WHY ARE THE NSC AND CIA MANAGING AMERICA’S GLOBAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST AIDS?
The US Government’s Worldwide Campaign Against AIDS Will Kill Millions of People with the Side Effects
of Highly Toxic Anti-HIV Drugs
By Robert Herron
Oct. 2001
"The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest,
truthful, and virtuous."
-- Frederick Douglass, 1885
Summary
An Estimated 50 Million People May Die Soon Due to the US Government’s
Worldwide Anti-HIV/AIDS Campaign
We do not want to believe that our government would knowingly hurt
anyone, but its failure to communicate honestly and openly with the American
people on the HIV/AIDS issue has created a breeding ground for suspicion.
What the US spy organizations are doing looks like race-based eugenics
or even genocide to many people. Quick, honest action is urgently needed.
In January 2000, the Central Intelligence
Agency issued a report that claims the worldwide Human Immunodeficiency
Virus (HIV) epidemic is a major threat to the United States. This created
fear. President Clinton officially declared the HIV pandemic to be a national
security threat. He assigned the National Security Council and the Central
Intelligence Agency to supervise the US government’s global campaign against
AIDS. These agencies seem unqualified to fight disease. Why weren’t the
US Public Health Service and Center for Disease Control given this task?
Although most of us are unaware of
it, dozens of studies, including several funded by the government, have
found that HIV does not cause AIDS. In fact, HIV is relatively harmless.
Dr. Charles Thomas, molecular biologist and former Harvard Professor of
Biochemistry, explained:
The HIV-causes-AIDS dogma represents
the grandest and perhaps the most morally destructive fraud that has ever
been perpetrated on the young men and women of the Western world (Sunday
Times, London, 3 Apr. 94).
To kill harmless HIV, the US government,
World Bank, and many other organizations will spend billions of dollars
purchasing and distributing hazardous anti-HIV medications to the estimated
36 to 50 million people who are presumed to have HIV worldwide.
These drugs do not cure AIDS, but
are supposed to slow its progression. Not one person has ever been cured
by these highly toxic chemicals. Not one life saved. Some research indicates
that virtually everyone taking these drugs is dying. A substantial body
of research further suggests that most of the 22 million people who were
thought to have died from AIDS actually died from the adverse side effects
of anti-HIV drugs (See P.H. Duesberg & D. Rasnick, The AIDS dilemma:
drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus. Genetica 1998; 104: 85–132).
AIDS compromises the immune system’s
ability to defend the body from disease. Many people in the world certainly
have immune system dysfunction. However, they are not dying from HIV. According
to research, only a fraction of the people who have HIV contract AIDS.
According to numerous studies, AIDS patients’ immunodeficiency is the result
of chemicals that damage the immune system, including recreational drugs
(i.e., cocaine, nitrite inhalants, and heroin), alcohol abuse, pesticides,
over-use of certain medicines (i.e., antibiotics), industrial pollutants,
other environmental toxins, and anti-HIV medications. Certain lifestyle
factors also suppress and weaken the immune system, including prolonged
malnutrition (main cause of AIDS in Africa); repeated infections, chronic
stress, and sleep deficit.
The majority of AIDS patients exhibit
several of these chemical and lifestyle risk factors. The US campaign against
AIDS will not attempt to remedy any chemical and behavioral causes of immune
system dysfunction. The reason the US government is conducting this campaign
apparently has more to do with helping multi-national firms than improving
health.
The pharmaceutical industry has donated
millions of dollars to both the Republican and Democratic Parties. The
Clinton AIDS crusade appears to be repayment to the multi-national drug
firms that made large donations to the Democratic Party. Most of the US
worldwide campaign against AIDS will consist of the US government’s buying
and distributing billions of dollars of anti-HIV medications to the 36–50
million people worldwide who are presumed to have HIV. It’s poisoning for
profit. There seems to be, however, more to this story than your garden-variety
campaign finance bribery that is endemic in the United States during election
years.
The main focus of the new anti-AIDS
campaign is nations in Sub-Saharan Africa. The World Health Organization
claims that 70%-80% of the people with HIV are located in this region.
Since in Africa, a blood test is not required for verification of HIV,
millions of people who do not even have HIV may be given these dangerous
drugs. This matter is urgent because these highly toxic anti-HIV medications
will soon kill millions of vulnerable people.
By coincidence, many rare minerals
and metals that are essential for high-tech weapons production are located
in Sub-Saharan Africa, especially South Africa. In recent years, the dominant
Western powers (USA, UK, and Germany) have had increasing difficulty controlling
the governments and resources in this part of the world. The natives are
restless and want to rule themselves. This restive feeling has been particularly
strong after apartheid ended.
The spy agencies want to avoid loosing
control of the strategic natural resources in Africa. Thus, we must ask
whether this crusade against AIDS is also a new form of covert warfare
to dominate Sub-Saharan Africa. To many people, from African Americans
dying of AIDS in our inner cities to innocents dying in their mothers’
arms in the parched plains of South Africa, the NSC and CIA activities
might look like racial genocide. We do not want to believe this. But, because
the government has been so dishonest with us in the past, what can we think?
Mark Twain once said, "When in doubt, tell the truth." An epidemic of truth
in Washington, DC might solve the global AIDS problem.
Introduction
Doesn’t it look strange? Clancy, Ludlum, or Le Carré could
not write a more sinister plot. Why are the National Security Council (NSC)
and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) coordinating the US worldwide war
against AIDS? The answer probably has little to do with health. The answer
may have everything to do with expanding US political control, enhancing
pharmaceutical profits, exploiting the natural resources of Africa for
high-tech weapons production, and even depopulating nations with high birth
rates.
In this comprehensive, in-depth article, we will see that due to
the American campaign against AIDS, most nations in Sub-Saharan Africa
will have their populations decimated by toxic anti-HIV medications (See
E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, et al., A critical analysis of the pharmacology
of AZT and its use in AIDS. Current Medical Research and Opinion
1999; 15(Supplement); P.H. Duesberg & D. Rasnick, The AIDS dilemma:
drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus. Genetica 1998; 104: 85–132;
D.T. Chiu, P.H. Duesberg, The toxicity of azidothymidine (AZT) on human
and animal cells in culture at concentrations used for antiviral therapy.
Genetica 1995; 95: 103–109; M.D. Zaretsky, AZT toxicity and AIDS
prophylaxis: Is AZT beneficial for HIV+ asymptomatic persons
with 500 or more T4 cells per cubic millimeter. Genetica 1995; 95:
91–101).
In the US, African Americans have had disproportionately high AIDS
death rates. The US government’s AIDS campaign appears to be a new form
of covert racial warfare. How can the nations under assault defend themselves?
South African David versus American Goliath
South African President Thabo Mbeki is one of the bravest men on
earth. To save his people, he is defying the entire Western medical establishment.
He is resisting intimidation by the most powerful nations on earth, including
the United States. They are trying to force him to give hazardous, anti-HIV
medications to pregnant mothers and infants in South Africa. Research shows
that the toxic side effects of these drugs harm developing fetuses and
newborns. Some scientists have said that no humans should be given these
poisonous medications.
