they talk for about 18 minutes on that and a few other things, including pine needle tea. Both my father and my stepmother have both gotten Covid shots. Not sure my father would be so keen on treatments, but my stepmother might be, so may bring this up with her. Heck, my ex girlfriend got vaccinated and I was around her soon after that, so might even be helpful for me to some extent.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Wildrose
> ...



My answer is in that article. It's long and nuanced though- I'm imagine if I quoted extensively from it, you'd accuse me of putting up a "wall of text". Not for those who expect all their answers to come in sound bites.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> When will you learn that just saying that x or y is true isn't exactly a great way of getting credibility for your claims?
> 
> 
> 
> You are challenging the credibility of the entire medical and scientific communities.


No, I and others are challenging the -mainstream- medical and scientific communities. There is clearly some within these communities that don't agree with these views. It's also important to note that some people's powers are a lot stronger than others. To give an example, Anthony Fauci played a very strong role in shaping the current understanding of HIV and AIDS and continues to do so. Perhaps you think that he is just misunderstood. Others here think differently on him.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Wildrose
> ...



I never said I had corroborated that quote. -You- are the one who asserted that it was a fabrication, therefore it would be up to -you- to provide proof for your claim.

----------


## Jen

> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't sound like you've actually been fine since having it. 
> 
> 
> ...


The EDTA binds heavy metals which bind to the graphene oxide and all of us are exposed to some heavy metals, so that cream should be helpful.

----------

phoenyx (12-01-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> You seem to miss much.


By all means then provide links to those claims.

----------


## Wildrose

> When did I ever say that I had verified the quote? You are the one who asserted that it's a fabrication, therefore it's up to you to -prove- that it is a fabrication. You've never done so, suggesting that you don't really care that much if your claims are actually true.


It's your assertion, it's up to you to support it with evidence.

----------


## Wildrose

> My answer is in that article. It's long and nuanced though- I'm imagine if I quoted extensively from it, you'd accuse me of putting up a "wall of text". Not for those who expect all their answers to come in sound bites.


That isn't an answer it's a punt.

We have uncontestable proof that vaccines work and work especially well for viral pathogens.

It can be shown directly in the immediate reductions in the spread of diseases like Smallpox and Polio concurrent with vaccination and in the fact that through vaccination, we actually defeated those diseases.

In cases like Covid it is proven when we see the severity and duration of the disease as well as the fatality rates drop by 90% or more for vaccinated populations vs the unvaccinated.

These are not "filth" related diseases, they affected people the same at every level of society as long as they were exposed to carriers.

----------


## Wildrose

> No, I and others are challenging the -mainstream- medical and scientific communities. There is clearly some within these communities that don't agree with these views. It's also important to note that some people's powers are a lot stronger than others. To give an example, Anthony Fauci played a very strong role in shaping the current understanding of HIV and AIDS and continues to do so. Perhaps you think that he is just misunderstood. Others here think differently on him.


You're trying to challenge everything known to both with garbage that isn't supported by any actual science or fact.

There's a reason these "sources" are pariah's in the medical and scientific communities.  They're quacks and frauds.

----------


## Wildrose

> I never said I had corroborated that quote. -You- are the one who asserted that it was a fabrication, therefore it would be up to -you- to provide proof for your claim.


Bullshit, again challenging me to prove a negative.  Either it can be corroborated or it can't.  In this case it can't.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> When did I ever say that I had verified the quote? You are the one who asserted that it's a fabrication, therefore it's up to you to -prove- that it is a fabrication. You've never done so, suggesting that you don't really care that much if your claims are actually true.
> 
> 
> 
> It's your assertion, it's up to you to support it with evidence.


Again, no, it was your assertion, not mine. I'll even quote you making the assertion:



> The quote cannot be verified nor it's original source.



It's now up to you to prove that the quote and its source can't be verified, at least if you care about backing up your assertions.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> My answer is in that article. It's long and nuanced though- I'm imagine if I quoted extensively from it, you'd accuse me of putting up a "wall of text". Not for those who expect all their answers to come in sound bites.
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't an answer it's a punt.


