Wednesday, October 29, 2014
John McDermott Running for Congress
9/11 Truth advocate and friend John McDermott is running for Congress in Michigan's 9th District on the Green Party ticket.
Monday, October 13, 2014
When Comics Were King
Vyz recently found the interview with Hollywood producer Deborah Del Prete and myself were we discuss comic books and their relationship with film making. Download here.
Sunday, August 17, 2014
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Robin Williams Predictive Programming?
This hits a little close to home. An 'extraordinary' Family Guy coincidence. Not the first time something like this has happened with Family Guy (the Boston Marathon Bombing being another instance). It's also worth noting the show's creator was supposed to have been on Flight 11 on 9/11 and FG frequent guest James Woods claims to have seen the alleged 9/11 hijackers prior to 9/11.
This doesn't prove a conspiracy, of course, but it deserves a mention.
This doesn't prove a conspiracy, of course, but it deserves a mention.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon
Dave McGowan's long-awaited, Laurel Canyon book is finally out. It's available at Amazon, Booksamillion or you can order an autographed copy here.
NIST WTC-7 Report Structural Omissions
Attorney William Pepper's letter sent to US Dept. of Commerce on behalf of AE 911 Truth regarding Building 7. We're, of course suspicious of the 'truth' movement but it's worth a look. Pepper did represent the family of Martin Luther King in their victorious wrongful death civil suit against the government.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
The Origin of a Myth?
The press conference where HIV was announced as the "probable cause" of AIDS.
A synopsis of the announcement and what happens next, taken from the comments section of the video::
A synopsis of the announcement and what happens next, taken from the comments section of the video::
On
April 23, 1984, Gallo called an international press conference in
conjunction with the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
He used this forum to announce his discovery of a new retrovirus
described as "the probable cause of AIDS." Although Gallo presented no
evidence to support his tentative assumption, the HHS immediately
characterized it as "another miracle of American medicine...the triumph
of science over a dreaded disease."
Later that same day, Gallo filed a patent for the antibody test now known as the "AIDS test." By the following day, The New York Times had turned Gallo's proposal into a certainty with front page news of "the virus that causes AIDS," and all funding for research into other possible causes of AIDS came to an abrupt halt.
By announcing his hypothesis to the media without providing substantiating data, Gallo violated a fundamental rule of the scientific process. Researchers must first publish evidence for a hypothesis in a medical or scientific journal, and document the research or experiments that were used to construct it. Experts then examine and debate the hypothesis, and attempt to duplicate the original experiments to confirm or refute the original findings. Any new hypothesis must stand up to the scrutiny of peer review and must be verified by successful experiments before it can be considered a reasonable theory.
In the case of HIV, Gallo announced an unconfirmed hypothesis to the media who reported his idea as if it were an established fact, inciting government officials to launch new public health policies based on the unsubstantiated notion of an AIDS virus. Some attribute these violations of the scientific process to the atmosphere of terror and desperation that surrounded the notion of an infectious epidemic.
The data Gallo used to construct his HIV/AIDS hypothesis were published several days after his announcement. Rather than supporting his hypothesis, this paper revealed that Gallo was unable to find HIV (actual virus) in more than half of the AIDS patients in his study. While he was able to detect antibodies in most, antibodies alone are not an indication of current infection and are actually an indication of immunity from infection.
His paper also failed to provide a credible explanation as to how a retrovirus could cause AIDS. Gallo suggested that HIV worked by destroying immune cells, but 70 years of medical research had shown that retroviruses are unable to kill cells, and he offered no proof that HIV differed from other harmless retroviruses. In fact, all evidence to date conclusively demonstrates that HIV -- like all retroviruses -- is not cytotoxic.
The focus of questions about HIV quickly shifted from how it could cause AIDS to who found the now valuable viral commodity after Dr. Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute in France accused Gallo of stealing his HIV sample. A congressional investigation determined that Gallo had presented fraudulent data in his original paper on HIV, and that the virus he claimed to have discovered had been sent to him by Montagnier. Negotiations were conducted between the French and American governments to establish discovery and patent rights. These ended in a compromise, with Montagnier and Gallo sharing credit as the codiscoverers of HIV and ownership rights to the HIV test. Montagnier has since stated that he does not believe HIV alone is capable of causing AIDS.
Since 1984, more than 100,000 papers have been published on HIV. None of these papers, singly or collectively, has been able to reasonably demonstrate or effectively prove that HIV causes AIDS. Although Gallo claimed that HIV caused AIDS by destroying the T cells of the immune system, 20 years of cancer research confirmed that retroviruses are not cytotoxic. In fact, there is still no evidence in the scientific literature demonstrating that HIV is able to destroy T cells, directly or indirectly.
HIV is the only virus that is said to cause a group of diseases caused by other viruses and bacteria rather than causing its own disease. AIDS experts also say that HIV is able to cause cell depletion -- loss of immune cells -- at the same time it causes cell proliferation or cancer.
Although more research money has been spent on HIV than on the combined total of all other viruses studied in medical history, there is no scientific evidence validating the hypothesis that HIV is the cause of AIDS, or that AIDS has a viral cause. A good hypothesis is defined by its ability to solve problems and mysteries, make accurate predictions and produce results. The HIV hypothesis has failed to meet any of these criteria.
