Mr. Kincaid:
Even I was going to take the easy way out of this one, just put head in sand and refuse to attempt de-threading the AIDS angle to the media’s Wright/Obama confusion. I’m so grateful you took it on. I read your piece and was very impressed at the way you untangled it all so accurately.

You taught me things I did not know—despite 22 years on the beat—or had forgotten.

I pulled down the Koehler book, and wanted to share this amazing tidbit: The Indian newspaper that first broke the AIDS Virus As US Biological Weapon “story” in 1986, (The Patriot) was funded by the KGB and its editor was the recipient of the astonishingly named “Stalin Peace Prize.”
This is very critical, what you bring up here—the Cold War roots of all these notions. 

The media reserves a clump of disdain for anybody who objects to anything that has ever occurred under the mushroom cloud of “the fight against AIDS.”

In this regard, they are exhibiting Bolshivik tendencies—auto-hostility against ‘counter-revolutionaries.’

They’ve always accused the AIDS “denialists,” formerly “dissidents,” of being frothing right wingers. I have personally been equated with the KKK, with Holocaust Deniers, Flat-earthers, Homophobes, and people who walk round wishing to kill Africans, born and unborn.

My father always finds the humor in it, even when I don’t.

He speaks very admiringly of you, and suggested in the past that I lay some stuff on you but I am glad to see you were already on the story.

Thank you.

Great job.

May angels grant you the stamina to keep going. This is a very, very big story.

It is amazing what goes on under the shadow of “Religion”.  I am saddened that this is what the world is willing to accept.  On the other hand, It is good that someone is willing to call the outrageous claims for what they are and call for accountability.  Unfortunately, the forum is small here, and the masses tend to listen to the hysteria.  Keep the diligence.

One more thing, you can listen to me debate Boyd Graves at:

http://aras.ab.ca/audio/20080401-The Great AIDS Debate - Dr. Graves vs. Mr. Crowe.mp3

“It would be a tragedy if Wright’s wild charges prevent an open and honest debate about the nature of AIDS.” Yes, indeed, but it hardly seems fair to imply that Wright could conceivably bear some primary responsibility for preventing a fair scientific discussion of the nature of HIV and AIDS. This much needed debate has been actively suppressed for many years by the very officials at the CDC and HIH whom we entrust to nurture and fund such debates. The pubic trust has been betrayed, yes, but it started long before Reverend Wright entered the scene.

For an example of what a responsible debate might resemble, have a look at Henry Bauer’s HIVSkeptic blog.

The HIV dissent “movement,” has no particular political tint, but one can readily state that it has been attacked almost exclusively by the haute left—the Voice, Nation, CJR, etc.

The conservative media mostly haven’t weighed in, while the Libertarian media have more or less joined in the drubbing of dissidents as “denialists.” (Brian Doherty at REASON is one notable exception.)

The left love government and more or less love Pharma, as an extention of Nanny State. They love sick people because sick people allow them to pump indignation, moral superiority, and facile notions about how and why sickness occurs, which places blame squarely at the feet of Daddy (which is a fusion of State, Corporations, Politicians, etc—never the individual who might wish to heal him or herself.)

The left love genetic determinsim and the concept of Viral Plagues, a la Laurie Garrett’s unending glut of never fulfilled Plague scenarios.

The left essentially created the AIDS PR zeppelin as we know it, and their hatred of dissidents reflects this.

The right, I would say, are more open to the anti-pharmaceutical movement as they realize how much Big Pharma is morphing into Big Brother, and desecrating human freedoms. Ferocious attacks on HIV Rethinkers from the right are limited to Michael Fumento, and a few others here and there.
The HIV Rethinking movement is steeped in humanist values: An opposition to state coersion, “science” that is rogue and unproven and limits personal freedom starting with the freedom not to be killed, the importance of parental rights in the face of pharma/state violence, the importance of open debate and a free media, and last but not least, a rejection of the lurid racism implicit in the HIV paradigm.

For this reason, you will find people of all political persuasions, colors, ages, stripes in the HIV Rethinkers ever expanding tent—from conservative writer Tom Bethell to radical Olympic gold medalist Lee Evans.

Anybody who hopes to use it for political gain will be disappointed; It is the intersection of Lysenkoist science and whole new freedom movement in the pharmaceutical age.

The media have failed the story catastrophically, and been the driving force in the 24 year pogrom of censorship, violence, shaming, and professional assassination that has been the plight of every single journalist who tried to approach this as a story to simply be reported.

It has all been documented.

This is the big story here—how media managed to keep an elephant of a story in the room, invisible, for a quarter of a century, inside western democracies.

Fortunately, mass media is itself the shot and sagging elephant Orwell gave us to depict Colonialism in his famous essay. Going down slowly, unable to comprehend why.

I have questioned, challenged and debunked the junk science surrounding HIV/AIDS since 1984 and I am just beginning to realize that we are discussing the cause of something that has no proof for its basic assumption, namely that a CD4 cell deficiency is a valid scientific explanation for any clinical disease, let alone AIDS.

The Concorde study (1993) demonstrated that CD4 cells neither correlate to nor predict, either disease progression or death, in people said to have AIDS and yet, since 1993, two thirds of all the AIDS cases are people who, with no clinical illness and no AIDS indicator diseases, are claimed to have AIDS because they test positive on a non-specific antibody test and have low CD4 counts.

Something is very wrong with this picture!

Mr Kincaid,

We wrote a post on myspace.com/blac_ny, that ‘Wright is ‘right’, US government created HIV’. Let me say we simply cited the many books (we don’t think every one was ‘communist misinformation) supporting this pervasive belief in the Black community that HIV was created in a ‘lab’ (We question the position that HIV and AIDS was created to kill Black people. We know it first came to the media’s attention because of its effect on White gay men. So, if HIV was man made, it must have been created to kill both ‘outcast’ populations) First, we think we r on the same page (the fight against misinformation on HIV and AIDS). Although we (I) have lived with a so-called ‘positive’ HIV test since 1992 (started and stopped AIDS meds years ago) and ‘my’ brother, on AIDS drugs, died from liver disease with a so-called ‘undetectable viral load’, ‘I’ still have questioned over the years the theory that HIV causes AIDS (and I have an open mind on the existence of HIV)This includes my questions about the effectiveness of the AIDS ‘cocktail’. We have always liked David Crowne, Pres. of ‘Rethinking AIDS’ (we heard the ‘Boyd/Crowne debate) and we r members of ‘Rethinking AIDS’. I have personally attended NYC HEAL meeting . Plus, I ‘love’ Henry Bauer’s book which challenges the believe that HIV is a epidermic. . Our questions were directed toward the comment by Rev. Wright that the US government created AIDS(although we believe Wright has hurt Obama’s campaign). 80% of Black people believe the ‘HIV was created by the US government long before the Wright controversy. NO question, the Wright comment directly challenges the belief that HIV has never been scientifically proven to exist and it challenges the HIV’doesn’t discriminate’ dogma. Clearly, the Black community has ‘not’ been largely engaged in the ‘does AIDS exist debate (except for Dr. Boyd and Tony Brown’s belief that AIDS was created by man) Providing Black people with the information on the different beliefs and Books supporting the belief that HIV was created in a biowarfare lab is a part of our mission. You must admit, the fact that Africa is the so-call epicenter of AIDS and a disproportionate number of the Black community has positive HIV test results, adds gas to the conspiracy theories. Perhaps the ‘debate’ will create more interest in the truth among Blacks where the belief that HIV is a ‘crisis’ in the Black community dominates much of what is said about HIV and AIDS. Respect. DENNIS

I too share many of the above sentiments and there isn’t any need to repeat them. As a full-blown AIDS person, who has a high viral load and low CD4’s and do not take the antiretroviral medications and there are many others such as myself out here, we must question the validity of HIV causing AIDS.

Antiretroviral medications and not HIV are causing AIDS along with the life-styles, etc. of those who acquire AIDS. It is right to question the HIV hypothesis, as this is the biggest, medical blunder of all time.

Curious that an atypical bacterium, mycoplasma, has been proposed as the real culprit in those apparently infected with HIV.  Were this the case, responses to macrolide antiobiotics would long since have been documented and published.  Mr. Green might best spend some time on the wards to see that macrolides of all types have had little or no effect on this illness.  To state otherwise requires some references.  Mr Green?  Hello?

Chris Foley, Truman Green:

Luc Montagnier’s team pubished two sorely neglected papers reporting that “HIV” doesn’t kill cells in the presence of tetracycline antibiotics. They concluded that the actual pathogen is a mycoplasma: Lemaitre et al., Research in Virology 141 (1990) 5-16; INfetion and Immunity, 60 (1992) 742-8

Phyllis Pease, “AIDS, Cancer and Arthritis” (2005), is a cogent critique of the neglect of mycoplasmas as pathogens, inclduing in AIDS

Why does the cause of AIDS have to be infectious? There’s little evidence that it is infectious (see Padian study, African studies that show women more likely to be positive than men etc.) and how can we even talk about the “cause of AIDS”, when AIDS is about 30 different diseases linked only by HIV. Remove HIV from the picture and there’s just 30 different diseases. Why the desire for a single cause for them?

David Crowe, I believe there may be an error in your logic. No one is suggesting that the 30 illnesses to which you refer are causing the immune depression; only that they result from it.

Henry Bauer, you are correct, Luc Montaigner, co-discoverer of HTLV-lll/LAV (HIV), believes that HIV is harmless without a mycoplasma, and that hiv could never do the things attributed to it by conventional Aidism.

HIV is indeed, very dangerous, not in itself, but rather because of what often accompanies it—mycoplasma fermentans incognitus.

I hope everyone will google: “patent 5242820” to study exactly why its discoverer, US Army employee, Shih Ching Lo, claimed that this “novel” mycoplasma could do everything which has been falsely attributed to HIV.

My proposal for the delivery of these agents to blacks, gays and drug addicts:

1. Gays by hepatitis B vaccine

2. Blacks because none or very few of us have the CCR5 32 base pair deletion which arrived in the European population as a mutation and which saved many of them from the smallpox virus, which is, like HIV a CCR5-tropic virus. This makes blacks approx. 5 times more likely to contract hiv than whites, which coincides with the statistics.

3. Users of illegal street drugs by way of contamination of the drugs.

A gay, black drug addict would therefore be a member of the group with the highest risk for HIV and AIDS.

I certainly am not an expert on this subject.  But I do want to convey to all of you, including the “scientific experts”

I had a conversation with a gay man in San Fransisco in the spring of 1971.  He said that men who participated in anal sex were dying at a young age.  He said it was wideapread and that none one knew the cause. 

So, my message is”  HIV/Aids began yearsa before the “experts” say it did.

You guys need to research further.

Johndg, possibly gay men were dying due to drug use such as, poppers or drugs used to relax the spinchter muscle for sex. If one researches the first cases in this country, they were on both sides of the coast and in healthy males who were given Hepatitis B vaccinations. Claims have been made that these vaccinations were contaminated. However, this theory would not explain all cases amd leads me to believe that AIDS is due to many factors.

Of course the US created AIDS!! And if you try to prove it otherwise, you are part of the conspiracy!!

Peter Barry Chowka has an in-depth analysis of this whole issue here:
http://www.naturalhealthvillage.com/

Aids is a binary weapon; the first stage is HIV.

The trigger is one of the cell-wall deficient, pleomorphic (variable) mycoplasmas. Mycoplasma Fermentans and Mycoplasma Penetrans act to upgrade an otherwise harmless retrovirus to killer status. Both of these microbes were vectored by way of vaccinations; both of them were created or upgraded in a lab and administered to specific communities. The bulk of the hundreds of billions that have been stolen by the pharmaceutical companies and medical science researchers was taken by way of the totally corrupt and sinister HIV equals AIDS paradigm for the development and administration of useless, often fatal chemotherapies and nonsensical Hiv vaccinations, including the most recent by Merk, which has finally attained its well-deserved demise. Its only effect was that it made recipients even more likely to contract Hiv.

I challenge the people who appear on this forum, David Crowe, president of Rethinking Aids, Celia Farber, who wrote that fantastic piece in Harpers, HH Bauer for his book on the failure of the HIV/AIDS paradigm, Michael Ellner, president of Heal and Sepp Hasselberger from whom I learned about the antibody tests hoax, to stop hiding from the obvious truth—that Aids is the result of biological warfare research.

The world’s best-kept secret is that these cell-wall deficient organisms also cause many, if not all CANCERS. This has been suppressed by medical science, biological warfare researchers and the cancer industry.

It may not be true that the truth will set us free—it might, in fact, result in the hiring of men in black, but I hope that Cliff Kincaid, who blames the Russians for the AIDS/biological warfare story, and the other well-known posters on this forum will use their considerable talents to expose the truth about Aids and Cancer instead of continuing to present only half of the story—that HIV does not cause AIDS.

Bacteria, not viruses, mutations, oncogenes or aneuploidy cause cancer.

The truth begins at 5242820.

I don’t think Dr. Shyh Lo ever claimed mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans caused AIDS, he didn’t find it in all AIDS patients, but what he did prove that they were pathogenic in their own right because he induced a fatal disease in mice and monkeys and ruled it to be the cause of death of several previously healthy people that died of undiagnosed infections.

AIDS seems to be a complicated disease, and people who want to blame only one agent whether it’s Drugs or HIV are suffering from Tunnel vision.

I agree with the above poster, its Mycoplasma that was probably the bioweapon, here is the peer reviewed evidence.

Histopathology and doxycycline treatment in a previously healthy non-AIDS patient systemically infected by Mycoplasma fermentans (incognitus strain).
Lo SC, Buchholz CL, Wear DJ, Hohm RC, Marty AM.

Department of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, D.C. 20306-6000.

The newly recognized human pathogenic mycoplasma M. fermentans (incognitus strain) causes a fatal systemic infection in experimental monkeys, infects patients with AIDS, and apparently is associated with a fatal disease in previously healthy non-AIDS patients. An apparently immunocompetent male who lacked evidence of HIV infection developed fever, malaise, progressive weight loss, and diarrhea and had extensive tissue necrosis involving liver and spleen. M. fermentans (incognitus strain) was centered at the advancing margins of these necrotizing lesions. Following the treatment of 300 mg doxycycline per day for 6 weeks, he recovered fully. He has no fever or diarrhea, and his abnormal liver function tests have returned to normal. He regained all lost strength and 14 kg of lost weight and has remained disease free for more than 1 year.

PMID: 1788266 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

This is what the Nicolsons found in many GWI/CFS patients, and when they found it in sick vets armed agents from the DOD threatened them to stop thier research and their boss Dr. Fred Conrad was shot in the head right after he told them it was part of the bioweapons program. I don’t think they would lie about that, here is their barely fictionilized book. What hell they went through at the MD cancer center where they worked is unbeleivable. A nobel Laurete in medicine Dr. Roger Guilemann has given it a good review along with other scientists.

http://www.projectdaylily.com/

Hi Ive seen the Film Hiv fact or fraud, and was very impressed with Duesberg’s debunking of HIV. In his book “Inventing the AIDS Virus” he quickly dissmisses Dr. Shyh Ching Lo’s mycoplasma incognitus hypothesis, which I disagree with. Dr. Lo never claimed his mycoplasmas caused AIDS, rather because he induced a fatal wasting disease in mice and monkeys and he clearly ruled it to be the cause of death of 6 HIV negative people that suddenly died of an undiagnosed infection that they were pathenogenic to humans. I know he didnt find Mycoplasma in 100% of AIDS patients, he seemed to embrace the multifactorial hypothesis. I agree with him that mycoplasmas are pathenogenic in their own right, and he also felt (at least back then) that HIV was benign. Lo’s hypothesis was not that mycoplasmas cause AIDS, rather that mycoplasma incognitus was pathenogenic in their own right, and subset of AIDS patients are infected with a pathengenic mycoplasma. It is easy to understand how AZT poisoning, hard drug use, and a mycoplasma can cause similar symptoms and be ruled as the same disease, when they are really different diseases masquerading as one another. Here is some of Lo’s work and some of my comments. First here are details of the 6 deaths that clearly show mycoplasmas are pathenogenic in thier own right.

EXAMPLE 21
M. fermentans incognitus Identified In Non-AIDS Patients
Six patients from six different geographic areas who presented with acute
flu-like ilnesses were studied. The patients developed persistent fevers,
lymphadenopathy or diarrhea, pneumonia, and/or heart, liver, or adrenal
failure. They all died in 1-7 weeks.
These patients had no serological evidence of HIV infection and could not
be classified as AIDS patients according to CDC criteria. The clinical
signs as well as laboratory and pathological studies of these patients
suggested an active infectious process, although no etiological agent was
found despite extensive infectious disease work-ups during their
hospitalization.
Post-mortem examinations showed histopathological lesions of fulminant
necrosis involving the lymph nodes, spleen, lungs, liver, adrenal glands,
heart, and/or brain. No viral inclusion cells, bacteria, fungi, or
parasites could be identified in these tissues using special tissue stains.
However, the use of rabbit antiserum and the monoclonal antibodies raised
against M. fermentans incognitus (Example 8), the pathogen shown to cause
fatal systemic infection in primates (Example 10), revealed M. fermentans
incognitus antigens in these necrotizing lesions. In situ hybridization
using a .sup.35 S labeled M. fermentans incognitus-specific DNA probe
(Example 18) also detected M. fermentans incognitus genetic material in the
areas of necrosis.
Furthermore, M. fermentans incognitus particles were identified
ultrastructurally in these histopathological lesions. M. fermentans
incognitus was associated with the systemic necrotizing lesions in these
previously healthly non-AIDS patients with an acute fatal disease.
Typical areas of necrosis due to the M. fermentans incognitus infection of
these patients are shown in FIG. 21. Most of the tissues which had massive
necrosis showed only minimal lymphocytic or histiocytic response and few
neutrophils (FIGS. 21A, B and C). FIG. 21A is a photomicrograph of splenic
tissue (x 30.5). FIG. 21B shows the peripheral margin of necrosis of 21A (x
153). FIG. 21C is a photomicrograph of lymph node tissue (x 15.25).
Occasionally, a chronic or acute inflammatory reaction could be identified
in the areas of necrosis (FIG. 21D). FIG. 21D is a photomicrograph of
adrenal gland tissue (x 153).
Representative samples of the immunostained tissues of these patients are
shown in FIGS. 22A-D. FIG. 22A is a photomicrograph of spleen tissue (x
80). FIG. 22B is a higher magnification of the margin of necrosis of 22A (x
353). FIG. 22C is a photomicrograph of lymph node tissue (x 257). FIG. 22D
is a higher magnification of cells with positive cytoplasmic staining of
22C (x 706). FIG. 22E is a photomicrograph of hemorrhagic necrosis in
adrenal gland tissue (x 706). The areas which displayed the highest
concentration of M. fermentans incognitus related antigens were often at
the margin of necrosis.
However, the necrotic center and peripheral unaffected areas had relatively
low reactivity. Most of the positively stained cells were identified as
lymphocytes or histiocytes in the lymph nodes and spleen, or reactive
mononuclear cells in the liver, lungs, adrenal glands and heart.
Immunostaining of control tissues with necrotizing lesions from patients
with cat scratch disease, Hodgkin’s disease, malignant lymphoma,
cryptococcal fungal infections and hemorrhagic splenic tissues of Hairy
cell leukemia did not display a positive reaction. Serum obtained from the
same rabbit before immunizaiton with M. fermentans incognitus antigens also
failed to display a positive immunoreaction in the necrotizing lesions of
the six patients.
Using a .sup.35 S radiolabeled psb-2.2 M. fermentans incognitus DNA probe
(Example 18), strong labeling of clusters of cells at the margins of
necrosis of the affected tissues was observed. The affected tissues tested
were formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded spleen, lung, lymph node, adrenal
gland liver and bone marrow. The intensity of the labeling, or the number
of grains localized in the cells at the margin of necrosis was well above
the level present at either the necrosis (FIGS. 23A and B). However, there
were also clusters of apparently viable cells in the necrosis which were
also strongly labeled (FIG. 23C). FIG. 23A shows strong labeling of cells
at the peripheral zone of necrosis (x 76.5). FIG. 23B is a higher
magnification of 23A (x 422). FIG. 23C shows the occasional positive
labeling in an area of diffuse necrosis in the spleen (x 150). The inset of
23C is a higher magnification (x 422).
Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded liver and spleen tissues from a patient
with pancreatic carcinoma were used as negative controls, and showed no
labeling above background levels. A control probe of .sup.35 S labeled
cloning vector DNA, not containing psb-2.2 M. fermentans incognitus DNA did
not label any of the tested tissues (FIG. 23D). FIG. 23D is the same area
of FIG. 23C in the consecutive tissue section, hybridized with .sup.35 S
labeled cloning vector DNA not containing psb-2.2 M. fermentans incognitus
DNA (x 150) (i.e., control for 23C).
Areas of the necrotizing lesions which immunostained most positively for M.
fermentans incognitus specific antigens were examined by electromicroscopy.
Particles with characteristic ultrastructural features of M. fermentans
incognitus were directly identified in all the lesions. These particles in
the areas of necrosis, morphologically resembled M. fermentans incognitus
previously identified in Sb51 cells (Example 4) and in the tissues of
experimentally inoculated monkeys (Example 10). The particles were
heterogeneous in size and shape, with most particles being spherical and
about 140 to 280 nm in diameter. At the margin of necrosis, the M.
fermentans incognitus particles were located in the cytoplasm of cells with
apparently no cytopathic changes, or in fragments of cytoplasm from
completely disrupted cells (FIG. 24). FIG. 24 shows electron mircographs of
tissues derived from areas highly positive for M. fermentans
incognitus-specific antigens. FIG. 24A is an electron micrograph at a
margin of necrosis in adrenal gland tissues (Bar=1,000 nm). FIG. 24A.sub.2
is a higher magnification of 24A (Bar=100 nm). FIGS. 24B.sub.1, and B.sub.2
are electron micrographs of the peripheral zone of necrosis in lymph node
tissue (Bar=1,000 nm). FIG. 24B.sub.3 is a higher magnification of
24B.sub.2 (Bar=100 nm).
Table 5, below, summarizes the profiles and histopathological findings for
each of the six patients.
TABLE 5
__________________________________________________________________________
Summary of Patient’s Profiles and Histopathological Findings
Tissue with necrotic
Duration
lesions identified
Personal
Salient clinical of illness by biopsy or at Patient
Profiles presentation (weeks) autopsy
__________________________________________________________________________
1 29-year old
arthralgia, myalgia, conjunc-
4.5 spleen, lung
black man
tivitis, persistent fever,
hypercalcemia, liver failure
(late), ARDs* (late)
2 33-year old
persistent fever, diarrhea,
7 lymph nodes, liver,
white woman
generalized lymphadenopathy,
spleen, kidneys
abnormal liver functions,
seizure (late)
3 40-year old
arthralgia, myalgia, sore
3.5 adrenal glands
white man
throat, chest pain, persis-
(bilateral), heart,
tent fever, malaise, diarrhea,
brain
finger numbness, comatose
(late)
4 31-year old
vomiting and diarrhea, tremor,
1.5 liver, spleen
black woman
fever, epigastric and chest
pain, abnormal liver functions,
headache
5 23-year old
Watery diarrhea, vomiting,
3 liver, heart
white man
jaundice, arthralgia, myalgia
6 33-year old
fever, malaise, nausea and
1 spleen, liver
black man
vomiting, myalgia and weakness,
liver failure and jaundice,
confusion and hallucinations
(late)
__________________________________________________________________________
*ARDS Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Lo SC; Dawson MS; Newton PB 3rd; Sonoda MA; Shih JW; Engler WF; Wang RY; Wear DJ. Association of the virus-like infectious agent originally reported in patients with AIDS with acute fatal disease in previously healthy non-AIDS patients. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND HYGIENE, September 1989, volume 41, number 3, pages 364-376.

