It is currently Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:28 pm

Bine ai venit pe romaniaraw

In momentul de fata, vezi forumul ca "vizitator", ceea ce iti da un acces limitat. Prin crearea unui cont, capeti dreptul de a posta raspunsuri si a crea noi topicuri, de a raspunde la poll-uri, a upload-a fisiere si a comunica privat cu restul membrilor. Crearea unui cont e gratuita, simpla si rapida, deci inregistreaza-te acum!

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: AIDS Hoax - 10 reasons why HIV is not the cause of AIDS
PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:22 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:07 pm
Posts: 1683

Name: AIDS Hoax - 10 reasons why HIV is not the cause of AIDS
HIV=AIDS: Fact or Fraud? One of the most powerful video documentaries of our time boldly reveals the modern medical-industrial complex's dire descent into utter corruption. This feature-length expose explains exactly how the 300-Billion-dollar AID$ fraud began, why HIV can NOT be the cause of AIDS, what the real causes could be, and who manipulates the public's good intentions while poisoning hundreds of thousands with toxic drugs that cause the very disease they are supposed to prevent. This is a systematic dissection of the HIV/AID$ machine and how they hijacked a program designed to fight a worldwide plight of human suffering and drove it down the road to hell. Yet this program offers hope, inspired by the courage and articulate arguments of a group of growing voices internationally challenging the HIV=AIDS=DEATH hysteria. A must see for anyone interested in truly understanding the facts about HIV/AID$.

You will meet a number of highly reputable scientists who all agree that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, including Dr. Peter Duesberg, who was the first scientist to map the genetic structure of retroviruses. He is joined by Nobel Prize winners Dr. Kary Mullis and Dr.Walter Gilbert, along with Dr. David Rasnick, an expert in the field of protease inhibitors.

Is HIV/AIDS the golden idol of junk science? Judge for yourself. Professionally produced, written and researched, acclaimed by physicians, scientists, journalists and humanitarians internationally, this is the video encyclopedia of HIV/AIDS dissident movement! THE defining documentary on the HIV/AIDS fraud.
Category: Video > Documentary
Language: English English
Total Size: 214.60 MB


Report this post
 Post subject: Re: AIDS Hoax - 10 reasons why HIV is not the cause of AIDS
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:49 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:07 pm
Posts: 1683
The AIDS Hoax
Research has disclosed that in only fifty per cent of AIDS patients can active HIV be detected, and even when it can be detected, only 1 in 10,000 white cells shows signs of it at most, and sometimes only 1 in 100,000 cells. Fewer than 1 in 500 of a host's T cells contain even dormant HIV. Obviously if a patient has no HIV present you cannot blame it for destroying the white cells. Furthermore, assuming HIV is harmful to white cells in the body (and to repeat: this has never been demonstrated), if it inhabits only 1 in 10,000 white cells it could never kill enough of them to remotely approach the body's normal capacity to make new ones. As the world's leading virologist, Professor Peter Duesberg of the University of California, said recently: "The idea of a virus killing so few cells and by so doing killing the body, is like trying to conquer China by shooting five Chinese soldiers a day." Impossible.

However, there is a simple watertight explanation of why AIDS patients display diminished numbers of T cells and in some cases none at all: long-term destructive living habits, especially the use of drugs--including medicinal drugs--so overtax the immune system that the thymus is gradually destroyed, and as the thymus is the only source of new T cells in the body, when the old T cells wear out there can be no new ones to replace them. An additional demolishing effect on the immune system and specifically destructive to the thymus is severe emotional stress, an illustration of which has already been given. Autopsies of AIDS patients show that in every case the thymus is severely atrophied or destroyed. [...]

Although it had been observed by some doctors for a good number of years, AIDS first attracted the attention of the US medical profession in about 1981, not long after the advent of the "gay liberation", and because most of the new cases were male homosexuals it became known as "the gay disease". Gay liberation was a follow-on to the permissive society of the 1960s and 70s in which it became fashionable in all stratas of society to indulge in promiscuous sex, recreational drugs, junk food and fast living. When gays were "freed" and lost a lot of their inhibitions, some of them went wild. In the cities where they congregated, gay bars opened, then gay discos and gay "bath houses". In these places some homosexuals indulged in the most unbelievably promiscuous sexual behavior, sustained by chemical drugs, marijuana, alcohol, etc, performed over and over to exhaustion, and it was only from this sub-group of homosexuals-the ones most dissipated and depleted--that AIDS took its toll. This fact was obvious right from the start when the Center of Disease Control (CDC) conducted its first investigation into AIDS, long before the HIV theory was concocted. The most outstanding factor common to AIDS patients, the CDC noted, was that they were all far more sexually active than the average (about four times as much) with a correspondingly intense history of medical treatment. [...]