Hundreds of scientists around the world are now requesting an official reevaluation of the HIV hypothesis.
Later that same day, Gallo filed a patent for the antibody test now known as the "AIDS test." By the following day, The New York Times had turned Gallo's proposal into a certainty with front page news of "the virus that causes AIDS," and all funding for research into other possible causes of AIDS came to an abrupt halt.
By announcing his hypothesis to the media without providing substantiating data, Gallo violated a fundamental rule of the scientific process. Researchers must first publish evidence for a hypothesis in a medical or scientific journal, and document the research or experiments that were used to construct it. Experts then examine and debate the hypothesis, and attempt to duplicate the original experiments to confirm or refute the original findings. Any new hypothesis must stand up to the scrutiny of peer review and must be verified by successful experiments before it can be considered a reasonable theory.
In the case of HIV, Gallo announced an unconfirmed hypothesis to the media who reported his idea as if it were an established fact, inciting government officials to launch new public health policies based on the unsubstantiated notion of an AIDS virus. Some attribute these violations of the scientific process to the atmosphere of terror and desperation that surrounded the notion of an infectious epidemic.
The data Gallo used to construct his HIV/AIDS hypothesis were published several days after his announcement. Rather than supporting his hypothesis, this paper revealed that Gallo was unable to find HIV (actual virus) in more than half of the AIDS patients in his study. While he was able to detect antibodies in most, antibodies alone are not an indication of current infection and are actually an indication of immunity from infection.
His paper also failed to provide a credible explanation as to how a retrovirus could cause AIDS. Gallo suggested that HIV worked by destroying immune cells, but 70 years of medical research had shown that retroviruses are unable to kill cells, and he offered no proof that HIV differed from other harmless retroviruses. In fact, all evidence to date conclusively demonstrates that HIV -- like all retroviruses -- is not cytotoxic.
The focus of questions about HIV quickly shifted from how it could cause AIDS to who found the now valuable viral commodity after Dr. Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute in France accused Gallo of stealing his HIV sample. A congressional investigation determined that Gallo had presented fraudulent data in his original paper on HIV, and that the virus he claimed to have discovered had been sent to him by Montagnier. Negotiations were conducted between the French and American governments to establish discovery and patent rights. These ended in a compromise, with Montagnier and Gallo sharing credit as the codiscoverers of HIV and ownership rights to the HIV test. Montagnier has since stated that he does not believe HIV alone is capable of causing AIDS.
Since 1984, more than 100,000 papers have been published on HIV. None of these papers, singly or collectively, has been able to reasonably demonstrate or effectively prove that HIV causes AIDS. Although Gallo claimed that HIV caused AIDS by destroying the T cells of the immune system, 20 years of cancer research confirmed that retroviruses are not cytotoxic. In fact, there is still no evidence in the scientific literature demonstrating that HIV is able to destroy T cells, directly or indirectly.
HIV is the only virus that is said to cause a group of diseases caused by other viruses and bacteria rather than causing its own disease. AIDS experts also say that HIV is able to cause cell depletion -- loss of immune cells -- at the same time it causes cell proliferation or cancer.
Although more research money has been spent on HIV than on the combined total of all other viruses studied in medical history, there is no scientific evidence validating the hypothesis that HIV is the cause of AIDS, or that AIDS has a viral cause. A good hypothesis is defined by its ability to solve problems and mysteries, make accurate predictions and produce results. The HIV hypothesis has failed to meet any of these criteria.
Hundreds of scientists around the world are now requesting an official reevaluation of the HIV hypothesis.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Wednesday, April 09, 2014
Monday, March 10, 2014
Hitler Didn't Die in a Bunker
FBI files show Hitler was moved to Argentina. Shocker, eh? And John Wilkes Booth did not die in Garrett's barn either.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Sandy Hook Questions
34 Questions on Sandy Hook Shooting. I'm don't know what did or didn't happen but this is one of the best things I've seen on Sandy Hook to date.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Monday, January 20, 2014
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Friday, January 03, 2014
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Oh Come On
Here's the new Sandy Hook playground...
And a closer look at the sign in the middle...
Granted, this is taken from a photo of one of the victims of all the photos to choose from we get the one eye thing.
And a closer look at the sign in the middle...
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
More on the Zapruder Film
Sometimes I miss the obvious. The Zapruder film contradicts the autopsy photos and even itself. The massive forehead wound is not present in the autopsy photos which show a wound to the top of the head (this does not mean the autopsy photos are legit either). Frame 374 shows that part of the back of JFK's skull is missing while other frames show the rear of his head intact.
What to make of this? Obviously the Zapruder film was doctored make the forehead wound to appear to be an exit wound and to conceal the exit wound at the back of JFK's head.
This isn't the only argument against the Z. film's authenticity but it's certainly a very easy one to grasp.
What to make of this? Obviously the Zapruder film was doctored make the forehead wound to appear to be an exit wound and to conceal the exit wound at the back of JFK's head.
This isn't the only argument against the Z. film's authenticity but it's certainly a very easy one to grasp.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Zapruder Film Hoax
First part of of David Lifton's presentation on the Zapruder film hoax. Parts 2 - 9 can be accessed through sidebar.
Friday, November 22, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
