I object to calling it AIDS, specifically because I remember treating AIDS patients who had specific illnesses associated with the specific immune compromise resulting from lower CD4 cell counts. These infections were "opportunistic" in the sense that the possibility of suffering from these illnesses are ever-present, but they only show…
I object to calling it AIDS, specifically because I remember treating AIDS patients who had specific illnesses associated with the specific immune compromise resulting from lower CD4 cell counts. These infections were "opportunistic" in the sense that the possibility of suffering from these illnesses are ever-present, but they only show up as a result of sufficient immune compromise. The particular cancers that Dr. Cole is finding are not unusual in this same way that the illnesses we saw with AIDS were. They may be more aggressive tumors, but they aren't notably unusual tumors. If they were, this problem would have been noted by physicians who are not keen on seeing vaccine adverse events (let's call them "normie doctors" for lack of a better term).
Don't allow the "normie doctors" to dismiss these claims by throwing around the term AIDS, which is inextricably connected to HIV. VAIDS is not much better.
By the way, I'm listed as a co-author on the important early treatment study by Dr. Peter McCullough (author #7 here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33387997/) so I'm not an adversary.
SO, what about CD4 T-cell deficiency and "reverse HIV", as Dr. Cole provocatively calls it? Or the effects of pseudourudinized mRNA on the innate immunity cell mechanisms?
Can you clarify your question? There may be an "acquired" "immune" "deficiency" "syndrome" that is "acquired" from the vaccines, but, for now, it seems to mostly subject people to SARS-CoV-2 omicron infections (due to original antigenic sin), and the resulting impact on the immune system MAY lead to increased expression of familiar cancers due to decreased immune surveillance, as Dr. Cole suggests. Please understand that, although the term "AIDS" literally stands for "acquired immune deficiency syndrome", it is MISLEADING to use that term for any "acquired immune deficiency syndrome". AIDS, as we know it, has a longstanding history and body of knowledge that is associated with the virus we now call HIV. Patients with AIDS develop "opportunistic" infections like, for example, a candida esophagitis (a case of Thrush extending from the mouth to the stomach) because candida hangs around in our bodies harmlessly, but the resulting impairment in immunity from an HIV infection can turn this benign colonizer into a major problem. When that kind of thing starts happening among vaccinated people, I will be among the first to call it AIDS or VAIDS.
Let's be clear about this. IF this were happening already, many "normie doctors" would have woken up. The kind of the impact on our immune systems that Dr. Cole and other like-minded physicians are seeing can still be ignored by "normie doctors" because it doesn't yet look like AIDS. What would make it look like AIDS is if the particular tumors or infections that were emerging were not the run-of-the-mill typical tumors or infections (even if they do seem more aggressive or occurring at greater frequency) but rather the kinds of opportunistic infections or tumors we saw with AIDS.
I am not insisting on using the term AIDS for the immune-inflicted vaccinees. But there are many ways in which they would be negatively affected, including cancers of all sorts down the road, no one says immediately. So, time will tell in a year or two, IF the relevant stats will be allowed to be collected and made public. BTW, what is your opinion of Kary Mullis’s denial that HIV is the cause of AIDS?
You reached the exact point I had hoped you would reach. Simply being aware that the term “AIDS” connotes something already well-known and codified in the medical community will allow you to say that these vaccine effects are NOT that. But I agree with you that whatever it is, it is at least as concerning.
I haven’t studied Mullis’ hypothesis, but I am aware that he and others have called into question the link between HIV and AIDS. I have no opinion on the matter, but am open to reading the literature.
Mullis was adamant that there hasn't been a causation proven between the "HIV" virus and AIDS. As many ppl testing HIV virus positive didn't develop AIDS, including some sports celebrities. The sky didn't fall, as had been predicted, on Africa, and USA, and the rest of the world, as has been predicted in 1980s: https://youtu.be/xhTs-lE6LLI
That was a worthwhile video to watch! Thanks for sharing it. Consider me more informed about this topic as a result, and I won't insist on linking HIV to AIDS, but it doesn't really change my fundamental point, which is that there IS something that physicians learned to treat that we called AIDS, and it isn't just any old "acquired immune deficiency" problem. The vaccines might be causing an "acquired immune deficiency" problem but that isn't the same thing as what we grew to call AIDS.
