AIDS Inc. -- Part 2
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!
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
During World War II, Nazi scientists developed a chemical weapon
known as parathion. "After minor alteration, it became a
pesticide... 60 times more toxic to humans than DDT. It is widely
distributed in the Third World."
"Phosvel, a pesticide outlawed in the U.S., was marketed in the
Third World in the 1970s, and may still be trading in Latin
America. Its victims are called 'zombies.' They die slowly and
agonizingly, with paralysis and asphyxiation coming at the end.
Field workers who suffer weight loss and an increasing inability
to move should not be assumed, by researchers a continent away,
to be suffering from a virus."
The author affirms that, by and large, the most toxic pesticides
are used in the Third World. What is more, they are used
routinely and with little regard for safety.
Consider the class of pesticides called organophosphates. Here is
a list of symptoms which can be caused by organophosphates:
Headache, dizziness, flu-like symptoms, excessive
sweating, difficulties walking, diarrhea, many skin
problems, delayed nerve disease.
"*Headache* is now listed by the World Health Organization as a
significant symptom of 'early HIV disease.' Many researchers
state that HIV causes a *mild flu-like episode* soon after
exposure. *Night sweats* are taken as a sign of Pre-AIDS. *Leg
weakness* is considered an early symptom of AIDS dementia.
*Diarrhea* can be a sign of pre-AIDS and also a major symptom of
AIDS in the Third World. AIDS patients often present *numerous
skin rashes and skin problems.* *Nerve disease* is said to be
the reason for AIDS dementia."
"In other words, the symptoms of exposure to organophosphates
reads like listed symptoms for AIDS."
Consider also the large number of dangerous drugs which are
routinely dumped on the Third World by Western pharmaceutical
firms. "These drugs can produce immunosuppression-leading-to-
opportunistic-infections -- the pattern ascribed to AIDS. Yet
they are completely written out of the AIDS disease-equation by
U.S. federal health agencies."
For example, one West German firm (Hoechst) makes a pain-killer
which is sold without prescription in Brazil and throughout
Africa. "It can also cause anemia -- and underlying immune
suppression -- and that is why it is banned in the U.S."
"One certainly can't ignore the infant formula deaths either, in
which diarrhea and malnutrition [note: Malnutrition is, by far,
the most common cause of immune suppression in the world.] have
been linked to infant-preparations manufactured by Abbott,
American Home Products, Nestle, and Bristol-Meyers."
All of these symptoms are often mistakenly grouped under the
heading AIDS. In "AIDS, a Global Perspective," released by the
World Health Organization, the authors note "the elimination of
the requirement of the absence of other causes of
immunodeficiency" for the diagnosis of AIDS. In other words, it
is now acceptable to overlook any missing factors and just
diagnose whatever it is as "AIDS."
"This amazing WHO [World Health Organization] guideline implies
that from now on, all human immunosuppression will be laid at the
door of the HIV virus."
An article appearing on page 1 of the December 21, 1987 issue of
the *New York Times* entitled "Doctors Stretch Rules on AIDS
Drugs" details how doctors have begun prescribing AZT for their
patients who have no symptoms of AIDS.
In September, 1987, "William Hazeltine, chief of pharmacology at
the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, suggested an even
wider possible use for AZT. Give it to people considered at high-
risk for AIDS even though they *don't* test positive for HIV."
In other words, Hazeltine was recommending the use of AZT as a
preventative step. "For prevention, use a drug, AZT, which
damages bone marrow, the place where raw material for immune-
cells are turned out; a drug which causes severe anemia."
The author shows that, in spite of FDA approval of AZT, there is
much room for doubt as to the safety or usefulness of the drug.
For example, he cites molecular biologist Peter Duesberg: "AZT is
very, very destructive to healthy cells. No doubt it's a
In October, 1987, in an article in *New York Native*, John
Lauritsen reviewed the FDA trial of AZT. In his article, he cites
the opinion of Martin Delaney of San Francisco's Project Inform
regarding the FDA trials of AZT: "The multi-center clinical
trials of AZT are perhaps the sloppiest and most poorly
controlled trials ever to serve as the basis for an FDA drug
licensing approval... causes of death (among volunteers) were
never verified. Despite this and a frightening record of
toxicity, the FDA approved AZT in record time, granting a
treatment (recommendation) in less than five days and full
pharmaceutical licensing in less than six months."
Other AZT studies which had been done previously showed a
significantly *higher* death rate for volunteers ill with AIDS
*who had taken AZT*.
"Harry Chernov, an FDA analyst who looked over the
pharmacological data on AZT recommended that the drug not be
approved for release. Nevertheless, the drug was released, and it
is now being prescribed loosely by many physicians for their
patients who have no symptoms."
"AZT attacks the immune-cells where it is speculated that HIV is
doing damage. Although AZT tends slightly to favor, as a target,
viruses to healthy cells, in practice it kills many healthy
Page one of the December 21, 1987, *New York Times* warns of the
dangers of AZT and of its overuse: "Defying official
recommendations, a growing number of doctors who treat carriers
of the AIDS virus are prescribing a powerful, potentially toxic
drug even before patients develop serious signs of the disease."
"Malnutrition is recognized as the single largest source of
immune-suppression in the world."
In the Third World, three symptoms are central to a definition of
AIDS: 1) weight-loss of 10% or more, 2) chronic diarrhea, and 3)
chronic fever. But these three symptoms are *also* signs of
So there is a fairly good chance that misdiagnoses have occurred.
This is underlined by a paper published in the journal *Nutrition
and Cancer* (1985, vol. 7, p. 85-91), which states "Based on
observations of pneumocystis carinii pneumonia infections in
malnourished children in Haiti, [one researcher] proposed that
malnutrition with concomitant herpes virus infection could give
rise to symptoms that are indistinguishable from AIDS."
One of the current myths surrounding AIDS is that it is just
another of Nature's plagues which serves to put a stop to
overpopulation. "A respected virologist told me exactly this
several months ago. For him, there was really nothing one could
do about AIDS except watch it decimate people and then, by
itself, die out."
However, this is just "another thread in the logic that starts
with the assumption that AIDS is one thing around the world, from
one cause... The truth is, AIDS is not a single illness, it is an
international operation, a business, a bureacracy. It is, in the
Third World, a way of substituting harmful medical drugs for what
is needed: food."
"It is also easier to dump corrosive medical drugs and pesticides
on the Third World than to face up to their widening toxic effect
on people. Easier to call their symptoms AIDS."
[B.R. The unwritten codes of the wolf-pack of "professionals"
discourage independent thought.] Suppose you are a member of one
of these gangs of "scientists" and it begins to dawn on you that
what you had thought was completely ascribable to "AIDS" was in
reality attributable to a multiplicity of factors? Suppose that
you find "a combination of drugs, pesticides, starvation, older
diseases, and other environmental factors, *all* capable of
causing immunosuppression, all capable of producing the symptoms
of what is called AIDS? What happens is, if you want to satisfy
your medical peers, if you want to win research grant monies, you
overlook the anomalies and say it's all AIDS. If you don't, you
admit the picture is diverse and confused. You face facts. You
The author includes part of an interview with former senior White
House policy analyst Jim Warner. Some interesting excerpts from
that interview include the following:
WARNER: The government really hasn't fulfilled its role in
providing good information [on AIDS]. We just may not know
enough. With AIDS, we're dealing with a syndrome, not a disease.
We may see a patient who has a genetic defect that's causing his
immune deficiency [instead of HIV being the causative agent]. I'm
not satisfied we know all we think we do, by any means.
INTERVIEWER: Several university scientists I've spoken with have
-- off the record -- criticized what they call "HIV dogma." They
feel if they speak out against the rush to judgement for HIV as
the cause of AIDS they may lose money. Grants begin with the
assumption that HIV has been proven as the agent of the disease.
WARNER: I'm of a mind that if no other lessons should be required
of any university science curriculum, there should be a good
survey course in philosophy and a grounding in logic. I'm
appalled at the conceit and arrogance [of certain scientists].
INTERVIEWER: Suppose proof emerged that HIV is not the AIDS
virus. How difficult would it be to alter the course of research?
WARNER: It's very difficult to change people's minds. It's not
impossible, but there is a head of steam built up.
INTERVIEWER: Peter Duesberg, a distinguished molecular biologist
at Berkeley, has said that HIV does not cause AIDS. Have you
asked people at NIH [National Institute of Health] what they
think, specifically, of his arguments?
WARNER: Yes. I've been told that Peter Duesberg's refutation of
HIV has been discounted by the scientific community. I was given
no explanation as to why. I was very offended. No evidence was
presented to me. Just that Duesberg had been "discounted." That's
absurd. It's not a scientific response to dismiss Duesberg as a
[...to be continued...]