Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 22, 2018 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams

12:13

Charlie Sheen does NOT have HIV! (part 1 of 4)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome everyone to TalkNetwork.com.
	This is a special report on the news that Charlie Sheen is now HIV positive, or at least that's what's being reported by the National Enquirer, which says that decades of debauchery have finally caught up to Charlie Sheen.
	The magazine also claims that he's been covering up his HIV positive status for at least four years and that he has slept with many, many people, hundreds, perhaps over a thousand women over these years.
	And thereby the implication is that he has given them HIV.
	This story is rocking Hollywood right now.
	But here joining me today to counter some of what's going on with this story is Liam Sheff.
	Now, Liam is the author of Official Stories, which is a fantastic book.
	It's one of the books that I have strongly recommended, which talks about official narratives being total BS and cover ups for all kinds of things.
	From AIDS, as we'll talk about here, to other official stories of false flags and so on.
	Liam tells me that people who slept with Charlie Sheen can't be HIV positive because he can't be HIV positive either.
	So, Liam, thank you for joining me and please explain, what do you mean that he can't be HIV positive?
	Hi, Mike.
	It's wonderful to be on and always a big fan of your work.
	So thank you for this opportunity.
	The AIDS machine, you know, AIDS is kind of dead.
	Nobody talks about it anymore.
	It's wonderful for them.
	One of the most cynical branches of modern medicine, the AIDS industry, that they have a poster boy like Charlie Sheen who is disreputable and, you know, managed to speak against the official narrative of 9-11 before going down some sort of Like a permanent meltdown sinkhole into some sort of anarchic narcissism, which we all watched, right?
	We bought his t-shirts, winning, all that stuff.
	He's famously gone out with drug addicts and strippers and not knocking their profession.
	But these are people who probably don't have great healthy lifestyles.
	And maybe he was convinced by somebody to take one of these tests.
	They'll say he's HIV positive and they won't ask.
	They'll tell you he got it from something.
	So I have to just put it to the audience and the audience of media, the media people out there who won't ask any questions because they won't.
	They'll just report it.
	He's HIV positive because he said so, because he got tested somewhere.
	So the question I have to ask you is how do you know that you're HIV positive?
	Right, right.
	What's the science behind it?
	Because I remember this documentary, House of Numbers?
	And in House of Numbers, I remember them showing how HIV is tested, and it didn't look scientific to me.
	And I run a science lab, so I'm very familiar with scientific methodologies.
	But they would ask people questions about how many partners they slept with, and that would be part of their diagnosis.
	But how can that be?
	If it's a virus, then you shouldn't need to ask questions of the person's behavior, right?
	The virus alone should determine whether you're positive or negative, right?
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, well, medical testing is such a crapshoot.
	You know, they get people with this HPV thing.
	They get people with the hep C thing.
	So they rolled out hep C a few years ago.
	The tests are nonspecific and the treatments are nonsense.
	But if you're 50 years old and you're in the risk group for what?
	Being 50, 60, having had a lot of alcohol in your life and so having a slightly malfunctioning liver...
	So they get anybody in that group and then they test them.
	If you're not in the group of people who are, you know, going to have a slightly malfunctioning liver due to drug use, alcohol use, or age, they don't want to test you for hep C. The same thing is true in the HIV spectrum.
	AIDS really was originally called GRID and it was really a calamity of gut-borne diseases that occurred in the gay community.
	In the fast lane gay community in a few ghettoized little parts of cities where gay people were allowed to live without being crucified in Kansas and Utah and the rest of the country.
	So that's another story.
	Maybe we'll get into that.
	But they invented a test, a blood test.
	And the blood test was called...
	Don't get lost in the wonky stuff, everybody.
	It doesn't matter.
	There's no quiz at the end.
	But they called it an HTLV3 test.
	And they said that the test was really not very good.
	It was not very effective.
	I mean, it was...
	You know, between 2% effective and maybe in some people 90% okay.
	So they do this test and it could be as bad as like 2% true, which means it's false, you know.
	But does it render false positives or false negatives or both?
	Well, that's the thing.
	What's a false positive?
	What's a false negative?
	Well, a false positive is, it says you have HIV, but you don't.
	I mean, we see that all the time in the cancer industry, false positive mammogram analysis, where they say you have breast cancer, but you really don't.
	I mean, that's very common.
	Right.
	But why does a test give a false positive?
	It's because it's not a test for the thing.
	They invented this HIV test, HTLV-3 test, by taking proteins from a handful of guys, literally, I think it was 10 guys, and they just siphoned proteins out of the blood samples.
	They then clone those antibodies, those antigens, over time, and now they've refined them.
	So they have a set of nonspecific proteins that were growing in tumor cells.
	They had a line of cancer cells that they were growing these proteins in, and they've siphoned them out of there, and then they've molecularly cloned them.
	And then they go and they take your blood sample.
	And they run your blood sample.
	They dilute your blood sample extraordinarily, or they used to, because everybody's got antibodies that respond to these proteins.
	Really?
