Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Welcome...

Firstly I want to say, I do not consider myself a dissident, nor do I identify with the term that the mainstream has coined because of some very logial questions... denialist. My position is that we need to "Rethink" AIDS. We need to allow doctors and researchers to use the scientific process to validate that things do or don't add up, as there are a substantial number of credentialled professionals that essentially have some very important questions regarding the current hypothesis and its validity. I have never used the heresay of personal opinion, nor have I solely relied on dissident science to come to the conclusions I have about the HIV/AIDS establishment.

My feelings are based on taking my questions to the most qualified databases, those of the NIH, NLM, Pub Med, etc.

The amount of research available that more than validates many of the perspectives of those in the dissident movement is staggering. Today there is study after study of the dangers of ARVS. Its shocking to discover that the slowing down of the mitochondria is the sign of all degenerative diseases, whilst discovering that these drugs intentionally slow down the mitochondria. Then I think to myself no wonder some of these mad conspiracy theorists are screaming genocide at the drug makers. If a drug causes the ailments it claims to cure, well that is not a conspiracy now is it. Research the cause of degenerative diseases, and the functions of the drugs, and see for yourself.

Many studies show that children are damaged by these ARV's in the womb. That they manipulate the DNA and the mitochondria which I could easily say are two of the most important building blocks of life. The results of this damage are unseen to the naked eye but can eventually lead to serious nuerological disorders, other health issues, and death. Investigate "Persistent mitochondrial DNA damage in children exposed to ARVS."

There is also a study by the renowned Johns Hopkins University, that shows circumcision does not lower the chance of transmission and might possibly increase it slightly. (This same study also showed that the rate of sexual trasmission was also rather low considering the number of patients used)

Another wonderful study by them showed children who recieved breastmilk by their HIV+ mothers are less likely to be terminal, are less likely to seroconvert, and are more likely to have a healthy life. (This study was done in Africa like many others on over 9,000 women.)

Diverting women from breastfeeding in Africa was about the most horrendous mistake that could be made, as a formula program is practically impossible for people already drinking from contaminated water and who have no income. Many of these children I am sure were poisoned or starved to death and written off as pediatric AIDS deaths. Though the most interesting part of this study showed that formula feeding reduced the thickness of the stomach lining making children MORE prone to seroconverting to HIV because the illedged virus could enter the body more readily in this manner.

Are you also aware that their are 80 different illnesses that cross react on HIV tests. Illnesses with their own health difficulties that do not get treated or addressed upon HIV diagnosis. To top that if you happen to have one of the many AIDS defining illnesses that are also cross reactive on HIV tests, once again the real issue is left untreated and you are given the toxic treatement of ARVS. Some people find some relief when ARVS are administered if they happen to have one of the diseases that ARVS can assist. (Only some are viral which is probably why it has been said by renowned researchers at UCSF that only 35% of patients benefit) ARVS are known to kill certain fungal infections, bacteria, virus, and so forth, but the long term use eventually begins to kill and damage all cells and therefore leading to other causes of death like Liver failure that is not and AIDS defining illness but a byproduct of ARV use. If you happen to have one of the illnesses that are not affected by ARVS you are basically being misdiagnosed and the real health issue is being ignored. Which is the sad truth about the misdiagnosis that is HIV/AIDS. In a study where they put several non-positive people on HAART for 30 days every single participant showed Mitochondrial DNA damage. This is something that was once blamed on HIV/AIDS but is now clearly being seen as a bi-product of ARV use.

Now what if you are a perfectly healthy person who has been diagnosed HIV positive. It is impossible to escape the onslought of stress, depression, fear, anxiety, shame, and all the other toxic emotions that have great potential to affect a persons health. Not to mention being told you are essentially dying when in reality you feel fine and very well could be fine. All those toxic emotions have been verified to cause immunosuppression and illness. In the instance your immunity is down you begin to become susceptible to all kinds of things and all these little things become undeniable aspects of your impending death. This is an extremely horrible place to be. I have been there. Some of us like myself have chosen to embrace our health in spite of the diagnosis that doesn't seem to fit the bill. And now years later my life is normal outside of the stigma and changes caused by being leperized by this misdiagnosis.

