If I may, I wish to reply to Christophe's last reply to me on Thread 52.
Christophe - you said:
"Thanks, Scotlyn. I have no doubt that all kinds of medically approved drugs and new environmental toxins have contributed heavily to the recent astronomical surge in autoimmune disorders. Certainly, amyl nitrate and nitrite usage have been tough on the bodies subjected to it. Since I haven't read Kennedy's book, I have no idea how he lays out the case against amyl nitrite. As a contributing factor to overall immune system stress and degradation, I would heartily agree. As the actual cause of the AIDS pandemic, it just doesn't line up with the people who actually came down with AIDS. I'd be quite surprised to discover that South African diamond miners are among the highest users of poppers, but, hey, I could be totally wrong about that.
I also wouldn't be at all surprised if dirty needles turned out to be a fairly poor vector for infection. With the peculiar homophobic panic that AIDS unleashed in the West, admitting to intravenous drug use was preferable to acknowledging even the slightest gay leanings, so a lot of "documented" cases of infection by dirty needles may have covered over a myriad of other sins.
— Christophe"
Christophe, Thank you for this. I have to say that I have not read Kennedy's book, so I have no idea how he covered the issue. What I have done is read a great many of the original writings by the AIDS sceptics who were questioning the pharmaceutical's established narrative in the 80's, naming HIV as the cause of AIDS, making a positive HIV test a death sentence. They queried the way in which this narrative made it possible to establish a "standard of care" requiring highly toxic meds (which had been rejected for the treatment of cancer for being too toxic!!) to be prescribed to people otherwise healthy, but testing positive for HIV. Which led to the bait-and-switch that keeps such narratives going. Even if the meds are what sicken or kill you, well you were going to die of AIDS anyway, so that is the only thing you could officially die OF once you had gotten a positive HIV test.
At that time a massive "close down the sceptics" operation (quite similar in almost all respects to the "close down the Covid fox sceptics" operation) went into effect. My first encounter with this was a post a few years back lamenting how Lynn Margulis (she of the symbiosis theory of eukaryote origin fame) had gone to the dark side with her "AIDS denialism". Well, Margulis was a great scientist, who spent 40 years "hanging out" with microbes and getting to know them in massive detail, and this remark struck me as needlessly flippant and dismissive.
In any case, the contentiousness of the "HIV=AIDS" narrative is often forgotten, and THE GAY MEN WHO QUESTIONED THAT NARRATIVE almost are erased from history. Some of this history is treated of here. https://oxsci.org/a-tainted-past-the-history-of-hiv/
Anyway, the upshot is that (I'm quite sure) the protect-the-narrative activists wanted to reduce the sides to easily dismissed soundbites, and "amyl nitrates" are both: 1. suitably scary to non users, and 2. suitably common enough to be dismissed as a hazard by users This makes the contextless "amyl nitrates" a perfect non-battleground to keep people arguing about, and prevent them from becoming curious and learning something new, and (horrors!) questioning the pharmaceutical narrative.
All I'm saying is, please do not get bogged down there.
You say "As the actual cause of the AIDS pandemic, it just doesn't line up with the people who actually came down with AIDS. I'd be quite surprised to discover that South African diamond miners are among the highest users of poppers, but, hey, I could be totally wrong about that."
Actually here you put your own finger on the central fact for all of the "HIV=AIDS" sceptics. AIDS itself was too poorly defined, and affected too many disparate groups with totally different exposure profiles, to HAVE a single cause. As one sceptic (I can't call a name to mind just now) said (paraphrase) "AIDS is a catch all name that can be used instead of over 30 already well defined diseases when they are diagnosed in the context of a positive HIV test. So it turns out that if you have (say) Kaposi's Sarcoma in the context of a negative HIV test, you have Kaposi's Sarcoma. If you have (say) Kaposi's Sarcoma in the context of a positive HIV test, you have AIDS. And so on down a long list of already well defined diseases. But there is no clinical description of AIDS that does not include at least one of these already well defined diseases."
