Groovy Bytes: Behind the Moon/groovybytes.iso/GROOVY/MISC/DIGITALU/DIG_AI02.ZIP/AIDSINC.TXT

Text File | 1994-08-27 | 72.1 KB | 1,572 lines

AIDS Incorporated: Scandal of the Century
-----------------------------------------

by Jon Rappoport

[Excerpts]

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+                                                               +
|     "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                +
|  pharmaceutical giants, [and] megalithic national research    |
+  institutions... In *AIDS INC.*, human greed for money and    +
|  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.     |
+                                                               +
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

--------------------------- Part 1 ------------------------------

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."

------------------------- End Part 1 ----------------------------


--------------------------- Part 2 ------------------------------

"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
follows:
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
as follows:
*- 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
   any kind.
*- The treatment for AIDS patients, AZT, can be dangerous. "AZT
   is a highly toxic drug that damages bone marrow and causes
   anemia."
*- 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
   unreliable.
*- 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."

------------------------- End Part 2 ----------------------------


--------------------------- Part 3 ------------------------------

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."

------------------------- End Part 3 ----------------------------


--------------------------- Part 4 ------------------------------

During World War II, Nazi scientists developed a chemical weapon
known as parathion. "After minor alteration, it became a
pesticide... 60 times more toxic to humans than DDT. It is widely
distributed in the Third World."

"Phosvel, a pesticide outlawed in the U.S., was marketed in the
Third World in the 1970s, and may still be trading in Latin
America. Its victims are called 'zombies.' They die slowly and
agonizingly, with paralysis and asphyxiation coming at the end.
Field workers who suffer weight loss and an increasing inability
to move should not be assumed, by researchers a continent away,
to be suffering from a virus."

The author affirms that, by and large, the most toxic pesticides
are used in the Third World. What is more, they are used
routinely and with little regard for safety.


Consider the class of pesticides called organophosphates. Here is
a list of symptoms which can be caused by organophosphates:

    Headache, dizziness, flu-like symptoms, excessive
    sweating, difficulties walking, diarrhea, many skin
    problems, delayed nerve disease.

"*Headache* is now listed by the World Health Organization as a
significant symptom of 'early HIV disease.' Many researchers
state that HIV causes a *mild flu-like episode* soon after
exposure. *Night sweats* are taken as a sign of Pre-AIDS. *Leg
weakness* is considered an early symptom of AIDS dementia.
*Diarrhea* can be a sign of pre-AIDS and also a major symptom of
AIDS in the Third World. AIDS patients often present *numerous
skin rashes and skin problems.*  *Nerve disease* is said to be
the reason for AIDS dementia."

"In other words, the symptoms of exposure to organophosphates
reads like listed symptoms for AIDS."


Consider also the large number of dangerous drugs which are
routinely dumped on the Third World by Western pharmaceutical
firms. "These drugs can produce immunosuppression-leading-to-
opportunistic-infections -- the pattern ascribed to AIDS. Yet
they are completely written out of the AIDS disease-equation by
U.S. federal health agencies."

For example, one West German firm (Hoechst) makes a pain-killer
which is sold without prescription in Brazil and throughout
Africa. "It can also cause anemia -- and underlying immune
suppression -- and that is why it is banned in the U.S."

"One certainly can't ignore the infant formula deaths either, in
which diarrhea and malnutrition [note: Malnutrition is, by far,
the most common cause of immune suppression in the world.] have
been linked to infant-preparations manufactured by Abbott,
American Home Products, Nestle, and Bristol-Meyers."

All of these symptoms are often mistakenly grouped under the
heading AIDS. In "AIDS, a Global Perspective," released by the
World Health Organization, the authors note "the elimination of
the requirement of the absence of other causes of
immunodeficiency" for the diagnosis of AIDS. In other words, it
is now acceptable to overlook any missing factors and just
diagnose whatever it is as "AIDS."

"This amazing WHO [World Health Organization] guideline implies
that from now on, all human immunosuppression will be laid at the
door of the HIV virus."

------------------------- End Part 4 ----------------------------


--------------------------- Part 5 ------------------------------

An article appearing on page 1 of the December 21, 1987 issue of
the *New York Times* entitled "Doctors Stretch Rules on AIDS
Drugs" details how doctors have begun prescribing AZT for their
patients who have no symptoms of AIDS.

In September, 1987, "William Hazeltine, chief of pharmacology at
the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, suggested an even
wider possible use for AZT. Give it to people considered at high-
risk for AIDS even though they *don't* test positive for HIV."

In other words, Hazeltine was recommending the use of AZT as a
preventative step. "For prevention, use a drug, AZT, which
damages bone marrow, the place where raw material for immune-
cells are turned out; a drug which causes severe anemia."

The author shows that, in spite of FDA approval of AZT, there is
much room for doubt as to the safety or usefulness of the drug.
For example, he cites molecular biologist Peter Duesberg: "AZT is
very, very destructive to healthy cells. No doubt it's a
dangerous drug."

In October, 1987, in an article in *New York Native*, John
Lauritsen reviewed the FDA trial of AZT. In his article, he cites
the opinion of Martin Delaney of San Francisco's Project Inform
regarding the FDA trials of AZT: "The multi-center clinical
trials of AZT are perhaps the sloppiest and most poorly
controlled trials ever to serve as the basis for an FDA drug
licensing approval... causes of death (among volunteers) were
never verified. Despite this and a frightening record of
toxicity, the FDA approved AZT in record time, granting a
treatment (recommendation) in less than five days and full
pharmaceutical licensing in less than six months."

