Comment: Hmmm

(See in situ)


About that leak ... it was actually published back in 2009:

What's really bizarre is that the article about the "leak" even *says* that the rule change was published in 2009. The bit that's bold-faced, as if it might be the secret new information gleaned from wikileaks, isn't news either, the same thing is spelled out in the 2009 publication. So what's the idea here, that the rule changet was published in 2009 and implemented in 2010 but nobody knew this until wikileaks turned up a cable saying the same thing that was made public at the time the cable was sent?

As conspiracy theories go, this one's not off to a good start.

Someone else already pointed out that there's nothing whatsoever in the "leak" that says or implies that a cure has been found, and the linked article doesn't try to make that claim.

And the logic behind this conspiracy is hard to follow. Homeland security stopped checking for HIV infection on entry because there's a cure. But it's a cure we don't know about. So it's a cure that's not being given to people. So they're letting people with HIV into the country, because there's a cure, even though it's a cure that nobody is getting. Or are they? You say the 30 million lives were lost "supposedly" -- so they aren't really dead? Sooooo confusing.

This one needs some work.