I was in medical school right at the heart of the growing AIDS epidemic, from 1983 to 1987, and I remember worrying that our entire 400-bed hospital would be filled with AIDS patients. We were all taught then that HIV was the cause of AIDS, and I had no reason to doubt that at the time, though I was aware that there were other views but hadn't exposed myself to them in any depth. Still, the kind of immune deficiency that made itself apparent to us, for which we applied the term "AIDS", had a particular character. Troubling infections from organisms that didn't seem to usually bother us seemed to be the common denominator, with some exceptions. Here's the list of illnesses, one of which needed to be present, in addition to HIV seropositivity, in order to make the diagnosis of AIDS: https://www.medscape.com/answers/2061054-163226/what-are-the-aids-defining-illnesses
I'm waiting to see if these specific illnesses begin showing up among vaccinated people, but it hasn't seemed to have happened yet. I will acknowledge that there is suddenly more "testing" for HIV of late, and the conspiracy-minded among us think it has to do with the HIV sequences found within SARS-CoV-2, or because we are going to see a new run of AIDS that will then be conveniently blamed on SARS-CoV-2 infection (but might be more accurately related to vaccination).
Glad you liked it! Mullis was a brilliant mind, so his insights are to be taken seriously. As he suggested, a bunch of retroviruses, maybe some specific combination(s) thereof with a lower threshold of the sheer number of them to be crossed, could be the root cause of the immunodeficiency "cascade" leading to the "original" AIDS, with or without HIV. Isn't is strange this hasn't been studied thoroughly by now? Or maybe not, taking into account that Fauci came into office in 1984, and the HIV/AIDS epidemics has been the "original" Covid operation in terms of collusion/corruption of eugenicists, BigPharma, and the regulatory bodies?
Do you think a woman who gets a yeast infection suddenly had all the candida in that infection introduced from outside herself? We have candida in our throats, and people who use steroid inhalers have to gargle afterward to prevent the candida from suddenly becoming a case of thrush due to locally compromised immunity.
I object to calling it AIDS, specifically because I remember treating AIDS patients who had specific illnesses associated with the specific immune compromise resulting from lower CD4 cell counts. These infections were "opportunistic" in the sense that the possibility of suffering from these illnesses are ever-present, but they only show up as a result of sufficient immune compromise. The particular cancers that Dr. Cole is finding are not unusual in this same way that the illnesses we saw with AIDS were. They may be more aggressive tumors, but they aren't notably unusual tumors. If they were, this problem would have been noted by physicians who are not keen on seeing vaccine adverse events (let's call them "normie doctors" for lack of a better term).
Don't allow the "normie doctors" to dismiss these claims by throwing around the term AIDS, which is inextricably connected to HIV. VAIDS is not much better.
By the way, I'm listed as a co-author on the important early treatment study by Dr. Peter McCullough (author #7 here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33387997/) so I'm not an adversary.
SO, what about CD4 T-cell deficiency and "reverse HIV", as Dr. Cole provocatively calls it? Or the effects of pseudourudinized mRNA on the innate immunity cell mechanisms?
Can you clarify your question? There may be an "acquired" "immune" "deficiency" "syndrome" that is "acquired" from the vaccines, but, for now, it seems to mostly subject people to SARS-CoV-2 omicron infections (due to original antigenic sin), and the resulting impact on the immune system MAY lead to increased expression of familiar cancers due to decreased immune surveillance, as Dr. Cole suggests. Please understand that, although the term "AIDS" literally stands for "acquired immune deficiency syndrome", it is MISLEADING to use that term for any "acquired immune deficiency syndrome". AIDS, as we know it, has a longstanding history and body of knowledge that is associated with the virus we now call HIV. Patients with AIDS develop "opportunistic" infections like, for example, a candida esophagitis (a case of Thrush extending from the mouth to the stomach) because candida hangs around in our bodies harmlessly, but the resulting impairment in immunity from an HIV infection can turn this benign colonizer into a major problem. When that kind of thing starts happening among vaccinated people, I will be among the first to call it AIDS or VAIDS.
