Apparently, HIV Doesn't Cause AIDS

[Mr. Bill]

Poppers - Gateway To AIDS

The same company that monopolized the 'popper' industry (the nitrate inhalants which cause AIDS like symtoms) also made the deadly AZT poison for those diagnosed with HIV.



Their advertisements were targeted toward the gay community, which in turn produced the most cases of Kaposi's sarcoma, pneumocystis or both. These illnesses were later determined symptomatic of AIDS and the HIV/AIDS myth and the global scare crusade (facilitated by the media) was on.








Normally every drug in the U.S. undergos testing before it can be sold legally. Not poppers. They were subject to no testing or quality control whatsoever. In 1981, the Stanford Medical Laboratories tested some samples of different brands of poppers, and found them to contain kerosene, hydrochloric acid, and sulfur dioxide, among other impurities.

Toxic effects of amyl nitrite (the pharmaceutical predecessor of 'Rush', 'Locker Room', etc.) have been known for years. With the outbreak of the AIDS epidemic, medical researchers began to suspect that poppers played a role in causing AIDS in gay men - either as the primary cause or in conjunction with other factors.

The fact that large numbers of AIDS victims are not HIV-positive is proof alone that all AIDS cases are not HIV related. HIV is actually a weak virus, and it has been labeled the all-encompassing villain to hide the real causes of shattered immune systems. What a coincidence that "wonder drugs" to treat people with HIV, like the Rockefeller cartel's infamous AZT, have a rather significant side effect --- they destroy ...the immune system.


.

[Mr. Bill]

Extensive List of HIV/AIDS Drugs & The Diseases They Cause

All of the HIV drugs listed at the below link produce fatal diseases and/or drug addiction. Over time, these diseases compromise immune function and produce symptoms that clinicians use to diagnose the onset of AIDS.

(Click on the DRUG or DISEASES for more information)

http://www.omsj.org/drugs/matrix.htm



.

[Mr. Bill]

Insanity, Inc: How the CDC Disclaims Itself, from Itself

3 Feb – There’s a sucker born every minute. Although this remark is widely attributed to the showman PT Barnum, RJ Brown reports that it was actually said by a banker named David Hannum, who sued Barnum in 1869 for promoting a fake exhibit. When Hannum lost, his name was forgotten and Barnum was linked to the quote.

For most of us, bad stories require some evidence to be believed. But if the story is good or repeated by many sources, it rarely needs facts. “They said” implies credibility, while “everybody knows” suggests that – if you don’t know – there’s probably something wrong with you. As Solomon Asch demonstrated, we often conform to avoid conflict or looking foolish.

Policemen and courts rely on evidence and what epidemiologists call the five W’s. To them, until someone establishes WHAT, WHO, WHERE, WHEN, and WHY, hearsay is meaningless.

Unfortunately, many Americans are too busy to care.

INFORMATION DISCLAIMERS
Imagine that you are sitting at a restaurant counter and a waitress has brought you the menu. Below the various offerings you see the following disclaimer:

Sam’s Café makes no express or implied promises or warrantees that any of the information contained in this menu is accurate; and will not vouch for any meal delivered. If you suffer stomach cramps, vomiting, diarrhea, or hallucinations, seek medical treatment immediately. Sam’s Café assumes no responsibility if you become sick or die from the meals or drinks delivered.

Although we’d think twice before ordering, people who seek reliable information about diseases and treatments from federal and state agencies generally believe what’s on the menu even when they receive similar disclaimers.

PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY
Last month, Saundra asked the CDC if HIV tests are reliable and accurate. The CDC replied that they could not recommend any tests, but said that the FDA was better suited to answer.

But when Saundra asked them, the FDA replied that “a physician would be necessary to decide which test to employ and how to interpret the results from that test.”

Their reply contained this link where more information can be found about HIV tests and treatments. Unfortunate, the FDA “cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by their website,” but affirmed its dedication to “quality guidelines establishing quality assurance policies, standards, and processes” as per HHS guidelines.”

If Saundra had clicked on the “HHS Guideline” link, she would find this page, which contains similar information and a disclaimer (bottom) that would take her to this page; which advises that HHS is “not responsible for the contents of any “off-site” web page (FDA, CDC, NIH) referenced from this server…” and that the information “is only intended to be general summary information to the public.”

This disclaimer extends to all DHHS agencies. So don’t bother the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – they post similar disclaimers.

Saundra’s experience prompted OMSJ to ask a similar question.
Using the search term “HIV” on the CDC website, OMSJ was directed to the CDC’s NPIN Network. Below many HIV information links, visitors are warned that NPIN:

… does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in abstracts or documents available from the NPIN Website…” nor do they guarantee the services or information described or offered on the sites.