Of course, only a relatively small proportion of all homosexuals are so neurotically drawn to outrageously treat their bodies by what in the AIDS business is called "high-risk behavior", and therefore the majority of homosexuals, HIV positive or not, need have no more fear of AIDS than the average heterosexual, which fact is already being borne out by the steady decline in AIDS cases among them. The decline is not because gays are using condoms or clean hypodermics, it is because the majority of the "high-risk" gays have either already perished or have wised up and moderated their behavior. This fact cannot now be disputed, given the large number of previous AIDS patients, homosexual and heterosexual, who have regained good health by adopting a better lifestyle, just as have other so-called incurables in the past overcome cancer, leukemia, MS and other "terminal" diseases.

Thus it can be seen that AIDS is not the slightest threat to anybody providing they do not debilitate their bodies with drugs, malnutrition and other high-risk behavior and, if they clean up their lifestyle really well, nor will they need fear the other so-called terminal diseases. The great AIDS epidemic, predicted year after year by the virusmongers, simply has not happened, not because people are practising "safe sex" or using condoms, but because still only relatively few people are living dangerously enough to completely destroy their immune systems. [...]

Essentially 90 percent of AIDS cases are in two major risk groups--intravenous drug users and male homosexuals--as they have been since 1981. And I think it should be pointed out that it is not 'male homosexuality' which is the risk-homosexuality is as old as life, and it hasn't become any more dangerous in 1980 than it was in Socrates' and Plato's day.

We are looking at a very small segment of the homosexual population, namely those who are very active because they are aided by psychoactive drugs: cocaine, crack, amphetamines, poppers. And the conventional drugs that compensate for these: Valium, cigarettes, and alcohol. These individuals also get a lot of venereal infections, which require treatment by antibiotics. And with drug addiction often comes protein malnutrition. If you eat junk food and take drugs, you don't make T-cells and B-cells. And if that goes on for eight or ten years, it may become irreversible. And then you're talking about AIDS.


Whereas the doctors of the 19th Century can be excused for not identifying the mysterious causes of beriberi, pellagra, etc, the immune-depressing factors of AIDS stand out like neon signs on a dark night and there can be no excuse other than blindness for ignoring them. But medicine is not really an art or a science, it is a commercially oriented industry, based on germs and drugs and more lately on viruses. So when AIDS appeared, medical research was myopically directed in search of the ultimate virus, one which is not governed by the laws of Nature, one which does not wait for someone's resistance to lower, but instead goes out and lowers it all on its own.

So urgent was the need for this discovery that a fair amount of invention had to be employed and a lot of conventional rules set aside. Formalities usually rigid and considered essential were dispensed with entirely, but this was no problem for Dr Robert Gallo because he worked for the US Government in the prestigious National Institute of Health. So in 1984 a new virus, unlike any other known, was announced, and became instantly famous as the AIDS virus. But so hurried was Dr Gallo to beat his French rivals, the announcement was the most premature in medical history. There were no medical trials, no double-blind studies, no epidemiological studies, no submissions to scientific journals, no scientific scrutiny or peer review. Not one of Koch's postulates were met and no proof has ever been produced.

When the subject of scientific accuracy was raised with Dr Gallo in an interview by Charles Ortleib, publisher of The New York Native, Mr Ortlieb reported Dr Gallo's response thus: "Dr Gallo told me that his early assertion that HIV is the cause of AIDS was not based purely on scientific grounds, but rather that he needed to bring the field to another extreme. Otherwise, he felt that people would be confused by multifactorial or crackpot theories. I told him that I thought it was dangerous to mix his public health concerns with his statements of scientific truths. But, he insisted that he had the medical authority to do so."

Dr Gallo, who has since admitted the virus was not his discovery as he first claimed, refuses any debate on the matter of proof, while at the same time the man who originally discovered the virus, Dr Luc Montagnier, has announced his disbelief that HIV causes AIDS.

The case for HIV causing AIDS does not hold water, and in a court of law would be thrown out in very short time.

When germs were discovered in the 19th Century they were suspected to be the cause of most human diseases. And when viruses were discovered later on they automatically became the suspects in all the diseases that could not be blamed on germs. Early in this century when cancer research was speeding up, it was demonstrated at the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research that a type of cancer peculiar to chickens could be transmitted from one susceptible chicken to another, and this led many researchers to suspect viruses to be the cause of all cancers and that cancer was contagious. This was never shown to be the case, but when President Nixon in his 1971 State of the Union address officially declared war on cancer in the belief that the sort of technology that split the atom and put man on the moon must surely succeed, research was again directed at viruses.

