The 11th Commandment – AIDS, Sex and Society

RTB: Liam Scheff Interview on Fintan Dunne’s AIDS is

by Liam Scheff

In August of 2008, I gave an interview to Fintan Dunne of and We discussed the religious/cult dynamic of the AIDS industry and the catch-22 in which those who uncritically accept the paradigm find themselves. We went over the events of the Incarnation Children’s Center, briefly, before turning to recent admission by the World Health Organization that AIDS is, once again, predicted to be specifically confined to the African and Gay populations. The following is an edited transcript of that conversation.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Fintan Dunne: Our guest is Liam Scheff, an American writer and journalist – a real journalist, and that’s amazing because they’re so hard to find these days.

But you wouldn’t believe what has happened as a result of one very important story that Liam broke, which was about AIDS orphans. These were orphaned kids in a home in New York City called the Incarnation Children’s Center.

Liam’s story on that topic was first published as “The House That AIDS Built,” and later on the New York Press as [“Orphans on Trial,” “Still on Trial” and] Inside Incarnation. And eventually that story made its way onto the UK’s BBC, in a film called “Guinea Pig Kids.” [Links]

What happened to that BBC film, they were actually forced, because the AIDS establishment went ballistic over the damage, rightly, that Liam was doing to their reputation with his exposes. They actually forced the BBC to apologize. Well, you’ll hear it from the man himself, who wrote the expose’ of the appalling practices of the AIDS industry, and you’ll see there’s nothing to apologize for.

I think I could do no better Liam, to start us off, than to quote the New York Times, in an article about your article. They said: “Whatever the outcome, the controversy has already demonstrated the power of a single person armed only with access to the Internet and an incendiary story to put major institutions on the defensive.”

And boy, did you put them on the defensive, Liam. And it’s an incendiary story because it has incendiary facts in it. It must have been harrowing, even as a professional journalist to write that story.

Liam Scheff: The story was “The House that AIDS Built,” and I wrote that in the latter half of 2003, having gone to the orphanage where these kids were being kept and used in medical experiments in New York City.

[In 2003] I was talking with the editor of Mothering magazine [which was going to carry the article], who is a nice woman, but I remember getting very cross [about publication dates]. Getting an article onto the cover of a magazine is a long, long process, and it was [going to be] 10 months before they had an opening. And I was dealing with kids who were dying – I mean being fed drugs through tubes that they didn’t want to take, that were very dangerous drugs, that were Black Box-labeled drugs.

And then Nick Regush’s Red Flags Weekly was interested, but in the end I went with expediency, [putting it online at and]. I don’t think I ever regretted putting the first article out on the web, because it got the results that I wanted – I wanted people to investigate it and I wanted them to follow the leads that I had found.

The leads were the drug trials that were going on in orphaned children, these ‘willing participants’ who weren’t willing and they didn’t know they were participating. They were orphans, and they were the orphaned children of drug addicts in New York, and they were black and Hispanic, and they were the minority, and too often subjected class; and of course they were being used in a way that brings up too much of what we don’t like to admit – the darker parts of our history – sometimes we aren’t nice to people who don’t look like us.

So that was a story I wrote, it came out, and the New York Times caught up with it a year and a half later. Janny Scott, who was the reporter there, interviewed me for a long time, and then we stayed in touch for weeks, I think five weeks [of] correspondence with her [prior to the publication of the Times article].

I sent her documents with some 27 referenced citations on [the putative AIDS drug called] AZT, so she could investigate AZT and look into it. And I gave her the phone numbers and all the contact information for all my sources. And then she contacted and interviewed them. And then the New York Times article came out, and it mentioned none of these things, and it actually invented the lie that – the lie and the line that you said there – which was, “One reporter with access only to the internet.”

I interviewed the doctor who ran the place [Link], I had access to the orphanage itself, I went inside. I interviewed children, mothers.

The New York Times had a thing for me; and on one Sunday in 2005, I woke up, walked down to the local newsstand, and there on the front page of the front section of the Sunday New York Times, was the story I recognized some of the names from, but all the facts were wrong…it’s a hell of thing to wake up to.

