The AIDS conspiracy debate will forever be a much contested topic. I still remember the Strecker Memorandum, published by Dr. Robert B. Strecker. Strecker's thesis was predicated on the idea that AIDS was engineered to reduce the world population. Arguably, it has become painfully clear that government is very capable of such a diabolical caper. You need not look any further than the Tuskegee Experiment for the sobering truth and support for the conspiracy theorist.
Nonetheless, I'm not totally convinced that AIDS can be cured with multi-vitamins as suggested by the advert.
AG: I highly recommend interested parties visit these websites:
visit duesberg.com
http://www.aliveandwell.org/, and http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/epapadopoulos.htm
I am familiar with the "Strecker Report." I am convinced it is wrong because it is based on the assumption that "AIDS" arises from an infection with a virus called "HIV." The above websites present peer-reviewed medical papers by scientists whose studies lead to the following conclusions:
1. What is called "HIV" is either a harmless "retrovirus" that lacks any capacity to kill any human cells (Duesberg's view), or a technical artifact that is not a virus at all (Eleopolos's view). The contagious model of AIDS (the popular view that ascribes AIDS to a viral infection) requires the existance of a virus that kills immune cells. Although many viruses kill immune cells, these viruses have been known to scientists for decades, and all scientsts agree that none of these viruses call AIDS.
The biological phenomenon that is called "HIV" does not kill immune or other cells, and either represents a harmless virus "passenger" virus, or a harmless non-microbial collection of biological matter, depending on which of my favorite AIDS scientsts that you prefer. In either case -- passenger virus or biological debris -- various non-pathological viruses and collections of biological matter are more prevailant among people suffering from various diseases.
Thus it is not only reasonable, it is expected, that we would find such entities in greater frequency among people suffering from various and particular diseases. Conversely, we would expect that people in whom we observe such entities to exhibit a greater frequency of developing various and particular diseases.
2. The bio-medical industry incorrectly identified a test -- the HIV test -- as positivily indicating infection with an AIDS-causing virus, and responded by creating a variety of drugs that reduce the incidence in such people of the matter said to be "HIV." But whereas that material -- "HIV, if you like -- has no capacity to kill immune cells, the drugs used "to kill HIV" certainly do kill immune cells.
I have claimed that many viruses kill immune cells, but do so without causing AIDS. The reason that these viruses cannot cause AIDS is that the human immune system does a great job of killing viruses. Thus the human immune system can defeat cell-killing viruses, even viruses that really do kill immune cells. However, the human body has no defense against drugs that kill immune cells.
If you and I started taking these so-called "HIV drugs," our immune cells would start to diminish, and we would start to develop "AIDS." In one of medical history's greatest ironies of all times, when these drugs are given to healthy people who test "HIV positive," when the drugs kill the patient's immune cells and "AIDS" appears, the doctors blame the alleged "HIV virus," and not the drugs.
The scientists to which I have referenced believe that many cases of "AIDS" are really pharmeacutical-induced. They believe that the "HIV-tests" are imperfect predictors of "AIDS", but that that they become perfect predictors of "AIDS" once doctors give "anti-HIV" drugs to people who test "HIV-positive."
Consider this scenario. I propose that hanging out in bars is the cause of lung cancer. I go around and give massive chest X-rays to everybody who hangs out in bars, since X-rays is a medical tool that kills cancer cells. Well, X-rays also *cause* cancer! Anyway, I have incorrectly identified hanging out in bars as a cause of lung cancer, rather than smoking cigarettes. And I have renamed "lung cancer" as "bar cancer." Anybody who goes to bars and gets lung cancer, I label them "bar cancer" victims. People who stay out of bars and smoke, some will get lung cancer. When they do, they will get the old diagnosis: "Lung cancer."
OK, so now I convince everybody who goes to bars -- including those who don't smoke -- that they should get a chest X-ray every day. After a few years everybody who goes to bars thus develops X-rays, even non-smokers. When a non-smoker at the bar gets lung cancer, I say, "See! Going to bars causes lung cancer! Good thing you took those X-rays, otherwise you would have gotten Bar Cancer even sooner."
Meanwhile some bar-hoppers who smoke refuse to get X-rays. Some of them develop lung cancer. I say, "See! I told you that if you didn't get your daily chest X-rays, you would develop Bar Cancer!"
I believe that this is one of the important factors going on with "AIDS." As in my bar analysis, the doctors have mis-identified "the" cause of "AIDS." And sure, rounding up all the bar-hoppers will create a population more likely to develop "AIDS" than people who don't go to bars, this is just because people who go to bars are more likely to smoke than people who don't. Well, people who test "HIV-positive" are indeed more likely to develop "AIDS" than those who test "HIV-negative." But that is only because people who test positive for *any* microbe or biological debris are more likely to develop many diseases, because they are more likely to have had their health undermined by a variety of factors, such as...
3. The real causes of "AIDS." What is "AIDS," anyway? The "S" in "AIDS" stands for "Syndrome." Syndrome means, "collection of diseases." There are 29 diseases within this syndrome, including: persistent pnemonia and drastic weight loss, the two main ones. If you and I develop pneumonia, and I test "HIV-positive", and you "HIV-negative," my pneumonia gets diagnosed as "AIDS", yours as "pneumonia." Also, I will get prescribed "anti-HIV" drugs, which will kill the immune cells that are fighting my pneumonia. These drugs also kill the cells that line my digestive tract, so I will develop massive weight loss, another "AIDS" disease. Meanwhile, you will get chicken soup and likely recover.
4. OK, the real causes of "AIDS." What we really mean here is: What are the real cause of the various diseases that fit within the "AIDS" syndro me definition? There are two main causes of persistent pneumonia and drastic weight loss (and the other "AIDS" diseases): Narcotics, abject poverty, and immune-killing pharmaceuticals. Thus in the US most cases of "AIDS" derive from long-term narcotics use, or the prescription of immune-killing pharmaceuticals. In Africa, the main cause of "AIDS" is a life of drinking untreated water and eating barely enough to live until the next day.
5. Prior to "HIV-testing", every case of "AIDS" in America occured in patients who admitted to regular long term ingestion of serious hard-core narcotics. Yes, all those original gay men were massive drug users. You did not have to look for a virus to explain why they had persistent pneumonia and drastic weight loss. After the "HIV tests" came in to being, now we have healthy get men getting labled "positive," and those guys get "AIDS" from the "anti-HIV" drugs.
In Africa there is not enough money to test everybody for "HIV." Therefor doctors have to diagnose "AIDS" based only on the appearance of an AIDS disease in a patient. When scientists go and test some of these groups of un-tested so-called AIDS patients, what percent do you think test "HIV-Positive"? 90%? 95%? 99%? 100%?
NO: 40%!!!! Yes, just 40%. You would think that this evidence would cause scientists to conclude: "These HIV-tests do not indicate whatever it is that causes AIDS." One person has taken this view: SA president Thabo Mbeki, one of my heros.
Therefore, I conclude that "HIV" is either harmless or non-existant, and that "AIDS" is a non-contagious condition caused by a variety of non-contagious factors.
Love, Paul
P:
Your response is quite thorough. The 'bar cancer' analogy is an interesing one. What do you make of claims that vitamins are effective against pneumonia and like afflictions?
AG: If I or my children had pneumonia, I would treat with vitamins, herbs, etc., and would even use "urine therapy" before I would take antibiotics. I recommend the same for everyone. However, I also recommend eating a diet comprised exclusively of all-natural ingredients. That will vouchesafe against diseases such as pneumonia.