The war against cancer was directed by the US Government National Cancer Institute (NCI), a subsidiary of the US National Institute of Health. Totally committed to the belief in orthodox allopathic medicine and heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical companies, the research efforts of the National Cancer Institute achieved nothing despite the prodigious outlay in money, and it was eventually admitted that the war against cancer was lost. However, it was concluded once again that cancer was not caused by a virus.

With the advent of the AIDS epidemic among homosexuals in the early 1980s, government health officials, having just lost the war on cancer, now found themselves with another war on their hands, one which they were determined to win. The research personnel were already there and lost no time switching from cancer research to research on AIDS. Dr Robert Gallo, head of the Laboratory of Human Cell Biology at the NCI, had been in charge of the NCI's war against cancer and was retained in charge for the war against AIDS. He even had a new virus that showed promise, a sort of left-over from the cancer research.

In his previous research into cancer, Gallo had discovered a new virus his team had isolated from the T tells of leukemia patients which he called Human T cell Leukemia Virus I and which he believed to be the cause of their leukemia. When epidemiological evidence on 600,000 test subjects (Japanese) showed this virus, HTLVI, to have absolutely no bearing on leukemia at all, Gallo maintained his stance that it could, but that the virus probably had a very long "latency period" of maybe forty years. As the latency period, ie the time between infection and symptoms, of viruses is usually measured in days, Gallo was either joking or trying out for the Guinness Book of Records.

In the following year, 1982, Gallo and his team discovered a new retro-virus they called HTLVII which came from a young man with hairy cell leukemia,* but this virus proved to be blameless and the team turned their virus-hunting efforts on to resolving the AIDS problem.

*See The Health Revolution, Chapter 2, in which the case is described by a Perth engineer who by dietary means completely cleared himself of hairy cell leukemia in a few months.

Convinced still that viruses were man's greatest enemy, Gallo set out to show that his HTLVI, if not the cause of leukemia, would prove to be the cause of AIDS. This was an odd change of opinion because having first said the virus caused an increase in white cells (leukemia), he was now saying it caused the decrease in white cells which is AIDS.

Early in 1983, Professor Luc Montagnier and his team of virologists at the Pasteur Institute in Paris were also searching for a virus they suspected of causing AIDS, and they found one. Tests done on a thirty-three-year old male homosexual who was promiscuous and who had AIDS symptoms revealed a novel retro-virus isolated from a lymph node, which Montagnier named lymphodenopathy-associated virus (LAV). He did not at that time claim it to be the cause of AIDS.

Montagnier's LAV, a sample of which was sent to Gallo in America, resembled Gallo's HTLVI but tests showed it to be distinctly different. Gallo continued in his assertions that HTLVI would prove to be the cause of AIDS, but at the same time he was cultivating in his laboratory the LAV from Montagnier's sample.

In December 1983 Gallo received a laboratory report on thirty-three blood samples from AIDS patients which showed thirty-one to be negative for viruses, the other two showing positive for LAV, not HTLVI. Thus if any virus was involved with AIDS at all, it had to be Montagnier's LAV.

But finding a virus was meaningless if, as in Gallo's two leukemia suppositions, the virus could not be shown to be doing something. But again this detail did not worry Gallo; he merely, as he had done before, assumed guilt by association. There was no time to spare, and Gallo was intent on beating his French rivals in the race to conquer AIDS, even if it meant ignoring the established research protocols.

It is normal procedure in scientific research that when new discoveries are made and conclusions arrived at, the research data is formally submitted to one or more reputable scientific or medical journals for review, and if accepted and published the data is assessed by all the experts. Following this initial step, months of discussion and argument usually ensue before general consensus is reached as to whether the concept is practical, useful and safe. This is traditional scientific and medical procedure.

In the case of Gallo's HIV hypothesis, all rules were set aside. Gallo was the big chief, full of confidence, and he was backed by the US Government. Protocol was ignored, and instead of the HIV hypothesis appearing tentatively in some respectable medical journal, it was announced, fully fledged as a fait accompli, in two national newspapers, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. That these two newspapers cater to the centers of the country's financial and political power itself arouses suspicions in what was going on. Why were the New York Times and the San Francisco Examiner not in on it? Be that as it may, it was only several days later, on 19 April 1984, that Gallo's formal announcement appeared in the New Scientist.* The report made no mention of Montagnier's LAV; instead, Gallo claimed he had discovered another altogether new virus called HTLVIII which he stated without fear of contradiction to be the cause of AIDS. (It was only later that HTLVIII was shown to be none other than Professor Montagnier's LAV.)

*The New Scientist is not a medical journal. It is a popular weekly magazine on sale to the general public.

The New Scientist report, which set off the most bizarre sequence of events in medical history, read as follows: "Researchers at America's National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, believe they have finally tracked down the organism that causes Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). It is a virus that affects particular cells of the immune system and is called Human T cell Leukemia Virus III (HTLVIII)." [...]