No, you are the one who is punting. Have you even clicked on the link that leads to the article? Just in case you haven't, I'll once again provide it for you:
https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/spec...l-perspective/


Discussions are not just about telling others what you believe. It's also about listening to why others disagree with you.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> No, I and others are challenging the -mainstream- medical and scientific communities. There is clearly some within these communities that don't agree with these views. It's also important to note that some people's powers are a lot stronger than others. To give an example, Anthony Fauci played a very strong role in shaping the current understanding of HIV and AIDS and continues to do so. Perhaps you think that he is just misunderstood. Others here think differently on him.
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to challenge everything known [snip]



I strongly disagree, but feel free to try to prove your assertion.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I never said I had corroborated that quote. -You- are the one who asserted that it was a fabrication, therefore it would be up to -you- to provide proof for your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> [insult removed] [snip]


I find it unfortunate that you have apparently lost your ability to communicate in a civil manner on this issue. Perhaps if you could learn to calm yourself and behave in a more respectful manner, this line of discussion could continue.

----------


## squidward

> Here's the problem. There are many things that can cause individual aspects of AIDS. That is clear in the article.
> 
> That being said, when we look at AIDS, as a systemic illness, and as a whole, there is a commonality with everyone who has it. HIV infection. This is undisputable. 
> 
> "AIDS is caused by infection with HIV. HIV infection has been the only common factor shared by persons with AIDS throughout the world, regardless of sexual preferences, lifestyle, health, sexual practices, age or gender."
> 
> from this article: AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) | Cedars-Sinai
> 
> Yes, someone can get certain symptoms of AIDS individually, as one of the articles posted, but that's not considered to be AIDS. 
> ...


AIDS is simply a syndrome associated with HIV infection, a constellation of signs and symptoms.  
And yes there are many causes for acquired immunodeficiency syndromes, only one of which is HIV. 
"AIDS" has been hallmarked into the psyche via the media, not unlike the common reference to "covid positive" , when in reality it is "SARS-Co-V2 positive". Covid is the syndrome.

----------

JustPassinThru (12-01-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> Again, no, it was your assertion, not mine. I'll even quote you making the assertion:
> 
> 
> 
> It's now up to you to prove that the quote and its source can't be verified, at least if you care about backing up your assertions.


You produced it to support your argument.  It's up to you to provide the verification, not me.

Can you prove the quote is accurate and who the original source is?  Of course not.

----------


## nonsqtr

> I find it unfortunate that you have apparently lost your ability to communicate in a civil manner on this issue. Perhaps if you could learn to calm yourself and behave in a more respectful manner, this line of discussion could continue.


Apparently your ideas don't rate.

And as a control freak, you fail.

----------


## Wildrose

> No, you are the one who is punting. Have you even clicked on the link that leads to the article? Just in case you haven't, I'll once again provide it for you:
> https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/spec...l-perspective/
> 
> 
> Discussions are not just about telling others what you believe. It's also about listening to why others disagree with you.


This isn't about belief or emotion.  When you are going to figure that out?  Neither figures into any equation or theory.  We're discussing science, not religion or philosophy.

----------


## Wildrose

> AIDS is simply a syndrome associated with HIV infection, a constellation of signs and symptoms.  
> And yes there are many causes for acquired immunodeficiency syndromes, only one of which is HIV. 
> "AIDS" has been hallmarked into the psyche via the media, not unlike the common reference to "covid positive" , when in reality it is "SARS-Co-V2 positive". Covid is the syndrome.


Now you're just making shit up willy nilly.  Covid is a virus causing the current pandemic.  If you are "covid positive" you have the virus.

The symptoms and severity differ from patient to patient, but the disease and it's cause are the same.

SARS is a cluster of symptoms in acute patients infected with "Covid".  

AIDS has only one definition and only one cause, HIV.  The cluster of symptoms and infections associated with it are due to the gradual destruction of the Human Immune system by the HIV virus.

----------


## squidward

> Covid is a virus causing the current pandemic.  If you are "covid positive" you have the virus.


Covid is not the virus. Go back to bed.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Again, no, it was your assertion, not mine. I'll even quote you making the assertion:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, I did not make the assertion that the quote cannot be verified. That would be you. So, can you prove your claim?

----------


## Wildrose

> No, I did not make the assertion that the quote cannot be verified. That would be you. So, can you prove your claim?


Are you seriuously going to play this game all night?

You posted it as fact, yet it's completely unverifiable.  Not me.

----------


## Wildrose

> I strongly disagree, but feel free to try to prove your assertion.


Again?  You are making claims that are not supported anywhere in science or by the medical community, that's why yourself and your "sources" are seen as lunatics.

We've got a hundred years of virology and about 70 of immunology and epidemiology that stands in the face of you and your crackpot theories.

