Some Takes From The "Uncontrolled Stream"I long ago dismissed the mainstream mass media as a credible source of information on anything that matters. The Washington D.C.-based Rock Creek Free Press at http://www.rockcreekfreepress.com/ states in its banner that it is "A Fiercely Independent Newspaper," more of which we could certainly do with. It was brought to my attention in connection with an article by journalist Sheila Casey entitled, "Everything You Know About AIDS is Wrong," in the December, 2008, issue, that presents just about the most succinct yet comprehensive summary I've yet come across of the case offered by those questioning the mainstream position on AIDS.
Full article at http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/61316408/everything-you-know-about-aids-is-wrong
Another point made repeatedly by dissidents is that despite the tens of thousands of published papers, nobody (to my knowledge) has ever been able to provide a simple, direct answer to the question, "Where is the study that proves HIV to be the cause of AIDS?" When further insistence became a cause of discomfort, defenders of the faith started pointing to a series of four articles published without prior peer review in the journal Science in 1984 by Robert Gallo. It turns out that Sheila Casey has another piece in the February issue of RCFP, reporting that 37 doctors, senior researchers, and attorneys have asked for these papers to be retracted on the grounds of "recent revelation of an astonishing number of previously unreported deletions and unjustified alterations . . ." See http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/72803368/top-scientists-ask-journal-science-to-retract
In the January, 2009, issue, RCFP's editor, Matt Sullivan, also has an article calling for a re-evaluation of the entire AIDS dogma, following research findings that attribute much of what's claimed as AIDS to misdiagnosed cases of syphilis. Both are similar in featuring immune suppression which lays the victim open to attack by opportunistic infections. Extract:
"John Scythes, one of the researchers on the paper, reports that he has not found a single case of an immune suppressed patient (regardless of HIV status) who has died of complications of syphilis since the discovery of AIDS in the early 80s. The implications of this are staggering. It is simply not possible that syphilis stopped being fatal just as the new disease of AIDS came on the scene."
Full article at http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/65407449/a-call-for-a-re-evaluation-of-the-aids-dogma
Those with a taste for satire and an interest in other slants on controversial news topics might also visit Sheila Casey's blog at http://www.sheilacasey.com/.
I'm sure that many of the issues raised in the above will draw the accusation of "conspiracy theory." I've never liked this term and don't think it should be used. There are simply "theories," that should be evaluated on the basis of facts, evidence, and reason, not as a reflex reaction to a label that people have been conditioned to condemn or ridicule as guilty by association. There is a quote that seems appropriate as a cautionary reminder:
"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic."
It's repeated widely and attributed to a one Dresden James. But as far as I can ascertain, nobody has been able to discover who Dresden James (name inverted possibly?) was. The most I've been able to find is in an article by John Pilger at http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=389, which cites simply "an American sage." If anyone can cast further illumination on Dresden's/James's identity, I'd appreciate hearing about it.
All viruses are harmless after antibody immunity. Disease is caused before the antibodies are created, because it is the antibodies that neutralize the pathogen and enable the host to recover. When people test positive for the antibodies, that means they have developed resistance, 'immunity' to the virus. No microbe causes disease only after antibodies have appeared, as HIV is claimed to do. Why develop a vaccine for people who already have the antibodies to the disease?
Viruses replicate quickly; there is no such thing as a slow virus. If a host cannot mount an immune defense quickly enough, the virus will overwhelm and kill the host in a matter of days or weeks. Yet we are told that HIV can cause up to 30 different diseases ten years after initial infection. None of these diseases are specific to AIDS; all existed prior to the "discovery" of AIDS.
AIDS occurs without HIV infection, and 95% of those with HIV infection never get AIDS. Despite all this, it is clear that people are sick and dying. If not HIV, what are they dying from? AIDS is a condition of suppressed immunity, and there are many things that can suppress immunity. One of the worst is the HIV drug AZT, which destroys the bone marrow and which Duesberg describes as "the most toxic drug ever licensed for long term consumption in the free world." Many people who test positive for HIV antibodies are told they must go on these dangerous drugs--even though they are completely healthy.
[V]irtually all HIV testing in Africa is done at pre-natal clinics. Although pregnancy causes high numbers of false positives, statisticians extrapolate from the tiny numbers at the clinics to the continent at large, giving the impression of a vast epidemic. In addition to pregnancy, there are 70 different conditions--including use of cosmetics and skin lighteners--that can cause false positives for the HIV antibody.