AIDS Is A Racial Disease

[Les]

Charlie Sheen says paid millions to blackmailers to keep HIV secret
http://arynews.tv/en/charlie-sheen-says-paid-millions-to-blackmailers-to-keep-hiv-secret/
November 18, 2015 @ 2:03 PM
by Reuters
Published in Entertainment
Be the first to comment!

Charlie Sheen, the wayward star of U.S. television comedy “Two and A Half Men,” said on Tuesday he was diagnosed as HIV positive some four years ago and had been extorted for more than $10 million to keep the information quiet.

Sheen, 50, told NBC’s “Today” TV show he was speaking out because he was being blackmailed, and to refute tabloid reports that he has AIDS and was spreading it to others.

“I have to put a stop to this onslaught, this barrage of attacks and of subtruths and very harmful and mercurial stories,” he said.

“I am here to admit that I am in fact HIV positive,” Sheen said, adding he was “not entirely sure” how he contracted the virus.

[EzraLB]

The article on Charlie Sheen states that he was "diagnosed" as HIV positive. Testing positive on one of the many HIV tests is not a "diagnosis" because being HIV positive is not a disease. And those tests are notoriously inaccurate, often giving false-positive results.

As "TheAryanPathtoHELL" commented earlier in this thread, HIV does not cause AIDS. In fact, prior to the whole HIV=AIDS fear porn, no retro-virus was was ever known to cause any disease in humans, and despite the propaganda campaign, that is still the case.

Yes, the AIDS syndrome is real--immune compromised people die from any number of those opportunistic diseases, and yes, sodomites dominate the AIDS cases because of their disgusting and degenerate lifestyle.

The problem is that about 20% of all AIDS cases involve people who do not test positive for HIV, which can mean only one thing--if you can develop AIDS without HIV, then HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS.

Charlie Sheen may eventually die of AIDS, but not because he's HIV positive. If he listens to his quack jewish doctors, they will put him on radical ARVs (Anti-Retro-Viral drugs) which will destroy his immune system and leave him susceptible to opportunistic AIDS-like diseases. If that happens, his doctors will say, "We did everything we could, but the AIDS virus killed him."

And Charlie Sheen, the marrano knucklehead that he is, is just stupid enough to do what his doctors tell him.

[Les]

That was one thing that really bothered me...Sheen was called a racist /anti-semite, and only after some time, he revealed his mother was a jew, but one website says he invented that jewishness, only to get out of his predicament with CBS.

I once had a Ukrainian lawyer who was pretendingto be jewish, he changed his name, just to be "accepted" and to make more money.

[Nayto]

if you can develop AIDS without HIV, then HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS.

I disagree with that logic. Just because one can get AIDS without HIV, doesn't mean that HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS.

I have a family member who is a phlebotomist here in South Africa and she has seen enough HIV tests and HIV/AIDS ridden niggers to confirm it for me that the common understanding of the virus and how it works is true. If only she'd quit, LOL.

[EzraLB]

I disagree with that logic. Just because one can get AIDS without HIV, doesn't mean that HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS.

I have a family member who is a phlebotomist here in South Africa and she has seen enough HIV tests and HIV/AIDS ridden niggers to confirm it for me that the common understanding of the virus and how it works is true. If only she'd quit, LOL.

Nayto,
The standard by which AIDS is diagnosed in Africa, more often than not, does not even involve an HIV test, as "The AryanRoadtoHell" pointed out earlier in this thread. See this article again:

http://www.natural-health-information-c ... frica.html

Even the standard HIV tests do NOT test for the presence of the HIV retro-virus--they test for the presence of certain antibodies that they claim are associated with HIV infection. This HIV retro-virus has never been isolated; therefore, they cannot even say with certainty that it exists.

The original electron microscope images of the HIV retro-virus that were published in Science magazine by NIH researcher, Robert Gallo, in the early 80s have been revealed to be fakes.

The reason that negros and other non-Whites are far more likely to test positive on those "HIV" tests is that those antibodies that they test for are naturally more common in non-White populations.

If the HIV tests prove anything, they prove that Whites and non-Whites are biologically different on a basic cellular and genetic basis. Non-Whites have a completely different immune response than do Whites.