There is no science that supports your claims at all.

----------


## Wildrose

> Covid is not the virus. Go back to bed.


Do tell?  What is the virus causing the current ongoing pandemic?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Olin Live: Covid Vaxxers Are Developing A.I.D.S. (Bloodwork Proof)
> 
> 
> I've heard the "vaccines" destroy your immune system, is this proof


None that I have.

And there have been few cases of blood work done on Jabbed sickies.  Because NOBODY WANTS TO KNOW.

Some European and some American contrarian physicians have noted similarities.  What the Jab does, apparently, is disable the natural immune system to allow the mRNA to go to work making an alien particle, the spike protein, that's apparently supposed to benefit the body somehow.  But, by all indications, does not.

----------

WarriorRob (12-01-2021)

----------


## squidward

> Do tell?  What is the virus causing the current ongoing pandemic?


SARS-COV-2. 
There is no virus known as Covid.
Sorry Charlie

----------


## Wildrose

> SARS-COV-2. 
> There is no virus known as Covid.
> Sorry Charlie


"Covid" is the abbreviated form or SARS-COV-2.

COV is shot for "Corona Virus.

COVID-19 Definition  Meaning - Merriam-Webster




> *COVID-19*
> 
> noun
> \ ˈkō-vid-nīn-ˈtēn 
> variants: _or less commonly_ Covid-19 _or_ covid-19 _or_ _COVID \_ ˈkō-​vid 
> 
> 
> _ \ or Covid or covid_
> 
> ...


Care to continue making a fool of yourself?

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> No, I did not make the assertion that the quote cannot be verified. That would be you. So, can you prove your claim?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously going to play this game all night? [snip]


This is tedious, but one more try. You stated the following:
"_The quote cannot be verified nor it's original source._"

Source:
https://thepoliticsforums.com/thread...=1#post2928028


I am simply asking you to prove your assertion that the quote can't be verified.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree, but feel free to try to prove your assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> Again? [snip]



I've never seen this proof that you seem to be claiming you have provided.

----------


## Wildrose

> This is tedious, but one more try. You stated the following:
> "_The quote cannot be verified nor it's original source._"
> 
> Source:
> https://thepoliticsforums.com/thread...=1#post2928028
> 
> 
> I am simply asking you to prove your assertion that the quote can't be verified.


We've already been over this in detail have you forgotten already?  It cannot be found at the original source or any of the other sources such as CDC, NIID, or NIH.

There is nothing at all which supports the claim being made by the author.

You made the argument using that quote to bolster your position but since it can't be verified it has no credibility.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> This is tedious, but one more try. You stated the following:
> "_The quote cannot be verified nor it's original source._"
> 
> Source:
> https://thepoliticsforums.com/thread...=1#post2928028
> I am simply asking you to prove your assertion that the quote can't be verified.
> ...



Apparently, you've gotten mixed up with another discussion we've been having. You may want to click on the link above to get back on track.

----------


## Wildrose

> This is tedious, but one more try. You stated the following:
> "_The quote cannot be verified nor it's original source._"
> 
> Source:
> https://thepoliticsforums.com/thread...=1#post2928028
> 
> 
> I am simply asking you to prove your assertion that the quote can't be verified.





> _“The first step is to give up the illusion that the primary purpose of modern medical research is to improve Americans’ health most effectively and efficiently. In our opinion, the primary purpose of commercially funded clinical research is to maximize financial return on investment, not health.” —John Abramson, M.D., Harvard Medical School_


Ok so where does this quote appear other than the cited book?  How can it be verified?

----------


## squidward

> "Covid" is the abbreviated form or SARS-COV-2.
> 
> COV is shot for "Corona Virus.


You left off the ""ID".
It stands for something.

----------


## Wildrose

> You left off the ""ID".
> It stands for something.


There is no ID in SARS-COV-2.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> You stated the following:
> "_The quote cannot be verified nor it's original source._"
> 
> Source:
> https://thepoliticsforums.com/thread...=1#post2928028
> 
> ...



I never said it appeared anywhere else.





> How can it be verified?



I think most people would be satisfied if Abramson himself said that he said it. It's good that you are asking questions, but you are deviating from the point I was making. You claimed that the quote couldn't be verified. Since you made the assertion, it fell upon you to provide proof that it was true.

----------

WhoKnows (12-02-2021)

----------


## squidward

> There is no ID in SARS-COV-2.


No shit sherlock, you were talking about the word covid.

