Apparently, HIV Doesn't Cause AIDS

[JDNorthface]

Ah, yes, the infamous Dr. Bauer. Now long retired, he was noted also for his work on UFO's.

And thanks for another current source, William. There have been almost no scientific progressions in AIDS research since 1998.

[Mr. Bill]

HIV does not cause AIDS
Henry Bauer
Source: Edge Science
May-June 2010 issue

“What everyone knows” is sometimes wrong. When it comes to science, including medical science, history might even suggest that what everyone knows at any given time turns out later to have been wrong to some degree: scientific understanding has progressed, after all, and it has often progressed by overturning earlier theories.

But even as it's widely recognized that science has progressed, it's usually forgotten that this very progress has often meant superseding or rejecting earlier ideas. And the notion that a contemporary consensus might be wrong seems unbelievable to most people.

So the claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, when everyone knows that it does, is treated by the media, the public, and mainstream science as not worth attending to. And yet the proof that HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS is at hand in the technical literature, as well as in dozens of books aimed mainly at a general audience.

To consider that proof, it's necessary not only to specify that evidence but also to provide some assurance that good alternative explanations are available for what AIDS is and what HIV is. So those questions will be answered after outlining the reasons why the HIV=AIDS theory is wrong.

The Evidence that HIV Doesn't Cause AIDS[1]

1. If HIV is the cause of AIDS, then there ought to be an obvious correlation between the presence of HIV and the incidence of AIDS. There isn't. HIV and AIDS are not correlated chronologically; they have changed differently over time. Nor are they correlated geographically: even from the very beginning, places of high HIV were not places of high AIDS. Furthermore, the relative impact on men and women is quite different—the male-to-female ratio for HIV has hardly changed over the years, while the ratio for AIDS has changed dramatically. So too with white and black Americans—the black-to-white ratio for HIV has hardly changed over the years, while the ratio for AIDS has changed dramatically (chapter 9 in 1).

1. 
   
   If HIV causes AIDS, why then are there HIV-negative AIDS cases? Just how many is not known because after a substantial number had been reported, they were explained away as cases of a new disease, “idiopathic CD4 T-cell lymphopenia”—meaning deficiency of CD4 cells for no known reason, which is precisely the same definition as that of AIDS before the claimed discovery of HIV as cause of the immune deficiency (pp. 19–20 in 1).
   
   There are also HIV-positive people who have remained AIDS-free for more than 20 years, the so-called “long-term non-progressors” or “elite con trollers” (p. 95 in 1). The mainstream acknowledges this, but treats it as a mystery to be solved: why do some people have an uncanny ability to stave off either infection or, if infected, to stave off the harmful action of HIV? The mainstream view is that this is a rarity. However, since not every healthy person has been tested for HIV, it cannot be known with any certainty how many long-term non-progressors there actually are. Available data suggest that in the United States it might be as many as half of all people who would test HIV-positive.2
   
   
2. The lack of correlation between HIV and AIDS numbers ought to be enough to settle the matter. But with so long and firmly entrenched a belief, there is no question of overkill by enumerating further strikes against HIV/AIDS theory. So it is worth noting that, whatever HIV may be, it is not something infectious:
   
   
   
   • The estimated number of HIV-positive Americans has hovered around 1 million from the earliest time, the mid-1980s, to the present (pp. 1–2 in 1), whereas the incidence of infections increases and decreases.
   • 
     
     
   • In any given group, the tendency to test HIV-positive varies with age, sex, and race in the same manner. Infectious diseases do not display those regular trends (sources cited throughout Part I of 1). Infection is asserted to occur via blood, including transmission via dirty needles, and via mothers' milk, but chiefly through sexual activity. However:
     
     
   • There are no authenticated cases of AIDS from accidental health-care-worker needle-sticks (p. 48 in 1).
     
     
   • More breastfeeding correlates with less, not more, incidence of “HIV-positive” among the babies.3
     Sexual transmission of HIV has never been proven. The largest prospective study, in which discordant couples (one partner HIV-positive, the other negative) were followed over a period of years, could report no instances where the negative partner became positive.4
     
     
   • Incidence of HIV does not parallel that of known sexually transmitted infections (STIs); often rates of HIV went up as those of such STIs as gonorrhea or syphilis decreased, and vice versa. (p. 31 ff. and passim in 1)
   • Use of condoms doesn't decrease the incidence of HIV-positive (sources cited in 5 and p. 44 in 1).
     
     
   • A literally impossible level of sexual promiscuity is required to explain the prevalence of “HIV” in Africa—20–40% of adults having multiple sexual partners and changing them frequently.6
     
     
   • Pregnant women become HIV-positive more often than do non-pregnant women.7
3. According to HIV/AIDS theory, the “viral load” determined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) represents the amount of HIV present, which determines how rapidly the relevant immune-system-cells (CD4 T-cells) are killed off and therefore predicts the course of illness toward eventual death. However, there is no correlation between viral load and CD4 counts.8 The official Treatment Guidelines9 speaks of three separate types of treatment failure: virologic, immunologic, and poor patient prognosis. If the theory were correct, then failure of one would bespeak failure of the others.
   
   
4. More than two decades of attempts to vaccinate against becoming HIV-positive have all failed. No satisfactory explanation for such failure has been offered, nor have the successive failures turned up clues to possible success.
   
   
5. More than two decades of attempts have failed to develop any microbicide that could inactivate HIV to prevent incidence of HIV-positive. Again, no satisfactory explanation for such failure has been offered. Microbicides containing anti-retroviral drugs, which purportedly kill HIV in vivo, have not been effective as preventive microbicides.
   
   
6. HIV/AIDS theory asserts that there is an average latent period of about 10 years between infection by HIV and signs of actual illness. The actual data reveal no sign of such a latent period. The median age at which people first test HIV-positive, the median age of people “living with AIDS” or “living with HIV,” and the median age of people who die from “HIV disease” are all roughly the same: namely, the prime years of adulthood, 35–50.10

What is AIDS?

A huge complication is that the official definition of AIDS has been changed, moreover quite drastically, several times. The original, early-1980s, pre-HIV-discovery AIDS is not the same as present-day AIDS. A particularly portentous change in definition came in 1993.

It was around 1980 that, it's commonly said, doctors first noted that “young, previously healthy, gay men” were presenting with diseases formerly associated with immune suppression in transplant patients or in old people or babies with insufficiently competent immune systems. Given the concentration among gay men, the phenomenon was described as Gay Related Immune Deficiency (GRID). The predominant manifest illnesses were Kaposi's sarcoma (KS), purple blotches on skin and elsewhere; Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP); and candidiasis (thrush, yeast infections).

