Mit einer im Labor “erfundenen” Krankheit massakriert man Menschen und Tiere und führt die Öffentlichkeit hinters Licht
AIDS: HOLOKAUST WEGEN EINES FEHLERS
– Aus: “Orizzonti”, Schweiz, III/1987, von Milly Schär-Mazzoli
pdf: AIDS aus dem Labor Orizzonti 1987
Komm.: AIDS aus dem US-Biowaffenlabor Fort Detrick, eine These, die auch vom DDR-Virologen Segal vertreten wurde und zur taz in den Westen gelangte, die sich bald darauf distanzierte wie die anderen Medien auch. SAIDS sei in den Affen-Folterlaboren der USA entstanden.
Seitdem die gain of function-Machenschaften von Fauci in Wuhan bei Coronoia öffentlich wurden und durch Prof. Wiesendanger der Laborursprung des SARS-CoV-2-Virus diskutiert wurden, wogegen Drosten anfangs noch seine Hand dafür ins Feuer legen wollte, ist es bei AIDS nicht mehr so abwegig.
Würde man Dr. Stefan Lanka und seine Forschungen seit 1994 (!) zur Kenntnis nehmen, wüßte man, daß es in der Natur keine echten Viren gibt, die die zugeschriebenen Krankheiten auslösen.
Spiegel 7/1987: “Schutz vor der Seuche. Meldepflicht für AIDS?”
Bundesgesundheitsministerin Rita Süssmuth im Ganzkörperkondom.
Komm.: Motto: Wenn man alle Faketest-Positiven beim Gesundheitsamt in einer Zentraldatei erfaßt, hört die “Seuche AIDS” auf. Als Sammelbegriff für 25 herkömmliche Krankheiten von Lungenentzündung bis Immunschwäche durch Sexdrogen wie Poppers oder Heroin usw.
Mit der neuen Diagnose konnte man aber auch neue Schein-Medikamente wie das Rattengift AZT verkaufen zu zehnmal höheren Preisen als die alten Medikamente.
Die Seuchenerfinder sind dadurch steinreich geworden und sind mit Auszeichnungen und Ehrungen überschüttet worden als Retter der Probleme, die wir ohne sie nicht gehabt hätten!
Beschiß der Virologen damals wie heute! Und weil das Volk damals geschwiegen hat, sind jetzt nicht mehr einzelne Sündenbockgruppen dran, sondern alle!
Dr. Kary Mullis: AIDS? HIV?
Interview von Sarah Klipfel, 14.07.1998
Zitat: “Und bis die Menschen wirklich verstehen, daß die Wissenschaft nicht mehr von Neugier angetrieben wird, sondern von Geld – viel staatlichem Geld, viel privatem Geld – sobald die Menschen beginnen das zu erkennen, und sich bewußt machen, daß alles, was sie vom Wissenschafts-Establishment hören, wie Werbung zu verstehen ist… die Menschen verstehen das nicht.
Die Menschen hören, daß die CDC dieses sagt, daß die CDC jenes sagt. Sie fassen das nicht genau so auf wie “General Motors sagt dieses, General Motors sagt jenes.” Aber das sollten sie.” (Eigenübersetzung)
Interview hier in deutsch (Auszug) und im amerik. Original.
Dr. Mullis earned a Nobel prize for his identification of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), a test that is used in orthodox AIDS research. He also wrote the foreword for Dr. Peter Duesberg’s book Inventing the AIDS Virus, and currently does consultant work for the Immune Response Corporation in La Jolla, CA.
Interviewed by Sarah Klipfel
Mullis: My feeling about AIDS is that it is an artificial umbrella, for financial reasons, that has been overlain over about thirty different diseases at this point. And its not really a disease, it’s a semantic sort of thing. It’s like somebody decided. And its been happening in little steps. Health departments, researchers in this area, have always continued to incorporate new diseases into the definition of AIDS.
Advocate: Where do you think AIDS comes from, then?
I don’t think it is. I mean, my opinion of it is there is no disease that could rightfully call itself AIDS. AIDS is a socio-economic sort of a thing. It’s like, if you can call a cut on your left knee, in Central Africa, AIDS, then you can go to a World Health Clinic and have it treated. If you can’t, then you don’t have anywhere to go because there aren’t any other goddamn places to go, right? In Africa, just about any indigenous disease is now called AIDS because there’s a World Health Organization clinic around to treat it. So the statistics on AIDS keep rising in spite of the fact that the level of HIV infection in Africa has never been reliably determined. In 1985-86 there were expeditions to Africa with a bunch of medical people, searching for a vacation in Africa — they brought back samples and they actually [looked] for the antibodies.
So you think the number of AIDS patients is going up because they’re just starting to record more diseases under that name?
Well, the number of AIDS patients in Los Angeles county doubled in 1993 when they changed the definition of AIDS to include people who had no other symptoms except they had less than 200 CD-4 cells per cubic millimeter. We don’t really know much about CD-4 cells, except that we can tag them and we can look at them and count them. There are a lot of people besides me [who] would say that CD-4 cells aren’t necessarily good for you; that if you went up to someplace up in the Andes, where people had not been exposed to the flu, or lots of different viral diseases, you wouldn’t find any CD-4 cells in those people, but they wouldn’t be sick.
What damage could they do to you? What do you mean by saying that the CD-4 cells might not be good for you?
Well, in other words, the general feeling in the AIDS community is that if you have 500 or more CD-4 cells-… I mean, there are 14 different classes of blood cells that are called CD-1, CD-2, up to fourteen. CD-4 and CD-8 are the ones that they concentrate on with AIDS, because those are the ones that seem to go up and down. The CD-4 ones drop off, and the ratio of CD-4 to CD-8 decreases.
And does this mean that your immune system is weakened?
That’s what they think, but they don’t really have any evidence for that. They associate that. There’s a lot of diseases, actually, where your CD-4 goes up and down, and where CD-8 goes up and down, and there’s so little really known about what that means. It was just at the time that those things had begun to be investigated in the first place… there was this guy, I think his name was Sanoban, …[and] as his post-doctoral kind of specialty, [he] was starting to apply those clinical techniques that would sort your T-cells out according to various proteins they had on the surface… He noticed this group of five guys who had these weird diseases; all five of them had things like pneumocystis [pneumonia] in their lungs, they had Kaposi’s sarcoma, they had fungi growing in them, down their throats and stuff, herpes viruses, in addition. They had a lot of things that were the signs of immune decay, in other words. Something was screwed up about their immune systems. And he associated it — because it was his research project — he said, “Oh, look at all the different kinds of CD cells that they have, and let’s see if there’s any kind of correlation.” And he found one.
Which was that the CD-4 cells were declining and the CD-8 cells were rising, in relative numbers.
If you don’t think it was HIV, what do you think was causing the immune decay?
Those people were into so many different practices, that other people were not, that it’s really hard to figure out. They were not healthy young men in their early 30s. They were people who for ten years had been staying up all night, they had been malnourished, they had been existing on uppers and downers. Just like the song from the Grateful Dead: “Vitamin C, cocaine, and reds.” I mean, that’s what they were into for ten years. Well, anybody’s grandmother could tell you that if do that, and you don’t get a proper diet, that something’s going to go wrong… They started getting diseases that anyone who had a normal or better nutrition, a better sleep pattern… I mean, have you ever stayed up for, like, five days and felt how bad that is?
Okay, so you know how you start to bump into things. I mean, I was living in Berkeley at the time, and I saw that happening, and I didn’t associate that suddenly with a virus or something that was coming into our community. I associated it with… The guys I saw that were having a problem, that were starting to get those diseases, is because they had totally let themselves get run down.
But what do you say to people who are dying who are not inside a community like that?
Well, you know, a lot of people, it turns out, will not admit if they’ve been… There’s a lot of literature these days about testing, taking a history from someone when sensitive issues are brought up, and how you do it. There was a recent article in Science, in fact, about instead of having a doctor talk to you, if you just sat there with a computer, and it asked you the question, and you had the confidence that you were just a number, and no one would know who you were… They were talking about all sorts of sexual practices in teenagers, that was what that article was all about.. I mean, it’s not what kind of books do you like, but what kind of sex you do, how often do you have anal intercourse with other men, how often do you have it with women; I mean, those sort of questions, people are just not very comfortable telling you the truth, generally. Where this became a serious problem was when the treatment became so expensive, and you could lose your insurance, your job. I mean, there was no way really to find out who was doing what.
Everyone wanted to be the poor health worker who had accidentally got himself stuck with a needle which was contaminated with HIV, and that was the way you got AIDS, right? Because that would keep you from having any sort of problems with your health care, and the hospital that you worked for would have to be responsible. Well, it turned out that 92 percent of the people who claimed to have gotten AIDS that way were men. There’s 1,100 cases reported by the CDC — this is reviewed in Dr. Duesberg’s first PNAS article about this — 1,137 cases of accidental needle-stick reported by the CDC which resulted in HIV positivity, supposedly.
And these were all men?
Well, 92 percent is exactly the same percent of people who have been diagnosed with AIDS itself, right? Men, 92 percent; women, eight percent. And that was kind of curious. If you think about it, who really handles needles in a hospital? 75 percent of the actual needle sticks, accidental needle sticks, in a hospital are reported by women. 92 percent of the ones that supposedly led to AIDS were men. That tells you something about how honestly people are reporting how they got AIDS… Duesberg didn’t make up those statistics, he got those from the CDC.
You said in your foreword to Inventing the AIDS Virus that you disagree with Duesberg about what causes AIDS.
He overemphasized the fact that it comes from… That drugs are the cause of AIDS. Now neither I nor Peter have sufficient data, really, to say what causes those 30 diseases that are under the disease umbrella of AIDS. Some of them — Kaposi’s sarcoma, it looks like Peter was right, there. Even Robert Gallo finally admitted that Kaposi’s sarcoma is not caused by the HIV virus, it’s caused by a tremendous abuse… And I don’t like to talk about drug use as abuse, but when you pour something like amyl nitrate all over your body, that’s getting to the point that I’d call it abuse. That’s just really screwed up. And Gallo is the last person to admit that a disease was not caused by HIV but caused by a drug.
But Gallo did admit that?
He admitted that! And he didn’t have to, actually, but he did. He admitted that Kaposi’s sarcoma is not — probably not — caused by HIV, but it’s caused by amyl nitrate. And the reason for that was that none of the… No one who had been diagnosed with AIDS who was not a male homosexual, ever got Kaposi’s sarcoma. The intravenous drug users, the drug people — which is 20 percent of the people who have AIDS, supposedly — those guys never get Kaposi’s sarcoma.
But not all gay men are drug users.
But most… All the gay men with Kaposi’s sarcoma have used amyl nitrate. But there are those people who will deny it: “No, I have a normal life. I don’t ever go out to the bath houses. I just do regular stuff.” You know, and “I have one partner.” And there’s probably some people like that who have been telling the truth, and they just ended up getting some disease, and so they just said, “Wow, you’re HIV-positive, so therefore it’s AIDS.” …It actually took a tremendous leap of faith to think that one infectious organism could cause things as different from each other as a loss of immune system in your lungs to protect you against an organism, pneumocystis [pneumonia] that was there already, and also cause cancer, which was what Kaposi’s was; and now cause 28 other diseases, including invasive uterine cancer. Which is totally ridiculous to put that in there. Because it is, if you have uterine cancer and you have antibodies to HIV in your bloodstream, you call it an AIDS patient. If you have uterine cancer without them, you just call it cancer.
Where do you think AIDS research got so off-track?
Money. It’s real simple. The Federal government declared war on AIDS, which meant that anybody who was unemployed, or partially employed in terms of a medical career, could suddenly get nice, soft grants from the government to start taking part in the war on AIDS. I mean, its not like a field of science that came from a long tradition. There weren’t any old men who could say, “No, that would be stupid to do that.” It was all composed of people who were basically unemployed prior to that. I mean, there were a few of them [who] had been virologists, who were about to be unemployed because they worked for the National Cancer Institute, trying to show that cancer was caused by a virus. And they had honed up their skills for finding viruses to try to find one that caused cancer. No one had been successful, and writing grants in that field was getting harder and harder every year because you had to say: “Well, we have some preliminary evidence that there is a cancer that is caused by a particular virus, and we’d like to work on that.” Right? It was easy in the first few years, but after ten it was starting to get kind of tough. But there were, by then, 10,000 people, principal investigators, making their living trying to blame cancer on some virus… because that was the big idea. In fact, who thought of that idea? Peter Duesberg. He’s the guy [who] came up with that. And he said, about a year later: “You know what, that was a dumb idea, and here’s why.” But by then, he had already launched a bunch of people on a new career, and they didn’t want to come back and investigate a new hypothesis…
What I’m trying to say is that to even ask the question of whether AIDS is caused by HIV or not is to not understand the wider picture. And until people really understand that science is not motivated by curiosity anymore, but by money — big, federal money, big private money — once people start recognizing that, and realizing that everything they hear from the scientific establishment they ought to interpret as a commercial… People don’t really understand that. People hear something, that the CDC says this, the CDC says that. They don’t treat that the same way as “General Motors says this, General Motors says that.” They should.
So you’re saying that a lot of this research is driven by monetary gain —
I’m not saying some of it. I’m saying all of it.
All of it.
You find some guy doing research today, in any field, not just in AIDS, you find someone who’s doing it for free? I mean, send him over. I’d love for him to work for me…
But the money theory doesn’t really click for me. On a local level, there are doctors who are out there, treating patients in a clinic —
Well, okay. That’s a rash statement on my behalf. There must be somebody out there with concern for what he’s doing… but, there [are] very few researchers who won’t bend or fold at certain things, or spindle and mutilate them, when it comes down to publishing papers. They are required to publish papers, they are also required to be relevant, these researchers are. They’re not allowed to be up in their ivory tower following their nose. You ought to be able to show the granting agency you’re getting your money from, or the company that is supporting you, that you’re doing something useful. You can’t just say, “I’m doing this because I’m curious about what it is that is going in this particular area.”…If you’re a scientist anywhere, it’s got to be profitable. It’s got to be profitable for you and the company that you’re working for, or it will show some benefit to a selected group of people [who] are paying their taxes to you. You can’t be an egghead in an ivory tower anymore…
This corporate side of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis plays heavily into the pharmaceutical companies —
Yes, them, and also the NIH. Don’t forget them. They probably are splitting it about fifty-fifty.
But what about people who are getting healthier now as a result of using the drugs?
Fuck ’em. You mean the protease inhibitors? They said that for AZT, remember? And it lasted about six months. And the public relations, then, couldn’t ignore the evidence any longer.
But now they’re developing —
Oh, yeah. They’re developing resistance, right?
Well, no. I was going to say that they’re starting to develop drugs that are less toxic, as alternatives for AZT.
For HIV? Well, I don’t know where you heard that. But, you know, the protease inhibitors were supposed to be less toxic and more effective, and now you’ve got all kinds of people growing buffalo humps and weird fat distribution all over their bodies. And, do they get better in terms of their AIDS-defining illnesses? No. They don’t. Do they, in fact, have fewer HIV particles circulating in their blood? Yes. You would expect the pharmaceutical industry to be able to stop a virus. Which they’ve been able to do.
So you believe there is a virus.
Oh, they’ve certainly detected a virus. But whether it really is or not… You know, if you wanted to know what caused polio, you looked at someone who had polio, and you found that this organism is reproducing out of control. Any tissue on their body had it in it. The virus could be isolated, and you could have a tube, in your lab, of pure polio virus.
And we don’t have that for HIV?
We don’t have that for HIV. We don’t have anything like that. No one has ever purified a virus that they said, “Here it is.” Now, if it’s going to be infectious, meaning it can move from cell to cell — it can actually move from body to body — in order to do that, it would have to have some sort of structure that would hold it together while it was moving from cell to cell. Because if it’s going to go out in your breath, or go out in your semen… [this] is what they’d love to think, and nobody’s got any evidence of that.
Probably, I would think that HIV is one of those things that you’d get from your mother. And it’s been with us forever… That’s how I would look at it, but I don’t have any evidence for that. It’s a strange thing to me that no one has done the very simple research… See, if you looked at all the people who were rejected from the Air Force when they were 19 because they had HIV, wouldn’t it be reasonable to look at their mothers and see if they had it? Do the mothers also have HIV positivity?
Is that what you mean by the simple research?
Yeah. It is. You just say, “Well, let’s check your mother’s blood.” …I have tried to find, not only research that was being done, but also tried to get a hold of a list of the people [who] were being rejected from the Armed Forces at the age of 18 or 20 because they were HIV-positive and they didn’t have any kind of symptoms of AIDS or anything like that. Because there’s definitely a bunch of people like that. The Armed Forces are not going to release that in any kind of unrestricted way. I was trying to set it up where I wouldn’t know who they were, it would be all confidential, and I had a company ready to do the testing, and I was like: “Listen, test the mothers.”
So what happened?
The list is in the hands of somebody… You know, nobody is going to give it up. .If somebody really wanted to do that study, and had the power and the money to do it, all they’d have to do is find ten women who had given birth to kids, who now at age 19 had HIV, and they also had it, and all of them were healthy. It would kind of blow the hell out of their whole fucking thing, wouldn’t it?
And you’ve never done that kind of a test?
I can’t do it. I’ve tried. No one’s going to give me the list of the people… I mean, I wouldn’t want to go down on record as saying that there are evil people out there who would stop it because they already knew what the answer is and they wouldn’t want to see it, but I kind of suspect that. I mean, if you were in the AIDS research business, and you wanted to come up with something really impressive and shocking, that’d be a damned easy way to do it. But if you did, you’d piss off a lot of people.
Couldn’t you contact the mother of someone who tests HIV-positive but is not on any official or confidential list?
Well, you know what, I’m just in the business of thinking about it and reading about it, and not doing anything about it. See, to me, it’s a big news thing, AIDS is; but heart disease is a hell of a lot bigger… I mean, hell, 7,800 new cases this year in the United States? That’s like an orphan disease. It got a lot of press because it involves sex, homosexuals, All that kind of stuff excited everybody. But when you look at the numbers you say, “What the fuck is everybody so interested in this for?” I mean, why don’t you get interested in multiple sclerosis, which affects a hell of a lot more people?
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.”
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
20.12.2010, ARD Tagesschau: Jahresrückblick 1987 – Maßnahmen gegen AIDS
Zitat: “1987 sterben fast 600 Menschen an AIDS. Bundesgesundheitsministerin Rita Süssmuth überzieht die Republik mit einer Aufklärungskampagne. Die Landesregierung in Bayern greift zu härteren Maßnahmen und führt Meldepflicht und Zwangstests für Risikogruppen ein.”