The next day, OMSJ received this email – not from the CDC but from DANYA.com, with helpful information that the CDC warns might not be accurate.
According to their website, Danya.com is a global company:

… that creates, delivers, and evaluates innovative behavior change strategies that empower people of all ages and from all walks of life to live healthier and better educated lives. Danya provides innovative services and solutions in the areas of public health communication, research and evaluation, information technology, education and training, program management support, and health product development.

Danya’s CEO is a psychologist who spearheads, among other things, “social marketing projects.”

So like Sam’s Café, the HHS, CDC, NIH and FDA disclaim all responsibility for the delivery of reliable or quality information; and it appears that corporations like Danya and AIR (see believes) handles the message.




Are state health department websites more reliable?

• Utah offers a lot of information, but disclaims:

… any express or implied warranty in… any materials, information, graphics, products, or processes contained therein. It makes no warranty, express or implied, nor assumes any responsibility in the use of this service or its contents for its accuracy, completeness, currency…

• New York’s AIDS Page has a similar disclaimer that:

…does not guarantee or warrant that the information on this web site is complete, accurate or up-to-date… and assumes no responsibility for any error, omissions or other discrepancies… cannot provide individual advice or counseling…” and that individuals “should contact a licensed practitioner or professional, a social services agency representative, or an organization in your local community…

• California “makes no claims, promises, or guarantees about the absolute accuracy, completeness, or adequacy… disclaims liability for errors and omissions…” and makes “no warranty of any kind, implied, expressed, or statutory…”

In fact, no government or state agency accepts any responsibility for the accuracy of any HIV- or medically-related information posted on their websites. Those who seek accurate information are usually referred to their personal physicians.

WHERE DO PHYSICIANS GET THEIR INFORMATION?
One doctor recently answered that question in a deposition taken last year, citing the Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR) for drug information and UpToDate.com as her “primary source” of information.

But like Sam’s Café and the HHS, the PDR:

… does not assume responsibility for the accuracy or appropriateness of any advice, course of treatment, diagnosis, or any other information, services or products… (and that) reliance on any such information is soley at your own risk. (SIC)

UpToDate.com posts a similar disclaimer.

Where does the PDR and UpToDate get their information?

According to the PDR website, “(N)early all pharmaceutical companies use PDR Network services to either distribute drug information… or to send urgent product safety alerts… in full accordance with the FDA’s 2006 guidance to manufacturers…” (Unfortunately, the FDA does not attest to the accuracy of information provided by their website.)

UpToDate is partnered with numerous companies and rely on numerous journals that post similar disclaimers. Most (if not all) of these journals are published by Elsevier, which disclaims all liability for their journals and websites like The Lancet, which disclaims all responsibility for any of the information they distribute.

According to their 2008 Annual Report, Reed-Elsevier publishes over 25% of the world’s science, technological and medical information:

Along with over 10,000 online books, (Reed-Elsevier offers) a rich journal collection of over 2,500 titles and the ability to search a historical archive of over nine million articles.

So who writes the journals?

According to Elsevier, medical researchers, practicing health professionals, payers, educators, students and pharma professionals – what Elsevier calls the pharma promotion markets – none of which claim any liability or responsibility over the contents of any of their articles, reports or journals that, according to some researchers, are often wrong.

HOW RELIABLE ARE MEDICAL JOURNALS?
In 2007, Gambian President Yahya Jammeh reported that he could cure AIDS without HIV drugs in three days. Although criticized by CDC drug dealers, hundreds of other scientists – including HIV Discoverer Luc Montagnier MD have made similar claims.

In 2005, John P. A. Ioannidis MD PhD reported that the greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true:

Conflicts of interest are very common in biomedical research, and typically they are inadequately and sparsely reported (link added). Prejudice may not necessarily have financial roots. Scientists in a given field may be prejudiced purely because of their belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings. Many otherwise seemingly independent, university-based studies may be conducted for no other reason than to give physicians and researchers qualifications for promotion or tenure. Such nonfinancial conflicts may also lead to distorted reported results and interpretations. Prestigious investigators may suppress via the peer review process the appearance and dissemination of findings that refute their findings, thus condemning their field to perpetuate false dogma. Empirical evidence on expert opinion shows that it is extremely unreliable.

Dr. Ioannidis also:

… zoomed in on 49 of the most highly regarded research findings in medicine over the previous 13 years, as judged by the science community’s two standard measures: the papers had appeared in the journals most widely cited in research articles, and the 49 articles themselves were the most widely cited articles in these journals… Of the 49 articles, 45 claimed to have uncovered effective interventions. Thirty-four of these claims had been retested, and 14 of these, or 41 percent, had been convincingly shown to be wrong or significantly exaggerated. If between a third and a half of the most acclaimed research in medicine was proving untrustworthy, the scope and impact of the problem were undeniable.