Other AZT studies which had been done previously showed a
significantly *higher* death rate for volunteers ill with AIDS
*who had taken AZT*.

"Harry Chernov, an FDA analyst who looked over the
pharmacological data on AZT recommended that the drug not be
approved for release. Nevertheless, the drug was released, and it
is now being prescribed loosely by many physicians for their
patients who have no symptoms."

"AZT attacks the immune-cells where it is speculated that HIV is
doing damage. Although AZT tends slightly to favor, as a target,
viruses to healthy cells, in practice it kills many healthy
immune-cells."

Page one of the December 21, 1987, *New York Times* warns of the
dangers of AZT and of its overuse: "Defying official
recommendations, a growing number of doctors who treat carriers
of the AIDS virus are prescribing a powerful, potentially toxic
drug even before patients develop serious signs of the disease."

------------------------- End Part 5 ----------------------------


--------------------------- Part 6 ------------------------------

"Malnutrition is recognized as the single largest source of
immune-suppression in the world."

In the Third World, three symptoms are central to a definition of
AIDS: 1) weight-loss of 10% or more, 2) chronic diarrhea, and 3)
chronic fever. But these three symptoms are *also* signs of
chronic malnutrition.

So there is a fairly good chance that misdiagnoses have occurred.
This is underlined by a paper published in the journal *Nutrition
and Cancer* (1985, vol. 7, p. 85-91), which states "Based on
observations of pneumocystis carinii pneumonia infections in
malnourished children in Haiti, [one researcher] proposed that
malnutrition with concomitant herpes virus infection could give
rise to symptoms that are indistinguishable from AIDS."

One of the current myths surrounding AIDS is that it is just
another of Nature's plagues which serves to put a stop to
overpopulation. "A respected virologist told me exactly this
several months ago. For him, there was really nothing one could
do about AIDS except watch it decimate people and then, by
itself, die out."

However, this is just "another thread in the logic that starts
with the assumption that AIDS is one thing around the world, from
one cause... The truth is, AIDS is not a single illness, it is an
international operation, a business, a bureacracy. It is, in the
Third World, a way of substituting harmful medical drugs for what
is needed: food."

"It is also easier to dump corrosive medical drugs and pesticides
on the Third World than to face up to their widening toxic effect
on people. Easier to call their symptoms AIDS."

[B.R. The unwritten codes of the wolf-pack of "professionals"
discourage independent thought.] Suppose you are a member of one
of these gangs of "scientists" and it begins to dawn on you that
what you had thought was completely ascribable to "AIDS" was in
reality attributable to a multiplicity of factors? Suppose that
you find "a combination of drugs, pesticides, starvation, older
diseases, and other environmental factors, *all* capable of
causing immunosuppression, all capable of producing the symptoms
of what is called AIDS? What happens is, if you want to satisfy
your medical peers, if you want to win research grant monies, you
overlook the anomalies and say it's all AIDS. If you don't, you
admit the picture is diverse and confused. You face facts. You
lose grants."


The author includes part of an interview with former senior White
House policy analyst Jim Warner. Some interesting excerpts from
that interview include the following:

WARNER: The government really hasn't fulfilled its role in
providing good information [on AIDS]. We just may not know
enough. With AIDS, we're dealing with a syndrome, not a disease.
We may see a patient who has a genetic defect that's causing his
immune deficiency [instead of HIV being the causative agent]. I'm
not satisfied we know all we think we do, by any means.

INTERVIEWER: Several university scientists I've spoken with have
-- off the record -- criticized what they call "HIV dogma." They
feel if they speak out against the rush to judgement for HIV as
the cause of AIDS they may lose money. Grants begin with the
assumption that HIV has been proven as the agent of the disease.

WARNER: I'm of a mind that if no other lessons should be required
of any university science curriculum, there should be a good
survey course in philosophy and a grounding in logic. I'm
appalled at the conceit and arrogance [of certain scientists].

INTERVIEWER: Suppose proof emerged that HIV is not the AIDS
virus. How difficult would it be to alter the course of research?

WARNER: It's very difficult to change people's minds. It's not
impossible, but there is a head of steam built up.

INTERVIEWER: Peter Duesberg, a distinguished molecular biologist
at Berkeley, has said that HIV does not cause AIDS. Have you
asked people at NIH [National Institute of Health] what they
think, specifically, of his arguments?

WARNER: Yes. I've been told that Peter Duesberg's refutation of
HIV has been discounted by the scientific community. I was given
no explanation as to why. I was very offended. No evidence was
presented to me. Just that Duesberg had been "discounted." That's
absurd. It's not a scientific response to dismiss Duesberg as a
crank.


------------------------- End Part 6 ----------------------------


--------------------------- Part 7 ------------------------------

The average researcher will tell you it has been proven that HIV
causes AIDS. The apparent correlation between the new disease of
AIDS and the new virus, HIV, is a compelling image. "But the
truth is, a new disease-condition has not demonstrably sprung up
all over the world. Hundreds of causes for immune-system collapse
and ensuing infection, the so-called AIDS pattern, already exist.
There is nothing magical about the ideas of AIDS. It is merely
immune-collapse followed by opportunistic infection."

"In an effort to defend a viral AIDS scenario, in which AIDS has
mainly been confined to IV drug users and male homosexuals...
researchers have attempted to discover odd routes of viral
transmission... [i.e.] anal sex among gays which because of
bleeding leads to semen-blood transmission; and sharing of
needles among junkies."

