WHY ARE THE NSC AND CIA MANAGING AMERICA’S GLOBAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST AIDS?
The US Government’s Worldwide Campaign Against AIDS Will Kill Millions of People with the Side Effects of Highly Toxic Anti-HIV Drugs
By Robert Herron
“The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous.”
— Frederick Douglass, 1885
An Estimated 50 Million People May Die Soon Due to the US Government’s Worldwide Anti-HIV/AIDS Campaign
We do not want to believe that our government would knowingly hurt anyone, but its failure to communicate honestly and openly with the American people on the HIV/AIDS issue has created a breeding ground for suspicion. What the US spy organizations are doing looks like race-based eugenics or even genocide to many people. Quick, honest action is urgently needed.
In January 2000, the Central Intelligence Agency issued a report that claims the worldwide Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) epidemic is a major threat to the United States. This created fear. President Clinton officially declared the HIV pandemic to be a national security threat. He assigned the National Security Council and the Central Intelligence Agency to supervise the US government’s global campaign against AIDS. These agencies seem unqualified to fight disease. Why weren’t the US Public Health Service and Center for Disease Control given this task?
Although most of us are unaware of it, dozens of studies, including several funded by the government, have found that HIV does not cause AIDS. In fact, HIV is relatively harmless. Dr. Charles Thomas, molecular biologist and former Harvard Professor of Biochemistry, explained:
The HIV-causes-AIDS dogma represents the grandest and perhaps the most morally destructive fraud that has ever been perpetrated on the young men and women of the Western world (Sunday Times, London, 3 Apr. 94).
To kill harmless HIV, the US government, World Bank, and many other organizations will spend billions of dollars purchasing and distributing hazardous anti-HIV medications to the estimated 36 to 50 million people who are presumed to have HIV worldwide.
These drugs do not cure AIDS, but are supposed to slow its progression. Not one person has ever been cured by these highly toxic chemicals. Not one life saved. Some research indicates that virtually everyone taking these drugs is dying. A substantial body of research further suggests that most of the 22 million people who were thought to have died from AIDS actually died from the adverse side effects of anti-HIV drugs (See P.H. Duesberg & D. Rasnick, The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus. Genetica 1998; 104: 85–132).
AIDS compromises the immune system’s ability to defend the body from disease. Many people in the world certainly have immune system dysfunction. However, they are not dying from HIV. According to research, only a fraction of the people who have HIV contract AIDS. According to numerous studies, AIDS patients’ immunodeficiency is the result of chemicals that damage the immune system, including recreational drugs (i.e., cocaine, nitrite inhalants, and heroin), alcohol abuse, pesticides, over-use of certain medicines (i.e., antibiotics), industrial pollutants, other environmental toxins, and anti-HIV medications. Certain lifestyle factors also suppress and weaken the immune system, including prolonged malnutrition (main cause of AIDS in Africa); repeated infections, chronic stress, and sleep deficit.
The majority of AIDS patients exhibit several of these chemical and lifestyle risk factors. The US campaign against AIDS will not attempt to remedy any chemical and behavioral causes of immune system dysfunction. The reason the US government is conducting this campaign apparently has more to do with helping multi-national firms than improving health.
The pharmaceutical industry has donated millions of dollars to both the Republican and Democratic Parties. The Clinton AIDS crusade appears to be repayment to the multi-national drug firms that made large donations to the Democratic Party. Most of the US worldwide campaign against AIDS will consist of the US government’s buying and distributing billions of dollars of anti-HIV medications to the 36–50 million people worldwide who are presumed to have HIV. It’s poisoning for profit. There seems to be, however, more to this story than your garden-variety campaign finance bribery that is endemic in the United States during election years.
The main focus of the new anti-AIDS campaign is nations in Sub-Saharan Africa. The World Health Organization claims that 70%-80% of the people with HIV are located in this region. Since in Africa, a blood test is not required for verification of HIV, millions of people who do not even have HIV may be given these dangerous drugs. This matter is urgent because these highly toxic anti-HIV medications will soon kill millions of vulnerable people.
By coincidence, many rare minerals and metals that are essential for high-tech weapons production are located in Sub-Saharan Africa, especially South Africa. In recent years, the dominant Western powers (USA, UK, and Germany) have had increasing difficulty controlling the governments and resources in this part of the world. The natives are restless and want to rule themselves. This restive feeling has been particularly strong after apartheid ended.
The spy agencies want to avoid loosing control of the strategic natural resources in Africa. Thus, we must ask whether this crusade against AIDS is also a new form of covert warfare to dominate Sub-Saharan Africa. To many people, from African Americans dying of AIDS in our inner cities to innocents dying in their mothers’ arms in the parched plains of South Africa, the NSC and CIA activities might look like racial genocide. We do not want to believe this. But, because the government has been so dishonest with us in the past, what can we think? Mark Twain once said, “When in doubt, tell the truth.” An epidemic of truth in Washington, DC might solve the global AIDS problem.
Doesn’t it look strange? Clancy, Ludlum, or Le Carré could not write a more sinister plot. Why are the National Security Council (NSC) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) coordinating the US worldwide war against AIDS? The answer probably has little to do with health. The answer may have everything to do with expanding US political control, enhancing pharmaceutical profits, exploiting the natural resources of Africa for high-tech weapons production, and even depopulating nations with high birth rates.
In this comprehensive, in-depth article, we will see that due to the American campaign against AIDS, most nations in Sub-Saharan Africa will have their populations decimated by toxic anti-HIV medications (See E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, et al., A critical analysis of the pharmacology of AZT and its use in AIDS. Current Medical Research and Opinion 1999; 15(Supplement); P.H. Duesberg & D. Rasnick, The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus. Genetica 1998; 104: 85–132; D.T. Chiu, P.H. Duesberg, The toxicity of azidothymidine (AZT) on human and animal cells in culture at concentrations used for antiviral therapy. Genetica 1995; 95: 103–109; M.D. Zaretsky, AZT toxicity and AIDS prophylaxis: Is AZT beneficial for HIV+ asymptomatic persons with 500 or more T4 cells per cubic millimeter. Genetica 1995; 95: 91–101).
In the US, African Americans have had disproportionately high AIDS death rates. The US government’s AIDS campaign appears to be a new form of covert racial warfare. How can the nations under assault defend themselves?
South African David versus American Goliath
South African President Thabo Mbeki is one of the bravest men on earth. To save his people, he is defying the entire Western medical establishment. He is resisting intimidation by the most powerful nations on earth, including the United States. They are trying to force him to give hazardous, anti-HIV medications to pregnant mothers and infants in South Africa. Research shows that the toxic side effects of these drugs harm developing fetuses and newborns. Some scientists have said that no humans should be given these poisonous medications.