JAMA. 2005;294(2):218-228 (doi:10.1001/jama.294.2.218)

Since most research papers cite references, are 41 percent of those references also untrustworthy? Since the best reports are only as credible as its weakest reference, how many generations of journal reports would be required before a library or journal is considered unreliable?

This may be why respected European scientists like Marco Ruggiero MD PhD view scientists like John Moore PhD with contempt. When Elsevier de-published this paper last year, European scientists celebrated the authors as celebrities:

Our censored article in Medical Hypotheses and all the articles and quotations about it that followed in Science and Nature, made us kind of celebrities here. We were admired for our courage to defy the overwhelming power of the corporations. Even more; we (authors) all proudly list our withdrawn Medical Hypothesis article in our CVs and it is highly valued… Last October, Dr. Stefania Pacini (the corresponding author of the Medical Hypothesis paper and, incidentally, my wife) was appointed professor by a commission of Italian professors who evaluated her publications, including Med Hypo.

… the act of Elsevier forcibly withdrawing our paper is considered the worst offence against science; we have been perceived as moral heirs of Galileo, persecuted because of our scientific hypotheses. As a matter of fact, when the Med Hypo article was published, the press office of the University put it in the home page of the University web site as a most distinguished accomplishment of Florentine researchers.

For this reason, physicians are flying as blindly as patients, relying on reports written primarily by an industry that spent $9 billion (since 2004) to settle thousands of criminal and civil complaints related to the illegal marketing of drugs that kill or injure a million Americans every year:

We have found that serious (adverse drug reactions) ADRs are frequent and more so than generally recognized. Fatal ADRs appear to be between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death. Their incidence has remained stable over the last 30 years.

JAMA. 1998;279(15):1200-1205 (doi:10.1001/jama.279.15.1200)

But unlike major airline crashes that can ground airplanes for weeks, “there’s no economic incentive for hospitals to reduce errors because they make more money by treating the resulting problems.”

WHO GETS HURT?
Clarence and Tamara Jones (not their real names) live in a suburb of a major US city. Both are hard-working and successful law-abiding citizens who have enjoyed their monogamous relationship for many years.

In 2006, Tamara gave birth to their fourth child. Shortly after delivery, her doctor tested Tamara and her baby for HIV. When the tests came back positive, their doctors prescribed deadly HIV drugs to both.

Predictably, both became very sick. When they stopped the drugs, both recovered.

Shortly before Tamara delivered their fifth child last December, her doctor stated his intention to start Zidovudine (AZT), allegedly to prevent Tamara from transmitting HIV to her unborn baby as per CDC guidelines.

Those guidelines, however, are posted above this disclaimer, which links readers to this website and the CDC’s NPIN disclaimer, which “does not… assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information…” despite guidelines to insure quality information.

When Tamara told the doctor that AZT causes cancer, mutations, impairs fertility and other fatal diseases, he delivered her healthy baby without AZT.

Although the baby tested HIV-negative, the doctor and hospital notified county child services officials, who initiated the process of placing their children in the care of foster parents who are paid to administer deadly toxins that Clarence and Tamara are trying to protect their children from.
Although OMSJ continues to defend the “Jones Family,” they are under constant threat by county officials while OMSJ investigates the credibility of their original HIV diagnosis. Tamara and her children would not be the first injured or killed by incompetent doctors, but because HIV incompetence is the “standard of care” in many US cities, doctors who refuse to deliver deadly drugs to black mothers and their babies risk the suspension of clinical privileges and the loss of their medical licenses.

Simply stated, doctors and patients rely on the same pharma promotion markets that publishers, government agencies, and the drug industry relies on. And when patients die, the officials blame the doctors and the patients they injure or kill.

HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT
None of this is a secret. Warnings are prominently posted on every pharmaceutical marketing website and government agency in the US.

What is less understood is why patients still believe what their doctors say. Then again, a sucker is born every minute; and he’s usually too self-conscious to ask questions – even if it saves his life.

.

[waverunner234]

Christ I shortly looked into this thread and I really don't know what to say because of the abundance of stuff that is posted here.

Maybe when I have more time?

It is interesting though.

[JDNorthface]

Originally Posted by waverunner234

Christ I shortly looked into this thread and I really don't know what to say because of the abundance of stuff that is posted here.

Maybe when I have more time?

It is interesting though.

Don't waste your time on it. Just another "baffle 'em with bullshit" troll thread.

[Mr. Bill]

Originally Posted by waverunner234

Christ I shortly looked into this thread and I really don't know what to say because of the abundance of stuff that is posted here.

Maybe when I have more time?