But according to the author, this effort is misguided. Among the
reasons he gives are:
1) No virus selects lopsidedly the cultural groups it will reside
in.
2) Heterosexuals have been practicing anal sex for centuries.
3) Semen to blood transmission, which has been attributed to anal
sex as the reason HIV spreads, is also a fact in hetero vaginal
sex.

If HIV were "causing a single disease-entity called AIDS, two
circumstances in America would have conspired to send AIDS widely
beyond the current risk-groups... [1970s era bisexual swing
clubs, which were prevalent in New York at that time,] played
host to every sex act imaginable and a consequent exchange of
bodily fluids among men and women. A perfect situation for viral
spread into the hetero community. [By and large,] it didn't
happen."

"Today [1988] out of the 55,000 reported AIDS cases in the U.S.,
91% are men, and 9% are women... Such preference [for men over
women] is unheard of."

During the 1970s, "gay men from cities and towns all over America
visited and vacationed in San Francisco, New York, and L.A., the
centers of diagnosed AIDS cases in the U.S. They visited gay
bathhouses and had sex. Carrying home with them the HIV virus,
they would have spread AIDS into many, many towns and cities of
the U.S. This did not occur..."

"Trying to confirm that HIV causes AIDS by showing it spreads in
culturally prejudiced fashion, through odd routes, in very
limited fashion, is absurd."

"It isn't really surprising that the AIDS research establishment
in America is arrogant, when you look at the thesis about AIDS
which they have built. Their arrogance is hiding an extremely
weak brand of science..."

The author declares that AIDS is only an artificial label tagged
onto a condition that already existed before the "discovery" of
AIDS. "We've known about fifteen or twenty medical reasons and
hundreds of environmental causes for immune-deficiency, and we've
known about them for decades."

What is especially shocking is that the establishment AIDS
scenario "is not only scientifically absurd, it also keeps help
for dying and ill people, true help, from taking place. It keeps
prevention from taking place. So the AIDS theory isn't just
stupid, it's vicious."

------------------------- End Part 7 ----------------------------


--------------------------- Part 8 ------------------------------

There are many different infections and diseases, all lumped
together under the heading of "AIDS." The one thing that had
seemed to tie together this plenum was the HIV virus. But "it is
much more probable that what is being called AIDS, in most cases,
is the far end of an arc of immunosuppression, which takes some
time to build up in a person."

"From various factors, the immunosuppression gains in influence,
and then, long after the person should have reversed his habits,
or should have been fed, or should have been taken from a field
where he was working in the presence of pesticides, etc., he
becomes really sick, and *then* maybe he sees a doctor. The
doctor looks at his opportunistic infection, clucks, [and]
pronounces AIDS."

The patient's symptoms are first seen when he finally decides to
go see a doctor -- at the end of the arc of immunosuppression.
"All attention is focused there. It is named AIDS, it is
packaged, and what is concealed is the long approach that led to
this moment. Prevention and reversal would have been much easier
during that earlier period."

The author speaks of what he calls the myth of pneumocystis
carinii pneumonia as a primary so-called AIDS symptom. The myth
is that 1) pneumocystis was extremely rare before AIDS and 2) if
two people have pneumocystis, they both developed it from the
same cause. According to the author, "This is preposterous."

"The pneumocystis protozoa is found in 70-85% of healthy people.
It causes no harm. It is one of those germs which establish an
easy relationship with the host. However, when immunosuppression
becomes severe enough, it can come to the fore."

Some researchers "have pointed out that severe malnutrition can
underlie pneumocystis. As mentioned earlier, some full-time
junkies and alcoholics are known for their inability to pay for,
or their chronic disinterest in food. Today were, say, an
alcoholic to develop pneumocystis the diagnosis would be AIDS,
HIV, and the whole ball of wax -- not (correctly) pneumocystis
stemming from alcohol and malnutrition."

"Pneumocystis pneumonia has moved into new populations since
1977, but people have been dying of it, because of malnutrition,
since World War Two. In fact, following the War, epidemics were
seen in Europe, mainly in infants."

The author decries the fact that the multifactorial model for
AIDS has been largely ignored by the medical establishment.
"Although there is a long list of a) disease, b) malnutritive and
c) chemical factors which can make the immunosuppressive bed in
which pneumocystis will turn virulent, the CDC [Center for
Disease Control] has severely ignored these factors, instead
pushing HIV into the limelight as the 'new' agent."

"A good example of AIDS-related research which has not floated to
the top of the NIH [National Institute of Health] research ladder
is a paper by Peter Walzer et al, in the December 1984 *Infection
and Immunity*. Walzer explores the possibility, in rats, that
antibiotics can increase the disposition toward pneumocystis."

Walzer states, "Rats that were administered corticosteroids, a
low-protein diet, and tetracycline spontaneously developed P.
carinii pneumonia within ca. 8 weeks through a mechanism of
reactivation of latent infection."

"In the U.S. gay community, malnutrition, abuse of tetracycline
and corticosteroids are frequently found as partners."


------------------------- End Part 8 ----------------------------


--------------------------- Part 9 ------------------------------

Peter Duesberg is a molecular biologist at the University of
California at Berkeley. He was also a key researcher during the
war on cancer. In that capacity, he worked closely with people
who are now top AIDS investigators, including Robert Gallo, the
co-discoverer of HIV.

"Duesberg asserts that HIV is not the cause of AIDS."

