Time: Mon Oct 28 16:23:24 1996 To: "Cravens, Roger D." <rbg3@CCDOSA1.EM.CDC.GOV> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: refused for cause Cc: Bcc: At 09:54 AM 10/28/96 EST, you wrote: > >AEN News >from ralph@TeamInfinity.com > >http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html > >Please disseminate widely... > >October 17, 1996 Feature Stories >[What if everything we have been told about HIV and AIDS is a lie?] >[The HIV Model Timetable as presented by Project AIDS International] >[Their tithing dollars at work] > > >WHAT IF EVERYTHING WE HAVE BEEN TOLD ABOUT HIV >AND AIDS IS A LIE? BY JEFF OFSTEDAHL >OCTOBER 17, 1996, ECHO MAGAZINE (Jeff4Echo@aol.com) > >It is the plague of the 20th century. It is grounds upon which people >are drummed out of military service. It is upon which people lose their >jobs. They lose their health insurance. They are denied life insurance. >They have been denied housing, food and even pastoral counseling. Some >are disenfranchised from their families. It is a four letter word, an >acronym which spells certain death to all who are labeled as such. >It is AIDS. > > Fifteen years into the "epidemic," it has become a multi-billion dollar >a year industry which has made millionaires of scientists and drug >pushers alike. Some 15 years later, people still are dying. With annual >federal >funding at more that $7 billion , AIDS research is better funded than any >other disease. Yet, it has produced the fewest results. Why? > > Some important questions which need to be answered are: > > If HIV causes AIDS, why have thousands of AIDS victims never had >HIV? > > Why have hundreds of thousands who have had HIV for many years >remained perfectly healthy? > > Why does the co-discoverer of HIV now claim it cannot be the sole >cause of AIDS? > > Why has more than ten years of AIDS research costing tens of >billions of dollars failed to show how (or even if) HIV causes AIDS or >attacks the immune system? > > What if AIDS is not, in fact, caused by a virus? > > What if for all these years the search for the definitive answer >to the one of the worst afflictions to hit mankind in recent record has >followed the wrong path? > > What if everyone is wrong? > > Impossible you ask? Not really. It has happened before. > In the American 1930s, a devastating disease began to grip the >poverty-stricken areas of the country. They called it PELLAGRA. The >condition was marked with skin lesions, gastrointestinal disturbances and >nervous disorders. > > Because of its "outbreak" appearance, scientists were quick to label >the calamity as viral or bacterial in nature. As such, doctors were >instructed how to treat their patients. Thousands died before the falsehood >was >discovered. It turned out, the dise ase was caused by simple malnutrition >due to a B vitamin (nicotinic acid) deficiency. > > By the time the truth was discovered, scientists had come up with an >elaborate life cycle for this new virus, which they said came from corn >mold, involved farm animals, crows, and eventually ended up in people, >who then died. In fact, the malady stem med from an over-dependence on corn >in the diet (which has little nutritional value), and the new process of >bleaching flour for white bread, a process which introduced toxic >cysteine hydrochlorides into the body. > > An even greater example of the medical industry's mishandling of a >disease occurred in Japan. It came after an observed outbreak of alleged >immune suppression lasting from 1955 to 1978. > > In this case, subacute-myelo-optico-neuropathy (SMON) also was thought >to be caused by a virus. After 20 years and countless deaths, researchers >discovered the true cause of SMON: the chemical clioquinol, which was >sold in Japan to treat upset stomach s. When ingested, it actually induced >the >same upset stomach. Thus, more was prescribed and ingested, perpetuating >the vicious cycle. > > Current day AIDS dissidents believe the SMON model (the treatment >causing the very disease it was supposed to fight) parallels what they >call the AZT (zidovudine, known generically as Retrovir) cycle >precipitating AIDS. > > Wait a minute. > You ask: AZT is the cause of AIDS? > AIDS dissidents? Once they were thought to be the fringe of the >scientific community. The wackos, if you will. Today, a growing number of >distinguished and world-renowned scientists and researchers is joining >the AIDS dissident movement. > > "[The HIV model of AIDS] is without a doubt the