Anyway, there IS a story here, but the story is NOT "the gay plague was a punishment on gays for being too fond of poppers". I think, if you set your mind to it, you will find a great many eye-openers.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2022-08-09 08:19 pm (UTC)Christophe - you said:
"Thanks, Scotlyn. I have no doubt that all kinds of medically approved drugs and new environmental toxins have contributed heavily to the recent astronomical surge in autoimmune disorders. Certainly, amyl nitrate and nitrite usage have been tough on the bodies subjected to it. Since I haven't read Kennedy's book, I have no idea how he lays out the case against amyl nitrite. As a contributing factor to overall immune system stress and degradation, I would heartily agree. As the actual cause of the AIDS pandemic, it just doesn't line up with the people who actually came down with AIDS. I'd be quite surprised to discover that South African diamond miners are among the highest users of poppers, but, hey, I could be totally wrong about that.
I also wouldn't be at all surprised if dirty needles turned out to be a fairly poor vector for infection. With the peculiar homophobic panic that AIDS unleashed in the West, admitting to intravenous drug use was preferable to acknowledging even the slightest gay leanings, so a lot of "documented" cases of infection by dirty needles may have covered over a myriad of other sins.
— Christophe"
Christophe,
Thank you for this. I have to say that I have not read Kennedy's book, so I have no idea how he covered the issue. What I have done is read a great many of the original writings by the AIDS sceptics who were questioning the pharmaceutical's established narrative in the 80's, naming HIV as the cause of AIDS, making a positive HIV test a death sentence. They queried the way in which this narrative made it possible to establish a "standard of care" requiring highly toxic meds (which had been rejected for the treatment of cancer for being too toxic!!) to be prescribed to people otherwise healthy, but testing positive for HIV. Which led to the bait-and-switch that keeps such narratives going. Even if the meds are what sicken or kill you, well you were going to die of AIDS anyway, so that is the only thing you could officially die OF once you had gotten a positive HIV test.
At that time a massive "close down the sceptics" operation (quite similar in almost all respects to the "close down the Covid fox sceptics" operation) went into effect. My first encounter with this was a post a few years back lamenting how Lynn Margulis (she of the symbiosis theory of eukaryote origin fame) had gone to the dark side with her "AIDS denialism". Well, Margulis was a great scientist, who spent 40 years "hanging out" with microbes and getting to know them in massive detail, and this remark struck me as needlessly flippant and dismissive.
In any case, the contentiousness of the "HIV=AIDS" narrative is often forgotten, and THE GAY MEN WHO QUESTIONED THAT NARRATIVE almost are erased from history. Some of this history is treated of here. https://oxsci.org/a-tainted-past-the-history-of-hiv/
Anyway, the upshot is that (I'm quite sure) the protect-the-narrative activists wanted to reduce the sides to easily dismissed soundbites, and "amyl nitrates" are both:
1. suitably scary to non users, and
2. suitably common enough to be dismissed as a hazard by users
This makes the contextless "amyl nitrates" a perfect non-battleground to keep people arguing about, and prevent them from becoming curious and learning something new, and (horrors!) questioning the pharmaceutical narrative.
All I'm saying is, please do not get bogged down there.
You say "As the actual cause of the AIDS pandemic, it just doesn't line up with the people who actually came down with AIDS. I'd be quite surprised to discover that South African diamond miners are among the highest users of poppers, but, hey, I could be totally wrong about that."
Actually here you put your own finger on the central fact for all of the "HIV=AIDS" sceptics. AIDS itself was too poorly defined, and affected too many disparate groups with totally different exposure profiles, to HAVE a single cause. As one sceptic (I can't call a name to mind just now) said (paraphrase) "AIDS is a catch all name that can be used instead of over 30 already well defined diseases when they are diagnosed in the context of a positive HIV test. So it turns out that if you have (say) Kaposi's Sarcoma in the context of a negative HIV test, you have Kaposi's Sarcoma. If you have (say) Kaposi's Sarcoma in the context of a positive HIV test, you have AIDS. And so on down a long list of already well defined diseases. But there is no clinical description of AIDS that does not include at least one of these already well defined diseases."
Anyway, there IS a story here, but the story is NOT "the gay plague was a punishment on gays for being too fond of poppers". I think, if you set your mind to it, you will find a great many eye-openers.
Be well, stay free!