AIDS Inc. -- Part 1
There was such a response to the previous CN on the banning in
the United States of the book *Why We Will Never Win the War on
AIDS* by Bryan Ellison and Peter Duesberg, that I thought I would
re-post the following. It is my synopsis of Jon Rappoport's book,
*AIDS Inc.* Because Rappoport covers Dr. Duesberg's challenge to
official AIDS dogma, they may be banning his book next!
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
(Disclaimer: "...traditional sexually transmitted diseases [e.g.
syphilis], and the massive antibiotic-dosing that goes with
repeated incidents of these diseases, is very immunosuppressive.
So one doesn't have to swear allegiance to current AIDS research
to favor safer sex.")
AIDS Incorporated: Scandal of the Century
by Jon Rappoport
| "A virus model of causation [for AIDS] does not fit the |
+ scientific facts. Rather, multifactorial influences are +
| the *sine qua non* of AIDS. The multifactorial model is a |
+ threat to the well-being of the international +
| pharmaceutical giants, [and] megalithic national research |
+ institutions... In *AIDS INC.*, human greed for money and +
| power is revealed. An 'old boys' network abounds within |
+ our federally regulated research institutions, and our +
| leaders bear the shame... In the entire world today there |
+ are only approximately 200 scientists who understand the +
| inner-circle language and symbols of esoteric virology. |
+ From sterile and isolated sancta, these 'Priests of +
| Virology' have handed down their own interpretations of |
+ the 'Higher Knowledge' of Nature. These few priests have +
| informed the millions of doctors of the world as to 'how |
+ things are' with this disease called AIDS." +
| -- Laurence E. Badgley, M.D. |
The author, Jon Rappoport, an investigative reporter, begins his
book with the following note:
Many books on scientific subjects illustrate their
points with animal-experiments. It doesn't take long to
realize, reading medical literature, that you can often
take the animal research which agrees with your own
conclusions and then just throw out the equally large
stack of dissenting opinion. In fact, that is what some
AIDS researchers do. So when I mention specific animal
research in this book, I do so for one reason: to
illustrate that very process, in which experiments that
don't prove the party line are elbowed into oblivion.
"The organization responsible for finding an AIDS cure, NIH
[National Institute of Health], operates in certain respects like
any large corporation. Its cast of characters is production-
oriented, competitive. Top-flight players try to establish
domination, cut divergent thinkers out of the budget." In many
cases this has meant that the urge for personal advancement in
the profession has outweighed concerns about actually combatting
AIDS itself. Domination of the field by a close-knit cadre of
"professionals" has resulted in the current situation in which,
"...one virus, HIV, is now being asked to explain a huge,
discordant series of physical symptoms."
The close-lipped mask of "professionalism" has even caused many
professionals themselves to fear speaking out about what they
know. "In the course of writing this book, I found many
scientists who wouldn't talk on the record. They felt their jobs
or grant monies would be jeopardized."
The author predicts that "...AIDS will probably become the most
damaging scandal the American medical orthodoxy has yet seen."
"What most of us know about AIDS comes through our television
However, "suppose, in the case of AIDS, we are being fed
'knowledge' which, originally, is based on inaccurate science,
which is coming from sources which have overlooked very
significant facts about the hysteria we are calling AIDS."
"In that case, we would have, by now, a truly massive amount of
We are highly dependent on the mass media and on "experts" for
the information we receive regarding AIDS. Unfortunately, "...the
media are not analysts of science. Even writers for the major
newspapers... take their information direct from the press
representatives at major federal health agencies... [These press
representatives] make *no* judgements on the accuracy of what
they pass on to reporters."
The author summarizes the official media position on AIDS as
1) AIDS is contagious.
2) AIDS is invariably fatal.
3) AIDS may become another great plague.
The author agrees with *none* of the above suppositions.
Part of the author's response to the official position on AIDS is
*- There is no disease-entity which ought to be called AIDS. AIDS
is not one thing.
*- The HIV virus has never been proved to cause any disease of
*- The treatment for AIDS patients, AZT, can be dangerous. "AZT
is a highly toxic drug that damages bone marrow and causes
*- No conclusive proof exists that we have a contagious epidemic
*caused by a virus*.
*- The AIDS blood tests which have existed up to May, 1988, are
*- The various definitions of AIDS, used to make diagnoses around
the world, are useless and vague. "They allow almost anyone to
be pinned with the label, AIDS... [The various definitions of
AIDS] promote vastly increased numbers of AIDS cases, which
naturally leads to the wide marketing of highly profitable
pharmaceuticals as treatments."
The author's definition of AIDS is as follows: AIDS "...is any
form of severe immuno-suppression, *from any source*, which then
gives rise to opportunistic infections." For example, "Drugs,
alone, adulterated, or in combinations, can cause symptoms we
call AIDS. No virus necessary."
The author, Jon Rappoport, charges that researchers have been lax
in their investigations of AIDS. "For example, in the US gay
communities... most attempts to understand the so-called
bathhouse lifestyle have been half-hearted. They have failed to
examine at close range the incredible parade of immunosuppresive
drugs, both medical and street-type, which have paraded through
that scene in historically unprecedented quantities and
"Many of the symptoms of what is called AIDS are the symptoms of
toxic reactions to chemicals, or of already known illnesses."
Yet all of these disparate symptoms tend to get lumped together
under the heading "AIDS." Rappoport thinks this is attributable
to "the medical research-machine" which is "geared to collect
symptoms, put them under umbrellas, uncover causative germs, and
find drugs to treat those germs."
Another aspect of this generic application of the AIDS diagnosis
is psychosomatic. "The death sentence, *You have AIDS*, has the
impact of a Medieval priest preparing a lapsed believer for Hell.
In all the hype about AIDS, the severe psychosomatic effect of
that death sentence is underplayed."
Rappoport next speaks of what he calls "chemical AIDS." He posits
that because chemicals often cause side-effects that are similar
to the AIDS symptomology, there is a high probability that mis-
diagnoses have occurred. According to the author, there is no
central core to AIDS, there is "...no central thing which [gives]
this list of symptoms special meaning."
One example which Rappoport gives of "chemical AIDS" is effects
of using inhalant nitrites, more widely known as "poppers." The
author thinks that "It is highly probable that the first five,
the first fifty, the first hundred AIDS cases were all heavy
inhalant nitrite users."
Some dangers associated with the use of "poppers" are:
*** According to Dr. Harry Haverkos, formerly of the CDC, "The
proven potential for cancer causing nitrosamine in bacon...
is probably one-millionth of the dose from inhalation of
*** According to Dr. James Curran, Chief of AIDS Branch at the
CDC, "It is possible that heavy use of nitrites... may
contribute in some as yet undefined way to the development of
Kaposi's sarcoma in those already infected with (HIV) or who
*** In the Sept.-Oct. 1984 issue of *Pharmacotherapy*, GR Newell
writes of the recognized toxicity of amyl nitrite: "These
products have been found to be profoundly immuno-suppressive
for human lymphocytes in vitro... Recreational use of inhaled
volatile nitrites is prevalent among male homosexuals and
compounds have been suspected as possible co-factors in
Kaposi's sarcoma associated with AIDS."
*** According to Dr. Sue Watson, "Our studies show that amyl
nitrite strongly suppressed the segment of the immune system
which normally protects individuals against Kaposi's sarcoma,
Pneumocystis pneumonia, herpes virus, Candida, amebiasis, and
a variety of other opportunistic infections. The upshot of
this research is that persons using nitrite inhalants may be
at risk for development of AIDS."
"In 1981, the Stanford Medical Laboratories tested some samples
of different brands of poppers, and found them to contain
kerosene, hydrochloric acid, and sulfur dioxide, among other
According to Rappoport, all of this points to a very good
likelihood that many of the cases that have been diagnosed as
"AIDS" can actually be attributed to the effects of inhalant
nitrites, or poppers.
Also suspect in the misdiagnoses of "AIDS" are the
overprescription of antibiotics. The two principal effects of
this overuse of antibiotics are...
1) "It creates antibiotic-resistant germs which then become
harder to treat", and
2) "...it upsets in the patient's body the balance of microbes
which has been established over the course of evolution."
"Physicians, then faced with antibiotics having no effect on
their patients' infections -- and not realizing that the cause is
genetic resistance which has been built up by those germs to
antibiotics -- can in some cases jump the gun and assume the
patients are so immune-depressed that 'drugs don't work
"Leading to false diagnoses of AIDS."
[...to be continued...]