	Yeah, they had to make sure it was very, very diluted.
	They used to have to dilute the HIV test.
	They'd have to dilute your blood 400 times, because otherwise everybody would be positive.
	Everybody's got these responsive proteins.
	So the tests were terrible, terrible, from the beginning.
	Okay, so you're saying that, okay, so they say that if you respond, if you have some of these same proteins, then you're HIV positive.
	But couldn't there be lots of other ways that you could have these same proteins in your body?
	The medical literature is unequivocal on this point.
	There are some, I don't know, 70 to 100 distinctive bodily processes, diseases, non-disease states, including...
	Pregnancy, prior pregnancy, vaccination, recent vaccination, long time ago vaccination, alcoholic problems, liver problems from alcohol, what?
	Normal respiratory infections that they know in the standard medical literature will cause these nonspecific tests to pop.
	Really?
	Yeah, to come up reactive.
	Absolutely.
	So if you've been pregnant or if you have been vaccinated, you could test positive for HIV even though you never slept with Charlie Sheen.
	Hopefully you never slept with Charlie Sheen.
	Yes, well I hope you got something out of it, some money or something.
	They had no particular virus or particle to work with when they were making the test.
	I think that that should be put at the bottom rung of this conversation.
	They weren't working with a particular particle.
	They were working with proteins from guys who were sick.
	By the way, I can show you studies in which mice, dogs, milkmaids, this is a very funny one, milkmaids, women who milk cows, We're testing positive.
	And they said, well, they weren't positive.
	They didn't have a sex disease.
	They had just been milking cows.
	And the exposure to the milk made them HIV positive.
	But they weren't HIV positive.
	Really?
	Yes, I can show you that study.
	Well, gosh, I've milked goats.
	Does that mean I'm going to test positive for AIDS or HIV? Do not ever take an HIV test.
	Do not give them that power.
	They have a nonspecific polyreactive antibody test.
	Now, you were exactly right in the beginning.
	How then do they determine who is really positive if they have a test that's so crazy?
	They have to only test people who they consider to be at risk.
	Wow.
	So it's a behavior...
	This sounds like psychiatry, where they look at your kid and they say he's ADHD. It's profiling.
	You're an L.A. cop driving around and you see a kid running down the street...
	And he's a white kid in nice shoes and you go, he's out for a run.
	And you see a black kid running down the street and you go, hey, you pull over and you chase him.
	You're profiling.
	Same behavior, different colors.
	And I'm very, very serious.
	They actually are absolutely clear that they're profiling.
	They call it risk group analysis according to the Bayesian algorithm, right?
	So they have very, very special language for it because, of course, they're not racist and they're not profiling, but they are.
	So if what you're saying is true, and I still have some skeptical questions for you, obviously, but you know a lot more about this than I do.
	You've done a lot more research for many years on this.
	But if what you're saying is true, then it sounds like the test is really just sort of the bogus science to back up this profiling assessment.
	Kind of the way, well, you know, with global warming, they fake the science to fit their agenda.
	Right?
	Or with vaccines.
	I mean, obviously we're talking about the CDC here with AIDS. You know, with vaccines, a lot of the outbreaks happen among children who were vaccinated, but they never really tell us that.
	That's never reported.
	They use the so-called quack science of vaccination, which we know is fraudulent because we've heard it directly from the vaccine virologists who work for Merck, for God's sake.
	We know it's fake, but they still use that science to back up their agenda.
	Is that what you're saying is going on here, that the test is just a way to invoke something that sounds kind of science-y?
	It's well and wonderfully said.
	They need...
	You know, this really evolves and emerges from the same academic, quasi-religious university system, which was really part of the monastery system.
	So people would come forward and they would put forward a prescription or something that they got through some mental gyrations.
	And they would say, yes, but this is approved of by the more important person in this community.
	So your PhD paper is approved of by your supervisor or by the old prelate or priest or abbey or whatever.
	So they need something that makes people say, oh, this must be true because.
	Well, if it must be true because it comes out of the scientific establishment, we also have to read their fine print.
	Remember, they have lawyers, too.
	There's a reason, you know, you used to be able to sue people, sue the vaccine manufacturers for killing your children, but you're not allowed to anymore, and you know this well.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	They have total immunity now.
	Because of the 1988, I believe, case in which a child was, you know, wheeled in and was unable to function, they awarded this family two or three million dollars and the vaccine manufacturer pleaded to the American, essentially, government and said, we can't, you know, we can't really do much with vaccines anymore because they're going to tear us apart.
	And the Supreme Court said vaccines are, and you know this one well, are vaccines are, what is the term they use?
	Well, I don't know the term you're talking about, but that's when they created the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, the court that stands above the Supreme Court.
	Right, VAERS. It's...
	They said that vaccines were manufactured unavoidably unsafe.
	We've got to go to break here.
	Sorry to interrupt.
	We've got to go to break.
	But you're listening to TalkNetwork.com, folks, an interview with Liam Sheff on the Charlie Sheen HIV breaking news.

▲