June 2, 2013 – People reflexively assume that anyone who questions the HIV=AIDS dogma is uncaring or insane.
By The Cerebral Aesthetic Vagabond
What if millions of people have died from “AIDS” needlessly, not from the “disease” but from the toxic treatments and the stigmatization associated with being “diagnosed” as having the disease? What if tens of billions of dollars have been spent wastefully? What if government bureaucracies, ego-mad scientists, pharmaceutical companies and non-profit organizations have knowingly and systematically elevated their own agendas above the well-being of the people suffering from this supposed malady, thereby inhibiting genuine scientific investigation?
Would such a scenario qualify as a scandal? If so, then we are witnessing a scandal of historic proportions. I believe that someday we will look back on “AIDS” with the same derision with which we regard ancient witch burnings. In both cases countless innocent victims died unnecessarily. So how was the HIV=AIDS dogma established and why does it persist to this day?
The 1950s and 1960s in the U.S. were decades of tumultuous civil rights gains that empowered individuals and created a fairer social climate. Among the last of the civil rights movements were those of gay male liberation (1960s and 1970s), feminism (1970s) and accommodations for disabled people (1980s and 1990s).
Prior to the inception of the gay male liberation movement at the Stonewall Inn in New York City in 1969, it was for all intents and purposes illegal to be a homosexual in the U.S. Prior to 1969 gay people figuratively lived not in the closet, but in the basement. To admit to being a homosexual not only brought shame upon oneself, but any homosexual act, even one as unprovocative as being in a legally operating tavern that was known to be frequented by homosexuals was grounds for arrest. People arrested for being gay were often regarded as mentally ill and sometimes institutionalized and “treated” for their condition, sometimes with the employment of horrific methods. Shortly after the Stonewall riots, in 1973, homosexuality was removed as a mental illness from the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-II manual (this removal is all the more significant when considering that each new revision of the DSM, culminating in the recently introduced DSM-V, has greatly expanded the number of mental disorders).
Following the Stonewall riots, which launched the gay liberation movement, gay men “let their hair down” in a big way. Sex and drugs were omnipresent in the average gay man’s life, so much so that some men claimed to have as many as 1,000 different sexual partners in a single year (that’s three a day for the math challenged!) and remained almost continuously under the influence of at least one drug and often several. Because of the excessive sex and the concomitant frequent STD infections, gay men began popping antibiotics as a prophylactic remedy prior to going to the bathhouse. Not only were the antibiotics one more drug that gay men were abusing, in addition to alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, quaaludes, amphetamines, barbiturates, LSD and others, but antibiotics are especially immunosuppressive, meaning that they weaken the body’s immune system. This latter characteristic is significant considering that the middle two letters of the acronym AIDS stand for “immune deficiency.”
The gay disco party raged with reckless abandon for a decade before the consequences began to appear around 1980, when gay men began showing up in clinics presenting what were unusual diseases for presumably healthy young men. With the exception of Kaposi’s Sarcoma (KS), what all these diseases had in common was a patient with a severely weakened immune system, weakened from a decade of abuse by drugs and STDs. The surge of Kaposi’s Sarcoma, which causes cancerous purple blotches on the skin and is atypical for young men, was most likely due to yet another drug that was exclusively popular with gay men, amyl nitrite (poppers), which was inhaled. That vector of introduction to the body probably explains why KS was often observed in the vicinity of the face and chest of those afflicted.
Although I knew little about AIDS in the early 1980s – it was originally termed by the more accurate, but politically incorrect acronym GRID, which stood for Gay-Related Immune Deficiency – I nevertheless noted that the people who were coming down with the ailment all seemed to have lived what I subjectively deemed “a reckless lifestyle.” These were people, some of whom I knew, who partied all the time, drank too much, smoked, took lots of drugs, ate poorly, had frequent sex and didn’t exercise enough or get sufficient rest. In short, they abused their bodies, and they got sick. So the idea that AIDS (or GRID) was related to lifestyle was already beginning to germinate in my mind in those early years.
After three decades of civil rights turmoil and after passing the peak of national prosperity and suffering the follow-on consequences of job layoffs and price inflation, by 1980 Americans felt harried by the changes occurring around them and longed for a return to the “good old days.” It was in this climate of Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America” that the novel syndrome of AIDS emerged, afflicting primarily gay men, those who had spent the previous decade partying like there was no tomorrow.
The timing of this “disease” was unfortunate for gay men, for Americans were not in a magnanimous mood to help gay people, an attitude typified by Anita Bryant’s public harassment of gays beginning in the mid 1970s and continuing into the 1980s.
