Tuberose.com Information for Transformation
This self-help alternative medicine site offers extensive educational information on the topics of natural healing, holistic and biological dentistry, herbal medicine, cleansing and detoxification, heavy metal detox, diet, nutrition, weight loss, and the finest, tried and tested health equipment and products available for the natural management of health.

How do you spell AIDS?  M-O-N-E-Y.  AIDS is not a single illness; it is an international operation, a business, a bureaucracy.  Aids is a convenient fiction which fails to consider the complexity of what is really going on.  It is, in the Third World , a way of substituting harmful medical drugs for food.  Don’t buy the idea that AIDS is some specialized attack on a special piece of the immune system and they know all about it.  That’s the facade they maintain.  The truth is, they don’t know.  They don’t know at all.  Back in 1980, when the first five AIDS patients-to-be showed up at Los Angeles hospitals, they were misdiagnosed.  They did have pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and several other infections.  But as any doctor should have been able to tell, pneumocystis can occur when there is immune suppression for virtually any reason.  That is the history of the disease.

Deconstructing The Myth of AIDS

_

AIDS is a word, which, through repetition, has become a sword, a piece of hypnotic death dealing.  There’s a myth that “everyone knows HIV causes AIDS.”  Many are working on HIV.  Huge companies have been founded on it!  But, like other myths, when you talk to people, you find the myth has cracks, and people are afraid to voice their real opinions.  Very few people really bother to find out what it means when a person has registered positive on a blood test for HIV.  The government really hasn’t fulfilled its role in providing good information on AIDS.  There’s not much communication between people at the White House and the scientists at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).  What most of us know about AIDS comes through our television sets.  We get a constant barrage of new scientific information, breakthroughs.  This gives the impression we’re peering over the shoulders of the best minds of our time, delving into the mysteries of the gene, the virus, the core-essence of human life.  We get terrified–”It might be me.  I might be the next person to be sneezed on by a junky, even though I know I can’t get the virus from sneezes, maybe I can.  That lab worker stuck her hand on a needle. That’s all it took.  Then an AIDS victim bled all over the cop who shot him with a stun-gun in L.A. ”

_

When you have death and dying to work with in picture-form, the PR people who can get a chilling message across are a dime a dozen.  Any death can be linked with any reason.  The people who fashion ads and PR aren’t paid to know about the quality of what they are promoting.  Their skills and their jobs have to do with building convincing images, period.  Unexplainably stunned that these Los Angelinos were immuno-compromised, doctors made noises about a new syndrome, and pretty soon the search for a virus was on.  But, once a disease gets rolling–in Washington that is–you leave common sense behind.  It’s very difficult to change people’s minds.  It’s not impossible, but there is a head of steam built up.  It’s difficult when scientists are not open to discussing scientific issues.  In January 1983, a year before the AIDS virus was “discovered,” Dr. John Finkbeiner, writing in Medical World News, warned that the Hepatitis B vaccine “might be contaminated with a pathogen responsible for the acquired immune deficiency syndrome epidemic.”  The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), reporting on the first 26 cases of AIDS in the U.S. , declared that 20 cases were from New York , and 6 were from San Francisco and Los Angeles .  These were the three cities that carried out the most extensive early hepatitis-B vaccine-trials.  Then, all of the first 26 AIDS cases matched the profile of the volunteers in these same vaccine-trials:  male, gay, under 40, well educated and (mostly) white.”  Soon, a fairy tale arose about Africa and its green monkeys:  The virus had come from them.

_

Norbert Rapoza, Ph.D., A.M.A. Dept. of Drugs, said:  “I’m persuaded that AIDS began in Central Africa, probably as a monkey virus that jumped species...spread by mosquitoes...then, the virus may have mutated and when tribesmen moved to the cities...became involved with prostitutes...picked up other sexually transmitted diseases and they were treated for these diseases with dirty needles...two routes of transmission–sex and dirty needles.”  That’s a wild story that should get the Nobel Prize for Medical Comedy!  Groundwork for the sequel–in case it becomes a movie–is Dr. Rapoza’s addendum:  “Or, the original virus may have come from a hooved animal–a cow or a pig–and have been transmitted by some African’s custom of cutting the neck and drinking the blood.”  Since green monkey kidneys had been used for years in making vaccines, since the monkeys themselves had been stretched, bent, poked, sliced, isolated and experimented on in laboratories all over the world, naturally AIDS couldn’t have come from vaccines or labs–only from the African jungle.  Based on green monkey thinking, Africa was taken into the AIDS family, and soon the whole Third World was absorbed.  The newly defined symptoms were indistinguishable from starvation; indistinguishable from death by dangerous medical drugs and pesticides they were in contact with.  There were variations on this plot.  One, tentatively advanced by World Health Organization advisor, Jacques Leibowitch, had it that Cuban soldiers, hacking their way through the jungles of Angola in the 70s, brought the incubating AIDS microbe home with them.  Eventually, some troops who were gay ended up on the Cuban-boat-people crew that President Carter let into the U.S.   AIDS spread from them into the American gay community.

_

Dr. Luc Montagnier, co-discoverer of the HIV virus, and Jonathan Mann, WHO spokesman for AIDS, both debunked the green monkey theory of AIDS’s origin.  Montagnier said some very weak arguments had been forwarded to put AIDS’s origination in Africa and characterized the emergence of AIDS “viruses” as “a continuing mystery.”  Robert Gallo, co-discoverer of HIV and Max Essex, two of our highest-ranking AIDS researchers, still believe that AIDS originated in Africa, despite the fact that Essex recently retracted key research which had pointed to an African-monkey origin of an HIV-type virus.  These renditions of how AIDS moved had the effect of quelling fear that “American AIDS” was the product of the hepatitis-B vaccine.  Many accounts, in fact, place the world’s first actual AIDS cases in the U.S.   Because the press representatives at NIH and the CDC haven’t told American reporters that the story is not true, but that it has the official seal of approval from their scientists.  So, for American reporters, the debunking of the African green monkey theory by one of HIV’s discoverers is just a “European opinion.”