GRID was soon re-named AIDS—Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome—to avoid placing the stigma for the disease solely on gay men. A considerable body of evidence suggested that KS resulted from excessive exposure to nitrites, known as “poppers,” which were in ubiquitous use in gay circles. A heavy strike against HIV/AIDS theory is that since the early 1990s KS has been attributed to a herpes virus (HHV-8 or KSHV), not to HIV, because there were many HIV-negative KS patients, many of whom had normal or even high immune-system cell-counts.

Initially, PCP had been thought to be a bacterial or parasitic infection, but it was later recognized that it is actually fungal, as is candidiasis. A plausible explanation for the rather sudden increase in those fungal infections among gay men, about a decade after Gay Liberation, indicts certain practices that can damage the intestinal microfora (beneficial bacteria) that protect against fungal infections in particular. Those practices include intensive rectal douching and excessive resort to antibiotics, sometimes for treatment of recurrent infections (gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, and more) but sometimes even for prophylaxis.11

For descriptions of the unhealthy “fast-lane” lifestyle pursued by a small proportion of gay men, see for example Larry Kramer's novel Faggots12 and the documentary film When Ocean Meets Sky.13

Moreover, it turns out that the first AIDS cases were not “young, previously healthy, gay men.” Their average age was in the late 30s, they were anything but previously healthy, and their salient common characteristic was not that of being gay.

It was their excessive use of recreational drugs (p. 186 ff. in 1), average age, and medical history that made a lifestyle explanation of AIDS highly plausible. The lifestyle explanation had not been universally accepted, however, in particular not by virologists, who were at something of a loose end after a decade or two of unsuccessfully looking for human-cancer-causing viruses.14

HIV became acknowledged as the cause of AIDS following a press conference called by the Secretary for Health and Human Services, before any scientific publication on the matter, and the subsequent publications came nowhere near establishing the claim. For example, HIV was only found in two-thirds of all AIDS cases, and the patented test for HIV, which actually is for antibodies against HIV, turned out to give positive results even in many cases when the virus itself could not be detected by actual culture (for details and pertinent sources, see pp. 196–7 in 1).

Still, the imprimatur of the Secretary for Health and Human Services and the attraction of grants from the National Institutes of Health, a subsidiary of the Department of Health and Human Services, brought virologists almost universally to research on HIV, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) soon accepted the theory that HIV was the cause of AIDS. Thereafter, CDC progressively increased the number of illnesses that it regards as “AIDS-defining,” just because some significant number of the patients tests HIV-positive, in tuberculosis, for example, or with cervical cancer.

Those diseases are neither new nor opportunistically dependent on finding already damaged immune systems to attack, and so “AIDS” nowadays is an entirely different matter than the original GRID that was later re-named AIDS.

AIDS was originally a lifestyle phenomenon associated with particular damage to the intestinal flora. AIDS nowadays is any disease where an appreciable number of patients test HIV-positive.

What is HIV?

Possibly the most incredible part of this story is the demonstrable fact that HIV tests do not detect HIV. An incredible part of that incredible story is that HIV has never been isolated in pure form, leaving ample room for the claim that HIV has never been proven to exist.15

A recent article16 reviews the relevant points:

• The original HIV test was based on selecting proteins that reacted strongly with something in the sera from AIDS patients, presumed to be antibodies to a presumed AIDS-causing virus.

• 
  
  
• However, that these are HIV antibodies could only be confirmed with authentic virus, and no pure samples of virus have ever been prepared by isolation direct from an AIDS patient or after culturing.
  
  
• All later tests have been “validated” by demonstrating that they test positive when the original (Abbott Laboratories) test does. There is no “gold standard” for HIV tests and cannot be, since no pure virus has ever been prepared. The so-called confirmatory tests, typically the Western Blot but including the putative “viral load” measurements, are not confirmatory. As Weiss & Cowan17 point out, they should be called “supplemental,” not confirmatory.
  
  
• Rodney Richards18 has described how “antibody positive” came to be taken as proof of active infection, without the benefit of evidence to that effect.
  
  
• An authoritative description 17 for detecting actual HIV infection makes plain that the tests in themselves are insufficient. In a population known to be at low risk—i.e., where the incidence of AIDS and presumably HIV is low (HIV ~ 0.1%)—a positive “HIV” test may be a false positive 5 out of 6 times if the test has a nominal specificity and sensitivity of 99.5%.
  
  
• In practice, the tests were calibrated to have high sensitivity, and therefore reduced specificity, because they were intended for and were approved only for screening blood supplies, where sensitivity matters a great deal but false positives mean only the discarding of some blood.
  
  
• When the tests are misused, as they currently are, to bespeak actual infection, considerable harm ensues to individuals who are told they are HIV-positive, and the psychological harm is compounded with physical harm if they receive antiretroviral drugs. Those drugs, widely called “life-saving,” are seriously toxic; the Treatment Guidelines19 have acknowledged for some years that patients receiving antiretroviral treatment experience fewer AIDS events than such serious adverse non-AIDS events as organ failure (of heart, kidney, or liver) and cancer that are typical consequences of toxic medication.

So what is HIV?

It is a postulated but never isolated retrovirus. In practice, HIV means whatever is detected by an HIV test. But those tests are known to generate a high rate of false positives, especially in populations not evidently at risk; you can test HIV-positive after a fu vaccination, for example, and for dozens of other reasons.20

In any case, since rates of positive HIV tests do not correlate with incidence of AIDS, the question of what HIV tests really detect is moot as far as AIDS is concerned.

In Conclusion

The belief that HIV causes AIDS gained hold and then hegemony as a result of hasty actions based more on political than scientific considerations, and the unwarranted consensus has had tragic consequences.21

The conventional wisdom was taught that HIV inevitably leads to AIDS, that it is highly infectious, and that it is so life-threatening that even treatment with highly toxic medications represents a good compromise, even when it involves iatrogenic damage to pregnant women, the unborn, and the newly born. A perusal of the “side” effects of all the antiretroviral drugs, set out in the official Treatment Guidelines, makes the toxicity of these chemicals painfully obvious. AZT—nowadays usually called ZDV, zidovudine, brand name Retrovir—has been in use for more than two decades, virtually exclusively for the first decade. As its side effects the Treatment Guidelines (Table 12, 1 December 2009) list bone marrow suppression (“Onset: Few weeks to months”); gastrointestinal intolerance (immediate); liver damage (over months or years); disturbance of lipid metabolism (within weeks to months) with risk of diabetes; severe mitochondrial damage and lactic acidosis (within months); and Stevens-Johnson syndrome, or toxic epidermal necrosis (days to weeks). AZT was recently listed as a carcinogen in the State of California. Nevertheless, it still forms part of the “preferred” treatment regimen for pregnant women (Table 5a in the Treatment Guidelines).

