Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Conspiracy Nation Vol. 07 Num. 33
Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 7 Num. 33
======================================
("Quid coniuratio est?")
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AIDS Inc. -- Part 4
===================
There was such a response to the previous CN (CN 7.23) on the
banning in the United States of the book *Why We Will Never Win
the War on AIDS* by Bryan Ellison and Peter Duesberg, that I
thought I would re-post the following. It is my synopsis of Jon
Rappoport's book, *AIDS Inc.* Because Rappoport covers Dr.
Duesberg's challenge to official AIDS dogma, they may be banning
his book next! (Or, late breaking, thanks to Rep. Schumer and his
proposed H.R. 2580 -- outlawing discussion of what he calls
"baseless conspiracy theories" -- they may be banning Conspiracy
Nation!)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
[...continued...]
Dr. Joseph Sonnabend worked for ten years at the British National
Institute for Medical Research, which is the British equivalent
of the NIH. Dr. Sonnabend is a member of the British Royal
College of Physicians, and has been Associate Professor of
Medicine at the Mount Sinai Medical School in New York City. He
was editor of the journal *AIDS Research* for several years in
the mid-1980s. What follows are excerpts from an interview with
Dr. Sonnabend which took place on March 25, 1988:
INTERVIEWER: Where did the HIV hypothesis come from?
SONNABEND: Several places. One of them involved a very sloppy
analysis by the CDC [Center for Disease Control] of the first Los
Angeles AIDS patients.......
....... There was such a hasty process -- the worst thing that
happened was the announcement in 1984 that HIV had been
discovered to be the cause of AIDS. That did damage to the whole
scientific endeavor.
There are social factors here, you know, in the whole
presumption that every disease has a single agent. Some people
want to believe that nothing we do in our lives, in our
environments, is really unhealthy. That poverty is really not a
bad thing, just a choice, and it doesn't make people sick. That
sexual behavior and lifestyles are really harmless. The single-
agent idea of disease, when believed across the board, at the
expense of environmental factors, absolves people whose economic
policies create ghettos and keep people poor. It's so easy to say
that a virus came along and made people sick, not their living
conditions.......
....... We're hung up on high-tech solutions. The one-agent
theory is going to be attractive to researchers. All the funding
went that way. It's also the attraction of the quick-fix, the
quick cure.
The single-agent theory, in the case of AIDS, will have
tremendous appeal for those political people who are promoting
agendas based on what they call "family values.".......
.......There really is now such a thing as the AIDS-
establishment. It is a group which receives virtually all the
grant money, it sits on important boards... There is definitely
[such] a group, and sadly, it's not the best talent.
INTERVIEWER: It's obvious from talking with a number of
scientists that there are people who have questions about HIV,
but they won't open their mouths publicly because they're afraid
of losing grant money or their jobs.
SONNABEND: They're probably justified in feeling that.
INTERVIEWER: ... People also like to maintain that if HIV were a
mistake, some famous scientists would have spoken out publicly by
now.
SONNABEND: That's ridiculous. That's terrible. That's ascribing a
quality to researchers that doesn't exist. One thing that's come
out of all this AIDS business which I should have known
already... you'd think that these researchers would have more
respect for the truth, more social conscience. But these
researchers are like anybody else. They fight for their jobs,
they're intimidated, they don't stand up. They have the arrogance
to think they're more interested in the truth than other people
are.
INTERVIEWER: There are supposedly several different AIDS viruses
all causing this unique thing called AIDS.
SONNABEND: I'm amazed that people haven't pointed out the
stupidity of that idea. Here we have HIV-1 and HIV-2. These two
*separate* viruses, not strains of each other. The variance
between them is considerable. Now they're said to be causing the
same new disease-entity, AIDS. These two viruses would have had
to evolve independently over untold amounts of time to arrive, by
chance, at the same moment, with both just happening to cause the
same thing. The odds against that are virtually impossible.
INTERVIEWER: ... Why are some researchers doing studies in which
they give AIDS patients *more* interferon? It's
immunosuppressive, isn't it?
SONNABEND: Definitely. No good is coming of it. I asked an
interferon researcher how they could continue to give AIDS
patients this when it had such clear immunosuppressive
properties. He said well, the drug companies had such huge unsold
stocks of recombinant interferon -- anything that would make the
annual shareholder meeting a happy event.......
....... AIDS has become an international business, an industry.
It could be assessed at billions of dollars.
.................................................................
Most scientists accept without question that, "if other medical
authorities say HIV is the culprit, that must be true."
However, to say that AIDS is caused by HIV is problematic. For
example, what exactly *is* AIDS? "Several very broad definitions
of AIDS are used around the world... First, there is the current
CDC [Center for Disease Control] definition, used in the U.S. and
parts of Africa... [The definition, announced in August-September
of 1987] lists about 25 separate diseases/infections and several
categories of diseases. Any single disease or category is
sufficient for a diagnosis of AIDS under most conditions."
Yet, "after four years of research to find a virus which
supposedly causes AIDS, this CDC definition allows for diagnoses
of AIDS which don't require positive blood tests for HIV."
"There are, in fact, now three doors through which one can walk
into a diagnosis of AIDS. At one door, an unknown or uncertain
HIV test result is no barrier. At another entrance, a *negative*
HIV test, likewise, is no obstacle."
According to the CDC definition of AIDS [page 1149, *JAMA*,
September 4, 1987], "Approximately one third of AIDS patients in
the United States have been from New York City and San Francisco,
where, since 1985, less than 7% have been reported (to the CDC)
with HIV-antibody test results, compared with greater than 60% in
other areas."
In fact, "for the last three years [ca. 1988], the overwhelming
number of AIDS cases in the U.S. have been recorded by the CDC
with no knowledge of whether or not the patients have tested
positive for the HIV virus."