I know AIDS patients also who have been going strong never ill, some even without viral load all with T-Cells below 200. What does that say:

HIV/AIDS is a misdiagnosis. We desperately need to RETHINK AIDS. We need to stop categorizing a bunch of illnesses together which essentially endangers patients by treating them all the same way. Every patient is dramatically different. This Virus affects no one the same way. The Defining illnesses are not contracted nor transmitted in the same way... So truly how can anyone say that one virus in the cause for so many dramatically different outcomes. We are dealing with a serious case of misdiagnosis when the hypothesis that we live by is a misdiagnosis in and of itself.

I will be posting more on each of these topics in the future including links to the many studies I have found in the mainstream research fascilities. Stay tuned. Stay in touch. There are so many questions, contradictions, and holes, that eventually I just could no longer deny that there are things that just don't add up. Many things that need to be explored. Many theories that are ridiculed that hold substantial logic. We must investigate, debate, and get to the bottom of this. The fact that the mainstream refuses, unfortunately to my discerning eyes somewhat implies guilt on their part for possibly not being able to live up to the line they have fed us all. Join me in being part of the process to bring these issues forward and to hopefully someday see them resolved.

Thanks So much... much much more to come.

18 comments:

  1. Dear Misdiagnosis,

    I agree with what you have stated in your blog, especially about the testing. I, too, have suffered from an 'AIDS diagnosis' due to a test that is completely unreliable. Unfortunately, I took their drugs for 11 yrs before I found the truth. My story here:
    www.myspace.com/rethinkaids
    ReplyDelete
  2. Very good introduction to HIV misdiagnosis, thanks.
    Can we have the scientific reference for the "study where they put several non-positive people on HAART for 30 days every single participant showed Mitochondrial DNA damage"?
    ReplyDelete
  3. Here is one of them...

    http://www.aegis.com/conferences/lipo/2008/P-63.html
    ReplyDelete
  4. OK, wait a minute. Why are you trying to distance yourself from those who have stood courageously as dissidents to the HIV=AIDS paradigm, some for up to 25 years? Do you dissent from the accepted orthodox view that HIV causes AIDS if it even exists at all? If your answer is yes, you are a dissident.
    ReplyDelete
  5. I think the terms Dissident, and Denialist are propagandist terms that are used to label the people here who are working to fight that this monstrosity ends. They are used to paint us in a negative light. I am not in denial... I am acutely aware of the science that dismantles the current paradigm... I am acutely aware that there are many people in perfect health living with this supposed death sentence, I am aware that others are ill and trying to wrap their heads around the two sides of the story...When in truth they are misdiagnosed and being impoperly treated...I am insulted to be labeled a denialist. Are top virologists, and scientists who question someone elses money making scheme unqualified to ask questions, to call for debate, to investigate their questions? (They aren't allowed on this topic) HIV/AIDS is a misdiagnosis. Because the whole theory is wrong... I am a rethinker. I am asking that this theory be properly investigated. I am not in denial. I am accepting that their is plenty of proof that the medical industry has screwed up before... Why am I dissident because I ask them to seek better answers to a problem that where the current definition stands... things just don't add up...
    ReplyDelete
  6. Michael GeigerSep 25, 2009 09:45 PM
    As much as I abhor any labeling beyond "I am a human being", I think I can agree with your choice of "rethinker" as a preferred descriptive word. It is true, and it stands for instead of against. No doubt at some time in mankind's collective future, we will all become hiv/aids rethinkers.
    ReplyDelete
  7. Labels are horrid... negative labels much worse... propagandist labels no matter what the literal definition is... are well... not something i can identify with. That was in no way an insult to anyone who has worked to expose the truth. Its time for change. Time for another approach... One day we will get there.
    ReplyDelete
  8. Of course you have a right to call yourselves whatever you want. I personally dissent from the fraudulent and pseudoscience HIV=AIDS paradigm and therefore I am a dissident by definition all the way back to the latin. It's not a negative label given to me that paints me in a bad light or even on the same level as "denialist" which isn't even in the dictionary and was constructed to paint us on the same canvas with Holocaust deniers. Many people have overcome adversity calling themselves dissidents to many injustices throughout history. Just as I have always respected an individuals right to personally identify with the word rethink I would appreciate the same respect for those of us who also identify as dissidents as well. "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Winston Churchill
    ReplyDelete
  9. Dissentia (03.30.07)

    Economic wars leave humanity further enslaved,
    Better ways are engraved on the murals,
    In the tombs of ancestor angels,
    In the wombs of our daughters and mothers,

    Destroying or hording natural resources leaves humanity starved,
    Masses of lives carved out of leftovers,
    Bodies too hungry to feed our minds,
    So we feed on violence,
    Our hunger overtaking our willingness to coexist,

    If my life is lost then yours is meaningless,
    So underground economies give us meaning,
    Fuel us with the energies to survive,
    To temporarily thrive,

    These gatekeepers of historical information,
    The freedom of information cannot be an act, is greater than a play,
    It is the foundation of human freedom,
    Truth in abundance,
    False transparency hides a genuine intent,
    Ulterior motives are the death of consent,
    To these things I respectfully dissent.

