AIDS Inc. -- Part 4
There was such a response to the previous CN (CN 7.23) 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! (Or, late breaking, thanks to Rep. Schumer and his 
proposed H.R. 2580 -- outlawing discussion of what he calls 
"baseless conspiracy theories" -- they may be banning Conspiracy 
 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +
Dr. Joseph Sonnabend worked for ten years at the British National 
Institute for Medical Research, which is the British equivalent 
of the NIH. Dr. Sonnabend is a member of the British Royal 
College of Physicians, and has been Associate Professor of 
Medicine at the Mount Sinai Medical School in New York City. He 
was editor of the journal *AIDS Research* for several years in 
the mid-1980s. What follows are excerpts from an interview with 
Dr. Sonnabend which took place on March 25, 1988:
INTERVIEWER: Where did the HIV hypothesis come from?
SONNABEND: Several places. One of them involved a very sloppy 
analysis by the CDC [Center for Disease Control] of the first Los 
Angeles AIDS patients.......
....... There was such a hasty process -- the worst thing that 
happened was the announcement in 1984 that HIV had been 
discovered to be the cause of AIDS. That did damage to the whole 
scientific endeavor.
       There are social factors here, you know, in the whole 
presumption that every disease has a single agent. Some people 
want to believe that nothing we do in our lives, in our 
environments, is really unhealthy. That poverty is really not a 
bad thing, just a choice, and it doesn't make people sick. That 
sexual behavior and lifestyles are really harmless. The single- 
agent idea of disease, when believed across the board, at the 
expense of environmental factors, absolves people whose economic 
policies create ghettos and keep people poor. It's so easy to say 
that a virus came along and made people sick, not their living 
....... We're hung up on high-tech solutions. The one-agent 
theory is going to be attractive to researchers. All the funding 
went that way. It's also the attraction of the quick-fix, the 
quick cure.
       The single-agent theory, in the case of AIDS, will have 
tremendous appeal for those political people who are promoting 
agendas based on what they call "family values.".......
.......There really is now such a thing as the AIDS- 
establishment. It is a group which receives virtually all the 
grant money, it sits on important boards... There is definitely 
[such] a group, and sadly, it's not the best talent.
INTERVIEWER: It's obvious from talking with a number of 
scientists that there are people who have questions about HIV, 
but they won't open their mouths publicly because they're afraid 
of losing grant money or their jobs.
SONNABEND: They're probably justified in feeling that.
INTERVIEWER: ... People also like to maintain that if HIV were a 
mistake, some famous scientists would have spoken out publicly by 
SONNABEND: That's ridiculous. That's terrible. That's ascribing a 
quality to researchers that doesn't exist. One thing that's come 
out of all this AIDS business which I should have known 
already... you'd think that these researchers would have more 
respect for the truth, more social conscience. But these 
researchers are like anybody else. They fight for their jobs, 
they're intimidated, they don't stand up. They have the arrogance 
to think they're more interested in the truth than other people 
INTERVIEWER: There are supposedly several different AIDS viruses 
all causing this unique thing called AIDS.
SONNABEND: I'm amazed that people haven't pointed out the 
stupidity of that idea. Here we have HIV-1 and HIV-2. These two 
*separate* viruses, not strains of each other. The variance 
between them is considerable. Now they're said to be causing the 
same new disease-entity, AIDS. These two viruses would have had 
to evolve independently over untold amounts of time to arrive, by 
chance, at the same moment, with both just happening to cause the 
same thing. The odds against that are virtually impossible.
INTERVIEWER: ... Why are some researchers doing studies in which 
they give AIDS patients *more* interferon? It's 
immunosuppressive, isn't it?
SONNABEND: Definitely. No good is coming of it. I asked an 
interferon researcher how they could continue to give AIDS 
patients this when it had such clear immunosuppressive 
properties. He said well, the drug companies had such huge unsold 
stocks of recombinant interferon -- anything that would make the 
annual shareholder meeting a happy event.......
....... AIDS has become an international business, an industry. 
It could be assessed at billions of dollars.
Most scientists accept without question that, "if other medical 
authorities say HIV is the culprit, that must be true."
However, to say that AIDS is caused by HIV is problematic. For 
example, what exactly *is* AIDS? "Several very broad definitions 
of AIDS are used around the world... First, there is the current 
CDC [Center for Disease Control] definition, used in the U.S. and 
parts of Africa... [The definition, announced in August-September 
of 1987] lists about 25 separate diseases/infections and several 
categories of diseases. Any single disease or category is 
sufficient for a diagnosis of AIDS under most conditions."
Yet, "after four years of research to find a virus which 
supposedly causes AIDS, this CDC definition allows for diagnoses 
of AIDS which don't require positive blood tests for HIV."
"There are, in fact, now three doors through which one can walk 
into a diagnosis of AIDS. At one door, an unknown or uncertain 
HIV test result is no barrier. At another entrance, a *negative* 
HIV test, likewise, is no obstacle."
According to the CDC definition of AIDS [page 1149, *JAMA*, 
September 4, 1987], "Approximately one third of AIDS patients in 
the United States have been from New York City and San Francisco, 
where, since 1985, less than 7% have been reported (to the CDC) 
with HIV-antibody test results, compared with greater than 60% in 
other areas."
In fact, "for the last three years [ca. 1988], the overwhelming 
number of AIDS cases in the U.S. have been recorded by the CDC 
with no knowledge of whether or not the patients have tested 
positive for the HIV virus."