To the poster who self-identifies as “S”: I find it interesting that you have posted a link to Garth and Nancy Nicolson’s book, “Project Day Lily,” yet you are claiming that Lo did not believe that M.fermentans Incognitus causes Aids.

The Nicolson’s expose has as its main theme that Hiv is, in fact, the “false flag” that I claim it to be, and that it is really the mycoplasma that is the killing pathogen.

Project Day Lily is a fictionalized account of the creation and coverup of a biological weapon identified in the book as a mycoplasma. The Nicolsons claim to have used a fictionalized account in order to project themselves from certain forces and agencies which would not appreciate their exposition of the role of mycoplasmas as agents of biological warfare.

Garth and Nancy Nicolson, two of the world’s foremost researchers of mycoplasmas, best known for finding and treating mycoplasma infection in Gulf War soldiers, and who wrote the book, use the name, Dr. Lon, in place of Dr. Shyh Ching Lo, who received the patent for M.fermentans Incognitus. (5242820).

From the book:

“Dr. Richard Armwhite, the egocentric general officer, interrupted Dr. Lon. “Oh come off it, Dr. Long. Don’t tell me you’re going soft on us. Besides, it’s not as if it’s a virus that cannot be treated with antibiotics.” Dr. Armwhite continued, “It’s not HIV, you know.” Dr. Lon sarcastically answered, “No, It’s worse.” He paused again and then continued, “You’ve got to know that this is probably the true killer in HIV-AiDS. My lab has found this in 80% of AIDS patients, and it is especially high in the late stages of the disease. This is what is really killing the HIV-infected people, not the HIV virus.”

General Armwhite looked at Dr. Lon and became highly irritated. “I am warning you, Dr. Lon….You know damn well that officially it is HIV that causes AIDS, and that’s how it’s going to stay. It just got out of hand in Africa, you know, and no one cared about those fags in New York anyway. They will never find out that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS without the mycoplasma infection.”

This is a fictionalized account, but I believe that anyone who is not deluded by the Duesbergian theory of street-drugs-and poppers/Aids, and who has an independent mind and a serious understanding of the history of AIDS, and not beholden to any intellectual tribalism, will eventually come to the conclusion that Aids is a man-made illness.

Except HIV is a figment - An imaginary virus that has never been isolated.

Political constructs do not have viral causes!

I believe we are dealing with genocide - gay men, non-whites and the very poor are being socially isolated and medically murdered under the cloak of HIV/AIDS.

In my opinion these crimes against humanity involve chemo/psychological-warfare and not bio-warfare.

The lumping of the various health challenges of these high risk social health groups under the banner of a sexually transmitted CD4 deficiency syndrome was a hoax, designed to discourage sex, save the failing cancer industry and justify the need for funding the Public Health Service…

If public health officials lied about who is at risk and why—(They did!)  Why should we believe anything they tell us.

“AIDS FIGHT IS SKEWED BY FEDERAL CAMPAIGN EXAGGERATING RISKS
Most Heterosexuals Face Scant Peril but Receive Large Portion of Funds”, May 1, 1996 Wall Street Journal Page 1 and entire inside Page A6

I do not believe there is any merit in the bio-warfare theory because:

1. The CD4-deficiency causes AIDS theory has been profoundly discredited
2. Testing positive on any antibody test is not proof of an active infection
3. The sexual transmission of AIDS has been profoundly discredited
The research is clear the life-extending treatments actually shorten lives

No one is suggesting that mycoplasmae are not harmless. I am not convinced that they cause AIDS. If they do, how has such a select group of the population been exposed to them? I think that Duesberg’s hypothesis has some merit, however, their may be other co-factors and health habits that enter into the equation. I think that we all might agree that these people have low immunity. It boggles my mind that no studies are being done with all of the funds available to prove or disprove this. They don’t want to know the truth as their funding would cease to exist.

“S”, you have written, regarding Shyh Ching Lo’s position on the origin of AIDS: “...he seemed to embrace the multifactorial hypothesis.”

Will you please present a quotation from Lo’s body of work which gives you this impression? I have been searching in vain. I think if you have read his comments in the patent for M.fermentans Incognitus, you will understand that Lo believed that this “novel,” “pathogenic mycoplasma” was a much better candidate as an immune system destroyer than HIV.

Michael Ellner, you write, apparently to supply evidence that HIV is not a man-made virus:

“I do not believe there is any merit in the biowarfare theory because…”

1. CD4 deficiency…disproved.
2. testing positive is not proof of active infection.
3. sexual transmission has been discredited.

While I agree with all of these assertions, I must suggest that whether they are true or false, has nothing to do with whether HIV is a man-made, synthetic retrovirus, or that AIDS was developed using biowarfare technology.

Here’s my evidence that HIV exists, not as a naturally-occuring entitiy, but rather, as one constucted in a lab.

First: Google “Latent Viruses and Mutated Oncogenes—No Evidence for Pathogenesis: by Peter Duesberg, and find Chapter IV, Section A, entitled: “Mutated Proto-myc Genes and Burkitt’s Lymphoma. In the fourth paragraph from the title you will find this sentence:

“In efforts to develope a system that is more efficient than transfection for introducing mutated proto-myc genes into cells or animals, synthetic retroviruses with the coding region of the human proto-myc gene were constructed.”

I believe that these “synthetic retroviruses” were created by the prototechnology which also allowed the creation of so-called HIV, and also that Peter Duesberg was involved in the development of this technology.

Here are patents for two synthetic viruses:

U.S. Patent 4859587. From the patent: “Recombinant herpes simples viruses.”

“Methods of preparing recombinant viruses, vaccines, incorporating the viruses and methods of immunizing a human host by innoculation with the vaccines are disclosed.”

Also: US Patent 6846670

From the patent: “Genetically engineered herpes virus for the treatment of cardiovascular disease.”

May we now initially agree that scientists have constructed synthetic viruses?

Michael Ellner, besides the apparent conversation between you, Montagnier and Lo, could you please supply us with any published comments by them which support your assertion that “both agreed that AIDS was multi-factorial and doubted that any single agent could be the “cause.”

I have never found anything in the published works of Lo or Montagnier to support a “multifactorial” cause for AIDS.

I am sure that if these gentlemen truly believed this it would be possible to find it in their published works. Such a thing would be difficult for them NOT to mention in their many published works and studies.

As you might be aware, Montagnier, along with Robert Gallo, was happy to accept President Reagan’s peacemaking in the controversy over which one of them had discovered the cause of Aids, so-called HIV.

In case you are responding to my comments, I have never claimed that HIV is a “stealth” virus. I’ve repeated several times on this forum that I believe that HIV is completely benign and harmless, and certainly has never been used to target anyone, gay, drug-addicted or poor.

My theory is that HIV is a “false flag” and various mycoplasmas—fermentans and penetrans—and perhaps the Lyme Disease bacteria, Borrelia Burgdorferi, are the true immune system destroyers.

And I believe that the cobbled-together proteins and gene products known as HIV were obviously constructed in a lab and are used as the backbone of the phony HIV causes Aids paradigm.

And that Lo’s “pathogenic mycoplasma” for which the United States Army has the patent, was developed as an agent of biological warfare.

Montagnier apparently came to believe that HIV was harmless unless it was accompanied by a mycoplasma, which he considered a co-factor.

For Montagnier to have accepted a multifactorial cause of AIDS would have meant that he had disavowed his own claim to have discovered the Aids virus, so-called HIV. To my knowledge, he has not done this or returned the royalty money he has received from his “discovery.”

He has never written that he believes in the Duesberg/Crowe street drugs/ bath houses/  poppers, multifactorial hypothesis. Although we all understand that AZT and other DNA chain terminators, nucleoside and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and various protease inhibitors have killed thousands.

I believe that you are incorrect about this but would be happy to admit that I’m wrong if you can supply quotations from the works of Montagnier or Lo which support a multifactorial cause of AIDS.

Sources, please.

Co-factors:

These are extracts from my review (published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, 19 #3 (2005) 413—419) of the memoirs of Gallo and of Montagnier:

Virus Hunting: AIDS, Cancer, and the Human Retrovirus : a Story of Scientific Discovery, by Robert Gallo, BasicBooks, 1991.
Virus: The Co-Discoverer of HIV Tracks Its Rampage and Charts the Future, by Luc Montagnier, W. W. Norton, 2000 (translated by Stephen Sartarelli from the French,  Des virus et des hommes, Editions Odile Jacob, 1994; parts of the text updated to 1998).

Contradicting much of what Montagnier says elsewhere in the book is his conviction that HIV alone is no serious threat to health, that it requires some as-yet-unknown co-factor to lead from HIV infection to AIDS, most likely the mycoplasma that Montagnier’s group has isolated from a number of AIDS patients (pp. 124, 169—178, 183 ff.).

Gallo has never publicly admitted in plain words that HIV is not the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS; in his book, he “presents the irrefutable evidence that HIV causes AIDS (chapter 15)” (p.7). Yet at several places he acknowledges that infection by HIV (p. 199) and progression to AIDS (pp. 252—252) depend on some co-factor, possibly certain venereal diseases (p. 199) or a new human herpes virus (p. 252), perhaps HHV-6 (pp. 254—255); the HTLVs that Gallo himself had earlier discovered being “the only known specific co-factors for AIDS” (p. 248, emphasis in original). He insists that HIV is the sine qua non, that AIDS will still occur without co-factors, it will “probably just take longer”, and he dismisses as “unlikely” Montagnier’s belief that a mycoplasma is responsible for the depletion of T4 cells that produces AIDS (p. 297). On the other hand, he also writes that “If not all HIV-infected people develop AIDS (and that is a possibility)” (p. 302)

Michael Ellner, Luc Montagnier considered the mycoplasmas or other microbes to be co-factors, by which he specifically meant other microbes which could upgrade HIV from a benign to a killer status. This upgrading comprised Montagnier’s “co-factor” hypothesis. It is entirely distinct from the Crowe/Duesberg “multifactorial” hypothesis.

This belief in an HIV upgrader does not represent the “multi-factorial” cause of Aids, which you and Mr. Bauer, and Mr. Crowe have been supporting on this forum. As you know the multifactorial hypothesis claims that Aids is not caused by a microbe which, by itself, destroys the immune system, such is claimed for HIV, but by factors such as lifestyle, multi-bacterial infections picked up by gays in bathhouses, which overwhelm the immune system, inhaling poppers, street drugs such as cocaine, meth and heroin and including the antiretrovirals, as they came on stream in the nineties.

I found your quote on a quotation website, without any reference to its source. Unless you supply some sources for it, is it not logical for me to assume that you found it on the same website and don’t really know its derivation? It was taken completely out of context and presented here to support your claim that Montagnier supported the “multifactorial” origin of Aids.

It would not occur to most serious people to support their ideas by going to quotation websites without any understanding of the origin or context of the quote.

Will you please supply us with the exact reference, that is, publication from which the quote was taken so we may assess the context and discover Montagnier’s understanding of the existence of co-factors?

Montagnier’s quote regarding ethnicity was similar to Mr. Bauer’s recognition of the fact that HIV seems to be able to read the DNA of the person with whom it comes into contact, which results in black people being much more susceptible to infection.

Less than two years ago it was discovered that alleles are not inherited, one from each parent, as it has always been assumed. Some alleles are inherited in clusters. What this means is that,  if lymphocyte receptors are among the cells that are inherited assymetrically, it is very possible that black people, who always possess receptors such as CCR5 and others, will be several times more likely to become infected with HIV than Caucasian people, and not just in the slight discrepancy that had been theorized earlier.

In the quote which you presented, Montagnier was apparently speculating about co-receptors as factors determining which ethnic group will become more easily infected. This is an epidemiologic finding as opposed to an etiologic finding, which is the context of Montagnier’s co-factor hypothesis.

I’d like to ask you also if Montagnier agreed with your assessment that “Hiv is a figment—an imaginary virus,” as you have written on this forum? Perhaps he let you know his feeling on this as you were engaging in conversation while you “hung out.”

So far, all of those whose works I have studied, who believe that HIV does not exist, also believe in the “multifactorial” cause of AIDS.

Michael Ellner, I’m very surprised that you continue to believe that I think HIV is a dangerous pathogen. I’ve stated my belief that it is harmless many times on this forum.

In all due respect, which is considerable, is it not appropriate for me to wonder if you are using the “strawman” mechanism?—wrongly attributing beliefs to an opponent in a discussion or debate?

In my first comment on this forum I stated that I believe HIV is a “false flag” conglomeration of proteins and gene products—an invented virus-developed in a lab and used to conceal the real AIDS pathogens, which would be readily discovered to be derived from biological warfare efforts. As my initial evidence I presented the patent 5242820, owned by the US government. The patent is for a “novel” pathogenic mycoplasma. Lo found it in many of the body tissues and organs of AIDS patients. Garth Nicolson discovered mycoplasmas in the tissues of Gulf War Syndrome victims. Both men concluded that this pathogen is not merely commensal or opportunistic but appears to have causative capabilities.

Therefore your question: “Why do you believe any one is infected with a HI-virus?” does not apply as I have never written that I believe this.

Have you been to the patent website and studied Lo’s patent application for M.Fermentans Incognitus? He proposes it as a likely candidate for the causative agent in AIDS and explains that HIV does not satisfy KOCH’s postulates.

As far as having a “stage name,” Mr. Ellner, you may verify my identity by looking my name up in the online directory at Telus.com at Surrey British Columbia, or by coming to my residence on the King George Highway in Surrey BC, or you can contact David Crowe with whom I have had at least fifty email exchanges on this issue.

Truman Green is my real name and if you would like to use “Mr.” in addressing me, I imagine that you understand that it would be “Mr.Green” and not “Mr. Truman.”

The quotation from Lo is copied from his patent number 5242820. Have you read it? He states that “The human retroviruses have not fulfilled Koch’s Postulates re. producing transmissable AIDS-like diseases in experimental animals.”
The point he is making is that in this singular condition of Koch’s Postulates—the ability to produce disease in experimental animals—HIV has failed the test. HOWEVER! Mycoplasmas are known to produce fatal disease in experimental animals. “S”, has posted sources which verify this on this forum. Lo has done a study in which he injected non-human primates with mycoplasmas. These animals died within several months, while the control animals remained healthy.

You have moved the goal posts to include whether mycoplasmas have been found in all cases of AIDS. The key words in Lo’s statement are “re. producing transmissible AIDS-like disease…” Neither I nor Lo has claimed that mycoplasma has been found in all cases of AIDS. I believe that so-called HIV, the man-made synthetic virus-like structure, was vectored together with other pathogens—mycoplasmas—in the original hepatitis B vaccines which were targeted at young gay homosexuals in Manhattan, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. As stage one of a binary weapon, so-called HIV is not required to be a deadly, or even disease-causing pathogen.

I also believe that both Montagnier and Gallo “discovered” this synthesis of recombined viral proteins because they knew they were there, and that they were part of the original conspiracy to test these biowarfare products on certain segments of the American population, gays, blacks and injection drug users.

In order for HIV to play its role in the conspiracy as stage one of a binary weapon, it was not necessasry for it to be a deadly pathogen, only that it was identified as the causative agent, and that antibody tests be developed to identify it. 

The original cases of fatal immunodepression, in which young gay men died quickly, were caused by the mycoplasmas but HIV was wrongly identified as the causative agent. However, you have correctly identified an aspect of the Aids hoax about which I have not been completely certain—whether HIV has any pathogenic capacity whatsoever—even being capable of creating temporary flu-like symptoms—as the believers in conventional HIV/AIDS theory seem to believe.

I have presented two studies in early posts in which Chinese and Japanese researchers developed hypotheses regarding how mycoplasmas are able to upgrade the replication of HIV, thereby making it a more dangerous microbe. These studies are in support of the apparent hypothesis of Luc Montagnier who claims to believe that HIV requires a co-factor in order to destroy the human immune system.

In my next post I will present evidence that adventitious contamination of vaccines has been admitted by the CDC.

The requirement to satisfy all of Koch’s Postulates is a requirement of the conventional HIV/AIDS rethinkers, not mine nor Lo’s. That being said, I think if you review the literature—-especially the findings of Garth Nicolson—you will find that mycoplasmas are very difficult to find in vivo, and they are also pleomorphic. Whether they are found or not does not absolutely bear on whether they are present.

Mycoplasmas, as you claim, may indeed fail Koch’s Postulates, but I wouldn’t guarantee that this failure would prevent them from destroying immune systems and killing people.

Yes, I agree that the entire Aids paradigm based on so-called HIV positivity, CD4 counts and viral loads is fallacious. No argument from me on this.

I would hope you understand my point of view on this by now.

My thesis is mainly contrary to yours in that I believe that something called HIV does exist, and is not a figment of various imaginations or an imaginary virus as you believe. I think the confusion over whether HIV exists is caused by the fact that HIV is not a conventional virus, but a recombined synthesis of proteins and nucleotide base sequence and amino acid sequences of similar viruses, possibly avian retrovirus and visna virus; and that it has no proven origin in nature, neither from Green monkeys, chimps or Macaques and doesn’t seem to be susceptible to conventional isolation or electron micrograph photography. I disbelieve the so-called “bushmeat” theory because Africans have been eating primatesd for thousands of years without contracting a deadly immune depression; and that AIDS appeared first in America among young gay men, then consequently in Africa, identified only by clinical case definition by which the subject was not required to have a HIV antibody test.

I believe that HIV didn’t exist in Africa until it was vectored by way of the small-pox vaccine, and that most of the illnesses identified as “AIDS” in Africa, are just more of the same old diseases present there for a hundred years and caused by war, poverty, lack of medical programs, contaminated water, malaria, tubercolosis etc.

And that the original fatal AIDS cases in America were caused by a pathogen, one of the mycoplasmas which were vectored into certain communities in order to test a biological weapon.

Repeat: I agree with you, Crowe, Duesberg, Bauer et al that HIV doesn’t cause Aids.

Have you been to the US patent site and read Shyh Ching Lo’s patent which is entitled “pathogenic mycoplasma?”

The patent number is 5242820. You can find it by merely googling the number or using the words Patent 5242820.

Please report your findings regarding Lo’s claims for his “novel” mycoplasma here after you have thoroughly studied the patent.

Do you have a theory regarding why the United States Army would require a patent on Mycoplasma Fermentans Incognitus, if the intention was not to protect an agent which they deemed useful for the development of military weapons?

I understand and respectfully disagree with your view- Truman.

The rare syndrome that killed young gay men in the late 1970s and early 1980s never appeared in Africa—- AIDS in the West and African AIDS were and remain completely unrelated!

Most of the early AIDS deaths in the US were iatrogenic as they are today.

1) Truman Green wrote:
The original cases of fatal immunodepression, in which young gay men died quickly, were caused by the mycoplasmas

Repeat: I agree with you, Crowe, Duesberg, Bauer et al that HIV doesn’t cause Aids.
All pre-1985 AIDS diagnoses were presumptive (there was no test back then!), and between 1985 and 1987, 93% of AIDS cases reported from NYC and San Francisco did not include HIV status information as cited in the CDC’s own 1987 Case Definition revisions. Note, more than 2/3 of US AIDS cases came from these two cities. There is no evidence that these deaths were caused by a new infectious agent!

On the other hand, there are well known but ignored, common non-infectious factors among the select subset of gay men getting ill and dying in the late seventies and early eighties.  Two significant health risks were - 1) repeated sexually transmitted diseases which were already treatment resistant because of the indiscriminate “preventative” use of antibiotics, and 2) also in this same subset of gay men there was a heavy and unprecedented use of oral aphrodisiacs and other “recreational” drugs, particularly “poppers”; IV drugs with IV drug users; in hemophiliacs and blood recipients, the preexisting condition and treatment alone are high-risk factors and then there is the iatrogenic risk group -chemo/radiation for KS “treatment”, AZT, “anti-virals” and “preventative antibiotics” with chemo/radiation,  AZT, “anti-viral” and “preventative antibiotic” users.

Sorry Truman, I do not need a bio-weapon to explain the early cases of AIDS.

Truman Green wrote:
Have you been to the US patent site and read Shyh Ching Lo’s patent which is entitled “pathogenic mycoplasma?”
I have studied mycoplasmas and I could not find any evidence that mycoplasmas caused the early AIDS cases (see above and below) or that they are more than pathogenic OIs.

What I find troubling about Luc, Lo and Nicolson is this: If you can’t find the microbe that you are looking for, as far as I am concerned—It ‘s not there. L-L&N;contend that their pathogenic mycoplasmas are there and we just can’t find those tricky devils- that is not science!

Truman Green wrote:
Do you have a theory regarding why the United States Army would require a patent on Mycoplasma Fermentans Incognitus, if the intention was not to protect an agent which they deemed useful for the development of military weapons?

Almost all scientific discoveries belong to whomever is paying the scientist.

As a contract employee of the U. S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP)/Pentagon- it is not surprising that any and all “patents” or discoveries would belong to his employers—

Although, Gallo and Montagnier recieve a royality for their “invention” the US and French governments are the patent holders.

Once again, Truman Green wrote:
And that the original fatal AIDS cases in America were caused by a pathogen, one of the mycoplasmas which were vectored into certain communities in order to test a biological weapon.
I UNDERSTAND that you believe that a bio-weapon (BW) was added to the hep B vaccine with the intent of killing gay men and this BW is the unrecognized cause of AIDS.
I disagree, based on my extensive study and experience. FYI- I have personally assisted and studied 1000s of gay men with AIDS related fears and conditions between 1982 and 1985. It is true, almost 100 percent of these men had received the hep B vaccine…. So, I paid close attention to the possibility that the vaccine was somehow involved… I believe the hepB vaccine is involved in “AIDS” in that it puts people at a much higher risk for false positive HIV-antibody test results, just like flu and other vaccines.

By the way, I discovered another risk factor that is rarely mentioned. Almost 100 percent of the men who had actual AIDS-related diseases shared that they had previously suffered from what they called “Gay Bowel Syndrome”... These men reported having passive anal sex with 100s and often 1000s of different partners. Other risks included fisting and rimming and it seems to be taboo to mention these serious health risks when discussing the early men developing AIDS.

I would like to add: Mr. Ellner admits that “almost 100 percent of these men had received the Hep B vaccine.” (referring to men had developed possible symptoms of AIDS).

If a cohort of one hundred men develop salmonella poison and they have all eaten at the same restaurant then every investigator on the planet will be almost certain that restaurant is the origin of the Salmonella poisoning.

This is how we generally do cause and effect on this planet.

I believe that it takes a rare kind of determined denialism to so confidently rule out the Hepatitis B vaccine as the vector for AIDS—especially for a rethinker who believes that Hiv does not cause AIDS.

Truman wrote;
<<<I would like to add: Mr. Ellner admits that “almost 100 percent of these men had received the Hep B vaccine.” (referring to men had developed possible symptoms of AIDS). >>>

You misquote me—The hepB vaccine has a high correlation to hiv-positivity what ever the heck that non-specific reaction means—

However I have never met one person with AIDS whose only risk factor was getting a hepB vaccine. Every one I met who had AIDS had many of the well known health risks… which supports a multi-factorial view

You can find mycoplasma incognitus in the diseased brains of many AIDS patients and the several HIV negative patients that the Armed forces lab ruled to be the cause of death by Mycoplamsa incognitus, they were 6 previously healthy military personal that suddenly died of myterious pathogenic infections, and the Mycoplasma incognitus was found and autopsies were done were EM photos were showing this microbe rotting people’s organs.  This proves they are pathogenic in their own right. References above

Yes Mycoplasmas were not found in all AIDS cases, but is AIDS one single disease, or several different Diseases under one nebulous umbrella?

