The Aids Conspiracy: Science Fights Back Book

AIDS HOAX: Was HIV Created in a Lab as a Bio-Weapon?

The Aids Conspiracy: Science Fights Back BookSome people will always believe what they are told by the media and government while others will eventually believe the overwhelming evidence, but whichever camp you’re in come along with us for our series on the Most Controversial Conspiracy Theories of All Time.

Was AIDS intentionally created in a lab?

Or more accurately, was the HIV virus was created in a lab? Some believe it was as you will learn in the documentaries linked below. Others believe tainted polio vaccines spread it. And those are NOT the ONLY theories.

U.S. Doctor Dr. Boyd Graves has said for years that
The HIV Virus is a race specific bio-weapon.

HIV-AIDS was created to target gay men for Eugenics experiment


What is called AIDS is a collection of symptoms statisticians choose to lump under one name – not an actual condition:

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determined that every case of AIDS includes one of the 29 pre-existing illnesses that were defined by the CDC.” ~ Newscast Media Aids Hoax: The Truth Behind the Virus That Never Was.

AIDS = Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome with the emphasis on ACQUIRED. You don’t acquire contagious diseases – you catch them. It is illogical to claim – as they do – that IF you are HIV positive you died of AIDS but if the exact same symptoms kill you that you died of whatever they USED TO call the disease that causes those same symptoms.

That is an obvious manipulation of statistics to create an epidemic out of thin air to scare people into taking dangerous immune suppressing drugs – and eventually – new AIDS vaccinations.


Logically, if AIDS were really a communicable disease that was sexually transmitted, given the typical number of sexual partners most adults have had – thanks to the “sexual revolution” – all of us would know heterosexual people who had died. DO YOU?

So why don’t more HIV positive sex partners get AIDS?

Do ALL Scientists Believe HIV is the Cause of AIDS?

In a word: no. Hundreds of scientists have publicly refuted the theory that HIV causes AIDS:

The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis came into existence as a group of signatories of an open letter to the scientific community. The letter (dated June 6, 1991) has been submitted to the editors of Nature, Science, The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine. All have refused to publish it. In 1995 The Group was able to get a letter published in Science.

To the editor:

It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken. “

HIV = AIDS – Fact Or Fraud?

This documentary presents arguments based on the allegation that the HIV / AIDS Hypothesis is False:


Leading AIDS Dissident: David Crowe Speaks Out in this video. (This is part 1.) Crowe discusses AIDS testing false positives and false negatives. See also AIDS DISSIDENTS (part 2) and AIDS DISSIDENT DAVID CROWE  (part 3).

The video below includes government documents requesting $10 billion dollars to develop bio-weapons to target specific populations.

“AIDS was deliberately created for for the depopulation of humanity – created at Fort Dietrick through US Bioweapons development.” Courtesy: Dr Leonard Horovitz [in the interests of extending Human Educational knowledge].”

AIDS Conspiracy Videos





Do You Know of Studies, Documentation, or AIDS  Books or Videos we should add here?
What do YOU Think? Does HIV Cause AIDS? Is HIV man-made?
Tell us in the comments! Whatever you believe we want to hear from you!


Join the discussion

  • I strongly believe aids is a lab product which they have failed to control if not failed to strike the race they had wanted..

    • You can make people believe in most anything, if you sound as if you know more than they. As far as hiv being an invention of man, is doubtful only because it would be less than useful as a military weapon. Aids is a fragile virus outside of the body…

  • You just know you’re going to read a bunch of crap when an article starts with implying that anyone who would disagree is a mindless drone of governmental and media influence, without any argument to substantiate that claim.

    • Some people believe whatever the government and major media say is true while others think for themselves. This post contains links to evidence on both sides of the argument. The image goes to a new book intended to convince people AIDS is real and the other links go to research and other opinions refuting that.

      Were you expecting me to provide evidence that some people are mindless drones or evidence that AIDs is or is not a hoax? It sounds like the former. Either way, notice that there are many blue underlined words in this post. Those are hyperlinks. Click on those and you can read “evidence” for yourself.

      For those allergic to reading or who just like to watch videos I also included multiple videos. There really isn’t much more than that to include in a blog post: videos, links to experts, links to research – not that it would matter since you have proven the point I made in the first paragraph.

      • That’s a nice explanation. However your first sentence divides readers of your blog into two groups:

        – Those who will always belief what they are told by media and government.
        – Those who will eventually believe the overwhelming evidence.

        By putting it this way it is obvious the reader will be presented with “overwhelming evidence” which, if not believed, will automatically lead to the conclusion that the disbeliever belongs to the group who will always belief what they are told by media and government, on which premiss you can ignore any argument he might have against the “overwhelming evidence”.

        If this wasn’t the way you meant it I would like to suggest at least mentioning the third group, namely those who don’t always belief what they are told, either by government, media, scientists, or bloggers. Or you can just leave out the group specifications all together, and let the evidence speak for itself.