_

There has never been a performance-evaluation on the results of the NIH.  NIH has balked at the idea of evaluating the worth of all their medical research over the last 20 years.  Robert Gallo and Max Essex were the field commanders in the NIH war on cancer in the 70’s.  They lost that war, so why are they in charge of AIDS research?  It seems odd that we don’t have other people running the show.  Peter Duesberg, molecular biologist at the University of California at Berkeley , was recently on sabbatical at the NIH in Maryland .  There he resided among the leading AIDS researchers of the day.  Duesberg was also a key researcher during the war on cancer, when he worked side by side with some who are now top AIDS investigators.  Including Robert Gallo, an old friend of his.  On March 1, 1987, Cancer Research, a professional journal, published his paper on the subject of HIV.  Several researchers, incognito, have approached Duesberg and privately told him they agree with his assessment that the medical-research establishment has failed to prove HIV is the AIDS virus–that in fact, Duesberg was pointing out the obvious:  the emperor had no clothes.

_

He apprises us:  “If they could show me that HIV makes protein RNA and DNA, if you could show it had some form of activity, some biochemical activity, then I would say it’s time to consider it seriously–because that’s what all other parasites have to do in order to get something done.  I would have to see cells being killed by HIV–not just .01% of them over five years.  If you want to conquer a country, you can’t do it by killing 5000 people every day when there are 100,000 new babies born every day.

_

It has not been demonstrated that the “virus” has an active site of replication in the human body, at some concealed site that we don’t really know about, and that its replication in that spot is somehow destructive to T-helper cells.  It was just taken as an assumption, all the way along and when the data began to show that it wasn’t so, that data was just ignored.  People said, “Well, we know it’s causing the disease, and when we understand more about its behavior, we’ll understand this replicating business too.  This too shall come to pass.”  It’s a myth that’s constantly being provided the world through Gallo and Fauci and others, who claim that this is the most complicated retrovirus in the history of the universe.  But all the things that are peculiar about it are things that would make you look at it and say, “Gee, this virus is not a pathogen!  It doesn’t do anything.”  Humans make a perfectly good antibody response to it; in fact it’s so good, maybe that’s why the virus is so latent (harmless).  Robert Gallo says people have odd immune responses to the HIV virus, which in turn destroy their own T-cells.

_

Peter Duesberg stated, “It’s a hypothesis.  Dr. Gallo thinks antibodies to the virus would destroy the T-cells. There’s no basis for the hypothesis.  It doesn’t happen to the one to two million HIV positive Americans.  It’s one of the great ideas of Dr. Gallo. If HIV attacked the thymus, you’d see a reservoir of it, a large concentration of it at some point in the thymus.  We haven’t seen that.”  Duesberg continues:

“Although the HIV virus is present, in its latent form, in a proportion of AIDS patients, Gallo and others haven’t proved that it causes the disease.  There’s no mouse in this world that doesn’t have at least 50 retroviruses in him as latent as the HIV virus.  No chicken, no cow, no cat.  Retrovirology is also like religion.  There are what, 700 million Catholics in the world?  They all believe that Jesus was the Son of God, but the proof is only circumstantial.  It’s the same thing at NIH with HIV.”  We can now see, in the lab, a part in ten billion of cell-volume–here we are approaching physics.  So I would amend Koch’s postulates to say we have to see some biochemical activity out of a virus, in order to start imagining it might cause disease.  Many AIDS patients have the herpes virus too, but no one is saying herpes causes AIDS.  Also there has been no demonstration of a plausible mechanism to explain the latency of the ‘virus.’  There isn’t a single secret in the genome (genetic structure).  No new gene waiting there to come out.  There’s hard evidence that says HIV only behaves in a particular way.  Like every other retrovirus, extremely latent, extremely inactive...not killing the human cell in which it’s expressing its genes.  The AIDS literature is full of screw-ups.  Papers are published with great authority, which is baloney.  You look at the data and it’s unbelievable, the conclusions that are drawn from them.”

_

In conclusion, Duesberg says:

“I think AZT is the most sinister aspect of this whole business.  They’re killing growing (normal) cells.  That’s what they’re doing.  That’s very serious business.  Hazeltine proposed to treat babies that are antibody-positive (who have not yet developed their immune systems) to HIV, one week with AZT, the other week with Interferon.  Why do we have a reported preponderance of heterosexual Africans and homosexual Americans with AIDS; why don’t we have many more cases in Europe, since that continent’s connections with Africa are traditionally so much stronger than America ’s?    The media are not analysts of science.  Even writers for the major newspapers in America , though a few are doctors, take their information direct from the press representatives at major federal health agencies.  If you are a reporter and call research institutions looking for information, you are shunted to PR people.  These PR folks are hardworking and helpful folks, but they are not paid to think on their own, they are merely fed information by supervisors who run labs where research is carried on.  The press people make no judgments on the accuracy of what they pass on to reporters.  So it really isn’t hard to imagine that, if wrong information starts at the top of the waterfall, by the time it cascades out into your living room, through the tube, it is a disaster.  But, by that point, it has the ring of casual authority the media know how to impart.  That is their business.  As long as the media blithely believe they are getting the straight dope from federal health agencies, they will keep building this absurd myth.  They will keep bumbling along, believing they are documenting the earnest struggle of a hardy band of researchers against a plague caused by HIV.

_

“This is the way they’ve documented every campaign against a major disease.  Why change now?  Just do another re-run.  In the midst of this image making, the facts get buried.  Every year or two, the gods of the CDC invent a new shotgun.  The shotgun has wider barrels and more firepower, and what the gun spews out is a new definition of AIDS.  Larger disease-definitions equal larger drug profits. 

_

Until recently, you had to test positive for the presence of HIV and you also had to have one or more infections or diseases from a list, which are called AIDS indicator diseases.  The two most prevalent of these are pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and Kaposi’s sarcoma, which is a cancer of the blood vessels.  But there are about thirty other AIDS indicator diseases.  As of September 1987, you could have one of the indicator diseases and be diagnosed with AIDS, even though you didn’t show a definite, positive test for the HIV virus.  Business-wise this is the ideal disease; the interlocking of all human symptoms, requiring more invasive intervention and, thus, compounding side effects.  Next, headache or cough will be enough to rank one as having “early HIV disease!  The opposite extreme would be a sniffle that was regarded merely as a sniffle...