----------


## WhoKnows

> No shit sherlock, you were talking about the word covid.


Don't bother with him. He's going to turn you around every which, way to prove to himself he's right, and take you down the rabbit hole with him if you let him. He knows what he knows, and that's all he knows. And all he wants to know.

----------


## squidward

> Don't bother with him. He's going to turn you around every which, way to prove to himself he's right, and take you down the rabbit hole with him if you let him. He knows what he knows, and that's all he knows. And all he wants to know.


Its fun to watch him crow over things he really doesn't understand.

----------

WhoKnows (12-02-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Its fun to watch him crow over things he really doesn't understand.


I don't find it fun, but I do think he needs to be corrected. I can easily imagine him persuading impressionable minds.

----------

squidward (12-02-2021),WhoKnows (12-02-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> I never said it appeared anywhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think most people would be satisfied if Abramson himself said that he said it. It's good that you are asking questions, but you are deviating from the point I was making. You claimed that the quote couldn't be verified. Since you made the assertion, it fell upon you to provide proof that it was true.


Well then by all means contact him.  Until then it remains unverifiable.

You brought it up, it's up to you to support it, not me.

----------


## WhoKnows

> Ok so where does this quote appear other than the cited book?  How can it be verified?


LMAO...let me get this straight. Dr. Abramson is quoted saying something in a book, that is cited, and you want further verification that he actually said that? By asking someone on these forums to contact Dr. Abramson personally to ask him if he said what's quoted in a book, by him, and cited there? 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...now I know you're just entertaining yourself. Good God, wow...

----------


## Wildrose

> No shit sherlock, you were talking about the word covid.


No I wasn't dumbass.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I never said it appeared anywhere else.
> I think most people would be satisfied if Abramson himself said that he said it. It's good that you are asking questions, but you are deviating from the point I was making. You claimed that the quote couldn't be verified. Since you made the assertion, it fell upon you to provide proof that it was true.
> 
> 
> 
> Well then by all means contact him. Until then it remains unverifiable.



I think you've now established that you simply don't understand the meaning of the word "unverifiable". Allow me to explain:
"Not capable of being verified, confirmed, checked or proven."

Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/unverifiable


You seem to think that the word means unverified, which is very different.

----------


## Wildrose

> I think you've now established that you simply don't understand the meaning of the word "unverifiable". Allow me to explain:
> "Not capable of being verified, confirmed, checked or proven."
> 
> Source:
> https://www.wordnik.com/words/unverifiable
> 
> 
> You seem to think that the word means unverified, which is very different.


No, it's your assertion that he said it, not mine.  You're responsible for buttressing your arguments with facts, not me.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I think you've now established that you simply don't understand the meaning of the word "unverifiable". Allow me to explain:
> 
> "Not capable of being verified, confirmed, checked or proven."
> Source:
> https://www.wordnik.com/words/unverifiable
> You seem to think that the word means unverified, which is very different.
> ...


I have been talking about -your- assertion for a while now. Perhaps third time will be the charm. From the top:
You stated the following:
"_The quote cannot be verified nor it's original source._"

Source:
https://thepoliticsforums.com/thread...=1#post2928028


I am simply asking you to prove your assertion that the quote can't be verified.

----------


## squidward

> No I wasn't dumbass.





> "Covid" is the abbreviated form or SARS-COV-2.
> 
> COV is shot for "Corona Virus.


yes you were. 
You suck at this game.

----------

WhoKnows (12-03-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> yes you were. 
> You suck at this game.


_"SARS-COV-2.", followed by, "__COV is short for "Corona Virus.

_If you can't comprehend what is being said, perhaps a retry at the 4th grade would be helpful.

----------


## squidward

> _"SARS-COV-2.", followed by, "__COV is short for "Corona Virus.
> 
> _If you can't comprehend what is being said, perhaps a retry at the 4th grade would be helpful.


.
There is an "ID" in COVID that stands for something. 
Again, stop while you're behind. It's getting embarrassing.

----------


## Wildrose

> .
> There is an "ID" in COVID that stands for something. 
> Again, stop while you're behind. It's getting embarrassing.


Where is the ID in _"SARS-COV-2."_

----------


## squidward

> Where is the ID in _"SARS-COV-2."_


dementia much ?
you were defending your position that there is a virus known as COVID.

Now I understand that SARS-COV-2 and COVID-19 share the "COV", and how you could be so easily confused, but you are wrong. 

SARS-COV-2 is the virus. 
COVID is not the name of any virus. 

you were, and still are wrong.
Admit you don't know what you're talking about and you won't have to embarrass yourself further. 


You were wrong. Go home.

----------

phoenyx (12-04-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> dementia much ?
> you were defending your position that there is a virus known as COVID.
> 
> Now I understand that SARS-COV-2 and COVID-19 share the "COV", and how you could be so easily confused, but you are wrong. 
> 
> SARS-COV-2 is the virus. 
> COVID is not the name of any virus. 
> 
> you were, and still are wrong.
> ...


And it still appears you cannot read even at a 4th grade level.  Unfortunately I don't think I can dumb it down any further.

Covid is nothing but an abbreviation of "Covid-19" which means "Corona Virus Discovered in 2019.

When it was identified as causing Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome like another virus from 2007, the official designation became SARS-COV-2.  There is no ID in SARS-Cov-2.

If you insist on further making a fool of yourself however I'm not going to stand in your way.

----------


## squidward

> And it still appears you cannot read even at a 4th grade level.  Unfortunately I don't think I can dumb it down any further.
> 
> Covid is nothing but an abbreviation of "Covid-19" which means "Corona Virus Discovered in 2019.
> 
> When it was identified as causing Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome like another virus from 2007, the official designation became SARS-COV-2.  There is no ID in SARS-Cov-2.
> 
> If you insist on further making a fool of yourself however I'm not going to stand in your way.


SARS-COV-2 is the virus.
COVID-19 is the clinical disease.
The most uninformed are always the most proud of themselves, sad

----------

phoenyx (12-04-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> SARS-COV-2 is the virus.
> COVID-19 is the clinical disease.
> The most uninformed are always the most proud of themselves, sad


Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome is the "Disease", a coronavirus identified as "Covid" colloquially and SARS-COV-2 scientifically is the virus that causes it.

SARS | Basics Factsheet | CDC

When you test positive for "Covid" you're testing positive for the virus.

You continue going to extreme efforts to make a fool of yourself and you're succeeding.

----------


## squidward

> When you test positive for "Covid" you're testing positive for the virus.


nobody tests positive for covid-19. They test positive for SARS-COV-2. That is the name of the virus. 
Do you get confused over Kleenex too ?

----------

WhoKnows (12-05-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> nobody tests positive for covid-19. They test positive for SARS-COV-2. That is the name of the virus. 
> Do you get confused over Kleenex too ?


This level of ignorance cannot be accidental.  You are useless, and utterly hopeless, and nothing but an ignorant troll.

"Covid Testing".

Different types of COVID-19 tests explained

----------


## WhoKnows

> Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome is the "Disease", a coronavirus identified as "Covid" colloquially and SARS-COV-2 scientifically is the virus that causes it.
> 
> SARS | Basics Factsheet | CDC
> 
> When you test positive for "Covid" you're testing positive for the virus.
> 
> You continue going to extreme efforts to make a fool of yourself and you're succeeding.


Wrong again. You just can't help yourself, can you? 

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) - Symptoms and causes - Mayo Clinic

----------

squidward (12-06-2021)

----------


## WhoKnows

> SARS-COV-2 is the virus.
> COVID-19 is the clinical disease.
> The most uninformed are always the most proud of themselves, sad


That is true and fact. 

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) - Symptoms and causes - Mayo Clinic

----------

squidward (12-06-2021)

----------


## squidward

> This level of ignorance cannot be accidental.  You are useless, and utterly hopeless, and nothing but an ignorant troll.
> 
> "Covid Testing".
> 
> Different types of COVID-19 tests explained


Oooh, you said troll. Cute

----------

WhoKnows (12-06-2021)

----------


## WhoKnows

> Oooh, you said troll. Cute


Notice how he hasn't returned to this thread. Sure as shit, he's been reading it, but when he is shown to be 100% wrong in a thread, he somehow evaporates only to be proven wrong in another thread. It's laughable at best, and pathological at worst.

----------

squidward (12-06-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> Wrong again. You just can't help yourself, can you? 
> 
> Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) - Symptoms and causes - Mayo Clinic


A Covid test tests for the presence of the Virus.

----------


## Wildrose

> Notice how he hasn't returned to this thread. Sure as shit, he's been reading it, but when he is shown to be 100% wrong in a thread, he somehow evaporates only to be proven wrong in another thread. It's laughable at best, and pathological at worst.