It is interesting though.

I think a lot of people are bookmarking the thread and reading its information as they have time. Most at first are shocked into disbelief that such a horrific fraud could be perpetrated against the public for so long. Yet when you begin to absorb all the details and let go of your conditioning, the reality of this criminal enterprise becomes clear. The thread currently gets about 1500 views per day.

.

[JDNorthface]

Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

...when you begin to absorb all the details and let go of your conditioning, the reality of this criminal enterprise becomes clear....
.

And the consequences deadly.

[Mr. Bill]

The AIDS Debate
The Most Controversial Story You've Never Heard

By Liam Scheff

Part 1

Prologue
In 1984, Robert Gallo, a government cancer-virologist, called an international press conference to announce that he'd found the probable cause of AIDS. He claimed that a retrovirus called HIV was destroying the immune systems of young gay men and IV drug abusers, leaving them open to a variety of both viral diseases and cancer.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, AIDS is not a single disease, but rather a category of 29 unrelated, previously-known conditions including herpes, yeast infections, salmonella, diarrhea, fever, flus, TB, pelvic cancer in women, pneumonia and bacterial infections. The CDC also designates HIV- positive people who aren't sick, but have a T-cell count below 200, as AIDS patients (T-cells are a subset of white blood cells). The only thing that separates an AIDS diagnosis from any of these conditions is a positive HIV test, which itself is based on Robert Gallo's research.

Gallo's HIV theory, however, was not the only AIDS theory, and according to a growing number of concerned scientists, researchers and activists, it wasn't the best. For 70 years before Gallo, retroviruses were known to be a non-toxic part of the cell; moreover, no single virus could simultaneously cause a viral disease like pneumonia, in which cells are destroyed, and a cancer like Kaposi's Sarcoma, in which cells multiply rapidly.

These scientists argue that Gallo's unified HIV/AIDS theory is flawed and that treating 29 unrelated diseases with extremely toxic AIDS drugs like AZT and protease inhibitors is at best irresponsible and at worse medical genocide.

These scientists argue that Gallo's unified HIV/AIDS theory is flawed and that treating 29 unrelated diseases with extremely toxic AIDS drugs like AZT and protease inhibitors is at best irresponsible and at worse medical genocide.

They may have a point. Ninety-four percent of all AIDS-related deaths in the US occurred after the introduction of AZT, according to CDC statistics through the year 2000. And according to the University of Pittsburgh, the No. 1 cause of death in US AIDS patients today is liver failure, a side-effect of the new protease inhibitors.

The questions arise: Did Gallo truly solve the AIDS riddle, and are we treating AIDS humanely and effectively?

To answer these questions, I spoke with three prominent AIDS researchers.

Dr. Peter Duesberg is a chemist and retroviral expert. Duesberg discovered the Oncogene (cancer gene) and isolated the retroviral genome (of which HIV is one) in 1970. He is professor of molecular biology at UC Berkeley.

Dr. David Rasnick is a protease specialist and has been in AIDS research for 20 years. He and Duesberg work in collaboration on cancer and AIDS research. Both Rasnick and Duesberg were advisors on President Mbeki's South African AIDS panel.

Dr. Rodney Richards is a chemist who worked with Amgen and Abbot labs, designing the first HIV tests from Robert Gallo's HIV cell line.
The interviews were conducted separately and integrated into a dialogue. Individual points-of-view belong to individual speakers.

continued...

.

[Mr. Bill]

The AIDS Debate
The Most Controversial Story You've Never Heard

By Liam Scheff

How did you get involved with AIDS research?

Rasnick: I'm a chemist and protease enzyme researcher. I design and synthesize inhibitors to stop tissue-destroying viruses and cancers. When Robert Gallo announced HIV caused AIDS, I wanted to work on inhibitors that would stop it.

In '85 I was at a research meeting where HIV was being discussed. An AIDS specialist was asked how much HIV was present in an infected AIDS patient. He was asked, "What's the titer of HIV?"

What's a Titer?

Rasnick: The titer is the number of infectious virus particles in a blood or tissue sample. A titer of live virus is easily obtainable from the particular tissue that the virus infects. A sample from this infected tissue contains millions of infectious virus particles. If you have herpes, the sample comes from a cold sore; if it's polio, it's from the intestine; if it's smallpox, from a pustule; if it's a cold, from the throat.

When you're infected with a virus, it infects and kills about 30 percent of the specific tissue that it targets before you get any symptoms. You can take a titer of any infected area, put it under a microscope and see millions of living viruses.

So, the virologist was asked, "What's the titer?"

He answered, "Undetectable. Zero."

I thought, how is that possible? How can you be made sick from something that isn't there? With polio, researchers threw away a hundred viruses before they found the right one. I assumed Gallo had simply gotten the wrong virus, and we'd have to start over.