_

The myth of pneumocystis is that it was extremely rare before AIDS, that it was almost unknown, in fact.  The first recognized case of P. carinii pneumonia (pneumocystis) in the United States was reported in 1956.  Since then, an increasing number of cases have occurred from year to year.  Since 1967, the CDC has controlled Pentamidine, a specific pneumocystis drug.  The other myth is that if two people have pneumocystis, they both developed it from the same cause.  That is preposterous.  The pneumocystis protozoa is found in 70-85% of healthy people.  It causes no harm.  It is one of those germs, which establishes an easy relationship with the host.  However, when immunosuppression becomes severe enough, it can come to the fore, center in the lungs and cause virulent disease.  In the years 1976 to 1983, the Mayo Clinic recorded 53 cases of pneumocystis.  The underlying conditions judged to be responsible were leukemia (15 patients), lymphoma (9 patients), malignancies (5 patients); AIDS (2 patients); inflammatory diseases treated with corticosteroids (16 patients). Other factors that could predispose a person to pneumocystis are thymic displasia, hypoglycemia, cryptococcus, tuberculosis and protein-calorie malnutrition.”

_

Researchers concur that immunosuppressive drug therapy is a strong factor in causing the disease.  Remember, pneumocystis, by definition, is sufficient for a diagnosis of AIDS.  Unfortunately, most physicians in this country have no knowledge of immunosuppressive drugs–medical or street-type–beyond a very parochial range.  Furthermore, they frequently, under a variety of orthodox assurances, practice immuno-toxic medicine–another blind spot.  Although there is a long list of a) disease, b) malnutrition and c) chemical factors which can make the immunosuppressive bed in which pneumocystis will turn virulent, the CDC has severely ignored these factors–instead, pushing HIV into the limelight as the “new” agent.  Researchers have attempted to bolster the idea that AIDS is an infectious global epidemic, by linking Kaposi’s sarcoma, one of its main symptoms, in Africa and the U.S.   Researchers say Kaposi’s sarcoma is a cancer of the blood vessels.  It manifests on the skin or inside the body.  Beginning as pink, red or violet spots, or raised marks, it progresses to dark blue or purple-brown lesions, nodules or plaques.  Perhaps 30% of the time, it is found in the lungs, where it can be difficult to differentiate from pneumocystis pneumonia.  When it affects the gastrointestinal tract, the major complication is bleeding.  The public is not so aware that there are at least three types of Kaposi.  The so-called classical type is found in people of Eastern European and Mediterranean origins.  It affects older people, is “indolent,” as they say, has a protracted course, and the people who have it seem to live with it and die of natural causes.

_

Then there is endemic Kaposi, found in certain areas of Africa, particularly in Kenya , Tanzania and Zaire .  It has probably always existed in these regions.  A person who has it usually suffers no ill effects, but after years it can suddenly flare up and become progressive.  Finally there is what is referred to as aggressive or epidemic Kaposi.  This is the form found in the United States , which began to proliferate around 1980, particularly among gay men.  It is generally agreed that some immune-depression accompanies this form.  Inhalant nitrite drugs (poppers) that are used by gays as an orgasm-enhancer and muscle relaxant have also been proposed as a major cause.  These products have been found to be profoundly immunosuppressive for human lymphocytes in vitro, and their byproducts when metabolized into N-nitroso compounds have been known to be highly carcinogenic in many animal species.  Kaposi’s sarcoma, the second most prevalent symptom of AIDS, may have an important, unexplored connection to the use of poppers in the U.S. ; and efforts to tie together the disease in Africa and the U.S. fall far short of good science.

_

Antibiotics, by many accounts, have been overused tremendously in certain pockets of the American gay community, in the last fifteen years.  From reports of several clinicians who interview people with AIDS, there are cases where these people have taken antibiotics for ten years, continuously.  This practice started taking off in the 1960s.  A gay man, going to, say, Puerto Rico on vacation might ask his doctor for a script for antibiotics, because he wasn’t sure he could get one in Puerto Rico .  His doctor would write one out.  Prophylactic (preventive) dosing continued when the same gay man, back in New York , would anticipate going to the bathhouses on the weekend.  He would load up on Tetracycline (immunosuppressive), just to make sure he would be okay if he ran into gonorrhea bacteria.  And so on and so forth, until, among some people, popping antibiotics became a daily regimen, a habit, against the possibility of as much as a pimple.  A patient, through overuse of antibiotics, carries around with him an imbalance of germs in which harmful micro-organisms have gained the upper hand in territories of the body in which their natural competitors have been drugged out of existence.  These men’s bodies are filled with antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.  Two instances of this are Salmonella and Candida albicans.

_

Both are specifically listed as grounds for a diagnosis of AIDS on the September 4, 1987, CDC definition of AIDS, even though these infections can clearly develop for no other reason than antibiotic-abuse.  A physician who writes scripts for antibiotics casually and continuously, as “prevention,” should be liable for serious criminal charges.  Since studies have revealed that sodium fluoride, taken over a long period of time (toothpaste, mouthwash, swishing, topical applications, etc.), breaks down the immune system, some researchers feel that it is therefore conducive to aids.

_

The Cape Cod News, August 20, 1986, observed that:  “The three longest fluoridated areas in this country are New York , District of Columbia and San Francisco , which areas are the most prolific with AIDS.  Los Angeles and San Antonio , on the other hand, have never been fluoridated and this plague has been miniscule in these cities.”  Even though these two cities have large homosexual communities, AIDS is not as prevalent.

_

The immune system, the body’s national guard, so to speak, using white blood cells, is disrupted and rendered much less effective from the effects of fluoride.  Fluoride causes calcium deficiency by its affinity for calcium.  The white blood cells are calcium dependent.  One consequence is hypersensitivity or “allergy” which bring increased, more severe or longer-lasting colds, flus or other ills.