The mistaken belief that HIV causes AIDS has damaged the health of untold numbers of people around the world.

Henry Bauer is Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies and Dean Emeritus of Arts & Sciences at Virginia Tech. Bauer has served as the editor of the Journal of Scientific Exploration. His latest book is The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory.



notes

2. Henry H. Bauer, The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, McFarland (2007).
3. Matteo P. Galletti and Henry H. Bauer, “Safety issues in didactic anatomical dissection in regions of high HIV prevalence,” Italian Journal of Anatomy and Embryology, in press.
4. Scientifc publications cited in Henry H. Bauer, “More HIV, less infection: The breastfeeding conundrum,” 21 November 2007, http://wp.me/p8Qhq-e; “HIV and breastfeeding again,” 13 February 2008, http://wp.me/p8Qhq-1t
5. N. S. Padian, S. C. Shiboski, S. O. Glass, and E. Vitting-hoff, “Heterosexual transmission of human im munodefciency virus (HIV) in Northern California: results from a ten-year study,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 146 (1997) 350-7.
6. Scientifc publications cited in Henry H. Bauer, “HIV and sexually transmitted disease: It just isn’t so,” 28 November 2007, http://wp.me/p8Qhq-i; “Condoms and HIV: What everyone knows is once again wrong,” 10 February 2008, http://wp.me/p8Qhq-1r; “Circumcision and condom idiocies,” 10 November 2009, http://wp.me/p8Qhq-gD
7. James Chin, The AIDS Pandemic: The Collision of Epidemiology with Political Correctness, Radcliffe Publishing, 2007.
8. Sources cited in Henry H. Bauer, “Why pregnant women tend to test ‘HIV-positive’,” 5 October 2009, http://wp.me/p8Qhq-hC; “Spontaneous generation of ‘HIV’,” 25 October 2009, http://wp.me/p8Qhq-hE.
9. Benigno Rodríguez, Ajay K. Sethi, Vinay K. Cheruvu, Wilma Mackay, Ronald J. Bosch, Mari Kitahata, Stephen L. Boswell, W. Christopher Mathews, David R. Bangsberg, Jeffrey Martin, Christopher C. Whalen, Scott Sieg, Suhrida Yadavalli, Steven G. Deeks, and Michael M. Lederman, “Predictive value of plasma HIV RNA level on rate of CD4 T-Cell decline in untreated HIV infection,” JAMA, 296 (2006) 1498–1506.
10. Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-1-infected adults and adolescents. Department of Health and Human Services; http://www.aidsinfo.nih.gov/ContentFiles/AdultandAdolescentGL.pdf.
11. Henry H. Bauer, “Incongruous age distributions of HIV infections and deaths from HIV disease: Where is the latent period between HIV infection and AIDS?” Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons, 13 (#3, Fall 2008) 77–81.
12. Tony Lance, “Gay-related Intestinal Dysbiosis”; http://hivskeptic.fles.wordpress.com/2008/02/gay-relatedin-testinaldysbiosis.pdf.
13. Larry Kramer, Faggots, Random House, 1978.
14. When Ocean Meets Sky; flm by Crayton Robey, 2006; shown periodically on the LOGO television channel; http://www.whenoceanmeetssky.com.
15. Peter Duesberg, Inventing the AIDS Virus, Regnery, 1996, chapter 4.
16. The Perth Group; http://www.theperthgroup.com.
17. Henry H. Bauer, “HIV Tests are not HIV Tests,” Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons, vol. 15, 2010, pp. 5–9.
18. Stanley H. Weiss and Elliott P. Cowan, “Laboratory detection of human retroviral infection,” Chapter 8 in AIDS and Other Manifestations of HIV Infection, ed. Gary P. Wormser, 4th ed. (2004).
19. Rodney Richards, “The birth of antibodies equals infection,” App. II, pp. 333–40 in Celia Farber, Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS, Melville House, 2006.
20. Reference ix: p. 21 in 3 November 2008 version, p. 13 in 29 January 2008 and 1 December 2007 versions.
21. Christine Johnson, “Whose antibodies are they anyway? Factors known to cause false positive HIV antibody test results,” Continuum 4 #3, Sept./Oct. 1996; http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/cjtestfp.htm.
22. Robert Root-Bernstein, Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus, Free Press, 1993.

[JDNorthface]

Well, if anything can be proven by cutting and pasting, then you'd be quite the scientific workhorse.

But since, it can't, you're still just a peddling falsehoods. You should know by now, Billy, that the absence of correlation doesn't prove things in medical science. It means you're not looking hard enough.

[Mr. Bill]

AIDS Research – Science or Consensus?

Oct 13 – Toronto – The hypothesis that the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is caused by an exogenous retrovirus, the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), initially proposed in the early 1980s, has exclusively dominated AIDS research for the past 25 years, although many investigators have repeatedly stressed the lack of scientifically acceptable verification of this hypothesis. Alerted to the numerous shortcomings of the official retroviral hypothesis by eminent retrovirologist Peter Duesberg, a group of AIDS “Rethinkers,” founded by molecular biologist Charles Thomas in 1991, called for the “Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis” in 1996.

This group Rethinking AIDS released a mission statement co-signed by thousands of scientists and concerned citizens, including Nobel laureates Walter Gilbert and Kary Mullis. Other well-respected scientists, notably Sonnabend, Stewart, Lang, Papadopulos, Rasnick, and Geshekter and distinguished scientific writers such as Celia Farber, John Lauritsen, Neville Hodgkinson, Joan Shenton, Christine Maggiore, Renaud Russeil, Djamel Tahi Jean-Claude Roussez, and Janine Roberts have also described the multiple failings of the HIV hypothesis. Between 1992 and 2000, another group based in London, UK, made highly significant contributions to scientific/public education by publishing magazine, under the leadership of Huw Christie. A medical team directed by Eleni Papadopulos in Perth, Australia, has also presented information questioning the validity of the HIV hypothesis.

