– Why has there been no AIDS epidemic in Europe or North America, despite repeated predictions over the last 25 years?
– Where is the vaccine against HIV that’s been “just around the corner” since 1985?
– What’s happened to the tens of billions of dollars invested in AIDS over the last 25 years?
– How did Africa manage to double its population in the last two decades while we were told the continent was drowning in disaster?
– How did Uganda become one of the fastest-growing countries today, even though it’s been hit harder by HIV/AIDS than any other African nation? And how did it overcome the epidemic without AIDS drugs?
– Why has the discoverer of HIV, Prof. Luc Montagnier, declared that “someone with a good immune system can get rid of HIV within a few weeks”?
Have you ever asked yourself these or other questions? Do you wonder why there are so few critical comments about HIV/AIDS in the public discourse? Are you curious to know who’s profiting from the HIV/AIDS hysteria? AIDS – Cui bono?
Do you suspect we might have been misled or fooled with HIV, just like we were fooled with “swine flu”, “bird flu”, “mad-cow disease” and other epidemics that failed to materialise?
You’ll remember the big row that developed over the question of whether HIV causes AIDS. G&LH carried an article by John Lauritsen, the well-known American “AIDS dissident”, and Digital Journal reported on that, and got oodles of comments below the story.
The Vienna conference is being held on 16–17 July (Friday and Saturday of this week).
John Lauritsen told me what his role would be. “Among other things I’ll argue that the AIDS holocaust didn’t just happen, but is based on ancient superstition – ultimately the taboo on sex between males in the Holiness Code of Leviticus. Also, of course, the AIDS holocaust rests on the huge profits of the AIDS Industry.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
We welcome lively and challenging comments. However, please try to stay on topic, be polite and do not use abusive, racist or sexist language, and do not incite your readers to violence or other antisocial behaviour, or your comment will be deleted. This isn't censorship: it's a case of staying within the bounds of decency and having an eye to the law, although we realise the law will be different in different countries.
We do not bar anonymous comments at the moment, but we would prefer that those commenting play fair and use their name or at least a regular nom de plume. It does show a confidence in your convictions. We know, too, that it's easy to use a false name and be effectively anonymous, but, again, we appeal to your sense of good practice. Even a wacky nom de plume is better, since at least readers will come to know that contributor and maybe remember her or his previous comments.
Blatant commercial advertising will be removed.
Comments should not be construed as necessarily the policy or opinion of the Pink Triangle Trust.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.