Kochs postulates are follfilled for Mycoplasma incognitus, not as a cause of all AIDS cases, but for being pathogenic in their own right since Lo et al induced a fatal disease in animals and ruled it to be the cause of death of several previously healthy people that suddenly died.  Em pictures were taken of this microbe causing lesions in organs.

Ironically this is what Garth and
Nancy Nicolson found in many CFS and Gulf war vets blood, and when they did their boss at the MD cancer center told them it was part of the bioweapons program and moments later he was shot by a professional assasin.  Armed agents also warned the Nicolsons to stop thier research.
Their barely fictionilized book is mindblowing.
http://www.projectdaylily.com

Some will say Im a nut, but I’m not this is the same government that killed 3 million in vietnam, experimented on Black people, Truman is right its mycoplasma thats the bioweapon, HIV is harmless.

I believe I have established that scientists have been capable of creating retroviruses for many years; that Duesberg admits that “avian retroviruses were constructed;” that there was at least a time-line correlation between the Hepatitis B vaccines being administered to young gay men and the appearance of fatal immune depression; I believe the record regarding the strangeness of the so-called HIV pathogen speaks for itself. Lo’s patent for M.Fermentans Incognitus, and his various studies on M.Fermentans Penetrans strongly suggest that there is a positive animal model of causation for immune depression and death.

I would like to continue my theory that HIV actually exists as a man-made, snythetic para-virus, contrary to the beliefs of many rethinkers; that the debacle between Montagnier and Gallo was an elaborate hoax; that Lo’s mycoplasma is the real cause of AIDs and
Gulf War Syndrome; that antibiotics have proven to be useful for GWS and AIDS, and that the studies on the efficacy of Doxycycline (an atibiotic) for AIDS patients have been suppressed.

But first, I’d like to thank AIM and Cliff Kincaid, whose article above is in complete antithesis to my opinions, for keeping this forum open and allowing the presentation of my ideas and those of all of the other posters on this site.

Yes Doxycyclinne can cure people who are infected with Lo’s pathogenic mycoplasmas(Gulf war vets/CFS patients)

Histopathology and doxycycline treatment in a previously healthy non-AIDS patient systemically infected by Mycoplasma fermentans (incognitus strain).
Lo SC, Buchholz CL, Wear DJ, Hohm RC, Marty AM.

Department of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, D.C. 20306-6000.

The newly recognized human pathogenic mycoplasma M. fermentans (incognitus strain) causes a fatal systemic infection in experimental monkeys, infects patients with AIDS, and apparently is associated with a fatal disease in previously healthy non-AIDS patients. An apparently immunocompetent male who lacked evidence of HIV infection developed fever, malaise, progressive weight loss, and diarrhea and had extensive tissue necrosis involving liver and spleen. M. fermentans (incognitus strain) was centered at the advancing margins of these necrotizing lesions. Following the treatment of 300 mg doxycycline per day for 6 weeks, he recovered fully. He has no fever or diarrhea, and his abnormal liver function tests have returned to normal. He regained all lost strength and 14 kg of lost weight and has remained disease free for more than 1 year.

PMID: 1788266 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Re Micheal Ellner
AZT use isn’t found in all aids cases, does that mean AZT isnt pathogenic in its own right?

There again, how can a harmless retrovirus cause PML or anything else for that matter. Talking to doctors about AIDS is like talking to programmed robots. Everyone on this site knows more about it because we at least have open minds and consider other possibilities. They will not change their minds until the official position about AIDS changes.

Today I discovered that Shyh Ching Lo also has the patent for Mycoplasma Penetrans. The patent number is 5215914 and can be found online by googling the patent number. From the patent:“The present invention relates to a novel mycoplasma isolated from the urine of patients with AIDS. The mycoplasma has unique morphological and pathobiological properties. The invention further relates to the DNA sequence of the novel mycoplasma and vaccines against the mycoplasma infection.”“The mycoplasma does not appear to be related to any other species of human or animal mycoplasma. This novel mycoplasma is referred to hereafter as M.Penetrans.“I hope everyone who can’t reject the role of these pathogens in AIDS quite as easily as Michael Ellner, will go to the patent site and study the information diligently. Lo also has completed an extremely interesting study regarding the antibody correlation between HIV infection and the presence of M.Penetrans. I will locate it and present it on this forum.

Ellner suggests that Lo would not have recognized the neccesity to link HIV, AIDS and the “novel” mycoplasmas. I am not a scientist, but even I would understand that some evidence of correlation must be presented.

Here’s Lo’s evidence regarding a correlation that is more than opportunistic.

Title: “High frequency of antibodies to Mycoplasma penetrans in HIV-infected patients.”

Abstract: “Mycoplasma penetrans, a novel mycoplasma isolated from HIV-l-infected patients with AIDS, has pathogenic properties associated with in-vivo virulence. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and western blotting detected a more than 100 times higher frequency of antibodies to the mycoplasma in serum from HIV-l infected patients with AIDS (40%) than from HIV-negative controls (0.3%). Serum from 20% of HIV-l-infected, symptom-free individuals also had M.Penetrans specific antibodies. None of the 178 HIV-negative patients with different non-AIDS diseases, many associated with immune dysfunction and/or low white cells counts, tested positive for the antibodies. M. penetrans, apparently not commensal and not a simple opportunist, is uniquely associated with HIV-1 infection and AIDS.”

Translated into plain Enlish, Lo finds that patients with AIDS who are also infected with HIV have one hundred times the antibodies to M.penetrans than patients not infected with HIV. None of the 178 HIV-negative patients with non-AIDS diseases had antibodies to M. Penetrans. The persuavive conclusion is that HIV becomes virulent only when associated with certain mycoplasmas. Among Lo’s subjects, the presence of antibodies to M. penetrans in HIV-positive patients appears to be the deciding factor which determines if HIV will cause illness or be almost immediately destroyed by the immune system.

The other possibility is that HIV causes no pathology whatsoever, but has merely been vectored along with M. Penetrans, which would explain the concurrent presence.

Some intellectual ability in syllogistic logic will be helpful here, but unless Lo has used improper methodology, his linkage is very compelling.

Again: “None of the 178 HIV-negative patients with non-AIDS diseases had antibodies to Mycoplasma Penetrans.”

I’d also recommend a study by Luc Montagnier entitled “A Longitudinal Study of Seroreactivity Against Mycoplasma Penetrans in HIV-infected Homosexual Men: Association With Disease Progression.” This study is available on Pubmed.

Montagnier’s conclusion from the abstract:

“These findings suggest an association between active M. Penetrans infection and progression of HIV Disease.”

Dear Reader,

The important thing is to keep an open mind and to be willing to re-think every thing that we think we know about HIV and AIDS and that includes the possible role that mycoplasmas may or may not play in developing the OIs and conditions called AIDS.

Having said that, I highly recommend setting your BS-detectors to go off the second that you see or hear the phrase: “Previously Healthy”

Translated into plain English, Lo’s Abstract (“High frequency of antibodies to Mycoplasma penetrans in HIV-infected patients.”)
claims that because AIDS patients who tested HIV+ have one hundred times the antibodies to M.penetrans than HIV- controls, that 20% of asymptomatic HIV+ individuals also have these antibodies, and that none of the diseased HIV- patients in their study had these antibodies, that HIV itself becomes virulent only when associated with certain mycoplasmas.

Sounds convincing. But back up a minute. If this microbe is so pervasive in these patients, i.e., if there is viremia, why is Lo, et al, using indirect methods to detect it, namely, using antibody tests and PCR to detect it, instead of culturing the mycoplasma directly from the blood samples? Could it be the same reason that AIDS experts never, ever offer direct evidence of HIV-viremia, i.e., that there is no viremia, mycoplasmic or
otherwise?!

Lo admits that, “Serum from 20% of HIV-l-infected, symptom-free individuals also had M.Penetrans-specific antibodies”. If M.penetrans is pathogenic or makes HIV pathogenic, as claimed by Lo, Green and S., why are 20% of people with both infections symptom free? Is the idea that both HIV and mycoplasma have latent periods? Before you try to answer that tricky question, keep in mind that all the question does is take you further from the first, far more essential question: How can there be ANY infectious illness without viremia? Easy. There cannot be. If there is no viremia, there is no infectious illness. You can only be dealing with a non-infectious illness.

In my opinion, Lo, Green and the mysterious S did not do anything other than reinforce the idea that the death of their patients, in particular the rotting of their tissues and organs, was caused by highly cytotoxic agents, namely, non-infectious chemicals like ARVs, protease inhibitors, antibiotics and recreational drugs. But, hey, that’s just my opinion…

I hope that we can all agree that is long past time to demand public hearings and a full blown investigation into the all of the lies the public health officials and major news outlets have told us about the risks, scope and causes of AIDS.

“Sounds convincing. But back up a minute. If this microbe is so pervasive in these patients, i.e., if there is viremia, why is Lo, et al, using indirect methods to detect it, namely, using antibody tests and PCR to detect it, instead of culturing the mycoplasma directly from the blood samples? Could it be the same reason that AIDS experts never, ever offer direct evidence of HIV-viremia, i.e., that there is no viremia, mycoplasmic or
otherwise?”

This is not true at all Lo did not use indirect methods, he autopsied several AIDS patients and 6 previously healthy men and women in the military that died within 1-7 weeks of an undiagnosed infection and took Electron microscopic pictures of the Mycoplasma and saw it directly rotting the organs of these people.

These previously healthy HIV negative patients were not on AZT were totally healthy and suddenly went into a high fever comatose state and on autopsy the only thing found in the tissues was mycoplamsa incognitus rotting every organ.  They all died in 1-7 weeks clealry proving this microbe is pathogenic in its own right, and can kill, but im sure many people can have a better immune response, so it can cause a less severe wide array of illnesses, many of which will be misdiagnosed as hypochondria etc.

The same autposies were done on monkeys that were inoculated that died in 7-9 months and again EM was used to see the mycoplasma causing necrosis.  This is about as direct as you get in Virology, taking pictures from the autopsied damaged tissues with the electron microscope.

As far as Asymptomatic people testing positive, maybe their immune system kept it at bay and they are only mild symptoms in the early stages, symptoms that were written off, much like most people with Gulf war illness etc whose symptoms are written off.
Here is another case report of a near death
experience from a 17 year old girl, mycoplasma penetrans was the only agent found
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol5no1/yanez.htm

I have asked Mr. Ellner to go to the patent websites for M.Fermentans and M.Penetrans several times. He completely ignores the request and refuses to directly discuss any of the information in the patents.

As far as antibiotics being dangerous, everything composed of atoms on the planet is dangerous if it us used irresponsibly. MRSA is not caused by the antibiotics but rather by the fact that bacteria, in their awe-inspiring replication mechanism,(one unit to a million in 24 hours)known as binary fission, are able to preserve those members of their species which have become resistant to certain kinds of antibiotics. The neo-Darwinians call this natural selection.

If mycoplasmas are truly associated with HIV, either as the embedded and purposefully-vectored real causative agent, or by upgrading HIV to killer status, it is essential that they are exposed as killer pathogens and not just commensal or opportunistic infections.

I think anyone who independently studies the so-called immunodepression virus will eventually question its origin and conclude that it originated neither from green or macaque monkeys or from Africans eating bushmeat. It originated in America and was constructed in the fashion of SHIV (simian-human immunodeprssion virus), the recombinant herpes viruses, the patents for which I have posted, and the avian retroviruses which Peter Duesberg admits “were constructed.”

HIV is a recombinant, genetically-engineered synthetic conglomeration of the proteins of naturally-occurring viruses. The shame is that any serious person with an interest in medical science would fail to recognize this obvious fact. M.Fermentans and M.Penetrans were upgraded from conventional mycoplasmas to killer pathogens. If this is not biological warfare then there is no biological warfare.

If the truth tends to wreck the Duesberg/Crowe/Bauer/Ellner rethinking AIDS program, it might also have a role in the eventual destruction of conventional AIDISM.

Green writes:
<< Here’s a study completed not by Lo or Montagnier, but by Grau O, Slizewicz B and Tuppin P.>>

Grau O, Slizewicz B and Tuppin P. were part of Montagnier’s AIDS research group in Paris.

Mr. Green,

My position is based on the absence of “HIV”-viremia and the lack of a correlation between CD4 cells and disease at every stage of so-called AIDS progression.

My concern is that “testing” and “early treatment” are actively recommended, when the actual evidence clearly demonstrates that there is no proof of infection(1) and early treatments shorten lives(2).

I have investigated and reject the bio-warfare model for two reasons.

1) The Lo and Montagnier theories are based on the belief that that mycoplasma infection increases HIV replication and the fact that there is no HIV-viremia at any point in so-called AIDS progression profoundly discredits that belief.

2) The abstract of the study below speaks for itself:
“Mycoplasma species in rapid and slow HIV progressors.”  Intl J STD AIDS. 2000 Feb;11(2):76-9
Ainsworth JG, Hourshid S, Easterbrook PJ, Gilroy CB, Weber JN, Taylor-obinson D.
Division of Medicine, Imperial College School of Medicine, St Mary’s Hospital, London, UK.

We determined the relationship between the presence of Mycoplasma fermentans and Mycoplasma penetrans and the rate of progression of HIV-associated disease in a nested case-control study based on a cohort of 159 HIV-infected patients with different rates of disease progression. Study participants were divided into 3 progression groups: non-progressors who had been HIV-1 seropositive for at least 9 years and had remained asymptomatic with a CD4 cell count of > 500/mm3; slow progressors who had been HIV-1 seropositive for at least 9 years and whose CD4 cell count had fallen below 500 cells, and who had developed symptomatic disease or AIDS; and rapid progressors who had developed AIDS within 5 years of HIV infection. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were collected at enrollment and examined by mycoplasma polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays. Three (7%) of 46 non-progressors, 3 (3%) of 86 slow progressors, and 2 (7%) of 27 rapid progressors were M. fermentans positive. The PBMCs from 91 subjects were tested for M. penetrans DNA and none was positive. The small proportion of M. fermentans-positive patients indicates that the mycoplasma cannot be important in the development of AIDS in the large majority of patients. Furthermore, no association was found between its presence and more rapid HIV disease progression.
PMID: 10678473 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

1) Bio/Technology, 11, 6/93
2) New Study Questions Use of AZT In Early Treatment of AIDS Virus, By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN, New York Times, April 2, 1993 // Early Treatment for H.I.V. Doesn’t Prolong Survival, Study Finds, By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN, NY Times July 16, 1995

As we debate, the NYC Department of Health is planning on testing every adult in the Bronx, so that they can begin early treatment!  Quite frankly, it is hard enough challenging this real threat without having to deal with your BS and overdone sarcasm - Mr Green.

Lo et al did not use indirect means to measure Mycoplasma. They Autopsied aids patients and several HIV negative previously healthy patients that died in 1-7 weeks of an undiagniosed infection and expirimantally infected monkeys that died of a fatal wasting disease and found the mycoplasma incognitus directly rotting the patients organs with The electron microscope.

Using the EM to see a microbe rotting patients tissues is about the most solid way to see a microbe in action, and not indirect at all.

As far as some Asymptomatic people testing positive, First I doubt they they were totally asymptomatic, much Like the gulf war vets whos symtoms were written off, and im sure in the early stages of infection one can have mild symptoms that would be counted as asymptomatic.

Dear S-

EM’s are not able to show anything “in action” - They certainly cannot show anything rotting anything… How does one come up with this madness?

FYI-Whatever is being examined is put on slides that are fixed and totally lifeless… Besides, one would expect lots of opportunistic growth in rotting tissue - so what? Maggots found in rotting tissue does not prove that maggots killed the organism—does it?

I am not surprised that both Green and S ignored the abstract I posted: “Mycoplasma species in rapid and slow HIV progressors.”  Intl J STD AIDS. 2000 Feb;11(2):76-9

Hello?

Re ellner
LoL you have no idea what youre talking about, from Lo’s pathology data.  He took EM pictures of the microbe in patients necrotized tissues, thats about as direct as you get in microbiology, something you know nothing about.

These patients had no sign of immunodefeciancy, and the immunocompetent monkeys that were incoluated that died didn’t either.  Lo concluded based on this evidence that mycoplasmas were pathogenic in their own right for these reasons.

“Furthermore, M. fermentans incognitus particles were identified
ultrastructurally in these histopathological lesions. M. fermentans
incognitus was associated with the systemic necrotizing lesions in these
previously healthly non-AIDS patients with an acute fatal disease.
Typical areas of necrosis due to the M. fermentans incognitus infection of
these patients are shown in FIG. 21. Most of the tissues which had massive
necrosis showed only minimal lymphocytic or histiocytic response”

Lo SC; Dawson MS; Newton PB 3rd; Sonoda MA; Shih JW; Engler WF; Wang RY; Wear DJ. Association of the virus-like infectious agent originally reported in patients with AIDS with acute fatal disease in previously healthy non-AIDS patients. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND HYGIENE, September 1989, volume 41, number 3, pages 364-376.

That study you posted is useless, they way to prove a microbe is pathogenic in humans, is 1) see if it present in enough quantities, isolate it and grow it in culture 3) inoculate animals 4) even better to take people who are previously healthy who had no other risk factors who suddenly died, and prove it to be the cause of death on autopsy with the EM.  Lo et al did all these things.

Your maggot analogy is ridicolous, maggots would come after the death, not before, ruling out its role in any disease process.

I doubt if I’m the only one who has noticed the intellectual dishonesty implicit in a man who professes that there is no such thing as HIV—an “imaginary virus” he calls it—using a study that depends on the so-called rapid or slow progression of HIV infection, to defend his position.

Ellner finds one study that seems to support his position and immediately decides that those studies that don’t are “madness.

Most of us interested in this issue have visited the Stefan Lanka papers. It’s very interesting that Lanka claims that there are no “opportunistic infections” in AIDS. You’d think this might disturb Ellner as he has repeatedly referred to the Mycoplasmas found by Lo, Montagnier and Nicolson as “opportunistic infections.” (Not to mention that almost every other researcher on the planet—conventional or alternative—thinks of AIDS as an illness of opportunistic infections.)

Lanka also agrees with the Roberto Giraldo claim that if the serum for antibody testing is sufficiently “neat” everybody will test positive for AIDS.

I emailed Roberto Giraldo about this strange circumstance and on June 14, 2006 he send me the following message:

“Truman: Today they have purified the proteins used as antigens in the Elisa test for HIV and the dilution is now similar to that of other serological tests.”

Sounds as though Giraldo thinks there is something known as HIV—in opposition to Lanka and Ellner—and that there are HIV-specific antigens.

And this from Stefan Lanka: “Aids has nothing to do with immune suppression.”

Perhaps Ellner’s a bit premature in recommending Lanka as “the most important read for people trying to make sense out of all this.”

Possible Duplicate:

You can hide your identity S - but you can’t run away from what was actually said in the published articles you mis-represent…

For example, you write: <<< New york times 1990 “Mysterious microbe now taken more seriously” >>> the actual title of the NY Times article you refer to was: “Unusual Microbe, Once Dismissed, Is Not Taken More Seriously” (NYT By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN, M.D., January 16, 1990)

Big difference between Not and Now
You wrote: <<<“The ability of M.incognitus to cause a fatal wasting disease in monkeys and mice convinced the participants that it had the ability to cause disease in humans”>>>
The actual statement was:  <<<The ability of M. incognitus to cause a fatal wasting disease in monkeys and mice persuaded most participants that the microbe ‘‘has the potential to cause disease in humans,’’ Dr. Baseman said, although solid proof is lacking.>>>
Again there is a big difference between ” The ability of M.incognitus to cause a fatal wasting disease in monkeys and mice convinced the participants that it had the ability to cause disease in humans”” and actual quote; The ability of M. incognitus to cause a fatal wasting disease in monkeys and mice persuaded most participants that the microbe ‘‘has the potential to cause disease in humans,’’ Dr. Baseman said, although solid proof is lacking.
Some might question your deciding to leave out the kicker at the end of the above sentence: <<<”...Dr. Baseman said, although solid proof is lacking.”>>>

And this very article supports my statement that Lo did not grow or isolate!
<<<” No simple, practical test exists to detect M. incognitus infection in blood and other specimens. In particular, M. incognitus cannot be grown in cultures using specimens from sick people, the way staph and other microbes are. Dr. Lo said one reason he did not initially believe his microbe was a mycoplasma was because he had trouble growing it with standard methods.
Dr. Baseman said Dr. Lo never would have picked up the agent without a new technique known as polymerase chain reaction. By vastly multiplying fragments of nucleic acids from a microbe in a few hours, the technique can identify microorganisms that otherwise would be impossible to detect.
Because of the microbe’s elusiveness, researchers are finding it difficult to confirm the findings and to determine whether the microbe is an important cause of illness in the general population.” >>>>
I wrote:
<<<Dr. Lo did not actually isolate and grow purified samples of his “mycoplasma” from any serum or autopsy.  Instead, Dr Lo used a “woo-woo” viral technique called “transfection” to manufacture his sample and called it isolation.>>>
Notice that the very article S offered as evidence confirms my statement: <<< The interest now being shown in M. incognitus is vindication of sorts for Dr. Lo. The controversy over his findings stems largely from the way he originally identified the microbe, using a technique known as transfection. The technique involves taking DNA from a microbe and then using electrical devices, chemicals and other methods to insert the genetic material into a cell, where it undergoes replication.
The technique is often used to detect viruses, but generally does not work for bacteria. Dr. Baseman said it remains a mystery why the technique worked for mycoplasma.
Dr. Lo developed immunological techniques tailored to detect the organism that he found by transfection. He also used the immunologic techniques to help identify the microbe in the autopsies. In addition, he identified it using electron microscopy. For unknown reasons, Dr. Lo’s team can grow in cultures the M. incognitus obtained by transfection.
Asked if M. incognitus by itself could cause a disease resembling AIDS, if not AIDS itself, Dr. Lo said: ‘‘That’s a good question. I don’t know, and it will take a lot more work and time to answer it.’‘>>>

It seems that Lo himself was/is less sure about it than are S and Green!

You can find the article here:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE3DF1038F935A25752C0A966958260

I noticed that the title of the article had been changed soon after reading it several times, as I believe Ellner must have also.

The title: “Mysterious microbe, now dismissed is NOT take more seriously,” makes absolutely no sense in the context of the sentence or the context of the article which follows.

The first paragraph, which is also mysteriously repeated twice:

“Evidence suggests that a mysterious microbe whose discovery three years ago was dimissed as a finding of no significance, can cause disease among AIDS patients and even kill people not infected with the AIDS virus. Laboratory tests hint that several antibodies could control the microbe, but this and other findings need to be confirmed.”

Seriously, now Mr. Ellner,is this not taking the mysterious microbe more seriously?

I think most high school kids would recognize that the body of the article as well as the title itself support the fact that the original title was changed.

This was just another blatant attempt to minimalize the literature that supports the fact that mycoplasmas are implicated in many diseases, not only AIDS and Gulf War Syndrome, but also many cancers, neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimers, ALS and Parkinsons Disease, and the neurobehavioural disease, Autism.

This denying of the role of mycoplasmas and other bacteria in diseases of supposedly “unknown” origin is the greatest and most sinister secret in medical science.

HIV itself, an obviously synthetic pack of viral particles cobbled together from naturally occurring viruses, was merely invented by some Virus Cancer Program scientists to act as the false cause of AIDS so that the true bacterial agents, and their connection to biological warfare, would be suppressed.

This is an excellent report on the urgent need to rethink “HIV”=“AIDS”

http://www.californiaconservative.org/academia/hiv-aids-gallos-egg/
JULY 21, 2008
Hiv, Aids & Gallo’s Egg
Filed Under: Academia, Science, Health Care, Race, Author: Clark Baker, Corruption
Last June, I posted this report about US hospitals and how many rely on fraud, preventable injuries and infections to patients to compensate for losses due to our government’s insistence that private hospitals treat and care for uninsured and underinsured citizens, indigents, and illegal aliens.

I learned how hospitals destroy good physicians and how predatory hospital chains like Tenet, Kaiser Permanente, and Adventist pressure local physicians already in successful private practice to join their groups. Those who refuse are targeted for sham peer review by corporate administrators and MDs who accuse non-compliant physicians as dangerous, incompetent, or disruptive. While a few tenacious victims expend their life savings to preserve their clinical privileges, others aren’t so lucky. Faced with the malicious and devastating loss of their medical careers, many take their own lives; which is what the health care corporations prefer anyway. To them, it’s only business – nothing personal.

I was never impressed by concerns about “the evils of big pharma.” I assumed that drugs are expensive because of the R & D that goes into finding cures for disease. Until now, I never imagined that some of those same drug companies would support junk science to fund researchers who would then produce expensive drugs that cause illness and disease around the world; or support junk legislation that would force healthy mothers and their children to take drugs that kill (under the threatened loss of child custody), and then use their subsequent sickness and mortality as evidence that a non-existent disease actually exists.

Such a scheme would have made Machiavelli weep with joy.

A New Investigation

I was not concerned about “big pharma” until my visit to Washington DC last May. I was there to meet with members of Semmelweis Society International (SSI). This is an impressive group of medical professionals – physicians, nurses, surgeons, medical and law school professors, and former CEOs of health care corporations. Because of my own experience with retaliation and my ongoing interest in US healthcare and sham peer review, I was interested to hear their stories directly from them.

I accompanied Gil Mileikowsky, MD, the OB/GYN who first explained sham peer to me in 2006. I spent five days with the members – all dedicated men and women who care deeply about the political corruption of healthcare and who risked their own careers to report fraud or abuse within the healthcare system. I recorded and edited their testimony, and posted this video after members testified before the US Congress and Senate. I was also honored to testify regarding my experience as an LAPD whistleblower.

Two recipients of the Semmelweis “Clean Hands Award” were reporter Celia Farber and molecular biologist Peter Duesberg, PhD. I had not heard of them before and knew nothing of their relationship to a little known controversy about HIV and AIDS.

After 28 years as an investigator, I consider myself pretty skeptical about things until I see proof. Most of my work today is pro bono, so I can pick and choose who I assist. Witnesses are expected to lie, but if I discover that a client has misrepresented facts or lied to me, I will usually drop the case. I’m fortunate to have the time, energy, and resources to help good people get out of undeservedly bad predicaments. Not all lawyers are like Mike Nifong or David Sotelo, and not all private investigators work like Anthony Pellicano. Without unbiased credibility, investigators are nothing more than a liability to their clients.

As various members interacted with Farber and Duesberg, I learned that the HIV/AIDS issue had not been entirely resolved. Like Dr. Mileikowsky’s story about sham peer review, this sounded equally unbelievable.

When I returned to Los Angeles, several former members began to question the wisdom of presenting the awards to Farber and Duesberg. In response, SSI President (and neurosurgeon) Roland Chalifoux issued this press release to explain the rationale of the awards. But when two dissenters persisted, Dr. Chalifoux asked me to conduct an independent investigation of Ms. Farber and Prof. Duesberg, citing my investigative experience, independence, and almost complete lack of knowledge about HIV and AIDS.

I accepted the case.

Although I didn’t expect it at first, I was warned that I should expect attacks from the “other side.” I wasn’t sure what they meant but kept it in the back of my mind. It didn’t take me long to find out for myself.

When word got out that I had begun my investigation, several ex-SSI members told me that Duesberg and Farber were dangerous and “not worth my time” to investigate. Having met both in Washington, I found nothing dangerous about the reporter or microbiologist.

Two dissenters, James Murtagh, MD and Kevin Kuritzky, were friendly to me at first and “appealed to my better judgment.” Their friendly pressure intrigued me and I began my investigation by checking into their allegations.

Both essentially charged that Duesberg and Farber were liars and that both were responsible for millions of HIV deaths in Africa. I wasn’t as troubled by their allegations as I was by their insistence that I stop my investigation. It seemed incongruous that the individuals who alleged genocide would also pressure me to not investigate their own allegations.

As both Murtagh and Kuritzky increased their hostility, the more interesting the case became.

From: Kevin Kuritzky [mailto:kevink4@mac.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 9:50 PM
To: Celia Farber
Cc: SSI Membership
Subject: Re: Official Nominations

Celia - why don’t you take your parasitic, attention-whore behavior elsewhere, to a place where people actually care.
You have been exposed to most of Semmelweis, and South Africa doesn’t want your uneducated “faux-journalistic” crap opinions either. The entire world have basically discredited you countless times, and all the attachments I have sent verifies this. Go back to doing what you appear to know best, which is to .
Your anecdotal stinking pile of bulls*** is only trumped by the real science of people who are actually qualified to talk about this, not someone like you who .
Your false, damaging, and absurd views on HIV are not welcome in the medical community. Now I suggest you exit before you are exposed even further into the pit that you continue to dig.
It was hard to imagine that Kuritzky had once been accepted to the Emory School of Medicine and even more bizarre that his collaborator, Dr. Murtagh, would permit such an attack. Fifteen minutes later, Murtagh replied to Kuritzky:

From: Jim Murtagh [mailto:jmurtag@mindspring.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 10:05 PM
To: celiafarber; (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Subject:Fwd: Official Nominations

Dear Kevin,
I asked you to be kind to Ms. Farber because she is obviously ill. Her has distorted her judgment. We are dealing with very sad pathology in the AIDS denialists. What I really want to know is who wrote the SSI press releases? Who put Gil up to this? Obviously, Gil and Roland did not cook this up themselves.
It is sad that Farber did not respond to a single one of your well-documented points. I believe the entire SSI (and ex-SSI members) should be proud of the factual manner in which Kevin has investigated this affair.
Ms. Farber again resorts to made up facts, and ignores the 5,000 scientists who demonstrated that Koch’s postulates have been fulfilled.
Kevin, you documented 12 double blind studies. Your research puts any doubt to rest. HIV causes AIDS. This is as certain as the earth is round, and that the moon is not made of green cheese.
At the time, I did not know that Murtagh and Kuritzky were being supported by pharmaceutically funded operatives from South Africa, Cornell University, and the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

It got worse.

On June 19th, I became a victim of their attacks just as I had been warned. Kuritzky initiated a “spam attack” against my name and professional email account and phones, generating thousands of unwanted spam messages and phone calls that offered everything from gay porn to paid vacations. Because I was prepared, I was able to positively identify the source of the attack by matching Kuritzky’s IP address used before and after the attacks as the same address used to generate the attack. I eventually filed a crime report with the LAPD and continue to prepare a criminal and civil case against both.

As of last week, I completed and delivered my report to SSI and will now post it in its entirety below. If you want to understand what I now accept as the most significant criminal conspiracy I have ever imagined, get your coffee and strap on your seatbelt.

The investigation I call Gallo’s Egg took me from America’s “War on Cancer” (1971-1981) to the early history of HIV and AIDS. It reaches from the cities of West Hollywood and San Francisco to the continents of Africa, Asia, and Australia. It led me to the steps of the National Institutes of Health, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and some of America’s most prestigious universities and research centers. It involves hundreds of billions of dollars of misdirected tax-supported funding and some of the most financially successful pharmaceutical companies in the world.

I have never written about anything more important. This story changed my life, and if you have the time and patience to understand what I have written, it may change yours as well.

If Americans, our courts, and our legislature permit the continued corruption of science and medicine by our pharmaceutical industry, I fear that the 232-year experiment we call “The United States of America” will have failed.

CB

Gallo’s Egg
On May 13, 2008, Semmelweis Society International (SSI) presented the Semmelweis “Clean Hands” Award to Professor Peter Duesberg and Investigative Journalist Celia Farber.

The awards were not presented as an endorsement of Prof. Duesberg’s scientific conclusions. Indeed, SSI members disagree about many topics related to science, medicine, and politics. They are not unified by one single ideology, but by their commitment to those who oppose the influence of politics that corrupt science, research, and medicine.

Professor Peter Duesberg, PhD

Prof. Duesberg began his award-winning career in cancer research in 1963. Funded by major grants from National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr. Duesberg isolated the first cancer gene in 1970, and mapped the genetic structure of retroviruses – a class of viruses that does not kill cells, but were thought to possibly cause cancer. In 1986, Prof. Duesberg was voted into the most respected scientific body in the United States, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

One year later, Prof. Duesberg described the flaws in the HIV hypothesis of AIDS causation. Although formal screenings are not required by Academy members, the NAS published Prof. Duesberg’s paper after an unprecedented six separate peer reviews. After 20 years, Prof. Duesberg’s paper remains unanswered.

Prior to these publications, Dr. Robert Gallo, the cancer virologist who claimed HIV caused AIDS in 1984 described Duesberg as the scientist “who knew more about retroviruses than any man alive.”

At the time of his endorsement of Duesberg, Gallo headed the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Although Gallo’s cancer and leukemia research was fraught with controversy, he still enjoyed significant influence in the distribution of research funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Once Dr. Duesberg questioned Gallo’s hypothesis that HIV (alone) caused AIDS, all his proposals for research funding were suddenly rejected. Before raising questions about the role of HIV in AIDS causation, Duesberg’s grant applications were never denied.

When reporter Celia Farber reported on Duesberg and the controversy over HIV (1988), the NIH barred her from further contact with their scientists and labeled her a “threat to public health.” Despite being under constant attack from the HIV/AIDS industry since then, Farber continued to probe the subject in her writings over the years.

Retaliation against publications and journalists who report on scientific challenges to the HIV hypothesis is not new. The gay publications New York Native and Christopher Street were shuttered as a result of the ACT UP boycotts.

Celia Farber

When Farber published her 15-page exposé in Harper’s on the unethical practices and patient deaths involved in the experimental AIDS drug trials in 2006, the retaliation was immediate.

Instead of addressing the disturbing content, or the inconsistencies of Dr. Gallo’s AIDS research, pharmaceutical industry-sponsored AIDS activists and researchers accusing Farber of having made 56 errors, and urged the global media and AIDS communities to discredit her, the article, and Harper’s, which they did (NY Times, The Nation, CJR, Poynter, Gay City News, The Advocate, The Body, Act Up). The document was posted by the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) in South Africa, where they are not required to identify their top 14 international “core donors”. The non-profit group, Rethinking AIDS, later published a rebuttal to their attack on Farber, which proved there were no errors in the Harper’s article. Farber’s most prominent critics, including Gallo, refuse to respond.

Harper’s and Farber stood accused of “AIDS denialism” and drawing negative attention to a “life-saving drug” Nevirapine, which had just been financed for distribution to more than a dozen developing nations. Their protest was consistent with their demands for increased distribution of lower-priced AZT during the 1980s.

In the heat of the attacks, members of Harper’s staff also received threats. The authors of the attack manifesto demanded 1) an apology, 2) a condemnation of Farber, 3) Harper’s surrender of pages to an article extolling the benefits of the drug in the next issue, same length, and the editor’s resignations. They even demanded to bring their own fact checkers. Harper’s yielded to none of the threats, conceded no errors, and continues to stand by the article to this day.

One of the signatories of the attack document against Farber was Richard Jefferys of New York’s Treatment Action Group (TAG), one of many AIDS “activist” groups that are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

In May 2008, Jefferys led the campaign to antagonize members of both the Semmelweis Society (SSI) and the No Fear Coalition over the Farber/Duesberg awards. In seeking to get the awards rescinded, Jefferys disseminated falsehoods about Farber’s journalistic record (which this investigator examined) and failed to reveal that the maker of the drug Farber exposed was TAG’s third largest donor. As the coordinator of TAG’s central donor program, Jefferys’ job was to coordinate “global activist/scientist response” against Farber and her article in Harper’s: In short, Harpers paid Farber to investigate, and Boehringer Ingelheim paid Jeffreys to retaliate.

As a result of the false allegations, Farber did not receive another journalism assignment for more than two years. Only one source later reported that an independent panel of non-orthodox scientists found Farber’s article, after a four month review process, to be error free.

Although his recent cancer theory has earned him newfound respect in scientific circles and media (Scientific American 2004, 2007, Discover 2008), Prof. Duesberg remains cut off from all NIH funding, and commutes to Germany to conduct his scientific work. While Prof. Duesberg and other scientists still doubt that HIV kills cells, their questions are even more troubling when we consider the coordinated personal attacks used by Gallo and a core group of collaborators against those who ask legitimate questions about Dr. Gallo’s questionable scientific record:

In 1975, Gallo and Weiss stated that they had isolated a human leukemia virus, HL23 virus, but this was shown later to have resulted from laboratory contamination by three primate retroviruses. In 1980 Gallo claimed to have isolated a human T-cell leukemia virus (HTLV), but did not present positive evidence that this was a human virus. During 1983-4, Gallo and his associates published several papers asserting that the human leukemia virus, HTLV-1, was the agent involved in the development of AIDS. This was eventually disproven but meanwhile the attention of many scientists was misdirected, wasting time and resources that could have been put to far better use…

Human retroviruses in leukaemia and AIDS (p. 18)
Professor Abraham Karpas
Cambridge University
After years of questions about fraud and questionable research, Dr. Gallo left NCI to open Baltimore’s Institute of Human Virology. Professor Duesberg still teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.

A quick summary of the origin of the HIV controversy:

Dr. Duesberg identified and mapped retroviruses,
Experts determined that retroviruses do not kill cells,
Dr. Gallo calls Duesberg the world’s top retrovirus expert,
Dr. Gallo proclaims that the HIV (retrovirus) causes AIDS (by killing white blood cells),
Dr. Duesberg reminds Gallo that retroviruses don’t harm cells, and;
Dr. Gallo has never proven that HIV exists, attacks cells, or causes AIDS.
History of Scientific Retaliation

Because the father of the scientific method was born 1000 years ago in the Middle East, the political pressures of his religion prevented humanity from taking full advantage of the promise of science. Ibn al Haytham and Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis were both judged insane not because they were wrong, but because their ideas threatened contemporary political forces.

Prof. Duesberg and Ms. Farber aren’t alone. Economist Ben Stein reported others whose scientific inquiries are now threatened, interrupted, or corrupted by political influence. This influence results in the loss of research grants or, as in the case of Ms. Farber, industry insiders who blacklisted her in the media. In hospitals, these influences kill thousands of patients annually.

When the NAS published Prof. Duesberg’s 1988 paper, Gallo and company scattered like debutants from a stentorian fart. Anthony Fauci refused comment. Maxine Singer said she was still reading earlier issues. Saying that he hadn’t “heard a single scientist discuss it for a second,” Gallo admitted that a copy was on his desk, but hadn’t read it.

Although he vowed to respond, neither Gallo nor any of his defenders ever published a rebuttal of Duesberg’s paper (or the 196 peer citations that supported it) in any peer-reviewed publication.

Instead, Gallo’s defenders created the specter of AIDS-Denialists and Denialism, epithets designed to marginalize those who questioned Gallo’s opinions as somehow denying the existence of AIDS itself. Because Gallo skeptics never questioned the existence of AIDS, this allegation is false. The fact that malnutrition, septic water, disease, environmental conditions, irresponsible drug use and self-destructive behavior can degrade a body’s ability to protect itself from infection and cause death is undeniable. What is in question is Gallo’s scientifically unsupported assertions that retroviruses cause leukemia, cancer, and AIDS.

When used around casual observers, the denialist/denialism epithet dehumanizes Gallo skeptics as flat-earthers, ufologists, Klansmen, Eugenicists, racists, homophobes, and other socially unacceptable groups. Because most people fear the stigma that comes with those associations – and are socially, politically, and professionally unprepared to defend themselves against this slur, they politely scatter and change the subject like Gallo’s debutants.

The Storm

Months after Ms. Farber published her 2006 Harper’s exposé, AIDS industry activists held this conference where those who offended the official HIV/AIDS “Party Line” were methodically and unrelentingly attacked as denialists.

Co-moderated by TAG operative Daniel Kuritzkes, MD, the 2006 HIV Science and Responsible Journalism Conference asked invited journalists “if balance was always appropriate when the evidence backs one side.” These academic “hit men” openly and unapologetically detailed how and why these attacks shall be executed.

A paid consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies, Dr. Kuritzkes warned journalists that denialists like Peter Duesberg still work in universities and urged that they be denied access to students and reported to authorities whenever possible.

Kuritzkes told his audience:

“If this happens in your neighborhood ask the university authorities why they allow this and then write about it.”

WSJ reporter Marilyn Chase warned reporters not to unintentionally “exalt the position of denialists by making them seem like just some sort of independent intellectual contrarian whose views really should be heeded.”

Sitting in the audience, research scientist Ella DeCann complained that “science is full of laboratory politics,” and asked the panel:

“Do you understand that AIDS research is actually tied to technology, rather than to science?”

Panelist John P. Moore, PhD quickly rejected her assertion. Although he regularly identifies himself as a professor of microbiology and immunology at Cornell University, Moore rarely mentions the $400 million annual funding that Cornell receives for research from taxpayers and HIV drug makers that include Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Trimeris, or GlaxoSmithKline. Bristol Myers Squibb alone acknowledges more than $100 million in research funding. With billions of dollars in research grants at stake, it’s understandable why Dr. Moore and America’s most prestigious universities are reluctant to offend the pharmaceutical companies that keep their prestigious research laboratories open. Rather than present Gallo’s promised proof that HIV exists, kills cells, and causes AIDS, Dr. Moore attacks with rhetoric. A few examples:

H.I.V. causes AIDS. This is not a controversial claim but an established fact, based on more than 20 years of solid science. It is as certain as the descent of humans from apes and the falling of dropped objects to the ground.
To deny that HIV causes AIDS is farcical in the face of the scientific evidence.
Although science is not an ivory tower that should never be questioned, the fundamentals of whether HIV causes AIDS are so certain that challenging them to create trouble really does harm people.
AIDS denialism kills.
We will not engage in any public or private debate with AIDS denialists or respond to requests from journalists who overtly support AIDS denialist causes.
The debate has been settled. It is not our role to enlighten denialists as to their inability to understand the available information.
A few months later, Dr. Moore wrote this email to another Gallo skeptic:

From: John P. Moore, PhD (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)>
To: Michael Geiger
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: Shame on you JP!

Thanks Geiger! What you sent contains useful information we can use against you people! And we will!
“Dan” has it exactly right when he says:
If they are able to “justify” their actions, it’s most likely because they simply see this as WAR. War against the “denialists”. Nothing more.
When you’re in a war, there are no rules.

This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly (at least the more influential ones; foot-soldiers like you aren’t worth bothering with). John (emphasis added)

Although Moore boldly threatens to “crush” those who question the role of HIV in AIDS, he avoids all invitations to engage in public debate on the HIV hypothesis of AIDS.

Because AIDS is mostly confined to its initial risk groups in America (gay men and drug users), most Americans have been too busy to concern themselves with the issue or the storm of politics and retaliation that continues to mute this largely unnoticed international debate. Most Americans feel unaffected, but our general complacency permitted fundamental changes in the direction and progress of higher-priority medical research. The redistribution of hundreds of billions of research dollars based upon Dr. Gallo’s still unproven claims continues to the detriment of millions of Americans and people around the world.

After the Semmelweis Society International (SSI) presented awards to Duesberg and Farber last May, the retaliatory forces that curtailed all funding for Prof. Duesberg’s award-winning cancer research and attacked Ms. Farber’s reporting were suddenly brought to bear against SSI and its members (including this investigator). If not for the courage of the SSI membership and the support of hundreds of award-winning scientists and researchers, SSI and the awards would have evaporated. For their membership, science and medicine must repudiate all forms of political influence, regardless of the political risks involved.

In the spirit of freedom and science, SSI commissioned this report to respond to questions and arguments regarding Professor Duesberg’s unanswered questions of Dr. Gallo’s 1984 HIV hypothesis. As an independent investigator who could not be influenced by the threats or attacks made against vulnerable SSI members and others; and as someone who had never heard of Duesberg, Gallo, Farber, or AIDS Denialism before May 2008, SSI believed that this investigator had the unbiased and proven investigative experience necessary to examine both sides of the controversy. For his efforts, this investigator was not compensated.

One of the more printable attack letters to SSI was from former Emory medical student Kevin D. Kuritzky, who wrote:

It is my understanding that Semmelweis presented Dr. Duesberg with an award, seemingly on behalf of the group. It is not disputed that Dr. Duesberg is a controversial figure. However, I have had personal experiences with his material and his theories. I have read his works, studied them, and frankly, I am sickened.

I am sickened because… I was born in a nation, South Africa that is ravaged by HIV/AIDS. Dr. Duesberg was used as a pawn of the government to impede providing antiretroviral medicines to the needy. Dr. Duesberg has provided no science behind his theories, and he, as a virologist, allowed himself to be complicit to murder by the tens of thousands, in essence to sell his notoriety.
Investigator’s Response:

South Africa is not “ravaged by HIV/AIDS.” In 2001, the South African Government reported 9,479 deaths due to “HIV Disease” out of a population of 44.8 million. This represented only 3.16% of all deaths in the country and only two-one hundredths of one percent (0.02 %) of South Africa’s total population.

(More African mortality info here)

Kuritzky’s reference to “antiretroviral medicines” also implies an Orwellian use of language. The primary “medicine” is AZT, which was designed as a highly toxic cancer chemotherapy in the 1960s. It’s hard to imagine why anyone in America or South Africa would want to deliver toxic chemotherapies to expectant mothers and villagers who already suffer from poverty, malnutrition, and septic water.

In this 2008 study, 320 Tanzanian patients were placed on “antiretroviral therapy” (ART) between October 2003 and November 2006. Most (223) were women, some as young as 15. The majority were between 25 and 34 years of age. Most were severely malnourished, had thrombocytopenia and varying degrees of anemia.

Overall, 95 patients died within 11 months, 59 within three months of starting the drug regimens.

One year mortality was estimated as high as 46.8% in those who were severely malnourished. Other studies confirmed that severe malnutrition is directly related to the mortality of HIV+ African patients “even after the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy…”
One of the authors explained that the study’s weakness is that mortality might be underestimated because so many were lost to follow up and probably died at home.
Moreover, the main published study on the side effects of “antiretroviral medicines” is alarming.

Ronald B Reisler M.D., M.P.H. did a five-year review (1996-2001) of about 3000 HIV/AIDS patients who took the anti-retroviral cocktails. He found that:

332 patients suffered an “AIDS” event, meaning some purported manifestation of the underlying disease, however;
675 patients suffered a “Grade 4″ event, meaning a life-threatening illness was attributed to the drugs, not the virus. The most common of these side-effects were:
Liver damage
Neutropenia (white blood cell loss)
Anemia (red blood cell loss)
Cardiovascular, including heart attacks
Pancreatitis
Psychiatric disorders
Kidney problems
Thrombocytopenia
Hemorrhage
In sum, twice as many AIDS patients fell ill from the drugs than from AIDS – which is exactly what Dr. Duesberg predicted would happen in the late 1980s.

Grade 4 Events Are as Important as AIDS Events in the Era of HAART
Reisler, JAIDS, 34(4):379-386, Dec. 1, 2003
Kevin Kuritzky:

Dr. Duesberg lacks any courage to back up his claims.

Investigator’s Response:

Dr. Duesberg has published numerous papers in the peer-reviewed literature to back up his claims, much to the detriment of his career. A Google-Scholar search reveals over 200 of his peer-reviewed papers. On the other hand, Mr. Kuritzky’s claims have been posted on dozens of pharmaceutically-funded activist websites, including AIDS Truth, which was created in direct response to the perceived threat of the consequences of Farber’s 2006 Harper’s article. Although technically a “non-profit,” AIDS Truth is operated by “team members” who are funded directly or indirectly by the pharmaceutical industry.

Kevin Kuritzky:

When I was in college, Dr. Duesberg gave a lecture. He was unprofessional and was offered the opportunity to prove his “theory.” He lacked the fortitude to demonstrate his true commitment to the pseudo-science he preaches, and backed away like a coward. If he truly believes what he espouses, he should have the guts to inject himself with HIV to prove his point about “poppers” etc being the real culprits of AIDS.

But unlike Dr. Jaworski who stood up for what he believed in with regards to peptic ulcer disease, Dr. Duesberg was a coward. When I was involved in HIV research as an undergraduate, I told Dr. Duesberg personally that this lack of desire to “prove” his point calls into question his very belief in the pseudotheory, and makes one wonder whether his whole career is based on a notoriety desire.
Investigator’s Response:

As the tone of the “former medical student” grew increasingly hostile, this investigator noted consistencies between Kuritzky’s attacks, and those routinely repeated by TAG surrogates John P. Moore PhD, Daniel Kuritzkes MD, and Richard Jefferys.

After a brief examination, this investigator discovered that Kuritzky was expelled from Emory Medical School after numerous allegations of dishonesty, unprofessional, and unethical conduct. Regardless of his past (and consistent with garden-variety TAG attacks), Kuritzky offers no proof; and since Emory Medical School is located three time zones east of UC Berkeley, his anecdote is doubtful.

Regarding the allegation of cowardice: Prof. Duesberg has offered several times (example) to inject himself with HIV if 1) only the exact terms for success or failure could be offered by his detractors, and 2) the experiment could be scientifically conclusive.

In 1984, the theorized HIV/AIDS “HIV latency period” (from infection to illness) was said to be from six months to a year. Today, it is accepted that there are varying categories of “long term non-progressors” (LTNP) or “elite controllers”, who take decades to progress to AIDS, if at all. In some studies the latency period has been stretched as high as 30 years or more (2007), although the drug industry and its activists attribute this to new antiviral drugs. This means that if Prof. Duesberg was injected with the “HIV retrovirus” in a controlled study today, he could die sometime after reaching his 104th birthday.

After twenty years, Dr. Gallo and supporters like Dr. Moore continue to refuse to provide Dr. Gallo’s promised rebuttal to Prof. Duesberg’s PNAS paper. Instead, they have declared:

We will not (e)ngage in any public or private debate with AIDS denialists or respond to requests from journalists who overtly support AIDS denialist causes.

In this investigator’s experience, no other science is defended with epithets and refusals to disclose. After publishing millions of pages of research based upon Dr. Gallo’s hypothesis, why would Dr. Moore refuse to present Dr. Gallo’s original proof unless it does not exist?

Kevin Kuritzky:

Dr. Duesberg has indirectly killed many human beings through his complicity in South Africa’s limits on antiretroviral medications given to pregnant women. The science is proven that vertical transmission is greatly reduced here. I am not sure if Semmelweis is aware that Dr. Duesberg was essentially finally run out of the country (South Africa) as a murderer, and I personally don’t disagree with this claim as I am intimately familiar with Dr. Duesberg’s behavior in South Africa.

Investigator’s Response:

This is one of the most common and manipulative anti-scientific libels used to prevent Duesberg from pursuing his counter-theory in a scientific manner. Like
Dr. Moore, Kuritzky offers no evidence, references, or proof of any of these allegations, nor does an aggressive search reveal any clues to substantiate his claims.

Prof. Duesberg was not “finally run out of the country (South Africa) as a murderer”: He visited South Africa when President Thabo Mbeki summoned him for round table discussions between AIDS scientists of opposing viewpoints in 2000.

Of the antagonistic, hostile, and threatening attacks made by Gallo defenders, former South African President Thabo Mbeki appealed to then-President Bill Clinton and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan (April 3, 2000), and:

… passionately defended Duesberg and the other dissidents, and suggested that factors other than HIV could be the cause of AIDS in Africa. He called for a uniquely ‘African solution’ to the problem, as AIDS seemed to affect Africans differently to those who live in the developed world. He also defended his right to consult dissident scientists, and accused unnamed foreign critics of waging a ‘campaign of intellectual intimidation and terrorism’ akin to ‘the racist apartheid tyranny we opposed’.

In an earlier period in human history, Mbeki wrote, Duesberg and his followers ‘would be the heretics that would be burnt at the stake. The day may not be far off when we will, once again, see books burnt and their authors immolated by fire by those who believe that they have a duty to conduct a holy crusade against the infidels.’ The letter, copies of which were delivered by hand to Clinton and Annan, concluded: ‘It would constitute a criminal betrayal of our responsibility to our own people to mimic foreign approaches to treating HIV/AIDS.’
As stated earlier, prescribing toxic cancer chemotherapy to pregnant women is dangerous for both mother and child:

“In reviewing the frequency of birth defects in this population [of HIV+ women taking AZT during pregnancy] we noted eight birth defects (10%) out of 80 live births [and 8 spontaneous fetal losses, for a total of 17% abnormal pregnancies]”

Zidovudine Use in Pregnancy: A Report on 104 Cases and the Occurrence of Birth Defects
Kumar et al, 1994 Oct 7(10):1034-9
More Questions

The HIV/AIDS issue consists of two components:

Dr. Gallo’s original opinion, and;
Millions of pages of research that are based upon, and used to support, Dr. Gallo’s original opinion.
While no ordinary investigator can competently argue millions of pages of HIV/AIDS research, it is equally disingenuous for any scientist to argue any research that is based upon Dr. Gallo’s theory without proof that HIV a) actually exists, b) kills white blood cells, and c) causes AIDS. Consensus, based upon unproven hearsay, is not proof.

At the same time, there are a number of easily understandable peer-reviewed reports that conflict with Gallo’s theory.

For example, chimpanzees share about 99% of the DNA in humans. Since it is unethical to test humans with potentially dangerous pathogens, they serve as the “gold standard” for scientific experiments. In the mid-1980’s, AIDS researchers infected numerous chimps with HIV to induce AIDS. No chimpanzee has ever developed AIDS.

“It is true that HIV does not cause AIDS in chimpanzees.”

Blattner, Gallo, Temin, Science, Vol. 241, 514-517, (1988)
It is said that HIV is spread through sex. Yet, the largest epidemiological study of heterosexual transmission of HIV was conducted in San Francisco from 1987-1997. The researchers observed 175 sexually-active discordant heterosexual couples (1 partner HIV+, 1 partner HIV-) for over six years. No person in the study contracted HIV.

“We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study.”

(Padian, page 354.)
Heterosexual Transmission of HIV in Northern California: Results from a Ten-year Study American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 146: 350 - 357. (1997)
HIV Testing

The problem with HIV tests is that there is no viral gold standard. HIV test accuracy is not measured against any isolated (purified) HIV, but against indirect measures or patients with clinical symptoms of AIDS. These tests generally detect, and are hypersensitive to, antibodies of many different viruses and cellular debris. This $50,000 award, offered in exchange for scientific validation of any HIV test, remains unclaimed.

Using a “cops and robbers” analogy, Dr. Gallo’s HIV test relies on the presence of cops (antibodies) to indicate the presence of robbers (HIV). While it’s true that cops appear at bank robberies, they also appear at doughnut shops, police stations, fundraisers, sporting events, and training academies. The presence of cops does not necessarily prove the presence of robbers.

The autoimmunity phenomenon is characterized by an immune response against its own cells and tissues. So while the presence of HIV-antibodies (cops) may indicate that, at some point, someone may have been in contact with an HIV-virus or related particle (robbers), there is no way to ascertain the significance of such an event.

Antibody production does not mean that the antigen is necessarily noxious.

For example, the most common form of hypothyroidism is caused by anti-thyroid antibodies. This does not mean that the thyroid tissue is a harmful pathogen. The antibodies against virtually all endocrine organs, including ovaries, have been identified and (so far) no one has demanded the mass performance of thyroidectomies or ovarectomies. This becomes more complicated since many patients with anti-thyroid or anti-ovarian antibodies do not suffer from significant target organ damage. In this “cops and robbers” analogy, the cops (antivirus) are sometimes summoned by those who have mistaken the noise of a stray cat for a home invasion robbery.

Consider the “metal detector” analogy: To prevent terrorists from boarding planes (or HIV in our blood supply), HIV test sensitivities are set so that Jimmy’s orthodontics and Grandma’s titanium hips activate the alarms. Once those alarms sound, the tests brand them as suspected terrorists.

Kevin Kuritzky:

The fact that any westernized physician, particularly an Ob-Gyn (SSI member) can defend Peter Duesberg is beyond my comprehension. I think any Ob-Gyn that fails to administer anti-retrovirals to a pregnant woman should not only be peer-reviewed, but should be put in jail. Yet, Dr. Duesberg has espoused this sickening ideology.

Investigator’s Response:

Remember that SSI chose to answer Kuritzky’s letter because he offered the most common and coherent attack against Prof. Duesberg. In light of the aforementioned evidence of his criminal behavior, it was extremely difficult for this investigator to take any of Kuritzky’s TAG-generated myths seriously.

Kuritzky also illustrates that the hysteria that incarcerated history’s first scientist and Dr. Semmelweis still exists today. When science becomes a hysterical political argument and criminal attacks, science and human progress cease to exist. Nevertheless, the record appears to reflect that these are Mr. Kuritzky’s (and TAG’s) strongest arguments. Indeed, these also appear to be the same political arguments used to coerce scientists and physicians into politicizing real science.

Panic & Politics

In the late spring of 1981, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were coming under increasing Congressional pressure to clean up the waste and corruption that characterized their ten-year War on Cancer.

At the same time, CDC epidemiologist Dr. Wayne Shandera reported that five homosexual men in their 20s and 30s were stricken by a pneumonia that ordinarily struck cancer and transplant patients. Said Shandera, “The best we can say is that somehow the pneumonia appears to be related to gay life style.”

The report stated that five patients also suffered from infections due to a virus “that causes mononucleosis-type symptoms” and is “shown to be capable of suppressing the body’s immune defense system in a manner similar to anti-cancer drugs.”

Investigators speculated that the virus (CMV) was “suppressing the immune defense system of certain individuals sufficiently to make them vulnerable to the
P. carenii already present in most persons’ lungs.”

“They are carrying out an intensive study to learn what the common factor may be in the lifestyle of gay males. One speculation is that the inhalants commonly used in the gay community to heighten sexual feeling may somehow be involved.”

When the story came out, some insensitive clergy and ideologues suggested in the media that AIDS was “punishment for homosexuals who violated God’s Law.” Homosexuals and their advocates were understandably hurt by these remarks. Unfortunately for science, this immediately polarized and politicized the debate. While the extreme right sought to stigmatize AIDS as a “gay disease” that was unworthy of attention, the left exaggerated the risk that AIDS posed to the general population and demanded endless funding.

Policymakers were understandably reluctant to shift billions of dollars in research funding from deadlier diseases like heart disease (#1) and cancer (#2) to a lesser understood pathology that appeared to only affect a small population segment.

When the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) protested the skeptical “homophobic and AIDS-phobic coverage” of the New York Post, the US media killed all stories that suggested the propriety of a careful government response. Without the media’s support, politicians, government officials, and drug manufacturers grew unwilling to risk the homophobe label. This appears to coincide with the period when American science was corrupted by the political debate.

The result was devastating to those most vulnerable. Poisonous toxins suddenly became available as the FDA rushed their approval of new AIDS medications in as little as six weeks. During the AZT trials, Burroughs-Wellcome used their own researchers to test and distribute AZT with little more than hat tip from the FDA:

“By the middle of 1985 there were over 10,000 AIDS patients anxiously awaiting a drug. The extreme patient need for a drug sped up the process from test tube to patient tremendously. After filing six patents on the preparation and use of AZT, and racing through necessary animal tests in partnership with the NCI, Burroughs-Wellcome submitted an application to the FDA for an Investigational New Drug (IND). In a miracle of bureaucracy, the FDA approved of the first AZT trial in only seven days.”

Wastila, L.J., Lasagna, L.
The history of zidovudine (AZT).
Journal of Clinical Research and Pharmaco-Epidemiology, 4: 25-37 (1990)
When word spread that AZT trials at Burroughs-Wellcome required placebos for half of their 282 HIV/AIDS patients, the media fueled several more controversies:

“Some critics believed that AZT was too toxic for weak AIDS patients, and others accused Burroughs Wellcome and the FDA with hindering the drug’s ability. Many critics felt that the placebo arm of the arm was unethical, and called for all patients to have access to the drug. Burroughs Wellcome’s spokespersons vigorously defended the trial, but the company recognized the high stakes of the trial and, in collaboration with the NCI and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), they established the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) consisting of various AIDS experts that were removed from the trial.

“In September of 1986, only 7 months after the trial started, the board concluded that there was a significantly lower mortality rate in patients randomly assigned to receive AZT than the placebo. Only one of the 145 patients receiving AZT had died, compared with 16 patient deaths from the 137-patient group. The trial was halted, and the patients who received placebos were given an opportunity to take AZT… by March of 1987, 4500 AIDS patients, or one-third of all Americans living with AIDS, had received free Retrovir (AZT) handouts from the company…
“In less than three years, AZT had progressed from the obscure shelves of Burroughs Wellcome to pharmacies all across the country, providing patients a measure of hope at a time when there was none…”
T.E. Haigler
Former president of Burroughs Wellcome
(on the company’s research of AZT)
Former NCI director Dr. Samuel Broder characterized the three-year-process as moving “at the speed of light.” AZT retailed for $188 per bottle, or approximately $7,000 to $10,000 per patient, per year. Compared with today’s FDA standards, three years is a glacial pace.

Hundreds of billions of dollars were subsequently transferred from cancer and cardiovascular disease research and, as the uncontrolled waste and abuse spread, scientists, physicians, and universities truncated reports, shortcut peer review studies, and attacked those who challenged their questionable methodologies. Millions of research pages and articles were subsequently generated that cited, complimented, and supported other research papers that all assumed that Dr. Gallo’s HIV theory was an “established scientific conclusion.”

Gay men and drug addicts who were terrorized by the fear and propaganda campaign about HIV, and stigmatized by unreliable HIV tests, stampeded to AIDS clinics for fast prescriptions of lethal doses of AZT. The greatest period of mortality (1987-1995) attributed to HIV occurred during the exact years of AZT mono-therapy. Coincidentally, as AZT was replaced by less toxic drugs, mortality also dropped to current levels. Liver failure remains the leading cause of death among HIV+ patients who use the current generation of black-box anti-HIV medications. Liver failure is caused by drug toxicity and is not considered an AIDS-defining illness.

When 13-year-old Ryan White was diagnosed as HIV+ in 1984, his illness further fueled the hysteria. In 1987, Oprah Winfrey quoted “scientific predictions” that 20 percent of all heterosexual men would die from AIDS by 1990:

“By 1996, three to five million Americans will be HIV positive and one million will be dead from AIDS.”

NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci, NY Times, 14 Jan 1986
“By 1991, HIV will have spread to between 5 and 10 million Americans.”

Newsweek, 10 Nov 1986
“By 1991, 1 in 10 babies may be AIDS victims.”

USA Today headline, 20 Jul 1988
“Without massive federal AIDS intervention, there may be no one left.”

HHS Secretary Donna Shalala, 1993
Washington Times, 8 Jun 1999
Once the massive government fire hose was turned on to fight the “War on AIDS,” competing, fact-based, scientific views, were drowned out or otherwise suppressed.

Because so few middle-class, white heterosexuals ever got AIDS or knew someone who did, many Americans passively disconnected themselves from the campaign.

Motives

Within the scientific community, the HIV/AIDS question may have been one symptom of an even larger disease.

During the 1980s, the general public began to under-value and under-appreciate the work of independent academic scientists like Prof. Duesberg. NIH grants became scarce, endowments dried up, and tuitions barely covered teaching activities. As a result, the salaries and social status of academic faculty members began to decline and many talented individuals fled the universities.

Due to this negative selection, the majority who stayed in academia became very different from classic scientific giants like Robert Koch. While this did not mean that all academicians became unethical, it was easier to become disillusioned and cynical in such environment. Some faculty members grew desperate in their search for some form of a steady income that would compensate for many years of education and training. The pharmaceutical industry was more than happy to help – for a price.

This situation is described in the book, The Truth About the Drug Companies, by former New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) editor Marcia Angell. When, in an earlier NEJM editorial, Dr. Angell asked, “Is Academic Medicine for Sale?” a reader replied, “No, the current owner (Pharmaceutical Industry) is very happy with it!”

Anti-retroviral drugs are all in categories of known or unknown danger to fetal development. In the post-thalidomide age, the FDA strongly recommends against administering these drugs during gestation. None are “safe” to mother or fetus. (one example)

Celia Farber also documented the horrific death from organ failure in pregnant mother Joyce Ann Hafford, who was being treated with AIDS drugs (nevirapine and combivir, made with AZT) while pregnant with her second child.

In March 1996, the FDA authorized the sale and distribution of crixivan six weeks after Merck applied for FDA approval. Compared to the years taken to complete 110 clinical tests before approving Splenda and AZT’s “light speed” three-year testing, it’s hard to imagine how the FDA could safely approve anything in 42 days.

Noted for being “well tolerated” and causing substantial improvements in “CD4 cell counts and viral load,” the crixivan report noted that “the relevance of changes in viral load had not been established”; nor did it show any effect on the development of infection, survival, or as a cure for AIDS.

In light of the profit margins related to drugs like crixivan and the catastrophic deaths related to toxins like nevirapine, it’s hard to ignore the potential profits generated by panicked people who learn they’ve tested HIV+.

AIDS prescriptions are costly. About.com reports that pharmacies charge $570/mo for crixivan capsules:

$570/mo x 12mo = $6,840/year
When multiplied by the estimated US population of one million HIV+ patients, potential income for crixivan alone can be considerable:

$6,840,000,000.00 (BILLION) per YEAR
The drugs aptivus ($1117/mo) and fuzeon ($2315/mo) cost much more. As of this writing, Merck shares sold at $35/share. (more info here)

The export and consumption of these untested known toxins by mostly rural and poor villagers of foreign countries is also disturbing.

HIV/AIDS science appears to target minorities. HIV test drives are sharply focused on the African American community, which was Joyce Ann Hafford’s misfortune.

Abbott Laboratories recently donated $60 million in their five-year program to urge black Americans to be tested for HIV. According to Abbott, their ”I Stand with Magic” campaign “intends to halve the rate of new infections among US blacks.”

Despite Dr. Gallo’s unproven HIV/AIDS hypothesis, basketball legend Earvin “Magic” Johnson uses “his fame to raise public awareness of the virus that causes AIDS.” Moviemaker Spike Lee, who directed the public service ads, said, “We African Americans can be homophobic. There’s a whole lot of re-education that needs to get started.”

According to the same LA Times article:

… the heads of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People… took HIV tests in public and made testing available at their annual convention. That same year, 16 mainstream black organizations, including 100 Black Men of America, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and the National Council of Negro Women, pledged to fight the epidemic.

“The black community is where the gay white community probably was in the late 1980s or early 1990s,” said Dr. Wilbert C. Jordan, medical director of the OASIS Clinic at the Martin Luther King Jr. Multi-Service Ambulatory Care Center. “But we’re not where we need to be still.”The numbers provide ample reason for alarm. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, blacks make up almost half the estimated 1.2 million Americans living with HIV today, though they are just 13% of the U.S. population overall.
The same article cited the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) assertion that “women accounted for more than a third of AIDS cases diagnosed among African Americans in 2006.” KFF is the same organization that hosted the aforementioned 2006 journalism conference where drug industry-funded panelists told journalists how to marginalize alleged denialists.

Professor Henry Bauer has shown that, for all available US demographics, people of African descent are on average 8-10 times more likely to test HIV positive than Caucasians. Since this has been the case for two decades now, this may also be an indication that the tests are racially biased.

The AIDS industry has accused Africa of being responsible for the original spread of HIV, that Africans enjoy “dry sex”, are more promiscuous than people on other continents, and hold voodoo beliefs about health, medicine, and healing. Ironically, Benin is one African country where voodoo still keeps HIV/AIDS mortality below two percent.

Although the World Health Organization (WHO) recently reported that the threat of a “heterosexual pandemic” of AIDS was over, AIDS activists still insist that millions are infected and dying from the “AIDS epidemic.” Despite the WHO report, the Congress intends to authorize another $50 Billion in new AIDS funding to Africa this year.

Of the aid package, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman declared, “We have a moral imperative to act and to act decisively.”

While critics lament the absence of research funding (it was ONLY $12.6 Billion FY 2006), it’s hard to know where that funding goes when drug companies don’t conduct tests or trials. The reluctance of funded researchers to accept, for example, the Perth Group’s modest request also becomes more understandable; and it could also explain their 21-year hostility toward Prof. Duesberg, Ms. Farber, and hundreds of other scientists, physicians, and journalists who try to report it to US Government officials (NIH, HHS, NIAID) who still refuse to listen.

In time, and if no one asks these critical questions, the drug companies may slowly wean their more sensible customers from toxins to life-saving placebos without losing funding. Eventually, ground celery seed capsules under the label of thiswontkillyouflex and sold for $500 a bottle could keep HIV+ patients and drug companies alive for more than a normal lifespan. If and when this occurs, the drug companies, scientists, and politicians could finally congratulate themselves for winning Dr. Gallo’s “War on AIDS.”

Analysis

In many ways, today’s HIV/AIDS industry resembles a mature termite colony.

In the years since HIV produced Dr. Gallo’s first egg, workers (administrators and researchers) have built a labyrinthine fortress of carton walls (research and facilities) to support the colony. While its soldiers defend the colony and king, Dr. Gallo and HIV are managed, groomed, and fed by the attending workers that surround, care for, and defend them.

At first glance, the fortress appears impenetrable and the dark interconnected passages too confusing to navigate. After more than twenty years and millions of pages of research and studies that are built upon Gallo’s original egg, no sane person could attempt to comprehend the infinite trivia without going mad. To argue against the mountains of interdependent self-supported HIV/AIDS minutiae requires terabytes of computational power and the tenacity of the world’s most obnoxious sports fans.

The key to the conundrum lies not with the carton walls, workers, soldiers, or the myriad unnavigable passages, but with Dr. Gallo’s original HIV declaration itself.

The principle of Occam’s razor states that the best explanation tends to be one that requires the fewest additional assumptions. Such an explanation invokes the fewest intermediate factors (i.e., 25 years of HIV/AIDS research) while maintaining its “predictive power”; that is, its ability to explain current data to predict future data. If we apply Occam’s razor and the Scientific Method, it is clear that the relationship of HIV/AIDS was never formally proven, and to assert that it is true until disproven is fallacious.

When asked which argument most strongly convinced him that HIV was not the cause of AIDS, Nobel laureate Kary Mullis replied, “The fact that there’s no evidence for it.”

One does not need to be a pharmaceutically-funded AIDS researcher to understand these questions. Occam’s razor and the Scientific Method are both taught in grade schools around the world. When the scientific world reacquaints itself with these principles and reestablishes the discipline to apply them, the queen will die and Gallo’s colony will collapse.

Of scientific consensus, Michael Crichton said:

“(T)he work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus… There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

Conclusions

With millions of diagnosed and undiagnosed HIV+ men and women leading healthy and productive lives around the world without AIDS medication, this investigator is left with Prof. Duesberg’s lingering questions and Dr. Gallo’s hysterical defenders, who, this investigator has personally discovered, appear predisposed to use libelous and criminal tactics to silence those who ask questions. (see Epilogue)

These questions are not insignificant. No other science appears to be defended more aggressively than Dr. Gallo’s theory. If an investigator questions the curvature of the Earth, or the internal combustion engine, it’s hard to imagine NASA or Honda paying SPACETruth or HONDATruth advocates to defend either discipline. Indeed, both topics are clearly presented on public websites and libraries around the world without fear, intimidation, or the threat of lost grant funding. The idea that advocates would use criminal means to dissuade someone from investigating the internal combustion engine would seem preposterous; and yet, hundreds if not thousands of journalists, teachers, scientists, and ordinary individuals are routinely targeted by Dr. Gallo’s well-funded defenders.

Only one of two conclusions is possible:

This investigator has deliberately, unintentionally, or recklessly overlooked the answer to these fundamental questions to present an unsupportable conspiracy theory, complete with imaginary threats, emails, and phone calls memorialized in his 66-page police report and pending federal lawsuit, or;
The pharmaceutical companies are:
Using inaccurate, unverified testing protocols to claim people are infected with a retrovirus that has not been shown to cause harm but, they claim, could kill;
Inventing, manufacturing, and distributing toxins designed to disrupt normal cellular and enzymatic functions necessary to sustain life to fight the presence of a harmless passenger retrovirus;
Using those toxins to deliberately, unintentionally, or recklessly compromise what may otherwise be healthy immune systems, and;
Manipulating drug-caused illness and mortality statistics to maintain HIV/AIDS funding
Enlisting and paying uninformed but well-meaning celebrities to promote HIV testing and treatment to specific targets (gay community, low-income minorities, and third world populations) that are most vulnerable to seductive and high-pressure marketing strategies.
If the first conclusion is true, this investigator will continue to enjoy a long healthy life with his family and friends in Southern California.

If the second conclusion is true, America could eventually recover from the scandal: but it’s hard to calculate the impact of the needless suffering, death, lost confidence in American science and good will, class action lawsuits, lost shareholder value, product liability, the wasted energy and resources expended within our academic institutions, its effect in the international community and the US and global economies.

If the survivors of “Dr. Gallo’s Egg” sense that government agencies and drug companies took shortcuts that unnecessarily killed otherwise healthy people, like 13-year-old Ryan White, agencies, politicians, and the media will soon start pointing fingers to blame someone for igniting a human disaster that could make Enron and 9/11 look like garden-variety purse snatches and auto accidents. Families of those who suffered and died from the toxicity of drugs like AZT will want to attack politicians. Politicians will blame agencies for misleading them, and those agencies will blame previous administrations.

A backlash against media, and within, the gay community, could also result. The gay and lesbian media, community centers, and HIV/AIDS advocacy groups that employ thousands and profit from generous pharmaceutical sponsors and CDC grants for advertising, lavish event planning, hosting, and fundraising will end. Threatened by the loss of such funding, these organizations will be reluctant to close their doors to seek other employment.

Scientists will hide behind their research, doctors behind their hospitals, gays behind their physicians and clinics, politicians behind their constituents, and journalists behind their editors. The most obvious targets will be the drug companies that produced, distributed, and profited by selling known toxins throughout what may be nothing more than a 25-year sabbatical from the science.

The medical and academic members of Semmelweis Society International cannot be sure because those who insist that HIV is harmful still refuse to prove HIV’s connection to AIDS. What is not disputed are the poisonous properties listed on the labels of ALL FDA approved HIV/AIDS medications.

No one is competently required to prove the non-existence of Dr. Gallo HIV/AIDS theory. Prof. Duesberg raised questions about Gallo’s theory twenty years ago that Gallo and his defenders still refuse to answer. When Dr. Gallo and his defenders decide to prove that HIV exists, attacks white blood cells, and causes AIDS, their investment of ten months and $100,000 will finally put these questions to rest – as they should have been 24 years ago.

Based upon the evidence contained in this report, this investigator must agree with hundreds of reputable scientists and doctors who remain unconvinced that Dr. Gallo’s retrovirus is real or has anything to do with the disease called AIDS.

It is this history, this evidence, and these questions that Professor Duesberg, Ms. Farber and countless others have risked their careers to present. The members of Semmelweis Society International may or may not agree with all aspects of this report, but they unwaveringly support the courageous men and women of medicine and science who continue to ask questions about the world around us.

Without honest and intellectually curious scientists like Peter Duesberg, humanity loses the promise of innovation and progress. Without aggressive and impartial journalists like Celia Farber, industry and government cannot be held accountable. Without both, the 232-year experiment we call the United States of America will have failed.

Clark Baker
Los Angeles

***
INVESTIGATOR’S NOTE: Under ordinary circumsta

I did not intend to imply that the idea of hepatitis B vaccine contamination as a vector for AIDS was exclusively “my theory.” If memory serves me, I believe I originally learned of this idea in the work of Alan Cantwell. After perhaps one hundred email exchanges with Dr. Cantwell, we continue to disagree on whether HIV is the causative agent of AIDS, with Dr. Cantwell taking the affirmative position. I believe that HIV is totally benign unless it is accompanied by one of the co-factors, predominantly Mycoplasma Fermentans or Mycoplasma Penetrans—and may not have any pathogenic capability whatsoever.

Mr. Ellner, whose credibility are you referring to?

And what was Roberto Giraldo referring to when he (apparently) wrote: “That is completely CRAZY…?”

Ellner presents this quote as though Giraldo is referring to my conclusion from his (Giraldo’s) statement about the purification of the antigens in the HIV tests.

A bit like Ellner providing that phony title to the New York Times article: “Mysterious Microbe, once dismissed is NOT taken more seriously,” instead of the original title: “Mysterious microbe, once dismissed is NOW taken more seriously.”

And where did Mr. Giraldo provide this quote on July 22? Certainly not on this forum. The only July 22 comment on this forum was an introduction by Ellner to his massive import from the California Conservative website.

Regarding transfection…It is not a “woo woo” device, as Ellner claims. It has often been used to introduce DNA into cells. It certainly was used, or at least considered, by Duesberg when he was constructing his synthetic avian retroviruses, or at least when they “were constructed.”

From Duesberg’s Latent Viruses and Mutated Oncogenes, Chapter 4, Section A, fourth paragraph:

“In efforts to develop a system that is more efficient than transfection for introducing proto-myc genes into cells or animals, synthetic avian retroviruses with the coding region of the human proto-myc genes were constructed.”

Is this new synthetic avian retrovirus with human gene coding regions inserted not a new chimeric retrovirus—exactly as I propose is the case for HIV?

Avian retroviruses are similar to the mysteriously-appearing HIV.

I believe that Peter Duesberg is one hundred percent certain that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS because he knows exactly how HIV was constructed, and that as a chimeric recombination of naturally-occuring viruses, it was not constructed to be pathogenic, but merely, as I have mentioned several times, a “false flag” pathogen.

I am not sure why there is a problem with the NY Times link

Please google:

Unusual Microbe, Once Dismissed, Is Not Taken More Seriously if you wish to verify the title of this NY Times article…

The title of Mr. Giraldo’s article concerning the HIV tests is: “Everybody reacts positive on the Elisa Test for HIV.”

Perhaps the best reviews of the literature regarding the bacteria-cancer association—including the roles of various cell-wall deficient, pleomorphic mycoplasmas—may be found on the website entitled The Cancer Bacteria Homepage, edited by Ron Falcone.

Today I went to the Vancouver Public Library and obtained a microfilm copy of the New York Times article which I have been discussing with Michael Ellner, who claims that the title of the article was: “Unusual Microbe, Once Dismissed Is Not Taken More Seriously.”

The original title which appeared in the New York Times is this:

“Unusual Microbe, Once Dismissed, Is Now Taken More Seriously.:

I repeat: The word “NOT” which now appears in the New York Times archives, and which appears on the online version of the article does not appear in the original article.

Included with the original article is a photograph of a very young-looking Dr. Shyh Ching Lo, below which are the words:

“Dr. Shyh-Ching Lo of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology discovered a microbe and later determined it was a mycoplasma.”

At the bottom left of the article is an electron micrograph of Mycoplasma incognitus, below which are the words:

“Electron micrograph of Mycoplasma in the empty ...cellular space in tissue taken from the liver of a person with AIDS.”

The words I have represented with three dots did not show up in the photocopy of the microfilm.

Undoubtedly the people who changed the word “NOW” to “NOT” are attempting to suppress the information that these mycoplasmas—fermentans incognitus and penetrans—are the true causes of AIDS, Gulf War Illness, Neurodegenerative and neurobehavioural diseases, such as Alzheimers, and CANCER.

This is a multi-trillion-dollar secret.

Thousands of people belong in prison.

Was Doctor Lo merely a brilliant researcher who happened upon the microbes that cause these diseases?

I don’t think so.

I believe Dr. Lo discovered these mycoplasma because he already knew that they were there. I believe that a faction in the US government wanted to leak the true causes of these illnesses without the biological warfare involvement becoming known. Dr. Lo, working for the US Army, was chosen as the vector for this “limited hangout.” The intention was that the knowledge of the true causative agents would grow organically from Dr. Lo’s so-called “discovery,” and the real cuplrits would therefore never be identified.

Montagnier and Gallo discovered the recombined, synthetic chimeric, so-called HIV because they knew it was there. And they knew it was harmless.

I believe President Reagan had difficulty saying the word “AIDS” because he knew all about this massive hoax and the biological warfare origin.

I believe Duesberg knows HIV doesn’t cause AIDS because he developed the retroviral genetic technology by which, as he admits, “synthetic avian retroviruses were constructed.” (See Latent Viruses and Mutated Oncogenes, Chapter 4.

In l997, having heard of the ridiculous “bushmeat” theory of HIV species jumping, I set for myself the goal of discovering the true origin of AIDS. I believe I have been successful.

Aids was originally caused in young gay men by a genetically-improved mycoplasma that was developed by biological warfare researchers, and vectored by way of contamination of the hepatitis B vaccine. HIV was introduced into Africa by contamination of the Smallpox vaccine.

The “Rethinkers”—Crowe, Duesberg, Bauer, Ellner et al, have discovered half of the story—that HIV does not cause Aids.

I hope they’ll drop Duesberg’s insipid multi-factorial, “street drugs and poppers” theory and find enough personal courage to tell the real story.

The title: “Unusual microbe, once dismissed is not taken seriously,” makes no sense to anyone I’ve spoken to or asked about it.

We all know that you understand this, Mr. Ellner.

The New York Times should change the online edition of the article so that it will reflect the intended meaning of the original article. Not to do so is a kind of fraud and certainly unethical. The original article which I obtained from the Vancouver Library microfilm department reads: “Unusual microbe, once dismissed is now taken more seriously.” This title makes good semantic sense and reflects the information in the article.

The title was changed in order to minimalize the possibility that Lo’s mycoplasma was associated with AIDS.

Re. the blood product versus close contact transmission of the same microbe…If you accept that Mycoplasma Fermentans and Mycoplasma Penetrans are “novel,” unique microbes you will understand that their uniqueness is derived from genetic manipulation. It is not difficult to imagine that these microbes were engineered for different purposes.

I emailed Garth Nicolson a few days ago and he responded with information about how Mycoplasma Fermentans Incognitus might have been altered to do a specific job. I’ll report his findings in my next post.

Mr. Nicolson’s findings about M.fermentans Incognitus that he found in Gulf War soldiers were that they have the HIV env gene attached to them.

I will supply the exact words in his email and study in which he makes this finding.

The information he gave me was in response to my question regarding the findings of his Doxycycline study.

Mr. Green,

Would you please explain the difference between using a “transient transfection assay” and using a “nucleoprotein gene tracking assay” to idenitfy a proten?

Besides, Dr Lo’s mycoplasma is not as novel as you and he like to think- I call your attention to

J Clin Microbiol. 1992 September; 30(9): 2435–2440.
  ID: PMC265519
Evidence that Lo’s mycoplasma (Mycoplasma fermentans incognitus) is not a unique strain among Mycoplasma fermentans strains.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=265519

To paraphrase Stevie Wonder: “When you believe what you don’t understand, then we all suffer…”

In the early l990s Mainstream Media decided to ignore the work of Dr. L0, Dr. Montagnier and Dr. Nicolson, regarding their findings that mycoplasmas were involved in the pathogenesis of AIDS and the Gulf War Illnesses. Initially, a few papers covered the story. The January 16, l990, New York Times newspaper article by Lawrence K. Altman was an excellent overview of the mycoplasma connection.

Today, as I have written on this forum, Lawrence K Altman (in a response to my email query), does not seem capable of answering my direct question about whether the title was changed.

I hope that everyone interested in why the New York Times has changed the wording of Mr. Altman’s original title from “is now take more serioiusly to “is not taken more seriously,” will write to the New York Times and demand that this suspicious alteration is changed back to the wording that appeared in the original story.

It is possible, but unlikely (because the owners of Mainstream Media decide what is suitable as news), that this one word alteration will become the “mouse that roared” and encourage a rejuvenated appraisal of the mycoplasmas that caused the immunodepression in the original young gay victims who were poisoned by these new and improved stealth pathogens. At least it will be interesting to see the creative excuses they will come up with to minimalize the relevance of this one-word alteration.

In order to be 100 percent confident that this is the case it is only necessary to go to your local library and obtain a photocopy of the microfilm of the original story with the photo of Dr. Lo, and a micrograph of the Mycoplasma Incognitus which, according to the story, were found in the “tissue taken from the liver of a person with AIDS.”

This work, like the work of the rethinkers who have concluded that HIV does not cause AIDS, is almost completely barred from the Mainstream Media outlets.

Even though I have always been a constant reader of our two large local newspapers, The Vancouver Province and the Vancouver Sun, both owned, (along with the National Post and the Times Colonist in Victoria), by the Asper brothers, sons of the late Israel Asper who founded CanWest Communications, it was not until 2005 that I was even aware that there was a major controversy over whether HIV actually caused AIDS. I knew that HIV wasn’t derived from “bushmeat” or green monkeys, but I believed that it was the causative factor in AIDS.

I have never read Peter Duesberg’s name in either of these newspapers, or read that the President of South Africa does not support the HIV/AIDS paradigm.

The controllers of Mainstream Media are the greatest enemies of our democracies, and the only way that any of these travesties will be exposed is through legislation supporting the view that the “news” is owned by the people, not by the massive financial monopolies which decide what we shall think.

No incognitus is a unique strain, it grows differently in culture, has a much smaller particle size (See Lo’s culture study above) and researchers from Alabama injected it into the trachea of rats and found it to be much more invasive than ordinary m fermantens.

Cytopathogenicity of Mycoplasma fermentans (including strain incognitus).Stadtländer CT, Watson HL, Simecka JW, Cassell GH.
Department of Microbiology, University of Alabama, School of Medicine, Birmingham 35294.

Mycoplasma fermentans strain incognitus, an organism recently identified in tissues of patients with AIDS and in tissues of otherwise healthy adults with an acute fatal respiratory disease, was evaluated for cytopathogenicity for tracheal tissue in vivo and in vitro. In this study, the organism produced a chronic infection of the lower respiratory tract in LEW rats following intranasal inoculation and induced both ciliostasis and cytopathology in experimentally infected tracheal explants from rats. The time of onset of ciliostasis, type of cytopathogenicity, and localization of organism in strain incognitus were different from those in other strains of M. fermentans as well as other species of mycoplasmas isolated from humans. The results strongly support, but do not prove, that M. fermentans strain incognitus is an unusually invasive mycoplasma, as it was the only strain found within respiratory epithelial cells both in vivo and in vitro. Detection of the organism within the lamina propria also supported the organism’s invasive potential. Further study of both the in vivo and in vitro models should provide insights into this potentially unique mycoplasma-host relationship.

PMID: 8399932 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
invasive than ordinary m fermentans

Mr Green wrote:
<<It’s the preponderance of the evidence that draws the witness to his conclusions.>>

I truly hope that if there are any readers of our thread—They will quickly understand Mr. Green just does not have the tools or training to actually understand the papers that shape his beliefs and opinion.

The fact is that a mountain of circumstantial evidence does not equal a molehill of proof…

For example, there is no proof that the “env” protein, gp160, and it’s end products gp120 and gp41 in human sera are from a human deficiency virus because “HIV” has never been purified and the env proteins that are claimed to be specific to “HIV” cross react with a wide range of non-hiv agents including mycobacterium like TB and anti-carbohydrate antibodies.

On the other hand, there is an urgent need to rethink AIDS based on real evidence…

A) Government health officials and the major news outlets intentionally sexually terrorized the American public to de-gay AIDS, fund research and discourage sex!
“AIDS FIGHT IS SKEWED BY FEDERAL CAMPAIGN EXAGGERATING RISKS, Most Heterosexuals Face Scant Peril but Receive Large Portion of Funds”, Wall Street Journal, Amanda Bennett and Anita Sharpe, 5/1/96.

B) Gay AIDS organizations desperate to de-gay AIDS were active participants in the CDC’s deception.
Fear and Facing Up to the Truth of AIDS, NEWSDAY, Gabriel Rotello 12-1-94

C) Testing HIV positive on any of the so-called HIV tests is not proof of infection because none of the tests have been validated by a purified sample of HIV.
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/award.htm

D) The life-saving treatments shorten lives and treatment related organ failure is the major killer of the people taking them. (See below*)

E) The NYC DOH is planning to test every adult in the Bronx, NY with the intent of providing them with the “life-saving” treatments.

*Anti-retro drugs fail to increase HIV patients’ lifespan

By Neville Hodgkinson, The Business Online, 10 Sep 2006
The widespread belief that the latest drugs for fighting Aids are reducing death rates has been confounded by a huge study covering 10 years of treatment which involved more than 22,000 patients in Europe and North America.
The study, reported in The Lancet, compared groups of HIV-positive patients started on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) at different times between 1995 and 2003, and followed them for one year. Some of the major findings showed that although HAART appeared to be getting better at bringing down levels of the virus, there was no decrease in overall death rates. In fact, patients’ risk of developing or dying from Aids has actually increased in recent years.
In a commentary on the study headed HAART’s First Decade: Success Brings Further Challenges, Aids specialists say these “somewhat paradoxical’ trends may be due to changing characteristics in the patients. Between 1995 and 2003, while the proportion of HIV-infected male homosexuals nearly halved, there were more patients with tuberculosis, probably among immigrants and refugees from countries where the disease is more common. Scientists have noted previously that TB patients can become immediately more ill when treated with anti-Aids drugs, a phenomenon they have termed “immune reconstitution disease”. The Lancet authors say this could have become more common due to use of more potent antiretroviral drugs.
They add that this would not fully explain the study findings, since “the same trends in the rate of Aids were also present, although somewhat weaker, in men who have sex with men.” They also note that in all the risk groups, the time between starting on HAART and developing Aids decreased.
As well as being a blow to Aids doctors, the findings strengthen the hand of scientists who argue that by looking at supposed markers of HIV infection – and failing to demonstrate the presense of HIV itself – Aids science has gone seriously astray.
If patients with active TB, for example, test HIV-positive, they are held to be “co-infected” and suffering from Aids. Yet as reported in The Business (9/10 and 16/17 May 2004 and 21/22 May 2006), HIV antibody tests have never been validated as specifying the presence of HIV. The same is true of so-called “viral load’ tests. There is also clear evidence that the bacterium which causes TB can itself cause people to test false positive for HIV. This raises the urgent question of whether TB should be included in the list of nearly 30 illnesses considered diagnostic of Aids, and sufferers treated with potent antiviral drugs for an infection they have not been proved to have. Since TB affects millions of malnourished people, removing it as an Aids-indicator disease would radically reduce estimates of HIV/Aids incidence in countries where many still live in poverty.
—

Donald Scott, adjunct professor at the Institute for Molecular Medicine, which is headed by Garth and Nancy Nicolson, has a large body of work regarding the connection between mycoplasmas, AIDS, Gulf War Illness, biological warfare and many illnesses which the medical science community pretends are of unknown etiology. 

Go here: “Mycoplasmas The Linking Pathogen in Neurosystemic Diseases,” by Donald Scott and follow all of the links.

Ellner’s got a new twist—that I have mentors.

And he wants to be clear “in challenging Green’s fabrications…”

What fabrications?

Did I just fabricate the patent for “pathogenic mycoplasma” and conjure up Shyh Ching Lo’s belief that it is capable of doing what HIV cannot?

Did I fabricate Montagnier’s belief that HIV cannot destroy the human immune system unless it is accompanied by a co-factor?

Did I fabricate Garth Nicolson’s discovery of retroviral genes in the mycoplasma he discovered in Garth War soldiers?

Did I fabricate that the New York Times has altered the title of a l990 article in order to minimalize the findings of Shyh Ching Lo that mycoplasmas are very likely associated with AIDS?

Did I fabricate that the CDC and other researchers have admitted that vaccines have been contaminated?

Regarding mentors—If I had somebody attempting to advise me what to write on this forum I’d advise them to do their own writing. I’m not very impressed by cowards. I have been interested in the biological sciences—particularly biological evolution—for thirty-five years. Go here: truman green irreducible complexity, and scroll down to a mini debate on neodarwinian natural selection versus teleological evolution.

The only mentors I have ever had on this issue were David Crowe, with whom I exchanged approximately 50 emails, and Peter Duesberg with whom I exchanged two emails. Both of these people reject my conclusions that AIDS was the result of biowarfare experimentation and targeting of specific groups—gays, blacks and intravenous drug users.

So, as mentors, these gentlemen would not be particularly supportive of my cause and such a relationship would be entirely disfunctional.

I have exchanged four emails with Garth Nicolson and have reported the total information that he has given to me. Everything that he wrote to me was already available on the net.

And, as usual, Mr. Ellner’s new evidence is totally irrevelant to the question of whether mycoplasmas have been upgraded to be more pathogenic than they would normally be, or whether so-call HIV was manufactured as a recombined pack of proteins and gene products from naturally-occurring viruses—which I am certain it was.

And why Ellner would recommend the article at the end of his link mystifies me. The researchers claim to have found a way to kill HIV. Ellner claims that HIV is “an imaginary virus—a figment” of somebody’s imagination. So why would he be interested in this new fake breakthrough regarding how to kill something that doesn’t exist. I’d strongly recommend to Mr. Ellner that he gets his story straight.

Therefore I must consider whether he posted this new breakthrough merely as a distraction.

Now Mr. Ellner admits that “dirt-bag” scientists have been working on creating new “vi-terias” as bioweapons. He’s just sure that the new virus-bacteria combinations couldn’t possibly use mycoplasmas.

According to information on a website entitled “Co-cure” there was an online debate in 2002 on this issue between Garth Nicolson and Howard Urnovitz. It was apparently published on Redflagsweekly.com. I haven’t been able to locate the debate. The question was this: “Mycoplasma/Chronic Illness Link: Fact or Fraud? Experts Debate the Issue.”

Go here: http://www.co-cure.org/m-debate.htm

None of the several links to the debate work, so unless I am mistaken, this debate seems to have been purged from the internet. If anyone knows an online location I would appreciate this information. Please email me at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Bravo!! What a discussion Mr. Green and Mr. Ellner.Thank you very much. Also thanks David Crowne, Prof. Henry Bauer, and Celia Farber. Also,Thank you Ms. Noreen Martin for ‘representing the HIV positive community’. This discussion is long overdue and very much needed. You guys are the stars of the HIV debate for anybody who’s seeking the truth. Speaking again as a Black man with the so-called positive HIV antibody reading(a qualification which has about as much weight in the HIV debate as saying you have to be Black to understand Black people.none.), we can all agree to disagree. Whats more important to me and I think other Black HIV Positive people, is navigating the HIV medical community if you have the positive test and question the general HIV dogma? How do you find a doctor free of the HIV mindset i.e. every illness is HIV related and the only help HIV meds. ? Some Doctor with a healthy dose of skepticism. A general Doctor (Not counting Dr. Ellner in New York City). Anybody know?  Is he available to poor Black people on Medicaid (yours truly),Whatever the case, I wrote an article last week titled ‘AIDS in Black America worse than in Africa.’ reporting on the release just months ago of a study by the Black AIDS Institute ‘Left Behind! Black America: A Neglected Priority in the Global AIDS Epidemic’. I am torn between feeling just like a typical AIDS fear mongering ‘activist’ or legitimately sounding the alarm about the alarming numbers of Black Americans testing positive for the HIV antibody test or ’ a black man acting like the original White gay men in the 80s’. sounding the alarm. Truth be told, not many people have specifically address the why or how does the HIV debate relate to the HIV question in Black American? For example, the obvious correlations with the epidemic number of cases in Africa and the high number of cases in Black America. Is it all fraud or genocide? From one viewpoint, it may be genes and from another viewpoint, race could cause more false positives. Right? The latter is alot of oil for the the HIV is a bioweapon genocide argument. Don’t you think? Yours in the Struggle.

I can hear Eartha Kitt huskily singing (adjective unnecessary with her) “I can’t believe you’d fall for that old line”. The AIDS establishment doesn’t really care what black people think about the origins of HIV, they just need to think that it’s a fatal virus. From a monkey or from a germ warfare lab, its the reaction to the fear that is important.
If black people in America and Africa stop lining up for HIV tests, stop opening their mouths for AIDS drugs, stop accepting formula instead of breastfeeding, and stop allowing their orphans to be used for experiments, then AID$ Inc. will go bankrupt. Without willing black victims, those (mostly white) men (mostly) in white coats will be out of business.

Hi Dennis Levy. Thanks for the comments.

I would have been more respectful to David Crowe’s comments re. being black and HIV/AIDS a few years ago, but after studying the correlation in depth I’ve come to the conclusion that the so-called “HIV”, which I am sure was constructed in a lab using Duesberg’s avian retroviral technology, has been genetically targeted at black people.

As Cliff Kincaid’s article states, Barack Obama’s minister, Reverend Jeremiah Wright believes that Aids resulted from a man-made virus that was developed to reduce the global black population, and particularly that of Africa and the United States.

As a black Canadian, I remember laughing out loud when I first heard this accusation in the early 90’s. Today I believe that it is true.

Opponents of this view, while conceding that the prevalence of HIV and AIDS is very significantly greater in all black communities worldwide than it is in Caucasians or Asians, believe that this discrepancy can be explained by factors other than racial targeting. Most often cited regarding the “epidemic” in Africa are war, poverty, contaminated drinking water and persistent malnutrition and starvation. Many blame the prevalence of HIV among black Africans on behavioural factors such as sexual promiscuity and the failure of African societies to allow women the right to deny unwanted, unprotected sexual activity. Other researchers cite a lack of condom use or believe that uncircumsized males have a much higher rate of HIV transmission than circumcized males. The Circumcision Reference Library (online) contains a very comprehensive referencing of professional articles on this issue, including both proponents and opponents of circumcision as a means of preventing HIV transmission.

The problem with all of these proposed causative circumstances, is that they have all been proven to be false. For example, Africans have been proven to be no more promiscuous than Americans in general. Circumcision, in some studies, has been shown to be of no value as protection against HIV.

Could David Crowe be correct? Could the correlation exist only because black Americans are more gullible than others—and always in the same order of gullibility—blacks, whites Asians?

I don’t think so!

In an article in the Hartford, Connecticut Courant, Daniel P. Jones quotes Dr. J. Primm, executive director of the Addiction Research and Treatment Corporation of Brooklyn, New York:

“More than 40,000 new cases of HIV/AIDS every year and 60% of the people affected are African Americans.”

Primm has also found that:

“In Washington DC, one in every 16 people between the ages of 18 and 44 is infected with HIV. In Harlem in New York City, one in seven black men is infected, and in Manhattan, one in 14, between the ages of 34 and 35.”

Blacks comprise 12% of the American population, therefore in order for their infection rate to be on par with that of the general population, they should be contracting 12% of the “infections.”

If they are suffering 60% of the infections they are being infected at 5 times, or 500% of the overal infection rate. Even if some of this discrepancy can be attributed to David Crowe’s causation (which amounts to “silly blacks”), an infection prevalance of this magnitude seems intuitively excessive. In fact, it is very unlikely that such a discrepancy has been equaled in any other circumstance in which black Americans are compared to other members of the American population.

Our fellow commenter, Henry Bauer, author of “The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory” in an April 2008 post on the HIV/AIdS Sceptics website, quotes a CDC fact sheet (HIV/AIDS Among Men Who Have Sex With Men, Revised June, 2007:

Gay black men in large cities tested positive 46% of the time, whereas gay white men tested positive 21% of the time.

This extreme rate of infection of gay black men has probably only been matched by that of the original young gay men who suffered the brunt of the new disease approximately five years after the onset, between l984 and l985, when the infection rate in this group was well above 40%.

Mr. Bauer concludes:

“The evidence is simply overwhelming; from every tested social group, high-risk as well as low-risk; from every part of the world; for both sexes and all ages—wherever HIV tests are reported separately by race in any given sample, the tendency to test HIV positive is paralleled by racial ancestry. Africans test positive most frequently, Asians least frequenty, Caucasians in between but relatively close to Asians, and Native Americans quite close to Caucasians.

HIV discriminates by race just as though it were capable of recognizing the DNA sequences in the human genome.”

I emailed Mr. Bauer about these findings and he got back to me with assurance that he didn’t think “anything intentional” was going on.

I believe that Mr. Crowe and Mr. Bauer are both wrong.

This fake, chimeric retrovirus was gentically engineered to be more easily contracted by black people.

And that is why—as Mr. Bauer notes—“HIV discriminates by race just as though it were capable of recognizing the DNA sequences in the human genome.”

I’ll collect my notes on the science of genetic racial targeting and get back. CCR5 has been underated as a targeting mechanism by the disbelievers in HIV as a “man-made virus.”

Hello David Crowe. Let me comment on your remark ‘If black people in America and Africa stop lining up for HIV tests, stop opening their mouths for AIDS drugs, stop accepting formula instead of breastfeeding, and stop allowing their orphans to be used for experiments, then AID$ Inc. will go bankrupt.’ Thats a big order for poor Blacks and pretty hard for a people who have been subjected to disproportionate affects of illness and health care for years. Please note, there are Blacks who protested the guinea pig kids scandal. Yours truly was one. I have also written about AIDS orphans. So, Blacks are concerned. Nevertheless, Blacks need lots of education and support from people like you. But keep in mind. Most White Gay men haven’t been on the front line exposing the fraudulent HIV Test, the toxic drugs,etc in there community either. Am I right? They buy into the HIV=AIDS dogma too, by and large. Nevertheless, they are going to have to join together with Blacks in this fight against the fraud of HIV. That means, They are going to have to turn down the big AIDS money and stop promoting the HIV tests (see POZ, etc), and HAART and start revealing the truth. Moreover, the AIDS celebrities are going to have to be shut down. There is a ‘AIDS Prometheus ’ or call it ‘the AIDS monster’ created and builded on Gallo’s original claim that a retrovirus (HIV) may cause AIDS. Follow the money! The entire structure rest on Gallo’s invention of a test for HIV.  As you know, there is a multi million dollar HIV campaign targeting Black Americans to take the HIV antibody test. The AIDS establishment calls it National HIV Testing Day.How does a Black person reject the advise of there Preacher, Dad, Mom, sister, brother, and Doctor?  Especially when a family member has died from AIDS after testing HIV positive? Atleast,  it is believed HIV=AIDS=DEATH.  Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, Magic Johnson, and other prominent Black leaders and celebrities have taken the antibody test publically to demonstrate its safety and encourage Blacks to take it. Its extremely hard to overcome the pressure and psych to conform. The same pressure, maybe more, is applied if a Black person tests Positive for HIV. Now, the pressure is to take the toxic meds. Over the years, I have visited HEAL and listen to Michael Ellsner. There is a AIDS Zone. And, you can break out of the Zone but it is hard, very hard and even if you do, returning to the Black community subjects you to the mainstream HIV dogma again. Doubts arise especially if you are experiencing physical illness. And, Michael there are cases of people who get sick years later after testing HIV Positive. The AIDS Zone? It isn’t just the AIDS Zone. No question. A correlation exist between HIV and AIDS related illness in some cases. Enough to convince a layman that HIV caused the death of a love one. Your only hope is that you are basically willing to study the HIV field and use your own counsel to deal with so called AIDS and reject a Black community that has bought into the HIV=AIDS dogma lock. stock and barrel. AIDS has become a Black Disease. Don’t you think? Just like it use to be a Gay Disease.
Interestingly, David Crowne’s Rethinker web site had a very interesting article discussing the mindset of AIDS doctors. Very enlighting. In short, Anthony Brink says that most HIV/AIDS doctor are easily conned into accepting blindly the HIV dogma. They practice that belief on so called HIV positive patiences. particularly Blacks, without any consideration for alternative theory’s and treatment. I know that from first hand experience. What do you do from there? Over time, I tend to agree with Truman’s theory about the so-called “HIV”. He says HIV ‘... I am sure was constructed in a lab using Duesberg’s avian retroviral technology, has been genetically targeted at black people.’  Gay White men too. Moreover, I like Truman’s ‘Aids is a binary weapon; the first stage is HIV. The trigger is one of the cell-wall deficient, pleomorphic (variable) mycoplasmas. Mycoplasma Fermentans and Mycoplasma Penetrans act to upgrade an otherwise harmless retrovirus to killer status. Both of these microbes were vectored by way of vaccinations; both of them were created or upgraded in a lab and administered to specific communities.’ Its a good theory that accounts for the symptoms and illnesses that by and large mysteriously follow an HIV and AIDS diagnosis but yet the theory accepts the position that HIV is harmless. I think we should not get caught up on the existence or non existence of ‘HIV’. Instead, lets focus on (1) building the Immune system to deal with a multi factorial pathogen that attacks it and (2) educating our communities about the truth. Something all of you have done well. At the end of the day, we are discussing theories and not the practical solutions of dealing with millions of people who test HIV positive and thereafter start taking extremely toxic meds? What do you think? Peace. Dennis

Truman;

I am asking a simple question. Where’s the evidence that HIV exists? If you can provide that, then we can talk about it. Without HIV, AIDS is meaningless, so to say that AIDS is not caused by HIV but by something else is absurd because that implies that HIV antibody tests are remarkably accurate signs of some other pathogen. In many ways AIDS does not act as an infectious disease (and the fact that some evidence is compatible with an infectious disease is not proof that it’s infectious).

If there’s proof that HIV exists, or that HIV antibody tests are accurate markers for some other pathogen, then we can talk about where the pathogen came from.

That is a good question, what are the tests detecting? Many pregnant women and those of us who have many antibodies to numerous conditons in life, test positive.

I fault the news media for not do their jobs and for not properly investigating the issue. Even the President get challenged on issues, but when a scientist or doctor speaks, the reporters treat what they say as the gospel. This whole affair could have been stopped long ago, if it was properly investigated and reported to the public, which it is not being done. The main way that the public is aware of any disagreement about AIDS is via the internet.

A communist dictator could not have done a better job in spreading lies and a media black-out but then, we have our democratic government to thank for all of this. The truth is slowing edging forward but in the interim, lives are still being ruined by this lie. This is why speaking out against this injustice is so important!

Sorry, there is a typo in the above post: “you actually HAVE BEEN infected not with a weaponized (man-made) pathogen” should not have the word “not” in it.

...it sure is a blow to your confidence to be told you actually HAVE BEEN infected with a weaponized (man-made) pathogen…

O.C.K., you’re not getting what I’m proposing as the origin of both HIV and AIDS.
I now have no doubt that both HIV, which is harmless, as well as the pathogens, M.fermentans and M.Penetrans—which can be deadly—were both developed in a lab.
The truth about the origin of Aids will not necessarily be one which makes anyone feel good about his/her medical condition. Truth-finding is, unfortunately not about building up or destroying confidence, but about going where the evidence takes you. For instance, I, as a black person, find the entire notion of racial targeting quite upsetting, but if targeting, experimentation or testing describes the intention of the originators of AIDS, feeling humiliated about it won’t have a positive effect on my ability to learn the facts.
Secondly, I think HIV, although harmless, was originally vectored along with one or both of the mycoplasmas described by Lo, Montagnier and Nicolson, to cause the fatal illnesses by which death came quite quickly to the original victims in the eighties.

I believe the original cases
were tests, directed at the gay population. And yes, the mere existence of a patent proves nothing. But did you study the patents in detail along with the other supporting studies which Lo published in various scientific journals and which are now available on PUBMED? Did you note that Lo claimed that animals injected with these mycoplasmas died?—something that has never happened with HIV?
Lo, who I believe was supplied with information about the existence of these “novel mycoplasmas” before he “discovered” them, proposed that they could do what HIV could not do—infiltrate cells of the human immune system and slowly compromise their ability to protect the host from incoming pathogens.

OCK, did you go to your library to obtain a microfilm copy of the original New York Times article, orginally entitled: “Unusual Microbe, Once Dismissed, Is Now Taken More Seriously?”

Did you compare this title with the one the Times now posts online: “Unusual Microbe, Once Dismissed is NOT Taken More Seriously?”

I also believe that Garth Nicolson, who found M.Fermentans Incognitus in Gulf War Illnesses, “discovered” these pathogens because he had been given information that they were there. This belief will not endear me to Professor Nicolson, who has been kind enough to respond to my emails, but this is where the evidence has taken me. My perception is that both Lo and Nicolson, and perhaps Montagnier also, seemed to know too much, too soon. While I believe that it is true that Nicolson has done a huge service to Gulf War Syndrome patients, I also belief that he was always acting as an agent of a faction of the United States military and government. Ditto for Shyh Ching Lo.
My research into the “physiology” of these mycoplasmas lead me to believe that Lo—whether brilliant, independent researcher or government patsy—was correct; they are indeed “novel,” “stealth” pathogens.
There are several studies which suggest that the replication ability of HIV can be upgraded by the presence of Mycoplasma. I posted the Japanese and Chinese studies which propose this.
My best personal suspicion is that HIV was not actually upgraded at all, but only served as a “false flag” pathogen in order to conceal the existence of the real pathogens, which I believe were either or both of the Mycoplasmas.I’m in total agreement with Crowe, Duesberg and Ellner—that if you’re diagnosed “Hiv positive” today, it probably means absolutely nothing, unless you enter into the AIDSZONE and acquiese to using unnecessary and deadly HIV chemotherapies.
I share Duesberg’s belief that HIV is real but harmless. I hope my belief that HIV is harmless hasn’t been shrouded by my proposal that it was created in a lab.

So, O.C.K., if you are HIV positive you’ll probably do very well by staying away from AIDS industry medical practitioners and leading a healthy lifestyle—exactly as Michael Ellner suggests.

I think the era of mycoplasma contamination of vaccines ended in the late eighties or early nineties.

OCK, you asked me this:

“Wasn’t it Roberto Giraldo (who you seem to have been in contact with) who showed through experimentation that all blood tests came up positive when undiluted.”

I emailed Mr. Giraldo on this exact issue and here is his exact reply:

sent on 6/14/06 4:29 P.M.

“Truman: Today they have purified the proteins used as antigens in the ELISA test used for HIV and the dilution is now similar to other serological tests”.

This purification statement makes perfect sense because the old proteins were unreliable due to contamination.

But if they’re now “purified” what are they purified as?

As I responded to Mr. Ellner, this email suggests to me that Mr. Giraldo believes that there are (at least) some proteins that are being used in the tests and they are conventionally used in the tests.

It suggests that Mr. Giraldo believes that these same proteins always comprise the antigens that are used in the tests.

It further suggests that these antigens must be HIV antigens because Mr. Giraldo says they have been purified and now the dilution of the serum used in HIV antibody tests can match the dilution used in other serological tests.

And the implication is that the problem with everybody testing positive no longer exists.

So if Mr. Giraldo does not mean that there are HIV antigens in existence, I would like to know exactly what this means:

“Truman: Today they have purified the proteins used as antigens in the ELISA tests…”

Are these antigens HIV antigens or are they randomly chosen out of a hat each time a new batch of HIV antibody tests are assembled?

Only Mr. Giraldo knows exactly what he meant to tell me. Perhaps he’ll join us online and explain this.

Truman Green said:
“Firstblood, HIV is harmless, but it was constructed in a lab as a kind of “false flag” pathogen to conceal the true nature of the illness, which was orginally caused by deadly pathogens—mycoplasmas, which originated in biowarfare research.”

The Perth Group has proposed “a Plea for clarification”’,whether they be Janitors or Psychics I want to see this clarification.

Truman Green said:
“HIV has been “isolated” to the extent that it leaves a statistically significant genetic trail, surprisingly similar to the evidence gathered by forensic scientists looking for a criminal by investigating DNA markers left at a scene of a crime.”

Really? so then what’s the FDA’s purpose of marketing “Prognostic Antibody Tests” that do not detect HIV and why not look for OTHER retroviruses that may or may not cause GRIDS/AIDS directly from human blood?

Truman Green said:
To paraphrase Peter Duesberg’s rationale for believing that HIV exists:

“HIV has been cloned and sequenced. It’s genome is comprised of over 9000 nucleotides. The sequence of these nucleotides cannot be found in uninfected cells, therefore the arrangement of these nucleotides represents a genome of “something” which is not indigenous to uninfected cells. As Peter Duesberg has written, the “probability that cellular DNA and other viral DNAs would contain the same 9150 nucleotides approaches zero.”

Be it known the Perth Group has never said “HIV does not exist”  in an email exchange with John P Moore The Perth Group responds:

                                John P Moore
“Now what are their core beliefs? The core beliefs tend to be somewhat different because different sub-cliques of denialists differ in what they choose to emphasize. One of the more bizarre episodes was the Perth group claims that HIV simply does not exist; whereas Duesberg accepts that HIV exists but believes it’s harmless. So when the Perth group put out a competition on their website with a cash prize for anyone who could prove that HIV exists Duesberg actually claimed the price. It gets that silly.”
                             
The Perth Group said to John Moore:

“There are many bizarre episodes in “HIV”/AIDS research but our scientific disagreement with Peter Duesberg is not one of them. In our publications we have never claimed that “HIV simply does not exist”. We have claimed that the presently available data does not prove its existence. We have never “put out a competition on” our website offering “a cash prize for anyone who could prove that HIV exists”. In fact, at that time (1996) we did not even have a website. The prize was offered by Continuum magazine, not by the Perth Group. When Peter Duesberg claimed it, we challenged his claim. Peter claimed that the existence of the “HIV infectious molecular clone” proves that “HIV” exists. However, he never gave any evidence for the existence of the “HIV infectious molecular clone”. Peter’s argument that the existence of the “HIV infectious molecular clone” proves that “HIV” exists was also used by Brian Foley in the British Medical Journal Online debate. Like Peter, Brian Foley ultimately was not able to present any evidence for the existence of the “HIV infectious molecular clone”. Our repeated request to Brian Foley remains unanswered. So were many other repeated requests including providing references with evidence which demonstrates the specificity of the “HIV” antibody tests, sexual transmission of “HIV” and that the “HIV” proteins are coded by the “HIV” gag, pol and env genes. When it was seen that neither Brian Foley nor any other participant in the debate could provide such evidence, instead of coming to their rescue by providing such evidence, Wain-Hobson, Brian Foley and you attempted to stop the debate.”
                           
(excerpt from Rethinking AIDS “challenges”)

Truman Green said:
It will never be isolated as a “conventional” virus or retrovirus which evolved in nature simply because it is not a naturally-occurring virus, but a constructed virus.

I believe the ‘idea’ of HIV is Orwellian even within the deepest parts of the HIV conspiracy arena.
Oh no! I have tested for the antibodies to Influenza my life is over…lets start a FLU POZ magazine and a FLUTRUTH.org,  TheCOLDTRUTH.org

Truman Green said:
“Why this is not obvious is one of the mysteries of this whole HIV/AIDS issue.
Duesberg, Nicolson and Gallo were all working in the Virus Cancer Program.”

Duesberg is a whistleblower Gallo is a Liar.

Truman Green said:
“Is anyone really so gullible as to believe that the National Cancer Institute was really interested in proving that viruses cause cancer?

I am an ex HIV patient who fail prey to the “HIV phenomenon” 11 years ago. I am not gullable to any of those organizations and I don’t require an MD or PHD to see the corruption of the CDC,NIH,FDA,WHO, and the HIV constructed in a lab theorists.

Truman Green said:
They’re sure in no hurry to accept the research into the bacterial cause of cancer. The cancer industry would lose billions if it were discovered tht cancer is caused by either viruses or bacteria.

I agree.

Truman Green said:
So what were the Virus Cancer Program scientists really up to?

Answer: constructing chimeric viruses—one of which became known as HIV. Duesberg admits as much in his paper entitled “Latent Viruses and Mutated Oncogenes—No Evidence of Pathogenesis.”
He writes: “Avian retroviruses were constructed.”

Virus hunting is no secret, Look at SARS,West Nile,Hepatitis C,Bird Flu and other man made up viruses,seems as though drugs are developed before they name the Scamdemic.

Michael Ellner admits that the Nicolson-Urnovitz debate (re. mycoplasma) seems to have disappeared from the net, but concludes:

“Too bad, because in my opinion, this exchange was the definitive debunking of Nicolson’s hypothesis.”

How do you arrive at this “opinion,” Mr. Ellner, unless you have read the debate?

If you have read it I would very much appreciate it if you would let me know how to obtain a copy. If you haven’t read it, your opinion is based on wishful thinking—a fairly flimsy basis for a dismissal of Nicolson’s hypothesis.

Have you read the debate, Mr. Ellner?

See: Virginia Livingston Cancer Bacteria.

Many of the links will lead to Alan Cantwell’s excellent work on “cancer bacteria”, (with whom I have shared about 100 emails), but there are numerous other reviews, particularly the review by Robert S. Schwartz, of David Hess’ work, “Can Bacteria Cause Cancer?”

Schwartz was deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine when he wrote this review.

If you truly read the debate, Mr. Ellner, what were some highlights of the argumentation—particularly those points which would “put an end to my myco-mania?”

Also, I suppose that you have retained a copy of such a debunking for future mycoplasma denialism. Would you share a copy with us?

Personally, I even keep a lot of J.P. Moore’s stuff around, even though I know he doesn’t believe a word of it.

As a dedicated AIDS rethinking truth-seeker, I’m sure you just don’t toss out literature which conflicts with your official position—especially a “definitive debunking of Nicolson’s hypothesis.”
 
The most obvious thing about mycoplasma is that, as cell-wall deficient, bacteria-like stealth pathogens, and pleomorphic, they can do all of the things which have been falsely claimed for HIV and other supposedly oncogenic substances.

How did Urnovitz debunk this?

According to Stilly, the debate wasn’t exactly a “definitive debunking of Nicolson’s hypothesis,” after all, Mr. Ellner. Are you sure you read the same debate?

I’ve downloaded every single one of the 500 peer-reviewed studies Nicolson has been involved with. I’d truly like to see Urnovitz’s “definitive” attempt at debunking this guy’s work.

I can let you have my email address if you can send me a copy of the debate, Mr. Ellner.

To add some other interesting theories of the cause of cancer, an oncologist, Dr. Tullio Simoncini from Italy, believes that cancer is due to fungi. He has authored a book entitled, Cancer is a fungus. I have posted the video link for those interested.
http://www.know-the-cause.com/Shows/TullioSimonciniMDWithDougKaufmann/tabid/109/Default.aspx

And also Mr. Ellner…You write: “I notice that you are taking it on faith that Stilly actually read the debate…screw you.”

I’m not taking it on faith that Stilly read the debate. I believe he read it because he knows something about it. As you’ll recall, he wrote that one of Urnovitz’s accusations was that Nicolson used PCR to identifiy the mycoplasmas found in Gulf War Illness.

You, on the other hand, don’t know anything about the debate—only that it was a “definitive debunking of Nicolson’s hypothesis.

Therefore—and for three other reasons (which I will list, if you like), which are contraindicative that you have read the debate, I don’t believe you have read the debate.

Would you like me to list the other reasons why I don’t believe you have actually read the debate?

I trust that I am not the only reader who sees through your insane conclusions, unfounded insults and ad hominem attacks - Mr Green.

You wrote:
<<<<<“Again, do you remember just one of the argumentative points made by either
Nicolson or Urnovitz from the debate?”

“You, on the other hand, don’t know anything about the debate—only that it
was a “definitive debunking of Nicolson’s hypothesis.

Therefore—and for three other reasons (which I will list, if you like),
which are contraindicative that you have read the debate, I don’t believe you have read the debate.

Would you like me to list the other reasons why I don’t believe you have
actually read the debate?”>>>>>

FYI - Red Flags who hosted the debate allowed readers to post comments on it and although, I though that Urnovitz bested Nicolson based on the infectious AIDS model—I felt the whole debate was silly and that’s what I posted as a comment on their debate:

“As someone who has questioned, challenged and debunked the junk science surrounding HIV/AIDS since 1984, I must challenge the merit of debating the causes of something that has no proof for its basic assumption, namely that a CD4 cell deficiency is a valid scientific explanation for clinical disease. The Concorde study (1993) demonstrated that CD4 cells neither correlate to nor predict, either disease progression or death, in people said to have AIDS.

Since the CDC changed the AIDS definition in 1993…two thirds of all the AIDS cases are people who, with no clinical illness and no AIDS indicator diseases, ‘have AIDS’! …these are people who have tested positive for antibodies (something that has always been known as a sign of immunity) to non-specific stress proteins (which, although treated like ‘whole HIV,’ comprise a hodgepodge of unrelated, non-specific cellular protein fragments), are said to have CD4 cell deficiencies, and who, aside from any symptoms due to HIV/AIDS psychological terrorism, are healthy people with AIDS! I’d say that’s pretty strong clinical evidence against the basic beliefs that govern the AIDS paradigm.”
Michael Ellner - Posted on Red Flags Weekly,  Apr 2002

FYI - Nicolson, Urnovitz and more recently the Stilly, poster who formerly signed on as “s” ignored my comment and that’s what I remember most Mr. Green…

YOU WERE SAYING????

PS- Signing in as Stilly (Formerly s) isn’t telling us who you are Stilly—

At least have the conviction to put your name on your posts!

Like Topsy, Mr. Ellner, you’re stories re. the debate are just growing and growing.

First you claim that, in your opinion, the debate was a “definitive debunking of Nicolson’s hypothesis.”

Now you claim that you posted your opinion on the RedFlags website (regarding the mycoplasma debate), that you “felt the whole debate was silly and that’s what I posted on their website.”

Then you dug up some post (probably actually yours, but on another subject), which doesn’t even mention the word “mycoplasma” and you claim that this post was a reaction to the debate between Urnovitz and Nicolson.

All of which is supposed to prove to us that you have actually read the debate about mycoplasmas.

I don’t think so, Mr. Ellner.

Remember, Mr. Ellner, the debate was about mycoplasma, not whether HIV can kill CD4 antigens.

So which is it, Mr. Ellner? Was the debate a “definitive debunking of Nicolson’s hypothesis” as you posted earlier, or just “silly?”

And was this post, which you dug up, really in response to the Nicolson-Urnovitz debate—or something else totally unrelated to the mycoplasma question and the debate?

And if this post was truly in response to the debate, why didn’t you mention the word “Mycoplasma” or refer it it any way in your post on the Redflags website?

Included in your post: “I must challenge the merit of debating the causes of something thats has no proof for its basic assumption, namely that a CD4 cell deficiency is a valid explanation for clinical disease.”

What has this got to do with the debate between Nicolson and Urnovitz regarding mycoplasmas as causative of disease, Mr. Ellner? This post is not in response to the debate about mycoplasma, but in response to another debate about CD4s, and you know it.

Your posts are getting unbelievably dishonest.

I trust that you are worldly enough to know that Stilly may have very valid and important reasons for not wanting to divulge his identity, and that you’ll stop harassing him about it. He has also made an important contribution to this forum.

So you didn’t actually read the debate, did you, Mr. Ellner.

Can you actually tell us one argumentative point made by either Urnovitz or Nicolson during the debate? We already know what the debate was about.

But it wasn’t entitled: “The Myth that Mycoplasma caused AIDS and GWI.”

It was entitled: “Mycoplasma/Chronic Illness Link: Fact or Fraud? Experts Debate the Issue.”

I think we all know that if you had actually read the debate you’d be able to come up with one argumentative point made by either side. And if you’d read the debate, and it actually was the “definitive debunking of Nicolson’s hypothesis,” as you pretended it was, you would have mentioned it on this forum long before I did.

For some reason, about which I can only speculate, debunking the mycoplasma association with AIDS, Cancer and Gulf War Illness seems to be an essential part of your stock in trade.

Conclusion: You are not telling the truth about having read the debate and having posted a comment about it.

The debate is now unavailable online for the same reason that the New York Times changed the title of the article about mycoplasma and Lo’s discoveries, written by Lawrence Altman, which I wrote about. The information that mycoplasmas are involved in disease and that doxycycline, an antibiotic, is efficacious as a treatment for GWI and AIDS has been suppressed.

This suppression mirrors the suppression of any studies concluding that doxycycline, to which M. Fermentans Incognitus is sensitive, has been used with success as a treatment for AIDS or Gulf War Illness. Professor Nicolson wrote to me that the Army uses his doxycycline protocol for treating GWI, but they will not officially acknowledge it. He was not able to do double-blinded, placebo-based trials because the government refuses to fund such studies.

As we all understand, if doxycyline works, it adds massive support to the claim that these illnesses are caused by mycoplasmas or other bacterial microbes, exactly as Lo, Montagnier and Nicolson claimed.

Antibiotics do not work on viruses!

The Community Resource Initiative trials of doxycycline as a treatment for Aids have also been suppressed. I can’t get anyone to acknowledge that they ever occurred, even though I have written the man who directed the studies.

Sometimes the absence of information is as telling as the abundance of information.

Mr. Green writes:

A) <<< I trust that you are worldly enough to know that Stilly may have very valid and important reasons for not wanting to divulge his identity, and that you’ll stop harassing him about it. He has also made an important contribution to this forum>>>

The value of the posts made by the poster formerly known as “s” is a matter of opinion.

In my opinion, if, Stilly is unable or unwilling to stand by his opinions—he should keep them to himself…

B) <<< “Well, regardless of the origin of these proteins, AIDS patients most certainly have antibodies that react with these proteins and these reactions correlate with either having AIDS or developing and dying of AIDS,” you must logically conclude that these purified antigens are being statistically reacted to by human immune system antibodies.>>>

You really don’t know what you are talking about - Do you, Mr Green? For example,  you claim this short snippet from Dr Giraldo <<<Truman: “Today they have purified the proteins used as antigens in the Elisa test for HIV and the dilution is now similar to that of other serological test” is proof that Dr Giraldo believes that HIV has been isolated and the tests are for HIV—

YOU MUST BE MAD! 

Roberto meant that the high dilution Elisa tests were very, very dirty tests and the manufacturers cleaned them up a bit—They are still dirty tests, but they are clean enough to use standard dilutions—

Dr Giraldo did not mean that the proteins were from an isolated “HIV” and he did not mean these tests prove any kind of infection.

Dr Giraldo is very clear about this in a paper he co-authored:
Snip:
9. Conclusions and Recommendations

9.1. Particles closely resembling retroviruses demonstrated by electron microscopy in the classical paper concerning “HIV isolation” (Barre-Sinoussi et al 1983; Papovic et al 1984; Levy et al 1984) were not demonstrated as originating from “pre-AIDS” nor from AIDS patients. They could, most likely, originate from lymphocytes that were mixed in these complex cell cultures, i.e. cord blood lymphocytes.
9.2. “HIV reverse transcriptase” described in classical papers on “HIV isolation”  (Barre-Sinoussi et al 1983; Papovic et al 1984; Levy et al 1984) is not a specific marker of HIV, since that enzyme is present in all living cells and could, therefore originate from the cell debris contaminating the alleged viral samples.
9.3. The specificity of the retroviral origin of so-called “HIV-proteins” described in the classical paper (Barre-Sinoussi et al 1983; Papovic et al 1984; Levy et al 1984) could have been demonstrated only after successful purification of HIV. As acknowledged by Luc Montagnier, HIV has not been purified (Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al 1997/98) and the “HIV-proteins” cannot, therefore, be used as reliable markers of HIV.
9.4. “Sequencing of HIV-nucleic acid” is not a specific marker of HIV either, for the same reason, i.e., the lack of any successful purification of the virus.
9.5. In 1997, Glushankoff’s group in Europe, and Bess’s group in the United States (Glushankoff et al 1997; Bess et al 1997), were not able to isolate nor to purify HIV from cell cultures regarded as active producers.
The word “isolation” as used by the most noted researchers (Barre-Sinoussi et al 1983; Gallo et al 1984; Levy et al 1984) can be very misleading, as has been pointed out many times (Papadopulos-Eleopulos 1988; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al 1993, 1996, 1997a,b; Turner 1996, 1997/1998, 1998; de Harven 1998, 2003; Giraldo 2000a; Giraldo et al 1999).
9.6. Retroviral particles have never been either isolated or purified directly from any individual AIDS patient. Claims of successful isolation have always been made from the analysis of highly complex (and frequently contaminated) cell cultures.
9.7. Therefore, since no retrovirus has ever been clearly demonstrated to be associated with AIDS patients, the HIV/AIDS hypothesis has to be fundamentally reappraised.
9.8. If AIDS were indeed caused by a retrovirus, how can we explain that more than 25 years of considerable research efforts, based exclusively on that single hypothesis, have failed to isolate the responsible exogenous retrovirus? How can we explain that after more than twenty-five years we still have no curative treatment, no vaccine, and no verifiable epidemiological predictions? Obviously, time is pressing us to courageously ask the essential question, i.e., is the HIV=AIDS hypothesis correct? We must realize that it is possible to view AIDS differently, entirely outside the fields of infectious diseases and retrovirology.
Rather than being viral and infectious, AIDS could more likely be a toxic and nutritional disease caused by multiple, chronic and repeated exposures to immunological stressor agents, which can have a chemical, physical, biological, mental, or nutritional origin (Giraldo 1997a-d, 2000b, 2002).
Unsnip
http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/Farber_Reply_April_2006.html

Only trouble with all of this is that HIV, whatever it is, has been shown to be statistically associated with AIDS—even though this correlation is often problematic, which is exactly the conclusion that Elena Papadopoulos comes to. And the nutritional, multiple, chronic, repeated exposures to immunological stressor agents could describe hundreds of pathological syndromes and basically means that there is no specific illness resulting primarily from an attack or debilitation of the the human immune system, and therefore that AIDS doesn’t really exist at all.

All due respect to Mr. Giraldo, but this pathetic multifactorial AIDS paradigm reminds me of the silliness in creating a disease paradigm in which there are 28-30 disease-defining diseases, which is what the CDC and medical science has wrought with this ridiculous HIV/AIDS paradigm. This similarity in approaches only shows that the AIDISTS have taught the Rethnkers well.

To quote Eleni Papdopoulous: “Well, regardless of the origin of these proteins, AIDS patients most certainly have antibodies that react with these proteins and these reactions correlate with either having AIDS or developing and dying of AIDS.”

All of these various kinds of stressors will be found in virtually every pathological syndrome, sometimes as causative and sometimes as resultant. They’re totally meaningless as varifiable factors of specific disease syndromes.

As I said, this kind of etiology uses the concurrency association—epiphenomenal logic, exactly the same as that used by those who argue that HIV causes AIDS because HIV is often found with AIDS. (Do your endless multifactorial causes act singularly or cumulatively as causative agents of pathological syndromes?)
Association does not equal causation.

I will admit, though, that I accepted all of this nonsense at one time, primarily because I knew that HIV didn’t come from green monkeys and I thought that the the “man-made” theory was way off base.

Try thinking of HIV as just a synthetic pack of consistently used proteins, AND NOT REALLY A RETROVIRUS OR ANY VIRUS—used as antigens in HIV antibody tests.

Everything will fall into place.

Your last post is comprised of a pack of strawman arguments, Mr. Ellner, as I don’t believe so-called HIV is a retrovirus, either, (as you must know by now), but rather a synthetic pack of proteins, produced in a lab. If I call a tree a horse that doesn’t make it a horse. The “HIV” proteins are obviously surrogate proteins comprising so-called HIV specific antigens, p24, for instance. Problem is, p24 appears in other places, not only so-called HIV.

Your name-calling is a definitive debunking of your ability to act as an adult, Mr. Ellner.

Did you read somewhere in a troll manual that calling posters such names as “mad” and saying things like “screw you” are worthwhile debating tactics?

DENNIS LEVY AUG. 16th
Hello everybody. After reading again all the posts, I want to take a stab at summarizing the main points and proposing a theory. First,  David Crowe, president of Rethinking Aids, Celia Farber, who wrote many articles questioning HIV science, HH Bauer for his book on the failure of the HIV/AIDS paradigm, Michael Ellner, president of Heal and a person who is immensely knowledgeable on many aspects of HIV and AIDS, and Sepp Hasselberger, all believe to different degrees that HIV is a hoax. It does not exist. Primarily, because HIV does not fulfill the Koch postulates. On the other hand, Dr. Duesburg and his followers believe HIV does exist but its harmless. Its co-factors like drugs, etc. that cause AIDS. Luc Montagnier also weights in on co-factors as needed for HIV to progress to AIDS. The rethinkers group wasn’t clear on the origins of HIV. I guess that is not important if you believe HIV doesn’t exist. On the other side, there are the people who believe HIV exist and moreover, that HIV was man made. Truman Green has been the main supporter of this position. In addition, Mr. Green argued that mycoplasmas. Mycoplasma Fermentans and Mycoplasma Penetrans act to ‘upgrade an otherwise harmless retrovirus to killer status’. This discussion raged on for months mainly between Mr. Green and Mr. Ellner. It got very technical at some points. ‘S’ got in a few digs in favor of Mr. Green and some other points against him. My theory? HIV ‘is’ a man made ‘retrovirus’ but it is harmless(Dr. Gallo and Dr. Duesburg have some prior knowledge of the retroviruses research). Nevertheless, HIV (its simply a name!) is real and the HIV antibody test can reasonably detect proteins which may be associated with HIV. However, the antibody test can also detect many other similar proteins unrelated to HIV. So, there is a great risk of false positives. That is no reason to ignore the test completely. Note, there is no reliable research to date on how many false positives as opposed to true positives are in the so called at risk populations. That said, HIV may be dangerous not of itself ‘but rather because of what often accompanies it—mycoplasma fermentans incognitus’ (Mr. Green). As Mr. Green goes on to say ‘Hiv is a “false-flag” pathogen’. I would go further and say that this ‘false-flag’ pathogen HIV ‘can’ point to lifestyle stress related factors (the ‘AIDS Zone stress, hep C, hep B, etc), malnutrition, toxic AIDS drugs and other co factors that can cause AIDS. No definitive research on the subject of co-factors exist at this time to my knowledge. However, Mr. Greens theory that another deadly pathogen may have been vectored with HIV vis-a-vis the hep B tests and small pox vaccination merits more thought and research. Lets be clear at this point. HIV and AIDS are two different medical terms. HIV is thought to be some type of retrovirus and AIDS is a ‘Construct’ or label used to describe an immune deficiency. And they may or may not be medically related. Moreover, each case of AIDS may be uniquely different from other AIDS case. There is no question that AIDS among White gay men in the 80s was different than African AIDS and indeed AIDS among Black Americans. The issue IS AIDS, I think. Not HIV. The question is ‘how do we predict AIDS’ so as to start preventive measures? No question , a HIV Positive antibody test ‘can’ and ‘should’ warrant a series of further tests to focus in on co-factors and on a cause for potentially future immuno deficiency disease. We really don’t have anything else to go on. Unless, we start our diagnoses when a person has AIDS and forget an HIV antibody test. Most on this thread say the antibody test is useless. But, what would indicate AIDS as opposed to one of the 30 existing infections under the AIDS umbrella? T-call readings and viral load testing has been discredited by most people on this thread too. And, how do we deal with the potentially toxic AIDS meds given prematurely based on surrogate markers? As a person living for over 10 years with a so-called positive HIV antibody test, I think at this time in the AIDS drama, we have to base treatment decisions on our medical systoms. For example, if you are ‘wasting’ or have a AIDS defining O.I. e.g. PCP or KS. Clearly, these O.I.s warrants medical attention but I am clueless as to what might indicate AIDS. Any theories out there? In closing, I am agreeing with Mr. Ellner, perhaps if you have AIDS, the new low dose antiretrovirals may help in some cases. The medical skill and/or qualified Doctors to make that kind of medical decision does not exist today.If you have AIDS, you are basically on your on except for alternative treatment specialists. But, as you can see, I raise more questions than I answer them. Peace out.

Truman,

I think what you are saying is that if anyone disagrees with you, it is because they are a member of the secret society. There’s a ton of evidence that “AIDS” does not behave like an infectious disease. That’s just as compelling whether the cause is a virus or mycoplasma. Without the “HIV” test there’s nothing left of the theory, so either the HIV test must be a mycoplasma test in disguise, or there’s some magic that binds HIV together with the mycoplasma.

1) I am all for an investigation into the workings of the VCP and I am open to the idea that Duesberg, Gallo and
Nicolson were involved with more than cancer research—However, just because Duesberg, Gallo and
Nicolson worked with the VCP during the 70’s does not prove that they or other government sponsored scientists developed a fake and deadly retrovirus or weaponized a mycoplasma as the viro/myco-terrorists insist . 

2) There are unwritten social taboos as well as non-disclosure issues at play. It is well known that scientists, journalists or concerned citizens, who have not signed non-disclosure agreements and who threaten the $tatu$ quo and mainstream view are vulnerable to retribution - Drs Bialy and Culshaw and journalists Farber and Shenton serve as a WARNING to other potential whistle-blowers

3) After reviewing the evidence - I see nothing that suggests that most cases of Aids, cancer, or GWS are caused by a virus or a mycoplasma. The man-made “viro” and/or “myco” promoters always seem to give their agents of mass destruction supernatural powers - “HIV kills cells without having to infect them” or “Mycoplasmas cause AIDS, but only if you are gay, black or very poor.”

4) I agree with Mr. Green, the manufacturing of “treatable diseases” has become a vital part of conventional medical practice. “HIV” and “hep C” are pefect examples of how prefabricated correlations, dubious surrogate markers and sensational estimates are passed off as scientific proofs. For more info on this urgent threat to our health, lives and well being, I recommend reading:
Selling sickness: the pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering • Commentary: Medicalisation of risk factors
BMJ 2002; 324: 886-891

Protective Stupidity
EPIDEMIC HYSTERIA, MASS HYPNOSIS AND ESCAPING FROM THE AIDS ZONE
by Michael Ellner C98, 2008 updated 8/13/2008

CAN WE TALK?
Cultural hypnosis, group fantasy and psychogenic death have profound social functions. They collectively serve to keep everyone’s attention off anything in life that really matters like real love, health and happiness. They specifically serve to keep our attention off anything which threatens the focus of this paper - the Big Lie that: within a world in crisis, everything is okay.

Experts and officials also have a social function. If you think about it, when dealing with personal Big Lie issues, people not only expect to be lied to, but they depend upon it. As long as the lies have a seed of truth it gives those who need it an opportunity to dismiss messy things like the role of self-responsibility in health and illness, not to mention things like economic injustice, political exploitation and most of all medical murder.

And the experts all happily obllige; after all, they need the Big Lie too. Without it they would have to acknowledge their racism, sexism, homophobia, explotation and countless other crimes against humanity. When dealing with this sort of group think, the only thing we can be sure of is that nobody is thinking. This is confounded by the fact most hypnotized people can not appreciate that they are already in a hypnotic Big Lie-protecting trance. In fact most people become irritated, defensive or even hostile at the mere suggestion, because once hypnotized there is a spontaneous impulse to defend the resulting mythology. Orwell called this “protective stupidity” (G. Orwell, 1984).

This defensive reflex is in itself evidence of the trance as without the trance a person would simply consider the information being presented. When in a trance however, one will dismiss as out of hand “dangerous information”, i.e., any information which threatens the Big Lie view of the world or which suggests taking responsibility and/or action around issues of one’s own health and happiness, particularly in the social realm.

This is what makes it so very challenging to help people realize that they have been culturally brain-washed throughout their lives (hypnotized without their knowledge or consent). Without the Big Lie, the true state of the world would be emotionally devastating. The group fantasy ends up serving a powerful survivalistic and anxiety- regulating function. One is not even permitted to think about it let alone discuss it.

THE GROUP FANTASY NEED FOR HIV
The very ideas of group fantasy, cultural hypnosis, epidemic hysteria and psychogenic death are so unsettling that they almost always produce an “I can’t believe that!”” response.

Put simply, group fantasy is the social agreement that black is white, up is down, and that the emperor is wearing clothes. It is used to mask rather than unveil the Big Lie and the identity of all who participate in perpetuating it.

“Epidemic hysteria” is the psychophysiological bridge between the group fantasy and the development of clinical psychogenic symptoms. Both have very important functions in that they are unconsciously used by by the group to purge the social body of poisonous feelings that have been generated by the Big Lie in the first place. (C. Schmitdt. MD, Group Fantasy Origins of AIDS-The AIDS Cult - Essays on the Gay Health Crisis edited by John Lauritsen and Ian Young).

Epidemic hysteria does, however, require a seed of truth of its own (the “core group”, discussed later); it requires the existence of people who are actually sick to get started -  people who are in fact sick because of the Big Lie. To disassociate this connection between sickness and the lie, we pull out the old standby: viral scapegoats - like HIV or new scapegoats like mycoplasmas.

HIV AND THE BIG LIE
But how does one tell whether, in the case of epidemics of illness, if one is dealing socially with hysteria, psychogenics and protective stupidity, or with an actual effort to curb social and physical illness?

It depends on how the truly sick are dealt with. If their illness is used to direct attention to the Big Lie, health and better social conditions will result.

If on the other hand, it is being used to direct attention away from the lie, as in the case of AIDS/’HIV” and as evidenced by the many defensive reactions triggered by exposure of the fraud, there will be an escalation of both illness and social tension, ie, a golden opportunity for the critically urgent psychosocial purge.

This explains why most of us have such a hard time seeing that the perception of an “epidemic” of “HIV disease”, particularly within the gay and black community, is an expression of group fantasy. As AIDS analyst Michael Baumgartner pointed out in 1992, in any given year, more gay men die of heart dis