Fintan Dunne: Well it was, and had you written this story from the inside, from inside ABC or one of the networks or major newspapers, it is a story that I think would qualify for a Pulitzer. It is an astonishing and heartbreaking investigation of the orphans who are not in a position to defend themselves.

I’ll just quote a little from the article [”Inside Incarnation”] and I do suggest that the audience read this article in full, [Link]

“Kids who refused too much, or threw up too much, they’d get a tube. First it was through the nose.

“But then it was more and more through the stomach. You’d see a certain child refusing over and over, and one day they’d come back from the hospital from surgery, and they had a tube coming right out of their stomach.

“If you asked why, the doctors said it was for ‘compliance’—the regimen. Got to keep up the regimen,” said Mimi. “Those were the rules.”

“We weren’t happy about it, because it wasn’t just the drugs—it was everything that was getting pumped through the tube. Children would be pumped all night long with the milk—the PediaSure. It would pump so hard that the milk would leak out around the hole.

“Sometimes we’d turn off the pump for the kids, because it hurt their stomachs, but then the nurses would turn it back on. Some of the kids would do it themselves—they’d get out of bed in the middle of the night and turn off the machine. But in 20 minutes, it would start beeping, and the nurse would go back and turn it on.”

It’s incredible, Liam, it’s incredible that this is being done to defenseless children.

Liam Scheff: Yeah… I don’t like hearing that again…That’s Mimi Pascual, who worked at the orphanage. You know, the mainstream view would have been and was that they were “saving” these children, and they were saving them of course by giving them six, seven, eight, nine FDA Black Box-labeled drugs at one time.

Drugs bear the Black Box label because the drugs have killed or done permanent damage at a normal, prescribed dose in an adult. Six, seven, eight, nine at a time at “higher than normal doses.”

But, in the psychology – and it truly is just a psychological point of view, because there’s no evidence to support it – the psychology that comes out of the New York Times or the mainstream is that if you do this, and you put the “AIDS” label on it, that the only thing you can do is to “save” them.

I mean, even if the kids die, somehow you’ve “saved” them. You’ve “prolonged their lives,” or something like that.

So, there’s grand psychological fiction that’s created when you use that label, and that’s the great problem, and maybe the purpose of the AIDS label. It takes alienated, subjugated, historically ghettoized, and frankly disliked and disavowed groups and medicalizes them – gives a pseudo scientific validation to that feeling that there is something ‘wrong’ with these people….

If you went to Beverly Hills or to Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, or to Main Line Philadelphia, people with the many-million-dollar houses and mansions, and you said, “By the way, when you have children, we’re going to drug you [with AZT] before you do that, and then we’re going to test you to see if you’re able [if we’ll allow you to have children].”

Nobody would permit that. But you can say it about poor black people, because there’s a built-in bias.

Fintan Dunne: You’ve said that there is a psychological justification. As you said there, these were Black Box drugs, by definition drugs that taken individuality by an adult, were known to cause morbidity and death.

So then you take a child, and you give a child a number of these drugs that were known to cause death in adults; you give them a number of those drugs simultaneously. That moves beyond normal psychological justification into something that reminds me of Dr. Mengele’s activities in the concentration camps in Germany.

Liam Scheff: Sure, it’s a kind of eugenics. Janny Scott of the New York Times, we had a long talk when we interviewed; I told her, so that she was aware of what was happening, that I was able to interview kids from the place, I was able to see some medical records, I was able to look for all through all the clinical trials and all the reported effects from the drugs in the Physician’s Desk Reference, and the various journals, JAMA and NEJM, that publish these things over and over again..

So, I did my homework. Janny Scott and the New York Times published their article, and said that the trials were nothing “but a medical success.”

I wrote her, and said, “Did you interview any of the children?” And she didn’t answer. And I said, “Did you look at any of the medical data, did you look at any of the data on the children? Did you look at any of the children’s medical records?”