By 1987, there were 30,000 cumulative AIDS cases. Numbers were not growing as predicted; and AIDS hadn't left its original risk groups. Six years after the first AIDS cases, 95 percent of infections still occurred exclusively in men - 2/3 gay men, and 1/3 IV drug users. Additionally, each AIDS risk group suffered from specific diseases.

Viruses don't cause different diseases based on gender, sexual preference or lifestyle. Viruses have unique but limited genetic structures, which manifest in a limited but identical set of symptoms in all patients. The herpes virus makes herpes lesions, but never a sore throat. The chicken pox virus always produces skin sores, but never paralysis.

Viral epidemics spread exponentially in the first months and years, killing everyone who can't survive long enough to develop immunity to it. HIV wasn't growing; it remained in its original risk groups, and it caused different diseases in each. It clearly wasn't acting like a contagious virus.

In 1988, I came across an article written by Peter Duesberg in the science journal Cancer Research. The article was on retroviruses in general, and HIV in particular. Duesberg was the world's preeminent retrovirologist. He'd studied and mapped the retroviral genome in the '70s. Duesberg's knowledge of retroviruses was unparalleled. In the article, he laid out, point for point, what retroviruses are, and what they can and can't do.

HIV is a retrovirus; what are retroviruses?

Rasnick: Retroviruses are a subset of viruses that are not toxic to cells. They were discovered in the early 20th century. They're one of the first identified cellular particles. There are about 3,000 catalogued retroviruses. They exist in every animal: dogs, cats, whales, birds, rats, hamsters and humans. Retrovirologists estimate that one to two percent of our own DNA is retrovirus.

Retroviruses are RNA strands that copy themselves into our DNA using an enzyme called Reverse Transcriptase. Retroviruses are passed down matrilineally - from mother to child. They're not sexually transmissible. Lab animals do not exchange retroviruses with each other, no matter how much they mate. But babies always have the same retroviruses as their mothers.

Current research strongly indicates that they're simply a naturally occurring part of us. In 50 years of modern lab research, no retrovirus has ever been shown to kill cells or cause disease, except under very special laboratory conditions.

Peter Duesberg: In 1987 I was invited by Cancer Research to discuss whether retroviruses, including HIV, could cause disease or immune deficiency. I was invited because of my experience with retroviruses.

In 1970, I was working in UC Berkeley's virus lab. The big program in virology at the time, which we were part of, was to find a virus that caused cancer. There was also a large government cancer-virus program at the National Institutes of Health. Robert Gallo was one of the scientists working on that project.

We began looking at retroviruses because of their unique qualities. Typical viruses kill cells. Their strategy is to enter the cell, kill it and move on to the next one. However, with cancer, cells aren't killed; in fact, they multiply very rapidly. Therefore a virus couldn't cause cancer. Retroviruses, however, don't kill cells. This quality made them an outstanding candidate for a cancer virus.

In 1970, I made a discovery that got a lot of attention. I isolated a retroviral gene from a cancer cell, and infected other cells with this gene. The cancer virologists were very excited. They thought this might be the thing they'd been looking for - a retrovirus that could infect other cells and cause cancer. I was suddenly famous. There were job offers; I was given tenure at Berkeley and admission into the Academy of Science.

Of course, if a virus, or a unique retrovirus, caused cancer in the real world, then cancer would be contagious. But nobody "catches" cancer. A "case of cancer" doesn't go around the office. However, such fundamental thoughts were not on the minds of the virus hunters. Scientists like impressive-sounding proofs, regardless of what we know is true in the real world. The retroviral cancer-gene was just a lab artifact. It didn't exist in humans or animals in nature. We created it in the lab, and that's where it stayed. It was purely academic.

As part of the cancer-gene experiment, my associates and I mapped the retroviral genome. We made the maps that today are used as the blueprints for all retroviruses, including HIV.

What do retroviruses do?

Duesberg: In terms of disease, they do nothing. They're transcribed into the DNA in a few cells, and they hang around there for the rest of your life as part of your genome. Nevertheless, cancer-virus hunters continued to look for a cancer-gene using the technology we created and the retroviral maps we made.

Rasnick: In the mid-'70s, Robert Gallo claimed he'd found a cancer-retrovirus in the cells of a leukemia patient. He called it HL23V. He found it the same way he would later find HIV - not by finding the retrovirus in the blood - but by looking for antibody and enzyme activity that he claimed stood in for the actual retrovirus.

By 1980, his claim was refuted by both the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Research Center and the National Cancer Institute. Gallo's supposed HL23V antibodies weren't the result of a cancer-virus, but rather the result of "exposure to many natural substances" which create antibodies in humans. Today nobody, not even Gallo, claims HL23V ever existed.