"To understand the import of that conviction, one has to
understand that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have
taken in several hundred million dollars in a quest to cure AIDS.
That money, the committment to a cure, all hang on the one
breakthrough the medical research establishment claims: The
discovery of the AIDS virus, HIV."

What follows are excerpts of several interviews with Professor
Duesberg:

INTERVIEWER: In your paper, *Retroviruses as Carcinogens and
Pathogens: Expectation and Reality*, you say, "It is concluded
that AIDS virus is not sufficient to cause AIDS and that there is
no evidence, besides its presence in a latent form, that it is
necessary for AIDS." In other words, although the HIV virus is
present in a proportion of AIDS patients, Gallo and others have
not proved that it causes the disease.

DUESBERG: Many AIDS patients have the herpes virus too, but no
one is saying herpes causes AIDS.

INTERVIEWER: At the top of the AIDS research establishment, there
is a great deal of politics, at least in the sense that you have
to claim you have a major discovery like HIV and a cure on the
way, in order to justify millions of research dollars. That could
warp your scientific attitude.

DUESBERG: It's very hard to talk to a person who has a contract
with a drug company in his pocket. How do you know that he's
telling you the truth? Times have changed. This is high-stakes
science, financially........
......Koch and Pasteur, when they considered under what
conditions a germ could cause disease, couldn't, of course, know
anything about our present level of magnification. They would
never have been able to see HIV. Koch was looking at somebody who
was *loaded* with tuberculosis. Pasteur was looking at somebody
who was *loaded* with rabies virus. What researchers today can do
is great detective work (finding retroviruses), but it's
clinically absurd. But that's all they can do. That's their
skill. So they have to believe they're finding the cause of
disease.

INTERVIEWER: So you're saying, in amendment to Koch's postulates,
that a virus must be biochemically active.

DUESBERG: Yes. It must be infecting more cells than the host can
spare. Every month, half of your T-cells are new. So the HIV
virus would have to infect a couple percent of them every day. It
doesn't.

INTERVIEWER: In the July 6 *New York Native*, you said the
following about the drug, AZT: "...AZT is a poison. It is
cytotoxic. I think that giving it to people with AIDS is highly
irresponsible... the drug is only going to hurt you."

DUESBERG: That's right. And now they are giving it to people with
no symptoms.

INTERVIEWER: AZT is a very sinister aspect of AIDS. That needs to
be repeated.

DUESBERG: I think AZT is the most sinister aspect of this whole
business. They're killing growing (normal) cells. That's what
they're doing. That's very serious business.......
......NIH is like a military place, you know. In its attitude.
They look at me, I'm from Berkeley, so they think I'm different.
Free speech, all that. I work at a university, I speak my mind.
At NIH, if you start asking questions in public about these
viruses, you're out of a job.

INTERVIEWER: When they are alone, these researchers, do you think
they express their doubts?

DUESBERG: Sure. They have questions. They just don't want the
public to know about these doubts.


------------------------- End Part 9 ----------------------------


--------------------------- Part 10 -----------------------------

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.


------------------------- End Part 10 ---------------------------


--------------------------- Part 11 -----------------------------

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."

To reiterate:
1) The definition of a disease expands. Case numbers swell.
2) Drugs/vaccines are introduced.
3) The *definition* contracts. Case numbers reduce.


------------------------- End Part 11 ---------------------------


--------------------------- Part 12 -----------------------------

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."

[B.R. The fact that so-called mainstream media is a dubious
source of information is demonstrated in the book *The Media
Monopoly* by Ben H. Bagdikian. I did a synopsis of this excellent
book which I can e-mail to anyone who wishes a copy.] "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."


------------------------- End Part 12 ---------------------------


--------------------------- Part 13 -----------------------------

"In the midst of AIDS deaths, misery, and redefinition, various
ideologues who want to purify the world, by their own standards,
see big opportunities to attack scapegoats, turn off sex,
increase general hatred and expand readiness to allow violence
against so-called high-risk groups. They see opportunities to
introduce distorted Biblical or medical models of society."

The author, Jon Rappoport, offers some frightening scenarios. One
of them involves any Government, under the guise of a medical
emergency, imposing martial law on the citizenry. "No better way
exists to cement national control than through medical channels.
There are no political issues to promote, no ideologies to
enunciate. All that's needed is the insistence of medical
authorities that the Health Emergency dictates instituting
curfews, postponing elections, and establishing detention centers
for the afflicted."

Another chilling scenario offered by Rappoport involves a
hypothetical conspiracy involving major pharmaceutical firms and
the medical establishment. He suggests an "ideal disease... one
in which the entire catalog of human symptoms were interlocked...
Each branch of symptoms would involve tests to ascertain the
exactness of the patient's medical position. On each branch,
there would exist various drugs, various remedies. Each drug
would have toxic side-effects in various degrees, and would
invoke its own symptoms, which would show up later in more
serious well-defined elements of the disease."

[B.R. We all know, or we ought to know, that the federal
government and its agencies are dubious sources of information.
Time after time they have lied to us. What is more,] "convincing
federal health agencies to act responsibly flies in the face of
tradition established at those agencies which goes back a long
way. Take cancer. One of its myths is that it too, like AIDS, is
a unity... Demanding a single cure for cancer did not do the
trick, and in a similar though not identical sense, demanding a
single cure for AIDS will not work."

"Activists seeking a solution for AIDS may end up doing a lot
more than forcing the medical research establishment to
accelerate research. They may force a revolution in the idea of
what health care is. That is one of the things medical
bureaucrats are nervous about."

