Sexual energy is a tremendous creative force which, if properly used, can make all the difference between success and failure, excitement and hopelessness, revolution and complacency, enlightenment and dullness, and especially between freedom and slavery. It has been widely known for centuries that sexually liberated individuals are difficult to control.
For this reason, the powers that be have always made sure that this powerful force is not only suppressed by all means possible, but also perverted and channeled in a maintenance-free and preferably financially profitable way which doesn't threaten, but empower the oppressors. By accident or design, AIDS meets all these requirements.
Let me explain...
AIDS Meeting In South Africa Stirs Up Hornet's Nest
The recent news about the international uproar caused by South African President Thabo Mbeki refusing to endorse the prescription of AZT to HIV positive pregnant women, and putting together an AIDS advisory panel which included dissident scientists like Peter Duesberg who deny that HIV causes AIDS, caused me to investigate the HIV/AIDS controversy.
Like many avid Internet users, I had come across the claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS many years ago. I never took the time to thoroughly investigate the matter, assuming that the world's best scientists were dealing with this issue and that I, as a non-scientist, wasn't qualified to evaluate the conflicting theories unless I were to put many weeks of research into the background and basis of each of them.
Now the year 2000 has arrived and will probably pass, and there's no cure or vaccine for AIDS in sight. 16 years of research and virtually no results... is HIV really that mysterious, are our scientists that stupid - or do they simply have a hidden agenda?
Be that as it may be, one thing's for sure: Mbekis decisions caused an unexpected and unprecedented international uproar among governments and AIDS activists. They claimed that AZT had more benefits than disadvantages, and that the mere act of spending time by even considering dissident views would kill people.
Mbeki's AIDS Advisory Panel
Panel members include the French discoverer of the HIV virus, Luc Montagnier, Clifford Lane of the US National Institutes of Health, and Peter Duesberg, the most prominent dissident. Twelve of the panel members are US based, and ten are African, including seven South Africans and representatives from Uganda, Malawi and Senegal. There are also members from Cuba, Mexico and India.
The panel will enter into a "closed Internet debate" over the next four to six weeks, before reconvening in South Africa for a four-day discussion before the start of the World AIDS Congress on July 9th.
There has been some speculation that a last-minute deal to add three extra non-dissident members to the panel - thereby creating an overall majority of non-dissidents - was brokered at a high level between the South African and US governments.
Surprisingly, all these developments coincided with the US government all of a sudden declaring AIDS to be a threat to national security, and with AIDS drug companies changing their minds and agreeing to supply their drugs to African countries at vastly reduced prices.
The message to Mbeki was clear: Stop giving the dissidents a platform! This surprised me. If the commonly accepted "HIV is a malicious, transmissible retrovirus that causes AIDS" theory is bullet-proof and scientifically well founded, what does the establishment have to fear?
I decided to take a closer look, and after some in-depth research I realized that they do have quite a lot to fear - even more so because the "HIV leads to AIDS" theory is anything other than proven!
Before we investigate the details, let's consider who stands to actually benefit from the perpetuation of the current AIDS crisis, regardless of whether HIV causes AIDS or not.
Who Benefits?
First of all, governments and religious fanatics. They love crises like this, fabricated or not, because they are an excellent means of enslaving people, ensuring that they live in fear, willingly pay their taxes and look up to their masters for finding a "solution". Now that AIDS has been declared to be a "threat to national security", the government has a blank check for implementing new restrictions on freedoms - including the freedom of speech and of opinion.
Second, the scientists themselves. Once a government funded scientist has identified a very serious problem (like AIDS), he comes to depend for his money, prestige, and power on the problem getting worse, not better. He basically has two options:
Not solving the problem. The more he doesn't solve the problem, the more money and prestige he gets. What he actually gets rewarded for is not solving the problem, so he continues to not-solve the problem as it is in his best long-term interest.
Half-solving the problem. This consists of creating expensive "medicines" that don't work or just appear to work, but actually make the problem worse. To a pharmaceutical company (many of which are owned by scientists), the perfect medicine shouldn't kill but shouldn't heal either. It should just be hyped to the point where everyone buys it and gets to depend on it for the rest of their lives, something that has been accomplished with the latest AIDS "cocktails", which cost $10k+ a year and have to be taken forever in order to "keep the disease under control".
Another essential part of half-solving the problem is the act of throwing some vague snippets and reports of potentially new "final solutions" to the media every now and then, giving the population never-ending hope that an actual end to the crisis is forthcoming.
Third, the HIV test and AIDS drug companies. They make immense profits by peddling unscientific tests that don't work (see below), and selling killer drugs like AZT to their unsuspecting victims. It is known that AZT is toxic and kills cells indiscriminately. Even though in full-blown AIDS cases no more than one in five-hundred cells is believed to be infected by HIV, AZT kills all cells. It's like blowing up a building with 500 people just because you want to kill a single terrorist who is hiding on the top floor (or, even worse, because you simply want to prove a point).