_

Dean Burk, Chief Chemist Emeritus at the U.S. Cancer Institute, states:  “In point of fact, Fluoride causes more cancer death, and causes it faster, than any other chemical.” (Fluoride and Cancer, Congressional Record H7176-6, July 21, 1975, by Dean Burk and J.A.)  The average birth date of most AIDS victims is between 1951 and 1963, the years in which the fallout from atmospheric testing of atomic bombs was the highest.  The fallout drifted with the prevailing winds, from Nevada, over much of the rest of the nation.  This is when the victims would have been in the first trimester of fetal development.  The researchers at the top of the heap claim they’ve proven that HIV is responsible for all the reported cases of AIDS symptoms in the world.  Those TV pictures that show the HIV virus, the purported AIDS virus, chewing up the T-cells of our immune systems–most people believe that those pictures are photos, or at least computer simulations made, dot by dot, of something that has definitely occurred and been observed inside the body.  But it is a complete simulation–what they’re showing you is an invention.  In fact, there is no proof that HIV viruses are doing that to your cells.  There is no proof that one malady called AIDS exists.  There does exist, however, widespread immune suppression, which has hundreds of causes.

_

There is nothing magical about the ideas of AIDS.  It is merely immune-collapse followed by opportunistic infections.  Hundreds of initiating factors can give rise to that precise pattern.  Since AIDS is nothing more than a label for a condition which already existed prior to the “discovery” of AIDS–namely immune-suppression and resultant infection–the whole theory collapses before it can be formulated.  We’ve known about fifteen or twenty medical reasons and hundreds of environmental causes for immune-deficiency, and we’ve known about them for decades.  Nothing new there–nothing unique.

_

Not only is HIV unproven as the cause of AIDS, it is latent, dormant, it lies around without replicating, without spreading.  There’s no evidence that it destroys human cells in the body.  There’s no evidence that it gives rise to indirect mechanisms, which in turn destroy cells or harm the body.  When the actual virus can be found in a person who has been diagnosed with AIDS, its concentration (titer) is so low that special lab procedures have to be used to induce it to grow in a dish, outside the body, so that it can then be detected at all.  It exists in so few cells that even if it did destroy them, the result would be “like a pinprick.”

_

If one tries to differentiate transmissibility of the disease from transmissibility of the virus, it’s extraordinarily easy to do.  Once you remove the equation that transmission of the virus equals transmission of the disease, AIDS does not look like a terribly transmissible disease anymore.  There is no question that it can be passed from one person to another.  This is true of many microbes, none of which cause us harm.  There is no reason to assume that because a germ moves from person to person it causes disease.  Many things, chemical and microbial, can kill human cells in petri dishes.  In dishes, there is no immune response at work; the normal processes of the human body are not functioning.  Every high-school biology student knows this fact.  The thing they forgot is, that obviously the theoretical cause (HIV) can just as well be a serum contaminant resulting from the disease, not causing the problem.  But, admitting “that” could blow millions of research dollars down the drain.

_

The scenario, when you take it apart, is not only scientifically absurd, it also keeps help for dying and ill people, true help, from taking place.  It keeps prevention from taking place.  So the AIDS theory isn’t just stupid, it’s vicious.  It isn’t really surprising that the AIDS research establishment in America is arrogant, when you look at the thesis about AIDS, which they have built.  Their arrogance is hiding an extremely weak brand of science, protecting it against calm scrutiny.  The theory has been formed in such an elastic way that it can be stretched in various ways to cover unexpected changes in facts.  Out of all the reported AIDS cases in the U.S., 91% are men and 9% are women.  That is not the reflection of any known virus at work.  Such extreme preference for men over women is not the epidemiology of any known infectious agent.  Among IV drug users, one of the only studies that have tried to show a link between a positive HIV test and the sharing of needles has failed.

_

Comparing a white and a black group of IV drug users, it was found that the group, which shared more needles, tested positive for HIV less frequently.  Likewise for anal intercourse, the attempt to show that this “homosexual sex” explains the preference of HIV for gays overlooks the following:

1. Heterosexuals have been practicing anal sex for centuries.

2. Semen to blood transmission, which has been attributed to anal sex as the reason HIV spreads, is also a fact in heterosexual-vaginal sex.

_

Any urban gynecologist will tell you that a certain percentage of his hetero male and female patients come in with penile and vaginal abrasions.  That would also allow blood transmission.  Trying to confirm that HIV causes AIDS by showing it spreads in culturally prejudiced fashion, through odd routes, in very limited fashion, has failed–it is absurd.

_

There is no way to measure the full effect of telling a person he has AIDS, or has tested positive for the “AIDS virus.”  These days, the distinction between a positive blood test and having AIDS is blurring over considerably.  Doctors, unsure of themselves, are relying more and more, for diagnosis, on whether the patient is a member of a so-called high-risk group (male gay, IV drug user, sexual partner of a person who is gay or an IV drug user).  We’ve heard stories of people burning down the houses of those who tested positive for HIV.  There’s been suicide for the same reason.  Since a major component of immunosuppression is the diagnosis itself, never mind what actual disease factors may or may not be present.  Walking around with the belief that a virus, which is invariably fatal to you, inhabits you, day after day, can bring about some extremely debilitating effects.  Particularly when estimates of date of death range from one to 16 years.  All the more reason to be wary of death sentences handed out by white coats.  The power, for some patients is close to ultimate.

_

If a person will jump off a building because he tested positive for HIV, you know something is going on.  Something called cultural hypnotism, because the hysterical person hadn’t the slightest idea whether his disease, if any, was going to be fatal or not.  He was operating on pure faith.  If the blood test is geared to HIV, which hasn’t been proven to cause human disease, then the whole situation becomes quite crazy.  Naturally, with AIDS on people’s minds, there is a great deal of pressure to make the blood test mandatory.  Yet, researchers are in serious disagreement about which tests to use and how to use them.

_

The AIDS blood tests, which have been and still are being used are unreliable.  They’re testing for exposure to a supposed “virus” which hasn’t been proven as a cause of any illness.  A titer (detectable concentration) of HIV has never been reported yet in one patient, in a paper on AIDS, Gallo, Levy and Montagnier say they can’t isolate HIV itself in more than 50% of cases.

_

What are associated with AIDS testing is antibodies to HIV.  The overarching myth is that the mere presence of antibodies in one’s bloodstream signifies an active infection.  Isn’t it elementary that we carry antibodies to all sorts of pathogens that we have met and defeated?  Doesn’t this mean that the immune system is doing its job?  Isn’t this first-year stuff?

_

The various definitions of AIDS, used to make diagnoses around the world, are useless and vague.  They allow almost anyone to be pinned with the label, AIDS.  They actually function to terrorize.  They also, by semantic juggling, promote vastly increased numbers of AIDS cases, which naturally leads to the wide marketing of highly profitable pharmaceuticals as treatments.

_

There are two exams, which are normally called “AIDS tests” (although very expensive other procedures can be done, such as searching human tissue directly for the HIV virus).  These two basic exams are the Elisa (also called EIA) and the Western blot.  The Elisa comes first.  Five cc’s of blood are taken from the testee.  What the lab then looks for are specific antibodies (part of the body’s immune-defense forces), which have been generated against an intrusion of the HIV virus.  Antibodies are spread out on a plastic layer.  If they are indeed antibodies specifically against the HIV virus, they will bind with viral proteins on the plastic.  When this bound mixture is treated with chemicals, a color-change will occur, indicating a positive test, so we’re told.

_

Using the more specific “confirmatory,” as it’s called, Western blot test should then validate positive Elisas.  Rather than a color change, a recognizable pattern will emerge if HIV antibodies and viral proteins bind on a sheet of lab paper.  The recognizable pattern equals a positive AIDS exam.  “Positive” is widely taken to mean:  You have the AIDS virus in your body.  The FDA is the federal licensing agency for all U.S. AIDS testing.  In their document titled Summary and Explanation of the Test, dated July 23, 1987:  “In order to afford maximum protection of the blood supply, the EIA (Elisa) test was designed to be extremely sensitive.  As a result, non-specific (falsely positive) reactions may be seen in samples from some people...due to prior pregnancy, blood transfusions, or other exposure...” In fact, other literature suggests that falsely positive Elisa tests can result from alcoholism, certain types of malignancies, autoimmune diseases, malaria, liver disease, heat-treating the blood sample to be tested and prolonged storage of plasma.

_

Dr. Robert Altman, chief of epidemiology for the New Jersey State Health Department, stated, “Exactly what a positive test result means is not that well defined at this point in time.”  A negative AIDS blood test could mean you’re negative for the virus, or it could mean the test isn’t registering that you’re actually positive yet.  It’s sometimes possible that a positive AIDS test is positive for another virus not HIV.  In the March 1987 issue of the Journal of Clinical Microbiology, James Carlson, of the University of California at Davis School of Pathology, said that in low-risk groups, the false-positive rate in Elisa tests is an overwhelming “84.2% in our study and 77.1% recently reported by the American Red Cross...” (a false-positive AIDS test means you appear to have AIDS-virus antibodies, but you really don’t).

_

British researcher L. J. Oldham, writing in the Journal of Medical Virology, January 1987, concludes after running tests of bood which was weakly positive for HIV antibodies, “Our findings suggest that Western blot cannot be depended upon as the sole confirmatory test for HIV.  As has been shown, Western blots...lack full sensitivity and specificity.”  And, finally, “...confirmatory procedures are, at present, beyond the scope of most screening laboratories.”

_

Dr. Harvey Fineberg, Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health published a statistical study on AIDS testing in the spring of 1987, in Law, Medicine and Health Care.  He stated:  “The statistical chances are about 90% that a positive-reading Elisa is wrongly positive.  A second Elisa won’t change that either.  If you do a Western blot, the odds might, at best, be lowered to 25%.  In other words, a fourth of the time, a positive AIDS test would be falsely positive.”  The test is flawed badly, both in a statistical sense and from the point of view of lab science.

_

Nevertheless, the test is pushed and foisted on the public, and sold hard to legislators who may begin to believe their constituencies deep down want this mandatory exam to be performed.  Meanwhile, the press cooperates by broadcasting quotes about the test, which assume it is a reliable tool.  As hysteria is headlined, as predictions mount about the millions of deaths just over the horizon, more people enlist into the camp of those who are absolutely sure AIDS is one entity, caused invariably and only by HIV.

_

Grant foundations believe it, too, and scientists who are worried about their house and boat payments forget their doubts and join up on the side of HIV–they apply for grants under the aegis of supporting scientific truth.  Grants begin with the assumption that HIV has been proven as the agent of the disease.  There has never been a time before this when medical research and basic biological research were both connected to the money machine.

_

The fundamental change is that now biology is a for-profit science.  Yearly, the directory of biotechnology companies grows.  As the disease’s definition broadens, numbers of cases of AIDS swell; even people who know there is a definitional shuffle-hustle accept that AIDS is on the increase in a big way.  Pure hypnotism.  Though prominent figures like Harvey Fineberg, Dean of The Harvard School of Public Health, warn us about the intrinsic flaws concerning mass AIDS blood-testing, this kind of sensible information is buried under a tide of fear, under a demand for more testing.

_

What AIDS is, when you strip away the terrorist label, is any form of severe immunosuppression, from any source, which then gives rise to opportunistic infections.  These infections are sometimes unusual, because the microorganisms that cause them are benign under ordinary circumstances.  But with the immune response lowered, the microorganisms come to the fore and behave virulently.  This is the pattern for all forms of immune suppression.  It always has been.  It is nothing new.  First, reduced immune response.  Then, opportunistic infections, just like when you get tired, run-down and catch a “cold.”

_

Many people diagnosed with AIDS were already suffering from considerable immunosuppression, which had nothing to do with a virus.  It had to do with exposure to drugs, to already known diseases.  Many of the symptoms of what is called AIDS are the symptoms of toxic reactions to chemicals, or of already known illnesses.  Nobody is seriously thinking that these symptoms could be caused by different combinations of chemical factors, or by older diseases like syphilis.  A few people are, but the big-money boys, the people that control AIDS research grants in this country–they’re not interested in these avenues of research.  If you define a disease or a syndrome like AIDS so that it has forty symptoms, and all forty can be produced by drugs, then if the people who are sick have been taking those drugs...it’s criminal to avoid the obvious conclusion.