"One other event occurred on April 23: a patent was filed in the US on a test kit developed by Gallo. The prestige of coming first in the race to grow the virus was now indistinguishable from the financial gain each institute would receive if they could prove they came first. The small matter of proving that the virus actually caused the disease remained."

[...] royalties from the commercialisation of the diagnostic test for the virus, [...]are shared equally by France and the United States.

Source: Ross Thorne - Health & Survival in the 21st Century


Report this post
 Post subject: Re: AIDS Hoax - 10 reasons why HIV is not the cause of AIDS
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 12:24 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:07 pm
Posts: 1683

Once the darling of the scientific community, Peter Deusberg, professor of molecular biology at the University of California, Berkeley, threw his career out the window when he published a paper in the Journal of Cancer Research in 1987 in which he stated HIV did not cause AIDS. Coming from most professors the paper would have been laughed at as the work of a lunatic, but Deusberg is one of the world’s leading experts on retroviruses, the class of viruses to which HIV belongs. So instead of laughing at his theory, the scientific community chose to ignore it.

But within a short while of his paper’s publication, as HIV-negative AIDS cases began cropping up and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) had to redefine AIDS to accomodate for HIV-free AIDS, Deusberg’s theory began to be noticed. By then, however, the six-billion dollar a year HIV/AIDS industry—which includes testing millions of blood samples for HIV, pharmacrutical companies marketing $10,000 a year antiretroviral therapies like AZT, ddI and ddC, and thousands of researchers and grants—was too entrenched to consider that it might be barking up the wrong viral tree.

So Deusberg, who’s credentials include being a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the recipient of a 1985 Outstanding Investigative Grant from the National Institutes of Health—he was also later rumored to have been a Nobel candidate for his work with oncogenes, thought to be a cause of cancer in viruses—was labeled a public menace. If HIV didn’t cause AIDS, the thinking went, then we don’t need clean needles. And if sex doesn’t cause AIDS, then we don’t need protected sex. Neither are positions Deusberg subscribes to: He sees both needles and condoms as valuable protection for all sorts of conditions, he simply doesn’t believe that saving you from HIV will save you from AIDS, since he doesn’t believe HIV causes AIDS.

To most of those in the AIDS treatment community contacted by HIGH TIMES, Peter Deusberg is at best a once-good scientest who is dogmatically protecting an indefensible theory. At worst he is a homophobe who hates intravenous drug-users and would be willing to let them all die by dividing the scientific community if he could. He may be neither. He may simply be, as he claims, a scientist who is looking for answers to a pandemic.

HIGH TIMES: I’ve often read that you don’t believe HIV, Human Immunodeficiency Virus, causes AIDS. What makes you say that?

PD: Because there is no proof whatsoever in the scientific literature that HIV is causing AIDS.

HT: If HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, what does the virus do and why do so many people with AIDS have it?

PD: HIV is a retrovirus. It’s one of hundreds, in fact thousands, of retroviruses that we know in animals and humans. The HIV virus does what all retroviruses do. It replicates, albeit slowly and rarely, in humans.

HT: To what end?

PD: To its own replication. Period. No other known end. It’s claimed by many to cause a disease, but there’s no evidence that while it’s replicating it causes any disease whatsoever.

There’s some very tentative evidence from a couple studies that when it first hits the human body it causes a flu-like symptom. Very likely, that’s extremely rare, because among the many, many thousands who have tested antibody-positive, nobody remembers when he was first infected. That’s an indication that during first infection, essentially nothing happens.

HT: You’ve also said that there are several thousand cases of people who have died from AIDS in whom neither HIV nor its antibodies were found.

PD: I listed those in a paper last year. I added up what I could find at that time and the total was 4,600. By now I could easily top 5,000 cases recorded in the literature clinically diagnosed as AIDS, but without HIV.

HT: What is the clinical diagnosis of AIDS?

PD: Well, the syndrome called AIDS has by now about thirty diseases, previously known diseases, that when they occur in the presence of HIV are called AIDS. In the absence of HIV they are called by their old name. So, the clinical diagnosis of AIDS consists of diagnosing the AIDS-defining disease.

For instance if someone has pneumocystis pneumonia or Kaposi’s sarcoma or diarrhea or dementia, that’s the first part. The second part of the diagnosis would then be, can you find HIV in the person? If you find HIV, then you say it’s AIDS. When you don’t find HIV, you can say two things. Either you can call it HIV-free AIDS, or you can call it by the old name.

HT: Where did you find the 4,600 HIV-free cases you claim to have documented?