At the 13th International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa,
President Mbeki denounced his critics. He asserted his right to seek an
African solution to AIDS. Mbeki said the remedy to AIDS and other immune
system problems is to reduce the extreme poverty that afflicts over half
the population of Africa. He claimed that poverty, not HIV, is the biggest
killer in Africa. President Mbeki also demanded that all voices be heard
in the controversial debate on the causes of AIDS. He implored all scientists
to show "sufficient tolerance to respect everybody’s point of view." In
the US, most of us have heard only one side of the AIDS story—the drug
industry propaganda expounded by most media and governments.
If President Mbeki prevails, he will protect millions of innocents
from needless suffering and death. More is possible. Perhaps, like the
Berlin Wall’s sudden fall, his courage may help catalyze the collapse of
what many people feel is the tyranny of the medical-industrial complex
that suppresses innovative approaches to promoting health and preventing
disease.
Most people assume that the medical profession is usually correct.
However, recent reports on medical errors show that physicians can make
big mistakes. These errors and drug side effects result in thousands of
deaths each year. The medical establishment has declared that the Human
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) causes Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(AIDS). This condition compromises the competency of the immune system
to defend the body. AIDS is characterized by persistent immune system dysfunction
as measured by low CD4 T-cell levels, detection of HIV antibodies, and
approximately 30 opportunistic infections.
The medical establishment claims there is no known cure for AIDS,
and the syndrome results in death. Anti-HIV medications are administered
to slow the progression of the disease, and not to cure it. However, some
scientific research has indicated that AIDS patients who stopped all recreational
drugs and anti-HIV medications have improved. In many cases, drug-free
AIDS patients were even restored to normal health (See attached P. Duesberg
& D. Rasnick, The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger
virus. Genetica 1998; 104: 85–132). The explanation of why dangerous
anti-HIV medications are being given to so many people worldwide has more
to do with politics and corporate profitability than medical science.
The Clinton Anti-AIDS Crusade
On April 17, 2000, in Washington, D.C., James D. Wolfensohn, president
of the World Bank said that the Word Bank will commit "unlimited money"
to fight HIV/AIDS in poor countries. The plan of the world’s top finance
ministers and central bank governors who oversee the World Bank is to provide
highly toxic medication to treat the estimated 34–50 million people who
are presumed to have HIV in underdeveloped nations. These people live mainly
in Africa, India, China, and the Caribbean, all major World Bank clients.
According to United Nations figures, 70%–80% of the people in the world
who have HIV live in Sub-Saharan Africa.
On April 30, 2000, the Clinton Administration formally designated
the HIV/AIDS epidemic as a major threat to United States security. This
declaration was based mainly on a recent Central Intelligence Agency report,
The Global Infectious Disease Threat and Its Implications for the United
States. This report was declassified in record speed to share with
the public earlier this year. The CIA claimed that the HIV epidemic would
destabilize governments throughout the world. Therefore, drastic intervention
was needed. The same day Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said that he
did not believe HIV/AIDS was a national security threat.
At Clinton’s request, the National Security Council, which has never
before been involved in combating disease, has been coordinating the US
government’s international efforts to combat HIV/AIDS. On April 30th the
Clinton Administration also doubled the budget to battle AIDS overseas
to $254 million per year. Most of this money will be used to buy anti-HIV
medications from American and British drug companies for administering
to people in underdeveloped nations.
May 1, 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright defended Clinton’s
declaration of HIV/AIDS as a national security threat and criticized Senator
Trent Lott for being out of touch with the needs of the 21st century. She
said that the Clinton Administration will ask for an additional $100 million
to fight HIV/AIDS worldwide.
May 3, 2000, in Washington, D.C. David Gordon of the National Intelligence
Council held a press conference to expand the scope of dire predictions.
He said urgent action is needed now because in the future the HIV epidemic
could be sweeping like a plague through Asian and Pacific Rim countries
even faster than it is going through Sub-Saharan Africa today.
May 8, 2000, US Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala
defended the Clinton Administration’s declaration that AIDS is a national
security threat and that anyone who does not support this view, such as
Sen. Trent Lott, was behaving in a "tragic and dangerous" manner. Rep.
Joseph Crowley, Dem.-NY, introduced a bill to increase US funding for global
health initiatives to $2 billion annually (mainly for anti-HIV drugs).
May 22, 2000, South African President Mbeki visited President Clinton
in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the meeting was to strengthen ties between
the United States and South Africa. However, among other points of discussion,
Clinton encouraged President Mbeki to expand South African use of AZT and
other "lifesaving" anti-HIV medications. Curiously, instead of the President’s
Press Secretary, Joe Lockhart, who usually deals with the media, National
Security Council spokesman, David Stockwell, represented the Clinton Administration
at the White House press conference to answer questions related to President
Mbeki’s visit. The NSC normally deals with military issues such as the
recent NATO intervention in Kosovo.
May 30, 2000, President Clinton went to Europe to visit several national
leaders to strengthen cultural ties and discuss trade and security matters.
The first stop was Portugal. Clinton’s top agenda was to encourage the
Portuguese to help fight AIDS in Africa. This request was germane because
Portugal has developed considerable medical experience and contacts in
its former African colonies, including Mozambique, Angola, Cape Verde,
Guinea-Bissau, and Sao Tome and Principe.
June 8, 2000, in Geneva, Switzerland the United Nations International
Labor Organization released a report that said the HIV virus is likely
to devastate the labor market of Sub-Saharan Africa with an estimated decline
in the workforce of 20%, or more, by 2020. This announcement heightened
the already intense sense of urgency to administer more anti-HIV medications
in Africa than ever before. Since then, several UN organizations have forecasted
mounting death tolls from the worldwide HIV epidemic.
June 14, 2000, US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers toured Tanzania,
Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, and Mozambique to promote the campaign against
AIDS and encouraged these nations to buy anti-HIV drugs. It appears that,
every week or two, high level US officials implore Sub-Saharan governments
to give their people anti-HIV medications to stop the so-called AIDS epidemic.
July 12, 2000, the US Congress began debate on a Clinton Administration
plan to spend another $100 million on fighting HIV. Sandra Thurman of the
White House AIDS office said other countries and international organizations
must increase their efforts as well. US drug producer, Merck, and the Gates
Foundation have pledged to give Botswana $100 million in cash and medications
to slow the progress of AIDS. Help from other firms and foundations has
been pouring in from around the world. The United Nations has decided to
broker bulk purchases so African nations can pay lower prices for anti-HIV
drugs.
July 17, 2000, the United States sponsored a resolution requesting
that the United Nations Security Council encourage nations to develop anti-HIV
plans and give military peacekeepers additional training in preventing
the spread of HIV, which is alleged to cause AIDS. Why are soldiers who
are trained to fight military battles being used for public health projects?
Does the deployment of troops for this purpose suggest some hidden agenda?