[B.R. The media, characteristically, has offered spotty coverage of
this issue.] "At every level of media, there is silence on these
elements of the current AIDS scene. Again, this is because it's
assumed Medicine is right. Investigating this arena is a no-
priority item for newspapers."

[B.R. Yet this is an area in which there ought to be a great deal
of investigation, and especially not just by industry insiders
currently profiting by AIDS.] The author points to the "AIDS
empire," which, through the concept of immune suppression, "is
being linked worldwide, pinned to a single virus, and milked for
pharmaceutical money."

Rappoport bemoans the disappearance of the media's more feisty
and adventuresome days. "Now our papers, our television networks,
even most of our magazines are wedded to the idea that a news
story does not even exist unless an official
agency/body/organization announces it."

The media just keeps "bumbling along, believing they are
documenting the earnest struggle of a hardy band of researchers
against a plague caused by HIV. This is the way they've
documented every campaign against a major disease. Why change
now? Just do another re-run. In the midst of this image-making,
the simple facts get buried."

"Back in 1980... [the first five AIDS patients] were
misdiagnosed. They did have pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and
several other infections. But as any doctor should have been able
to tell, pneumocystis can occur when there is immune suppression
*for virtually any reason*... Unexplainably stunned that these
Los Angeles patients were immunocompromised, doctors made noises
about a new syndrome, and pretty soon everybody forgot that the
name of the restaurant these ill men had eaten at was Inhalant
Nitrites and Other Chemicals."


------------------------- End Part 13 ---------------------------


--------------------------- Part 14 -----------------------------

The National Antivivisection Society of London has published the
results of some of their researches into outbreaks of what is
being called "simian AIDS" (SAIDS). "The book is called
*Biohazard*, and it is a very interesting look at monkeys, not in
the wilds of Africa, but within the wilds of medical research
labs."

Among other things, *Biohazard* discusses the routine practice of
shipping monkeys and their diseased tissue specimens from
primate center to primate center. The book "makes it clear that
the passing of monkey-microbes to human handlers can, has, and
does happen. There has been ample opportunity to infect handlers
and lab workers... and some of this disease could have drifted
out into the human populations of cities. Easily."

"The staff who researched and wrote *Biohazard* believe that,
through frequent injections of an entire catalog of animal and
human microbes into monkeys, some germs would have recombined,
forming new and possibly virulent disease-agents -- for humans."

The author of *AIDS Incorporated*, Jon Rappoport goes on to
mention two studies of laboratory problems issued by New York's
Cold Harbor laboratory. The reports, *Biohazards in Biological
Research* and *The Banbury Report*, make note of "a number of lab
accidents involving animals and the transmission of infection to
humans. They also point out that in the worldwide 'jungle' of
biomedical research labs... we have a fertile environment for
human disease possibilities."

"We need to put imagery aside and realize that laboratories are
not temples, and like our nuclear plants, systems of safety are
prone to human error."

The author provides a series of accounts in which he documents
the appalling conditions in many of these labs. He further shows
how difficult it is for full and open investigations of these
facilities to occur. "Who would undertake a worldwide probe of
lab safety -- and possibly discover that many germs exist which,
under current conditions, could escape into the environment and
bring about generations of disease, immunosuppression, and
undoubtedly several of the symptoms attributed to AIDS? Why,
other scientists, other members of the fraternity. Would such
researchers implicate their own brethren, especially if doing so
amounted to professional suicide?"

The book, "*Biohazard*, has not been widely released in the U.S.
Its discussions of goings-on in animal labs are potent reading,
and not just for people who are convinced of the anti-vivisection
position. Piece by piece, a few accidents here, a few accidents
there -- one gets the beginnings of an impression as to how large
the community of animal labs worldwide really is. That disease
could emanate from these facilities begins to seem not at all
like science fiction."


One of the examples of the potential for disaster given by
Rappoport comes from the journal *Lancet*. In a letter to the
journal, authors A.J. Zuckerman and D.I.H. Simpson, of the London
School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine write the following:

    ...it is only natural that we regularly receive material
    from all over the world for diagnosis and
    identification... The condition in which many of the
    specimens arrive causes us extreme concern. Our most
    recent examples have been badly smashed blood samples
    sent by post from overseas for hepatitis and Lassa fever
    studies. These samples were potentially highly
    infectious, but were so badly packed that serum was
    leaking freely through the outer paper. There is no need
    to stress the hazard to postal workers or to those who
    open the package.


"The researchers who so blithely speculate that AIDS emanated
from monkeys in Africa have no idea what conditions exist at
animal labs around the world, that these labs provide a fertile
epidemiological environment for the breeding of contamination and
disease. Or if they do have an idea, and some do, they keep their
mouths shut."

The author suggests that we ought to be studying the animal
handlers and animal-lab personnel to see what diseases they have
developed. Rappoport thinks that we could, for example, track
these people to see what contact they have had with persons who
have subsequently been diagnosed as having AIDS. "If
epidemiologists can command grants which take them to Africa to
explore the mysteries of the green monkey, they can take cabs and
shuttle flights to major animal labs and start looking for
unusual disease there... Why doesn't NIH fund a modest study to
investigate what diseases animal handlers and lab personnel may
have carried into the streets of New York?"


------------------------- End Part 14 ---------------------------


--------------------------- Part 15 -----------------------------

"In Europe, the question of whether AIDS could have been made in
a lab is much more seriously entertained than in the United
States."