    Alford G. Harris for Ajaha Publishing
    Copyright 2007

    In response to everything above and to the injustice of HIV/AIDS and the ensuing and ongoing world-wide crimes against humanity and genocide of minorities resulting from hate, greed and fraud in the name of science and health care, I dissent and therefore proud to call myself a dissident. Even the orthodox doesn't allow us the credibility of calling us by a real word that gives legitimacy and power to our position in opposition to their crimes. "Political correctness" be damned when it stops us from naming things as they really are. But in retrospect of this trivial internal debate,

    Who Am I To Judge?

    I have not heard
    the music within your being
    nor felt the rhythm of your life...
    How can I criticize your song
    or even your singing?

    I have not dreamed your dreams
    nor seen your visions
    nor designed your castles...
    How can I say
    you are walking
    in the wrong direction?

    I have not plumbed
    the depths of your feelings
    nor felt the intensity of your needs
    nor known the agony of your hurts...
    How can I say
    you should not cry?

    I have not known the questions
    you have asked
    nor heard the answers you were given
    nor witnessed your encounter with mystery...
    How can I say
    you are not living?

    I have not walked
    the path of your youth
    nor stood at the crossroads of your decisions
    nor journeyed the roads of your daily living...
    How can I say
    your life is not true?

    I have not known
    the pain of your sufferings
    nor the intensity of your battles
    nor the humiliations of your defeats...
    How can I say
    you do not try?

    Yet, My Sister, My Brother,
    These I have both
    said and done.
    Forgive Me!

    Monsignor Bernard Powers
    ReplyDelete
  10. Firstly, thank you for setting up this site. Well, here's my take on the name debate. I pretty much concur with John in his last post. I have been delving into the many flaws of the AIDS orthodoxy for about 15 years and have mostly thought of myself as a dissident based on the definition of the word. I just looked up Wikipedia's choice of definition:

    “A dissident, broadly defined, is a person who actively challenges an established doctrine, policy, or institution.”

    I would say this sums up my stance against the mainstream view on HIV & AIDS. However, how others choose to use the term 'dissident' or any other term I choose to use, is way out of my control.


    I do think that there is a marked difference between the terms dissident and denialist. As far as I know, AIDS 'denialist' is a pretty recent term coined by the orthodoxy to blatantly link rethinkers/dissidents to 'holocaust deniers' in the minds of the public thereby belittling what we are trying to do. To be really honest I think whatever we call ourselves they will do their best to turn that tag into a negative derogatory term.

    As much as I am stoked that this website has been constructed I think the first sentence could have been better served by distancing the words dissident and denialist, for example:

    'Firstly I want to say, I do not consider myself a dissident or (as mainstream science often refers to ‘rethinkers’) a 'denialist'.

    I do think this is important as many of us in the re-thinking community are happy to be coined with the term 'dissident' but I know of no one who would readily call themselves a 'denialist'.

    I think what is really important is that most of us are pretty much 'reading from the same page' and I would hate to see something like a debate over how we choose to term ourselves interfere with any cohesion we have as a united voice continually asking questions and encouraging others to do the same.

    As a side note; I find the use of the term ‘denialist’ completely abhorrent and think in some way we should throw it back in their face by using something along the lines of ‘real’ or ‘true’ ‘AIDS denialist’ when talking about those who perpetuate the orthodox dogma. And who are in essence the true AIDS ‘denialists’.
    ReplyDelete
  11. I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph Grover. I have actually called them the real denialists on many occasions and on many sites. They deny the HIV/AIDS holocaust as a result of fraud, crimes against humanity and genocide committed by pseudoscientists and pharma every day, which includes other known pharma crimes and will continue until they are held accountable.
    ReplyDelete
  12. One last comment from me. "As much as I abhor any labeling beyond "I am a human being" How altruistic of you when the labels apply to you. You've got to be kidding me. Reality check. You forget we've all seen your comments all over the Internet and your site where you even go so far as to label Duesberg and Celia as "Living JEDI," which I personally don't have a problem with, but lets get real Michael, OK?
    ReplyDelete
  13. Dear re-thinkers and/or dissidents

    As I mentioned before, we have to remember that out intention and goal is the same. Of course there is always going to be inter-house debate, which is healthy, but I hope we keep enough focus to make sure we don't invest too much time in sideline conversations that divert us from what is 'really important.