In May 2000, the controversy concerning HIV and the antiretroviral (ARV) drugs used to treat it became the topic of international inquiry when President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, convened a debate between 35 academic scientists, “Orthodoxers” as well as “Rethinkers” together. A similar debate took place in 2003 at the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium, when Paul Lannoye, a Belgian member of parliament, organized a public debate on “AIDS in Africa.”

Reports by AIDS Rethinkers are readily accessible on numerous websites, the early and most significant ones being VirusMyth, Rethinking AIDS, The Perth Group, Sidasante, and Heal.org. In spite of innumerable scientific and public conferences and publications by AIDS Rethinkers, many in the medical community either ignore, or bluntly reject the existence of any HIV controversy, or claim that AIDS “denialism” undermines AIDS prevention. As a result, the monumental budgets allocated throughout the world to combat AIDS have been, and still are totally and exclusively restricted to HIV research. This can neither be explained nor justified by the lack of alternative hypotheses of AIDS causation, since non-viral factors (chemical, pharmacological, nutritional, and behavioral) associated with the clinical symptoms attributed to AIDS have been well documented and reviewed by others.

The retroviral hypothesis linking HIV to AIDS received a precipitous acceptance, not on the basis of scientifically verifiable data, but based on a so-called “consensus”—a consensus enthusiastically supported by the pharmaceutical industry. This review will focus primarily on the scientific facts (or artifacts) that impact the credibility of AIDS research. ( Full Text.)

Etienne de Harven, MD, (Brussels University-ULB 1953) became a full member of Sloan Kettering Institute, New York, N.Y., in 1968, and is emeritus professor of pathology, University of Toronto, Ontario. The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons published his report this month.

.

[Mr. Bill]

The Truth About AIDSTruth.org
by Clark Baker


As I enter the second year of my investigation into HIV/AIDS, it has become clear that the disease is nothing more than a non-pathogenic political disease.

With the mortality numbers that are grossly exaggerated to extort funding from US taxpayers to fund the drug industry and gay movement, the vast majority of its victims only get sick or die when they take an HIV test, ingest AZT, or abruptly stop the highly addictive hypnotic drug Sustiva (Efavirenz).

Born during the perfect storm of Christian Conservatism and the prospect of prison and unemployment for corrupt scientists, HIV was conceived in 1981 when the toxic lifestyles of a few gay men finally caught up with them.

When conservative Christians like Anita Bryant wrongly blamed the entire gay community for the reckless behavior of a few promiscuous nitrite-huffing drug-addicted antibiotic-popping colon-flushing STD-infected homosexuals, activists retaliated. And when Robert Gallo blamed the lifestyle toxicity on the non-existent retrovirus, the political disease was fertilized and carried to term in South Africa, where the anti-Apartheid movement was in full swing.

In 1981, South African forces were developing chemical agents for use against activists and conducted raids at suspected terrorist hide outs. Bishop Desmond Tutu was arrested and the UN blacklisted 65 companies with links to the country. Anti-Apartheid terrorists bombed mines, courts, bus, train and police stations.

When Zackie Achmat turned 19 that year, he was already a five-year veteran of the movement. At 14, he set fire to his school to force students to boycott classes and, at 16, worked as a gay prostitute while sharpening his skills as a youth, labor and “community organizer.” Like the gay organizations that demanded AZT in the US, Achmat pressured the pharmaceutical industry and South African officials to deliver the same drugs and testing in Africa. Faced with the prospect of opening another multi-billion dollar market with billions of dollars in taxpayer funding, the pharmaceutical industry reluctantly complied.

As a “community organizer,” and radicalized communist, Achmat’s top strategy has been to bus hundreds of malnourished, illiterate and impoverished people from the countryside for a drive to the city. Once there, he hands out hundreds of Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) AIDS/HIV tee-shirts, food and cash. During at least one demonstration, he handed out $100 bills to these “activists” – a fantastic sum for most. Today whenever his buses appear, villagers scramble for the free meal and tee-shirt – having no idea that no one has ever found what Achmat calls the HIV virus. The pharmaceutical and left-wing funding eventually made Achmat's pro-Communist Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) one of the most effective protest machines in the world. To his credit, Achmat admitted that he and TAC are scientifically illiterate.

Although TAC denies receiving funding from the pharmaceutical industry, TAC receives funding from the Treatment Action Group, which receives significant funding from the pharmaceutical industry.

Achmat associate Eduard Grebe is also a paid “AIDS Advocate” for the so-called AIDS & Society Research Unit at the University of Cape Town: which is funded by leftist groups like the Ford Foundation, SANPAD, HEARD, FAFO, Yale University, the South African National Research Foundation, and UNAIDS. The Atlantic Philanthropies alone granted $2 million to the unit in 2007.

The fact that a “research unit” employs paid advocates is critical. Grebe is not only Achmat’s ex-boyfriend, but he also manages and controls the attack website, AIDSTruth.org – which is where Jeanne Bergman posted her hit piece on me last week.

NOTE: To be clear (no wonder no one lets her do real research), I was falsely charged after the LAPD acquitted me of all charges based upon the facts of the case. I returned to the LAPD in 1994 after the judge and prosecutor were found guilty of misconduct. The original prosecutor was accused of filing more than 100 false complaints. I retired from the LAPD in 2000. Bergman's suggestion that my innocence was not based upon the "facts of the case" is refuted by the fact that competent prosecutors refused to refile the case.

Bergman, whose biggest revelation is easily found in my own biography, doesn’t even have one. Although she calls herself a PhD, I found no evidence of any academic achievement or even a real degree other than her self-promotion on the South African website and other recipients of drug money. Like fellow researcher Nikolas Kontaratos, who identified himself as a 20-year police veteran but is actually a highly trained security guard and filter salesman, Bergman uses her alleged PhD to give credibility to whatever the drug companies tell her to say.

This could also explain why she was too embarrassed to identify herself in Nashville. Until she called Celia Farber a F-----G LIAR!, I don’t recall ever having a problem with unaccomplished aging gender-confused or personality-challenged butch women. All in all, however, I respect Bergman’s role as the pharmaceutical industry’s most rabid junkyard dog. Like Zackie Achmat, she’s just doing what she’s paid to do.

It also explains why the same gay activists attacked when Celia Farber examined the death of Joyce Ann Hafford. But because their attack was emotionally and politically driven and funded by the drug companies, their alleged "56 errors" were easily refuted and dismissed. Despite the withering heterophobic attacks from South Africa's pseudoscientific gay activists, Harper's still stands by the story.