PD: I searched the studies of scientists who looked at risk groups—gay men and IV drug users, in both Africa and America—for the presence of these AIDS diseases, and then looked for the virus. And in some cases they couldn’t find the virus even though they were trying. These I would call the HIV-free AIDS cases. That is to say, there were gay men with Kaposi’s sarcoma in New York who didn’t have HIV, and intravenous drug users, again in New York, who had tuberculosis or who had dementia and didn’t have HIV. There were also hemophiliacs with less than two hundred T-cells that had no HIV and Africans with tuberculosis and diarrhea and again, no HIV. These cases were all initially diagnosed as AIDS patients until HIV couldn’t be found.

HT: So the designation “HIV-free AIDS” is really just your own definition for these cases?

PD: Yes, but the Center for Disease Control has invented their own new name for these HIV-free AIDS cases. They call them ICL—idiopathic CD-4 lymphocytopenia.

HT: Why did the CDC need a new name?

PD: To get around the HIV-free label, because if you accept that label you are acknowledging the existence of AIDS in the absence of HIV. The AIDS establishment thinks AIDS is caused by HIV. If there’s no HIV, you really can’t, by that definition, have an HIV-free AIDS. You can only have HIV-positive AIDS.

HT: If it’s not HIV, then what do you think is killing all of these young people? Why are so many in the risk groups dying?

PD: That is another question altogether. But I have a hypothesis about what’s killing these people. The reason for AIDS in this country and in Europe, in my opinion, is the long-term consumption of recreational drugs, particularly heroin and cocaine.

HT: What about marijuana?

PD: I have not seen any evidence that marijuana causes AIDS. If it did the whole city of Berkeley would be dead. No, I am talking mostly about heroin and cocaine, and then AZT [the medicine they use for AIDS], which is the worst of all.

HT: Why do you think heroin and cocaine cause AIDS?

PD: Well, if you look at the literature of diseases in IV drug users, you find many of them get tuberculosis, develop dementia, have pneumonia, have weight loss, have mouth infections and have fevers and night sweats. They are subject to all sorts of infections.

HT: Yes, but I think these are often prison-related diseases, needle-sharing diseases and poor-quality, badly-cut drug diseases, not directly drug-related.

PD: Not all the IV drug users are in prison

HT: No, but a lot of them have spent some time in prison.

PD: That could well be so, but I mean, of all US AIDS cases, over 100,000 of them are confirmed by the CDC to be intravenous drug users. You can hardly claim that 100,000 in ten years died from tuberculosis developed in prisons. According to the literature, they simply had these diseases. They came into the hospital after injecting these drugs for years because of the primary effect of being a drug addict: you don’t want to eat, you don’t want to sleep and in the end, you just eat some junk food. You just want some sugar and some alcohol and then you shoot up again.

But if you don’t sleep and you’re suffering from malnutrition, protein malnutrition, the first thing that goes is your immune system. You become immune-deficient and you get an infectious disease. You get tuberculosis, you get pneumonia, you get mouth infection, fevers, night sweats. If that happens and then you check into the hospital and they find HIV, they say you have AIDS.

HT: Well, I agree with you that the junkie who cannot maintain his habit, who loses his job and home and ends up on a park bench somewhere is going to die. But this is one, two percent.

PD: These are 100,000 cases in America. A third of all US AIDS patients are IV drug users according to the CDC.

HT: Why aren’t the rest of them getting these diseases?

PD: There are also fifty million smokers and there are only like 300,000 lung cancers, because, with drugs, the dose is the poison. You do not get lung cancer from one cigarette; you do not get liver cirrhosis from one bottle of schnapps. You have to use it for years to reach a cumulative lifetime toxic dose before you have irreversible disease, before you’re dying from these diseases, and only then we pay attention.

Not everybody does that. A lot of people did drugs for a short time and then they said, “well, that’s not good for me, I’m getting married and settling down” and then they stop doing it.

There may be a million or several million drug users in this country, but not all of them use it long enough, or enough of it daily, to reach those critical conditions where they get weight loss, fever or these things. But that needs further study. I give you my hypothesis and this is not just my thinking; this is based on checking the literature extensively.

Unfortunately, very little is said about drug use as a medical problem, because that is not politically correct. Most people feel intuitively like the medical orthodoxy: Drugs are basically harmless; they just happen to be against the law. That’s why they recommend clean needles.

HT: Clean needles can only help.

PD: I’m only saying it gives a very bad message to the uneducated user. Do you think the majority of the people on the street see needle exchanges as a warning that drugs are against your health or that dirty needles are against your health?

HT: They know both are not good for you. And in many places where you exchange needles you get a lesson in how to shoot your heroin, which is one way to avoid abscesses, in addition to which with your clean needle you’ll avoid hepatitis, picking up someone else’s pneumonia and whatever else they would otherwise be sharing with you. And that’s not even counting HIV.