biggest scientific >medical error in the history of the world," said Dick Joslyn, founder and >director of the AIDS dissidence group SPEAK-UP! The organization has no >official membership. It is a network of activists and researchers who >question whether AIDS actually is caused by a virus. > > "Despite the government's claims to the contrary, HIV has never been >proven to cause disease," Joslyn said. "Scientists who have reviewed what >researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have >offered as proof that HIV causes AIDS have found the evidence to be >inadequate, inconclusive and downright fraudulent." > > Joslyn's belief is supported by more than 200 distinguished doctors and >scientists, some of whom are Nobel Prize recipients. No longer can these >people be waved off as the lunatic fringe. > > Their arguments begin with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) >itself. Joslyn contends the virus, if it truly exists, is a harmless >organism within the body. > > To date, he contends no one has isolated the actual virus. Methods to >determine the alleged virus include searching for antibodies to the virus >through the use of Western Blot and Elisa tests. These labs tests do not >isolate the virus. They react to certain antibodies in the blood. > "The tests are inaccurate because there are at least 50 other >conditions, including mumps, diphtheria and venereal warts, that will >give a false positive," Joslyn explained. "They all produce antibodies that >will react to the materials used in labs te sts." > > "The tests are inconsistent because some people have tested positive, >then tested negative three months later," Joslyn said research has >proved. "Someone may test positive at one lab, and the same blood >sample will test negative at another." > > He points to the fact that Dr. Robert Gallo, the man co-credited with >the discovery of HIV, filed for the patent (worth billions) on the HIV >test only three days after he fraudulently announced he had discovered >the virus which causes AIDS. > > Gallo's discovery itself is the root of all questions pertaining to the >viral causation of AIDS. Since 1984, it has been assumed that HIV is the >sole and direct cause of AIDS. The announcement didn't come in the form >of published reports in medical re search journals from which other >scientists examine the data, retest the hypothesis and either prove or >disprove the theory. The announcement came from a highly publicized >Reagan administration press conference announcing an AIDS "cure" now >was within grasp. > > At that time, the country was demanding progress in AIDS research. AIDS >activists were in the streets. It was an election year. Jeremy Selvey >director of Project AIDS International (PAI) maintains that never once >has the HIV hypothesis (which is HIV= AIDS=Death) been proven >scientifically. > > > Even the alleged HIV co-discoverer Gallo admitted two years after his >landmark "discovery" announcement, in 1986, that he "saw no evidence" >that LAV (the French version of HIV) was the cause of AIDS. > > In 1988, Gallo retracted his hypothesis of the "direct killing" of T4 >cells by HIV, and he suggested perhaps more important mechanisms than HIV >are contributing to T4 cell depletion in patients diagnosed with AIDS. > > In 1992, Gallo was convicted of science fraud by the US Office of >Research Integrity (a department of the National Institutes of Health >(NIH)) for claiming he had discovered HIV. The discovery was then >credited to French researcher Dr. Luc Montagnier who has stated on numerous >occasions: "I do not believe that HIV is in and of itself the cause of >AIDS. I believe we should place as much emphasis on potential co- factors >as we have on HIV." > > According to Selvey, Gallo who has since left the CDC and is working >independently for a university is under investigation by Congress on >various charges of science fraud. This, Selvey contends, further casts >doubts on the validity of all Gallo's research. > > Dissidents to the HIV hypothesis, like Selvey, claim Gallo who for >decades unsuccessfully tried to prove a virus was the cause of cancer >latched onto AIDS to revitalize funding for his research, and to take >attention away from his disappointing cancer research. > > Further, they claim the US government eager to disseminate any new >positive developments on the AIDS front, and thus get AIDS activists off >its back over-anxiously grabbed onto Gallo's "discovery" and touted it as >a