In 1980, he tried again. Gallo claimed to have a new cancer retrovirus called HTLV-1, which caused a kind of leukemia in which T-cells multiplied into fluid tumors. T-cells are one of many subsets of white blood cells. Once again, the proof was less than convincing. Less than one percent of people who tested positive for HTLV-1 ever developed leukemia. It was a less-than-successful validation for his theory.

continued...

.

[waverunner234]

Like I said, way too much shit to read.
Just come with a conclusion in 20 - 50 words and I'll read it.

[Mr. Bill]

The AIDS Debate
The Most Controversial Story You've Never Heard

By Liam Scheff


How did Gallo move from cancer to AIDS research?

Rasnick: In the early '80s, gay men were showing up in emergency rooms with a variety of simultaneous illnesses and infections. At the time, medical journals speculated that the diseases were drug-related. Gay men had been abusing toxic, immune suppressing and even carcinogenic drugs like poppers, cocaine and amphetamines on a daily basis for the better part of the '70s.

In 1983, Luc Montagnier, a French scientist at the Pasteur Institute, claimed to have found a new retrovirus in AIDS patients. But nobody paid attention, because he hadn't isolated a virus, and he hadn't found a single viral particle in the blood - remember the titer was zero, undetectable. Seeking some academic support, Montagnier sent a cell sample to Robert Gallo at the NIH. Gallo took the cell-line Montagnier sent him and modified it slightly. Then he did something strange. He stole it.

In 1984 Gallo called an international press conference and together with Margaret Heckler, the head of the Department of Health and Human Services, announced that he'd discovered the "probable cause" of AIDS. It was a new retrovirus called HTLV-III, (later re-named HIV). Later that same day, he patented the modified cell-line he'd originally gotten from Montagnier. He hadn't published a single word of his research. Robert Gallo, a government-backed scientist, simply announced that a retroviral-epidemic was on its way.

He sold the cell-line to Abbot Labs, a pharmaceutical company that makes HIV tests. The French government demanded that all patent rights be returned to Montagnier. Gallo refused, claiming it was all his work. In 1987, Gallo and Montagnier were forced by President Reagan and French Prime Minister Chirac to meet in a hotel room to work out the HIV patent rights. In 1992, Gallo was officially convicted of theft by a federal scientific ethics committee.

Rodney Richards: At first Gallo claimed he invented the whole process. Now he claims his sample might have been "contaminated" by Montagnier's.

Duesberg: The NIH itself ran a two-year investigation of Gallo's HIV claim, and they couldn't come up with any convincing evidence that he came up with it on his own.

What did Abbot labs do with Gallo's cell line?

Rasnick: Abbot labs makes HIV-antibody tests out of it. Abbot's made billions selling HIV tests, and Gallo's made millions from his patent.

So when we're given an HIV-antibody test, we're tested based on what Gallo and Montagnier claim to have found. How did Luc Montagnier find HIV?

Richards: First he looked in his patients' blood, but he couldn't find it there. In fact, no one has ever found HIV in human blood.

Right, the titer was zero - so where did he look?

Richards: Montagnier took tissue from the swollen lymph node of a gay man who was a suspected AIDS patient. In an infected person, the lymph tissue will presumably be littered with infected cells.

Montagnier attempted to perform a cell culture with that tissue. This is the lab technique used to isolate viruses like herpes and mononucleosis. In a cell culture, infected cells are mixed with uninfected cells in a petri dish. Separated from the body's immune system, viruses that are being suppressed can surface. The virus travels from the infected cell to the uninfected cell through the liquid in the dish. The scientist collects this liquid, concentrates it, and spins it through a sucrose density gradient to isolate the virus.

A sucrose density gradient is a tube of layered sugar solution of specific densities. The layers become thicker from top to bottom. The cell liquid is gently placed on top of the sugar solution. This is spun in a centrifuge for many hours to force the viral particles to descend through the density layers. Cellular particles, including retroviruses, have known densities. The known density corresponds to a layer in the test tube. The descending particles stop when they find a density equal to their own. This layer is photographed with an electron microscope. In cultures from virally-infected patients, the photo plate is filled with millions of identical viral particles.

Finally, a new cell culture is performed with the isolated viral particles to see if they are indeed infectious. Once again, the cell fluid is separated, spun and photographed to verify that the same virus appears. This is what's known as viral isolation.

Is this what Montagnier did?

Richards: He tried to, but it didn't work. Montagnier took lymph tissue from a suspected AIDS patient, mixed it with cells from a healthy blood donor and performed a cell culture. He removed the liquid and spun it in a centrifuge, but he found no virus. But that didn't stop him. Montagnier repeated the experiment but added a crucial new step.

