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 3 of 4)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Alright, welcome back.
	We're talking with Liam Schiff about Charlie Sheen and the report that he is HIV positive.
	The National Enquirer claiming that he has been hiding his HIV positive status for four years, possibly infecting hundreds of other people with HIV. But Liam Sheff joins us here, and he's the author of Official Stories, and he is skeptical about the HIV testing protocols and methodology, which he explains have really not been proven to identify either the presence or the absence of HIV, and we're talking with Liam now.
	Liam, continuing, I remember a book from, I think it was Dr.
	Gary Knoll, called AIDS, A Second Opinion.
	You remember that book?
	I do, and I've been on Gary's show many times talking about this.
	Okay, great.
	As I recall, in that book, he explains much of what you explained, that it is a lifestyle of multiple, multiple sex partners, of being exposed to and infected by potentially hundreds of different viral strains, a lifestyle often associated with rampant drug use.
	And that this destroys the immune system and creates the acquired immune deficiency that's often exhibited by people who are called HIV positive.
	Do you agree with that assessment by Gary?
	I actually probably relate it much more to the antibiotics and the intoxicants.
	So if you look at the gay community, sure, it's not great to have...
	A dozen sex partners a night.
	Number one, it's probably not good for you spiritually.
	But that's your business.
	It's not going to be good for you biologically because the number of parasitic, bowel, skin, urethral infections that you can get is pretty high.
	And you walk away with a lot of problems, a lot of infections.
	Those won't cripple your immune system.
	They'll hurt your penis.
	They'll hurt your genitals.
	They'll hurt you physically.
	But what you do to treat those is to take very hard...
	A broad-spectrum antibiotics at increasing doses.
	So when you do that, you kill the villi, you kill the flora, you strip your gut, and you quite literally punch holes in your gut, so you're leaking out of your gut into your bloodstream.
	This is the birth of all of the fungal infections that occur in You know, the people taking AIDS drugs or taking a lot of antibiotics or people in chemotherapy.
	You know this.
	Everybody who's on these drugs loses their gut and then they die.
	That's what was happening in the gay community.
	If you look at how they progressed this to Africa, they said, well, you know, we have this subset of young gay men having an absolutely unique lifestyle in these very small portions of American cities and nobody else is affected.
	God, that sounds like a sex plague, doesn't it?
	Nobody else is affected.
	So now let's go over to Africa in the wake of Idi Amin and coups and violence and apartheid at the height of apartheid and let's just look at the poor populations living in the tin shack towns, drinking water that's coming out of ditches that are filled with urine and feces and say that all of their problems must also relate to sex.
	That is how AIDS got to Africa.
	Very specifically, they said that if an African has a cough, fever, weight loss, or diarrhea, they have the same sex disease as these young gay men using these handfuls of antibiotics, benzene, poppers, etc.
	have.
	It didn't take much for the American imagination and the Reagan administration to say, this is a sex disease that can affect everybody.
	Wink, wink, nudge, nudge if you're gay or black.
	But now everybody has to talk about it.
	I remember back in the 80s, the CDC ran what I have to consider a false flag, where they were running out of money.
	Congress was about to vote on cutting their funding.
	And it was right after that, I think it was Time Magazine, came out with a cover story, made a big wave in the media.
	And this was before the alternative media, of course, before the internet even.
	And they said, well, AIDS will infect heterosexual males.
	Yes.
	You know, couples, just just regular husband and wife, you know, conservative Christian America couples.
	And they spread massive panic across the country.
	There was absolutely no substantiating evidence that this was the case.
	And yet they got massive increases in funding.
	Do you recall all that happening?
	I was 13 or 14.
	I remember talking because the AIDS was the new thing.
	And I got very anxious at 14 when they said there was a new sex disease.
	And I said, what do you mean there's a new sex disease?
	And I wasn't skeptical.
	I was anxious.
	I said, what do you mean there's a new sex disease?
	And they said, well, don't worry.
	It mostly affects...
	I don't understand.
	If it's a sex disease, somebody's going to have sex with somebody and it's going to jump the population and then it's an equal opportunity offender.
	Not so with the myth of the sexual AIDS, which a number of people covered for years.
	I want to hit AZT in a second, but I'll just say this.
	If you go to the mainstream and try to figure out how this is a sex disease, I wrote an article years ago called There will be no heterosexual AIDS epidemic, experts admit.
	And I just went down the literature.
	If you go down the medical literature, on all the people having sex with prostitutes, on all the people having sex with people who are supposedly HIV positive, and on all the people doing this over years, you get one of two numbers for the sexual transmission rate for HIV. Ready?
	It's either zero...
	Or like.0008% of a chance.
	So they'll tell you as a straight adult male, you would have to have sex somewhere like between 5 and 8,000 times with an HIV positive woman to become HIV positive according to the mainstream.
	Really?
	Yeah.
	Because that's not the narrative we're told.
	We're told that, you know, if you're a trucker and you visit the prostitutes that frequent the truck stops, you know, you're definitely going to have AIDS. I mean, that's the kind of story we're told.
	Well, okay.
	No, but again, the mainstream, and they have their famous Padian study, which they freaked out about because it was featured in House of Numbers.
	And Nancy Padian took 175 couples.
	175 people in those couples were positive and 175 were negative.
	She tested them for six years.
	After six years of contact, of sexual contact, at the beginning of the study, I think 75% of them didn't use condoms and they browbeat them into using condoms.
	By the end, I think 25% didn't use condoms.
	Some 20-something percent had anal sex at various points in the study.
	By the end of the study, the number of people who went in as negative, I'll ask you how many people of those negative people became positive.
	Well, according to the narrative, you would think all of them, but I imagine that's not what you're going to tell me here.
	No, their number was zero.
	Zero people.
	Now, to be fair to the crazies in the AIDS group, she browbeat more of them into using condoms, but not all of them.
	And again, they were couples before they went in and so on and so forth.
	The study is also very tricky because it claims in another part of the study that some people became HIV positive by having sex, but that's because they said they did.
	In other words, they came into the study and they said, how did you become HIV positive?
	And they said, well, we had sex.
	And they wrote that down as a fact.
	But during what they call the actual...
	The observational part of the study, they just let people have sex, and nobody became HIV positive.
	But the problem, again, with that is that we're assuming there's an HIV thing there.
	Well, that was my question.
	Where did this data come from?
	The tests don't work.
	You're saying the tests don't work.
	The tests don't work.
	So the tests only ping for people with excess antibody in their blood.
	So you could be pregnant.
	You could just be somebody with a lot of allergies, which is everybody now, right?
	You could be over-vaccinated, which is everybody now.
	You could be sprayed by chemtrails, which is everybody now.
	In other words, in the past, you wouldn't have what they call hypergammaglobulinemia.
	I can't even say it.
	If you have this excess of antibodies, you're going to ping one of these antibody tests.
	That's why they had to dilute the test so much so that they didn't get everybody being HIV positive.
	So the tests don't work and it's not a sex problem unless you believe that the tests work and 0.0008% or something is a meaningful rate of transmission for a sex disease, which doesn't exist.
	That's just not the case.
	If you go and have sex with somebody who's having fulminant expressive herpes, I don't know how high your Probability of getting it, but it's higher than 50%.
	Expressing herpes at that time and you have regular sex with them, you're going to end up with herpes.
	Yeah, you would think.
	I mean, you can get Ebola from touching the corner of your eye.
	It doesn't take much.
	If something is expressing, if somebody has pink eye, if somebody's expressing a kind of bleeding or leaking herpes virus and you rub it into an orifice, you're going to have something going on.
	But they're saying that not only does this thing never show up on the genitals, but you only know you have it because you go to somebody who tells you that you have it.
	Now, the big joke is there's no idea about how the thing that they say they don't, you know, the thing that they don't test for that they say is real causes the disease that we just explained by virtue of environmental, pharmaceutical and petrochemical exposure.
	They say that HIV causes AIDS and then they'll say they don't know how it does it.
	And then they say, send more money.
	We're still doing the research.
	You know, because the mainstream understanding of this is that HIV is caused by a single virus that has a unique shape, a unique protein structure, let's say.
	Like, we've all seen pictures of the Ebola virus.
	It has a unique shape.
	And they think that your blood is put under, let's say, an electron microscope, and somebody looks through there and searches through your blood, and they find that HIV virus, that it has a unique shape, a unique structure.
	And, yep, there it is.
	They can see it on a scope, and then you're HIV positive.
	I mean, that...
	That's the understanding.
	And that's never happened in the history of AIDS science, and it never will.
	Yeah, that's over.
	They gave up on looking for viral particles a long time ago, because there's nothing there.
	They have a model, and they make nice CGI renderings of it with that sort of spiky porcupine thing going on.
	That's never been seen anywhere.
	What you get when you look under the microscope, and this was in the movie House of Numbers and some of the special material released afterwards, is the top, I guess Hans Gelderblum, The top HIV microscopist in the world saying, yeah, it's all pretty much trash.
	None of it really looks like anything.
	Janine Roberts got the initial data that was the base, you know, the foundational material for this HIV, HTLV3 fraud.
	And they said, you know, the microscopist was saying, I think it was Gondry, I can't remember his name anyway, Gonda, was saying, I think his name is Michael Gonda, I might be wrong, but he was saying, yeah, this is just cellular trash.
	It doesn't really look like anything that you don't see in any cell pellet, in any cross-section of T cells.
	So the other problem is they said they grow all their HIV proteins, they call them HIV proteins for the test, in T cells.
	All right, we've got to take a break, Liam.
	I have to ask you to finish it on the other side.
	This is Liam Sheff here.
	You're listening to TalkNetwork.com.

▲