miracle development. > > "Based on Gallo's unproven hypothesis that HIV is the sole and direct >cause of AIDS, the US Public Health Service has embarked on a campaign of >implied terror and misinformation that has continued to state HIV, the >virus which causes AIDS,' can be con trolled by getting tested for the >AIDS virus' and starting early intervention' in the event of a positive >test result.'" Selvey writes. > > "HIV, the virus which causes AIDS," Joslyn restates for emphasis. "If >you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes fact." "It is like a high >priesthood in science," Joslyn explains. "What they believe is what is >passed down to other scientists, doctors and the media. We're on the >lowest rung on the totem pole, and we're supposed to believe everything >they've told us." > > Joslyn believes doctors have no idea what research at the highest level >entails. Most merely prescribe the course of treatment based on the >dictates of the CDC. For the sake of argument, let us imagine that >everything we have been told about HIV and t esting for HIV antibodies is >based on false presumptions. > >What, then, causes AIDS? > > Enter AZT, the drug nicknamed "AIDS by prescription" by HIV dissidents >like Dr. Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular and cell biology at >University of California-Berkeley. A member of the National Academy of >Sciences, pioneer in retrovirus research, the first scientist to isolate >a cancer gene, and author of Inventing The AIDS Virus, Duesberg >brings a world of credentials to the AIDS dissident movement. > > But he is not new on the scene. > > Duesberg has been challenging the HIV hypothesis for the past ten >years. He believes AZT is one of the factors which, at the least, >makes AIDS worse. > > AZT is a nucleoside analogue DNA chain terminator. In other words, it >kills human cells indiscriminately by terminating DNA synthesis, which is >the central molecule of life. AZT was claimed as the only drug of the >AIDS crisis at a time when desperate AIDS patients had lost all hope. >Burroughs-Wellcome alleged they were the creators of AZT. This was "only >after realizing that a very profitable market existed for long-term' >treatment with the drug," Selvey said. It was uncovered by PAI that AZT >originally was created in 1961 by NIH researcher Dr. Richard Beltz. The >discovery was the result of his research on nucleoside analogues dating >back to 1951. > > According to Beltz, the reasons AZT was abandoned were: 1) Its extreme >toxicity made it unsuitable for any chemotherapy, even short-term, and 2) >It was carcinogenic (cancer causing) at any dose. > > Duesberg said, "Since AZT cannot distinguish HIV-infected cells from >uninfected cells, and only one in one thousand CD4 cells is ever >infected, AZT must kill 995 healthy cells for every one infected cell. AZT >suppresses HIV by suppressing the manufact uring of CD4 cells, >predictably causing anemia, immunodeficiency and other degenerative >diseases." > > In its defense, Burroughs-Wellcome cites numerous studies to >substantiate its claims that AZT both "prolongs life" and "enhances its >quality." PAI contends all studies that tout AZT's benefits were made >possible, either directly or indirectly, by gran t money from >Burroughs-Wellcome. Impartial studies done without the influence of >Burroughs-Wellcome indicate that AZT neither prolongs life or enhances >its quality, PAI charges, based on unreleased data from studies conducted by >the CDC. > > Following is a Burroughs-Wellcome list of side effects from AZT, the >drug it says "improves the quality of life:" > >Anemia, cancer, bone marrow depletion, nose bleeds, hematologic toxicity, >fever, malaise, loss of mental acuity, atrophy, diarrhea, diaphoresis, >headaches, insomnia, confusion, anorexia, vomiting, neuropathy, skin >rashes, anxiety, nausea, dizziness, impotence, depression, vertigo, >hearing loss, photophobia, nervousness, seizures, and leukocytopenia - >the immunodeficiency of white blood cells. > > In addition to the above, studies indicate that the original toxicity >profile of AZT was fraudulently reported. It actually is 1,000-times more >toxic to human cells than was originally reported, PAI documents. AIDS >and gay activists ACTing-UP and demanding expedited drug approval, Selvey >and Joslyn claim, played right into the hands of Burroughs-Wellcome's >bottom line. > > Perhaps we should overlook the fact that, according to Joslyn, >BURROUGHS-WELLCOME