I know everybody will scream bloody murder when you challenge the HIV-AIDS link, “settled science” *and all that. And, yeah, I did read The River : A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS, all 1070 pages of it. (Reads like a legal investigation document, and if nothing else you walk away with one hell of a knowledge of vaccine production.)
But I also know plenty of people who tested positive for HIV, and who, 30 years later, are still going strong. So what’s up with that, other than they gave up doing drugs and partying 24/7?
So maybe Duesberg is right, to a greater or lesser degree? And maybe all the AIDS in Africa is really just Cholera billed as AIDS, because that way you get more funding? And maybe the AIDS that is there is the result of Zoonosis, the consequence of DYI oral-vaccine production and trials in the Congo (along with tainted ‘Bush Meat’ consumption), and has probably burnt itself out?
Just saying that this might not be the looming crisis that everybody is making it out to be.
Just a thought.
VicB3
*”Settled Science.” Gee, where have we all read that term before?
This is not the first time the ban has been lifted. They did it circa late 1980s claiming the “test” would eliminate any HIV blood donations. The problem was that the “test” could only test for antibodies and they would not show up for several months after the person was infected and able to transmit the disease. We had a blood donation at work that was PC that I had given regularly to, but when they lifted the ban I chose a safer blood bank and refused to give to them any more. My co-workers were enraged a me, but I could not in clear conscience support such a risky source. Human life meant more to me than “gay feelings”.
“Captain Kangaroo says share”. So does the AIDS and other STD crowd.
This is no change at all, because it allows you to donate blood even if you are gay, unless you are gay in a sexual, rather than a mental, way. Total nonsense, and no threat to anyone.
The objective *should* be to keep the blood supply safe, not to end imagined ‘discrimination.’
Like profiling, donor screening is a pragmatic matter. Donor screening also targets those who may have been exposed to mad-cow disease, hepatitis, Chaga’s Disease, babesiosis, and other blood-borne pathogens, including some in vaccinations that were routine for active members of the military for several years.
Donating blood and blood products is NOT a constitutional right – it is a matter of life and death to the recipients, and an honor for those of us who qualify.
Leftism/liberalism is a death culture. That’s why they embrace the homosexual lifestyle, abortion-on-demand, Islam, Marxism, Communism, Fascism (corporatism), Socialism, climate change, gun-free zones, etc. etc. etc.
Leave a Reply
Discover more from JunkScience.com
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
But then of course HIV may have nothing to do with AIDS:
http://yournewswire.com/10-scientific-reasons-why-hiv-cannot-cause-aids-the-aids-hoax/
http://www.duesberg.com/books/pdbinvent.html
I know everybody will scream bloody murder when you challenge the HIV-AIDS link, “settled science” *and all that. And, yeah, I did read The River : A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS, all 1070 pages of it. (Reads like a legal investigation document, and if nothing else you walk away with one hell of a knowledge of vaccine production.)
But I also know plenty of people who tested positive for HIV, and who, 30 years later, are still going strong. So what’s up with that, other than they gave up doing drugs and partying 24/7?
So maybe Duesberg is right, to a greater or lesser degree? And maybe all the AIDS in Africa is really just Cholera billed as AIDS, because that way you get more funding? And maybe the AIDS that is there is the result of Zoonosis, the consequence of DYI oral-vaccine production and trials in the Congo (along with tainted ‘Bush Meat’ consumption), and has probably burnt itself out?
Just saying that this might not be the looming crisis that everybody is making it out to be.
Just a thought.
VicB3
*”Settled Science.” Gee, where have we all read that term before?
This is not the first time the ban has been lifted. They did it circa late 1980s claiming the “test” would eliminate any HIV blood donations. The problem was that the “test” could only test for antibodies and they would not show up for several months after the person was infected and able to transmit the disease. We had a blood donation at work that was PC that I had given regularly to, but when they lifted the ban I chose a safer blood bank and refused to give to them any more. My co-workers were enraged a me, but I could not in clear conscience support such a risky source. Human life meant more to me than “gay feelings”.
“Captain Kangaroo says share”. So does the AIDS and other STD crowd.
This is no change at all, because it allows you to donate blood even if you are gay, unless you are gay in a sexual, rather than a mental, way. Total nonsense, and no threat to anyone.
The objective *should* be to keep the blood supply safe, not to end imagined ‘discrimination.’
Like profiling, donor screening is a pragmatic matter. Donor screening also targets those who may have been exposed to mad-cow disease, hepatitis, Chaga’s Disease, babesiosis, and other blood-borne pathogens, including some in vaccinations that were routine for active members of the military for several years.
Donating blood and blood products is NOT a constitutional right – it is a matter of life and death to the recipients, and an honor for those of us who qualify.
Leftism/liberalism is a death culture. That’s why they embrace the homosexual lifestyle, abortion-on-demand, Islam, Marxism, Communism, Fascism (corporatism), Socialism, climate change, gun-free zones, etc. etc. etc.