This request was the first time that the Security Council, which exists
to prevent wars, was ever asked to adopt a resolution to address a health
issue.
July 19, 2000, James A. Harmon, president of the United States Export-Import
Bank, announced that the bank will loan $1 billion annually to help 24
Sub-Saharan nations purchase anti-HIV medications, medical equipment, and
health services from US corporations. Because most of these nations will
have extreme difficulty repaying these loans, they will become even more
susceptible to US control and manipulation. According to some critiques
of US foreign aid, such as When Corporations Rule the World by David
C. Korten, these loans will do little to improve the health of African
nations, but they will further increase the stranglehold of multi-national
firms over their economies.
Later, the US-controlled IMF and World Bank will tell these nations
how to run their countries to facilitate repayment of these huge loans.
In addition to being a covert way to dominate vulnerable countries, the
Clinton AIDS crusade seems to be a form of "corporate welfare" to support
already thriving American drug firms. There are unanswered questions about
this anti-AIDS crusade.
The National Security Council, which is managing the US part of the
AIDS crusade, is composed of political, military, and intelligence agency
officials. The NSC has no past experience in public health. Why isn’t every
American asking:
• Why were the National Security Council and Central Intelligence
Agency assigned to fight disease? They seem unqualified to deal with public
health issues. In the past, the NSC has announced "Our strategy has three
core objectives: enhancing American security; bolstering our economic prosperity;
and promoting democracy and human rights abroad." Furthermore, the CIA
is a national security organization, and not a public health agency.
• Why weren’t the US Public Health Service or Center for Disease
Control given this task? These health agencies appear more qualified and
equipped to handle a medical problem.
Thus, any rational person must question whether the purpose of the
new anti-HIV initiative is solely related to health? This issue deserves
deeper investigation.
Historical Background
In April 1984, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services, Margaret
Heckler, declared war against a new microbe called Human T-cell Leukemia
Virus-III (later renamed Human Immunodeficiency Virus, HIV). This announcement
was based mainly on the research of one group of scientists led by Dr.
Robert Gallo at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). At that time,
not even one research paper had been published in a peer-reviewed scientific
journal to verify Secretary Heckler’s declaration.
This declaration also ended the government’s possible application
of the discovery by NIH and CDC researchers between 1981 and 1983 that
recreational drugs caused major immune dysfunction. This discovery appeared
to offer an opportunity for curing AIDS (See P. Duesberg & D. Rasnick.
The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus. Genetica
1998; 104: 85–132). Secretary Heckler, who was not a medical professional,
probably never heard of this earlier research. Dr. Gallo appears to have
used his NIH status to convince Secretary Heckler with incomplete information,
and thereby hijacked the nation’s health agenda for his own profit. One
can not fault Ms. Heckler, because she was not a medical doctor or researcher.
However, she should have consulted many other scientists for confirmation.
In science, a researcher normally publishes in a peer-reviewed scientific
journal before public announcements are made. Peer-review enables other
scientists who are also experts in a field to evaluate the new evidence
before it is publicized to ensure accuracy and reliability. Peer-review
is medical science’s quality-control system. However, Dr. Gallo and his
colleagues bypassed the peer-review process to give inaccurate information
to Secretary Heckler who was not qualified to evaluate the weaknesses of
their research. Dr. Gallo’s studies examined relatively small, specially
selected groups that failed to accurately represent the condition of all
people who had HIV and AIDS. This rush to judgement has had horrific consequences
(See Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus by
Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein, New York, The Free Press, 1993).
Dr. Gallo left NIH in disgrace. He was accused of serious unethical
scientific behavior. For instance, in science, credit for a new discovery
is a major issue that demands the highest level of integrity. Dr. Gallo
claimed to be the sole discoverer of HIV. However, Dr. Luc Montagnier of
the Pasteur Institute sent Gallo the sample from which he made his "discovery."
After heated international legal action, the Presidents of France and the
USA officially recognized both Dr. Gallo and Dr. Montagnier as the co-discoverers
of HIV. At that time, they both claimed HIV was the only cause of AIDS.
Today, there is still no credible research that proves HIV causes AIDS.
One might also question Dr. Gallo’s financial conflicts of interest.
When he urged Secretary Heckler to make her announcement, he owned the
patent for the only HIV test. Naturally, Ms. Heckler’s HIV-AIDS announcement
created a great scare and an instant demand for thousands of HIV tests
worldwide. Dr. Gallo became very wealthy. Dr. Gallo owns over 80 HIV-related
patents that have netted over a billion dollars in revenues.
Secretary Heckler’s HIV/AIDS declaration was extraordinary because
the US government usually demands examination of numerous published scientific
reports before making an important announcement, especially far reaching
ones that lead to huge expenditures. The US taxpayers have spent approximately
$3 billion annually on AIDS research since 1984 for a total exceeding $50
billion in 2000. However, for the last 20 years there has been no progress
in curing AIDS. Given the medical establishment’s lack of success, why
has NIH completely ignored the alternative explanations for AIDS causality
suggested by over 400 top scientists worldwide, including Nobel Prize winner
Dr. Kary Mullis?
Does HIV Cause AIDS?
The HIV/AIDS etiology debate is urgent because millions of human
lives may be lost needlessly very soon. Most people believe that HIV causes
AIDS, because Secretary Heckler declared this to be, and because this is
what medical professionals and the media have told us for years. There
are, however, credible scientific questions on whether HIV actually causes
AIDS, and why extremely toxic medications have been used to treat people
who are HIV positive, especially azidothymidine (AZT, trade names: Zidovudine
and Retrovir).
Although those who question the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS are
in the minority of medical practitioners and researchers, they must be
taken seriously. This controversial group is composed of many of the top
scientists in the world, including Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Kary B. Mullis
(1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry and inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction).
As Dr. Mullis has explained:
We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of
the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called
HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is
true.
We have also not been able to discover why doctors prescribe a toxic
drug called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who have no other complaint other
than the fact that they have the presence of antibodies to HIV in their
blood. In fact, we cannot understand why humans would take this drug for
any reason. (Forward to Inventing the AIDS Virus by P.H. Duesberg,
Washington, DC, Regnery Publishing, 1996).
In 1990, Dr. Luc Montagnier, the co-discoverer of HIV, made a dramatic
reversal in his stand on the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. In an article in the
March issue of Research in Virology, Montagnier demonstrated conclusively
that HIV is unable to kill human T-cells in culture dishes. In fact, HIV
is one of the weakest viruses in existence; it would have a difficult time
killing anything (See Inventing the AIDS Virus by P.H. Duesberg,
Washington, DC, Regnery Publishing, 1996). In an interview, Montagnier
also explained "There are too many shortcomings in the theory that HIV
causes all signs of AIDS" (Miami Herald, 23 Dec. 90). Why are medical
professionals and the general public unaware of this crucial change in
the understanding of the cause of AIDS?
