("Quid coniuratio est?")
AIDS Inc. -- Part 1
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
(Disclaimer: "...traditional sexually transmitted diseases [e.g. syphilis], and the massive antibiotic-dosing that goes with repeated incidents of these diseases, is very immunosuppressive. So one doesn't have to swear allegiance to current AIDS research to favor safer sex.")
AIDS Incorporated: Scandal of the Century
by Jon Rappoport
+ +| pharmaceutical giants, [and] megalithic national research |
| "A virus model of causation [for AIDS] does not fit the |
+ scientific facts. Rather, multifactorial influences are +
| the sine qua non of AIDS. The multifactorial model is a |
+ threat to the well-being of the international +
| power is revealed. An 'old boys' network abounds within |
+ our federally regulated research institutions, and our +
| leaders bear the shame... In the entire world today there |
+ are only approximately 200 scientists who understand the +
| inner-circle language and symbols of esoteric virology. |
+ From sterile and isolated sancta, these 'Priests of +
| Virology' have handed down their own interpretations of |
+ the 'Higher Knowledge' of Nature. These few priests have +
| informed the millions of doctors of the world as to 'how |
+ things are' with this disease called AIDS." +
| -- Laurence E. Badgley, M.D. |
+ + -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
The author, Jon Rappoport, an investigative reporter, begins his book with the following note:
Many books on scientific subjects illustrate their points with animal-experiments. It doesn't take long to realize, reading medical literature, that you can often take the animal research which agrees with your own conclusions and then just throw out the equally large stack of dissenting opinion. In fact, that is what some AIDS researchers do. So when I mention specific animal research in this book, I do so for one reason: to illustrate that very process, in which experiments that don't prove the party line are elbowed into oblivion.
"The organization responsible for finding an AIDS cure, NIH [National Institute of Health], operates in certain respects like any large corporation. Its cast of characters is production- oriented, competitive. Top-flight players try to establish domination, cut divergent thinkers out of the budget." In many cases this has meant that the urge for personal advancement in the profession has outweighed concerns about actually combatting AIDS itself. Domination of the field by a close-knit cadre of "professionals" has resulted in the current situation in which, "...one virus, HIV, is now being asked to explain a huge, discordant series of physical symptoms."
The close-lipped mask of "professionalism" has even caused many professionals themselves to fear speaking out about what they know. "In the course of writing this book, I found many scientists who wouldn't talk on the record. They felt their jobs or grant monies would be jeopardized."
The author predicts that "...AIDS will probably become the most damaging scandal the American medical orthodoxy has yet seen."
"What most of us know about AIDS comes through our television sets."
However, "suppose, in the case of AIDS, we are being fed 'knowledge' which, originally, is based on inaccurate science, which is coming from sources which have overlooked very significant facts about the hysteria we are calling AIDS."
"In that case, we would have, by now, a truly massive amount of distortion."
We are highly dependent on the mass media and on "experts" for the information we receive regarding AIDS. Unfortunately, "...the media are not analysts of science. Even writers for the major newspapers... take their information direct from the press representatives at major federal health agencies... [These press representatives] make no judgements on the accuracy of what they pass on to reporters."
The author summarizes the official media position on AIDS as
1) AIDS is contagious.
2) AIDS is invariably fatal.
3) AIDS may become another great plague.
The author agrees with none of the above suppositions.
Part of the author's response to the official position on AIDS is
*- There is no disease-entity which ought to be called AIDS. AIDS
is not one thing.
*- The HIV virus has never been proved to cause any disease of
*- The treatment for AIDS patients, AZT, can be dangerous. "AZT
is a highly toxic drug that damages bone marrow and causes
*- No conclusive proof exists that we have a contagious epidemic
caused by a virus.
*- The AIDS blood tests which have existed up to May, 1988, are
*- The various definitions of AIDS, used to make diagnoses around
the world, are useless and vague. "They allow almost anyone to be pinned with the label, AIDS... [The various definitions of AIDS] promote vastly increased numbers of AIDS cases, which naturally leads to the wide marketing of highly profitable pharmaceuticals as treatments."