Unfortunately for the Truthers, Bergman detracts from the diaphanous credibility that other academic non-achievers like Jeffrey "Meisha" DeShong, John Moore and James Murtagh once had. The evidence now shows that all of these Truthers are paid by pro-communist gay organizations to attack rather than actually present evidence like real scientists and medical doctors.

While good science is self-evident, bad science can only be defended by attacking those who raise legitimate questions. Although I was once impressed by people who earned advanced degrees, I’m beginning to see why it’s easy for experienced criminal investigators to see right through them.

UPDATE - Now we know why...

.

[Mr. Bill]

Everything You Know About AIDS is Wrong

By Sheila Casey / RCFP




On April 23, 1984, Secretary of Health and Human Services Margaret Heckler and researcher Robert Gallo from the National Cancer Institute held a press conference and announced that Gallo had found the cause of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), the retrovirus HIV. Heckler estimated that a vaccine would be available in just two years. That same day in 1984, Gallo patented the blood test to detect the HIV antibodies.

As a retrovirus researcher, Gallo had previously tried to pin the blame for Alzheimer’s, leukemia and neurological disorders on a retrovirus, all without success. Now AIDS was in his sights.

But Gallo had skipped an important step in the scientific process: his HIV research had never been subjected to peer review, and was not published until after the press conference with Heckler had already conferred legitimacy on it.

Billions of dollars poured into research programs and millions of people lined up to have their blood checked; by 2006, 72 million Americans had been tested, with a third of that number tested every year. As its creator, Gallo received a percentage of the cost of each test.

To receive a positive HIV test result was considered a death sentence: you would get AIDS and die a miserable death, sooner or later.

As the years passed, it became apparent that this was not true. Only five percent of the people who tested HIV positive went on to develop AIDS. A vaccine has never been found. And there is now a growing group of scientists who dispute that HIV causes AIDS.

Peter Duesberg is a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley. Duesberg earned renown as one of the scientists to discover a cancer gene in 1970, and earned tenure at UC Berkeley at the age of 36. At 49 he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences, and in 1986 he received a prestigious grant from the National Institutes of Health.

He was on the fast-track to receive the Nobel until he published an article in 1987 in Cancer Research challenging the consensus that HIV is the cause of AIDS. After that his funding dried up and he was dismissed as a misguided contrarian by those with careers and billions in funding riding on the view that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

The views of Dr. Duesberg, David Crowe, Dr. Charles Geshekter, and other disidents who dispute the infectious model for AIDS are summarized below.

1) All viruses are harmless after antibody immunity. Disease is caused before the antibodies are created, because it is the antibodies that neutralize the pathogen and enable the host to recover. When people test positive for the antibodies, that means they have developed resistance, ‘immunity’ to the virus. No microbe causes disease only after antibodies have appeared, as HIV is claimed to do. Why develop a vaccine for people who already have the antibodies to the disease? Duesberg: “there is no virus in AIDS patients, only antibodies.”

2) Retroviruses, which are one type of virus, do not kill T-cells. They do not kill the cell they infect—ever. (AIDS is diagnosed partly by a deficiency of T-cells.)

3) HIV does not infect enough T-cells to cause disease.

4) No retrovirus causes disease and there is no logical reason why they should.

5) Viruses replicate quickly; there is no such thing as a slow virus. If a host cannot mount an immune defense quickly enough, the virus will overwhelm and kill the host in a matter of days or weeks. Yet we are told that HIV can cause up to 30 different diseases ten years after initial infection. None of these diseases are specific to AIDS; all existed prior to the “discovery” of AIDS.

6) HIV is not a new virus. When a virus is new in a population that has never been exposed to it, it explodes exponentially. But this is not what we see with AIDS. The number of AIDS cases hasn’t changed since 1985.

7) It fails Koch’s Postulates, which require four steps to verify that an infectious agent is the cause of a disease.

1. the agent must be found in all cases of the disease;

2. it must be isolated from the host;

3. it must cause the same disease when injected into a healthy host; and

4. it must then be found growing again in the newly infected host.

HIV fails all of these tests. Although theoretically it can be found and isolated from a host, this is in practice very difficult to do, since the HIV virus is not found in humans; only antibodies to HIV are found.

The history of medicine has many examples of diseases which were assumed to be infectious but later proved not to be. Scurvy is caused by a vitamin C deficiency, Beriberi is caused by a thiamine deficiency, and pellagra is caused by a niacin deficiency. All failed Koch’s postulates and all ultimately proved to be non-infectious dietary deficiencies.

8) AIDS has remained in its original risk groups and has not broken out into the general population. Outside of Africa, 97% of AIDS patients are homosexuals, IV drug users, hemophiliacs and transfusion patients.

9) The US Army tests recruits for HIV and finds the virus evenly divided between men and woman, yet AIDS is 90% a male disease.

10) With other infectious diseases, cases are always seen among the doctors and nurses who work with infected patients—but this has not happened with AIDS. Medical workers are actually less likely to become sick with AIDS than the general population.

11) AIDS behaves differently depending on geography. African AIDS appears to be a completely different disease. In part, this is because in Africa, no HIV test is necessary for diagnosis. A patient is considered to have AIDS if he exhibits three of the 4 symptoms: persistent cough, persistent fever, persistent diarrhea and weight loss. These also happen to be the symptoms of malaria, malnutrition and tuberculosis, but there are no large funding programs for those diseases. If something is called AIDS, money pours in.

12) According to David Crowe, president of Rethinking AIDS, and founder and president of the Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society, HIV is not transmitted sexually. He quotes a study done in the 90s on seroconversion in couples where one partner was HIV positive and the other HIV negative. Not a single case was found where the HIV negative partner became positive, even after years of unprotected sex.

13) Different risk groups manifest AIDS in a different way. IV drug users get tuberculosis and wasting syndrome, gays get Kaposi’s Sarcoma. Yet these specific diseases also occur in high numbers among members of these risk groups who do not have HIV infection. If an IV drug user has tuberculosis and no HIV antibodies, he is simply diagnosed with tuberculosis. If he has tuberculosis and does have HIV antibodies, he is diagnosed with AIDS. It is this method of defining AIDS that assures a high correlation between HIV infection and the constellation of diseases defined as AIDS.