Dr. Steven Jonas, Professor of Preventive Medicine, SUNY, Stony Brook,
NY stated "Evidence is rapidly accumulating that the original theory of
HIV is not correct" (Sunday Times, London, 3 Apr. 94). Dr. Harry
Rubin, Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California
at Berkeley said "It is not proven that AIDS is caused by HIV infection,
nor is it proven that it plays no role whatever in the syndrome" (Sunday
Times, London, 3 Apr. 94). Over 400 other top scientists worldwide
have challenged the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Identification of the actual cause
of AIDS is important because it determines how this disease is treated.
The cause of AIDS appears to be different in different parts of the world.
What Actually Causes AIDS in Europe and the US?
Even though it is commonly assumed that HIV causes AIDS, many scientific
studies suggest other causes. Many chemicals can cause major immune dysfunction.
Chemicals that can weaken and destroy the immune system include recreational
drugs (i.e., cocaine, nitrite inhalants, and heroin), alcohol abuse, pesticides,
over-use of certain medicines (i.e., antibiotics), industrial pollutants,
and other environmental toxins. Lifestyle factors that suppress and damage
the immune system include prolonged malnutrition, repeated infections,
chronic stress, and sleep deficit. The majority of AIDS patients exhibit
several of these chemical and lifestyle risk factors. Before 1984, several
US government-funded researchers identified several recreational chemicals
that induced immune dysfunction similar to that attributed to AIDS (See
pages 106–113 in The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger
virus, Genetica 1998; 104: 85–132; V.L. Koliadin, Critical analysis
of the current views on the nature of AIDS. Genetica 1995; 95: 71–90).
Furthermore, a substantial body of research has also suggested that
anti-HIV medication itself has contributed to the majority of deaths that
were once attributed to AIDS (See pages 108, 114–122 in P.H. Duesberg &
D. Rasnick, The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus.
Genetica 1998; 104: 85–132). The British medical journal, The
Lancet, provides a recent example. Researchers found that AIDS patients
who were treated with a new combination of highly active antiretrovirals
had four times the non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma levels than patients who did
not take these drug cocktails. The World Health Organization (WHO) has
estimated that from the beginning of the HIV epidemic in 1981 through 2001,
approximately 22 million people have died from AIDS.
The extensive evidence documenting the toxic side effects of anti-HIV
drugs suggests that most of these 22 million deaths were actually caused
by the administration of these medications (See E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos,
V.F. Turner, J.M. Papadimitriou, et al., A critical analysis of the pharmacology
of AZT and its use in AIDS. Current Medical Research and Opinion
1999; 15(Supplement); P.H. Duesberg & D. Rasnick, The AIDS dilemma:
drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus. Genetica 1998; 104: 85–132;
D.T. Chiu, P.H. Duesberg, The toxicity of azidothymidine (AZT) on human
and animal cells in culture at concentrations used for antiviral therapy.
Genetica 1995; 95: 103–109; M.D. Zaretsky, AZT toxicity and AIDS
prophylaxis: Is AZT beneficial for HIV+ asymptomatic persons
with 500 or more T4 cells per cubic millimeter. Genetica 1995; 95:
91–101).
In the US, the federal government has been financing the administration
of highly toxic medications to all Americans who have been exposed to HIV,
even though many researchers claim HIV is harmless. Some researchers have
even offered to inject themselves with HIV on national television to demonstrate
how harmless HIV really is. People with disproportionately high HIV levels
are mainly low-income, inner city African Americans and other minority
groups. No one has offered a credible explanation why African Americans
have such high AIDS death rates.
What Actually Causes AIDS in Africa?
In Africa, the combination of malnutrition, repeated infections,
and chronic stress appear to cause the so-called "AIDS deaths," not HIV
(See E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al. AIDS in Africa: Distinguishing fact
and fiction. World Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology 1995;
11: 135–143). According to Dr. Peter Duesberg:
African AIDS is proposed to result from protein malnutrition, poor
sanitation and subsequent parasitic infections. This hypothesis resolves
all paradoxes of the virus–AIDS hypothesis. It is epidemiologically and
experimentally testable and provides a rational basis for AIDS control
(Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1993; 55: 201–277).
Furthermore, the African AIDS statistics may not be comparable with
Western data. The World Health Organization (WHO) definition of AIDS in
Africa is very different from that in any other part of the world. WHO
does NOT require a blood test for confirmation of HIV antibodies in Africa.
WHO has defined an African AIDS patient as any person who presents a combination
of persistent cough, fever, diarrhea, and a 10% or more weight loss in
two months or less. These symptoms could also indicate malaria, tuberculosis,
dysentery, and dozens of other diseases. In fact, many Western tourists
have had these symptoms from eating African foods that contained microbes
to which they were unaccustomed.
Millions of Africans die of starvation every year. The United Nations
has said that this year’s drought may cause 13 million to starve to death.
There are parts of Sub-Saharan Africa that have had no rain for three years.
No crops grow. Some of the symptoms of AIDS are similar to those of starvation:
weight loss, immune system dysfunction, diarrhea, muscle wasting, etc.
Note that starvation eventually causes complete destruction of the immune
system without HIV. Because the WHO does not require a blood test to verify
HIV status in Africa, millions of starvation deaths may have been counted
as AIDS fatalities.
In addition, the governments and non-governmental organizations in
Africa keep very incomplete statistics on morbidity and mortality. Most
people who die in Africa are not examined by a physician to determine their
cause of death. Autopsies are very rare on this continent. In addition
to widespread starvation, there have also been increased deaths due to
the resurgence of many infectious diseases such tuberculosis. Some of these
illnesses are thought to be "AIDS defining." HIV blood tests, however,
have seldom been administered to determine whether these patients are actually
HIV positive. Thus, the African "AIDS" statistics cited by the WHO, other
institutions, and media may be completely erroneous. In reality, AIDS in
Africa is causing fewer deaths and is occurring at much lower levels than
reported by the World Health Organization and the pharmaceutical industry.
Millions of Phony AIDS Orphans
Many articles and the United Nations have claimed that the AIDS is
killing parents causing millions of children to become orphans in Africa.
But, is HIV the real cause? Because in Africa blood tests are not required
for verification of HIV, there is no science-based estimate of the actual
HIV-attributed deaths. There are almost no accurate long-term mortality
and morbidity data in Sub-Saharan Africa from which to make scientific
inferences of disease incidence and prevalence. What we receive from the
media and governments is all speculation with no scientific basis. Wars,
ethnic genocide, widespread poverty, famine, drought, malnutrition, starvation,
resurgent infectious diseases, toxic pesticides, tribal conflict, violent
crime, and industrial pollution have combined over the last 25 years to
decimate Africa’s population. These factors appear to be the actual causes
of millions of orphans in Africa, not HIV.
Questionable Inference of AIDS Causality
The debate over whether HIV causes AIDS is extremely controversial.
Early researchers, such as Dr. Robert Gallo and his colleagues, believed
the presence of this virus in relatively small groups of AIDS patients
was "proof" that HIV caused AIDS. The first Center for Disease Control
announcement of a previously unknown immune-related disease was based on
five cases in California. In the preliminary studies, there was a high
correlation between HIV and AIDS. However, subjects in those research efforts
were specially selected and did not represent all people who had either
HIV or AIDS. Thus, the correlations made in those early studies were inaccurate
and unreliable.