However, to suggest that AIDS came *only* from a lab is to reject
the multifactorial model. This does not rule out *some* AIDS
cases being traceable to the lab, but those who believe that AIDS
originated entirely in the lab have bought "the principal party
line about AIDS, hook, line, and sinker."

Still, "whether or not CBW [Chemical Biological Warfare] has
brought forth germs and chemicals which have caused various forms
of immunosuppression -- that is a very reasonable question. It is
also very difficult to answer because... the types of accidents
which have occurred at [CBW] facilities, and even the types of
microbes worked with, are secret."

[Two good books dealing with CBW "incidents" are *A Higher Form
of Killing* (Paxman and Harris, Hill and Wang publishers, 1982)
and *Gene Wars* (Piller and Yamamoto, William Morrow and Company,
1988).]

Not only is it quite possible that some so-called AIDS symptoms
can be traced to Chemical Biological Warfare [CBW] agents, but at
least as important is that "we have a whole industry here which
is out of the public view, which has done some very nasty things,
which has never been opened for serious government inspection. To
say nothing of *public* inspection. In the area of CBW, two very
unpleasant strains of human attitude come together: military
secrecy and the arrogance of 'doctor knows best.'"

The author, Jon Rappoport, proceeds to give examples of the
irresponsible and possibly dangerous acts which those in charge
of CBW have sanctioned. For example, "In 1977, it was revealed
that the U.S. Army had performed 239 secret biological tests in
the U.S. between 1949-1969. Example: In 1965, 'biological agents'
were spread around at a Greyhound bus terminal in Washington D.C.
This routine was repeated in 1968 in a New York City subway
station."

A 1987 article in the *Covert Action Information Bulletin*
(Number 28) entitled "Precedents for AIDS?" summarizes a series
of tests done on prisoners: "From 1965 to 1968, 70 prisoners,
mostly black, at Holmesburg State Prison in Philadelphia, were
the subjects of tests by Dow Chemical Company of the effects of
dioxin... Their skins were deliberately exposed to large doses
and then monitored to watch the results." No follow-up was done
on subjects for possible development of cancer.

"In recent years, there have been several allegations of
biowarfare. U.S. intelligence agencies claim an outbreak of
anthrax in the Soviet city of Sverdlovsk, in the Spring of 1979,
was the outcome of a leak from a suspected CBW lab there." The
death toll from that incident is estimated at between 40 to 1000
people.

"The U.S.S.R. states that in 1984, the U.S., in a Brazilian
deforestation program, killed 7000 Indians and caused many birth
defects, through the use of chemical herbicides."

In their book *A Higher Form of Killing*, authors Paxman and
Harris quote from a comment made in 1969 before a House Committee
by a Dr. Leonard MacArthur: "Within the next 5 to 10 years, it
would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism
which could differ in certain important respects from any known
disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it
might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic
processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom
from infectious disease."

An article in the November 1970 issue of *Military Review* by
geneticist Carl Larson pointed out the possibility of designing
chemicals to attack specific groups. Larson believed that
"observed variations in drug response have pointed to the
possibility of great innate differences in vulnerability to
chemical agents between different populations."

Universities work hand in hand with the Pentagon in conducting
elements of CBW research. Between 1967 and 1988, the list of
universities holding CBW contracts with the Pentagon has not
diminished but rather has increased. In addition, the amount of
money allocated to CBW research has also increased. "During the
last eight years, the official CBW budget has grown to about $100
million a year."

"Indicating that as of 1987, 127 sites around the U.S. were doing
CBW research, including universities, foundations, and private
corporations, a *Science* report (Feb. 27, 1987) stated: 'The
Department of Defense is applying recombinant DNA techniques in
research and the production of a range of pathogens and toxins,
including botulism, anthrax, and yellow fever.'"

"What are the chances that an independent scientific group would
investigate the CBW industry to see if some of its microbes had
been involved in causing any part of what is being called AIDS?
The chances would be about zero, just as the chances would be
about zero of investigating animal research centers all over the
world -- without major public pressure."


------------------------- End Part 15 ---------------------------


--------------------------- Part 16 -----------------------------

The January, 1988 issue of *The Atlantic* reports on the recent
rise in new syphilis cases. In an article entitled "AIDS and
Syphilis," the author (Katie Leishman) reports the following:
1) Much syphilis today goes unnoticed, or is misdiagnosed.
2) Syphilis is often treated with inadequate doses of penicillin.
3) Disproportionately large numbers of syphilis cases, in the
   last ten years, have occurred in the U.S. male gay and IV
   drug-user populations.
4) The dementia associated with AIDS may be late-stage
   neurosyphilis.
5) There is an overlap of symptoms between AIDS and syphilis.

"Nitrite inhalants may rank at the top of the list of relevant
factors in Kaposi's sarcoma, but syphilis may be involved too."
In his book entitled *AIDS and Syphilis, the Hidden Link*, author
Harris Coulter points out (among other things) that Kaposi's
sarcoma and syphilis share certain traits.

"Coulter concludes that the disappearance of syphilis in the U.S.
during the 1950s was achieved 'by antibiotic abuse, suppressing
the disease (instead of knocking it out) and causing it to
smoulder away like an underground fire. It has slowly burned out
the immune systems of a large proportion of those who have been
(poorly) treated.'"

"Dr. Stephen Caiazza, a New York physician, has been treating
AIDS patients for syphilis. For the past year [ca. 1988], he has
combined a regimen of penicillin and doxycycline, and out of 125-
150 patients, he reports only one has died."

