by Liam Scheff
Please find below my letter to the “Times Higher Education” article on the independent scientific journal “Medical Hypotheses.” The journal is being taken to task for allowing a complex and multi-factorial view of AIDS to be explored in its pages.
Please note that this letter constitutes my view, and not necessarily all authors at this site. Also note that you may add your own comment to the “T.H.E.” article by following the link above.
My letter, published in comments (though without formatting there):
I’d love to see any mainstream publication investigate any aspect of the most corrupt industry on earth, without being blanketed with that now all-purpose bit of hate-speech, “Denialist,” which used to belong only to people who denied the mass murder of European Jews, homosexuals, artists, Gypsies, and many other peoples, by the medical-military National Socialist German machine of the 1930s and 1940s.
How can it be so that no one, anywhere, is permitted to ask these basic, resounding questions:
- What is meant by the term “HIV positive?” Which single test, anywhere in the world, gives anything approaching a standardized meaning for the term?
- What is meant by the idea of sexual transmission, vis-a-vis the a priori designated “HIV positives?”
- Do we, the taxpayers, citizens, journalists, mothers, fathers, and children of the Western World, have any real assurance that the term “AIDS” and “HIV” have not become twisted blanket names for the endemic poverty that affects so much of the world, and so much of Africa?
- Is it just a blind co-incidence that the systematic foundation of the AIDS paradigm so neatly mirrors the immensely popular paradigm of the 20th Century, Eugenics, in marking people with a ‘communicable stigma’ for which they are forever presumed to be fatally affected, unless they submit their identities to a Western cleansing process – immensely toxic, life-long drugs – which are inevitably (and often in the short term) fatal?
And if that veers too much into philosophy for you, then just answer the following:
- How is it that people given this diagnosis, when given the opportunity to get better by taking vitamin A, and Selenium and other antioxidants, are able to do so – when free to pursue a variety of treatments are often able to survive, and in practical fact, be successfully treated and return to a normal life?
And if that’s too hopeful for you, please accept the following single question:
- Which of the cobbled-together Frankenstein molecules in the NIH’s “HIV databank” represent any one particular, singular particle, that resembles any single particle found in any human being, anywhere? That is, it’s well and good to claim that the most deadly sexually-transmitted disease vector is a singular particle, that while simultaneously failing to prove “itself” especially ‘transmissible’ by sex, also fails to present ‘itself’ as a singular “it,” in any human being?
Why is it, that this clearly multifactorial series of illnesses is so religiously clung to as a single-cause, no-cure, single-approved-highly-toxic-treatment, sex epidemic…
When every piece of literature, taken separately and together – especially together – cries out “MULTIFACTORIAL ILLNESS,” needing “MULTIFACTORIAL and HIGHLY VARIED TREATMENT,” from patient to patient, environment to environment, population to population?
It’s well and good to sight the slogans: “HAART has reduced mortality!” But the underside of that cheer is the fact that high-dose AZT, handed out to well patients, is responsible for something most likely surpassing 100,000 deaths in relatively young, gay men, who took the CDC’s advice, in the early 1990’s, before everyone changed their minds.
It’s well and good to criticize Peter Duesberg – he is demonstrably wrong about many things, including his ‘one harmless retrovirus’ theory. AIDS and HIV are more complex than that, to be sure – but Peter Duesberg did stand up to be counted when those high doses of AZT were being dispensed, and cautioned the reading public against swallowing that pill. And for that, he should forever be regarded as a hero.
And now, onto a better understanding of the science:
Following the “Perth Group’s” innovations in examining both Montagnier and Gallo’s work, we have AIDS and HIV as clearly separable phenomena, with much evidence of association, often by force – those given the HIV ‘diagnosis’ from immensely absurdly ridiculously non-specific tests, are then funneled into a treatment regimen that is clearly caustic – hence the FDA’s kindness in dispensing the Black Box labels.
You can follow those separable phenomena into today’s (and yesterday’s) lab work, and an astute observer will note that “HIV” is phenomena – not singularity. There is no one, reproducible item, there are hundreds of biological markers now subsumed into the brand name “HIV.”
What these fragments are in most cases is anybody’s guess, at this point – or, perhaps not. Perhaps they really are explicit biological demonstrations of a variety of biological, toxicological “oxidative” stresses, as is evidenced by Nobel winner Dr. Montagnier’s admission and admonition to patients that they not terrify themselves with the “HIV” label, and instead seek to treat their various biological stresses, and warm and care for their biology, so that their complex bodies can suppress or expel or otherwise defeat what ills them.
- If you search the annals for what causes HIV tests to come up positive, you’ll never run out of work.
- If you search for fatal effects caused by AIDS drugs, or effects so debilitating so as to constitute war crimes (see Nevirapine), you will never finish the task.
Given these two facts – and they are facts, just take up the challenge – why is it that a few immensely squeaky and vitriolic wheels, such as are Messrs. Kalichman and Moore, who devise new and interesting ways to hate-monger at every public appearance, are so hell-bent on suppressing discussion of the most corrupt industry on the planet?
Could the answer be that they work for it? That they are in its employ? Or, in its reactive belief system?
For the rest of us – and especially for those given this cruel and unusual diagnosis – I put forward the note that we are – or have often been described as – a free country. One based on Adam Smith’s idealization that men and women, free to work and innovate, according to their gifts, will produce a society in which innovative ideas, unhampered by guilds or medieval social structures, will rise to the fore, and always lead the way.
If medicine were run as a business – a true business – and not a church, or a cult, or a royaume – would it not be the most successful ideas that became top-selling products?
In that case, I expect the AIDS regulars to move their royal arses down on the research bench, and allow a little competition into the sacred realm of their sex-death obsession. Those who want the old drugs, surely can have them. Those who want to try something that doesn’t require their ‘faith,’ however, surely can have that.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is a free market. One will note that “peer-review” is the exact opposite of competition. To borrow a criticism, “peer-review conspires against one person – the innovator.” Medicine should free itself of this vestigial burden, and proceed to the world of business – the reproducible result with the most success, is that which is greeted by public adulation. Not the one put forward by the silly old men in priestly garb.