In the National Library of Medicine database, MEDLINE, there are
over 33,000 articles posted on various HIV and AIDS topics. The majority
of governments and the medical professionals worldwide believe in the US
government’s HIV/AIDS hypothesis and in the need for highly toxic treatment.
In this controversy, there are two sides that expound diametrically opposed
views.
The challengers are led by Dr. Peter Duesberg who is a professor
of molecular and cell biology at the University of California at Berkeley
and member of the US National Academy of Sciences. He was recommended for
the Nobel Prize for some of his pioneering work. The challengers tend to
rely on the hard sciences, especially virology and molecular biology. They
have conducted laboratory experiments that raise many questions about the
validity of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. There are also epidemiological studies
that challenge the validity of the government’s theory (For a summary see
P. Duesberg & D. Rasnick. The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on
a passenger virus. Genetica 1998; 104: 85–132).
These scientists have found that HIV fails the standard rigorous
tests for disease causality. Disease identification criteria are needed.
There are hundreds of thousands of microbes in the environment and in our
bodies that could be the potential causes of diseases. However, most of
these microorganisms are harmless to humans. How do scientists determine
which one is causing a particular disease?
A German physician and Nobel Prize winner Robert Koch developed the
set of criteria for determining which disease is cause by a particular
microbe. Medical researchers have routinely used his postulates during
the last century. To demonstrate proof that a specific germ causes a specific
disease:
• The germ must be found in the affected tissues in all cases of
the disease.
• The microbe must be isolated from other germs and from the patient’s
body.
• The microbe must cause sickness when injected into healthy hosts.
• The same germ must be again isolated from the newly diseased person.
(See Inventing the AIDS Virus by P.H. Duesberg, Washington,
DC, Regnery Publishing, 1996).
While HIV can be isolated, it fails the other criteria. Even in the
sickest AIDS patients, HIV exists only in very small quantities, if present
at all (many AIDS patients are not HIV positive). This paucity is
not the mode of function for other serious viral diseases, including retroviruses.
It is difficult to comprehend how HIV could destroy the patient’s immune
system when it never infects more than an extremely small fraction of immune
cells. Koch’s principles are not popular with the medical-industrial complex,
and they often discount this standard means of verification.
One of the great oddities of AIDS is its definition. If a person
has antibodies for HIV, and also has one or more of 30 "AIDS defining illnesses,"
such as tuberculosis, the patient is diagnosed as having AIDS. However,
if he has one or more of the same 30 illnesses, but tests negative for
HIV antibodies, then he does not have AIDS—just ordinary tuberculosis,
etc. Thus, the correlation between AIDS and HIV is an artificial byproduct
of the definition itself, and not scientific reality. This strange definition
could easily create confusion and misguide scientific research and treatment
in this area.
The doubters have also found that the majority of HIV-infected people
remain healthy for 15–20 years, and there is no proof that they will not
live a normal life span. In direct contrast with the narrow, researcher-selected
studies conducted by supporters of the HIV/AIDS theory, research on the
entire US population shows that fewer than 5% of HIV-infected Americans
have AIDS or major immune dysfunction. Basketball hero "Magic" Johnson
is a classic example of this phenomenon. There are also thousands of well-documented
cases of people worldwide who were not HIV-infected that died of
serious immune-related disorders with "AIDS defining illnesses." Most of
the dissenting researchers suspect that in the US and Europe the prolonged
use of recreational drugs is a better explanation for the cause of AIDS
and other immune system disorders than HIV (See P.H. Duesberg & D.
Rasnick, The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus, Genetica
1998; 104: 85–132; V.L. Koliadin, Critical analysis of the current views
on the nature of AIDS. Genetica 1995; 95: 71–90).
In contrast, the medical-industrial complex usually relies on soft
research to make its case for HIV causing AIDS. To produce what they call
"evidence of causality," the drug firm researchers conducted surveys and
statistical analyses on small, specially selected samples that failed to
represent what was really occurring in all people who had HIV and AIDS.
There were other methodological problems in almost all of their studies.
The greatest fallacy in their research is that correlation does not prove
causality, especially in small groups in which the participants were hand-picked
by researchers who have financial conflicts of interest (See P. Duesberg
& D. Rasnick, The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger
virus. Genetica 1998; 104: 85–132 and Inventing the AIDS Virus
by P.H. Duesberg, Washington, DC, Regnery Publishing, 1996).
In the canons of modern science, it is generally understood that
cause precedes effect temporally. As the causal factor increases, the effect
should also increase in a parallel, dose-response manner. In the United
States, however, HIV and AIDS are completely unrelated statistically. On
the other hand, several studies show that drug usage and AIDS and other
immune system disorders appear highly related in the United States and
Europe. Over many years, the sex and age of those dying from AIDS also
matches the age and sex of those dying from recreational drugs. While association
does not prove anything, these findings raise many questions about the
validity of the HIV-causes-AIDS theory that have never been answered credibly
(See figures on page 87 of P. Duesberg, D. Rasnick The AIDS dilemma: drug
diseases blamed on a passenger virus. Genetica 1998; 104: 85–132).
Because there is no real relationship between HIV and AIDS rates, how can
our leaders base a global anti-HIV campaign on something that is nonexistent?
The Paradox of Treating an Immune Disease with Medications that Destroy
the Immune System
AIDS treatment regimes have turned modern medicine on its head. Normally,
there is a distinction between disease and treatment, i.e., treatment is
supposed to reduce disease, not increase it. Glaxo Wellcome, the manufacturer
of AZT (Retrovir, Combivir), admits in the Physicians’ Desk Reference
2000 that it was often difficult to distinguish between the adverse
events associated with AZT treatment and the underlying symptoms of AIDS.
Anti-HIV medications have a wide range of extremely hazardous side effects,
including destruction of the immune system and death.
Approximately 30 years ago, a DNA chain terminator, AZT, was formulated
to treat leukemia. AZT’s anti-leukemia mechanism of action is to kill growing
lymphocytes through termination of DNA synthesis. Lymphocytes, or T-cells,
are white blood cells that are an important part of the immune system and
help protect the body from disease. Because AZT failed to prolong the lives
of laboratory animals with leukemia, it was rejected for cancer chemotherapy
in humans.
In spite of objections from some of the FDA’s own scientists, AZT
and other DNA chain terminators were approved to treat people who tested
HIV positive, which means HIV antibodies were detected in their blood.
HIV antibodies are evidence of past infection, but not of present disease.
Later, the FDA approved AZT use to "prevent" AIDS in healthy people, even
when they had no clinical symptoms and almost undetectable levels of HIV.
If people are diagnosed as HIV positive, physicians will generally
prescribe anti-HIV medications to them the rest of their lives. How can
doctors prescribe AZT for long-term use when the Physicians’ Desk Reference
summaries on AZT drugs have stated: "Long-term safety and effectiveness
are not known, especially for people with less advanced stages of
AIDS"? Scientific studies such as the European Concorde project verify
that there is no credible long-term evidence that AZT, ddI, or other DNA
terminators cure or prevent AIDS. The same was found true for protease
inhibitors and various drug cocktails. Almost all of the short-term studies
that evaluated these drugs have been conducted by or funded by the same
firms that make them. Short-term studies can not justify long-term therapy.
However, in spite of thousands of deaths of people who take anti-HIV drugs,
the FDA has managed to quell the concerns of physicians about these medications,
and the FDA even encourages their continued use. Why has the medical
diagnosis of HIV positive has become a death sentence with execution administered
via prescription medication?
A lawsuit by a California organization charged the NIH and FDA with
collusion in expediting the approval of AZT in exchange for a $55,000 donation
from the AZT manufacturer, Burroughs Wellcome. There have been numerous
exposés in the print and TV media questioning the scientific legitimacy
of the clinical trials that formed the FDA’s basis for approving AZT’s
use on humans (See The AIDS War by John Lauritsen, New York, Asklepois,
1993). Apparently, there were several FDA and NIH cover-ups of the fact
that many subjects in these approval trials died and were replaced by other
participants to complete the studies (See Inventing the AIDS Virus
by P.H. Duesberg, Washington, DC, Regnery Publishing, 1996).
What Is the Medical Rational for Using AZT?
The HIV retrovirus depends on DNA synthesis for multiplication and
AZT ends DNA synthesis. Therefore, AZT should terminate AIDS, if HIV causes
AIDS, and if HIV multiplies during AIDS. Research shows that HIV does not
multiply very much during AIDS, if at all. In fact, numerous studies show
that only 1 in 1,000 lymphocytes are ever infected by HIV, even in people
"dying" from AIDS. Because AZT cannot distinguish between an infected and
an uninfected cell, 999 uninfected cells must be killed to kill only one
HIV-infected cell.
Lymphocytes, or T-cells, are an essential part of the immune system
that maintains health. The immune systems of people who take AZT and other
anti-HIV drugs are progressively weakened by their medications. Consequently,
the people become increasingly vulnerable to a wide range of opportunistic
infections, many of which are life threatening.
In addition to the destruction of the immune system and other blood
cells, AZT also kills dividing cells everywhere in the body, which stops
the creation of new cells and inhibits normal physiological processes.
AZT has been found to cause liver, kidney and neurological damage. AZT
destroys bone marrow, where red blood cells are produced. Thus, patients
taking this drug often develop serious anemia and need numerous blood transfusions.
AZT causes a wide range of other health problems, including ulcerations
and hemorrhaging, damage to hair follicles and skin, killing of mitochondria
(the energy-producing part of the cells), and wasting of muscles. One brave
FDA official also said AZT was "presumed to be a potential carcinogen."
Recent research has also shown that anti-HIV drugs cause diabetes. It is
paradoxical that AZT and other highly toxic drugs have been used to treat
AIDS, because these medications destroy the immune system, which is the
main symptom of the disease that they are supposed to cure or prevent.
A recent US survey revealed that virtually all AIDS patients who
take the various anti-HIV medications are dying. Not one person has ever
been cured using this medical strategy. Nevertheless, medical professionals
have continued to force their patients to take combinations of these dangerous
drugs (See Chapter 9 "With Therapies Like This, Who Needs Disease?" in
Inventing the AIDS Virus by P.H. Duesberg, Washington, DC, Regnery
Publishing, 1996; E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, et al., A critical analysis
of the pharmacology of AZT and its use in AIDS. Current Medical Research
and Opinion 1999; 15(Supplement); P.H. Duesberg & D. Rasnick, The
AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus. Genetica
1998; 104: 85–132; D.T. Chiu, P.H. Duesberg, The toxicity of azidothymidine
(AZT) on human and animal cells in culture at concentrations used for antiviral
therapy. Genetica 1995; 95: 103–109; M.D. Zaretsky, AZT toxicity
and AIDS prophylaxis: Is AZT beneficial for HIV+ asymptomatic
persons with 500 or more T4 cells per cubic millimeter. Genetica
1995; 95: 91–101).).
Some the most damning evidence on the toxic effects of anti-HIV medications
comes from the National Institutes of Health. At the 13th
International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa, Dr. Anthony Fauci,
head of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, presented
research showing that AIDS patients become healthier and feel better when
they stop taking anti-HIV medications. During this "interrupted therapy"
anti-HIV drug treatment is intermittently suspended for several weeks at
a time, which gives temporary relief from the toxic effects of these medications.
Dr. Fauci said, "Patients are absolutely delighted at the prospect of spending
half of their lives off therapy." At that conference, Dr. Mauro Schecter
of the University of Rio de Janeiro said, "We won’t cure HIV with the present
drugs." If AZT and other anti-HIV medications, including protease inhibitors
and various highly active antiretroviral cocktails, are as toxic as research
indicates, the World Bank’s and United States government’s proposed HIV
treatment campaign might kill 34–50 million innocent people. This would
be the largest single act of genocide in world history. How and why did
the US government get into the business of providing highly toxic drugs
to the world’s most vulnerable nations?
He Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune
Campaign donations are crucial for
political success in the United States, because according to several studies
the candidate with the most money wins 90% of the time. Books, such as
The Buying of the President 2000 and The Buying of Congress
(by Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity), have documented
that corporations contribute large sums of money to the re-election of
US political leaders.
From January 1 to March 31, 2000
Republican and Democratic candidates received approximately $463 million
in donations, mainly from large corporations. Consequently, the United
States government’s endeavors are strongly influenced by the needs (mainly
financial profit) of those corporations, groups, and individuals that make
large donations. This virtual bribery is especially evident in the pharmaceutical
and weapons industries.
Anti-HIV drugs are one of the most
profitable segments of the pharmaceutical industry. In the United States,
the cost of treating one person with anti-HIV medication without major
co-morbidity is approximately $15,000 to $17,000 per year, or more. Under
pressure from the pharmaceutical industry and organizations funded by the
drug firms, Congress classified AIDS as a medical disability, thus anti-HIV
treatment expenses are often paid with taxpayers’ money through the Medicaid
and Medicare programs.
The Money Trail
There are numerous financial connections
that raise questions about the intentions of the World Bank, US government,
and pharmaceutical industry plan for an expanded campaign against HIV/AIDS
worldwide. For instance, Burroughs Wellcome (later renamed Glaxo Wellcome
after a merger), the pharmaceutical giant that produces AZT, has been regularly
giving large amounts of money to numerous AIDS organizations both large
and small since AIDS was discovered. Coincidentally, these same groups
were politically active in pressuring the US government and FDA into approving
AZT and other highly toxic drugs for treating HIV against the recommendations
of many FDA scientists.
Glaxo Wellcome has also made donations
to key AIDS research universities. According to the Center for Public Integrity,
these drug companies have been among the top fifty donors to the Republican
Party for the last decade: Pfizer, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Glaxo Wellcome,
Inc., and Eli Lilly & Company (The Buying of the President 2000,
New York, Avon Books, 2000). The following table includes only unregulated,
soft money donations and excludes corporate PACs, personal, and other donations.
|
Soft Money Contributions by Anti-HIV Medication Producers to the Democratic and
Republican Parties in the 1997-1999 Election Cycle
|
|
Pharmaceutical Company
|
Democratic Party
|
Republican Party
|
| Abbott Laboratories |
0 |
$166,250 |
| Aventis |
$156,785 |
$395,945 |
| Bristol-Myers Squib |
$253,300 |
$686,418 |
| Eli Lilly |
$181,500 |
$375,644 |
| Glaxo Wellcome |
$55,250 |
$477,875 |
| Hoffman-LaRoche |
$20,000 |
$100,525 |
| Merck |
0 |
$102,825 |
| Pfizer |
$175,000 |
$979,496 |
| Pharmacia-Upjohn |
$60,000 |
$135,000 |
| Schering-Plough |
$166,000 |
$513,500 |
| Total: |
$1,067,835 |
$3,933,478 |
However, simple "campaign donation"
bribery alone seems insufficient to explain the entire international story.
Specifically, why were the US Public Health Service and Center for Disease
Control not given the task of fighting HIV worldwide?
Why Is the National Security Council Fighting HIV?
Considering that virtually all patients
that are taking anti-HIV medications are dying and no one has been cured,
could the new anti-HIV campaign have something to do with a plan for reducing
skyrocketing population growth in underdeveloped nations? President Clinton’s
assigning the National Security Council and Central Intelligence Agency
to direct the US government’s new anti-HIV initiative appears to confirm
our worst fears. For example, after AZT treatment commenced in Zimbabwe,
1,200 people began to die almost every week. According to the United Nations,
approximately 13 million of the 18 million who died of what they labeled
as "AIDS" were in Africa.
The World Health Organization is
advocating the administration of AZT and other anti-HIV drugs to pregnant
mothers who are presumed to be HIV positive and to infants and children
of mothers that might be HIV positive. In Africa, it is common for HIV
to spread from mother to fetus. Some research suggests HIV may have been
passed from mother to child for decades before the so-called "AIDS" epidemic
of the early 1980s began. This transmission may not be a health threat
(See pages 2–21 in Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus
by Dr. Robert Root-Bertstein, New York, The Free Press, 1993).
Anti-HIV drugs are deadly to infants.
Karen Park of International Educational Development, Inc. spoke at the
United Nations concerning young children with HIV. She explained that babies
who were treated with AZT almost always die quickly. Because of their rapid
growth rates and need for relatively quick cell division, and since most
anti-HIV medications are DNA synthesis terminators, the growth of infants
and children is ended, and consequently they can become seriously ill and
die rapidly. Because almost all patients, including adults, taking anti-HIV
medications are dying, even the presumption of being HIV positive can become
a death sentence.
According to the Population Division
of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, "AIDS
has achieved pandemic proportions in several of 34 Sub-Saharan countries
where at least one in four people is infected with HIV." When considering
the high death rates of all so-called "AIDS patients" who are taking anti-HIV
drugs, could this UN statement be interpreted as an opportunity, or even
an invitation, to decrease the Sub-Saharan population by 25%, or more,
for political and economic reasons?
Why Would the US Depopulate Africa?
There are many scholars and leaders
of society that feel unchecked population growth will decrease the quality
of life for the entire planet. In 2000, there are six billion people living
on earth. The world’s population has been estimated to rise to nine billion
by 2050. Most of this population growth will occur in poor underdeveloped
nations, including those in Africa. In 1798, the British scholar Thomas
Malthus predicted that overpopulation would destroy the world through massive
starvation as the number of people to feed exceeds the resources to produce
food.
This Malthusian vision of degraded
life was more recently updated to include destruction of the environment,
increased pollution, economic decline, worldwide epidemics, massive unemployment,
rampant overcrowding of cities, increased war and violence, etc. In theory,
depopulation should help solve these problems. As large numbers of people
compete for the same scarce commodities, social stress builds up and breaks
out as violence, crime, war, etc. Reduction of the population decreases
the intensity of competition for scarce food, shelter, clothing, and other
necessities. Thus, depopulation should reduce collective stress and foster
economic stability, which would increase the profits of US multi-national
corporations.
Consequently, most governments worldwide
have supported various population control measures. For instance, the US
government currently funds abortion, contraceptives, and family planning
worldwide through payments to the United Nations. Since the end of World
War II, the United States has also directly spent billions of dollars on
population limitation programs, mainly in underdeveloped nations.
President Richard Nixon and Dr. Henry
A. Kissenger, head of the National Security Council from 1969 to 1975,
were the first American leaders to perceive the rapid population growth
of underdeveloped nations as a threat to US national security. Dr. Kissenger
supervised the writing of National Security Study Memorandum 200,
which was completed in 1974 and declassified in 1989.
The main point of the National
Security Study Memorandum 200 was that depopulation should be the
highest priority of US foreign policy towards the Third World. The
report said that US economy will require large and increasing amounts of
minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. That fact
gives the US enhanced interests in the political, economic and social stability
of the supplying countries. Dr. Kissenger’s report explained that wherever
a lessening of population can increase the prospects for such stability,
population policy becomes relevant to resources, supplies, and economic
interests of the United States. This document recommended various strategies
for the US government to reduce the population of resource-rich nations
with rapidly growing populations.
The question arises—why aren’t alternatives
to depopulation being considered, such as improving the educational systems
of underdeveloped nations so their people will become more intelligent,
creative, and productive. The development of their full mental potential
would enable them to produce more food, develop their own natural resources
more effectively, and create other life-supporting products and services
so there would be less stress and violence from excessive competition for
scarce resources. This plan would generate more political stability rather
than simply eliminating people. However, if these nations become more self-sufficient
economically, would it be more difficult for US multi-national corporations
to exploit the resources and labor these countries possess (See When
Corporations Rule the World by David C. Korten, West Hartford Conn.,
Kumarian Press and San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1995)?
Are Drug Side Effects a Means to Achieve Political Goals?
A comprehensive review of events
and evidence suggests that the US government may be using anti-HIV medications
to weaken and control mineral-rich nations, mainly in Africa. The leaders
of these countries have been resisting the domination of multi-national
corporations and foreign governments. The control of African natural resources
is a top US national security priority as mentioned in National Security
Study Memorandum 200. For example, titanium is a heat-resistant, high-strength
metal that is essential for the production of military jet fighters and
bombers. Most of the world’s supply of titanium and other rare metals that
are crucial for weapons production are located in Sub-Saharan Africa, with
South Africa having the greatest abundance of these resources. But, there
have been obstacles.
The IMF, World Bank, and multi-national
firms feel threatened by the instability in Africa. For example, in Sierra
Leone, there is a revolution in progress in which thousands of UN troops
have been deployed to create peace. Sierra Leone has deposits of diamonds,
titanium, and bauxite. Rwanda (tin, gold) and Uganda (copper, cobalt) are
at war again. There are over 5,500 UN troops in the Congo trying to enforce
a cease-fire in its ongoing civil war in which most of its neighbors have
been taking sides. Congo has 65% of the world’s cobalt reserves, oil, diamonds,
gold, silver, tin, zinc, iron, magnesium, uranium, and radium. Ethiopia
(platinum, gold, and copper) and Eritrea (gold, potash, zinc, and copper)
are at war again. The oil-rich nation of Angola has been embroiled in a
civil war since achieving independence from Portugal in 1975.
Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe
(chromium, gold, nickel, asbestos, copper, iron, and coal) has steadfastly
defied international pressure to end his land reforms. His courage has
sent an inspiring message to other African leaders and has helped foment
a revolt against the foreign powers and multi-national conglomerates in
Sub-Saharan Africa.
South Africa is the greatest potential
depopulation target of all. South Africa is the largest producer of gold
(30% of the world’s total output). South Africa also has large deposits
of platinum, chromium, antimony, coal, iron, manganese, nickel, phosphates,
tin, uranium, diamonds, copper, and vanadium. Some rare minerals and metals
can only be obtained in this nation, and many are essential for the production
of high-technology military aircraft and other advanced weapons systems.
Since the end of apartheid, the multi-national conglomerates have had increasing
difficulty in controlling this nation’s resources. Therefore, the wealthy
nations have huge economic and military interests in controlling Sub-Saharan
Africa. Could depopulation with anti-HIV medications serve as a means of
enhancing stability and Western control in this region?
Conspiracy Theories?
If the government’s own scientists
were the first to discover that recreational drugs caused immune system
dysfunction between 1981 and 1983, why did they allow this huge fraud to
occur (See P. Duesberg & D. Rasnick, The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases
blamed on a passenger virus. Genetica 1998; 104: 85–132)? The National
Security Council and CIA scientists must be aware of all the research on
immune system illnesses, not only NIH, CDC, and drug company AIDS propaganda.
On the internet and in African American
print media one can find hundreds of stories on how the US government was
alleged to have used HIV to cleanse undesirable citizens from the inner
cities of America, namely African Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities.
Leading conspiracy theorists such as Leonard Horowitz have claimed that
the US government’s biological warfare program developed genetically engineered
viruses, such as HIV, for warfare and covert ethnic cleansing in the US
and overseas (See Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola—Nature, Accident,
or Intentional, Rockport, Mass., Tetrahedron, Inc., 1998). They point
to the fact that Dr. Robert Gallo who was the co-discoverer of HIV was
also involved in germ warfare research. A major problem, however, with
these conspiracy theories is that a large body of research suggests that
HIV is harmless.
If there is a conspiracy, it might
be to use HIV, which correlates highly with poor hygiene and sanitation,
as a means of biologically identifying those to be eliminated through prescription
medication. Low-income people worldwide tend to live in non-hygienic conditions.
Many leaders of government and multi-national corporations might consider
the exploding birth rates of restive, impoverished nations a liability
that must be reduced. The conspiracy theorists may have got the motive
correct, but they certainly inaccurately guessed the mechanism of elimination.
Conclusion
Why is the US government rapidly
expanding an HIV treatment program that may kill 34 – 50 million people
worldwide? The world deserves an explanation. As Nobel Laureate Manfred
Eigen explained, "The burden of proof is on those who propose a hypothesis,
not on those who question it." The medical establishment must give governments
and people worldwide a credible rationale for its support of the HIV/AIDS
hypothesis that has been proven false in many scientific studies. They
must also explain why toxic medications that have been prescribed to do
more harm than good. Options for consideration in helping to save
millions of lives worldwide:
• To stop the US government’s
worldwide anti-HIV campaign, a law suit could be conducted against the
federal government to obtain a court injunction to halt their endeavor
until the actual cause of AIDS is scientifically identified.
• Ban all anti-HIV medication
in the US and overseas. Conduct national anti-drug campaigns that inform
people that drug abuse can give them fatal immune dysfunction.
• Everyone in the United States
and other nations should be informed of the above situation. Since the
American media is almost completely controlled by large corporations that
are connected to the drug industry, this task may be difficult. Furthermore,
all the leaders of nations should be fully briefed on the US government,
World Bank, World Health Organization, and International Monetary Fund’s
probable intentions.
• The government should investigate
NON-toxic methods of treating AIDS and other immune disorders. After non-toxic
remedies are discovered, they should be applied widely regardless of their
impact on drug industry profits. Some research has already found that if
AIDS patients simply stop taking anti-HIV medication and recreational drugs,
their AIDS is often reversed, and their health becomes normal without medication.
• Completely reform the US campaign
finance system to prevent political leaders from receiving incentives to
allow multi-national companies to harm people or the environment.
• Reform the Food and Drug Administration.
Much needed changes include abolishing the revolving door phenomenon
in which drug industry executives are appointed by the President to serve
in high positions within the FDA. Today, it is standard practice for executives
from pharmaceutical and biotech companies that contributed large sums to
the election or re-election of the President and his party to receive FDA
appointments. Thus, the FDA has become a servant of the industries it was
established to regulate and has ceased to protect the people. Reform might
include:
1) prohibition of any employee or consultant
of a firm regulated by the FDA from serving within the FDA; and
2) all FDA employees should be prohibited
from accepting employment, consulting fees, or any form of direct or indirect
compensation from firms that are regulated by the FDA before, during, and
after their FDA service.
Reform Drug Testing and Approval Process
In the current drug approval process,
most research to verify the safety and efficacy a new medication is done
by the same company that will profit financially from the production and
sale of that medication. However, in many other nations this process is
structured very differently.
In several countries, a pharmaceutical
firm develops a new drug that they want approved for use. Then, the drug
company pays a fee to their government’s equivalent of the FDA. In turn,
the government uses that fee to hire an independent testing company, or
even several organizations, such as universities, to evaluate the safety
and efficacy of the new drug. In most cases, the pharmaceutical company
is not allowed to communicate or influence the independent testing organizations.
In fact, the drug firm may never know who tested its drug. The government
usually also does some testing in its own labs. The government uses the
results of its research and that of the independent testing organizations
to determine whether the new drug is safe and effective. This helps to
eliminate financial self-interest from biasing the drug approval process.
Americans are reluctant to believe
that our government would kill millions of innocent people, but the Clinton
Administration’s failure to communicate honestly on the HIV/AIDS issue
has forced us to assume the worst. Our intelligence organizations and drug
firms appear to be conducting racial genocide in our inner cities and in
Africa. Immediate, honest communication and comprehensive, remedial
action are needed.
Robert E. Herron, Ph.D., MBA has conducted original research and published
numerous articles on the economic impact of complementary and alternative
medicine. He has also conducted research on health policy since 1989. Dr.
Herron has served as a health policy advisor to several American political
candidates and as a senior policy advisor to the Natural Law and Reform
Parties USA. E-mail: rherron@mum.edu