Aid for aids

Democracy Now! on August 17 ran an hour long program on the sixteenth world AIDS conference in Toronto. 24,000 attendees were said to have participated, though only 100 from the U.S. Of those interviewed, including Amy herself, all hewed to the paradigm of HIV=AIDS. 

According to standard wisdom about the "new plague", people become infected with the Human Immuno Virus by having "unprotected" sex with an infected partner. Once infected, the HIV positive person, after an indeterminate latency period lasting years or decades, will develop "full blown AIDS" and die a lingering, disgusting death, literally wasting away despite the best efforts of health care workers. There seems to be no treatment potent enough to arrest the progress of the "disease", and the only victory available is in prolonging the suffering on a day-by-day basis. Somehow cheating death for a few more days, or hours is the measure of medical success against this mysterious malady.

What Amy didn't mention, never mentions on her show, and no one ever speaks to on Democracy Now! is that Peter Duesberg MD and a expanding chorus of accredited researchers have called into question the HIV=AIDS paradigm. They aver that there is no direct epidemiological correlation between evidence of HIV and occurrence of AIDS. Like many subjects today the debate about AIDS is not based on scientific fact but upon lurid case histories and politically correct propaganda. Duesberg and his growing mob of supporters are the anti-semites of the medical world for challenging the prejudices of a public whose information about the problem is derived solely from sensational if biased media coverage.

There has been more study of AIDS than the entire body of medical science. An enormous amount of funding has been poured into research predicated on the viral hypothesis, many foundations and many jobs depend upon HIV causing AIDS by viral infection. If that does not turn out to be true a lot of doctors would lose tenure.

Though Duesberg and followers have published exhaustive scholarly works debunking the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, they are excoriated wholesale for muddying the waters, being insensitive to the suffering of victims and promoting junk science. 

But what if they are right?

There are some serious problems with the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Anyone can buy Dr. Duesberg's thick treatise Inventing the AIDS Virus, or search online for other sources, but to summarize:

No viral infection lies "dormant" for lengthy periods of time. Saying that HIV does so is strictly ad hoc reasoning to explain case history without challenging the viral hypothesis.

AIDS is not a disease, but a syndrome of over fifty ailments from pneumonia to cancer that afflict any person with reduced immune responses. None of these diseases is considered AIDS in the absence of HIV, but in the presence of HIV they are proof positive that HIV causes AIDS.

The vector for HIV infection has never been established clinically, but along with gonnorhea, syphillis, HPV/cervical cancer, and herpes, HIV is lumped into the category of Sexually Transmitted Disease by a puritanical medical establishment at a loss to explain the loss of life. Uncritical consumers of fake news all "know" that "unprotected" "high risk" behavior entails the potential for various illnesses, so HIV must be included.

False positives for HIV are typical as the so-called "AIDS tests" react to antibodies of many ailments and any general stress related conditions. Many HIV test positives subsequently retest negative. Many case histories exist of HIV positives leading healthy, full lives without debilitating illness. On Amy's show one interviewee stated he lived with HIV for 10 years and "full blown AIDS" for another fifteen. Although he didn't evaluate his quality of life, twenty five years is a long time for anyone to live with a deadly disease. Reports from Africa indicate that young people are more concerned with the stigma of being HIV positive than about contracting an illness. And who can blame them? Loss of job, insurance, affection and so on are likely outcomes of a positive result. Clearly anyone testing positive would want to start a course of treatment immediately. 

Typically however, once treatment for HIV infection begins, so do signs of AIDS. As the "disease" progresses, dosage is increased. As symptoms worsen and metabolic systems collapse, massive amounts of toxic drugs are administered and the patient finally dies in a puddle of disassociated protoplasm, the sad but inevitable result of misapplication of technology. The many case histories of patients who quit chemo-therapy in despair and who subsequently show improvement are not part of the public discussion. Now health officials are recommending people "at risk" of AIDS start a course of immune suppressant drugs as a preventative for Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome. 

That makes sense!

Like the terrorist threat, AIDS is a hoax. Sure, people die of immune system failure just as certainly as they die in collapsing buildings, but as in the case of collapsing buildings, the actual vector of causality is unknown to the public. Everyone "knows" 19 Arabs did it, despite evidence nice, rich, white men were involved, and everyone "knows" HIV causes AIDS, despite the lack of epidemiological evidence linking the two phenomena. In such cases the tip off of rip-off for rational people with inquiring minds is the standard issue rhetoric. No media outlet ever mentions HIV without adding parenthetically "the virus that causes AIDS". The strange term "full-blown AIDS" is used universally to describe the state of collapse experienced by sufferers. "High risk behavior" is the stock euphemism for natural coitus, which is purported to be the way to contract a number of ailments, why not AIDS? Every mention of medical treatment for AIDS patients includes reference to "life saving AIDS drugs". When any subject is discussed in limited terms, someone is limiting the discussion.

Why doesn't Amy even mention that there is controversy about the viral hypothesis? Can she be certain the many scientists who question the HIV=AIDS paradigm are all self-aggrandizing nuts unconcerned about victims' suffering? What is wrong with broadening the debate to include dissenting views? While the Bush administration touts its ridiculous, puerile ABC against AIDS - that's "Abstinence, Be faithful and Condom use" for you hedonists out there - Amy Goodman also does nothing whatever to alert listeners that media hype could be a deliberate lie promulgated by the medical and pharmaceutical industries to terrorize the public while profiting corporate conspirators - not even an occasional "alleged" or "according to industry sources" while parroting the official story line. 

Thanks a lot Amy!

Reverend Doktor C. Sarian

Mid Coast Sub Church of Paranoia

Church of the SubGenius

111813