PD: I accept that. But why are people just giving clean needles and told how to shoot up rather than being told it’s dangerous to shoot up, that you will get sick from that? This is something vital and it is not being told to these people.

HT: When you say recreational drug use, do you include amyl nitrite, butyl nitrite and things like that which have been more traditional in the gay community than in other groups?

PD: Yes, I do. That’s why you see, traditionally, Kaposi’s sarcoma only in the gay community.

HT: What would be the medical relation between amyl and butyl nitrite and Kaposi’s?

PD: There’s certainly an epidemiological connection between the two. It’s very likely that the nitrites are sufficient to cause it. They’re known to be carcinogens. The Food and Drug Administration regulates the content of nitrites in treated meat, in hamburgers and frankfurters, for instance, to one part in 100,000 or 200,000.

Apparently, at that concentration and being combined with meat, where the toxins react with that meat rather than with your own, the level is relatively safe. But, if you inhale the substance concentrated, then the risk is much, much higher of having effects from it. That had been proposed by the Center for Disease Control and by some other independent investigators for AIDS before the HIV hypothesis.

But even more damaging than those is the long-term use of AZT. AZT is worse than any of these drugs.

HT: Why?

PD: Because AZT disregulates your immune system enough to allow these opportunistic diseases to come in and attack your system. DdI and the other antiviral therapies are the same. I’m not a doctor, but if I had to give you a recommendation, I would recommend to take as little drugs as possible.

HT: Are there doctors who, when a test comes back HIV-positive, simply say, ‘Let’s start you on AZT’, and maybe take healthy people and put them in dramatic physical condition?

PD: I can only speculate that the answer to that may well be yes, particularly if they come from risk groups, and the assumption is made that they are going to get AIDS.

HT: If you were told tomorrow you were HIV-positive, what would you do?

PD: I would try to live a healthy life and that’s it. I wouldn’t get worried about this, not the least bit.

HT: What’s your feeling about the various alternative therapies that HIV-positive people are using?

PD: Well, I can’t really comment on them except to say, the good thing is they get people away from AZT. That is the critical thing.

HT: Can you tell me about the Concord Study which was published recently suggesting that AZT offered no value to its recipients?

PD: It was a French-English collaboration, the largest study of its kind. It was going on for almost three years with 1,500 people in each group, I think.

The study was designed to test the idea of whether AZT is able to prevent AIDS in people infected by HIV, and it turned out that the people on AZT got AIDS just as often and as soon as those without AZT. And, worse than that, the Concord Study also showed that in the group of people treated with AZT, during the experiment, 25 percent more died than in the control group. So, it not only failed to show any benefit in preventing the onset of AIDS, it also showed a much higher mortality in those treated with AZT than those untreated.

HT: If they’re so dangerous, why are AZT and the other antiretroviral therapies still being used?

PD: Because people want drugs and doctors want to prescribe drugs. People are primed to believe in drugs, so they will continue even if its only marginally beneficial because they’re scared and they want to do something to remain alive.

HT: If HIV is not the actual cause of AIDS, do you consider testing positive for it at least a wake-up call for people?

PD: If you want my hypothesis what HIV is, it is a harmless retrovirus. Its presence by itself says nothing about your risk for AIDS. Remember that this is my hypothesis, not a fact.

Now, roughly one person in 250 in the United States is HIV-positive. So it’s rare. But if you’re positive, then you are either one of the 250 people who, in the general population, appear to be positive, or you are in a risk group that has practiced enough risk behavior to actually become HIV-positive. So, HIV then could be, in that sense, a wake-up call as a marker for risk behavior. But it’s not unique in that regard. Other rare viruses are also markers of risk behavior.

HT: Like what?

PD: Well, take, for example, hepatitis-B virus, which is relatively rare in the US population, but relatively common in fast-track male homosexuals, and in recipients of drug transfusions—or used to be, before it was eliminated with antibody tests on the blood. This is a relatively rare virus that’s common in people practicing risk behavior. Likewise, things like syphilis and gonorrhea, and some other diseases like chlamydia, are much more common in people who practice risk behavior than in the general population. Because they have essentially worked for it. They are collectors of microbes in the general population.

HT: Explain that last remark.

PD: From a microbiological point of view, you pick up microbes by having contacts with lots of people in the community who might carry them. Microbes live in their hosts. They can only exist if they have found a host or hostess to nurture them. And to collect a microbe from a community, you have to be in contact with another carrier. So, the more contacts you make, the more likely it is that you pick up a microbe in the community. The prostitute is a classic example. They have virtually all been infected at some time by things like syphilis or gonorrhea or hepatitis, right? Why? Because they had contacts with many in the community. Intravenous drug users often share injection equipment.

HT: Do these microbes eventually wear out or somehow disrupt the body’s immune function?