And she wouldn’t answer, and then I pushed her, and then she did [answer], and the answer was “No.” She didn’t, and they didn’t, when they were doing their research. But the New York Times still managed to put on their front page that the trials were nothing “but a medical success,” and the whole controversy came around because I had “access to the internet.” [Link]

So, that’s the mainstream’s way of dealing with what is probably one of the most gruesome things I’ve ever seen in my life; to do this to little children, to give them no option.

Fintan Dunne: Even in a cursory examination of it, you can tell that the actual medical reality is that these children are reasonably healthy when they are not taking the drugs, and when they take the drugs, their medical condition deteriorates severely. So you’d have to question with proper professional diligence whether you are actually benefitting these children. [Link - AZT studies]

Liam Scheff: But Fintan, as you know, it’s a religion. It’s Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter – once it’s there, it’s there irrevocably. The HIV test diagnosis, or the make-believe diagnosis, as I call it, is truly the Scarlet Letter of our age; the 11th commandment of our age.

We live in an era which is essentially post-religion in the West, and people are living in the throes of the reflux or the backwash of what was considered a great liberalization of society through the 1960s and 70s; and I think people became unmoored from a sense of what is ‘proper conduct,’ what is ‘improper conduct.’ So that a great many people in the 1970s had gonorrhea and syphilis and a number of other STDs and were frequently swapping them with each other.

[This] culminating in the gay community, in what we knew was the first AIDS – or G.R.I.D., Gay Related Immune Disease , which is what AIDS was originally called, in which [a relatively small, ghettoized and isolated group of] people were taken endless, copious amounts of drugs and having endless numbers of partners, [and taking endless courses of unprescribed antibiotics], and having endless numbers of STDs, concurrently. And of course, they became sick.

And I think society reacted reactively [versus responsively] at that point, almost as an organism – organismically; and I think the panic came about [as a kind of reversion to] a 1950’s-style prohibition of who you could and could not have sex with.

Because all of that was erased in the 60s. I think it was embraced – I think the AIDS definition was embraced by many people because it is at least a stop-gap. I mean, what do we tell people now? We can’t say that sex before marriage is wrong; we can’t say that sex with many people is wrong or bad. We liberalized and liberalized and liberalized.

I’m not here to pontificate or [as a moral authority] to to tell people what they should and should not do, I’m just noting this as a social observation. I don’t have any prescription for it.

But I think AIDS functions as a psychological bulwark, in that it says, “If you do too much of these historically troublesome activities, like being too libidinous, having too many partners, [that bad things will happen].” AIDS and the red-ribbon acts as a kind of psychological bulwark: “Ah-ha! These are the rules now. (At least we have rules).”

Do you see what I’m saying? So there has to be some martyr somewhere to be sacrificed on the altar of this belief system. And it’s not going to be Paris Hilton.

I really feel that if you ask people “question AIDS,” you’re not asking them to question a scientific phenomena, or a medical diagnosis – which [is something] they could do under any other circumstance. People can question SARS, Bird Flu, the HPV vaccine, (which is more science-fiction garbage); they can questions all of these things willfully.

But AIDS is different, because it’s wrapped in SEX. And the sex it’s wrapped up in was homosexual sex in the beginning, and there is a grand historical prohibition against that. So, you see, it falls into step with all of our history, and all of our needs for some sort of prohibition or restriction on sex.

Fintan Dunne: It’s almost like a religion as you say. If you engage in the practices which a religion does not approve of, then the religion assures you that you are going to go to Hell. However in this case, they’re going to create the Hell on earth for you now, because of your engaging in these activities that they don’t like, mostly to do with sex. Certainly a living Hell was created for these children.

I think that your story is very important for the people who’ve tested ‘HIV positive,’ and they’re trying to decide, “Are the dissidents right about this AIDS thing, or is the mainstream right?” Well this story says, “This is what the authorities did, what the AIDS establishment did, to these innocent kids. And you might meet that kind of a fate.”

Reassure me, if you can, that this isn’t still going on. Is this kind of thing still going on Liam?

Liam Scheff: Well, sure. This is an international project. All you have to do is going to and look up “pediatric,” and “HIV,” and you’ll see dozens to hundreds of studies being done internationally with AZT – (which you think would’ve been tested enough by now, don’t you…but we’re not there yet).

This is the business of reassuring people – this is the business of telling people that it all makes sense. We need to believe these things. We have belief systems, and the current belief system we have is that reductionist science answers everything.

And so we invest grand amounts of trust in the medical establishment, the World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health. And when they do things which we would question if anybody else did them, we shrug our shoulders and say, “Well, they know what’s best.”

Europeans let the Church get away with all sorts of terrible things for most of civilization because the Church was the arbiter of the big questions – the questions of life and death and meaning and health and safety – and now we have the World Health Organization [in this role].

The fervor that you see when the W.H.O. tells the world that they have to be terrified because Asians farm ducks! I mean, the terror that was released into the world around that fiction called the “bird flu pandemic.” “Oh my GOD! The world could end!” [Link]

That’s the religious side; that is an existential thought: “The entire world could end because the W.H.O. says that a couple dozen people in South East Asia over 10 years got sick!” There’s no critical thinking about it. So when we sacrifice some orphans in the Dominican Republic, in India, in Africa, in Washington Heights, to the Gods of AZT and Nevirapine, and to the sort of sacred dark mark of the HIV test, people just thank God it’s not them.

They really do, “Thank God it’s not me!”

Fintan Dunne: I think you’ve identified something there Liam – the “Thank God it’s not me” dynamic – the kind of dynamic that played out in the Inquisition [and the Holocaust]. It’s a solitary warning to people who are in marginalized groups, and who are unsure if the mainstream or the dissidents are right.

So if you’re in a marginalized group – if you’re gay or you’re black, and you’re engaging in activities that the priesthood disapproves of, well you may be sacrificed as a sacrificial victim and it could get pretty horrible for you.

So you better watch out that you don’t get caught up in the maw of this system, because it can kill you, and kill you in a horrible way.

Liam Scheff: It can, and if you’re foolish enough like myself or you, to write openly what we find in the medical journals, in absolutely plain print, over and over again, about the tests and the drugs…If you’re foolish enough to write about that, you can be assured that your career will not be a mainstream career. You should know.

Fintan Dunne: You should know, and you should be pretty careful about the decisions you make in terms of whether you accept the mainstream view on HIV-AIDS and the AIDS drugs, including AZT.

I want to take one more quote from your article. This is in relation to a boy named Seon, who died in the ICC in the spring of 2004:

“He had all these soft, fatty lumps. We even called him “lumpy.” She said. They sent him to get the lumps on his neck removed in surgery, and they would just grow back. They told us it was cancer, but he was on all those drugs. He had a tube, and they were always pumping him. When we changed his diapers, it would come out like the drug mixture—rough and sandy like the ground-up pills.”

Mimi said that after he died, she read about the phenomenon of “buffalo humps,” large fatty lumps on the back and neck that result from the newer AIDS drugs called protease inhibitors. Rhonda, the former ICC nurse, and Mimi both remember another boy at ICC who developed a breast while on the drugs. “He had a mastectomy, and then the other one started to grow. They couldn’t hide that it was because of the drugs, but with Seon, they told us it was cancer,” said Mimi.

Mimi has a paper from ICC, that she saved from Seon’s treatment. “One day I got a sheet from the nurses about a drug they were going to give Seon—it said any woman who was pregnant or who was of child-bearing age should not touch the drug, even with gloves on. I couldn’t pronounce the name, so I kept the sheet. Thalidomide. That’s what they gave him.”

Thalidomide was originally marketed as a safe, over-the-counter sedative and analgesic in the 1950s and 1960s throughout Europe. It caused a wave of severe deformities in children of pregnant women who took the drug and was taken off the market. In 1998, the drug company Celgene resurrected Thalidomide, with FDA approval, officially as a leprosy drug, but with intended off-label use for AIDS and cancer patients.

“They pumped Seon with it; he deteriorated fast,” Mimi said. “Once day we came in and he was bleeding from every hole in his body—his rectum, his nose, his mouth. He was in such pain. He would scream when he had to go to the bathroom. They put him on a respirator. They induced a coma with drugs so they could put him on a respirator. They told us they did it so he could breathe better.” Mimi said, her voice getting a little rough. “I sat with him; he couldn’t talk, but he was crying-tearing from his eyes. “He got all dry and scaly; he shriveled up like a snail-and he died.”

Sex and AIDS

Fintan Dunne: After that harrowing stuff, Liam, perhaps we should listen to the astonishing admission by Kevin de Cock, of the World Health Organization, the head of their HIV department, that after all those years of scaring everybody silly and justifying this huge AIDS establishment, that there now no longer is a threat of a heterosexual AIDS epidemic – except of course if you’re a black African. It’s an amazing development, Liam. What’s going on? [Link]

Liam Scheff: Well first thing is, his name is Kevin de Cock, and I know that it’s a common Dutch name, but you want to thank the God that you pray to above for a sense of humor. His name is Kevin de Cock and he runs the HIV department of the World Health Organization, so you know there’s some hope there, if it can just be that silly.

So, Dr. de Cock told the world, “Yeah, we sort of screwed up, but we always knew that we were wrong, but don’t kill us. But, yeah, we were just sort of kidding, but not kidding, but no, you’re not, no, don’t worry about it. No, not you people in suburbia, not you white people, you don’t have to worry about it. And you Gay people still have to worry about it – we’re not letting you off the hook! And of course, Africa.”

Fintan Dunne: ‘No problems if you’re straight, white, middle class – that’s cool’

Liam Scheff: [Africa] is too far away for people to care about, understand, get involved with; so you could say that vampire bats fly out of the sky and give people AIDS in Africa, and a certain number of people would believe you.

I have conversations about this on occasion and I look at people and say, “I don’t think that the reason that this family that has chronic diarrhea, dysentery and is starving to death – I don’t think the reason that they’re starving to death is because 20 years ago one of them had sex.”

“What’s the likelihood that the diarrhea that somebody has, the dysentery they have, happening because of sex they had 15 years ago, 10 years ago? On the other hand, what’s the likelihood they have it because they’re starving to death, and they don’t have any clean water?”

The reason that Dr. De Cock had to come out and say, “Don’t worry wealthy, white people,” is because I think there’s a level past which you can’t ask people to “suspend their disbelief.” Thus is a tenet of movies and theater – you have to let “the fourth wall” dissipate. You have to pretend for a moment that you’re not staring at a production, and you have to just let yourself look at it and get engaged with it on an emotional level.

And they [the AIDS establishment] are saying, “Look, we know it’s a production, and you don’t have to watch the show anymore – just don’t bother us.”

Africa is far enough away to still say, “Let us conduct this business that we’ve been conducting; let us continue to pretend that handing out condoms to people will stop people from having diarrhea and dying young from starvation, and kwashiorkor, and malnutrition,” and other such things…

That’s how it appears on the world news at night. Africa/AIDS, AIDS/Africa-AIDS/Africa-AIDS/Africa. But if you actually talk to Africans or go to Africa and walk through those environments…if you had the misfortune of living in [moving to] Soweto for a period of time after growing up in some nice, suburban cul-de-sac in America, or Britain or France, you’d have a mighty bad case of diarrhea in a couple of days.

And God forbid your skin should turn really dark, and a helpful World Health Organization doctor should come along because very soon you could actually find yourself being labelled as an AIDS patient. At which point everybody around you would say, “Oh, you’re going to die!”

Fintan Dunne: Well, they have retreated, so to speak, from that generalized global AIDS threat. So now you only have to worry if you’re in a number of sub-groups. For example, if you’re sub-Saharan African, because over there they’ve got these sexual practices which are ‘extremely licentious.’ Well, reality check, folks. I’ve spoken to people in Africa who look at our sexual practices with horror. They think we are the promiscuous ones, because the social structure of Africa is a highly non-promiscuous. So that particular camp doesn’t account doesn’t stack up.

