("Quid coniuratio est?")
AIDS Inc. -- Part 4
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Dr. Joseph Sonnabend worked for ten years at the British National Institute for Medical Research, which is the British equivalent of the NIH. Dr. Sonnabend is a member of the British Royal College of Physicians, and has been Associate Professor of Medicine at the Mount Sinai Medical School in New York City. He was editor of the journal AIDS Research for several years in the mid-1980s. What follows are excerpts from an interview with Dr. Sonnabend which took place on March 25, 1988:
INTERVIEWER: Where did the HIV hypothesis come from?
SONNABEND: Several places. One of them involved a very sloppy analysis by the CDC [Center for Disease Control] of the first Los Angeles AIDS patients.......
....... There was such a hasty process -- the worst thing that happened was the announcement in 1984 that HIV had been discovered to be the cause of AIDS. That did damage to the whole scientific endeavor.
There are social factors here, you know, in the whole presumption that every disease has a single agent. Some people want to believe that nothing we do in our lives, in our environments, is really unhealthy. That poverty is really not a bad thing, just a choice, and it doesn't make people sick. That sexual behavior and lifestyles are really harmless. The single- agent idea of disease, when believed across the board, at the expense of environmental factors, absolves people whose economic policies create ghettos and keep people poor. It's so easy to say that a virus came along and made people sick, not their living conditions.......
....... We're hung up on high-tech solutions. The one-agent theory is going to be attractive to researchers. All the funding went that way. It's also the attraction of the quick-fix, the quick cure.
The single-agent theory, in the case of AIDS, will have tremendous appeal for those political people who are promoting agendas based on what they call "family values.".......
.......There really is now such a thing as the AIDS- establishment. It is a group which receives virtually all the grant money, it sits on important boards... There is definitely [such] a group, and sadly, it's not the best talent.
INTERVIEWER: It's obvious from talking with a number of scientists that there are people who have questions about HIV, but they won't open their mouths publicly because they're afraid of losing grant money or their jobs.
SONNABEND: They're probably justified in feeling that.
INTERVIEWER: ... People also like to maintain that if HIV were a mistake, some famous scientists would have spoken out publicly by now.
SONNABEND: That's ridiculous. That's terrible. That's ascribing a quality to researchers that doesn't exist. One thing that's come out of all this AIDS business which I should have known already... you'd think that these researchers would have more respect for the truth, more social conscience. But these researchers are like anybody else. They fight for their jobs, they're intimidated, they don't stand up. They have the arrogance to think they're more interested in the truth than other people are.
INTERVIEWER: There are supposedly several different AIDS viruses all causing this unique thing called AIDS.
SONNABEND: I'm amazed that people haven't pointed out the stupidity of that idea. Here we have HIV-1 and HIV-2. These two separate viruses, not strains of each other. The variance between them is considerable. Now they're said to be causing the same new disease-entity, AIDS. These two viruses would have had to evolve independently over untold amounts of time to arrive, by chance, at the same moment, with both just happening to cause the same thing. The odds against that are virtually impossible.
INTERVIEWER: ... Why are some researchers doing studies in which they give AIDS patients more interferon? It's immunosuppressive, isn't it?
SONNABEND: Definitely. No good is coming of it. I asked an interferon researcher how they could continue to give AIDS patients this when it had such clear immunosuppressive properties. He said well, the drug companies had such huge unsold stocks of recombinant interferon -- anything that would make the annual shareholder meeting a happy event.......
....... AIDS has become an international business, an industry. It could be assessed at billions of dollars.
Most scientists accept without question that, "if other medical authorities say HIV is the culprit, that must be true."
However, to say that AIDS is caused by HIV is problematic. For example, what exactly is AIDS? "Several very broad definitions of AIDS are used around the world... First, there is the current CDC [Center for Disease Control] definition, used in the U.S. and parts of Africa... [The definition, announced in August-September of 1987] lists about 25 separate diseases/infections and several categories of diseases. Any single disease or category is sufficient for a diagnosis of AIDS under most conditions."
Yet, "after four years of research to find a virus which supposedly causes AIDS, this CDC definition allows for diagnoses of AIDS which don't require positive blood tests for HIV."
"There are, in fact, now three doors through which one can walk into a diagnosis of AIDS. At one door, an unknown or uncertain HIV test result is no barrier. At another entrance, a negative HIV test, likewise, is no obstacle."
According to the CDC definition of AIDS [page 1149, JAMA, September 4, 1987], "Approximately one third of AIDS patients in the United States have been from New York City and San Francisco, where, since 1985, less than 7% have been reported (to the CDC) with HIV-antibody test results, compared with greater than 60% in other areas."
In fact, "for the last three years [ca. 1988], the overwhelming number of AIDS cases in the U.S. have been recorded by the CDC with no knowledge of whether or not the patients have tested positive for the HIV virus."
