View Full Version : Pictures of HIV

March 29th, 2009, 11:55 PM
Hi all! This is my first time to the new forum. Some of you may remember me from the old one.

I know a little bit of the terminology of the immune system as I am passing my Anatomy & Physiology II class. So here goes, where are the photos of HIV? With a trillion dollars invested in funding, shouldn't there be tens of thousands or more photographs to look at?

Another question: Isn't it possible that because not everyone has access to high powered microscopes, that some of the beliefs of the AID$ proponents could just be wild fantasy designed to keep the Cash coming? I mean, is Joe the Plumber going to be able to dispute any of the claims by going to his electron microscope and looking for himself?

March 30th, 2009, 12:16 AM
I guess you are quite new, because there have been a lot of posts that raise these issues. I'll make some less common points. Some "orthodox" folks say that you can't really worry about taking EMs of "HIV" because it's so "delicate" that you will never get a picture of an "infectious HIV" particle. Of course, the question then arises, how did it infect hemophiliacs through Factor 8? In any case, the point I make is that there has to be something in those who are "HIV infected" and those who are not that would be different if you looked at blood, semen, etc. under the EM, but no experiments have been done to determine this, even though this must be considered a basic element of the scientific method. Often, the easiest thing to do when confronted with a hypothesis is a simple refutation experiment, and that is the case here. For example, one could to test for "viral load" among "HIV positives" and "HIV negatives" who have acute flu, SLE, etc., to see if there are similar results. This would not cost much at all, yet it's never been done. It's a mockery of what science should be.

March 30th, 2009, 12:22 AM
Its along the same lines as when they say that a small percentage of people have a genetic T-cell receptor mutation that keeps them from ever getting infected with HIV. Well how do they know this? Was there a control group? Did a group of folks with this supposed mutation volunteer to get injected with tainted blood? Of course not. This is part of the big ugly secret. The secret that much of what goes on the world of AID$ research is just theoretical speculation. They reason that since no one can disprove the dual hypotheses that 1. people that (supposedly) have this mutation 2. do not get HIV, then it must be true!

March 30th, 2009, 12:50 AM
... Some "orthodox" folks say that you can't really worry about taking EMs of "HIV" because it's so "delicate" that you will never get a picture of an "infectious HIV" particle...

Others claim "it" is so hardy you can inject "it" with enough neon to look like a disco ball under the EM. (here (http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/main-forum/5549-enhanced-video-microscopy-hiv-infecting-cells.html))

March 30th, 2009, 01:42 AM
I found about eight totally different images of "HIV" presented on different pages on the BBC's website - some like doughnuts, others spiky, others warty......They are on my website sparks-of-light (http://www.sparks-of-light.org)

March 30th, 2009, 04:47 AM
If it is very "hardy" then the 2 EM studies ("orthodox" ones) must mean that the "HIV/AIDS" hypothesis has been refuted. Somebody better tell them before they keep making fools out of themselves !