Hell versus Everlasting Fire

[MikeF]

It was another language barrier. It happens in best families

If we analyze the answer of the third question attentively we will deduce the inverse of what you expected me to say (bold above).
Let us analyze its two possibilities:

[1] The patient has to keep using immunosuppressant drugs to live in relative harmony with the planted organ while his body is vulnerable to any infection during the rest of his life.
Speaking practically, every patient who got a donor organ has to live as if he were infected by AIDS (whatever the claimed cause is). In other words, if a healthy victim got the main constituents of these drugs, in one way or another and without his knowledge (this can happen easily at hospitals, in the criminal world, by taking advantage of the victim's ignorance), he would lose his body's immunity and be presented to the world as being infected (during his sexual activities) by AIDS (a virus or whatever). And the victim cannot defend himself, in any way, because no one will believe him/her, even his/her own family; this is a clear example of the modern 'perfect' crimes.

[2] The patient got the 'Immunosuppressant drugs before the operation. But after staying for a while in the intensive care room, his doctor will let him return back home to live normally again as a healthy person does. This case means that the medical discovery was completed fully by also finding a way to restore the lost immunity (actually in the case of such patients, its functions were just dimmed or paralyzed). This explains how almost every rich victim (male or female) can buy his life (and his honor!) to restore his lost immunity by paying any amount and/or accepting any proposed deal since he thinks he was infected by AIDS while he was doing sex with a stranger!

The loss of immunity in the victim's body could be 'partial' or 'total' (the two cases are likely related to the dose, inserted in the body).
In the latter case, there is no way to restore it and it will be a question of time for the victim to die soon after he will be infected by any virus or microbe.

I will jump now to tell you how it was possible for me to save certain lives:
A couple of years after my city was connected to internet, I got an email from a Nigerian girl asking me for financial help. This was the trend at that time! I saw myself asking her if she heard of AIDS. She replied: "Yes of course I did. Many hundreds die daily in my city because of it". So I asked her: "Didn't your city welcome some foreign doctors to save its citizens from AIDS?". She was surprised for knowing this. And she added that she also helps one of these doctors as a nurse. So my next email was something like:

"I like you know, though you don't have to believe me, that AIDS is not a decease which can propagate from one person to another (during sex for example; as the international news insists on almost daily). The loss of immunity is caused by something which has to be inserted in one's body intentionally though I am not sure how exactly. So to protect yourself, don't let any stranger, mainly if he is a foreign doctor, touch your body for any reason and don't get any medicine that you and your family are not familiar to or is claimed to be related to AIDS in any way."

About a year after my last email, she wrote me:
"Do you remember me? I liked to tell you that I am alive with a few members of my family and some friends who trusted and applied your advice as I did. Alas, all other people with whom I lived died because of AIDS."

In fact, too many millions of Africans died because of AIDS. And I recall a white man telling me: Aren't you white? Why do you care of what happened or may happen to Africans? Well, if an ordinary person, he was, can think that way, we may imagine to how far some powerful ones can think and do.

Soon later, I thought it was good to write an article and publish it on a local newspaper. I wrote it in Arabic and its title was: "What behind AIDS stories". A local journalist, he was one of my customers, read it and asked my permission to publish it. He didn't find anything on it which could prevent publishing it. But, a few days later, he returned back to inform me that his boss refused it. I bet you cannot guess the reason for which it was refused Well, his boss found (and he was right) that the article would certainly upset to a great extent ‘all’ Muslim and Christian clergies in the city who were telling their believers, almost daily at that time, that AIDS is a clear sign of Wrath of Allah/God (because they live some evil sexual fantasies!).
Since no one I knew in my surrounding got AIDS, I had no urgent reason to convince the authorities of what I know (there are other details not mentioned here). But those who knew me or live with me were glad for knowing that they won't get infected by the so-called AIDS decease/virus (leading to loss of immunity) no matter how they live sexually For instance, I learnt later that even the local authorities had (still has) no choice but to be involved in spreading and confirming officially all AIDS stories (as being a natural global decease, threatening the existence of human race!) as they are approved by the greatest systems (hence by UN too, as usual).

Now, it is your turn to comment. Please, be free to present anything that you know and contradicts what I said.
(More to come if you like)

For clarification, are you saying that there is no Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) that causes Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)?

Are you also saying that any patient who presents with Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) has had their immune system compromised by someone injecting them with immuno-suppressive drugs? That the only way to get AIDS symptoms is to be injected by these drugs?

 

[MikeF]

Most humans tend to see the world as they like it to be. Since they are also guided by their natural personal instincts, they try to correct, when possible, anything that looks wrong or bad to them by applying a certain justice. Since applying justice by one’s hand leads to chaos, it is usually seen a wrong behavior, if not criminal in many cases.

Therefore, since very long ago people in every region didn’t mind that their justice is applied by a few persons only; local ones or foreigners (in colonies). But, to supervise the application of justice properly, those who run (the top decision makers) or serve the ruling system (the official speakers and officers) should be given certain privileged rights and legitimate incomes, besides headings various sorts of forces, to help them achieve their given role. This has created, in every period of time, what we may call the ruling class in every region. And a ruling class has always become the core of what we may call the powerful rich class in a society, privileged and protected by a law.

To be on the safe side, those who belong to the lower classes (forming the majority in every society) should trust blindly their ruling system besides obeying/observing its various imposed rules which are made/created, under one pretext or another, by their powerful rich class (high class).

Now I guess it is clear why I hesitated a lot before giving one example about how it is possible to fool the world’s multitudes also in the name of science and scientists (doctors in this example). But I had to let some readers hear things that they are not supposed to hear though I know that, in such a situation, ignorance is bliss for most people.

There are many political cultures, throughout history and in existence today that are run and controlled by a wealthy minority, and the lower class minority are not permitted to question the actions of those in power and accept their status without objection or face punishment enforced by the state.

You obviously recognize how unfair such a system is. This is why liberal democracies began to form, to create a form of government that provided some basic rights and freedoms for all of it's citizens. These liberal democracies are not perfect and are still working to improve, but they are far better than the political cultures you describe.

Are you claiming that there are no liberal democracies in the world today? Are you saying that freedom of speech, the right to assembly, and the right to vote do not exist anywhere in the world?

 

[KerimF]

For clarification, are you saying that there is no Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) that causes Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)?

Are you also saying that any patient who presents with Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) has had their immune system compromised by someone injecting them with immuno-suppressive drugs? That the only way to get AIDS symptoms is to be injected by these drugs?

Although I am rather sure that you don't (actually, you cannot) believe me, what you concluded here is what I am saying. This is why I liked to hear from you any fact that you had the chance to live personally and seems contradicting, in one way or another, what I know about it.

Are you claiming that there are no liberal democracies in the world today? Are you saying that freedom of speech, the right to assembly, and the right to vote do not exist anywhere in the world?

Let us start with 'freedom of speech'. It is applied everywhere. Actually, it is equivalent to the saying known to many people in the world:
"Let the dogs bark as long they cannot bite."
For example, since I was young I used being an independent person (not related to any sort of formal groups). At the local university (during 5 years), I also used sharing my thoughts (about religions and politics), based on my personal observations and logical reasoning, with any colleague/teacher when we had enough time to talk. What I presented as hidden truths at that time are not less hot than the ones here. But I did it (as I do always) without judging any side/group or person. (After all, almost all humans are created to follow their natural instincts of survival till they return back to 'nothing' ). At that time, many thought that I am a brave talker but someday I would face big troubles for being sincere about everything I had in mind. One day, a colleague who was a member of the ruling party and used attending its periodic meetings told me: "In almost every meeting, some members mention your name and how you talk about things that are not supposed being heard openly. But they got always the same response that you don't represent any serious threat because you are just an independent powerless person and no one is ready to listen to you seriously". So I enjoyed the freedom of speech all my life since I was the dog who cannot bite
Now I recall a small American group (engineers in various fields) who seemed having solid scientific proofs about the real cause that let the twin towers scroll, also the juridical building #7 by them. I asked one of them why they don't present them to correct what the WH investigators said about it. He told me that one of his friends decided to take the risk by presenting some of them of which who was specialist. No one heard of him since then or what happened to him. He went on saying: "You know; my friends and I have families to protect, so we decided to keep what we have found to ourselves".

Now it is the turn of 'the right to assembly'. Do you mean that it is possible for all people of the lower classes in a country to be assembled in one unity? This given right is indeed a very clever way to divide people so that controlling them by their ruling system becomes easier. Also the top decision makers are not naive to rule their country (if not the world) directly while they can do it indirectly by creating two strong political parties in the least to play the rivals before the people. By doing this, the people could be entertained, almost daily, by watching the two sides of their high class (claimed being divided) while they play both their given roles, as blaming each other about this and that.
But the right to assembly is not permitted in small/weak countries whose ruling systems are protected by the ones of the greatest nations in exchange for their submission. So when a decision is made to destroy one of these countries, the first tactic is to show the world that its ruling system is dictatorial and headed by tyrants. Then its destruction begins under a certain pretext as it was planned.

Now it is the turn of 'the right to vote'. Who do you think organize any vote? Are they ordinary people like you and I? I noticed that people living in the 'Free World' (unlike the ones outside of it) are convinced that their free elections are real; 'the people rules itself'. In other words, they don't mind believing in the existence of 'We the people' while most of them have no idea who their neighbors are But let us suppose the American election are real. If this the case how could we explain the re-election of G. Bush for a second term?! Is being ignorant an American virtue?! In his first term, he admitted that he was ignorant during about a year that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction. He sent his loyal troops to Iraq to die there as if they were criminals (thieves and killers) while they were serving their high class, instead of saving America and the world. I bet he was so good in his speeches concerning the Iraqi WMD that Saddam had to the point many of his young Americans (I had the chance to meet some of them) dreamed Saddam's robots and missiles attacking their farms. But, the result of the free election proved that most Americans, despite his fatal ignorance, were still loving and trusting him (G. Bush) and voted for him for another term. Naturally, anyone is free to believe this. So perhaps it is just me who cannot believe it. (just to be clearer, the kings, princes, presidents and the like are just actors who are chosen by the top decision makers, via so-called free elections or else, to be their official speakers while they play the decision makers before their people... but this a long long topic, so you can ignore it too ).
.