At the 13th International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa, President Mbeki denounced his critics. He asserted his right to seek an African solution to AIDS. Mbeki said the remedy to AIDS and other immune system problems is to reduce the extreme poverty that afflicts over half the population of Africa. He claimed that poverty, not HIV, is the biggest killer in Africa. President Mbeki also demanded that all voices be heard in the controversial debate on the causes of AIDS. He implored all scientists to show “sufficient tolerance to respect everybody’s point of view.” In the US, most of us have heard only one side of the AIDS story—the drug industry propaganda expounded by most media and governments.
If President Mbeki prevails, he will protect millions of innocents from needless suffering and death. More is possible. Perhaps, like the Berlin Wall’s sudden fall, his courage may help catalyze the collapse of what many people feel is the tyranny of the medical-industrial complex that suppresses innovative approaches to promoting health and preventing disease.
Most people assume that the medical profession is usually correct. However, recent reports on medical errors show that physicians can make big mistakes. These errors and drug side effects result in thousands of deaths each year. The medical establishment has declared that the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) causes Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). This condition compromises the competency of the immune system to defend the body. AIDS is characterized by persistent immune system dysfunction as measured by low CD4 T-cell levels, detection of HIV antibodies, and approximately 30 opportunistic infections.
The medical establishment claims there is no known cure for AIDS, and the syndrome results in death. Anti-HIV medications are administered to slow the progression of the disease, and not to cure it. However, some scientific research has indicated that AIDS patients who stopped all recreational drugs and anti-HIV medications have improved. In many cases, drug-free AIDS patients were even restored to normal health (See attached P. Duesberg & D. Rasnick, The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus. Genetica 1998; 104: 85–132). The explanation of why dangerous anti-HIV medications are being given to so many people worldwide has more to do with politics and corporate profitability than medical science.
The Clinton Anti-AIDS Crusade
On April 17, 2000, in Washington, D.C., James D. Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank said that the Word Bank will commit “unlimited money” to fight HIV/AIDS in poor countries. The plan of the world’s top finance ministers and central bank governors who oversee the World Bank is to provide highly toxic medication to treat the estimated 34–50 million people who are presumed to have HIV in underdeveloped nations. These people live mainly in Africa, India, China, and the Caribbean, all major World Bank clients. According to United Nations figures, 70%–80% of the people in the world who have HIV live in Sub-Saharan Africa.
On April 30, 2000, the Clinton Administration formally designated the HIV/AIDS epidemic as a major threat to United States security. This declaration was based mainly on a recent Central Intelligence Agency report, The Global Infectious Disease Threat and Its Implications for the United States. This report was declassified in record speed to share with the public earlier this year. The CIA claimed that the HIV epidemic would destabilize governments throughout the world. Therefore, drastic intervention was needed. The same day Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said that he did not believe HIV/AIDS was a national security threat.
At Clinton’s request, the National Security Council, which has never before been involved in combating disease, has been coordinating the US government’s international efforts to combat HIV/AIDS. On April 30th the Clinton Administration also doubled the budget to battle AIDS overseas to $254 million per year. Most of this money will be used to buy anti-HIV medications from American and British drug companies for administering to people in underdeveloped nations.
May 1, 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright defended Clinton’s declaration of HIV/AIDS as a national security threat and criticized Senator Trent Lott for being out of touch with the needs of the 21st century. She said that the Clinton Administration will ask for an additional $100 million to fight HIV/AIDS worldwide.
May 3, 2000, in Washington, D.C. David Gordon of the National Intelligence Council held a press conference to expand the scope of dire predictions. He said urgent action is needed now because in the future the HIV epidemic could be sweeping like a plague through Asian and Pacific Rim countries even faster than it is going through Sub-Saharan Africa today.
May 8, 2000, US Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala defended the Clinton Administration’s declaration that AIDS is a national security threat and that anyone who does not support this view, such as Sen. Trent Lott, was behaving in a “tragic and dangerous” manner. Rep. Joseph Crowley, Dem.-NY, introduced a bill to increase US funding for global health initiatives to $2 billion annually (mainly for anti-HIV drugs).
May 22, 2000, South African President Mbeki visited President Clinton in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the meeting was to strengthen ties between the United States and South Africa. However, among other points of discussion, Clinton encouraged President Mbeki to expand South African use of AZT and other “lifesaving” anti-HIV medications. Curiously, instead of the President’s Press Secretary, Joe Lockhart, who usually deals with the media, National Security Council spokesman, David Stockwell, represented the Clinton Administration at the White House press conference to answer questions related to President Mbeki’s visit. The NSC normally deals with military issues such as the recent NATO intervention in Kosovo.
May 30, 2000, President Clinton went to Europe to visit several national leaders to strengthen cultural ties and discuss trade and security matters. The first stop was Portugal. Clinton’s top agenda was to encourage the Portuguese to help fight AIDS in Africa. This request was germane because Portugal has developed considerable medical experience and contacts in its former African colonies, including Mozambique, Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, and Sao Tome and Principe.
June 8, 2000, in Geneva, Switzerland the United Nations International Labor Organization released a report that said the HIV virus is likely to devastate the labor market of Sub-Saharan Africa with an estimated decline in the workforce of 20%, or more, by 2020. This announcement heightened the already intense sense of urgency to administer more anti-HIV medications in Africa than ever before. Since then, several UN organizations have forecasted mounting death tolls from the worldwide HIV epidemic.
June 14, 2000, US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers toured Tanzania, Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, and Mozambique to promote the campaign against AIDS and encouraged these nations to buy anti-HIV drugs. It appears that, every week or two, high level US officials implore Sub-Saharan governments to give their people anti-HIV medications to stop the so-called AIDS epidemic.
July 12, 2000, the US Congress began debate on a Clinton Administration plan to spend another $100 million on fighting HIV. Sandra Thurman of the White House AIDS office said other countries and international organizations must increase their efforts as well. US drug producer, Merck, and the Gates Foundation have pledged to give Botswana $100 million in cash and medications to slow the progress of AIDS. Help from other firms and foundations has been pouring in from around the world. The United Nations has decided to broker bulk purchases so African nations can pay lower prices for anti-HIV drugs.
July 17, 2000, the United States sponsored a resolution requesting that the United Nations Security Council encourage nations to develop anti-HIV plans and give military peacekeepers additional training in preventing the spread of HIV, which is alleged to cause AIDS. Why are soldiers who are trained to fight military battles being used for public health projects? Does the deployment of troops for this purpose suggest some hidden agenda? This request was the first time that the Security Council, which exists to prevent wars, was ever asked to adopt a resolution to address a health issue.
July 19, 2000, James A. Harmon, president of the United States Export-Import Bank, announced that the bank will loan $1 billion annually to help 24 Sub-Saharan nations purchase anti-HIV medications, medical equipment, and health services from US corporations. Because most of these nations will have extreme difficulty repaying these loans, they will become even more susceptible to US control and manipulation. According to some critiques of US foreign aid, such as When Corporations Rule the World by David C. Korten, these loans will do little to improve the health of African nations, but they will further increase the stranglehold of multi-national firms over their economies.
Later, the US-controlled IMF and World Bank will tell these nations how to run their countries to facilitate repayment of these huge loans. In addition to being a covert way to dominate vulnerable countries, the Clinton AIDS crusade seems to be a form of “corporate welfare” to support already thriving American drug firms. There are unanswered questions about this anti-AIDS crusade.
The National Security Council, which is managing the US part of the AIDS crusade, is composed of political, military, and intelligence agency officials. The NSC has no past experience in public health. Why isn’t every American asking:
• Why were the National Security Council and Central Intelligence Agency assigned to fight disease? They seem unqualified to deal with public health issues. In the past, the NSC has announced “Our strategy has three core objectives: enhancing American security; bolstering our economic prosperity; and promoting democracy and human rights abroad.” Furthermore, the CIA is a national security organization, and not a public health agency.
• Why weren’t the US Public Health Service or Center for Disease Control given this task? These health agencies appear more qualified and equipped to handle a medical problem.
Thus, any rational person must question whether the purpose of the new anti-HIV initiative is solely related to health? This issue deserves deeper investigation.
In April 1984, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services, Margaret Heckler, declared war against a new microbe called Human T-cell Leukemia Virus-III (later renamed Human Immunodeficiency Virus, HIV). This announcement was based mainly on the research of one group of scientists led by Dr. Robert Gallo at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). At that time, not even one research paper had been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal to verify Secretary Heckler’s declaration.
This declaration also ended the government’s possible application of the discovery by NIH and CDC researchers between 1981 and 1983 that recreational drugs caused major immune dysfunction. This discovery appeared to offer an opportunity for curing AIDS (See P. Duesberg & D. Rasnick. The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus. Genetica 1998; 104: 85–132). Secretary Heckler, who was not a medical professional, probably never heard of this earlier research. Dr. Gallo appears to have used his NIH status to convince Secretary Heckler with incomplete information, and thereby hijacked the nation’s health agenda for his own profit. One can not fault Ms. Heckler, because she was not a medical doctor or researcher. However, she should have consulted many other scientists for confirmation.
In science, a researcher normally publishes in a peer-reviewed scientific journal before public announcements are made. Peer-review enables other scientists who are also experts in a field to evaluate the new evidence before it is publicized to ensure accuracy and reliability. Peer-review is medical science’s quality-control system. However, Dr. Gallo and his colleagues bypassed the peer-review process to give inaccurate information to Secretary Heckler who was not qualified to evaluate the weaknesses of their research. Dr. Gallo’s studies examined relatively small, specially selected groups that failed to accurately represent the condition of all people who had HIV and AIDS. This rush to judgement has had horrific consequences (See Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus by Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein, New York, The Free Press, 1993).
Dr. Gallo left NIH in disgrace. He was accused of serious unethical scientific behavior. For instance, in science, credit for a new discovery is a major issue that demands the highest level of integrity. Dr. Gallo claimed to be the sole discoverer of HIV. However, Dr. Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute sent Gallo the sample from which he made his “discovery.” After heated international legal action, the Presidents of France and the USA officially recognized both Dr. Gallo and Dr. Montagnier as the co-discoverers of HIV. At that time, they both claimed HIV was the only cause of AIDS. Today, there is still no credible research that proves HIV causes AIDS.
One might also question Dr. Gallo’s financial conflicts of interest. When he urged Secretary Heckler to make her announcement, he owned the patent for the only HIV test. Naturally, Ms. Heckler’s HIV-AIDS announcement created a great scare and an instant demand for thousands of HIV tests worldwide. Dr. Gallo became very wealthy. Dr. Gallo owns over 80 HIV-related patents that have netted over a billion dollars in revenues.
Secretary Heckler’s HIV/AIDS declaration was extraordinary because the US government usually demands examination of numerous published scientific reports before making an important announcement, especially far reaching ones that lead to huge expenditures. The US taxpayers have spent approximately $3 billion annually on AIDS research since 1984 for a total exceeding $50 billion in 2000. However, for the last 20 years there has been no progress in curing AIDS. Given the medical establishment’s lack of success, why has NIH completely ignored the alternative explanations for AIDS causality suggested by over 400 top scientists worldwide, including Nobel Prize winner Dr. Kary Mullis?
Does HIV Cause AIDS?
The HIV/AIDS etiology debate is urgent because millions of human lives may be lost needlessly very soon. Most people believe that HIV causes AIDS, because Secretary Heckler declared this to be, and because this is what medical professionals and the media have told us for years. There are, however, credible scientific questions on whether HIV actually causes AIDS, and why extremely toxic medications have been used to treat people who are HIV positive, especially azidothymidine (AZT, trade names: Zidovudine and Retrovir).
Although those who question the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS are in the minority of medical practitioners and researchers, they must be taken seriously. This controversial group is composed of many of the top scientists in the world, including Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Kary B. Mullis (1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry and inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction). As Dr. Mullis has explained:
We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true.
We have also not been able to discover why doctors prescribe a toxic drug called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who have no other complaint other than the fact that they have the presence of antibodies to HIV in their blood. In fact, we cannot understand why humans would take this drug for any reason. (Forward to Inventing the AIDS Virus by P.H. Duesberg, Washington, DC, Regnery Publishing, 1996).
In 1990, Dr. Luc Montagnier, the co-discoverer of HIV, made a dramatic reversal in his stand on the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. In an article in the March issue of Research in Virology, Montagnier demonstrated conclusively that HIV is unable to kill human T-cells in culture dishes. In fact, HIV is one of the weakest viruses in existence; it would have a difficult time killing anything (See Inventing the AIDS Virus by P.H. Duesberg, Washington, DC, Regnery Publishing, 1996). In an interview, Montagnier also explained “There are too many shortcomings in the theory that HIV causes all signs of AIDS” (Miami Herald, 23 Dec. 90). Why are medical professionals and the general public unaware of this crucial change in the understanding of the cause of AIDS?