_

Malnutrition is recognized as the single greatest source of immune-suppression in the world.  According to Maxime Seligmann et al., writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, November 15, 1984, volume 311, page 1289:  “the commonest cause of T-cell immunodeficiency worldwide is protein-calorie malnutrition (PCM).  Malnourished children have defects in macrophage and T-cell function accompanied by increased susceptibility to infections.  These effects are particularly marked in malnourished children.  Bacterial super infection in these children is a major cause of serious disease and death.”  But people insist on believing that AIDS is everywhere–one condition caused by one thing, a virus.  That is what they are having shoved down their throats daily through the media hype.  The NIH wants HIV to be the thing that causes all immune-suppression in everyone.  They want AIDS to be one horror story.  Meanwhile, the death-sentence, “You have AIDS”, has the impact of a Medieval priest preparing a lapsed believer for Hell.  In all the hype, the psychosomatic effect of that death sentence is underplayed.

_

So, why not ascertain what “destroys” the immune system rather than trying to kill the elusive virus and/or viruses?  Because all profitable activity of modern medicine—the drug, dairy, and flour milling industries—would collapse.  Sugar, artificial sweeteners, aluminum, hydrogenation of oils and the margarine business would have to stop.  But, will they stop?  No, but their hearts will stop prematurely as the devil continues to sell his wares.

_

No studies of consequence have been done to show what happens when people who are said to have pre-AIDS in America, and change their immunosuppressive habits.  The few fringe efforts in this regard have been ignored by federal health agencies.  The cure to what is called AIDS has much to do with the proposition that immune systems can be repaired.  Although, in this regard, western medical science has little experience or skill.  If medical researchers aren’t punching up better health by studying people who try to change detrimental habits, what the hell are they doing?  Medicine has been built to respond to acute crisis in the body.  Under that cause, it has extended its writ into the territory of “health maintenance,” for which it really has no program.  The medical research-machine is geared to collect symptoms, put them under umbrellas, uncover causative germs and find drugs to treat those germs.  It is not geared to analyze the deleterious effects of drugs which, in many cases, are medical preparations.

_

Corticosteroids, have been found, in concert with other compounds, to be very immunosuppressive, leading to pneumocystis pneumonia, the major symptom of AIDS.  Blood transfusions also open up the possibility of getting any number of pathogens placed directly into your bloodstream, without first passing through the ordinary portals of the immune system.  Drugs, alone, adulterated, or in combinations, can cause symptoms we call AIDS, no virus is necessary.

_

When researchers assure people that AIDS is invariably fatal and that it is caused in toto by the HIV-virus, they are instructing us on a philosophy of medicine.  This kind of thinking is what people are trying to bloat with more research money.  The U.S. Constitution contains a little known clause which empowers medical bureaucrats, through existing law enforcement agencies, to define at will the concept of “cure” by banning literature on the subject.  In various states, AIDS quackery commissions are being formed by Justice Departments in concert with local medical associations.  Physicians who treat AIDS patients are being trained to adhere to the party line, which is that the only acceptable treatment for AIDS is AZT.  At every level of media, there is silence on these elements of the current AIDS scene.  Again, this is because it’s assumed that Medicine is right.  Investigating this arena is a no-priority item for newspapers.

_

AZT

As soon as Dr. Robert Gallo made his famous press conference on April 23, 1984, that his virus was the probable cause of AIDS, the race was on to find a pharmaceutical weapon against it.  In 1964, a chemist, Jerome Horowitz, synthesized a sophisticated cell poison for the treatment for leukemia.  He called it Compound S.  Its formal title is 3’-Azido-3’-deoxythymidine, or Azidothymidine for short, but everyone knows it by its nickname, AZT.  This drug has immunosuppressive effects and, is the single medical preparation licensed to treat people diagnosed with AIDS.  Also known as zidovudine, AZT is marketed by Burroughs Wellcome Co. under the brand name Retrovir.

_

It works like this.  Thymidine is the fourth nucleotide (building block) of DNA, the basic molecule of life.  AZT is an impersonator of thymidine. As a cell synthesizes new DNA, while preparing to divide in order to spawn another, AZT either steals in to take the place of the real thing, or else disrupts the delicate process by interfering with the cell’s regulation of the relative concentrations of nucleotide pools present during DNA synthesis.  That’s the end of the cell line.  Cell division and replication, wrecked by the presence of the plastic imposter, comes to a halt.  Chemotherapeutic drugs such as AZT are described as DNA chain terminators accordingly.  Their effect is cell death of every type, particularly the rapidly dividing cells of the immune system and those lining our guts.  It is akin to napalm-bombing a school to kill some roof-rats.  AZT was abandoned.  It wasn’t even patented.  For two decades it was forgotten–until the advent of AIDS.

_

On the basis of a reassuring but fallacious assertion that AZT was specifically antagonistic to HIV, and a thousand times more toxic to the latter than human cells generally, the drug went to fraudulent clinical trials.  At best, they were so incompetently staged that the data gathered under them were useless.  The subjects taking AZT needed repeated blood transfusions to keep going.  Small surprise, since AZT was designed specifically to kill blood cells; the label (bearing a skull and cross-bones) on laboratory supplies cautions, “Toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed.  Target organ(s):  Blood, bone marrow.  Wear suitable protective clothing.”

_

The AZT package insert states “May be associated with hematologic toxicity including granulocytopenia and severe anemia” (destruction of white and red blood cells respectively), and “Prolonged use of Retrovir has been associated with symptomatic myopathy (gross atrophy of muscle tissue) similar to that produced by human immunodeficiency virus.”  Project Inform’s Martin Delaney made the following assessment:

_

“the multi-center clinical trials of AZT are perhaps the sloppiest and most poorly controlled trials ever to serve as the basis for an FDA drug licensing approval...causes of death (among volunteers) were never verified.  Despite this and a frightening record of toxicity, the FDA approved AZT in record time, granting a treatment (recommendation) in less than five days and full pharmaceutical licensing in less than six months.”

_

Instead of only giving AZT to the desperately ill, as was the intent when the FDA licensed it, doctors have taken it upon themselves to write scripts and urge their patients to take AZT–a drug which damages bone marrow, where raw material for immune-cells are produced–causing severe anemia.  It is cytotoxic–it kills normal cells extensively.  This drug, which is supposed to halt temporarily the spread of AIDS, has its attack point in immune-cells.

_

AZT is quite expensive–$8,000 to $10,000 per year per patient.  No one has ever been cured by AZT, but is sells like hot cakes never-the-less, still the most widely prescribed AIDS drug, and it reaps profits counted in billions.  AZT would, in the Third World, amount to a death sentence for many who are already suffering chronic immune-suppression owing to malnutrition.  Death, not cure, is often the result of administering highly toxic drugs to the chronically undernourished.

_

Lippincott’s Drug Facts and Comparisons has a number of warnings about AZT.  The drug is often associated with blood toxicity, including severe anemia requiring transfusions.  “Significant anemia...may require a dose interruption until evidence of (bone) marrow recovery is observed.”  In concert with other drugs like pentamidine and acyclovir, both used for AIDS opportunistic infections, AZT toxicity could be increased,  Lippincott’s cautions.  For patients who have liver or kidney problems, Lippincott states that there may be a “greater risk of toxicity from (AZT),” Many AIDS patients do, in fact, have liver complications.

_

Molecular biologist Peter Duesberg remarks, “AZT is very, very destructive to healthy cells.  No doubt it is a dangerous drug.”  Ellen Cooper, FDA analyst, said:  “Some patients discovered whether they were taking AZT or a placebo by the taste of the capsule, or by taking the medication to labs for analysis.  No one wanted the placebo, because the volunteers were very ill and came forward for the study to try to save their lives.  Some people who were on AZT shared their medications with the placebo group; other placebo people were taking an antiviral called Ribavirin, from Mexico–which, of course, completely changed the outcome of the study. Lists of patients’ symptoms, which were kept in their records, in order to determine their reactions to AZT, were sometimes reworked at a later date.  Items, which had been written in, were crossed out or changed with no explanation.  Adverse experiences were sometimes crossed out months after initially recorded, even though ‘possibly related to test agent (AZT)’ had been checked off originally by the investigator or his designee.”

_

Harvey Chernov, an FDA analyst who looked over the pharmacological data on AZT, recommended that the drug not be approved for release.  Nevertheless, the drug was released, and many physicians for their patients who have no symptoms are now prescribing it loosely.  This is a drug, which is currently being touted for use as a preventive, globally, against AIDS.

_

In the headlines of August of 1989 we learned:  “Americans infected with AIDS may need $2 billion to $5 billion annually to pay for the anti-viral drug AZT to delay progression of the deadly disease, federal health officials estimate. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) expanded by 400,000 the number of AIDS patients eligible for AZT treatment by declaring its effectiveness among patients whose disease is in an early stage with no symptoms.”  An estimated 200,000 patients with immune deficiency are already using it.  R. H. Gray of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, published a 1983 study (AJPH, Nov. 1983, p. 1332) on protein/calorie malnutrition:

_

“Both AIDS patients and children with protein/calorie malnutrition suffer from multiple opportunistic infections of viral, bacterial, parasitic and mycotic origin.  AIDS patients have an increased incidence of Kaposi”s sarcoma and diffuse undifferentiated B-cell lymphomas histologically similar to Burkitt’s lymphoma.  These tumors are also found among children and young adults in East Africa, where PCM is a common condition.”

_

What happens when you try to paint a portrait of an area said to have AIDS, and you find, instead, a combination of drugs, pesticides, starvation, older diseases, and other environmental factors, all capable of causing immunosuppression, all capable of producing the symptoms of what is called AIDS?  What happens is, if you want to satisfy your medical peers, if you want to win research grant monies, you overlook the anomalies and say it’s all AIDS.  If you don’t, you admit the picture is diverse and confused.  You face facts–you lose grants.

_

The current definitions of AIDS in the Third World now accept, by and large, three symptoms as central to AIDS:  weight-loss of 10% or more (wasting), chronic diarrhea, and chronic fever.  These are also signs of chronic malnutrition.  Diarrhea, through bringing on severe dehydration, is traditionally one of three largest killers in the world.  This is nothing new.  Many farmers, Frances Moore Lappe reports, have left their fields, because they are seeded with mines by rebels.

_

In some areas, 20% to 30% of the children are suffering from malnutrition.  Several hundred thousands of adults are also on the verge of what could be called chronic malnutrition.  Malaria is said to produce false-positive results on AIDS blood tests; a fact that may explain some of the hysteria about AIDS.  It is also easier to dump corrosive medical drugs and pesticides on the Third World than to face up to their widening toxic effect on people.  Easier to call their symptoms AIDS.

_

HIV advocates have also invoked what is called transfusion-AIDS.  The thinking goes this way.  Healthy people with no background of “high-risk” activity, when transfused with blood containing HIV, have developed full-blown AIDS.  Therefore, the obvious cause must have been HIV, and this proves HIV causes AIDS.  On the surface, it seems like sound reasoning.  However, looking over available statistics on people who get transfusions, a different picture emerges.  As of February 1988, the CDC reported a total of 1466 transfusion AIDS in the U.S. (since AIDS was first reported).  This means that about .00005 of those who have received transfusions in the last ten years have been diagnosed with AIDS.  That’s five/hundred thousandths of one percent.  On that basis, could you possibly infer that HIV is the cause of something called AIDS?  Obviously not.