Because of the already hostile political climate for gays, they were unwilling to further jeopardize their newly acquired civil rights by acquiescing to the theory that AIDS was a consequence of their lifestyles, which was, in fact, one of the theories posited when AIDS emerged. Ironically, gay people would have been better off in the long run had they embraced that hypothesis because fewer gay people would have died and tens of billions of dollars would have been saved. Nevertheless, at that time it was politically imperative that an explanation be found that exculpated gay people for their illness.
Sadly, with the U.S. Government under pressure to come up with a politically acceptable explanation for AIDS and unscrupulous individuals eager to profit from the HIV=AIDS dogma, it was announced in 1984 as official orthodoxy that HIV was the “probable” cause for AIDS. Probable? They were gambling the lives of thousands of people (millions in retrospect) on this unscientific supposition. In the world of disease, causes are usually certain: a person is infected by a particular virus and presents the corresponding symptoms; or a person presents specific symptoms and after testing is shown to be infected by the corresponding virus. There is no “probable” about it, and in any case treatment should not be initiated if doubt exists about the cause of an illness.
With the official orthodoxy established that HIV=AIDS, a whole new sector of the healthcare/pharmaceutical industry was born. Initially, there wasn’t a lot of money to be made in the HIV=AIDS sector; the only pharmaceutical drug available was AZT, an extremely toxic and lethal drug that killed patients quickly. However, there was an explosion of non-profit organizations devoted to preventing AIDS and helping those afflicted. Growing pools of money devoted to AIDS were budgeted by governments, creating an incentive for the private and non-profit sectors to harvest some of those funds. In addition, gay people gained sympathy (as well as scorn) and a degree of acceptance from the rest of society because of this cruel “virus” that appeared to target them.
I had two friends die in the early 1990s from “AIDS,” although even then I suspected that they died from the treatment, AZT, and not AIDS. One of those friends was an avid rock climber who was healthy and had been so for perhaps a decade following testing that showed him to be “HIV positive.” I don’t know what compelled my friend to begin taking medication for his “illness” when he appeared healthy to me. I think the weight of omnipresent fear combined with terrorizing by the medical establishment eventually causes many people to acquiesce to “treatment.” Whatever the reason, within a year of initiating treatment my friend was dead, in a rather horrible fashion, I might add. A second friend went the same route shortly afterward.
A couple of years after the deaths of my friends, I was leaving my favorite bookstore and was stopped dead in my tracks by a new book titled, Inventing the AIDS Virus, by Peter Duesberg. Everything I had suspected for the previous fifteen years was captured in that succinct title. I purchased that book and read it within a few days and it confirmed everything I had suspected but lacked the scientific knowledge or means to explore. That book caused me to devour book after book on the subject and everything seemed to reinforce my original sense, that AIDS was a lifestyle-related illness largely confined to gay males. I deeply regretted that Inventing the AIDS Virus had not been published a few years earlier. Had it been, perhaps it might have convinced my friends who died to shun treatment and they might be alive today.
Aside from their primary value of illuminating the disease known as AIDS, those books incidentally revealed what is becoming inescapably obvious today, that the “studies” that prove the efficacy and safety of pharmaceutical drugs are predominantly corrupt and worthless. The pharmaceutical firms will sell anything, regardless of safety and efficacy, and the government “regulators,” many of whom are former or future pharmaceutical company executives, grant these companies and their studies wide latitude in the name of profits.
Ironically, the pharmaceutical firms take credit for extending the lives of people with AIDS, but the reality is that the drugs today are far less toxic than the drugs of twenty years ago. People with AIDS are living longer not because today’s drugs are more effective, but because they’re less lethal! After all, a business model based on patients consuming drugs for life isn’t very sound if those lives are cut short by overly toxic drugs.
Among the genteel classes it’s considered impolite to question the HIV=AIDS dogma, for doing so would jeopardize the billions upon billions of dollars involved. Universities would lose billions in funding via government grants, so students and professors are prohibited from questioning the orthodoxy; governments would have to shut down departments and lose associated funding; pharmaceutical firms would lose billions in profits; non-profit organizations would lose billions in funding and their staff members would lose their sense of importance and have to go find real jobs. So in deference to the god of money, everybody, especially those who know the truth, remains silent about this scandal, while innocent people are misled, terrified, exploited and medically harmed. Identical arguments and motivations apply to cancer, a disease which has curiously eluded a “cure” for even more decades than AIDS. It’s revealing that some of the same actors in the cancer drama subsequently appeared in the AIDS drama.