14) HIV supposedly causes 30 different diseases. All other viruses cause only one disease. Duesberg: “There is no HIV specific disease anywhere.”

15) AIDS occurs without HIV infection, and 95% of those with HIV infection never get AIDS. Despite all this, it is clear that people are sick and dying. If not HIV, what are they dying from? AIDS is a condition of suppressed immunity, and there are many things that can suppress immunity. One of the worst is the HIV drug AZT, which destroys the bone marrow and which Duesberg describes as “the most toxic drug ever licensed for long term consumption in the free world.” Many people who test positive for HIV antibodies are told they must go on these dangerous drugs—even though they are completely healthy.

In a tragic case described by Celia Farber in the March 2006 Harpers magazine, Joyce Ann Hafford, a healthy 33 year old single mother, four months pregnant, was enrolled in an HIV drug trial, put on three anti-HIV drugs in June, and was dead by August 1. Although Hafford felt completely well prior to the drug trial and the drugs immediately made her violently ill, she stayed on them in the belief that she must, at all costs, prevent passing the HIV virus on to her unborn child. Hafford had only one HIV test prior to enrolling in the study, and was never told that pregnancy can cause a false positive HIV test.

According to Duesberg, recreational drug use also suppresses immunity and the gay community has, to some degree, brought their woes upon themselves. He points out that it is common knowledge that toxic foreign substances cause disease: alcohol causes cirrhosis of the liver and smoking causes emphysema. But gay activists typically dismiss it as homophobia to point out that drug use and sexual promiscuity can result in lowered immunity.

Crowe says that gay community leaders essentially had a choice between facing up to promiscuity in the gay population, or to the rampant use of recreational drugs such as inhalant nitrate poppers. They were willing to face up to the promiscuity, but not the drug use.

Because recreational drugs such as heroin, cocaine, speed and poppers suppress immunity, many gay men use large amounts of antibiotics to combat infections. Repeated antibiotic use eventually wears down the immune system.

If a gay man with a depressed immune system develops pneumonia and is found to be HIV positive, he will be diagnosed with AIDS and put on toxic HIV drugs, which will further destroy his immune system and virtually guarantee his eventual death.

According to AIDS dissidents such as Crowe and Duesberg, gay community leaders have unwittingly contributed to prolonging the fiction of a viral cause of AIDS, due to their unwillingness to confront and change the behaviors that are destroying the immune systems of gay men. Instead, they have successfully clamored for more research dollars focusing on the infectious model, drawing a disproportionate amount of funding away from other, more prevalent diseases such as cancer and heart disease.

But what about Africa? Surely there are not large numbers of Africans inhaling poppers and overloading their immune systems with antibiotics? Yet we are told that AIDS is decimating Africa, and that Africa is teeming with AIDS orphans who have lost both parents to the disease.

Yes, say the AIDS dissidents, Africans are much sicker now than they were 25 years ago. Colonialism has destroyed traditional societies, and there is rampant malnutrition, malaria, war, poverty and a lack of clean drinking water.

According to Charles Geshekter, Ph.D., a three-time Fulbright scholar who teaches African history at California State University in Chico, the current explanation for the AIDS epidemic in Africa is based on racist beliefs about African promiscuity. In fact, says Geshekter, the European communities in South Africa are far more promiscuous than the Africans, yet AIDS is practically unknown among the Europeans, who are much richer, well-fed, and have access to clean drinking water.

Also, virtually all HIV testing in Africa is done at pre-natal clinics. Although pregnancy causes high numbers of false positives, statisticians extrapolate from the tiny numbers at the clinics to the continent at large, giving the impression of a vast epidemic. In addition to pregnancy, there are 70 different conditions—including use of cosmetics and skin lighteners—that can cause false positives for the HIV antibody.

“After 25 years of a so-called epidemic, with unlimited amounts of money being spent, there is absolutely nothing to show for it,” says Geshekter. He posits that there is not supposed to be an end to the AIDS epidemic in Africa – it is just supposed to keep going. “To ask hard questions threatens the livelihood of the thousands of AIDS researchers, as well as the journalists who have won Pulitzer Prizes for conforming to the received wisdom about AIDS in Africa,” says Geshekter.

Geshekter says that humanitarian groups have a strong incentive to hide the truth about AIDS in Africa. “All the people with money in Africa are those in AIDS programs.” He goes on to explain that there is little money for organizations helping Africans build wells and improve their nutrition and sanitation—but billions upon billions poured into programs to fight AIDS. As for journalists, Geshekter states baldly that those who report the truth about AIDS lose their jobs, while massive research organizations would shrivel up and die if it became known that HIV does not cause AIDS.

The pharmaceutical companies would be wiped out by lawsuits from the survivors of the millions of people who have died after taking toxic HIV drugs, if the truth were to come out. It seems that everyone is making money from the AIDS epidemic – all at the expense of those who suffer and die from the constellation of diseases, many of them pharmaceutically induced, we call AIDS.

In 1990, Neville Hodgkinson, then medical and science correspondent of the London Sunday Times, wrote: “If HIV does not cause AIDS, then we will have witnessed the biggest medical and scientific blunder of this century.”

Eighteen years later, it seems all but certain that Hodgkinson was right.

Sheila Casey is a DC-based journalist. Her work has appeared in The Denver Post, Reuters, Chicago Sun-Times, Dissident Voice, Common Dreams and the Rock Creek Free Press. She blogs at sheilacasey.com

.

[Mr. Bill]

Top Scientists Ask Journal “Science” To Retract Original AIDS Papers

BY SHEILA CASEY / RCFP

Thirty-seven doctors, senior researchers and attorneys have asked the journal Science to retract four articles published in 1984 that supposedly established that HIV was the cause of AIDS. The articles, by a group led by Dr. Robert Gallo, have drawn criticism for some time. An investigation in the early 90s by the US Department of Health and Human Services concluded that the lead paper was “fraught with false and erroneous statements.” A Congressional Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations produced a staff report onthe papers which contains scathing criticisms of their integrity.

Now, new analysis of the documentation behind the papers has revealed even more reason to doubt Gallo’s findings. The letter refers to “recent revelation of an astonishing number of previously unreported deletions and unjustified alterations made by Gallo…”

Dr. Mikulas Popovic wrote the manuscripts while Gallo was in Europe, but Gallo made handwritten changes to the manuscripts upon his return. Popovic wrote: “Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified.” This sentence was deleted and replaced by a statement that the findings suggest that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

Gallo submitted micrographs to Science that were identified as containing the HIV virus. But just four days before he submitted them, Dr. Matthew A. Gonda, then head of the Electron Microscopy Laboratory at the National Cancer Institute, wrote a letter to Gallo and Popovic stating that he “does not believe” that the micrographs contain images of HIV. The micrographs were published in Science on May 4, 1984 and identified as containing HIV.