_

The National Hemophilia Foundation reports there are about 20,000 hemophiliacs of different types in the United States.  Slippery estimates of what percentage has simply tested positive for HIV vary between 50% and 80%.  As of January 11, 1987, the CDC reports 543 total cases of AIDS among hemophiliacs.  This means 4% to 5% of those estimated to be HIV-positive, between 1978 and 1987, have gone to be diagnosed as having full-blown AIDS.  This is no basis for claiming HIV causes AIDS.  In addition, hemophiliacs can develop other immune problems from the many transfusions they receive–problems one could wrongly diagnose as AIDS.  Hemophiliacs use very large amounts of (clotting) Factor VIII on a continuing basis.  These concentrates from plasma can expose a hemophiliac to the blood of 100,000 to 300,000 donors per year.  Many microbial toxins and chemicals can thus be passed on.

_

According to Peter Duesberg,  “Scientists researching AIDS are less inclined to ask questions about the cause of AIDS when they have invested huge sums of money in companies that make money on the hypothesis that HIV is the AIDS virus.  William Hazeltine and Max Essex, for example, who are two of the top five AIDS researchers in the country, have millions in stocks in a company they founded that has developed and will sell AIDS kits that test for HIV.  How could they be objective? Gallo stands to make a lot of money from patent rights on the virus.  His entire reputation depends on a “virus.”

_

American Medical News, February 13, 1987, page 10, establishes that of the 30,000 Americans with AIDS, 50% have died.  That’s 15,000 deaths.  The CDC projected that by 1991 more than 50,000 people would die annually from AIDS (cigarettes kill 490,000 per year).  From the known facts, that means a lot of men are going to switch to anal intercourse with other men!  In view of the nutritional castration secondary to margarine ingestion, hydrogenated fats, partially hardened fats, synthetic B₁, and no vitamin E from eating devitalized wheat flour, the Sodomizing of America is now happening!

_

According to a JAMA date, in a casual, heterosexual encounter with a stranger, the chance of getting AIDS is only 1 in 1.5 million.  The Feb. 6, 1987, JAMA, page 640, discussing household contacts of adults with AIDS, summarizes:  “Of 29 household contacts studied, none (partners, children) developed antibody to HIV.”  Italian-Venezuelan investigator Maurizio Luca Moretti is questioning almost every conventional tenet on AIDS.  Presented in a 289-page paper that he says is one of 1,800 studies accepted for the International AIDS Conference in Montreal in June, 1989, Luca presented arguments, a few of which are:  Although the AIDS virus does exist, it is not the illness’ main cause; the AIDS virus is not sexually transmitted and the spread of AIDS in the U.S. outside the “high-risk” groups is nil.  Luca’s assertion that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is not the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome, is shared by Peter Duesberg.  Only only a minority of the scientific community holds their view on AIDS.

_

In a paper published in the February 1989 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Duesberg concluded, “HIV is not sufficient to cause AIDS because HIV does not meet established epidemiological, genetic and evolutionary criteria of a viral pathogen.  It infects a very, very small percentage of cells, in low concentrations.  One in 10,000, to one in 100,000 cells.  The whole class to which it belongs–retroviruses–is really a very poor candidate for a disease like AIDS.”  However, most scientists believe HIV directly causes AIDS.

_

Luca says that malnutrition and repeated infection causes an impairment of the body’s immune system, and, under prolonged assault, the body’s natural defenses weaken and finally collapse, leaving the victim vulnerable to every kind of illness, and even mild diseases can become deadly.  The immune system of homosexuals is subjected to repeated assault in sexual practices and the lack of hygiene, he claims.  A similar situation, according to Luca, arises among hemophiliac patients who, lacking clotting components in their blood, require regular doses of substitutes to prevent hemorrhaging.  The substitute components are made out of a blood pool that can include thousands of donors, thus giving the components for hemophiliac patients a highly complex protein makeup.  Cocaine, heroin and a host of other drugs are produced in clandestine, jungle-hut facilities, “refined” in dirty, smudgy kitchen pots by traffickers and pushers ready to increase volume by mixing the real drug with anything from talcum to flour, he says.  Obviously, as certain articles have established, already a great deal of attention was given to the wealth potential of this new plague.  The pharmaceutical powers, as evidenced, were already looking to dump a bucket of vaccine on China for a bundle even before the actual cause is known.  So a few Chinese died...money is money.

_

Incredible, theoretic vaccines for a theoretic virus for which people are already making antibodies–the wonders never cease!  Then, later in the article, we learned “This technique for developing the monkey vaccine couldn’t be applied directly to humans,” said Koff and other experts.  “The problem,” said Koff, “is that in using a whole virus it is difficult to be certain that every viral particle is killed when the vaccine is prepared.”  Murphy-Corb acknowledged the problem.  “There is a conceptual chance that one virus particle would remain alive after treatment so that when you immunize an individual, you might actually infect them,” she said.  “It would be not that safe for humans.  But the experimental approach is there...”  In conclusion, one must be somewhat skeptical of the alarming press releases, which are more terrifying than informative.  The media cooperates entirely with this HIV plague-image of AIDS.  All states have completely bought the assumption that AIDS is a classical sexually transmitted disease, and that the HIV test is a good indicator of present infection by the causative agent of the disease.  Those responsible for reporting known or suspected cases include physicians, dentists...school principals and day care center directors.  Not reporting is subject to a $100-$500 fine.

_

As AIDS whirls across the country, a second epidemic–panic–is getting caught in its winds...Stricken employees returning to work are sometimes greeted by what amounts to a “lynch mob.”  It’s probably accurate to infer that, were the government to install mandatory testing, or states to implement versions of it among groups, corporations would back it, approve it, and want it.  In 1994, AZT was proposed as a treatment for pregnant women to prevent the transmission of HIV from mother to child, or so it was touted.  Until then, it had been staunchly contraindicated during pregnancy.

_

Generously underwritten by the drug’s manufacturer, the study, ACTG 076, in which this startlingly novel use of AZT was tried, epitomizes the junk-science that characterizes so much AIDS research.  AZT freely crosses the placental barrier, so the package insert tells us cheerfully.  Has anyone here paused to question whether a growing fetus comprising rapidly dividing cells should be exposed to a random terminator of DNA chain synthesis?  Apparently not.  It’s time that all involved in this nightmarish mess go off and do some basic homework in the subject in which they have so much to say for themselves.

_