What follows are excerpts from an interview which Jon Rappoport
conducted with Dr. Caiazza, on March 21, 1988:


INTERVIEWER: What made you originally suspect that some people
diagnosed with AIDS actually had syphilis?

DR. CAIAZZA: I wasn't seeing any syphilis in my gay patients. I
was treating them for every other kind of STD [Sexually
Transmitted Disease]. So I said, where is the syphilis?

INTERVIEWER: The tests weren't showing it.

DR. CAIAZZA: The tests are totally inadequate.

INTERVIEWER: Your patients -- these 125 -- are really better?

DR. CAIAZZA: Absolutely. By bloodwork and by clinical symptoms.
We naturally watch both factors. They become able to work, to
come to the office unassisted and to do things that require
energy. Their T and B-cells improve too, slowly, but they
improve.

INTERVIEWER: Is this your only treatment, the penicillin and then
the doxycycline?

DR. CAIAZZA: Nutrition is very important. If the patient isn't
getting what he needs, the drugs aren't going to work. For
example, let's say he had been doing poppers. That binds up
vitamin B-12, so he can't utilize it. In that case, his immune
system just isn't going to produce.

INTERVIEWER: Are there other physicians in the U.S. who are
replicating your results with their patients?

DR. CAIAZZA: None have been doing it long enough, but I'm happy
to say a few are starting out with this regimen. I'm getting a
grass roots response from doctors and patients.

INTERVIEWER: What has been the response of "health authorities?"

DR. CAIAZZA: Zero. I've talked to a number of officials in New
York, both city and state, and they aren't interested at all.

INTERVIEWER: And what about the CDC and NIH?

DR. CAIAZZA: Are you kidding? All the research money that's
available for AIDS is going to the retrovirologists.

INTERVIEWER: Prior to treating your AIDS patients for syphilis,
what were you doing?

DR. CAIAZZA: From 1983 to 1986, I was just another doctor
handling AIDS cases, doing the usual treatments, the best ones
that were available. Many of those people died. About one a
*week*. Now, in the last year, one has died. I mean, *I* can't
believe it.

INTERVIEWER: Obviously, there would be no economic payoff for the
medical industry if your approach were to win out.

DR. CAIAZZA: Certainly not for the pharmaceutical houses. This
treatment is cheap.


------------------------- End Part 16 ---------------------------


--------------------------- Part 17 -----------------------------

Where did AIDS come from?

In 1987, The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was saying that
there was no official version as to the origin of AIDS. A Don
Robusky of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) stated "The
accepted wisdom on the origin of AIDS is the green monkey
(African). But nobody's really sure."

How would AIDS have been transferred from monkey to human? There
are several scenarios:
*** Jungle insects bit green monkeys, then bit humans
*** Humans killed monkeys and monkey blood washed through human
    sores or cuts
*** Humans ate monkeys
*** [B.R. Humans had sex with monkeys (?) Just conjecture.]

The author, Jon Rappoport, suggests that a possible source for
AIDS may be African Swine Fever (ASF). "In 1971 and 1980, Cuba
suffered epidemics of ASF. Press coverage in the *San Francisco
Chronicle* and *Newsday*, and by Jack Anderson, as well as
references in William Blum's *The CIA, Its Forgotten History*,
trace possible CIA involvement in the 1971 epidemic."

An article appearing in the January 9, 1977 issue of *Newsday*
describes how operatives having at least tacit CIA approval
introduced African Swine Fever into Cuba: "A U.S. intelligence
source told *Newsday* he was given the virus in a sealed,
unmarked container at a U.S. Army base and CIA training ground in
the Panama Canal Zone, with instructions to turn it over to [an]
anti-Castro group."

A Cuban national, on trial in New York Federal District Court,
testified that in 1980, "as part of a biological warfare scheme
against the Castro Cuban economy, 'a ship traveled from Florida
to Cuba with germs...'"

Rappoport points to the mariel Cuban boatlift as the possible
means by which ASF was transported back to the U.S.

Could ASF be one of the factors behind so-called AIDS? "In 1983,
two Boston scientists, John Beldekas (Boston University School of
Medicine) and Jane Teas (Harvard School of Public Health),
wondered whether ASF was, in fact, the AIDS virus... They found
evidence that ASF was showing up in the blood of AIDS patients,
'even though Swine Fever isn't supposed to infect humans,'
Beldekas comments."

Teas went to Florida. She recalls that while there she "heard
rumors that some Haitians, after eating pork, were contracting an
odd illness... Regardless, it was already clear that in some
areas where you saw a concentration of AIDS (Africa, Brazil,
Haiti), you saw outbreaks of Swine Fever in herds of pigs.
Although the pork industry and government scientists won't admit
it, there are ASF-infected wild pigs in Florida."

In July, 1986, Douglas Feldman, a medical anthropologist at Yale,
concluded a letter to the *New York Times* as follows:
"...epidemiologists and veterinarians might do well to explore
the possibility that this virus [ASF] is a co-factor in AIDS
transmission in central Africa and perhaps other regions of the
world." But, as of 1988, no such exploratory study had been
undertaken.

In September 1985, the NYC Health Department tested 160 *random*
blood donors for evidence of Swine Fever. "Five showed signs of
having contacted the [ASF] virus. This is quite remarkable, since
the prevailing wisdom on African Swine Fever is that humans can't
catch it."

Needless to say, the billion-dollar pork industry would be
disturbed at charges that:
1) There is a trace of Swine Fever among hogs in the U.S.
2) ASF might be connected with AIDS.
3) AIDS might be contracted from eating pork.

In an article in the October 7, 1985 *Washington Post*, John
Beldekas [Boston University School of Medicine, see above] tells
the authors of the article "that after he had found signs of ASF
in the blood of people diagnosed with AIDS, U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture officials told him to keep his mouth shut about it,
'for national security reasons...'"

Rappoport concludes this section by mentioning that
1) the mariel Cuban boatlift "was at least one-third gay... the
major number of these men ended up in New York, L.A., and San
Francisco, the three cities where AIDS cases have been reported
in large numbers."
2) The *New York Native* (June 2, 1985) attributes the following
statement to the U.S. Department of Agriculture: "On the export
side, if African Swine Fever Virus became established in the
U.S., there would be an annual loss of some 300 million dollars
in pork and related products..."


------------------------- End Part 17 ---------------------------


--------------------------- Part 18 -----------------------------

The author includes a copy of a letter written by one Michael
Callen to the "People With AIDS Coalition." Following are some
excerpts from that letter:

    One advantage of believing that HIV is the cause of AIDS
    is that it's such a simple explanation. All you have to
    say is that a killer virus is on the loose which, like
    some *Pac Man* video game, eats T-4 cells. Such a
    simplistic explanation seems tailor made for the TV
    age...

    I am a multifactorialist. I believe that *multiple*
    factors conspire to produce the immune deficiency which
    we now call AIDS.

    ...now that we have both HIV-1 and HIV-2, we're being
    asked to believe that two viruses whose genetic make-ups
    are different enough to consider them different viruses
    could appear at the same time and happen to cause the
    same disease.

    If AIDS were truly caused by one virus, we ought to have
    seen cases of AIDS appear *simultaneously* in every
    major city where there are gay men and IV drug users...
    Why were the overwhelming majority of all cases of AIDS
    confined almost exclusively to New York, San Francisco
    and Los Angeles for the first several years of this
    epidemic?

    Trying to convince America that everyone is equally at
    risk for AIDS has been a successful fundraising ploy.
    But it has also caused a lot of panic and needless
    social disruption. Many people who are the unlikeliest
    candidates to ever develop AIDS are nevertheless
    suffering tremendously from the fear of AIDS.

    The deafening silence in response to Professor
    Duesberg's devastating challenge to HIV is a scandal!
    Science doesn't progress by ignoring embarrassing
    criticisms of received wisdom. If Duesberg is wrong, his
    claims should be easy to refute. Duesberg's devastating
    challenge to HIV has gone unanswered long enough.


"Most alternative theories of how AIDS came to be assume that
AIDS exists, it is one thing, the reports of cases around the
world are accurate, and HIV-blood testing is accurate and
meaningful."

However, "when you try to say that immune suppression, which
gives rise to opportunistic infections, wasting away,
pneumonia... when you say this immune suppression comes from one
cause, one germ, you're asking for trouble. All over the world
there is immune suppression, there is reduced T-cell formation,
reduced macrophage function, there is the sprouting of
opportunistic infections. This is nothing new."

"To define a syndrome so loosely that it virtually includes any
sort of immune suppression ever seen -- this is bound to fail. It
just doesn't work."

"Alternative theories, if they prove anything, make stronger the
suggestion that AIDS is not one thing."

"After such a failure as AIDS-research, in all its aspects, the
most intelligent thing to do for the health of the U.S. may be to
cut off funding for NIH, disband it, dismantle the buildings,
throw some seed on the ground, forget it was ever there and start
over."

Health "has nothing necessarily to do with selling cascades of
new pharmaceuticals. It doesn't have anything to do with winning
Laskers and Nobels. If a researcher likes shucking the public,
let him go into selling. If he enjoys participating in useless
and false research in a silent way, let him become a
speechwriter. But get him out of public health."


{                --- Recommended Reading ---                    }
{                                                               }
{ Badgley, Laurence E., M.D.  *Healing AIDS Naturally*          }
{                                                               }
{ Cantwell, Alan, M.D. *AIDS, The Mystery and the Solution*     }
{                                                               }
{   ------------------ *AIDS and the Doctors of Death*          }
{                                                               }
{ Coulter, Harris. *AIDS and Syphilis, the Hidden Link*         }
{   (North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, 1987)                      }
{                                                               }
{ Jones, James. *Bad Blood* (Macmillan, 1981)                   }
{                                                               }
{ National Antivivisection Society of London. *Biohazard*       }
{                                                               }
{ Paxman, Jeremy and Harris, Robert. *A Higher Form of          }
{   Killing*. (Hill and Wang publishers, 1982).                 }
{                                                               }
{ Piller and Yamamoto. *Gene Wars*. (William Morrow and         }
{   Company, 1988).                                             }
{                                                               }
{ Weir, David and Shapiro, Mark.  *Circle of Poison*            }
{   (Institute for Food and Development Policy,                 }
{    San Francisco, 1981)                                       }

------------------------- End Part 18 ---------------------------

"The outstanding book in the field describing the alternative
view on AIDS is *AIDS Inc.*, by Jon Rappoport. It is available
for $13.95 plus $2.00 postage (total $15.95) from: Human Energy
Press, Suite D, 370 West San Bruno Avenue, San Bruno, CA  94066.
If you, the reader, read but one book on AIDS in your lifetime,
make it this one. It may save your life."

Synopsis by Brian Redman
([e-mail])
([e-mail])
"Ah yes, Armageddon. I remember it well."
End part 18 of 18
End of series