The comments on this article are also some of the most informed I have ever seen on an internet message board, so kudos for that. The last comment was half a year ago so I thought I’d try to inject a little life back into the tread for the sake of the article. Here it goes:

It has been said over and over that the greed of the pharmaceutical companies perpetuates this cycle of deceit. Indeed, in a capitalistic society, nothing will get accomplished that is not profitable for someone in some way, and it is true that the pharmaceutical industry donates more money to both political parties than any other entity (just as it was in Hitler’s Germany). The excuse of greed seems to be used tirelessly both in the mainstream, and in the grassroots media, as a way to demonize the perpetrator, no matter the scandal.

However, just as most people will refuse to look at the real knowledge in this article in lieu of the easy HIV=AIDS lie, the labeling of all actions as simply “greed” by people like us who have chosen to look a little deeper is similarly an intellectual cop-out that doesn’t take into account some very hard realities. This is understandable of course, especially from the perspective of somebody actually affected by an HIV diagnosis, which I am not. The amount of data just covering this topic is exhausting, and one could truly spend their entire life researching it, not to mention the emotional investment that comes along with a potential life or death decision.

Here’s the reality: the exact same patterns of control of information, pressuring of ‘experts’, demonization of dissenting views, sponsoring of bogus studies, and ignoring of ‘inconvenient’ information that is seen in the AIDS debate, can also be seen in several other key political issues. The first was alluded to in the article, the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (more specifically, the bogus claim that CO2 predicts global atmospheric temperature). The second, of course, is the official account of 9/11. What I am suggesting is that because the modus operandi is the same in the establishment’s handling of all three cases, there is very likely going to be the same general interests (those interests being corporate). Indeed, the same moniker of ‘greed’ can be tacked onto the AGW hypothesis (carbon taxes) as well as 9/11 (Silverstein, military contractors, oil revenues, etc.). But do these three lucrative enterprises have something else in common besides making money? Could the money making aspect just be an inevitable consequence of the workings of capitalism, and not the main intent?

Lets do a quick examination of the effects, or possible effects of these three controversies:
1)HIV/AIDS
-big pharma makes loads of cash
-millions of people (mostly groups implicitly deemed ‘unfavorable’) are poisoned
-many die as a result of the medicine or not receiving the proper treatment
-many more are debilitated for life, their very genetic structure altered by the steady diet of toxins. These flawed genes may be passed on to the offspring, resulting in the continued degeneration of targeted minority groups.

2)AGW (the “CO2 is going to kill us all” hypothesis)
-carbon taxation implemented
-corporate investment firms as well as federal carbon trading schemes capitalize on carbon credits/write laws to allow large corporations loopholes and add more money to the federal coffers.
-everything in the real world becomes more expensive, a lot more expensive. Food, clothing, fuel, any nonperishables, instantly become unaffordable for many.
-Small businesses, crippled by the new regulations, almost entirely cease to exist; unemployment skyrockets.
-The millions who are unable to afford to live will overwhelm the current welfare system, and for a while, it will look like millions of people will have no place to go.
-No worries though, FEMA has already pre-constructed thousands of detainment facilities (complete with barb-wire fencing and railroad tracks) which I’m sure will be touted as the best thing since social security.
-To save space (and money, of course), no new pregnancies will be allowed. Women of breeding age within the compound will be forced to take birth control or be made to leave/put in isolation/whoknowswhat.
-Due to the low quality of federally supplied food (thanks to Codex Alimentarius, but thats another story), millions die of the preventable diseases of undernutrition.
-No measurable impact on climate, due to the fact that CO2 is only like .035% of the atmosphere, and humans only account for like 5% of that, at most.

9/11
-towers are demolished and made to look like a Muslim terrorist attack, in order to whip up support for overseas adventurism
-multiple countries invaded, with no hard evidence to support the official story (and much to contradict it)
-countries which once caused a problem in the area by refusing to ‘play ball’ are now put under the sphere of influence of the globalists
-with more oil resources coming under control of the same interests/groups of people, it becomes easier to manipulate prices to favorably benefit the entire industry (i.e. insider trading)
-gradually, prices are jacked up with the excuse of unrest in the middle east or the economy, what have you.
-fuel prices begin to rise, standard of living begins to decrease, as the price of almost all goods hinges on the price of oil.
-middle class families can no longer afford to raise a healthy family

I think two commonalities should be clear when looking at a basic run-down of effects: the money of course, but also people dying. Now I for one don’t believe that most people are capable of killing millions of people knowingly, with only a gain in personal wealth to justify it, so what is the real story here? It seems to me we live in a world with an exponentially increasing population and an ever-dwindling supply of easy energy and water, simultaneously the environment is choking on the filth of humanity and the quality of living of future generations is in serious question. As populations grow and resources diminish, the laws of scarcity will come into effect and people will be at one another’s throats, possibly sparking WWIII. There is a direct negative correlation between scarcity and quality of living, and there are two factors that determine scarcity: population and resources. Despite desperate searches for a replacement for crude oil, no easy solution presents itself, so it doesn’t look like resources will be increasing any time soon…so what of the other variable? Well there is plenty that can be done with population.

Whether the intent is to control population or whether this side effect has emerged and simply been pushed under the rug and silently justified as necessary to ‘preserving the natural balance’, these controls seems to be built into almost all societies whether explicitly as in the case of China or implicitly through the likes of religion, culture, economics, food manipulation, drug prescriptions, etc, and are as old as society itself.

I’m tired of typing for now, but I should mention that Im only scratching the surface, and the tell tale patterns are present in many other political aspects that I won’t get into at the moment.