Intravenous drug users, that account doesn’t stack up either. These are people who shoot themselves up with God-knows-what, so no wonder these people are sick. And finally Gays, who still remain a target, and probably, Liam, are in the Western world, the continuing primary target of this industry.

Liam Scheff: There’s a very ‘morbid quid pro quo’ [this for that] that goes on in then West regarding homosexuality. We’re not comfortable with homosexuality. You know, Sigmund Freud made homosexuality a disease; he said it’s actually a psychological disorder. So, we’ve one-upped Sigmund Freud and made it a medical problem.

If gay people didn’t accept the fact that sequestering, the ghettoization, if they didn’t accept the “STOP AIDS” clinics in their neighborhoods, if they didn’t accept the Red Ribbon, and in some cases the early death and drugging, in order to segregate themselves – psychologically and physically – from the majority of the heterosexual population, I think you’d see a very different…[the culture as a whole would respond negatively to the gay community if it did not have the morbid ‘protection’ of the AIDS diagnosis.]

I speak as a listener to radio; I listen to radio all over the country [the US]; I listen to the local conservative talk radio, and one issue that never ceases to come up is “those damn homosexuals, those dirty homosexuals, those homosexuals with their AIDS!”

So, the issue here in the gay community, is really the quid pro quo: “We’ll accept your medicalization [of our sexuality as a disease], if you don’t kill us, in the street!” The way it has happened.

[Presently] there’s a push for acknowledgment of long-term gay relationships and marriages, civil-unionships, and I think this is a good move. Because in normalizing long-term stable homosexual relationships, there is an opportunity to minimize for that community some of the feeling of being totally excommunicated and not being able to participate in the normal functions of growing older with someone you love, and that sort of thing. So I think that’s a good thing. It’s always slow going, and the opponents there are ferocious.

We can talk about gay marriage as a separate issue, but I think acknowledging that this is a normal part of life, that people who are homosexual are quite human and desire to have these long-term relationships acknowledged by the State. So this is a good thing that is happening. But it’s taking a long time…Anyway, I’ve gotten off the subject, I’ll let you steer us back.

Fintan Dunne: Well, it’s slightly off, but I think we need to address this to gay listeners who are trying to understand what’s going on here. We need to understand the social issues. There is an extent on white liberal TV-reality, that there is a lauding of a victim culture, and that ties into a certain extent to the ideas of sin, penance and redemption.

Sin – you’re gay and you have gay sex. Penance – you have to take these drugs. Redemption – you will go on Oprah after this, and if you survive these drugs, you’ll tell everybody about the horrible terrible time you had doing the penance – and now you’re redeemed.

So there is a weird victim culture, quid-pro-quo built into this HIV thing for gays.

The HIV Test

Liam Scheff: The HIV test is only considered to be accurate for Blacks and Gays – what they [the CDC/WHO] considers the “at risk” groups. So, they’ll say that immigrant Hispanics are now “at risk,” so let’s start testing them. But there’s an interesting [medical journal] article I found that said the more pregnant Hispanics you test, the more “false positives’ you’ll get. Because these people, even thought they test “positive,” don’t have “AIDS.” [Link]

So, there’s a difference; Hispanic culture is not Black culture, it has a different history; it’s not as reviled on the American continent. I mean it’s fair to say that Black culture is reviled on the American continent, and there’s a subterranean feeling that is never really discussed.

Which is why the potential presidency of Barack Obama is so interesting in itself, and so exciting for so many people. Because, look, these people were hated for a long time, murdered in the street, made slaves, etc. And after slavery was supposed to be over, we had a hundred years of a new kind of slavery with the Jim Crow laws here; people weren’t allowed to eat in the same restaurant or use the same water fountain for a long time (through the 1960s). [Link]

South Africa goes through the same thing. I like to point out to people that there’s no irony here. I mean, what’s the irony that after however many years that Nelson Mandela was in prison – and that Africans in their own country weren’t allowed to be considered Citizens – how funny is it that they Dutch overlords, the invaders to their nation – the British and Dutch, decided that these people who were persona-non-grata, “the dirtiest group that you could find on planet earth, not worthy of being allowed to vote or walk into the same building as you or through the same entrance…”

How strange is it that right after they get the right to vote that all the good, liberal, penitent White South Africans are suddenly worried and terrified about that these people and the ‘fact’ that their sex is going to kill everybody. And they now need to condomize and drug them all.

I mean, come on – how transparent can they be! “No we don’t like black people, No we don’t like black people, No we don’t like black people,” for hundreds of years. Then, “Okay, fine, we like them, they can vote…. But Oh my God! The black people! We have to drug them and condomize them!”

Fintan Dunne: And the same dynamic playing out in the gay population in the United States, who as a rejected group, have found succor among the white liberals, who are now prepared to accept them, as long as they accept the HIV/AIDS industry. (Which is very profitable!) These are the deadly quid-pro-quos that are being played out.

Liam Scheff: The AIDS diagnosis itself is self limiting. If you read the medical literature [which describe] how the tests work, the tests are only considered to be useful or accurate for the people they want to give the diagnosis. So I’m not considered to be at risk. If I were given a test, it would be considered to have a “low probability” of having any value – same with you [Fintan]. But if I were black, or a practicing homosexual, then the test should be considered very accurate, and I would actually be encouraged to take one. So, the groups that are considered accurate for are self-selecting. It’s like a kind of pharmacological eugenics – but it’s a self-selecting one. It’s a kind of pharmacological suicide – with certain benefits.

Because not everybody is going to go on the drugs, not everybody is going to take many of them, or they’ll try them and get off of them. And not everybody who’s going to take the test is going to initially be told that they have to go on the drugs, even if they’re considered to be “positive” or “reactive.”

So, the thing can have as long a lifespan as they want. The fact that the World Health Organization came out and took the onus, the burden off of healthy, well-fed white people, I think speaks frankly to the fact that people like myself, or yourself, or like Nancy Padian, have done such damage to the idea of heterosexual AIDS.

And Nancy Padian is the mainstream AIDS researcher who did the report on the supposed transmissibility of supposed HIV by giving supposed HIV tests – and she came up with a big fat zero, in terms of non-drug using heterosexuals transmitting to one another.

She didn’t question the validity of the tests, which would have been the place for any reasonable person to start. But fact that she came up with a zero transmission rate, among a hundred and seventy-such couples, has been getting out there. People talk about it. It’s impossible to ignore – it was six years of a ten year study.

The AIDS establishment has done itself great, almost mortal wounds, in terms of promoting the old idea of AIDS. So, now, they need to recapitulate it and reinvent it:

“Okay, we’ll still have AIDS, but now it will be the black and the gay AIDS.” And most people will say, “fine” because it will never affect them.

The best thing that could happen – and this is a sort of terrible thing to say – but the best thing that could ever happen in terms of transparency or good journalism or ethical practice or critical thinking for the AIDS establishment would be if the CDC or the World Health Organization came out and said, “Everybody has to get tested tomorrow!”

Because as soon as they did that, every Mothers’ rights group in La Jolla California, and Beverly Hills [ie. very wealthy areas] would say, “We need to know what’s in these tests!” The whole charade would grind to a halt. There would be essentially war crimes inquisitions for all the damage that’s been done using these make-believe tests.

And that’s why they can’t do it [universal mandatory testing]. But as long as it remains sequestered in the groups that people don’t get involved with – drug users, black women who are pregnant who may be using drugs, the poorest of the poor, the Africans who are the poorest of the Africans, and of course the gay population which, needs a bulwark against being attacked and criminalized by a certain segment of the world…

As long as the AIDS thing focuses on them, they’ll be able to recapitulate this, so they’ll keep selling it.

I mean, do you know how many bad Star Wars movies there have been at this point? And they’re still making them! I don’t know what to tell you. They should have killed the thing in the 1980s, it was done. But there are new people born everyday – and there will always be new people to by tickets to this show.

Fintan Dunne: You mentioned Nancy Padian’s study, where they followed discordant couples, where one of the couple was HIV positive, and the other wasn’t. And they looked to see what seroconversions there were: Did anybody get ‘AIDS’ or ‘HIV infection’ off of their partner. And they found big, fat zero.

Liam Scheff: But, they’re still not asking the entire question, which is “What are the tests made of? What are the tests actually reacting with?” And once you do that, the whole thing unravels like a ball of yarn.

Fintan Dunne: Despite the admission, the juggernaut continues. But that was an expensive admission, because for the pharmaceutical-industrial complex, the Chinese and Russian markets were vast markets, and now they’ve written themselves out of it. They’re painting themselves out of the heterosexual market in the western world, and confined themselves to a much smaller market. This is something that hits the future bottom line in a big way, this admission.

So, that was expensive, Liam, for big Pharma.

Liam Scheff: AIDS may winnow itself down into something in twenty years that doesn’t resemble what it was twenty years ago. And they may say it is a “treatable, multifactiorial immune malady, with a presumed causative agent, and the treatments are various.” They may continue to pull back.

I mean, nobody wants to come out and say – Robert Gallo doesn’t want to come out and say, “I’m a terrible dishonest manipulative researcher, who fakes his research; I’m a crusading egomaniac who made an error that the world was willing to seize upon!” I mean, he didn’t know that the world would seize upon this. That’s not his fault.

Fintan Dunne: It is a solitary warning for those who are undecided on this issue that if, indeed, this thing is undergoing a transition into become a new, small minority issue for the average westerner, and of course, a big issue for the black African, you want to be careful you don’t get caught in the maw of this thing, which even as we speak may be going down.

Liam Scheff: I don’t begrudge the pharmaceutical for existing. I wouldn’t even mind if the AIDS industry existed if they could move their fat arses over a little bit and allowed some competitive research. I mean, if they could say, “Look, we have our view, but we will allow that there could be another theoretical model, for the pathogenesis and treatment of these various immune maladies.”

If they could actually let the market work – I mean, really let it work, let competition thrive – first, they’d get rid of themselves in a decade, and that’s probably why they don’t want to…but [if they could tolerate open competition], I wouldn’t begrudge them for existing. I wouldn’t call any of them to court. I would let the market work.

But they don’t want to do that. And they don’t want to be brought up on what would potentially be crimes – war crimes – in line with what happened in Germany at times in the late 1930 and early 40s.

These are war crimes, these are atrocities, but they’re complicated, because there are all sorts of willing partners, as we talked about with the gay community and the quid pro quo. You can even find the black community engaging in the quid pro quo as the AIDS juggernaut, as you called it, comes into the churches, gives money, and encourages people to go testing.

In Atlanta which Georgia, which is predominantly black, there was actually an ad in one neighborhood, that if people would come in to get an ‘HIV test,’ they would get free gas that day, because gasoline is so expensive.

Franklin Primary Health Center Inc. will offer free HIV/AIDS testing on National HIV Testing Day, which is Friday. Testing will begin at 9:30 a.m. at the Medical Mall at 1303 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue.

The first 50 people who come in, take a quiz and get the HIV test will receive a gift certificates for free gas at Griffith Shell, 1262 Government St. Wal-Mart gift cards and other prizes will also be awarded.
[Link, Link2]

They’re bribing people with gas to take a test that will tell you that you’re “going to die, you have to take terrible drugs for the rest of your life, and can never have normal lovely sex again, without being terrified.” I mean can you imagine doing that in the whitest of the white neighborhoods? it would not fly. You’d be run out of town literally on a rail.

Fintan Dunne: You want to watch it because this thing is marketing itself, albeit a bit more selectively now. But if indeed we have managed through our actions, in other words, all those who have stood up and been counted on this issue, going back twenty years, scientists and activists, and journalists, then maybe what we’ve done is a death by a thousand cuts. And Liam, some of the cuts that you put into that system were some of the deepest ones – especially with that particular article that we started out discussing.

. . . . .

Edited Transcript from 2008 interview with Fintan Dunne of Break For News.

Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.


No comments yet.

Leave a comment