I know it's very popular among White Nationalists to point to AIDS infection in non-Whites as proof of their degeneracy, but that has nothing to do with "HIV" infection. Yes, African negros are walking disease factories, but they've been that way long before the HIV retro-virus was discovered.

Keep in mind that women--and that includes Whites--increase their chances of testing positive for HIV each time they become pregnant, even without so-called "risk" factors. Why would that be? The reason is simple--pregnancy creates an immune response because a woman's body perceives the fetus as a foreign body--because genetically only half of it is hers. And the antibodies that a pregnant woman creates against her own fetus sometimes happen to be the same antibodies that they claim are associated with HIV.

For anyone who still believes in the HIV=AIDS myth, I suggest they watch this short interview with Nobel Prize winning microbiologist, Kerry Mullis, who invented the PCR test, a standard used in virology. Mullis is a White man, a North Carolina farm boy, not a jew, and no one has been able to answer his objections to the AIDS paradigm:

[Nayto]

The standard by which AIDS is diagnosed in Africa, more often than not, does not even involve an HIV test, as "The AryanRoadtoHell" pointed out earlier in this thread. See this article again:

http://www.natural-health-information-c ... frica.html

I've been tested myself for insurance purposes and my sister in law is a phlebotomist. The standard by which HIV is diagnosed at least in South Africa is definitely by blood test. Maybe a bit further North things are different. These tests seem to be accurate enough for niggers who arrive in droves having developed AIDS as a result of HIV.

This HIV retro-virus has never been isolated; therefore, they cannot even say with certainty that it exists.

The virus itself has been seen and its activity recreated in petri dishes.

I'm not sure about the difference between its effect on Whites or niggers. I'd sure like to believe that it's more prone to infecting niggers. There might be foul play in the statistics about this topic. I don't know. Having said that, Cape Town in South African is like mini San Francisco as far as sodomites are concerned and I know that HIV is prevalent among them. Even the White ones (assuming they're truly White).

For anyone who still believes in the HIV=AIDS myth

HIV and AIDS are not the same thing. Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is the virus itself. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is the state of having no immune system left because HIV destroyed it. Once someone has AIDS, they are easily killed by a common cold.

After all is said and done though, it's all kind of moot if people practice sexual morality. No one who sticks to one spouse ever has to worry about sexual disease, whether it exists or not.

[EzraLB]

Nayto,
I'm not sure what your source is for claiming that the HIV retro-virus has been seen. As I said, it is on record that first electron microscope images published in Science magazine of "HIV" were fake, as attested to by the technician that took the pictures. He stated that what is in those images is actually just cellular debris, yet Robert Gallo published them anyway and claimed that they were, in fact, the actual HIV retro-virus.

And if those original images were faked, what makes you think that subsequent images are real? There's a huge motivation--financial and political--to continue the deception.

It's no surprise that so many negros in South Africa test positive--on blood tests--for HIV. After all, I explained that the tests show positive results, not for the HIV virus, but for antibodies they only claim are associated with HIV infection--and those antibodies are much more common in negros than in White people.

By stating the "HIV=AIDS" myth, I wasn't claiming that they were one and the same--but merely that the myth is that HIV infection causes AIDS, which it doesn't, as Kerry Mullis points out in the video above.

According to the CDC's own statistics, the chances of a normal White heterosexual man testing positive for HIV is in the tens of millions to one. How could this be if it were a sexually-transmitted virus? All STDs end up spreading into the heterosexual population and become common, such as herpes and HPV. But not HIV. Why?

I'm not sure why you'd think a phlebotomist would be a reliable source on the underlying theory of HIV infection and AIDS. They are, after all, just doing their jobs, and if they rock the boat, they lose their jobs, as have a lot of people who don't go along with the paradigm.

My own father is a retired doctor/surgeon, and he believes/believed that HIV infection causes AIDS. Does that prove it must be true? And yet he does agree with me that there is something fishy about the whole idea...

[Nayto]

Delving deeper into this topic would take more time and reading for me than what I'm willing to give it, so I'll have to respectfully leave it there.

As I said in my last post though, if everyone practices the laws of God, sexually transmitted diseases are a moot point.

If only those whole thing would work quicker and more rapidly kill the niggers

[martin41]

From an earlier post about the jew Gallo
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=5429&p=15443#p15443