These developments add to the mounting body of evidence that the original conclusion that HIV causes AIDS is deeply flawed.

Thus far there has been no response from Science regarding the request for retraction.

.

[Mr. Bill]

CLOSING RANKS
AIDS Heresy In The Viricentric Universe

by James P. Hogan

"Sometimes a deception cannot be prevented from running its course, even at terrible cost, until eventually it collides with reality."

-- Phillip Johnson

Science is supposed to be concerned with objective truth--the way things are, that lie beyond the power of human action or desires to influence. Facts determine what is believed, and the consequences, good or bad, fall where they may. Politics is concerned with those things that are within human ability to change, and in the realm of politics, beliefs are encouraged that advance political agendas. All too often in this case, truth is left to fall where it may.

When the hysteria over AIDS broke out in the early eighties, I was living in the Mother Lode country in the Sierra Nevada foothills of northern California. Since I had long dismissed the mass media as a credible source of information on anything that mattered, I didn't take a lot of notice. A close friend and drinking buddy of mine at that time was a former Air Force physicist who helped with several books that I worked on there. Out of curiosity we checked the actual figures from official sources such as various city and state health departments. The number of cases for the whole of California turned out to be somewhere between 1100 and 1200, and these were confined pretty much totally to a couple of well defined parts of San Francisco and Los Angeles associated with drugs and other ways of life that I wasn't into. So was this the great "epidemic" that we'd been hearing about? Ah, but we didn't understand, people told us. It was caused by a new virus that was 100% lethal and about to explode out into the population at large. You could catch it from sex, toilet seats, your dentist, from breathing the air, and once you did there was no defense. "One in five heterosexuals could be dead from AIDS at the end of the next three years."Our species could be staring at extinction.

But I didn't buy that line either. I can't really offer a rationally packaged explanation of why. Part of it was that although AIDS had been around for some years, it was still clearly confined overwhelmingly to the original risk groups to which the term had first been applied. If it was going to "explode" out into the general population, there should have been unmistakable signs of its happening by then. There weren't. And another large part, I suppose, was that scaring the public had become such a lucrative and politically fruitful industry that the more horrific the situation was made to sound, the more skeptically I reacted. All the claims contradicted what my own eyes and ears told me. Nobody that I knew had it. Nobody that I knew knew anybody who had it. But "everybody knew" it was everywhere. Now, I don't doubt that when the Black Death hit Europe, or when smallpox reached the Americas, people knew they had an epidemic. When you need a billion-dollar propaganda industry to tell you there's a problem, you don't have a major problem.

So I got on with life and largely forgot about the issue until I visited the University of California, Berkeley, to meet Peter Duesberg, a professor of molecular and cell biology, whom a mutual friend had urged me to contact. Talking to Duesberg and some of his colleagues, both then and on later occasions, left me stupefied and led to my taking a new interest in the subject. This has persisted over the years since and involved contacts with others not only across the U.S., but as far removed as England, Irealnd, Germany, Russia, Australia, and South Africa. We like to think that the days of the Inquisition are over. Well, here's what can happen to politically incorrect science when it gets in the way of a bandwagon being propelled by lots of money--and to a scientist who ignores it and attempts simply to point at what the facts seem to be trying to say.

Continued... http://jamesphogan.com/common/aidsarticle.pdf

.

[Guest042413]

Anything Approved By The FDA Will Either Slowly Kill You Or Make Your Whole Body Be In Danger... I dont take any meds prescribed I now go to a chienese doctor and local health food store.. Herbal remides do work if you research right my father was on insulion I gave him a recipe of natural herbs and he hasnt had diabeties for 2yrs.... I Had major migranes and now I never get them.. The govt harms you to make money research is the key & herbal remedie books...

[Mr. Bill]

Semmelweis Clean Hands Award

Deserved Recognition For Peter Duesberg & Celia Farber

In 1847, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis pioneered the prevention of disease transmission by enforcing the washing hands with chlorinated lime, which reduced patient mortality rate due to Puerperal Fever from 12% to almost zero. Nevertheless, his hypothesis was rejected and ridiculed by the medical authorities of the time, and when he refused to compromise his beliefs, the hospital that employed him was pressured into terminating his clinical privileges. Semmelweis was hounded, persecuted, and finally comitted to an insane asylum, where he was beaten to death by guards.

Today, the Semmelweis Society International annually recognizes individual Healthcare Providers, Researchers, and associated personnel, who have challenged the status quo and drawn attention to controversial issues regarding patient health and safety, frequently enduring threats, vilification, retaliation, and financial ruin. The 2008 "Clean Hands Award" has been given to molecular biologist Peter Duesberg and investigative journalist Celia Farber for their work on questioning the official theory of AIDS.

From the Society's Press Release:

Members of Semmelweis Society International represent thousands of years of medical expertise and practice. They understand the power of competing ideas and the importance of open and rigorous debate. In the case of HIV/AIDS, the debate has been inexplicably muted by individuals and agencies that have handsomely profited by the hysteria related to HIV/AIDS. History reminds us that solid ideas are easily defended, while lesser theories can only be defended with fear, intimidation, and ridicule.

The overt Hysteria deployed against those who are simply proposing the clinical and fully scientific review of new ideas should alarm public servants and elected officials who are responsible for supporting the First Amendment right for rational discourse. American taxpayers have not been told the whole truth about the still-unidentified HIV virus, and its arguable relationship to the disease of AIDS, while ignoring the known toxicity of the drugs currently used to fight AIDS.

Semmelweis Society International does not present the Clean Hands Award lightly. It is hard to imagine anyone more deserving than Professor Peter Duesberg and investigative reporter Celia Farber. These two have withstood a vicious and ongoing multiyear multicontinent personal onslaught against their livelihoods, their character, and their families that is unparalleled since the Spanish Inquisition. Their sole "crime" is to ask if there has not been a colossal error in our thinking to date. The simple facts are that nobody has ever been cured of AIDS. No Vaccine has ever been developed. Something is wrong here.

Full Press Release: http://www.semmelweis.org/2008/Duesb...Awards2008.pdf


Semmelweis Society International Home Page: http://www.semmelweis.org

.