AIDS is a lifestyle-related syndrome that primarily affects gay males in western society. Immune deficiency affects other groups, such as hemophiliacs who must obtain clotting factors from other people, although I believe that problem has largely been eliminated through the availability of purer sources of clotting factors. Immune deficiency also affects poor people in Africa (and other places), but there the cause is simple poverty which subjects the population to disease and malnutrition. Such conditions have been endemic in Africa for a long time but what has changed is that re-characterizing poverty as “AIDS” means money for governments and non-profit organizations, and profits for companies that make drugs and testing supplies. Dragging so many poor Africans (and others) under the “AIDS” umbrella also makes the supposed problem appear larger and more urgent, which helps scare up more funds.
Revelation that massive frauds can be, and have been perpetrated upon the public would lead to a huge loss of confidence among the populace in government and “officialdom,” something that is occurring anyway due to the vast body of orthodox lies about other matters. And if AIDS were revealed to be an “honest” mistake, how could “officials” possibly explain it away after all these decades? As with most things “official,” AIDS is an instance of either malfeasance or incompetence, neither of which those who place themselves in authority can afford to admit.
Before you conclude that I’m a unique nut case, consider that thousands of esteemed scientists and doctors also question the HIV=AIDS dogma. The most outspoken and well known of these is Professor Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D. There is an organization known as “The Group” that consists primarily of scientists and doctors who question the HIV=AIDS dogma. There also seems to be a growing grassroots awareness that HIV=AIDS does not add up. Organizations such as Alive & Well are flourishing, much to the dismay of those in authority. As the two videos cited below reveal, people are increasingly questioning the AIDS orthodoxy, especially in Africa where the people have been exploited as pawns for political purposes.
There are many good books on the subject, some of which are listed below. There have probably been numerous additional books written about AIDS in the last ten years, but having read enough already to draw a solid conclusion, I have not felt the need to read any more books on the subject. Suffice it to say that not even a tiny shred of evidence has emerged in the last ten years to undermine my conclusion that AIDS is a phony disease that continues to be promoted because it’s become a huge, profitable business. For those who recoil at the notion that something phony would be promoted solely for the sake of profits, consider the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory. Even proponents of AGW now admit that there has been no warming in a decade and a half, and yet the theory continues to be promoted, and fiercer than ever because in the wake of evidence contradicting AGW profits are threatened.
To close, in the unlikely event that I were ever classified as “HIV positive,” how would I react? I would do nothing, absolutely nothing. I would continue living my normal healthful lifestyle, no more afraid of the phantom virus supposedly stalking me than I would be of witches casting spells upon me.
|Cover||Title||Author||ISBN / Year|
|Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS
A Scientific Life & Times of Peter H. Duesberg
A scientific mystery, a massive cover-up, and the dark legacy of Robert Gallo
Exposing the Myths Around HIV and AIDS
|What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong?||Christine Maggiore||1-882639-17-0
|The AIDS Cult
Essays on the Gay Health Crisis
|John Lauritsen & Ian Young, Editors||0-943742-10-2
|Inventing the AIDS Virus||Peter H. Duesberg||0-89526-470-6
The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus
|The AIDS War
Propaganda, Profiteering and Genocide from the Medical-Industrial Complex
|Poison by Prescription
The AZT Story
The HIV Myth
Scandal of the Century
Not surprisingly, efforts to create an HIV vaccine have failed miserably, as reported in HIV vaccine infects 41 volunteers, vaccine trials canceled. Perhaps the reason the vaccine has failed is either because the whole theory of vaccination is flawed, or because the whole theory of HIV=AIDS is wrong, or both.
A portion of the synopsis of the film cited in the above article, AIDS Inc., eerily echoes my opening paragraph at the top of this essay:
Could it be that after so many years of research, and so much money being spent, that the entire orthodox medical establishment has been wrong about AIDS, or even worse, has sought to profit on a system that it knew was flawed from the beginning?
So many people have died from the “cure,” in the case of AIDS, cancer and probably other diseases as well. This woman was fortunate to have not pursued any such “treatments,” which probably accounts for her longevity.
San Francisco Sacramento woman proves that
HIV doesn't always cause AIDS: no symptoms after 23 years
Here is an excellent video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J7vHLXCphA) featuring Dr. David Rasnick discussing “AIDS” and the true cause of it in gay men. Hint: gay men in the 1980s were suffering from a decade of recreational drug abuse, not HIV.