The author's definition of AIDS is as follows: AIDS "...is any form of severe immuno-suppression, from any source, which then gives rise to opportunistic infections." For example, "Drugs, alone, adulterated, or in combinations, can cause symptoms we call AIDS. No virus necessary."
The author, Jon Rappoport, charges that researchers have been lax in their investigations of AIDS. "For example, in the US gay communities... most attempts to understand the so-called bathhouse lifestyle have been half-hearted. They have failed to examine at close range the incredible parade of immunosuppresive drugs, both medical and street-type, which have paraded through that scene in historically unprecedented quantities and combinations."
"Many of the symptoms of what is called AIDS are the symptoms of toxic reactions to chemicals, or of already known illnesses."
Yet all of these disparate symptoms tend to get lumped together under the heading "AIDS." Rappoport thinks this is attributable to "the medical research-machine" which is "geared to collect symptoms, put them under umbrellas, uncover causative germs, and find drugs to treat those germs."
Another aspect of this generic application of the AIDS diagnosis is psychosomatic. "The death sentence, You have AIDS, has the impact of a Medieval priest preparing a lapsed believer for Hell. In all the hype about AIDS, the severe psychosomatic effect of that death sentence is underplayed."
Rappoport next speaks of what he calls "chemical AIDS." He posits that because chemicals often cause side-effects that are similar to the AIDS symptomology, there is a high probability that mis- diagnoses have occurred. According to the author, there is no central core to AIDS, there is "...no central thing which [gives] this list of symptoms special meaning."
One example which Rappoport gives of "chemical AIDS" is effects of using inhalant nitrites, more widely known as "poppers." The author thinks that "It is highly probable that the first five, the first fifty, the first hundred AIDS cases were all heavy inhalant nitrite users."
Some dangers associated with the use of "poppers" are:
*** According to Dr. Harry Haverkos, formerly of the CDC, "The
proven potential for cancer causing nitrosamine in bacon... is probably one-millionth of the dose from inhalation of poppers."
*** According to Dr. James Curran, Chief of AIDS Branch at the
CDC, "It is possible that heavy use of nitrites... may contribute in some as yet undefined way to the development of Kaposi's sarcoma in those already infected with (HIV) or who have AIDS."
*** In the Sept.-Oct. 1984 issue of Pharmacotherapy, GR Newell
writes of the recognized toxicity of amyl nitrite: "These products have been found to be profoundly immuno-suppressive for human lymphocytes in vitro... Recreational use of inhaled volatile nitrites is prevalent among male homosexuals and compounds have been suspected as possible co-factors in Kaposi's sarcoma associated with AIDS."
*** According to Dr. Sue Watson, "Our studies show that amyl
nitrite strongly suppressed the segment of the immune system which normally protects individuals against Kaposi's sarcoma, Pneumocystis pneumonia, herpes virus, Candida, amebiasis, and a variety of other opportunistic infections. The upshot of this research is that persons using nitrite inhalants may be at risk for development of AIDS."
"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."
According to Rappoport, all of this points to a very good likelihood that many of the cases that have been diagnosed as "AIDS" can actually be attributed to the effects of inhalant nitrites, or poppers.
Also suspect in the misdiagnoses of "AIDS" are the
overprescription of antibiotics. The two principal effects of
this overuse of antibiotics are...
1) "It creates antibiotic-resistant germs which then become harder to treat", and
2) "...it upsets in the patient's body the balance of microbes which has been established over the course of evolution."
"Physicians, then faced with antibiotics having no effect on their patients' infections -- and not realizing that the cause is genetic resistance which has been built up by those germs to antibiotics -- can in some cases jump the gun and assume the patients are so immune-depressed that 'drugs don't work anymore.'"
"Leading to false diagnoses of AIDS."
[...to be continued...]
I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
See also: http://www.europa.com/~johnlf/cn.html
See also: ftp ftp.shout.net pub/users/bigred