He took the suspected AIDS tissue and mixed it with a variety of cells in a culture, including cells from an umbilical cord. Then he added powerful chemicals called Mitogens that artificially force cells to replicate. He found, after 2 or 3 weeks, evidence of an enzyme called reverse transcriptase, a sign of possible retroviral activity.

But he hadn't found any virus?

Richards: No. He found an enzyme that retroviruses use. But reverse transcriptase is found in many other microbes, cellular components and processes, including umbilical cells, and forced replication. Montagnier then separated the mitogenically stimulated fluid from the culture and poured it into another dish of healthy cells and again found reverse transcriptase activity.

He put this through a sucrose density gradient and found reverse transcriptase activity at the density layer where retroviruses were known to purify. What he did not find was a virus. When he looked through the electron microscope at that same density gradient, he found nothing - but he didn't acknowledge that until years later.

That's what's known as isolation of HIV.

How does this prove that an infectious virus was making people sick?

Richards: It doesn't. This is insufficient evidence to prove that HIV, or any infectious virus exists, let alone that it causes disease.

How did Gallo use Montagnier's cells to prove HIV existed and caused AIDS?

Richards: Gallo cultured the cells, but didn't find enough reverse transcriptase activity to convince him that Montagnier had found a retrovirus. So Gallo added another step. He mixed cells from 10 AIDS patients together; then he added those to leukemia T-cells from his HTLV-1 retrovirus experiment. At that point, Gallo found enough reverse transcriptase activity to convince him that there was indeed a retrovirus. That's how he claims to have found HIV.

But Gallo had already found reverse transcriptase activity in the leukemia cells. How did he prove that there was a new retrovirus - HIV?

Richards: Many scientists don't believe that he did prove it.

You said Gallo used a T-cell line to grow HIV. Isn't HIV supposed to kill T-cells?

Richards: That's what Gallo initially claimed, but Abbot labs grows its HIV in human T-cells. It's even called an immortal cell line, because the leukemia cells don't die. To date, no researcher has demonstrated how HIV kills T-cells. It's just a theory that keeps money flowing into the pharmaceutical approach to treating AIDS.

Rasnick: Gallo patented the leukemia T-cell mixture the very same day he announced he'd found the "probable cause" of AIDS.

continued...

.

[waverunner234]

[Mr. Bill]

Originally Posted by waverunner234

Like I said, way too much shit to read.
Just come with a conclusion in 20 - 50 words and I'll read it.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey, CIA Director 1981

.

[Mr. Bill]

The AIDS Debate
The Most Controversial Story You've Never Heard

By Liam Scheff


What do HIV tests do?

Rasnick: They look for antibodies in your blood to proteins that are taken out of this mixture. Your body produces antibodies as a response to all foreign material - germs, yeasts, viruses, even the food you eat. Viruses are DNA or RNA strands wrapped in protein building blocks. Antibodies grab onto these proteins, immobilizing and destroying the virus. When these antibodies encounter different viral proteins in the future, they'll very often grab onto them, too. This is called cross-reactivity.

Duesberg: Viruses are only dangerous the first time you encounter them. Once you've made antibodies to a virus, you have immunity for the rest of your life, and the virus can't get you sick anymore. This is the opposite of HIV theory, which states: You become infected; you don't get sick; you make antibodies; and 10 years later, you get sick and die.

Rasnick: There are two common HIV antibody tests. One is the Elisa, in which a bunch of proteins from the T-cell mixture are stuck in a series of little plastic wells on a test plate. The other is called Western Blot. In this test, the proteins are separated onto individual paper strips. Your blood is added, and if antibodies from your blood stick to proteins from this mixture, you're said to be HIV positive.

They're assuming the proteins are from HIV; but they never isolated HIV, so how can they say these tests can diagnose HIV-infection?

Rasnick: They can't, and they don't. None of the proteins in the Elisa and Western Blot tests have been proven to be specific to HIV or any retrovirus. For this reason the FDA has not approved a single test for diagnosing HIV-infection.

Richards: There are at least 30 tests marketed to test for HIV. None of them are approved by the FDA to diagnose the presence or absence of HIV. Not the Elisa, not viral load, not Western Blot, not the P24 antigen test. The FDA and manufacturers clearly state that the significance of testing positive on the Elisa and Western Blot test is unknown.

AIDS researchers admit that the tests contain at least 80 percent non-specific cellular material - they're, at best, 20 percent effective. But in my scientific opinion, they contain no HIV at all. The medical literature lists at least 60 different conditions that can register positive on the HIV-test. These conditions include candidas, arthritis, parasites, malaria, liver conditions, alcoholism, drug abuse, flu, herpes, syphilis, other STDs and pregnancy.