PAID NIH A REPORTED SUM OF $300 >MILLION FOR THE RIGHT TO MARKET AZT, WHICH PAI SAYS NIH >DEVELOPED WITH TAXPAYER FUNDS. > > At the sinister level, Selvey has published a report which states he >has a tape-recorded conversation with a low-level attorney who represented >Barr Labs of Canada which was working to try and wrestle patent rights >for AZT. The attorney allegedly explained to Selvey the trouble Barr Labs >was >having compared to the powerful Burroughs-Wellcome. > > Selvey wrote: > > "Calmly [the attorney] said NIH sold AZT to Wellcome. Wellcome was >supposed to kick-back a large portion [of the profits] to the FDA, NIH >and the CDC, and the NIH would make grants to the private AIDS >organizations to promote the sale of more AZT, and the money would be >spread around. He stated that the FDA studies showing AZT's effectiveness >were so well done and the publicity campaign was comfortably in place, no >one expected this degree of success. Instead of following through with >kick- backs, Wellcome just grabbed the ball and ran with it,' and paid >the AIDS organizations directly." > > After the senior partner of the law firm representing Barr/NIH was >informed of the taped conversation, the junior attorney was dismissed, >Selvey said. > > Additionally, PAI has a copy of a check (which was viewed by Echo >magazine) it says Burroughs-Wellcome "laundered" through an NIH >foundation called FAES (Foundation for the Advancement of Education and >Science) to Dr. Sam Broder, who was on the NIH drug approval team, for >$55,000. The date on the check is July 7, 1985, about the time AZT was >licensed and approved for use on AIDS patients. > > How convenient. > > Imagine this hypothetical scenario from a drug company's point of view: > > *We have a disease which systematically breaks down the immune >system and kills over a period of time. > *We have a drug company with a 20-year-old worthless albatross >of a drug sitting on its shelves, whose only benefit to the human body is >that >it breaks down the immune system over a period of time and leads to >death. > *CDC estimates millions of people around the world will be >suffering from HIV by the turn of the century. > *Get the government to approve the drug for people already >experiencing immune system breakdown. They will die anyway. Who >is to say the drug did them in? Better yet, get AIDS organizations and the >government to recommend the use of AZT as soon as one gets a positive >test result. > > What do you have? A billions-of-dollars-a-year cash cow revolving >around treating people who are not clinically ill by giving them a toxic >course of treatment based upon an unproven hypothesis. > > It's not a matter of just picking on AZT. Other antivirals such as ddI, >ddC, D4t and 3TC, Joslyn says, also wreak havoc on the body's immune >system. Selvey is more specific. He said these "synthetically >manufactured molecules are being integrated into the genes of all human >cells; therefore, they block the replication of genes; thus causing a >deficit in new cells. Sooner or later there exists a lack of newly >produced immune cells which causes the condition called AIDS." > > What about tracking the amount of HIV in the bloodstream via the new >"viral load" tests? "Viral load PCR tests to measure the amount of HIV >in the blood (if that is what they really measure) are meaningless," Joslyn >contends, "because HIV does not cause AIDS." > >Coming next issue are answers to such questions as: > > Clearly, AIDS existed before AZT and other drugs. How do you >explain that? > Where have all the T-cells gone? > What about protease inhibitors? > Does a "cure" currently exist, or will there ever be one? > >The answers will shock and surprise you. One thing is certain. The gay >community will not be amused. [end] >_____________________________________________________________________________ >>From ECHO magazine, issue #185, October 17, 1996, >vol. 8, no. 3. Their address is PO Box 16630 Phoenix, AZ 85011-6630. >Phone: 602-266-0550. FAX: 602-266-0773. >Email: Jeff4Echo@aol.com. Web site: http://www.echomag.com > >They have a bi-weekly distribution of 48,000. > >PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS, FAXES, EMAILS, ETC. to Jeff to encourage him. > >For more "AIDS-dissent" material, visit: >RETHINKING AIDS website: http://www.xs4all.nl/~raido/index.htm >_____________________________________________________________________________ > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail