AIDS ist heilbar – nur die Medikamente Töten – Die Wahrheit über HIV und AIDS
30.07.2011: Dr. Christian Fiala: Die Epidemie (AIDS) findet nicht statt – Auch nicht in Afrika
„Können wir Afrika retten?” fragte die Zeitschrift Newsweek auf der Titelseite bereits 1984 und gab damit eine alte Überzeugung der westlichen Länder wieder, dass Afrika sowieso verloren ist durch Hungersnöte, Kriege, Katastrophen und Tod. Diese Überzeugung wurde zwei Jahre später wiederholt in einem Artikel in der gleichen Zeitschrift. „Afrika, die Katastrophenjahre” war der bezeichnende Titel. Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation WHO bestätigte, dass „im Jahr 1991 schätzungsweise bereits 1,5 Millionen Menschen in Uganda eine HIV Infektion hatten, das waren 9% der gesamten Bevölkerung bzw. 20% der sexuell aktiven Menschen”. Ähnliche Berichte wurde in den letzten 25 Jahren laufend veröffentlicht. Die Vorhersagen kündigten einen praktisch unvermeidlichen Zusammenbruch des Landes voraus, in welchem die weltweite Epidemie angeblich begonnen hatte.
Heute hören wir interessanterweise kaum noch etwas von Uganda, weil sich alle Vorhersagen als vollkommen falsch erwiesen haben. Das Statistische Amt von Uganda fasst die Situation folgendermaßen zusammen nachdem die Ergebnisse der alle 10 Jahre stattfindenden Zählung der Bevölkerung vorlag: „Die Bevölkerung von Uganda wuchs jedes Jahr im Durchschnitt um 3,4% zwischen 1991 und 2002. Das hohe Bevölkerungswachstum ist im wesentlichen das Ergebnis einer anhaltend hohen Fruchtbarkeit (im Durchschnitt 7 Kinder pro Frau in den letzten 40 Jahren). Der Rückgang der Sterblichkeit, welcher sich in dem Rückgang der Kindersterblichkeit ausdrückt und in der Demographischen Untersuchung von 1995 und 2000-2001 dokumentiert wurde, hat auch zu dem hohen Bevölkerungswachstum beigetragen.” In anderen Worten nahm das bereits hohe jährliche Bevölkerungswachstum in Uganda in den letzten 15 Jahren weiter zu. Uganda ist damit eines der am schnellsten wachsenden Länder der Welt. Aber auch in wirtschaftlicher Hinsicht hat sich das Land in der gleichen Zeit sehr stark entwickelt, was die Energie und Entschlossenheit der Menschen in Uganda zeigt, die ihre Lebensbedingungen verbessern wollen.
Es ist überfällig, dass wir die offensichtlichen Fakten anerkennen, dass alle Vorhersagen über Aids in Afrika falsch waren, weil diese Vorhersagen auf falschen Annahmen beruhten. Folglich müssen auch alle Budgets neu ausgerichtet werden auf die tatsächlichen Bedürfnisse der lokalen Bevölkerung. Auf der anderen Seite müssen auch alle Organisationen und Individuen zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden, welche zuerst die Hysterie in die Welt gesetzt und dann mit dieser Hysterie sehr viel Geld verdient haben.
Vortrag ist aus der alternativen AIDS Konferenz von 2010 in Wien: http://science-and-aids.org/d/videos/fiala.html.
Facebook-Gruppe: Rethinking AIDS
22.-25.10.1985: Bangui Definition der WHO
Statt eines nutzlosen AIDS-Tests, bei der man selbst entscheiden muß, ob man positiv oder negativ ist, gibt es auch ein Punktespiel für Afrikaner, ohne daß dabei die oftmals mangelnden hygienischen Bedingungen berücksichtigt werden.
Bild: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorlage:Tabelle_Bangui-Definition_HIV, Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike.
16.09.1994: Revision der Bangui Definition der WHO
1986: Das Virus aus dem US-Militärlabor
Dr. Leonard Horowitz von der Universität Harvard veröffentlichte zwei Bücher, in denen er Belege vorbrachte, dass HIV aus der biologischen Virusforschung stamme und auf Experimente zurückzuführen sei, die sich hinter der Bezeichnung Special Virus Cancer Programm (SVCP) verbergen würden. In Emerging Viruses beschreibt er detailliert, wie der Virus in einem US-Biowaffenlabor hergestellt und “absichtlich” von der WHO in Afrika verbreitet wurde.
Was geschah in Fort Detrick?
Fort Detrick ist das “geheime” Versuchslabor des US-Militärs, in dem bis heute biologische Forschungen vorgenommen werden. Viele Legenden ranken sich um diese Einrichtung.
Im Jahre 1969, also in der Hochphase der biologischen Kriegsführung im Kalten Krieg, erbat die Abteilung für Biologische Kriegsführung der US Army Gelder, um eine “neue Krankheit” zu entwickeln, die das Immunsystem überwinden und resistent gegen jegliche Behandlungen sein sollte. Der amerikanische Experte für Biowaffen-Herstellung, Dr. Donald MacArthur, teilte dem Senat bei der Anhörung zur Bewilligung der Gelder laut einem offiziellen Dokument Folgendes mit:
Innerhalb der nächsten fünf bis zehn Jahre wird es wahrscheinlich möglich sein, einen neunen infektiösen Mikroorganismus herzustellen, der sich in bestimmten wichtigen Punkten von jedem derzeit bekannten krankheitsverursachenden Organismus unterscheidet. Am wichtigsten ist seine Eigenschaft, dass er unberührt von immunologischen und therapeutischen Maßnahmen bleiben könnte.
Es sollte ein Virus entwickelt werden, der das Immunsystem zerstört. Die finanziellen Mittel für das Projekt wurden genehmigt. Die Immunkrankheit tauchte innerhalb des anvisierten Zeitfensters auf und zeigte genau jene Merkmale, die auch aus der Prognose der Biologischen Abteilung aus Fort Detrick hervorgingen.
Die ersten Infektionen traten in Afrika auf, und zwar in jenen Regionen, in denen die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) in den 1970[iger Jahren] großflächig gegen Pocken geimpft hatte. Bis Anfang der 1990er-Jahre war HIV, für eine Epidemie ganz untypisch, plötzlich über den gesamten Globus verteilt.
Führten Impfungen zur Ausbreitung des HI-Virus?
Dr. Robert Strecker behauptete im Jahre 1986, HIV sei durch Impfungen des Öffentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Public Health Service) bei Homosexuellen als angebliche Hepatitis-B-Impfung verbreitet worden. Dies sei zwischen 1978 und 1981 in den Städten New York, Los Angeles, San Fransisco, St. Louis, Denver und Chicago geschehen. Diese Städte entwickelten die höchsten Aids-Raten des Landes.
Der Skandal des Jahrhunderts
John Rappoport beleuchtet in seinem Buch AIDS Inc: Scandal of the Century [Firma AIDS: Der Jahrhundert-Skandal], wie die Krankheit zum großen Geschäft wurde und wie pharmazeutische Interessen die Medien dahingehend manipuliert haben, dass sie die HIV-Hypothese propagieren und andere Theorien ignorieren oder herunterspielen. Ob absichtlich oder versehentlich verbreitet, scheint die HIV-Epidemie einen menschengemachten Ursprung zu haben.
– alle Zitate aus: HIV – Der 1. Versuch der elitären Bevölkerungsreduktion?, Gesundheitliche Aufklärung.de, 02.05.2009 (offline), Ersatzlink: Waybackmachine (längere Ladezeit)
18.02.1987, taz: Aids – Man-Made in USA
Vollständiger Artikel: Aids man-made in USA – taz 18.02.1987
Nachfolgende Pressestimmen:
28.02.1987, taz: „HIV ist kein gentechnologisches Produkt“. Prof. Dr. Meinrad Koch, Leiter der Abteilung Virologie beim Robert–Koch Institut in Westberlin, äußert sich zur These des ehemaligen Leiters des Instituts für allgemeine Biologie in Ostberlin, Prof. Jakob Segal, daß das angeblich AIDS-auslösende HI-Virus Produkt einer gentechnologischen Krankheitserreger-Züchtung (gain of function) sei.
– Komm.: Der erste offizielle Widerspruch. Durch das RKI. Eine Halbwahrheit. HIV ist kein gentechnologisches Produkt gewesen, aber eben auch kein natürliches Virus, sondern ein Laborkonstrukt, ein Artefakt, eine Fehldeutung unter Weglassung der Kontrollen.
28.02.1987, taz: Die Kontrahenten
09.01.2010, taz: Wie das Aids-Virus nach Fort Detrick kam. DESINFORMATION Noch heute geistert die These vom CIA-gemachten Aids-Virus durchs Internet. Ursprung: KGB und Stasi. Erstveröffentlichung 1987: taz
10.01.2010, Tagesspiegel: Die „taz“, das Aids-Virus und die Stasi
12.01.2010, taz: Schwul durch lange Haft? Am Wochenende stand groß in der taz, wie die Stasi im Jahr 1987 eine AIDS-Lüge bei uns im Blatt platziert hatte.
14.01.2010, Zeit: Der Mythos vom Ursprung des Aids-Virus. Von Geheimdiensten und Gerüchten: Erzeugte einst das US-Militär das HI-Virus? Die Stasi streute diesen Mythos. Was ist dran? Der Genetiker Erhard Geißler erinnert sich.
14.01.2010, Tagesspiegel: Das Aidsvirus als Geschöpf des Klassenfeinds
20.07.2012, Spiegel: Aids-Verschwörung: Woher kam HIV wirklich?
2015: Erhard Geißler: Es gab keine AIDS-Verschwörung des MfS mit den Segals, in: Zeitschrift des Forschungsverbundes SED-Staat, ZdF 37/2015.
22.06.2021, Spiegel: DDR-Verschwörung: Aids aus dem Labor
24.05.2020, taz: Die taz und Fake News: Die Aids-Verschwörung. Schuld an der Verbreitung von Fake-News. Wie die taz 1987 durch einen Köder von östlichen Geheimdiensten instrumentalisiert wurde.
Komm.: Die taz distanzierte sich von dem Artikel und es wurde allgemein als Desinformation abgetan, daß die USA das HI-Virus im Labor herstellten. 2021 erhielt diese These des DDR-Biologen Prof. Jakob Segal von 1987 neue Nahrung durch die Anhörung im US-Senat des “Virus-Papstes” Dr. Fauci zum Vorwurf der Gain-of-function-Research, krankmachende Viren herzustellen, z.B. ein tierisches Protein zu befähigen, in menschlichen Zellen anzudocken und nicht mehr als Fremdeiweiß zerstört zu werden.
Fauci hat dies, nachdem sein Forschungsantrag in den USA abgelehnt worden ist, dann über Bande gespielt im Wuhan-Labor in China. Und dies unter Eid bestritten. DARPA-Dokumente haben dann seinen Meineid bewiesen.
Dr. David Martin, Corona-Ausschuss 60: Die Chinesen haben das künstliche Virus auf ihre Server hochgeladen und Faucis Team konnte darauf zugreifen.
Nachdem wir wissen, daß niemals ein natürliches, krankmachendes Virus in der Luft, im Speichel, in Schleimhäuten, Lymphknoten, Blut, Urin, sonstigen Körperflüssigkeiten nachgewiesen worden ist und deren angebliche DNA-Sequenzen am Computer errechnet worden sind (Alignment), entpuppt sich Segals These als unbewußte oder bewußte Halbwahrheit (je nach gusto): HIV ist ein Laborkonstrukt, eine Fehldeutung wie alle “Viren” (oder, je nach gusto, Wissenschaftsbetrug unter Umgehung der Kontrollen), aber Segals weitere Behauptungen, das HIV sei gentechnisch hergestellt worden und durch einen Laborunfall nach Außen gelangt und so habe sich AIDS ausgebreitet, stimmt nicht und stützt das falsche Virus- und Ansteckungsmodell wie auch die These, daß HIV die Ursache für die Sammeldiagnose für AIDS sei.
Wahres und Falsches ist hierbei vermischt. Die Crispr-Genschere kam erst später beim SARS-CoV-2-“Virus” zum Einsatz, wie man anhand der Furinspalte nachweisen kann, die nicht natürlichen Ursprungs sein kann.
Vielleicht war das absichtlich, denn wenn der führende DDR-Biologe die volle Wahrheit gesagt hätte (vorausgesetzt, er kannte sie), und es das HIV nicht gäbe, hätte es womöglich Zweifel an den weiteren behaupteten, nur imaginären Viren (Masern, Grippe usw.) und damit Zweifel am Impfprogramm auch in der DDR geben können.
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!
1987: ARD Monitor: CSU in Bayern wollte Isolation und Zwangstests für AIDS-Kranke – bald auch für Corona?
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.
Interview with Dr. Kary Mullis (7/14/98)
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?
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?
Yeah.
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?