Rasnick: It's very simple to see how you can get false positives. Antibodies cross-react. The more viruses and germs you're exposed to, the more antibodies you'll produce, the greater risk you'll test positive on a non-specific antibody test. If you live in a country without clean water or sanitary living conditions, you're going to have constant microbial and parasitic infections that produce antibodies.

You carry antibodies to all the colds, flus, viruses and vaccinations you've ever had. If you're pregnant, you're producing antibodies that will react with Abbot's Elisa test. Pregnancy is a known cause of false positives on the HIV test.

Different races have different ranges of naturally-occurring antibodies. That's why blacks have a nine times greater chance of testing positive than white Europeans, and a 33 times greater chance than Asians. It doesn't have anything to do with infection or health. In one study, a tribe of South American Indians was given Elisa tests. Thirteen percent of them tested HIV-positive, but nobody was sick. They just had antibodies that reacted with the test.

If the tests aren't specific, and we can't find HIV in the blood, then what is AIDS?

Richards: According to the CDC, AIDS works like a formula: If you have an AIDS-indicator disease like salmonella, tuberculoses, pneumonia, herpes, or a yeast infection, and you test HIV-positive, then you're said to have AIDS, and you're treated with toxic AIDS drugs. If you test negative or don't know your HIV status, you're spared the toxic drugs and simply treated for the disease you have.

In 1993 the CDC expanded their definition of AIDS to include people who are not sick at all but who test positive and have a one-time T-cell count under 200. Based on this new criteria, by 1997, about 2/3 of all AIDS cases were perfectly healthy people. As it happens, '97 was the last year the CDC told us how many people were healthy and how many were sick. Now they just count everyone who's HIV-positive as an AIDS patient, whether they're sick or not.

continued...

.

[Mr. Bill]

The AIDS Debate
The Most Controversial Story You've Never Heard

By Liam Scheff


Let me clarify this. When people die of AIDS, they actually die of a known disease. But if their blood reacts with an HIV-antibody test, they're no longer said to have the disease, they're said to have AIDS?

Rasnick: That's how it works. And the sick people who test HIV-positive are put on the most toxic drugs ever manufactured and sold.

What about AIDS in Africa?

Rasnick: It's the same story, even worse. Fifty percent of Africans have no sewage systems. Their drinking water mixes with animal and human waste. They have constant TB and malaria infections, the symptoms of which are diarrhea and weight loss, the very same criteria UNAIDS and the World Health Organization use to diagnose AIDS in Africa.

These people need clean drinking water and treated mosquito nets [mosquitoes carry malaria], not condoms and lectures and deadly pharmaceuticals forced on pregnant mothers.

We've put 20 years and $118 billion into HIV. We've got no cure, no vaccine and no progress. Instead we have thousands of people made sick and even killed by toxic AIDS drugs. But we can't just treat them for the diseases we know they have because if we do, we're called "AIDS denialists." Treating them for the diseases they actually have would be more humane and effective than forcing toxic drugs down their throats, and it would also save billions of tax dollars. AIDS is a multi-billion dollar industry. There are 100,000 professional AIDS researchers in this country. It's as hard to challenge as big tobacco at this point.

What does Luc Montagnier say about this?

Rasnick: In 1990 at the San Francisco AIDS conference, Montagnier announced that HIV did not, after all, kill T-cells and could not be the cause of AIDS. Within hours of making this announcement, he was attacked by the very industry he'd helped to create. Montagnier's not a liar. He's a so-so scientist who's in over his head.

Afterword:

In a 1997 interview, Luc Montagnier spoke about his isolation of HIV. He said, "We did not purify [isolate] ... We saw some particles but they did not have the morphology [shape] typical of retroviruses ... They were very different ... What we did not have, as I have always recognized it, is that it was truly the cause of AIDS."

Robert Gallo hasn't made such large concessions. He has, however, amended his AIDS death sentence. He now believes that it's possible to live with HIV "for 30 years until you die of old age," as long as you live a healthy lifestyle and avoid immune-compromising substances.

In 1994 Gallo quietly announced that the major AIDS defining illness in gay men - Kaposi's Sarcoma, could not be explained by HIV but that nitrite poppers, a drug that had been extremely popular in the gay community, "could be the primary cause." Somehow, this didn't make headlines.

Gallo also said that Peter Duesberg's research into a drug-based AIDS model should be funded. Duesberg's funding has all but evaporated since he publicly challenged the HIV/AIDS model.

Dr. Duesberg and Rasnick's articles can be found at: www.duesberg.com and www.virusmyth.net.

Next: Who were the first AIDS patients; who's getting sick now; and what do AIDS drugs really do?

continued...

.