Dr. Steven Jonas, Professor of Preventive Medicine, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY stated “Evidence is rapidly accumulating that the original theory of HIV is not correct” (Sunday Times, London, 3 Apr. 94). Dr. Harry Rubin, Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California at Berkeley said “It is not proven that AIDS is caused by HIV infection, nor is it proven that it plays no role whatever in the syndrome” (Sunday Times, London, 3 Apr. 94). Over 400 other top scientists worldwide have challenged the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Identification of the actual cause of AIDS is important because it determines how this disease is treated. The cause of AIDS appears to be different in different parts of the world.
What Actually Causes AIDS in Europe and the US?
Even though it is commonly assumed that HIV causes AIDS, many scientific studies suggest other causes. Many chemicals can cause major immune dysfunction. Chemicals that can weaken and destroy the immune system include recreational drugs (i.e., cocaine, nitrite inhalants, and heroin), alcohol abuse, pesticides, over-use of certain medicines (i.e., antibiotics), industrial pollutants, and other environmental toxins. Lifestyle factors that suppress and damage the immune system include prolonged malnutrition, repeated infections, chronic stress, and sleep deficit. The majority of AIDS patients exhibit several of these chemical and lifestyle risk factors. Before 1984, several US government-funded researchers identified several recreational chemicals that induced immune dysfunction similar to that attributed to AIDS (See pages 106–113 in The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus, Genetica 1998; 104: 85–132; V.L. Koliadin, Critical analysis of the current views on the nature of AIDS. Genetica 1995; 95: 71–90).
Furthermore, a substantial body of research has also suggested that anti-HIV medication itself has contributed to the majority of deaths that were once attributed to AIDS (See pages 108, 114–122 in P.H. Duesberg & D. Rasnick, The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus. Genetica 1998; 104: 85–132). The British medical journal, The Lancet, provides a recent example. Researchers found that AIDS patients who were treated with a new combination of highly active antiretrovirals had four times the non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma levels than patients who did not take these drug cocktails. The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that from the beginning of the HIV epidemic in 1981 through 2001, approximately 22 million people have died from AIDS.
The extensive evidence documenting the toxic side effects of anti-HIV drugs suggests that most of these 22 million deaths were actually caused by the administration of these medications (See E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, V.F. Turner, J.M. Papadimitriou, et al., A critical analysis of the pharmacology of AZT and its use in AIDS. Current Medical Research and Opinion 1999; 15(Supplement); P.H. Duesberg & D. Rasnick, The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus. Genetica 1998; 104: 85–132; D.T. Chiu, P.H. Duesberg, The toxicity of azidothymidine (AZT) on human and animal cells in culture at concentrations used for antiviral therapy. Genetica 1995; 95: 103–109; M.D. Zaretsky, AZT toxicity and AIDS prophylaxis: Is AZT beneficial for HIV+ asymptomatic persons with 500 or more T4 cells per cubic millimeter. Genetica 1995; 95: 91–101).
In the US, the federal government has been financing the administration of highly toxic medications to all Americans who have been exposed to HIV, even though many researchers claim HIV is harmless. Some researchers have even offered to inject themselves with HIV on national television to demonstrate how harmless HIV really is. People with disproportionately high HIV levels are mainly low-income, inner city African Americans and other minority groups. No one has offered a credible explanation why African Americans have such high AIDS death rates.
What Actually Causes AIDS in Africa?
In Africa, the combination of malnutrition, repeated infections, and chronic stress appear to cause the so-called “AIDS deaths,” not HIV (See E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al. AIDS in Africa: Distinguishing fact and fiction. World Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology 1995; 11: 135–143). According to Dr. Peter Duesberg:
African AIDS is proposed to result from protein malnutrition, poor sanitation and subsequent parasitic infections. This hypothesis resolves all paradoxes of the virus–AIDS hypothesis. It is epidemiologically and experimentally testable and provides a rational basis for AIDS control (Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1993; 55: 201–277).
Furthermore, the African AIDS statistics may not be comparable with Western data. The World Health Organization (WHO) definition of AIDS in Africa is very different from that in any other part of the world. WHO does NOT require a blood test for confirmation of HIV antibodies in Africa. WHO has defined an African AIDS patient as any person who presents a combination of persistent cough, fever, diarrhea, and a 10% or more weight loss in two months or less. These symptoms could also indicate malaria, tuberculosis, dysentery, and dozens of other diseases. In fact, many Western tourists have had these symptoms from eating African foods that contained microbes to which they were unaccustomed.
Millions of Africans die of starvation every year. The United Nations has said that this year’s drought may cause 13 million to starve to death. There are parts of Sub-Saharan Africa that have had no rain for three years. No crops grow. Some of the symptoms of AIDS are similar to those of starvation: weight loss, immune system dysfunction, diarrhea, muscle wasting, etc. Note that starvation eventually causes complete destruction of the immune system without HIV. Because the WHO does not require a blood test to verify HIV status in Africa, millions of starvation deaths may have been counted as AIDS fatalities.
In addition, the governments and non-governmental organizations in Africa keep very incomplete statistics on morbidity and mortality. Most people who die in Africa are not examined by a physician to determine their cause of death. Autopsies are very rare on this continent. In addition to widespread starvation, there have also been increased deaths due to the resurgence of many infectious diseases such tuberculosis. Some of these illnesses are thought to be “AIDS defining.” HIV blood tests, however, have seldom been administered to determine whether these patients are actually HIV positive. Thus, the African “AIDS” statistics cited by the WHO, other institutions, and media may be completely erroneous. In reality, AIDS in Africa is causing fewer deaths and is occurring at much lower levels than reported by the World Health Organization and the pharmaceutical industry.
Millions of Phony AIDS Orphans
Many articles and the United Nations have claimed that the AIDS is killing parents causing millions of children to become orphans in Africa. But, is HIV the real cause? Because in Africa blood tests are not required for verification of HIV, there is no science-based estimate of the actual HIV-attributed deaths. There are almost no accurate long-term mortality and morbidity data in Sub-Saharan Africa from which to make scientific inferences of disease incidence and prevalence. What we receive from the media and governments is all speculation with no scientific basis. Wars, ethnic genocide, widespread poverty, famine, drought, malnutrition, starvation, resurgent infectious diseases, toxic pesticides, tribal conflict, violent crime, and industrial pollution have combined over the last 25 years to decimate Africa’s population. These factors appear to be the actual causes of millions of orphans in Africa, not HIV.
Questionable Inference of AIDS Causality
The debate over whether HIV causes AIDS is extremely controversial. Early researchers, such as Dr. Robert Gallo and his colleagues, believed the presence of this virus in relatively small groups of AIDS patients was “proof” that HIV caused AIDS. The first Center for Disease Control announcement of a previously unknown immune-related disease was based on five cases in California. In the preliminary studies, there was a high correlation between HIV and AIDS. However, subjects in those research efforts were specially selected and did not represent all people who had either HIV or AIDS. Thus, the correlations made in those early studies were inaccurate and unreliable.
In the National Library of Medicine database, MEDLINE, there are over 33,000 articles posted on various HIV and AIDS topics. The majority of governments and the medical professionals worldwide believe in the US government’s HIV/AIDS hypothesis and in the need for highly toxic treatment. In this controversy, there are two sides that expound diametrically opposed views.
The challengers are led by Dr. Peter Duesberg who is a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California at Berkeley and member of the US National Academy of Sciences. He was recommended for the Nobel Prize for some of his pioneering work. The challengers tend to rely on the hard sciences, especially virology and molecular biology. They have conducted laboratory experiments that raise many questions about the validity of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. There are also epidemiological studies that challenge the validity of the government’s theory (For a summary see P. Duesberg & D. Rasnick. The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus. Genetica 1998; 104: 85–132).
These scientists have found that HIV fails the standard rigorous tests for disease causality. Disease identification criteria are needed. There are hundreds of thousands of microbes in the environment and in our bodies that could be the potential causes of diseases. However, most of these microorganisms are harmless to humans. How do scientists determine which one is causing a particular disease?
A German physician and Nobel Prize winner Robert Koch developed the set of criteria for determining which disease is cause by a particular microbe. Medical researchers have routinely used his postulates during the last century. To demonstrate proof that a specific germ causes a specific disease:
• The germ must be found in the affected tissues in all cases of the disease.
• The microbe must be isolated from other germs and from the patient’s body.
• The microbe must cause sickness when injected into healthy hosts.
• The same germ must be again isolated from the newly diseased person.
(See Inventing the AIDS Virus by P.H. Duesberg, Washington, DC, Regnery Publishing, 1996).
While HIV can be isolated, it fails the other criteria. Even in the sickest AIDS patients, HIV exists only in very small quantities, if present at all (many AIDS patients are not HIV positive). This paucity is not the mode of function for other serious viral diseases, including retroviruses. It is difficult to comprehend how HIV could destroy the patient’s immune system when it never infects more than an extremely small fraction of immune cells. Koch’s principles are not popular with the medical-industrial complex, and they often discount this standard means of verification.
One of the great oddities of AIDS is its definition. If a person has antibodies for HIV, and also has one or more of 30 “AIDS defining illnesses,” such as tuberculosis, the patient is diagnosed as having AIDS. However, if he has one or more of the same 30 illnesses, but tests negative for HIV antibodies, then he does not have AIDS—just ordinary tuberculosis, etc. Thus, the correlation between AIDS and HIV is an artificial byproduct of the definition itself, and not scientific reality. This strange definition could easily create confusion and misguide scientific research and treatment in this area.
The doubters have also found that the majority of HIV-infected people remain healthy for 15–20 years, and there is no proof that they will not live a normal life span. In direct contrast with the narrow, researcher-selected studies conducted by supporters of the HIV/AIDS theory, research on the entire US population shows that fewer than 5% of HIV-infected Americans have AIDS or major immune dysfunction. Basketball hero “Magic” Johnson is a classic example of this phenomenon. There are also thousands of well-documented cases of people worldwide who were not HIV-infected that died of serious immune-related disorders with “AIDS defining illnesses.” Most of the dissenting researchers suspect that in the US and Europe the prolonged use of recreational drugs is a better explanation for the cause of AIDS and other immune system disorders than HIV (See P.H. Duesberg & D. Rasnick, The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus, Genetica 1998; 104: 85–132; V.L. Koliadin, Critical analysis of the current views on the nature of AIDS. Genetica 1995; 95: 71–90).
In contrast, the medical-industrial complex usually relies on soft research to make its case for HIV causing AIDS. To produce what they call “evidence of causality,” the drug firm researchers conducted surveys and statistical analyses on small, specially selected samples that failed to represent what was really occurring in all people who had HIV and AIDS. There were other methodological problems in almost all of their studies. The greatest fallacy in their research is that correlation does not prove causality, especially in small groups in which the participants were hand-picked by researchers who have financial conflicts of interest (See P. Duesberg & D. Rasnick, The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus. Genetica 1998; 104: 85–132 and Inventing the AIDS Virus by P.H. Duesberg, Washington, DC, Regnery Publishing, 1996).
In the canons of modern science, it is generally understood that cause precedes effect temporally. As the causal factor increases, the effect should also increase in a parallel, dose-response manner. In the United States, however, HIV and AIDS are completely unrelated statistically. On the other hand, several studies show that drug usage and AIDS and other immune system disorders appear highly related in the United States and Europe. Over many years, the sex and age of those dying from AIDS also matches the age and sex of those dying from recreational drugs. While association does not prove anything, these findings raise many questions about the validity of the HIV-causes-AIDS theory that have never been answered credibly (See figures on page 87 of P. Duesberg, D. Rasnick The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus. Genetica 1998; 104: 85–132). Because there is no real relationship between HIV and AIDS rates, how can our leaders base a global anti-HIV campaign on something that is nonexistent?
The Paradox of Treating an Immune Disease with Medications that Destroy the Immune System
AIDS treatment regimes have turned modern medicine on its head. Normally, there is a distinction between disease and treatment, i.e., treatment is supposed to reduce disease, not increase it. Glaxo Wellcome, the manufacturer of AZT (Retrovir, Combivir), admits in the Physicians’ Desk Reference 2000 that it was often difficult to distinguish between the adverse events associated with AZT treatment and the underlying symptoms of AIDS. Anti-HIV medications have a wide range of extremely hazardous side effects, including destruction of the immune system and death.
Approximately 30 years ago, a DNA chain terminator, AZT, was formulated to treat leukemia. AZT’s anti-leukemia mechanism of action is to kill growing lymphocytes through termination of DNA synthesis. Lymphocytes, or T-cells, are white blood cells that are an important part of the immune system and help protect the body from disease. Because AZT failed to prolong the lives of laboratory animals with leukemia, it was rejected for cancer chemotherapy in humans.
In spite of objections from some of the FDA’s own scientists, AZT and other DNA chain terminators were approved to treat people who tested HIV positive, which means HIV antibodies were detected in their blood. HIV antibodies are evidence of past infection, but not of present disease. Later, the FDA approved AZT use to “prevent” AIDS in healthy people, even when they had no clinical symptoms and almost undetectable levels of HIV.
If people are diagnosed as HIV positive, physicians will generally prescribe anti-HIV medications to them the rest of their lives. How can doctors prescribe AZT for long-term use when the Physicians’ Desk Reference summaries on AZT drugs have stated: “Long-term safety and effectiveness are not known, especially for people with less advanced stages of AIDS”? Scientific studies such as the European Concorde project verify that there is no credible long-term evidence that AZT, ddI, or other DNA terminators cure or prevent AIDS. The same was found true for protease inhibitors and various drug cocktails. Almost all of the short-term studies that evaluated these drugs have been conducted by or funded by the same firms that make them. Short-term studies can not justify long-term therapy. However, in spite of thousands of deaths of people who take anti-HIV drugs, the FDA has managed to quell the concerns of physicians about these medications, and the FDA even encourages their continued use. Why has the medical diagnosis of HIV positive has become a death sentence with execution administered via prescription medication?
A lawsuit by a California organization charged the NIH and FDA with collusion in expediting the approval of AZT in exchange for a $55,000 donation from the AZT manufacturer, Burroughs Wellcome. There have been numerous exposés in the print and TV media questioning the scientific legitimacy of the clinical trials that formed the FDA’s basis for approving AZT’s use on humans (See The AIDS War by John Lauritsen, New York, Asklepois, 1993). Apparently, there were several FDA and NIH cover-ups of the fact that many subjects in these approval trials died and were replaced by other participants to complete the studies (See Inventing the AIDS Virus by P.H. Duesberg, Washington, DC, Regnery Publishing, 1996).
What Is the Medical Rational for Using AZT?
The HIV retrovirus depends on DNA synthesis for multiplication and AZT ends DNA synthesis. Therefore, AZT should terminate AIDS, if HIV causes AIDS, and if HIV multiplies during AIDS. Research shows that HIV does not multiply very much during AIDS, if at all. In fact, numerous studies show that only 1 in 1,000 lymphocytes are ever infected by HIV, even in people “dying” from AIDS. Because AZT cannot distinguish between an infected and an uninfected cell, 999 uninfected cells must be killed to kill only one HIV-infected cell.
Lymphocytes, or T-cells, are an essential part of the immune system that maintains health. The immune systems of people who take AZT and other anti-HIV drugs are progressively weakened by their medications. Consequently, the people become increasingly vulnerable to a wide range of opportunistic infections, many of which are life threatening.
In addition to the destruction of the immune system and other blood cells, AZT also kills dividing cells everywhere in the body, which stops the creation of new cells and inhibits normal physiological processes. AZT has been found to cause liver, kidney and neurological damage. AZT destroys bone marrow, where red blood cells are produced. Thus, patients taking this drug often develop serious anemia and need numerous blood transfusions. AZT causes a wide range of other health problems, including ulcerations and hemorrhaging, damage to hair follicles and skin, killing of mitochondria (the energy-producing part of the cells), and wasting of muscles. One brave FDA official also said AZT was “presumed to be a potential carcinogen.” Recent research has also shown that anti-HIV drugs cause diabetes. It is paradoxical that AZT and other highly toxic drugs have been used to treat AIDS, because these medications destroy the immune system, which is the main symptom of the disease that they are supposed to cure or prevent. A recent US survey revealed that virtually all AIDS patients who take the various anti-HIV medications are dying. Not one person has ever been cured using this medical strategy. Nevertheless, medical professionals have continued to force their patients to take combinations of these dangerous drugs (See Chapter 9 “With Therapies Like This, Who Needs Disease?” in Inventing the AIDS Virus by P.H. Duesberg, Washington, DC, Regnery Publishing, 1996; E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, et al., A critical analysis of the pharmacology of AZT and its use in AIDS. Current Medical Research and Opinion 1999; 15(Supplement); P.H. Duesberg & D. Rasnick, The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus. Genetica 1998; 104: 85–132; D.T. Chiu, P.H. Duesberg, The toxicity of azidothymidine (AZT) on human and animal cells in culture at concentrations used for antiviral therapy. Genetica 1995; 95: 103–109; M.D. Zaretsky, AZT toxicity and AIDS prophylaxis: Is AZT beneficial for HIV+ asymptomatic persons with 500 or more T4 cells per cubic millimeter. Genetica 1995; 95: 91–101).).
Some the most damning evidence on the toxic effects of anti-HIV medications comes from the National Institutes of Health. At the 13th International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa, Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, presented research showing that AIDS patients become healthier and feel better when they stop taking anti-HIV medications. During this “interrupted therapy” anti-HIV drug treatment is intermittently suspended for several weeks at a time, which gives temporary relief from the toxic effects of these medications. Dr. Fauci said, “Patients are absolutely delighted at the prospect of spending half of their lives off therapy.” At that conference, Dr. Mauro Schecter of the University of Rio de Janeiro said, “We won’t cure HIV with the present drugs.” If AZT and other anti-HIV medications, including protease inhibitors and various highly active antiretroviral cocktails, are as toxic as research indicates, the World Bank’s and United States government’s proposed HIV treatment campaign might kill 34–50 million innocent people. This would be the largest single act of genocide in world history. How and why did the US government get into the business of providing highly toxic drugs to the world’s most vulnerable nations?
He Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune
Campaign donations are crucial for political success in the United States, because according to several studies the candidate with the most money wins 90% of the time. Books, such as The Buying of the President 2000 and The Buying of Congress (by Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity), have documented that corporations contribute large sums of money to the re-election of US political leaders.
From January 1 to March 31, 2000 Republican and Democratic candidates received approximately $463 million in donations, mainly from large corporations. Consequently, the United States government’s endeavors are strongly influenced by the needs (mainly financial profit) of those corporations, groups, and individuals that make large donations. This virtual bribery is especially evident in the pharmaceutical and weapons industries.
Anti-HIV drugs are one of the most profitable segments of the pharmaceutical industry. In the United States, the cost of treating one person with anti-HIV medication without major co-morbidity is approximately $15,000 to $17,000 per year, or more. Under pressure from the pharmaceutical industry and organizations funded by the drug firms, Congress classified AIDS as a medical disability, thus anti-HIV treatment expenses are often paid with taxpayers’ money through the Medicaid and Medicare programs.
The Money Trail
There are numerous financial connections that raise questions about the intentions of the World Bank, US government, and pharmaceutical industry plan for an expanded campaign against HIV/AIDS worldwide. For instance, Burroughs Wellcome (later renamed Glaxo Wellcome after a merger), the pharmaceutical giant that produces AZT, has been regularly giving large amounts of money to numerous AIDS organizations both large and small since AIDS was discovered. Coincidentally, these same groups were politically active in pressuring the US government and FDA into approving AZT and other highly toxic drugs for treating HIV against the recommendations of many FDA scientists.
Glaxo Wellcome has also made donations to key AIDS research universities. According to the Center for Public Integrity, these drug companies have been among the top fifty donors to the Republican Party for the last decade: Pfizer, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Glaxo Wellcome, Inc., and Eli Lilly & Company (The Buying of the President 2000, New York, Avon Books, 2000). The following table includes only unregulated, soft money donations and excludes corporate PACs, personal, and other donations.
Soft Money Contributions by Anti-HIV Medication Producers to the Democratic and Republican Parties in the 1997-1999 Election Cycle
Pharmaceutical Company: Democratic Party / Republican Party
Abbott Laboratories: 0 / $166,250
Aventis: $156,785 / $395,945
Bristol-Myers Squib: $253,300 / $686,418
Eli Lilly: $181,500 / $375,644
Glaxo Wellcome: $55,250 / $477,875
Hoffman-LaRoche: $20,000 / $100,525
Merck: 0 / $102,825
Pfizer: $175,000 / $979,496
Pharmacia-Upjohn: $60,000 / $135,000
Schering-Plough: $166,000/ $513,500
Total: $1,067,835 / $3,933,478
However, simple “campaign donation” bribery alone seems insufficient to explain the entire international story. Specifically, why were the US Public Health Service and Center for Disease Control not given the task of fighting HIV worldwide?
Why Is the National Security Council Fighting HIV?
Considering that virtually all patients that are taking anti-HIV medications are dying and no one has been cured, could the new anti-HIV campaign have something to do with a plan for reducing skyrocketing population growth in underdeveloped nations? President Clinton’s assigning the National Security Council and Central Intelligence Agency to direct the US government’s new anti-HIV initiative appears to confirm our worst fears. For example, after AZT treatment commenced in Zimbabwe, 1,200 people began to die almost every week. According to the United Nations, approximately 13 million of the 18 million who died of what they labeled as “AIDS” were in Africa.
The World Health Organization is advocating the administration of AZT and other anti-HIV drugs to pregnant mothers who are presumed to be HIV positive and to infants and children of mothers that might be HIV positive. In Africa, it is common for HIV to spread from mother to fetus. Some research suggests HIV may have been passed from mother to child for decades before the so-called “AIDS” epidemic of the early 1980s began. This transmission may not be a health threat (See pages 2–21 in Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus by Dr. Robert Root-Bertstein, New York, The Free Press, 1993).
Anti-HIV drugs are deadly to infants. Karen Park of International Educational Development, Inc. spoke at the United Nations concerning young children with HIV. She explained that babies who were treated with AZT almost always die quickly. Because of their rapid growth rates and need for relatively quick cell division, and since most anti-HIV medications are DNA synthesis terminators, the growth of infants and children is ended, and consequently they can become seriously ill and die rapidly. Because almost all patients, including adults, taking anti-HIV medications are dying, even the presumption of being HIV positive can become a death sentence.
According to the Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, “AIDS has achieved pandemic proportions in several of 34 Sub-Saharan countries where at least one in four people is infected with HIV.” When considering the high death rates of all so-called “AIDS patients” who are taking anti-HIV drugs, could this UN statement be interpreted as an opportunity, or even an invitation, to decrease the Sub-Saharan population by 25%, or more, for political and economic reasons?
Why Would the US Depopulate Africa?
There are many scholars and leaders of society that feel unchecked population growth will decrease the quality of life for the entire planet. In 2000, there are six billion people living on earth. The world’s population has been estimated to rise to nine billion by 2050. Most of this population growth will occur in poor underdeveloped nations, including those in Africa. In 1798, the British scholar Thomas Malthus predicted that overpopulation would destroy the world through massive starvation as the number of people to feed exceeds the resources to produce food.
This Malthusian vision of degraded life was more recently updated to include destruction of the environment, increased pollution, economic decline, worldwide epidemics, massive unemployment, rampant overcrowding of cities, increased war and violence, etc. In theory, depopulation should help solve these problems. As large numbers of people compete for the same scarce commodities, social stress builds up and breaks out as violence, crime, war, etc. Reduction of the population decreases the intensity of competition for scarce food, shelter, clothing, and other necessities. Thus, depopulation should reduce collective stress and foster economic stability, which would increase the profits of US multi-national corporations.
Consequently, most governments worldwide have supported various population control measures. For instance, the US government currently funds abortion, contraceptives, and family planning worldwide through payments to the United Nations. Since the end of World War II, the United States has also directly spent billions of dollars on population limitation programs, mainly in underdeveloped nations.
President Richard Nixon and Dr. Henry A. Kissenger, head of the National Security Council from 1969 to 1975, were the first American leaders to perceive the rapid population growth of underdeveloped nations as a threat to US national security. Dr. Kissenger supervised the writing of National Security Study Memorandum 200, which was completed in 1974 and declassified in 1989.
The main point of the National Security Study Memorandum 200 was that depopulation should be the highest priority of US foreign policy towards the Third World. The report said that US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. That fact gives the US enhanced interests in the political, economic and social stability of the supplying countries. Dr. Kissenger’s report explained that wherever a lessening of population can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resources, supplies, and economic interests of the United States. This document recommended various strategies for the US government to reduce the population of resource-rich nations with rapidly growing populations.
The question arises—why aren’t alternatives to depopulation being considered, such as improving the educational systems of underdeveloped nations so their people will become more intelligent, creative, and productive. The development of their full mental potential would enable them to produce more food, develop their own natural resources more effectively, and create other life-supporting products and services so there would be less stress and violence from excessive competition for scarce resources. This plan would generate more political stability rather than simply eliminating people. However, if these nations become more self-sufficient economically, would it be more difficult for US multi-national corporations to exploit the resources and labor these countries possess (See When Corporations Rule the World by David C. Korten, West Hartford Conn., Kumarian Press and San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1995)?
Are Drug Side Effects a Means to Achieve Political Goals?
A comprehensive review of events and evidence suggests that the US government may be using anti-HIV medications to weaken and control mineral-rich nations, mainly in Africa. The leaders of these countries have been resisting the domination of multi-national corporations and foreign governments. The control of African natural resources is a top US national security priority as mentioned in National Security Study Memorandum 200. For example, titanium is a heat-resistant, high-strength metal that is essential for the production of military jet fighters and bombers. Most of the world’s supply of titanium and other rare metals that are crucial for weapons production are located in Sub-Saharan Africa, with South Africa having the greatest abundance of these resources. But, there have been obstacles.
The IMF, World Bank, and multi-national firms feel threatened by the instability in Africa. For example, in Sierra Leone, there is a revolution in progress in which thousands of UN troops have been deployed to create peace. Sierra Leone has deposits of diamonds, titanium, and bauxite. Rwanda (tin, gold) and Uganda (copper, cobalt) are at war again. There are over 5,500 UN troops in the Congo trying to enforce a cease-fire in its ongoing civil war in which most of its neighbors have been taking sides. Congo has 65% of the world’s cobalt reserves, oil, diamonds, gold, silver, tin, zinc, iron, magnesium, uranium, and radium. Ethiopia (platinum, gold, and copper) and Eritrea (gold, potash, zinc, and copper) are at war again. The oil-rich nation of Angola has been embroiled in a civil war since achieving independence from Portugal in 1975.
Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe (chromium, gold, nickel, asbestos, copper, iron, and coal) has steadfastly defied international pressure to end his land reforms. His courage has sent an inspiring message to other African leaders and has helped foment a revolt against the foreign powers and multi-national conglomerates in Sub-Saharan Africa.
South Africa is the greatest potential depopulation target of all. South Africa is the largest producer of gold (30% of the world’s total output). South Africa also has large deposits of platinum, chromium, antimony, coal, iron, manganese, nickel, phosphates, tin, uranium, diamonds, copper, and vanadium. Some rare minerals and metals can only be obtained in this nation, and many are essential for the production of high-technology military aircraft and other advanced weapons systems. Since the end of apartheid, the multi-national conglomerates have had increasing difficulty in controlling this nation’s resources. Therefore, the wealthy nations have huge economic and military interests in controlling Sub-Saharan Africa. Could depopulation with anti-HIV medications serve as a means of enhancing stability and Western control in this region?
If the government’s own scientists were the first to discover that recreational drugs caused immune system dysfunction between 1981 and 1983, why did they allow this huge fraud to occur (See P. Duesberg & D. Rasnick, The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus. Genetica 1998; 104: 85–132)? The National Security Council and CIA scientists must be aware of all the research on immune system illnesses, not only NIH, CDC, and drug company AIDS propaganda.
On the internet and in African American print media one can find hundreds of stories on how the US government was alleged to have used HIV to cleanse undesirable citizens from the inner cities of America, namely African Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities. Leading conspiracy theorists such as Leonard Horowitz have claimed that the US government’s biological warfare program developed genetically engineered viruses, such as HIV, for warfare and covert ethnic cleansing in the US and overseas (See Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola—Nature, Accident, or Intentional, Rockport, Mass., Tetrahedron, Inc., 1998). They point to the fact that Dr. Robert Gallo who was the co-discoverer of HIV was also involved in germ warfare research. A major problem, however, with these conspiracy theories is that a large body of research suggests that HIV is harmless.
If there is a conspiracy, it might be to use HIV, which correlates highly with poor hygiene and sanitation, as a means of biologically identifying those to be eliminated through prescription medication. Low-income people worldwide tend to live in non-hygienic conditions. Many leaders of government and multi-national corporations might consider the exploding birth rates of restive, impoverished nations a liability that must be reduced. The conspiracy theorists may have got the motive correct, but they certainly inaccurately guessed the mechanism of elimination.
Why is the US government rapidly expanding an HIV treatment program that may kill 34 – 50 million people worldwide? The world deserves an explanation. As Nobel Laureate Manfred Eigen explained, “The burden of proof is on those who propose a hypothesis, not on those who question it.” The medical establishment must give governments and people worldwide a credible rationale for its support of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis that has been proven false in many scientific studies. They must also explain why toxic medications that have been prescribed to do more harm than good. Options for consideration in helping to save millions of lives worldwide:
• To stop the US government’s worldwide anti-HIV campaign, a law suit could be conducted against the federal government to obtain a court injunction to halt their endeavor until the actual cause of AIDS is scientifically identified.
• Ban all anti-HIV medication in the US and overseas. Conduct national anti-drug campaigns that inform people that drug abuse can give them fatal immune dysfunction.
• Everyone in the United States and other nations should be informed of the above situation. Since the American media is almost completely controlled by large corporations that are connected to the drug industry, this task may be difficult. Furthermore, all the leaders of nations should be fully briefed on the US government, World Bank, World Health Organization, and International Monetary Fund’s probable intentions.
• The government should investigate NON-toxic methods of treating AIDS and other immune disorders. After non-toxic remedies are discovered, they should be applied widely regardless of their impact on drug industry profits. Some research has already found that if AIDS patients simply stop taking anti-HIV medication and recreational drugs, their AIDS is often reversed, and their health becomes normal without medication.
• Completely reform the US campaign finance system to prevent political leaders from receiving incentives to allow multi-national companies to harm people or the environment.
• Reform the Food and Drug Administration. Much needed changes include abolishing the revolving door phenomenon in which drug industry executives are appointed by the President to serve in high positions within the FDA. Today, it is standard practice for executives from pharmaceutical and biotech companies that contributed large sums to the election or re-election of the President and his party to receive FDA appointments. Thus, the FDA has become a servant of the industries it was established to regulate and has ceased to protect the people. Reform might include:
1) prohibition of any employee or consultant of a firm regulated by the FDA from serving within the FDA; and
2) all FDA employees should be prohibited from accepting employment, consulting fees, or any form of direct or indirect compensation from firms that are regulated by the FDA before, during, and after their FDA service.
Reform Drug Testing and Approval Process
In the current drug approval process, most research to verify the safety and efficacy a new medication is done by the same company that will profit financially from the production and sale of that medication. However, in many other nations this process is structured very differently.
In several countries, a pharmaceutical firm develops a new drug that they want approved for use. Then, the drug company pays a fee to their government’s equivalent of the FDA. In turn, the government uses that fee to hire an independent testing company, or even several organizations, such as universities, to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the new drug. In most cases, the pharmaceutical company is not allowed to communicate or influence the independent testing organizations. In fact, the drug firm may never know who tested its drug. The government usually also does some testing in its own labs. The government uses the results of its research and that of the independent testing organizations to determine whether the new drug is safe and effective. This helps to eliminate financial self-interest from biasing the drug approval process.
Americans are reluctant to believe that our government would kill millions of innocent people, but the Clinton Administration’s failure to communicate honestly on the HIV/AIDS issue has forced us to assume the worst. Our intelligence organizations and drug firms appear to be conducting racial genocide in our inner cities and in Africa. Immediate, honest communication and comprehensive, remedial action are needed.
Robert E. Herron, Ph.D., MBA has conducted original research and published numerous articles on the economic impact of complementary and alternative medicine. He has also conducted research on health policy since 1989. Dr. Herron has served as a health policy advisor to several American political candidates and as a senior policy advisor to the Natural Law and Reform Parties USA. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Aids Hoax 10 Reasons Part 1