Let's be clear about this. IF this were happening already, many "normie doctors" would have woken up. The kind of the impact on our immune systems that Dr. Cole and other like-minded physicians are seeing can still be ignored by "normie doctors" because it doesn't yet look like AIDS. What would make it look like AIDS is if the particular tumors or infections that were emerging were not the run-of-the-mill typical tumors or infections (even if they do seem more aggressive or occurring at greater frequency) but rather the kinds of opportunistic infections or tumors we saw with AIDS.
I am not insisting on using the term AIDS for the immune-inflicted vaccinees. But there are many ways in which they would be negatively affected, including cancers of all sorts down the road, no one says immediately. So, time will tell in a year or two, IF the relevant stats will be allowed to be collected and made public. BTW, what is your opinion of Kary Mullis’s denial that HIV is the cause of AIDS?
You reached the exact point I had hoped you would reach. Simply being aware that the term “AIDS” connotes something already well-known and codified in the medical community will allow you to say that these vaccine effects are NOT that. But I agree with you that whatever it is, it is at least as concerning.
Got a link for that? It's too time consuming to wade thru fact checks to
search for it.
Let me know what you are asking for, as I am not a mind reader (yet!), and I will be happy to post the link(s).
I haven’t studied Mullis’ hypothesis, but I am aware that he and others have called into question the link between HIV and AIDS. I have no opinion on the matter, but am open to reading the literature.
Mullis was adamant that there hasn't been a causation proven between the "HIV" virus and AIDS. As many ppl testing HIV virus positive didn't develop AIDS, including some sports celebrities. The sky didn't fall, as had been predicted, on Africa, and USA, and the rest of the world, as has been predicted in 1980s: https://youtu.be/xhTs-lE6LLI
That was a worthwhile video to watch! Thanks for sharing it. Consider me more informed about this topic as a result, and I won't insist on linking HIV to AIDS, but it doesn't really change my fundamental point, which is that there IS something that physicians learned to treat that we called AIDS, and it isn't just any old "acquired immune deficiency" problem. The vaccines might be causing an "acquired immune deficiency" problem but that isn't the same thing as what we grew to call AIDS.
I was in medical school right at the heart of the growing AIDS epidemic, from 1983 to 1987, and I remember worrying that our entire 400-bed hospital would be filled with AIDS patients. We were all taught then that HIV was the cause of AIDS, and I had no reason to doubt that at the time, though I was aware that there were other views but hadn't exposed myself to them in any depth. Still, the kind of immune deficiency that made itself apparent to us, for which we applied the term "AIDS", had a particular character. Troubling infections from organisms that didn't seem to usually bother us seemed to be the common denominator, with some exceptions. Here's the list of illnesses, one of which needed to be present, in addition to HIV seropositivity, in order to make the diagnosis of AIDS: https://www.medscape.com/answers/2061054-163226/what-are-the-aids-defining-illnesses
I'm waiting to see if these specific illnesses begin showing up among vaccinated people, but it hasn't seemed to have happened yet. I will acknowledge that there is suddenly more "testing" for HIV of late, and the conspiracy-minded among us think it has to do with the HIV sequences found within SARS-CoV-2, or because we are going to see a new run of AIDS that will then be conveniently blamed on SARS-CoV-2 infection (but might be more accurately related to vaccination).
Glad you liked it! Mullis was a brilliant mind, so his insights are to be taken seriously. As he suggested, a bunch of retroviruses, maybe some specific combination(s) thereof with a lower threshold of the sheer number of them to be crossed, could be the root cause of the immunodeficiency "cascade" leading to the "original" AIDS, with or without HIV. Isn't is strange this hasn't been studied thoroughly by now? Or maybe not, taking into account that Fauci came into office in 1984, and the HIV/AIDS epidemics has been the "original" Covid operation in terms of collusion/corruption of eugenicists, BigPharma, and the regulatory bodies?
Candida is harmless?
Do you think a woman who gets a yeast infection suddenly had all the candida in that infection introduced from outside herself? We have candida in our throats, and people who use steroid inhalers have to gargle afterward to prevent the candida from suddenly becoming a case of thrush due to locally compromised immunity.