So, there has been inexactitude in attributing all AIDS to HIV. 
And furthermore, by "taking major symptoms of malnutrition... and 
calling them AIDS, the numbers of recorded cases will grow. By 
placing under a single AIDS umbrella numerous infections and 
diseases, the numbers of reported cases will grow. By eliminating 
the need for even a positive HIV blood test, the numbers of cases 
will grow."
"The greater the number of reported cases, the greater the 
apparent threat to public health all over the world. Ultimately 
this will reflect in treatment, by drugs and vaccines. 
Pharmaceutical profits will soar."
The author relates a story told to him by a Doctor Herbert 
Ratner, of Oak Park, Illinois. In 1954-55, Dr. Ratner served as 
public health officer for Oak Park. This was just before the 
introduction of the first polio vaccine. At that time, the 
National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis was paying physicians 
$25 for each reported diagnosis of paralytic polio. According to 
Dr. Ratner, "A patient would walk into the doctor's office with a 
limp from an accident. He'd say he had a fever a few days ago... 
and guess what the diagnosis would be?"
"Paralytic polio. Ratner also stated it was well-known paralytic 
polio cured itself 50% of the time within sixty days. After the 
Salk vaccine was introduced, the definition of polio was 
changed. Now, in order to have paralytic polio, you had to have 
it *longer* than sixty days."
So, we see a possible strategy: First, inflate case statistics, 
then, after the vaccine is introduced, change the definition. In 
this way, it *appears* that the number of cases has dropped. 
People "don't believe such devious strategies really go on in the 
pristine world of medicine. But look what is happening with AIDS 
now. We are in the definition-expanding phase. Once the AIDS- 
vaccine arrives..., some bright researcher might make a 
breakthrough and discover that AIDS is really much more 
*specific* in its symptoms than previously thought. This 
researcher will be pleasantly shocked to find his work hailed and 
broadcast instantly and accepted."
To reiterate:
1) The definition of a disease expands. Case numbers swell.
2) Drugs/vaccines are introduced.
3) The *definition* contracts. Case numbers reduce.
During the 1970s, the NIH carried out a war on cancer. "Two 
factions developed; one... believed that cancer was caused by 
substances generated out of our industrial society. The other 
faction... looked for viruses. In the end, no one won."
"With AIDS, the media have chosen not to become embroiled in the 
question of causation. Media get their information from press 
people who work at universities and public health agencies, and 
who are fed HIV-dogma like popcorn."
The media by and large just passes on what they are told by the 
NIH and the CDC. "Writers for dailies don't get paid to do 
research in bio-med libraries, to *put together* pieces of 
information they actually dig up on their own from medical 
literature or human sources. Therefore, federal health agencies 
are always going to sound right and authoritative to reporters."
"So here with AIDS, media reluctance and mass hypnosis meet. The 
men in the white coats are kings. They scoot in polished labs and 
issue proclamations now and then, and the populace listens 
through the media and pays obligatory homage."
The author mentions the Tuskegee *Syphilis Study* (1932-72), "in 
which four hundred poor black sharecroppers were observed, 
without treatment, were kept from *getting* treatment, unto death 
by syphilis, for purposes of scientific study. The experiment was 
run by CDC and U.S. Public Health Service officials."
Who is watching the "experts?" Answer: They are watching 
themselves. "There is an ordinary fact of life in scientific 
circles called peer review... What it amounts to is simply this: 
in determining what articles are printed in technical journals, 
in deciding what grant applications are funded, scientists judge 
their fellows."
"The above-mentioned Tuskegee Syphilis Study is a prime and 
extreme example of what can happen when peer review is the total 
order of the day. See James Jones' excellent *Bad Blood* 
(Macmillan, 1981) for a thorough treatment of the Tuskegee 
"Obviously, to be carried out, the Tuskegee Study required the 
cooperation of many scientific bureaucrats. Also obviously, 
untrained citizens, had they been sitting on review boards as 
requests for continued funding came up [over a forty year 
period]... would have raised questions."
The author, Jon Rappoport, speaks of professionals "frightened 
for their jobs, their grant monies... A good part of that fear 
stems from the tacit threat that peer review, among their own 
conservative kind, will shut them down, leave them without 
grants, publishable articles, and ultimately jobs."
The October 22, 1987 edition of the *New York Times* carried an 
article which reported that the New York City Health Department 
had challenged AIDS death-statistics released by the CDC. The CDC 
had reported that 31% of AIDS deaths in New York City resulted 
from IV drug use. The true figure for AIDS deaths attributable to 
IV drug use, according to the NYC Health Department, was 53%. 
This would imply that AIDS is more of a drug-related phenomenon, 
especially considering the immunosuppressive effects of the drugs 
which the IV users were shooting up.
"Furthermore, the CDC, in its AIDS statistics, had invented the 
IV drug-user category for heterosexuals only. Those gay men who 
also shot drugs were put in the gay/bisexual category, because it 
was *assumed* that gay sex was the way they had contracted AIDS."
"Of course, people have been using drugs for centuries. But not 
in these combinations, and not with these adulterants. More 
important, some heavy drug abusers *have*, historically, died of 
immunosuppression-plus-opportunistic-infections, the so-called 
AIDS pattern. It isn't new. They have developed wasting 
syndromes, pneumonias, rampant viral and bacterial infections 
which have killed them."
                   [ be continued...]