Now, I wouldn't say that the government isn't capable of doing something like that - but to a scientist this approach simply can't make sense unless he has ulterior motives. (What's even more surprising, AZT has been proven to cause some of the symptoms which, in the presence of HIV, are described as AIDS. We'll come to that later.)
Fourth, the condom companies. They started making huge profits ever since AIDS was introduced. If AIDS turned out to be a hoax, or someone would find a vaccine, these profits would plummet.
Okay, now we've had a look at who benefits from not finding a solution to the AIDS crisis. We didn't consider whether the "HIV is a malicious, transmissible retrovirus that causes AIDS" theory is true or not, so let's have a quick look at the scientific facts. In other words, let's see if those who claim scientific authority can base their claims on sound science, or whether they rely on pseudo-science and on silencing those who disagree with them.
Questioning scientific "authority" is actually something that very few people do, because they believe that scientists are some kinds of gods merely because they call themselves "scientists" and/or "doctors".
I too used to believe in the "higher authority" of scientists, simply because I didn't understand what they were talking about. However, having come to know several highly acclaimed scientists over the past years, I've come to realize that scientists and doctors alike are human beings just like you and me. They can make mistakes and errors of judgement. They love their own ideas more than anything else. And while most of them are initially motivated by a desire to find the truth, many succumb to the promise of money, fame and recognition - and do whatever is necessary to achieve these goals. Once they have achieved them, they get complacent and do anything to preserve their status.
One thing that the tens of thousands of AIDS scientists (those trying to find a cure) freely admit is that most of them are basing all their work on the "HIV is a transmissible, malicious retrovirus that causes AIDS" theory - without actually having researched this basic premise.
When confronted with this fact, they claim that "people are dying" and to them it is more important to find a cure than to research something that is "obvious" and well proven.
But is it really "obvious" and "well proven"?
Below you will find some theories of the so-called "dissidents" - including Peter Duesberg, the Perth Group, Stefan Lanka and others. You're invited to compare this with what you have been told about HIV/AIDS by the mainstream media. Be sure to do some additional research... and then come up with your own conclusions:
AIDS Dissident Claims:
HIV has never been isolated in accordance with strict scientific standards. When confronted with this fact, one of the world's leading establishment virologists agreed - and claimed that it's not necessary to isolate HIV because if HIV didn't exist, neither would the smallpox virus or polio virus. He went on to compare those who question the HIV/AIDS theory with those who question the Nazi Holocaust. (Sounds familiar?)
AIDS is defined as "a known disease found in the presence of HIV", and HIV is defined as "the retrovirus that causes AIDS". If an HIV negative woman has pneumonia it's called pneumonia, but if she is HIV positive at the same time, it's called "AIDS". What a misleading, circular definition if there ever was one! It certainly doesn't prove that HIV causes "AIDS", because there is no such disease as "AIDS" - it's simply a collection of various illnesses which have been around for hundreds of years. To see what kind of harm such a definition and its misapplication can cause, consider the following: In Central Africa, 95% of all people showing an AIDS like disease are not even tested for HIV nor treated for their illness - because they are said to be "hopeless AIDS cases". In other words, they are left to die... thereby inflating African AIDS death statistics and attracting millions of dollars in "AIDS relief" from all over the world!
The basic premise of the HIV/AIDS theory, i.e. that HIV is a transmissible and malicious retrovirus that causes AIDS, was postulated and advanced by the very same failed scientists who in the 70's had claimed that a retrovirus causes cancer - which has now been proven to be untrue. Interesting, isn't it? Couldn't these scientists have been inclined to literally jump at the first opportunity to proclaim having found a malicious retrovirus at last... thereby proving that their decades long research has not been totally without results?
HIV antibody tests are unreliable and dangerous. Testing "positive" can be caused by a whole host of totally unrelated factors. Many of those who tested "positive" in the 80s or 90s are now testing "negative". What's worse, according to someone who actually did these tests in the laboratory, when testing blood samples for HIV antibodies the samples have to be diluted by 400. Otherwise, everyone would test as "positive", because everyone has antibodies against what is supposed to be HIV. The difference is that some people have more and some have less. If this is true then it would be very surprising news indeed!
From A Leaflet Accompanying An AIDS Test Kit:
"The test for the existence of antibodies against AIDS-associated virus is not diagnostic for AIDS and AIDS-like diseases. Negative test results do not exclude the possibility of contact or infection with the AIDS-associated virus. Positive test results do not prove that someone has an AIDS or pre-AIDS disease status nor that he will acquire it."
So... what exactly does this test do?
HIV positive people aren't developing AIDS nearly within the time frame originally predicted (2 to 3 years). Researchers keep extending the supposed "latency period" - now standing at 15 to 20 years, and counting! No comment necessary.
AZT, which used to be the most widely used anti-AIDS drug, indiscriminately destroys cells and actually causes many of the symptoms which in the presence of HIV are called "AIDS". AZT is toxic and simply kills cells, no matter if they are believed to be infected by HIV or not. The result (which isn't surprising) is that the body develops lots of illnesses - and these illnesses, in the presence of HIV, are called... you guessed it, AIDS.
The new anti-AIDS "cocktails" simply don't kill as quickly as AZT (and are even more expensive at $10k+ per year), and thus create the impression of "extending" the lives of those who are HIV+. At the same time, almost all HIV positive long-term "survivors" haven't taken any of those over hyped "medicines" at all. Do they know something that the mainstream scientists don't?
Is HIV harmless? Does it even exist as a malicious, transmissible retrovirus... or does it simply consist of totally harmless particles which are produced by the body itself for some reason - maybe as a result of the presence of an AIDS like disease?
There is no conclusive, scientific answer to this question... and this is shocking indeed!
Some of the AIDS dissidents, among them Stefan Lanka, question the scientific basis of retrovirology as a whole... and they wonder whether what is known as "retroviruses" are transmissible after all, or simply arise as the result of a disease and not vice versa.
This is a very interesting theory, even if it is totally unpopular - especially among retrovirologists (which is understandable). To me it is common sense that many diseases are simply caused by the gradual build-up of toxins in the body, particularly within cells. This may come from long term intake of alcohol, nicotine, recreational drugs, medical drugs, and junk food. These toxins gradually pollute the body, often weakening the immune system to the extent that the body becomes susceptible to all kinds of infections, as well as afflictions like cancer and heart disease.
Now what if these diseases create what is perceived to be a retrovirus, thereby misleading scientists into believing that the "virus" causes the illness, even though it's actually the other way round?
Another largely unresearched and undocumented field is that of the human mind. There are some ground breaking studies about placebos which prove that both the doctor's and the patient's expectation about a medicine often have a much more noticable effect on the patient's health than the actual medicine would have had.
What if this also works the other way round? Can you die because you (and your doctor) believe there is such a thing as "HIV", that you are infected by it, and that it will kill you?
These are unanswered questions which it would be worth exploring. Just consider for a minute what exactly AIDS patients have to go through once they've been diagnosed as being HIV positive, and judge for yourself:
With treatment like that, who needs disease?
I have no doubts that the above "therapy" is more than sufficient to kill an otherwise healthy person. Is there even a need for a complicated, scientifically unfounded explanation like "HIV is a malicious, transmissible retrovirus that causes AIDS"? Why don't AIDS scientists go back to the basics and research the unfounded basic premise their theories are based on... but rather come up with ever new explanations for HIV's "mysterious" behavior, yet all the time without finding a "cure" or "vaccine"?
It's simple: They can't go back now. Too many well respected scientists have advanced the HIV/AIDS theory and acted accordingly. Admitting their failure after all these years would be a serious embarrassment. A lot of established scientists, yes even governments, would have to be replaced and be faced with serious consequences, like public outrage, civil unrest and billion dollar lawsuits.
Overcoming Stupidity
A century ago scientists were considering to close all patent offices as they believed that everything that could be invented, had been invented. Today's scientists are still susceptible to the same "know-it-all" disease... also called stupidity. Unfortunately it's a disease for which there is no "quick fix".
Instead, overcoming stupidity takes permanent effort and a constantly open mind. One has to be ready to evaluate all points of view and all available evidence before coming to a conclusion... and to be willing, even eager to reconsider previously drawn conclusions in case new evidence becomes available - even (and especially) if doing so appears to threaten one's own status as a scientist in terms of reputation and money. Like it or not, this is how progress has been made - and will be made!
Now that AIDS has been declared a threat to the USA's national security, it will be more difficult and dangerous than ever to have opposing views. Will those who claim that the HIV/AIDS theory is false simply be bought off - or silenced? Has the time come not only for entrepreneurs and political dissidents, but also for scientists like Peter Duesberg to go offshore?
It is more urgent than ever before that the case about the cause of AIDS must be reopened and discussed by objective scientists. Discussed not in terms of who is right and who is wrong, but in terms of how the problem can be solved. And if it turns out that HIV is either harmless or isn't a virus after all, then so be it.
Dissident Links:
Update August 2000: The "closed Internet debate" turned out to be a big failure with mainstream scientists remaining silent and refusing to participate at all! Click here to read some leaked excerpts from the debate which did take place among dissidents. Very interesting indeed!
It's also quite interesting and revealing (and amusing if it weren't such a serious topic) to read some of the correspondence between the real "experts", i.e. scientists:
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org - terrorcrat.com - mind-trek.com