PD: Well, prostitutes have been in existence for a long time and they didn’t suffer from immune deficiency as a result of it, and gays have been around for a long time. But, what is relatively new in this country is the use of recreational drugs, drugs as aphrodisiacs and AZT.

The larger importation of cocaine and heroin has increased the population of intravenous drug users a hundredfold in the last ten years alone. And we have seen the bill for that drug consumption. The drugs are the poison. They are the reasons why these people get sick, not the sex. The sex has been tested for three billion years of life and has not cost any life. What is new though, are the drugs that they’re using for these things and the intravenous drugs that are used.

HT: What about syphilis? Didn’t that cause dimentia and death?

PD: I don’t think so. The mercury and arsenic they treated it with did, however. They were the AZT of their day. But since the advent of pennicylin and the discontinuing of mercury and arsenic in the treatment of syphilis, no one is losing their mind to it.

HT: All right. Now with that theory a couple of things come to mind: How do we explain nonintravenous, nonmultisexual-partner people getting these diseases and dying at these young ages?

PD: Wait a minute. The Center for Disease Control says 97 percent of the AIDS cases in the United States—and the same is virtually true for Europe—are from risk groups. They’re people who have indeed done exactly those things that I just described. There’s hardly anybody outside these risk groups, although there will be some because all of these diseases have existed before.

HT: Let’s cut to Africa. The World Health Organization estimates that there are 10 million HIV-positive people in Africa. But these are not by and large drug-using populations, and probably not fast-track gays. And they certainly aren’t getting the AZT like Americans. So what do those people have in common with each other and with us?

PD: As far as I know, there about half as many AIDS cases in Africa as in this country. Half as many. The large numbers refer to those infected by HIV. That’s very different from having AIDS.

HT: How are they getting infected by HIV?

PD: Most people there get infected by their mothers. That’s how it’s naturally transmitted and that is how most Africans probably would have gotten HIV. That’s how most retroviruses are transmitted in nature.

But in regard to HIV in Africa, do you know that if you have malaria antibodies you will test positive for HIV? Or flu medicines and infections and several other things as well? And in Africa, things like malaria and the antibodies for it are quite common. So there too the numbers for HIV seem positive, yet death from AIDS is not nearly so great as here.

But I submit something else that is very crucial for my argument, and that is that African AIDS and American-and-European AIDS are totally different things. They have the same name, but that’s all they have in common. African AIDS is equally distributed between men and women. European and American AIDS is 90 percent male. That’s epidemiologically as different as day and night. In addition, most of the African AIDS diseases are tuberculosis, chronic fevers, diarrhea, while 80 to 90 percent of the European/American diseases are pneumocystis pneumonia, Kaposi’s sarcoma, dementia and that wasting disease.

The African epidemic, in my opinion, is caused by malnutrition, parasitic infection and poor sanitation, while the European and US epidemics are caused by recreational drug use and AZT. That explains the epidemiology and the difference in the clinical manifestations.

HT: Most people I’ve talked with consider you a dogmatist. Do you view yourself that way or do you think you’re really just trying to get science to look beyond HIV for a treatment for AIDS?

PD: Well, from all the indications I see, the long-term use of recreational drugs is the cause of AIDS, but in order to prove this hypothesis, some more work would have to be done. I’m trying desperately to get money to study this, but I haven’t been able to get that because of the HIV ideology. People do not let you do anything but study AIDS in the framework of that HIV hypothesis.

Science is not the field of political correctness, it’s concerned with truth. Before we can fight the cause of AIDS we have to know the cause. And here we are 10 years later and we have yet to save the first AIDS patient. And we have developed one thing only, namely AZT, helping 200,000 people to die. That’s a tremendous price to pay for political correctness and to save face. And that’s exactly what they are doing, according to me.

HT: Are there other scientists, good competent scientists, who agree with you?

PD: Yes, there’s a group that calls itself The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis. There are three hundred fifty or five hundred scientists in that group. The most famous among them is Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize for the polymerase chain reaction last year. The PCR is, among other things, a method that is used to detect HIV in AIDS patients.

HT: Is this polymerase chain reaction now being used on people who are said to be HIV-positive, and if so, in how many people is the actual virus being found?

PD: Well, it sometimes positive and sometimes negative. In some he’s finding, not the virus, but viral nucleic acid. The method is limited to finding only part of the virus. He cannot say whether all of it is there, the reaction can often only find a fragment of it, which may not be enough to explain anything. But still it would be a positive test, a confirmation. But because the test is very expensive, it is not routinely used.

HT: A lot of people have died from the diseases under the umbrella we call AIDS who were not recreational drug users. Nor were they indulging in multiple sexual contacts. They had to get something from someone, didn’t they?

