Breathless commentators predicted that the deadly disease would ravage our society. Even though it first erupted among the male homosexual and illicit needle-using communities, it was caused by a virus and could easily jump, we were warned, from bath house to Baptist picnic. Our bodies would have no resistance to this new virus, and it would strike us down as easily as smallpox--brought from Europe by the pilgrims--smote the natives in the New World. Initial estimates were that in the United States alone, a hundred million of us would succumb to the dreaded HIV.
Well, that never happened. Casualties pretty much stayed in the first groups of male same-sexers and needle junkies.
About this time, I read a book that completely altered how I looked at the medical profession, and drug companies. It was written by Dr.Peter Duesberg and called, "Inventing the Aids Virus." It's about five hundred pages and puts forth the theory that AIDS is not caused by a virus, but is the result of a person wearing down his immune system by frequent multiple sex partners, drug use, lack of rest, Hep C, unsanitary needles, and poor diet..
I wasn't really too concerned that I would catch the disease, before reading Dr. Duesberg's book, but afterward, I had zero concern. I would willingly allow myself to be injected with a syringe of HIV laden syrup, with no qualms at all.
I later read a book by Christine Maggiore. A much smaller book of only a hundred pages: "What if everything you thought you knew about AIDS WAS WRONG?" First printed in 1996, so it is more current than Duesberg's book and a faster read.
I won't go into all the details, but these two books are very convincing.
I'll just mention a few reasons why I never want to be tested for HIV:
The test has many false positives. It doesn't test for the live virus, but reacts to anti-bodies in the blood. Some of these anti-bodies that the test reacts to are not specific to HIV infection and could have been caused by some other infection. Since anti-bodies stay active for years in the body--sometimes for life--a person could show a positive reaction to an HIV test every time it is taken, and never been within ten miles of the "AIDS" virus.
HIV is a retro virus. Some viruses invade the cells of your body and destroy them. Flu viruses operate this way. Retro viruses do not destroy cells. Persons infected by HIV experience mild flu symptoms and then recover. The body produces anti-bodies to fight this invader. The anti-bodies are evidence that your body has won and destroyed the invader.
So ask yourself: How does a virus that does not destroy other cells, invade a healthy individual and jihad his immune system so thoroughly that pneumonia or tuberculosis, or any of the other listed 29 AIDS not-new-been-around-forever illnesses, move in like a squatter and completely trash the house?
Part of the HIV theory posits that it can have a very long latency period. This super-bug can invade your body the first time and be destroyed by the anti-bodies cranked out by your immune system, and then reappear up to thirty years later and completely disable the same immune system and leave you vulnerable to some other deadly opportunistic disease... and while you are flat on your back in the hospital bed wasting away, your blood can be sifted, filtered and scoped and the live HIV may not be found there. How is that possible? How can a virus not even present in your body, and one that doesn't destroy cells, be killing you?
Those are three reasons I don't think being tested for HIV will help you and just unnecessarily complicate your life. In short, the test itself is not reliable, and HIV is not the death sentence we've all been told it is.
So if HIV is not harmful to the immune system what is killing people?
Read the two books I mentioned above. According to Duesberg, the initial cases among male homosexuals and IV drug abusers were because they ran their immune systems down through riotous behavior and infections and unhealthy living..
It is similar to a healthy person staying up late, not eating right, being stressed and then coming down with a cold or the flu. This has happened to everybody. This is a momentary chink in your armor that you recover from in a few days
But what if you partied every night after work, did drugs, had multiple sex partners? All these activities are immuno-suppressive and if kept up for years, your immune cells might just give up the fort, wave the white flag., surrender.
But not everybody who has died of AIDS were partying like that. How do you explain the others?
Iatrogenic disease. That's a fancy word that means "medically caused." If you were tested for HIV after 1984--and everyone was encouraged to get tested--and you tested positive, it was assumed you would die. HIV meant death, back then. Since you were going to die anyway, the doctors felt it was acceptable to experiment with some rather toxic drugs. AZT was one of them. This drug was originally developed for chemo therapy for cancer but was discontinued because it was too poisonous. Overnight it was taken out of the mothballs and promoted for fighting AIDS.
Duesberg theorizes that the drugs doctors are prescribing are actually doing the killing, not HIV. For example, AZT at a certain dosage, shuts down all red blood cell production in the bone marrow. The patient becomes anemic and eventually dies. You could, according to Duesberg, take a perfectly healthy non-HIV infected young vital athlete, regularly dose him with AZT and kill him in two years.
The irony is that AIDS would get the blame and the drug would be credited with keeping the victim alive for two years.
I am not a physician. I am a lowly electrician. I am merely quoting, from memory, from two books and some other articles I've read that make sense to me.
But consider this: How many people have been tested for HIV? Is it possible that there are people out there who have the anti-bodies for HIV in their blood for 30 years who have never been tested, who are still alive and not sick?
The Centers for Disease Control says more than half of all adults 18 to 64 have not been tested. That's me. I'm in that group and I've never tested. Maybe I've got the anti-bodies in me. Maybe I've had them in me for 30 years and the dreaded germ, like a boomerang is circling back to clobber me.
I don't feel sick, though.
What if you were feeling O.K. and then tested positive for HIV and a doctor started giving you some AZT-like drug and then you started feeling sick, and weak and wasted. Back in 1984 there would have been this urgency to get you on the regimen before AIDS got you. If you started feeling ill, you would have just assumed it was the AIDS kicking in. Maybe the doctor would have upped the dosage. You would have felt worse, and got weaker. That damnable AIDS. Better up the dosage.
But today... 30 years on, wouldn't it be wise to maybe question the medicine? If you are O.K. before, and get worse after taking them, maybe it's the drugs. Blood letting was that way. The drainers would take a little blood and if you didn't get better take a little more, and so on. George Washington died this way.
We've got better science then those days, but we are just as susceptible to getting stuck in a rut going the wrong-way, especially when political pressure and money is involved.
All the governments of the world, and the CDC, and some really smart doctors and the multi-billion AIDS industry all say it is a virus. Who am I to argue with such majestic snow-covered peaks?
But often all those billions of snowflakes, shaking hands and patting themselves on the back and giving out grants and conferencing... are built up twenty feet deep on a slick of ice. Consensus is good, I guess, as long as it is true and there are no loud noises.
Ask Ignaz Semmelweiss about consensus. It drove him crazy.
Ask the Japanese Ministry of Health and Reisaku Kono. They spent fifteen years and millions hunting down the SMON virus they were sure was killing off middle-aged citizens, only to find out it was Clioquinal, a diarrhea drug, that wasn't supposed to be so toxic, and so easily absorbed by the intestines.
Read the two books, or look them up online. I know there are critics of Duesberg and Maggiore. Read them also. Make up your own mind.
For now I think putting a lightning rod on my house would do more to protect my health than getting tested for HIV.
No comments:
Post a Comment