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 
dangerous drug."
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 
chronic malnutrition.
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 
lose grants."
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 
                   [ be continued...]