PD: I don’t think so. Remember that 97 percent of AIDS cases come from high-risk groups, according to the Center for Disease Control. Of that, 30 percent are confirmed intravenous drug users, about 60 percent are fast-track male homosexuals who use drugs for sex, like poppers and amphetamines, and a few are transfusion recipients who would have had these problems anyway owing to the transfusions and the prior illnesses, not because of HIV.

HT: If we get into transfusions, we have to think about hemophiliacs. I’ve gotten estimates from several doctors that as many as 95 percent of the American hemophiliacs over 10 years old are HIV-positive.

PD: I have heard it’s only about 75 percent who are HIV-positive, about 15,000 people. But think about that. They are all positive from ten years ago, when the AIDS test was introduced. According to the HIV virus-equals-AIDS hypothesis these people should all be dead by now, because HIV is supposed to lead to AIDS within ten years or so.

And we know these 15,000 hemophiliacs were infected by HIV since at least 1984, because after that blood was screened to be free of HIV. So no new people, or very few, were infected since then. Are you with me?

But they are not dying. The reality is hemophiliacs now live longer than they ever did. The hemophiliac, if anything, disproves the virus hypothesis. They are living examples that HIV is not causing AIDS.

HT: How do you explain the person who’s nineteen, who had very little unsafe sex, who never used a drug, didn’t take AZT and suddenly starts to lose weight, loses fifty pounds in three weeks, gets pneumocystis and dies?

PD: Well, who has ever described such a person in the literature? If they have would you please get me the paper? Could you please get me one just single paper documenting that? I challenge you to do that. I would like to see just one study where the person only got AIDS from HIV or sex. I’ve never found one and I’ve checked the literature quite a lot.

HT: Have you ever actually worked with people suffering from the diseases in the umbrella of AIDS.

PD: No. I’m not an MD, so I do not treat them. But I’ve talked to them, I’ve seen them.

HT: Prior to your saying HIV didn’t cause AIDS you were part of the “in” scientific group, so to speak, weren’t you?

PD: I was in the club, that’s right. I was one of the darlings in the field. Before this I had no difficulties getting money for my work. But I’m not in the club anymore. I am an outcast now

HT: Is this treatment normal, even if you are dead wrong, in a community allegedly after truth?

PD: When a major hypothesis fails, you look for an alternative and set out to test it. And that’s what I’ve done, and for that I have been severely penalized. I’ve lost my grant; I’ve been excommunicated from the scientific community and I have been slandered by lots of people, including however many you talked to.

HT: Why?

PD: Because there is so much interest vested in the HIV hypothesis, in grants, ego and in face. There’s face-saving rather than life-saving in this business. And then there are the commercial interests—the blood-screening tests, the biotechnology companies. AZT treatment is $10,000 a year, and 200,000 people are treated! And of course one of the hardest things for people to do is to admit, “I’ve made a mistake for ten years. Not just a minor mistake. I’ve helped people die.”

But if the interests were not on the side of the six-billion-dollar-a-year HIV theories, we could find out about this disease in a minute. All of that money has not saved one life.


Report this post
 Post subject: HIV positive
PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:54 am 

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:11 am
Posts: 2
Ok hypothetically speaking If you were healed from HIV somehow would you show a HIV antibody Positive? If this was the case then wouldn't you always be thought of having the infection, like when you get something and your body builds up antibodies to fight it next time, if they just tested for the antibodies and thinking there was no cure they would assume you were HIV Positive?

Report this post
 Post subject: HIV a difficult antigen
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:41 pm 

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:11 am
Posts: 2
What makes HIV a difficult antigen for the body to fight? Unlike most viruses, the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) first binds to the receptor sites on a T cell and then becomes engulfed by that T cell. Why does this characteristic make HIV difficult for the body to fight against?

Report this post
 Post subject: Re: HIV a difficult antigen
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:53 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:07 pm
Posts: 1683
hiv does not cause AIDS, it is a harmless oportunistic virus.
AIDS is just a big medical conspiracy. check out and google for "AIDS HOAX"


Report this post
 Post subject: HIV positive
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:49 pm 

Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:05 am
Posts: 1
What are the consequences if an HIV positive person donates blood? If someones blood is HIV positive, do they simply notify the person who donated that they have it, or can there be legal consequences? Do they assume someone didn't know, or do they do some kind of investigation? I'm kind of a paranoid person, and I have received blood a couple times...and it worries me that someone with an infection could slip through the cracks and not be notified and be allowed to donate again. Do people get in trouble for this? How do they notify people who have it after they donate?

Report this post
 Post subject: Re: HIV positive
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:02 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:57 pm
Posts: 133
Location: Bucuresti
Before arriving in a Hospital for use, the blood is tested and if something is wrong the donor is informed. You are safe :)

Report this post
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: