Sometimes, in all good faith, it gives a voice to campaigns in support of patients suffering from various diseases, including cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, etc.., unaware that these diseases are often behind the disturbing background, who speak of personal and financial interests by those who spread news that affect the emotions (the fear, panic!) of the common people.
THE FRAUD OF AIDS
"HIV" IS THE NAME OF A TRUE (EVEN THOUGH HARMLESS) AIDS VIRUS IS A TRUE SYNDROME IMMUNODEFICIENCY. THE FRAUD IS THAT THERE IS NO SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN CORRELATION BETWEEN HIV AND AIDS, WORLDWIDE IS MADE AS believes the opposite.
There have long been some books about this subject, but I would like to bring to the attention of all those who love freedom and truth of information is emblematic of the article Professor Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1993 .
Kary Mullis has become a legend for his discovery of PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) a technique that has revolutionized the world of chemistry and genetics.
The article below is taken from the book by Kary Mullis, Dancing Naked in the Mind Field, trans. ital. Dancing Naked in the Mind Field , Baldini & Castoldi, Milano, 2000, pp. 180-192. For once, for a good cause, in defiance of the copyright, SPREAD THESE PAGES AS POSSIBLE. ALSO HAVE OTHER THIRST FOR TRUTH!
Better yet ... invited people to buy the book Mullis! CD
When in 1984 I heard for the first time that French Luc Montagnier, Pasteur Institute and Robert Gallo, of 'America's National Institutes of Health, discovered independently that the retrovirus HIV - Human Immunodeficiency Virus - the cause of AIDS was, I accepted the data as any scientific evidence.
The problem is not strictly my area, the biochemistry, ed'altronde them were experts of retroviruses.
Four years later I worked as a consultant with Specialty Labs of Santa Monica : We were looking at ways to use PCR to detect retroviruses in thousands of blood donations that the Red Cross received every day. I was writing a report progress, for the sponsor of the project, and began by stating that "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS." I asked a virologist at the Specialty where I could find evidence confirming the fact that HIV was the cause of AIDS. "You do not need," he was told. "It's something that everybody knows." I'd like to mention any of the information "I felt ridiculous for not knowing the source of a discovery so important. It seemed that everyone else knew. "Why did not cite the report of the CDC?" She suggested, handing a copy of the periodic report on morbidity and mortality Center for Disease Control . I read it. It was not a scientific article. It merely stated that a body had been identified, but did not explain how. Called on doctors to inform the Centre whenever they were faced with patients with certain symptoms, and tested for the presence of antibodies to this organism. The report did not refer to original research, but this did not surprise me. It was intended for doctors who did not need to know the source of information. From their point of view, if the CDC was convinced, had to exist, somewhere, was the proof that HIV causes AIDS.
is usually considered adequate proof from the scientific point of view an article published in a scientific journal reliable. Today the magazines are printed on glossy paper, full of photographs, articles written by professional journalists, and there are also pictures of girls who advertise products that could be useful in the laboratory. To advertise are companies that offer products that are useful to scientists, or that produce drugs that doctors should prescribe. All the major magazines contain advertisements. And consequently, they all have some relationship with the companies.
Scientists propose the articles to describe their research. For the career of a scientist is vital to write articles describing their work and be able to get them out, not to have published articles magazines is listed as a loss of prestige, however, the articles can not be offered until the experiments that support the theories are not concluded and evaluated. The most important magazines prompted them to return, either directly or through quotations, the details of the experiments, in so that other researchers can repeat them precisely and see if they get the same results.
If things go differently, it is made public, and the conflict must be resolved so that when the search will be resumed, it is known with certainty from that point again . The most qualified among the major magazines have a review system. When an article is submitted for publication, the Director sends a copy to occur because the author's colleagues, so-called reviewers. The directors are paid for their work, the auditors did not, but it's still a job that gives them power, which usually is enough to satisfy them.
I did some searching on your computer. It Montagnier nor Gallo nor others had published articles describing experiments which led to the conclusion that probably the HIV caused AIDS. I read the articles published in Science , that made them famous as "AIDS doctors", but everything that was written was that they had found in some patients with AIDS traces of a previous infection by an agent pathogen was probably HIV. had discovered antibodies. However, antibodies against certain viruses had always been considered a sign of disease rather than the previous illness. Antibodies indicated that the virus had been defeated, and the patient was saved. The articles did not say at all that this virus causes a disease, nor was that all persons who had antibodies in their blood were sick. In fact, antibodies were found in the body of healthy individuals.
If Montagnier and Gallo were unable to find this kind of evidence, because their articles were published, and had discussed it so hard to take credit for their discovery?
There had been an international incident when Robert Gallo NIH stated that a sample of HIV had received from Luc Montagnier , of 'Pasteur Institute in Paris, had not then developed in his laboratory. Other samples collected from Gallo and his colleagues from potential AIDS patients, however, were developed. Based on these samples Gallo had patented a test for AIDS, Pasteur Institute had sued. In the end, the court gave reason to Pasteur, but in 1989 it was still in a stalemate, and the two institutions will share the profits.
hesitate to write that "I'HIV is the probable cause of AIDS," I wanted first of evidence, published to that effect. My statement was very limited in my request for funds did not want to argue that the virus was undoubtedly the cause of AIDS, I was just trying to say that it is likely that it was, for reasons known to us.
Tens of thousands of scientists and researchers were spending billions of dollars each year for research that were based on this idea. The reason for all this he had to be written somewhere, otherwise these people would not allow his research focuses on so narrow hypothesis.
time I held conferences PCR on a multitude of conventions. And there are always people who spoke of HIV. I asked them what it was based on the certainty that this was a virus causing AIDS. They all had some response, at home, office, or in a drawer somewhere. Everyone knew, and I would send the information back soon. But I never got anything, no one ever sent me an explanation of how HIV causes AIDS.
In the end, I had the opportunity to ask this question to Montagnier, when he held a conference in San Diego the inauguration of the ' UCSD AIDS Research Center, today headed by former wife Robert Gallo, Dr. Flossie Wong-Staal . Would be the last occasion when I asked this question without losing patience. The response of Montagnier was a suggestion: "Why does not mention the report of the CDC?" I read, "I said," but not really answered the question of whether HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, right? "Montagnier they agreed I was very annoyed. If even he knew the answer, who the hell would have been able to know?
One evening I was in the car to go to Berkeley in La Jolla , when I heard on National Public Radio an interview with Peter Duesberg, a famous virologist at Berkeley. I finally understood why it was so difficult to find evidence on the relationship between HIV and AIDS: Duesberg claimed that no such evidence existed. No one had ever proved that HIV causes AIDS. The interview lasted about an hour and I stopped not to miss anything.
I had heard of Peter when I attended specialization at Berkeley. I was described as a very smart scientist, who had managed to map a particular mutation in a single nucleotide of what was then called an oncogene. In the sixties, was a challenge. Peter went on developing the theory that oncogenes may be introduced into the human virus and cause cancer. The idea was successful, and became a serious theoretical basis of research that was funded by the unfortunate name of 'War cancer. Peter was named "California Scientist of the Year". But rather than rest on their laurels, they burned. He managed to find weaknesses in his own theory, and told his colleagues that they were greatly surprised to find giving himself to do the experimental demonstration that was very unlikely that we will succeed. If they wanted to fight cancer, their research should be directed in another direction. But they, it was because they were more interested in fighting poverty rather than their cancer, or simply because they could not cope with their mistakes, continued to work for ten years, to no avail viral oncogene hypothesis. It could not to grasp the irony of the situation: the greater the frustration, the more they pick on you for Duesberg questioned his theory, and their absurdity.
Most of them had not learned much of what I call science . They were trained to obtain government funding, hire people to do research and write articles that usually concludes that the research had to be studied further, preferably by them, with someone else's money.
One of these was Bob Gallo .
Gallo was a friend of Peter. The two had worked for the same department of the National Cancer Institute .
Among the thousands of scientists who were engaged in vain to give a virus an important role in cancer development, Bob was the only claim to be so zealous able to be there. No one paid any attention to the thing, because he had only shown a relationship between sporadic and very weak antibodies against a harmless retrovirus called HTLV 1 and an unusual type of tumor identified on two of the southern islands of Japan.
Despite his lack of glory as a scientist, Gallo was able to easily scale hierarchies, while Duesberg despite his skills had declined. When you started talking about AIDS, Gallo was that he turned to Margaret Heckler when President Reagan decided he'd had enough of all those homosexuals who were demonstrating outside the White House. The Heckler was Minister for Education, Health and Welfare, and therefore the supreme head of the NIH. Bob Gallo had a sample of virus Montagnier had found in a lymph node of a gay Parisian interior designer with AIDS. Montagnier had sent the sample to Gallo because it assessed, and these men had taken possession in order to exploit it for their own careers. Margaret called a press conference and introduced Dr. Robert Gallo , which slowly took off his sunglasses and the world press announcement: "Gentlemen, we have found the cause of AIDS."
all.
Gallo and Heckler announced that within a couple of years would be available and a vaccine therapy. We were in 1984.
All former virus hunters of the National Cancer Institute changed the nameplates on the doors of their laboratories and became experts on AIDS. Reagan, for a start, settled around a billion dollars, and at any moment anyone could claim a scientific and medical specialization of some kind, and had not found much to do until then, he found a full-time job. What remains today.
name Human Immunodeficiency Virus was created by an international committee, in an attempt to resolve the dispute between Gallo and Montagnier , who had given different names to the virus. It was a test of short-sightedness, and an error that thwarted any attempt to investigate the causal relationship between the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) virus (HIV) human immunodeficiency.
Duesberg, speaking from the back, wisely remarked on Proceedings of the National Academy of Science that there was no reliable evidence on the involvement of the new virus. But it was completely ignored, his articles were refused, and committees of his colleagues began to doubt that it was necessary to continue to finance his research. Eventually, with what must be considered an act of incredible arrogance and contempt of science, which was part of a committee Flossie Wong-Staal , which was now openly siding against Duesberg, Peter decided not to renew the Distinguished Investigator Award , thus excluding funds for research. In this way, Duesberg was less dangerous to the AIDS establishment increasing : would no longer invited to speak at conferences organized by his former colleagues.
We live with an immeasurable number of retroviruses. They are everywhere, and are probably at least as old as the human race are part of our genome. We receive from our mothers some form of new viruses, infectious virus particles that migrate from mother to fetus. More from both of our parents, along with genes. Some of the sequences of our genome is made of retroviruses. This means that we can produce, and in some cases ineffective, our retroviral particles. Some of them may resemble HIV, but no one has shown that they have never killed anyone.
There must be a reason that justifies their existence: a quantifiable portion of our genome contains retroviral sequences human endogenous. Some claim that some portions of DNA are useless, but wrong. If there is something in our genes, there must be a reason. The body does not allow for the development clutter. I tried to insert irrelevant gene sequences in simple organisms like bacteria, but if they have reason to be if they release the bodies. And I hope that my body when it comes to DNA, at least is smart as a bacterium.
HIV is not suddenly jumped out of the rain forest or Haiti. You just finished in the hands of Bob Gallo, when he needed a new career. But he was always there: when you stop to look only in the streets of big cities, you realize that HIV is rarely spread everywhere.
If HIV had been there forever, and was transmitted from mother to child, does not make sense to look for antibodies in the body of the mother than anyone HIV-positive result, especially if the individual shows no signs of illness?
Imagine a guy in the heart of the United States, whose dream is to enlist in the Air Force after graduation and a pilot. He never used drugs, and all had the same high school sweetheart, with whom he has every intention of getting married. Unbeknownst to her, and everyone else also has antibodies to HIV, which he inherited from his mother, still alive, when she was in her womb. It is a healthy boy, and it has never created any problems, but when the Air Force shall submit to routine testing for HIV, his hopes and dreams crumble. Not only was his request for enrollment is rejected, but on his head also weighs a death sentence.
The CDC has identified AIDS as one of more than thirty diseases related to a positive test to detect antibodies to HIV. But these same diseases as AIDS are not defined if not detecting antibodies. If a woman develops an HIV-positive cervical cancer, for example, is considered ill with AIDS. An HIV-positive TB has AIDS, while if it only has a negative tuberculosis test.
If you live in Kenya or Colombia where HIV testing is too expensive, it is simply assumed to have the antibodies, and then AIDS. In this way it can be treated in a clinic of the WHO, which in some places is the only form of medical care available. It's free, given that countries that finance the WHO are afraid of AIDS. If we consider it as an opportunity to disseminate medical care in areas where poor people live, AIDS was a fortune. Do not poison them with AZT as we do with our fellow citizens, because it would cost too much. We provide them with the care for a machete wound on the left knee, and call it AIDS.
The CDC continues to add new diseases to the general definition of AIDS statistics virtually manipulated to ensure that the disease appears to be in constant circulation. In 1993, for example, the CDC has greatly expanded the definition of AIDS. A welcome choice to the local authorities that, due to Ryan White Act (a law passed in 1990 to provide assistance to AIDS patients, NDT) receive from the State $ 2,500 per year for each case of AIDS reported.
In 1634 Galileo was condemned to spend the last eight years of his life under house arrest for having written that the earth is not the center of the universe but on the contrary, revolves around the sun. He was accused of heresy, because he claimed that a scientific fact should not have anything to do with faith. In a few years, the fact that we have accepted the theory that AIDS is caused by HIV seems silly, as silly to us seem the authorities who excommunicated Galileo.
science, so as it is practiced today in the world, has very little science. And what people call 'science' probably is not much different from what was called science in 1634. Galileo was asked to recant his beliefs, otherwise it would have been excommunicated. And those who refuse to accept the commandments imposed by the establishment of AIDS is told more or less the same thing: "If you disagree with our point of view, you're out."
It is disappointing to see how many scientists have been refused in any way, to examine in an objective and dispassionate available data. Several authoritative scientific journals refused to publish a declaration by the Group for Reassessment Scientific Hypothesis HIV / AIDS merely requested "a careful review of available evidence for or against this hypothesis."
I faced this issue publicly for the first time in San Diego, during a conference of ' American Association for Clinical Chemists . I knew that I would be friends, devoted to AIDS and a small part of a long speech, no more than a quarter of an hour. I said as my inability to find any evidence had piqued my curiosity.
more you know, the more explicit. I could not remain silent: I was a responsible scientist, and I was convinced that there were people who were killed by drugs unnecessary. The answers I received from my colleagues ranged from mild acceptance to an express bitterness. When I was invited to Toledo by the European Federation of Clinical Investigation to speak of the PCR, I told them that I would rather talk HIV and AIDS. I do not think that, when accepted, they understood exactly what we were hunting. I had arrived in the middle of my speech when the president of the company abruptly interrupted me with a suggestion to answer questions from the audience. His attitude seemed to me very rude, and totally inappropriate, but what the hell? I would have answered the questions. He opened the debate, and then decided that he would place the first application in person. I realized that I was behaving irresponsibly? I felt that people could talk to stop using condoms? I replied that the statistics, quite reliable, produced by the CDC showed that, at least in the United States, all cases of venereal diseases were known on the rise, which showed that people did not use condoms, while AIDS cases, according to the original definition of the disease were declining. So, no, I did not think of being irresponsible. The president decided that was enough, and the meeting ended abruptly.
When I face this issue, the question that is asked is always the same: "if it is not HIV to cause AIDS, then cos 'is? "The answer is that I can not answer this question, more than know or do Gallo Montagnier. The fact that I know that there is no evidence that HIV causes AIDS does not make me an authority on real causes of the disease.
is no doubt that if a person has very close contacts with a large number of individuals, the immune system is intended to come into contact with a large number infectious agents. If a person has sexual contact three hundred a year - with people who in turn had sexual contact three hundred a year - this means that ninety thousand possibilities of contracting an infection in more than a person who has a monogamous relationship.
Think of the immune system as a camel, if you charge too much, slumps. In the seventies there was a significant number of men who traveled frequently and had a promiscuous lifestyle, sharing body fluids, drugs and a reckless life. It is likely that a homosexual who lived in a big city was exposed to almost any infectious agent that ever lived on a human body. In fact, if one were to organize a plan to collect all existing infectious agents on the planet could build Turkish baths very sociable and inviting people to attend. The immune system would react, but it would be struck down by the number of opponents.
The scientific problem is mixed with the moral. but what I am saying has nothing to do with morality. I do not speak of 'divine punishment' or other nonsense. A segment of our society was experiencing a lifestyle, and things did not go as planned. You are sick. Another segment of our pluralistic society so let's call physicians / scientists veterans of the lost war against cancer or just jackals professionals have found that it worked. It worked for them. They are still paying for their new BMW with our money.
0 comments:
Post a Comment