    : )
    ReplyDelete
  14. I suppose above all the word Denialist is the one that appalls me... My goal was not to offend Dissidents. I do Dissent. But none of the terms help me as a pregnant mother trying to convince doctors that I am not going to take ARV's. To hope that that decision is not going to cause me to encounter another situation with CPS. (Largely a scare tactic I believe as they have yet to have a case as my children have all been negative at birth) None of those terms stop me from being identified as somewhat hostile. Also... there are many people who have tried to talk to many in the "Dissident" movement that have felt put off, confused, sometimes even unable to grasp the message. It was a letter of this sort to a good friend that actually inspired me to get moving on this web endeavor finally after being asked for several years. I know one of the first "Dissidents" I spoke to not days after my diagnosis got offended and short with me after I asked "Are you also HIV+" their stance being no one is HIV+. I was already a mess and was trying to understand it all, though I left Africa with my own questions and concerns as things there did not add up either. Luckily I did not just walk away and as a researcher I could not adopt anyones stance until I could back it up with evidence and hard to dispute facts. The papers of Perth, Duesburg, and others... though highly informative and highly respecte by me, in my eyes could not protect me from the mainstream medical establishment. I needed to quote the NIH, I needed to quote the mainstream. Because if I were labelled either of those terms in their eyes, my journey would have been much more difficult. By definition I am the first to quote... "Dissent is true patriotism" and Yes... I dissent to the current Hypothesis that seems to be built on alot of speculation and "amplification." But as a person with a real goal of reaching those who have not yet come to an understanding of what we are trying to say... I distance from labels that make people wish to shut the door, or make people apprehensive cause essentially my mission is to reach and educate exactly those people with evidence that they just cannot ignore. Thanks for all the support... I hope you all a slightly better understanding of my true meaning with that sentence now. I really don't think that message or goal is an insult to "Dissidents". I am sorry if some took offence.
    ReplyDelete
  15. I did decide it was needed to distance the term Dissident from Denialist, and have now done so.
    ReplyDelete
  16. Canada and Germany changed the definition of AIDS, and surprise, surprise, there are way fewer cases in those countries. That is on the "rethinkingaids" (dot) com site. [Since this comment page won't permit the links, I'll put in the domain name in quotation marks, and "dot" in parentheses.]

    It's harder to sell fear when a disease is put into perspective and is clearly not an epidemic. And when the fear level has fallen off, it would be harder to sell universal vaccines. They've been trying for years to develop a vaccine for AIDS but so far the ones that have been announced have not panned out.

    So if you notice the fear-mongering has switched to swine flu, and despite the low death rate, and the fact that it's totally curable with intravenous Vitamin C. {On articles (dot) mercola (dot) com, search for the title "IV Vitamin C Used to Recover Terminal Swine Flu Case".}

    The flu vaccines, ready to be inflicted on everyone (in some U.S. states by force), have been laced with the dangerous adjuvant squalene -- Gulf War Syndrome anyone? (Look up "Vaccine-A + Matsumoto".)

    Some researchers are even questioning whether a virus is actually causing infection or whether it's just a fragment of matter that is a side-effect of the disorder caused by drug addiction or other toxic conditions. Look for "QUESTIONING THE VIRUS-THEORY" at "learninggnm" (dot) com.

    Best of luck to all.
    ReplyDelete
  17. While America adds to the definition so that they catch more cases... Ahhh the irony.

    Yes I have done some research on the questioning of the virus theory and find a substantial amount of weight in there.

    Particularly when recent studies have even suggested that the great flu of the early 20th century was likely due to a bacteria and not a virus. Considering living conditions and adjustments to big city life it is not an irrational concept. Along with the numerous things said to be a virus over the course that have turned out to be environmental, bacterial, parasitic, or just simply defeciencies. Interesting indeed I do hope to dedicate some time to this once I have completed gathering my research for the site.
    ReplyDelete
  18. Good job!

    How refreshing to see an open mind at work.

    Here is some of my work on AIDS. Your work is referenced.

    Thanks.

    http://healthyprotocols.com/2_aids.htm
    ReplyDelete