AIDS-HIV

I think people are so interested because the disease is mysterious and they don’t know why all these things are going on.

Nobody knows about multiple sclerosis either. And somebody could say, “Hey, you know what? This could be infectious too. You can only get this by oral sex.” I mean, who knows? It didn’t have the kind of PR that AIDS did. And AIDS had the PR because the CDC was worried that their budget was going to be significantly cut because there hadn’t been any infectious diseases since polio… And they said, “Hey, we’re in trouble. We need to find a plague. So look around for constellations of various diseases. Find a bunch of people [who] are starting to get symptoms that are like each other and we haven’t seen anywhere else. Look for that stuff.” And then they came up with that ebola bullshit? Like we’re going to start to get these African diseases that don’t even make it past the first village? It’s all got to do with “People have to get paid.”

So getting back to the topic of our proposed debate, what do you think about people who are surviving with AIDS?

With AIDS or with HIV?

Well, I guess people with HIV.

The two are very different. People have lived for years and years with HIV and have never had any symptoms of any disease except the flu once and a while.

And you say that’s because HIV itself is not —

HIV doesn’t cause any diseases. You know, we have 10,000 — that’s the estimated number — retroviral sequences in our genome… Nobody knows what the hell they’re for. What a lot of people think they are is the remnant of the fact that retroviruses have been infecting us forever. I don’t actually agree with that, but… if everybody knew that HIV was just one of 10,000 it would not be so shocking to them to find that most of them don’t ever express themselves. They just sit there quietly. Every now and then, one of them does…

So could you test positive for something that is not expressed?

If it’s not expressed, you wouldn’t test positive for it. See, antibodies that are being made against [a disease] is what they’re talking about when they test for positivity. Sometimes they actually look for the HIV genome, and they find that it’s incorporated in your DNA. They don’t find it in everybody’s. HIV is not one of those 10,000. It’s just like them. And eventually, they get into the germ lines, and then everybody after that has them. These are just in T-cells…

If they’re in the genome of a sperm or an egg, then they’re sexually transmitted, right? Most of our properties are like that. That’s our chromosomes. They could be a parasite, living in some tissue that was used sexually. They could be in sperm, they could be in secretions from the vagina, whatever. It’s a parasite, it wasn’t a part of the germ cell. The germ cell is, you know, the sperm or the eggs…

They could just be: “Incidentally, we happen to live here too. And when you have sex with somebody, we have a chance of moving from your body to theirs.” There’s very few things like that — gonorrhea and syphilis, some herpes viruses — there’s a few known things that are sexually transmitted.

And those are the things you would call a parasite.

Yeah. They’re not in your genome…

But there is a chance that they could be —

[HIV] isn’t. But it could be, and it probably will be if it ever gets into somebody’s germ line and starts getting propagated. And it probably won’t make a goddamn difference just like the other 10,000 don’t. …If people understood that retroviral sequences are not necessarily some strange new virus that came from African green monkeys, it would help them to try to understand the sense, or rather the mis-sense of the whole… I’d almost call it a conspiracy, except the people involved in it aren’t smart enough to be conspirators.

…

So tell me more about Polymerase Chain Reaction. You identified that, right?

I invented it.

What were you thinking originally when you invented it?

I didn’t invent PCR to detect HIV. I invented PCR so that you could look at genes. That’s what it’s mainly used for. I mean, it is essential in HIV research, but that’s an incredibly small part of it. It’s basically the way you look at the genomes of all organisms. Anything that has to do with DNA these days involves a PCR machine in a lab somewhere… Most of the people that use PCR — 99 percent of the people who use PCR — are not interested in AIDS. They don’t do AIDS research, they work on the human genome… PCR is being used to look at, you know, the DNA of Czar Nicholas II, to figure out if it was really him. That’s what you use PCR for. Any time that DNA is the subject, PCR will be the tool that you use to put the DNA in a form that makes it easy to analyze.

So like Gallo used to, with his HIV test, do you get a dollar every time they use PCR?

Not a penny. I got a $10,000 bonus, I think, from my company…

I have a question about viral load. That’s identified by your PCR?

They use PCR to determine viral load, yeah. I mean, viral load is just: “What is the level of the virus in the blood” of somebody that they’re testing. That’s all it means.

But I’ve talked to patients and to doctors that say there is a clear correlation with low viral load, low sickness, high viral load, severe sickness.

Yeah, there is, in their minds. But if you want to talk to somebody about that issue, you could call François Ferret, who used to work for the Immune Response Corporation. And he had a vested interest in showing that that was true. And François couldn’t find anything. He’s a friend of mine here in San Diego.

What was his vested interest?

Immune Response was founded on the principle that HIV caused AIDS. It was Jonas Salk’s company. They were trying to make a vaccine. And they have, actually… It’s a vaccine against one of the proteins in HIV. I’m sure that it will cause an immune response to HIV, which is, in fact… Ironically, it’s the immune response which is considered the defining symptom for the disease, AIDS.

So when people get this vaccine they’ll show symptoms that —

They’ll all “get AIDS.” Yeah (laughs), by definition. Isn’t that neat? And there’s a lot of companies that are trying to make vaccines against HIV. Now that’s actually just funny neat… If somebody told you that the level of HIV in someone’s blood was indicative of how they’re doing right then, you have to remember this: You go to your doctor when you have HIV. Let’s say you’re a real AIDS patient. You’ve already got pneumocystis, you’ve got a bunch of shit going on… When you’ve got pneumocystis, you don’t have it all the time. It comes and it goes, it comes and it goes. It might go through periods of six months when you don’t have it. Same thing with all these various fungi and the other stuff that’s growing on you and all these other symptoms. If you go to your doctor, after taking protease inhibitors, say, and the doctor tells you, “Hey, you know what? Your HIV level is down to 300 per cubic millimeter. You’re going to get better.” How do you feel as you walk out of that office?

A lot better.

That’s right. A lot better. Much better. And you report back, and you keep doing it for a while. You keep going like that for six months —

So you think it’s a cycle?

Finally you say, “You know what, this is bullshit.” I don’t feel any better. I just thought I felt better. I wanted to feel better so bad. And the guy talked me into it for a while, but now I feel like shit again.

So feeling better because of viral load is more of a psychosomatic reaction?

Yeah. And at that point they say, “Uh-oh. Your HIV is suddenly resistant to the protease inhibitors.” It’s the same thing they did with AZT. Exactly. It lasted for about six months… Then six months to a year [later] they realized that they weren’t getting any better. Most of them were getting much worse. The people who were taking AZT were dying faster than the people [who] weren’t. And that’s proven. And finally, in the Concorde trials that England and France did, with maybe 2,000 people in a very carefully controlled study — what happens when you take AZT, if you had HIV but no symptoms yet, if you had it but had symptoms, you know, various regiments, whether you take it right away — they tested all those, and AZT in all cases turned out to be negative. It didn’t help, it hurt.

But aren’t there examples of the opposite result? In the Multi-Centered Cohort study —

The Cohort study was the one done in San Francisco and a couple of other places, and it was botched. Totally. There were no reliable placebos… If the symptoms were something that were easy to quantitate, like you could say, “How many of these little spots do you have on you?” Anyone could see that they weren’t going away. But it’s not like that. It’s more, you know: “How is your general health? Do you feel better?”

What about T-cell count? Isn’t that quantitative?

T-cells go up and down all the time. And here’s the scary part: T-cell count has been substituted for improvements in your health as an endpoint in studies for new drugs. So now if you assume that HIV kills CD-4 T-cells and that’s what causes the disease, now you start designing a drug to keep T-cells from being killed, and either it kills HIV or for some unknown reason it keeps the CD-4 count from dropping; then with the FDA rules you can have a clinical study where the endpoint is not that you actually get better, in terms of that any of your symptoms that caused you to originally say that you had AIDS, but just that your CD-4 count went up.

Which could be an artificial reaction to a drug.

Yeah… Some diseases cause your CD cell count to go up, some cause it to go down. Nobody really knows whether they’re good for you. Everybody just assumes with AIDS patients that a high count of CD-4 T-cells is good for you…
The symptoms are so diffuse. There’s so many things that you can consider to be AIDS. I mean, it’s absolutely absurd. Someday people who study society and shit like that — and there’s already a lot more of them than need to be — they’re not seeing this particular thing. Someday they will. And they’ll say, “My God, how did we do that?” And they’ll say, “The same way we did Pellagra.”

Pellagra?

You know the Pellagra story? Well, you should read a little bit instead of calling people on the phone all the time… Pellagra is caused by [a deficiency] of vitamin B-6. And it causes all these patches of darkening, reddish color on your skin. Kind of like Kaposi’s… And it was rampant in the southeastern United States in the early part of this century. Because the farmers there started growing corn and not wheat. And they stopped eating, basically, brown bread. Or things that had vitamin B-6 in it. And families, always very poor families, would come down with these horrible lesions on their skin, and the whole family would. And so the first concept there was that it was a contagious disease.

And they started doing things like this. It sort of had a self-fulfilling prophecy aspect to it, in that, if you took a kid, which they would do, the Federal government would take a kid out of its home. Like if you had a baby, and the family had Pellagra, they would snatch the baby and stick it in a damn orphanage. Because they were afraid that if it hung out in the house it would get Pellagra. And in the orphanage they didn’t just eat corn. So the kid didn’t get Pellagra. So they said, “Hey, it works.”

But finally, the director of research — it was some federal institute down in North Carolina, that had been run by this one sonofabitch for, like, 20 years. And he was absolutely certain that this was a viral disease. And he had proof — if we take these kids out of the homes, which the mothers never liked… It was the law, though. He had the power, some sort of emergency medical power, just like today they can force your kids to take AZT in some counties in California. He finally got replaced by this really smart Jewish guy from New York… And he takes over the operation and he says: “What the hell is going on? Why is it, if this is a contagious disease, why don’t any of the doctors or nurses who take care of the patients ever get it?”
You know, its a good question, and its the same thing with AIDS. Why don’t people taking care of AIDS patients ever get AIDS?

They say it’s a blood-borne disease.

Well, they don’t have any proof of that. There’s no proof of it at all… Most viruses you get respitorially. There’s very few organisms that are passed sexually. Even though we’re real interested in it, it turns out our sexual organs are very small compared with our breathing apparatus, and we use them a lot less. And most contagious diseases are borne by air. There’s no proof that you can’t get HIV by just breathing their breath. It would scare the hell out of people if they knew they had to go on elevators with people with HIV, if the CDC ever reported that. But they have gone so far as to say that “deep kissing” what ever that means… Do you ever “deep kiss”?

I don’t know. Maybe.

Well, I guess that means that you really stick your heads together. Well, if “deep kissing” can be a way, what about “deep coughing”? See, the whole thing is such a bunch of… It’s so bad that when you stand up in front of a big audience, and you start talking like I’ve been talking to you, people just can’t believe it…

Right now in the United States there’s a decline in the number of people who are supposedly infected with HIV. It’s gone down from about 1 million to about 750,000, according to the CDC. At the same time, there’s been a rise in syphilis and gonorrhea. So if you think that [HIV] is sexually spread, you have to deal with that.

People aren’t actually being any more careful.

So that doesn’t really make sense. The AIDS researchers, everybody wants to say that AIDS is going down because people are starting to use condoms, but if syphilis is going up, they’re not. Unless syphilis is also breath-borne (laughs). I doubt it, but it could be…

Read Dr. Kary Mullis’ foreword to Dr. Peter Duesberg’s book Inventing the AIDS Virus

 

---

---

Einer der besten Dokumentarfilme über den Wissenschaftsbetrug mit dem sog. AIDS-Virus HIV von Gary Null, USA 2001
Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS (11 min. excerpt)

Gary Null: Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS (2001) – full documentary, 130 min.

 

„In 1984 we were told that HIV was the cause of AIDS. In his provocative documentary film, “Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS,” Gary Null, Ph.D., challenges virtually every statement ever made by the American medical industrial complex on the virus – including those of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institute for Health (NIH) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

While presenting the findings of Nobel Prize-winning scientists and leading virologists, the film exposes the political maneuvering, conspiracies and cover-ups that have provided obstacles to the study of this human catastrophe from the start.

For example, there are experts who believe that AIDS is the result of multiple factors, including drug use, stress and nutritional deficiency, but that government agencies made a politically strategic decision to de-emphasize these hypotheses and thus discourage certain researchers and their funding.

Meanwhile, AZT, an infamously failed treatment for cancer, and now the primary FDA-approved approach to treating AIDS, is highly toxic and can produce the very symptoms of the illness it is prescribed to treat. “Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS” goes beyond medicine and science to question the very foundation of our reliance on government bureaucracies where it concerns matters of life and death.”

Gary Null reveals the ultimate big corporate cover-up in finding the cure for AIDS. The drug companies dupe over $20 billion from dying people and as of today, not one cure.

How they invented the AIDS virus. One of the best documentaries about the frauf of science with the so-called AIDS causing virus HIV.

DVD Cover:

---

2001: AIDS was created and funded by the Penmtagon back to 1969

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1970
United States Senate Library

HEARINGS before a SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Ninety-First Congress; First Session; Subcommittee on Department of Defense

• George H. Mahon, Texas, Chairman
• Robert L.F. Sikes, Florida, Glenard P. Lipscomb, California
• Jamie D. Whitten, Mississippi William E. Minshall, Ohio
• George W. Andrews, Alabama, John J. Rhodes, Arizona
• Daniel J. Flood, Pennsylvania Glenn R. Davis, Wisconsin
• John M. Slack, West Virginia, Joseph P. Addabbo, New York
• Frank E. Evans, Colorado

Temporarily assigned H.B. 15090
PART 5
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Department of the Army
Statement of Director, Advanced Research Project Agency
Statement of Director, Defense Research and Engineering
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON: 1969
UNITED STATES SENATE LIBRARY 129; TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1969

SYNTHETIC BIOLOGICAL AGENTS
There are two things about the biological agent field I would like to mention. One is the possibility of technological surprise. Molecular biology is a field that is advancing very rapidly and eminent biologists believe that within a period of 5 to 10 years it would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired.

MR. SIKES. Are we doing any work in that field?
DR. MACARTHUR. We are not.
MR. SIKES. Why not? Lack of money or lack of interest?
DR. MACARTHUR. Certainly not lack of interest.
MR. SIKES. Would you provide for our records information on what would be required, what the advantages of such a program would be. The time and the cost involved?
DR. MACARTHUR. We will be very happy to. The information follows: The dramatic progress being made in the field of molecular biology led us to investigate the relevance of this field of science to biological warfare. A small group of experts considered this matter and provided the following observations:

1. All biological agents up the the present time are representatives of naturally occurring disease, and are thus known by scientists throughout the world.
They are easily available to qualified scientists for research, either for offensive or defensive purposes.

2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon when we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.

3. A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10 million.

4. It would be very difficult to establish such a program. Molecular biology is a relatively new science. There are not many highly competent scientisis in the field, almost all are in university laboratories, and they are generally adequately supported from sources other than DOD. However, it was considered possible to initiate an adequate program through the National Academy of sciences – National Research Council (NAS-NRC, and tentative plans were made to initiate the program. However decreasing funds in CB, growing criticism of the CB program., and our reluctance to involve the NAS NRC in such a controversial endeavor have led us to postpone it for the past 2 years.

It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaked lest it lead to yet another method of massive killing of large populations. On the other hand, without the sure scientific knowledge that such a weapon is possible, and an understanding of the ways it could be done. there is little that can be done to devise defensive measures. Should an enemy develop it there is little doubt that this is an important area of potential military technological inferiority in which there is no adequate research program.
AIDS. The Manufactured Virus (2001)

---

AIDS Virus a Political Disease

AIDS Virus a Political Disease (2001)

---

2001: The Development of the AIDS Virus was funded in 1969 by Pentagon

The Development of the AIDS Virus was funded in 1969 by Pentagon (2001)

---

24.03.2009: HIV myth, explained by Jon Rappoport

Update: “Gary Null and John Rappoport expose criminals and AIDS myth (2013)”.
Video bleibt wiederzufinden.

---

24.08.2010: Dr. Claus Köhnlein: HIV/AIDS-Behandlung: Wo sind die Fakten?
Vortrag auf der alternativen AIDS-Konferenz, auch als unabhängiger Wiener AIDS-Kongress genannt, vom 16.-17.07.2010 im Wiener Museumsquartier als Gegenveranstaltung zur offiziellen 18. Welt-Aids-Konferenz 2010 in Wien. Dr. Claus Köhnlein ist Facharzt für Innere Medizin in Kiel und Co-Autor des Buches Virus-Wahn.

Videobeschreibung:

“AIDS wurde anfang der 80er Jahre als” neues Syndrom” sichtbar. Die “Neuen Krankheiten” waren PCP und Kaposi-Sarkom. Die relativ jungen Patienten waren durchweg Homosexuelle, die Drogenmissbrauch beschrieben. Die ursprüngliche Drogen-AIDS-Hypothese wurde zugunsten der Virus-AIDS-Hypothese verworfen. Der HIV-Antikörpertest kam auf den Markt und machte alle, die positiv auf diesen Antikörper reagierten, zu potentiellen AIDS-Opfern. Die “Seuche” breitete sich fortan durch die seuchenartige Verbreitung des HIV-Testes weiter aus, weniger durch klinisch Erkrankte.

Das 1987 zugelassene Heilmittel AZT war, wie wir heute wissen, zu hoch dosiert, so dass praktisch alle, die das Medikament bekamen, frühzeitig durch Knochenmarksuppression starben.

Diese Übersterblichkeit fiel uns Klinikern zunächst nicht auf, weil wir dachten, dass die Patienten an AIDS sterben.

Erst nach deutlicher Dosisreduktion und Einführung neuer Wirkstoffe (Proteasehemmer) kam es zu einem Rückgang der Sterblichkeit.

Die Akzeptanz der Virus-/AIDS-Hypothese hat dazu geführt, dass Patienten im wesentlichen aufgrund ihres HIV-Status behandelt werden, völlig unabhängig von klinischen Erkrankungen, in vielen Fällen werden eventuell vorhandene Erkrankungen noch zusätzlich behandelt, was zu einer erheblichen Übertherapie führen kann.

Weiterhin wird völlig gesunden HIV-Positiven geraten, sich prophylaktisch behandeln zu lassen und eine lebenslange Chemotherapie empfohlen.

Diese “Leitlinientherapie” ist nicht durch randomisierte, placebokontrollierte Langzeitstudien abgesichert und deshalb als Therapieempfehlung ungeeignet.

Vielmehr sollten HIV-positive Patienten entsprechend ihrer klinischen Erkrankung behandelt werden.

Die mitunter zu beobachtenden Heilerfolge bei schwerkranken HIV-Positiven, die meist an invasiven Mykosen leiden (PCP, Kryptokokkenmeningitis, Histoplasmose) haben ihre Ursache in der guten antimykotischen Wirksamkeit der Proteasehemmer, die in Kombination mit Nukleosidanalogea eine potente antimykotische Wirkstoffkombination darstellen und möglicherweise anderen Antimykotika wie Amphotericin in Kombination mit Ancotil sogar überlegen sind.

Hier (in der Therapie invasiver Mycosen) wären weitere Studien erforderlich, die prüfen, welche Therapieregime langfristig besser vertragen werden.

Dies ist jedoch nicht möglich, ohne die Virus-AIDS-Hypothese in Frage zu stellen, was offenbar, wie jüngste Vorgänge zeigen, nicht möglich ist (Zensur von zwei wissenschaftlichen Veröffentlichungen, die der herrschenden Auffassung von der Ursache des erworbenenen Immundefektsyndroms widersprechen).

– Dr. med. Claus Köhnlein”

2010, RT: HIV/AIDS International Conference Becomes Battleground for Opinions
“I was witness of mass intoxication of the patients with AZT. AZT was the first recommended treatment and we all know today that it was much too high in the dosage. We gave 1500 mg on a daily basis and that virtually killed everybody who took this treatment. That is the reason why everybody believes that HIV is a deadly virus. There is still no proof for this assumption,” says Doctor Claus Koehnlein.

„Ich war Zeuge der Massenvergiftung der Patienten mit AZT. AZT war die erste Behandlung, die empfohlen wurde, und wir wissen heute alle, daß es viel zu hoch dosiert war. Wir haben täglich 1500 mg gegeben, und das hat praktisch jeden getötet, der diese Behandlung bekommen hat. Das ist der Grund, warum alle glauben, daß HIV ein tödliches Virus ist. Für diese Annahme gibt es jedoch immer noch keinen Beweis”, sagt Dr. Claus Köhnlein 2010 bei RT anläßlich der alternativen AIDS-Konferenz in Wien vom 16.-17.07.2010 (Ersatz-Link ist vom 21.07.2010).

Erinnert an die Vergiftungen der Pest-Ärzte mit dem Quecksilbersirup Latwerge, wie es Goethe kurz vor seinem Tod verriet.

10.07.2013: Anthony Fauci on HIV and AIDS in 2025
Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), talks about the prospect of the fight against AIDS out to the year 2025.

2014: Dr. Alan Cantwell: Der Aids Genozid – Massenmord durch Impfen

„Manchmal wünschte ich mir, ich könnte mich in die Zeit zurückversetzen, als ich noch nichts über die von Menschen gemachte Ursache von Aids wusste. Vor dieser Krankheit war ich optimistischer und hoffnungsvoller, was die Zukunft betraf. Ich glaubte noch an die höchsten Ideale der medizinischen Wissenschaft, und ich vertraute darauf, dass meine Kollegen das Richtige tun würden.“

Anfang der achtziger Jahre erkrankten Millionen afrikanische Männer, Frauen und Kinder innerhalb kürzester Zeit an Aids. Einige Monate davor hatte die WHO ein Polio-Impfprogramm durchgeführt und Millionen Menschen in Afrika gegen Polio geimpft. Im Jahr 1978 ließen sich hunderttausende Homosexuelle in den amerikanischen Städten freiwillig gegen Hepatitis B impfen. Kurze Zeit später starben die ersten Männer in Amerika an Aids. Die Wissenschaft hält bis heute an der Theorie fest, dass das Aidsvirus von den Affen auf den Menschen übergegangen ist.

Wusste man nicht über die verunreinigten Impfstoffe Bescheid, oder ist Aids ein bewusster Genozid? Was hat die Wissenschaft vor uns zu verbergen? Dr. Alan Cantwell ist der Sache nachgegangen und kam zu erschreckenden Ergebnissen.

Leseprobe

---