So, there has been inexactitude in attributing all AIDS to HIV.
And furthermore, by "taking major symptoms of malnutrition... and
calling them AIDS, the numbers of recorded cases will grow. By
placing under a single AIDS umbrella numerous infections and
diseases, the numbers of reported cases will grow. By eliminating
the need for even a positive HIV blood test, the numbers of cases
will grow."
"The greater the number of reported cases, the greater the
apparent threat to public health all over the world. Ultimately
this will reflect in treatment, by drugs and vaccines.
Pharmaceutical profits will soar."
The author relates a story told to him by a Doctor Herbert
Ratner, of Oak Park, Illinois. In 1954-55, Dr. Ratner served as
public health officer for Oak Park. This was just before the
introduction of the first polio vaccine. At that time, the
National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis was paying physicians
$25 for each reported diagnosis of paralytic polio. According to
Dr. Ratner, "A patient would walk into the doctor's office with a
limp from an accident. He'd say he had a fever a few days ago...
and guess what the diagnosis would be?"
"Paralytic polio. Ratner also stated it was well-known paralytic
polio cured itself 50% of the time within sixty days. After the
Salk vaccine was introduced, the definition of polio was
changed. Now, in order to have paralytic polio, you had to have
it *longer* than sixty days."
So, we see a possible strategy: First, inflate case statistics,
then, after the vaccine is introduced, change the definition. In
this way, it *appears* that the number of cases has dropped.
People "don't believe such devious strategies really go on in the
pristine world of medicine. But look what is happening with AIDS
now. We are in the definition-expanding phase. Once the AIDS-
vaccine arrives..., some bright researcher might make a
breakthrough and discover that AIDS is really much more
*specific* in its symptoms than previously thought. This
researcher will be pleasantly shocked to find his work hailed and
broadcast instantly and accepted."
To reiterate:
1) The definition of a disease expands. Case numbers swell.
2) Drugs/vaccines are introduced.
3) The *definition* contracts. Case numbers reduce.
.................................................................
During the 1970s, the NIH carried out a war on cancer. "Two
factions developed; one... believed that cancer was caused by
substances generated out of our industrial society. The other
faction... looked for viruses. In the end, no one won."
"With AIDS, the media have chosen not to become embroiled in the
question of causation. Media get their information from press
people who work at universities and public health agencies, and
who are fed HIV-dogma like popcorn."
The media by and large just passes on what they are told by the
NIH and the CDC. "Writers for dailies don't get paid to do
research in bio-med libraries, to *put together* pieces of
information they actually dig up on their own from medical
literature or human sources. Therefore, federal health agencies
are always going to sound right and authoritative to reporters."
"So here with AIDS, media reluctance and mass hypnosis meet. The
men in the white coats are kings. They scoot in polished labs and
issue proclamations now and then, and the populace listens
through the media and pays obligatory homage."
The author mentions the Tuskegee *Syphilis Study* (1932-72), "in
which four hundred poor black sharecroppers were observed,
without treatment, were kept from *getting* treatment, unto death
by syphilis, for purposes of scientific study. The experiment was
run by CDC and U.S. Public Health Service officials."
Who is watching the "experts?" Answer: They are watching
themselves. "There is an ordinary fact of life in scientific
circles called peer review... What it amounts to is simply this:
in determining what articles are printed in technical journals,
in deciding what grant applications are funded, scientists judge
their fellows."
"The above-mentioned Tuskegee Syphilis Study is a prime and
extreme example of what can happen when peer review is the total
order of the day. See James Jones' excellent *Bad Blood*
(Macmillan, 1981) for a thorough treatment of the Tuskegee
Study."
"Obviously, to be carried out, the Tuskegee Study required the
cooperation of many scientific bureaucrats. Also obviously,
untrained citizens, had they been sitting on review boards as
requests for continued funding came up [over a forty year
period]... would have raised questions."
The author, Jon Rappoport, speaks of professionals "frightened
for their jobs, their grant monies... A good part of that fear
stems from the tacit threat that peer review, among their own
conservative kind, will shut them down, leave them without
grants, publishable articles, and ultimately jobs."
The October 22, 1987 edition of the *New York Times* carried an
article which reported that the New York City Health Department
had challenged AIDS death-statistics released by the CDC. The CDC
had reported that 31% of AIDS deaths in New York City resulted
from IV drug use. The true figure for AIDS deaths attributable to
IV drug use, according to the NYC Health Department, was 53%.
This would imply that AIDS is more of a drug-related phenomenon,
especially considering the immunosuppressive effects of the drugs
which the IV users were shooting up.
"Furthermore, the CDC, in its AIDS statistics, had invented the
IV drug-user category for heterosexuals only. Those gay men who
also shot drugs were put in the gay/bisexual category, because it
was *assumed* that gay sex was the way they had contracted AIDS."
"Of course, people have been using drugs for centuries. But not
in these combinations, and not with these adulterants. More
important, some heavy drug abusers *have*, historically, died of
immunosuppression-plus-opportunistic-infections, the so-called
AIDS pattern. It isn't new. They have developed wasting
syndromes, pneumonias, rampant viral and bacterial infections
which have killed them."
[...to be continued...]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail
address, send a message in the form "subscribe cn-l My Name" to
listproc@cornell.edu (Note: that is "CN-L" *not* "CN-1")
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For information on how to receive the new Conspiracy Nation
Newsletter, send an e-mail message to bigred@shout.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc?
(1) telnet prairienet.org (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom
-----------------------------------------------------------------
See also: http://www.europa.com/~johnlf/cn.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
See also: ftp.shout.net pub/users/bigred
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt.
Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et
pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9
