RAW-FOOD Archives

Raw Food Diet Support List

RAW-FOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Axel Makaroff <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Raw Food Diet Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:50:54 -0300
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (76 lines)
At 07:31 23/03/1999 -0800, i wrote:

>> > AIDS DOES NOT EXIST!
>
>> >Alan:
>> I HAVE read the literature and it hasn't proven anything. What we
>> do know is that sleeping with a person with HIV without a condom
>> almost always results in an infection. So how do you explain
>> that? 

axel:

consider that there is *NO* SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, ACCORDING TO THE STANDARD
ACCEPTED METHODS OF VIRUS ISOLATION that the aids virus exist. considering
this, talking about an infection is a joke. condoms, of course, HAVE
ABSOLUTELY, COMPLETELY ZIPPO (sp?), NOTHING, ZERO to do with AIDS
WHATSOEVER, because we do not know IF the critter EXISTS! according to
peter duesberg, world-renowed retrovirus expert, aids is basically caused
by drugs. drugs alone are enough to give you the whole disease. but, also,
it seems that things get REALLY rough when you get into taking anti-aids
medication. 

since we do not if the critter EXISTS (asuming that you believe that the
virus are disease-causing), how could we possible make theories about the
way it is transmited? don´t you find all this funny in a way? this
scientists are very cleaver guys, my god! they came up with a complete plot
and have the whole world buying it!

alan:

 Even the children of mothers infected with HIV are infected
>> and are dying at an early age. How do you explain that?

axel:

i like the aids subject because even _i_ can explain it, it is coherent
statistically, simple. i do not remember the exact figures that explain ALL
cases, but they are easily available from the rethinking aids web site.
probably also from peter duesberg´s web site. 
think about this: when you say: infected with hiv, what you are saying
actually does not exist! how can you say that somebody is infected with
something if we do not know if the something exist? we can not, obviusly.
two: how can you die from something that we do not know if exists? we can
not say so if we are serious. 
i remember that most people that have the aids symptoms before getting into
the aids scare world, are drug users. this is enough from what i have read
to hurt your body making you very toxic and weak and you body is
overwhelmed with toxins, etc. this is one group of people. another group:
people completely healthy that are sadly subjected to death vodoo, told
they have the virus, given deadly medication, get sick, aids symptoms,
death of aids. do you at all get this terryfing world-wide genocide? this
is a very serious current global human problem, considering just how  many
people are involved in the aids death vodoo bs! and how many telling you to
use a condom, while healthy people are given a totally unnecesary death
sentence, for a fantasy that has NO scientific back up whatsoever. i mean,
even some researchers that do believe that viruses are capable of being
involved in diseases, are speaking loudly against the aids hoax.

aids is an unnecesary deadly hoax. the more people that speak out loudly,
the sooner the truth will be known and hopefully less innocent people will
be murdered for a medical falsehood.

i am just saying what i understand of this situation, i am not an expert,
or anything like that, just somebody aware of a different explanation of a
current disease.

again i got carried away, anybody tell me if i am too off-topic and/or
unrespectful.  i just find it very interesting and fascinating how anybody
can basically understand seemingly impossibly complex issues like nutrition
or aids (of course i do not mean that i understand nutrition or health, or
aids, only that it is possible to have a different satisfactory explanation
for something, and it can even make more sense than the current paradigm.

regards,
              axel makaroff

ATOM RSS1 RSS2