[Mr. Bill]

Originally Posted by oLiViA88

Anything Approved By The FDA Will Either Slowly Kill You Or Make Your Whole Body Be In Danger... I dont take any meds prescribed I now go to a chienese doctor and local health food store.. Herbal remides do work if you research right my father was on insulion I gave him a recipe of natural herbs and he hasnt had diabeties for 2yrs.... I Had major migranes and now I never get them.. The govt harms you to make money research is the key & herbal remedie books...

Thank you for your input CeCe - you're not only gorgeous, you're a very smart lady too!



.

[Mr. Bill]

OMSJ Prompts Nat’l HIV Policy Change in Nine Months

After almost two decades of misguided policies based entirely upon pharmaceutical propaganda, the NIH and CDC have convinced the Obama Administration to ask state officials to drop the criminal prosecution of allegedly HIV+ Americans. This decision comes only nine months after OMSJ began to force prosecutors to prove that HIV tests detect HIV.

Troubling signs

In 2008, the Semmelweis Report identified serious inconsistencies and red flags among HIV researchers, legislators and activists who receive funding from an industry that has paid $8 billion to settle dozens of criminal and civil complaints since 2004.

Part of the problem stems from industry regulators who help companies like GlaxoSmithKline and Astra Zeneca arrange million dollar fines for illegally marketing deadly drugs like Avandia and Seroquel that generate billions of dollars annually. Although these drugs kill or injure thousands of Americans each year, company executives avoid prison by paying small fines that are generally covered by higher drug prices.

The fact that HIV drugs cause many of the same diseases they ostensibly prevent is another flag. Unfortunately, as the drugs kill, their mortality is then used to generate media reports that prompts people to seek meaningless tests and debilitating treatments that eventually destroy their lives.

Nothing sells HIV testing and treatment better than news reports about HIV arrests. When someone is publicly accused of spreading HIV to dozens of partners, the resulting hysteria can generate hundreds of unnecessary tests and millions of dollars of taxpayer-funded medication and treatment. But when prosecutors are unable to prove the charges, newspapers never report that charges were dropped.

Proof of Concept

Although no sensible person trusts the word of serial felons, regulators, academics, universities and legislators who receive pharmaceutical funding turn a blind eye to the corruption.

Despite withering attacks from what investigative reporter Shannon Brownlee calls “drug whores,” OMSJ began to force prosecutors of criminal HIV cases to prove HIV tests actually detect HIV in 2009.

The simplicity of the test was apparently too much for prosecution experts. Despite the billions of dollars spent producing millions of pages of HIV research for three decades, experts who helped prosecutors put people like Willie Campbell and Philippe Padieu away for the rest of their lives were suddenly unavailable to testify under oath in OMSJ’s presence. In most cases, defense attorneys required little more than an affidavit to convince prosecutors to dismiss all HIV-related charges.

After prosecutors dropped or lost six cases in nine months, the Obama Administration has asked state officials to end HIV prosecutions altogether. Obama’s report cites “Human Rights” as a pretext, how long the Justice Department will take to free wrongfully-convicted victims of pharmaceutical propaganda is less certain.

For more information, visit the HIV Innocence Project.

.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by oLiViA88

Anything Approved By The FDA Will Either Slowly Kill You Or Make Your Whole Body Be In Danger... I dont take any meds prescribed I now go to a chienese doctor and local health food store.. Herbal remides do work if you research right my father was on insulion I gave him a recipe of natural herbs and he hasnt had diabeties for 2yrs.... I Had major migranes and now I never get them.. The govt harms you to make money research is the key & herbal remedie books...

Olivia, I know you don't like me, but check out my thread on the FDA wanting to regulate vitamins and make them available only by prescription. It's a scary idea.

And again, I'm sorry for being a jackass to you. It's not like me. I was not in a good mood and took it out on you. I got a warning for it, and deserved it.

[Mr. Bill]

How Can They All Be Wrong?

Interesting Book Examines One Reason
ref: http://jamesphogan.com/bb/bulletin.php?id=154


Regarding the pieces I post from time to time on skepticism toward the official line on AIDS, and other areas where I suspect that what "everyone knows" is a lot less firmly based than we're given to believe, I often get asked, "But how can they all be wrong?"; In other words, is it really credible that virtually the entire body of acknowledged expert opinion could have misled itself in some kind of internally sustained exercise in self-delusion? Well, one only has to recall flat Earths, the geo-centered cosmos, and the happy days of heretic burning to answer that, yes, it's credible. "But not in today's age of reason reigning triumphant, and scientific enlightenment, surely."; Yeah, right.

Frank Lusardi brought my attention to a book called Disciplined Minds, by Jeff Schmidt, published by Rowman & Littlefield, Inc.

David Rasnick, a biochemical research scientist very active in challenging the official dogma of HIV=AIDS=Death, wrote, in recommending the book: "I used to be asked 'How could they all be wrong?' That question of course refers to the fact that virtually all scientists and doctors accept the obviously and hopelessly wrong contagious/HIV hypothesis of AIDS. Indeed, how could they do that? Why do they still do it? Disciplined Minds gives the best explanation of how it is that so many professionals can be so wrong, and it does that without even mentioning AIDS once. As a group, Professionals are perhaps the least independent thinkers in society. Their training and credentialing produces conformists who maintain and protect the status quo. Their very careers depend on it."

Further information is available from the Disciplined Minds web site at disciplinedminds.tripod.com, including the story of how the author was fired for writing it.

The opening paragraph of the web site reads:

In this riveting book about the world of professional work, Jeff Schmidt demonstrates that the workplace is a battleground for the very identity of the individual, as is graduate school, where professionals are trained. He shows that professional work is inherently political, and that professionals are hired to subordinate their own vision and maintain strict Ideological discipline.

.

[Mr. Bill]

“The virus doesn’t kill, the diagnosis does.”

-Erhard Neubert

"Healthy people who receive “HIV-positive” diagnoses are prescribed drugs that cause malaise, deformity and eventually death. Many deaths among “HIV-positive” people now occur from liver cancer or other forms of organ failure caused by “HIV treatments”. Since many of these “HIV-positives” never acquire an “AIDS-indicator” condition, they are not counted as “AIDS” deaths, thus perpetuating the myth that “AIDS” deaths are dropping thanks to “anti-HIV” drugs. The reality is that “HIV treatments” are killing people who were healthy before taking them."

-John Lauritsen

.