So, there has been inexactitude in attributing all AIDS to HIV. And furthermore, by "taking major symptoms of malnutrition... and calling them AIDS, the numbers of recorded cases will grow. By placing under a single AIDS umbrella numerous infections and diseases, the numbers of reported cases will grow. By eliminating the need for even a positive HIV blood test, the numbers of cases will grow."
"The greater the number of reported cases, the greater the apparent threat to public health all over the world. Ultimately this will reflect in treatment, by drugs and vaccines. Pharmaceutical profits will soar."
The author relates a story told to him by a Doctor Herbert Ratner, of Oak Park, Illinois. In 1954-55, Dr. Ratner served as public health officer for Oak Park. This was just before the introduction of the first polio vaccine. At that time, the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis was paying physicians $25 for each reported diagnosis of paralytic polio. According to Dr. Ratner, "A patient would walk into the doctor's office with a limp from an accident. He'd say he had a fever a few days ago... and guess what the diagnosis would be?"
"Paralytic polio. Ratner also stated it was well-known paralytic polio cured itself 50% of the time within sixty days. After the Salk vaccine was introduced, the definition of polio was changed. Now, in order to have paralytic polio, you had to have it longer than sixty days."
So, we see a possible strategy: First, inflate case statistics, then, after the vaccine is introduced, change the definition. In this way, it appears that the number of cases has dropped. People "don't believe such devious strategies really go on in the pristine world of medicine. But look what is happening with AIDS now. We are in the definition-expanding phase. Once the AIDS- vaccine arrives..., some bright researcher might make a breakthrough and discover that AIDS is really much more specific in its symptoms than previously thought. This researcher will be pleasantly shocked to find his work hailed and broadcast instantly and accepted."
1) The definition of a disease expands. Case numbers swell. 2) Drugs/vaccines are introduced.
3) The definition contracts. Case numbers reduce.
During the 1970s, the NIH carried out a war on cancer. "Two factions developed; one... believed that cancer was caused by substances generated out of our industrial society. The other faction... looked for viruses. In the end, no one won."
"With AIDS, the media have chosen not to become embroiled in the question of causation. Media get their information from press people who work at universities and public health agencies, and who are fed HIV-dogma like popcorn."
The media by and large just passes on what they are told by the NIH and the CDC. "Writers for dailies don't get paid to do research in bio-med libraries, to put together pieces of information they actually dig up on their own from medical literature or human sources. Therefore, federal health agencies are always going to sound right and authoritative to reporters."
"So here with AIDS, media reluctance and mass hypnosis meet. The men in the white coats are kings. They scoot in polished labs and issue proclamations now and then, and the populace listens through the media and pays obligatory homage."
The author mentions the Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932-72), "in which four hundred poor black sharecroppers were observed, without treatment, were kept from getting treatment, unto death by syphilis, for purposes of scientific study. The experiment was run by CDC and U.S. Public Health Service officials."
Who is watching the "experts?" Answer: They are watching themselves. "There is an ordinary fact of life in scientific circles called peer review... What it amounts to is simply this: in determining what articles are printed in technical journals, in deciding what grant applications are funded, scientists judge their fellows."
"The above-mentioned Tuskegee Syphilis Study is a prime and extreme example of what can happen when peer review is the total order of the day. See James Jones' excellent Bad Blood (Macmillan, 1981) for a thorough treatment of the Tuskegee Study."
"Obviously, to be carried out, the Tuskegee Study required the cooperation of many scientific bureaucrats. Also obviously, untrained citizens, had they been sitting on review boards as requests for continued funding came up [over a forty year period]... would have raised questions."
The author, Jon Rappoport, speaks of professionals "frightened for their jobs, their grant monies... A good part of that fear stems from the tacit threat that peer review, among their own conservative kind, will shut them down, leave them without grants, publishable articles, and ultimately jobs."
The October 22, 1987 edition of the New York Times carried an article which reported that the New York City Health Department had challenged AIDS death-statistics released by the CDC. The CDC had reported that 31% of AIDS deaths in New York City resulted from IV drug use. The true figure for AIDS deaths attributable to IV drug use, according to the NYC Health Department, was 53%. This would imply that AIDS is more of a drug-related phenomenon, especially considering the immunosuppressive effects of the drugs which the IV users were shooting up.
"Furthermore, the CDC, in its AIDS statistics, had invented the IV drug-user category for heterosexuals only. Those gay men who also shot drugs were put in the gay/bisexual category, because it was assumed that gay sex was the way they had contracted AIDS."
"Of course, people have been using drugs for centuries. But not in these combinations, and not with these adulterants. More important, some heavy drug abusers have, historically, died of immunosuppression-plus-opportunistic-infections, the so-called AIDS pattern. It isn't new. They have developed wasting syndromes, pneumonias, rampant viral and bacterial infections which have killed them."
[...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