Different types of COVID-19 tests explained

Lean something for a change.

----------


## 12icer

> Don't bring things up for discussion if you don't want to discuss them.
> 
> I'm not now, nor ever have pushed any vaccine on anyone.
> 
> Let me try one more time, did they run any cultures and did they identify the causative agent?
> 
> No vaccine can cover every possible threat, that's just a fact of immunology and pharmacology.
> 
> Only one thing can cause AIDS, that is HIV.
> ...


Read the post, don't ASS-U_ME, I don't need your lecture you don't have the needed expertise. 
Next the idea is FACTS stated and the reality of consequences of an action you support. 
I have no idea what you think AIDs is HIV can cause acquired immune deficiency, as can other things. NOT the HIV/AIDS from any transfer of infected viral agents, but the same effective aids from the destruction/suppression of the system that produces the reactive response cells in our immune system.
I don't need the Mayo clinic to look up something.
I had a friend who was a Hemophiliac that was infected with HIV through a transfusion. He, his wife and his 12 year old daughter all died of the HIV (AIDS). 
I learned quite a lot some people never will know about the depth of infiltration into a cell that some things have and some people's resistance to that infiltration and some peoples lack of the same. 
Now if you read (pt)  the post you found the answer to the testing my friend went through. 

Now you can read this for the answer to AIDS/HIV and aids by other things like Chemo drugs. 

Immunodeficiency Disorders: Types, Symptoms, and Diagnosis (healthline.com)

----------

WhoKnows (12-07-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> Read the post, don't ASS-U_ME, I don't need your lecture you don't have the needed expertise. 
> Next the idea is FACTS stated and the reality of consequences of an action you support. 
> I have no idea what you think AIDs is HIV can cause acquired immune deficiency, as can other things. NOT the HIV/AIDS from any transfer of infected viral agents, but the same effective aids from the destruction/suppression of the system that produces the reactive response cells in our immune system.
> I don't need the Mayo clinic to look up something.
> I had a friend who was a Hemophiliac that was infected with HIV through a transfusion. He, his wife and his 12 year old daughter all died of the HIV (AIDS). 
> I learned quite a lot some people never will know about the depth of infiltration into a cell that some things have and some people's resistance to that infiltration and some peoples lack of the same. 
> Now if you read (pt)  the post you found the answer to the testing my friend went through. 
> 
> Now you can read this for the answer to AIDS/HIV and aids by other things like Chemo drugs. 
> ...


AIDs is a specific disease caused only by HIV.

There is no evidence to suggest that Vaccination causes the destruction of the immune system, if it did we'd have all died out decades ago as mass vaccination swept the globe.

There are lots of other immune disorders by they are not aids.

----------


## 12icer

You didn't read the link!!!  
(CP)
*Key points*


Immunodeficiency disorders disrupt your body’s ability to defend itself against bacteria, viruses, and parasites.There are two types of immunodeficiency disorders: those you are born with (primary), and those that are acquired (secondary).Anything that weakens your immune system can lead to a secondary immunodeficiency disorder.

                                                                                                                                           (ENDCP)
This thread is not about general vaccination, it is about a particular somewhat ineffective vaccination that has many unknown side effects for millions of people that is being forced upon many without the complete panel of side effect facts being presented.  

And it is possible that it may cause a disorder that can be caused by many things not just the HIV virus. 

Your little game of leftist twist, IE the definition vs the nomenclature of the SYNDROME caused by many different types of infiltration is laughable. 

Your argument is basically the same as a burn by a match is not the SAME as a burn by lighter even in the same place with the same thickness of burn same surface area and same amount of tissue damage. Oh let me add with no infiltration of foreign chemicals from the chemical reaction of the match to be sure.

HEHEHEHEH!!

As an afterthought, sorry but it is a waste of time to respond to these infantile word games with no actual substance behind them anymore it is just wasted bandwidth. The facts are people are dying, losing their ability to continue with their lives as they were pre vaccination, and the vaccine is not effective at preventing the targeted illness. Therefore, ANY rant to support a view that these things are not happening as they unfold in realtime is of little value to a person that is suffering from a side effect of the nonvaccine, especially from any other person who has no clue to the FACTS of their experience.

Those are facts, the banter used to assault anyone who introduces the FACTS of their experience, along with the possibly suppressed by the government information is a waste of time and misdirection from the subject of the real problems we the people are having daily with the current treasonous group of miscreants trying to subjugate us.

----------

