Does HIV really cause AIDS?

"HIV MIGHT BE [HARMLESS]" - Dr. Montagnier (co-discoverer of HIV)

At the San Francisco International AIDS Conference in 1990, Dr. Luc Montagnier (the French guy who discovered HIV) claimed "HIV Might be Benign" (harmless). He obviously made these statements against his own interests, owning half the rights to the patent on the HIV tests.

"There are over 100,000 studies on HIV/AIDS and there is not one that has direct proof that HIV causes AIDS." - Dr. Peter Duesberg Ph.D., National Academy of Sciences, many have called him the worlds best expert on retrovirology.

If HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS, we are letting millions of people die of a disease while looking in the wrong direction. We would be wasting billions of dollars and would have committed the worst scientific blunder of the 21st century.



Does HIV really cause AIDS?


AIDS has been called the plague of the century and betrayed as some sort of medieval nightmare. We've been told it can strike anyone and everyone is at risk, it has no boundaries. For over 15 years now, AIDS has terrorized social America and we have spent 40 billion dollars and mobilized the greatest scientific research effort in the history of man. In fact, the "War against AIDS" has spent more money and utilized more scientific talent than it took to land on the moon. All this, while focusing on fighting a microscopic enemy (the HIV virus) for over twenty years with no success. So why has AIDS research failed? Could it possibly be that "AIDS research has not failed because it never found a cure...AIDS research has failed because it never found the cause!" as many respected researchers have been claiming ever since the beginning (including the guy who invented HIV). Yup that's right - hundreds of researchers worldwide have claimed HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS. This claim has constantly been dismissed by the government, suppressed in the media, and censored and suppressed (note: not disputed) by the political-economic powers of the AIDS industry. If HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS, we are letting millions of people die of a disease while looking in the wrong direction. We would be wasting billions of dollars, tortured countless animals without justification, and would have committed the worst scientific blunder of the 21st century. To understand why HIV has become the target of the campaign against AIDS, it's important to look back in history.

Following the depression of the 1930's and WWII, America entered a new era of technology and prosperity, as well as society changing as people were having more time for recreation and self realization. We conquered polio, the last great infectious epidemic of the modern world. New antibiotics emerged, giving cures for everything from minor infections to venereal disease. With the emergence of birth control came the sexual revolution; freeing the public from age old fears and norms. Homosexuality found more freedom and acceptance as gays came out of the closet and formed their own subculture. During the Vietnam era of the sixties, recreational drug use skyrocketed among the young and would continue to grow. Yet we remained optimistic that we could solve all our problems through our new faith in science and technology.

Before long, the consequences of this new 'liberated' lifestyle began to rear its ugly head and headlines began to emerge about a 'gay disease' starting in 1981. It was first thought to be caused by behavior unique to homosexuals. But soon, similar conditions began appearing in IV drug users and hemophiliacs. Gay Related Immune Deficiency (GRID), as it was called, was thought to actually be an infectious disease that might spread throughout the entire population. This threat of a deadly infectious disease that could be spread by sexual contact was sensationalized by both the media, as well as enraged gay activists who demanded action by the government. Threats in the media that this disease could be acquired by anyone sexually were now beginning to frighten everyone, not just homosexual males. Suddenly, immune deficiencies found common in only IV drug users, homosexual males, hemophiliacs, blood transfusion patients, and advanced TB patients, became linked together in a microbiological search for a common cause. The collective condition was transformed to Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, or AIDS. As the fear of AIDS spread, and bath houses in San Francisco began to close, The Department of Health came under fire to find the cause and cure quickly. The public was willing to believe that science could find a quick fix. The funding began to roll in and the huge army of virus-hunters who had been unemployed by the unsuccessful cancer/virus program went back to work.

Scientists speculate (and I'm not disagreeing here) that AIDS patients lack the ability to fight infection due to a shortage of T-cells that co-ordinate immunity. In an AIDS patient, the level of T-cells (cells that help white blood cells produce antibodies to fight off infection) is below 200 per microliter of blood. In a healthy person, the level of T-Cells is about 600-1200 per microliter of blood plasma. Someone with AIDS has levels too low that when the patient gets an infectious disease such as the flu, pneumonia, or tuberculosis, their white blood cells cannot fight off the infection. Eventually the immune system gets ravaged by disease and will succumb to death. The official stance today is that the retrovirus HIV is what destroys T-cells and thus what leads to AIDS. But that will be debated as you read on.

But is HIV really what is killing T-cells? In the beginning, a lot of other causes where suspected, such as hard drugs that we know today to cause immunity suppression: heroin, cocaine, poppers, barbiturates, speed, PCP, LSD. Other causes: Malnutrition, repeated infection, overuse of antibiotics, and emotional distress. However these behavior-oriented characteristics where political incorrect to gay activists; who would never want to admit that AIDS could be self-inflicted. At the same time, researchers need money and promised results on being able to find a cure for an infectious disease, just like we did with polio and so many others. So, the decision was made politically, not scientifically, and the infectious epidemic model of AIDS was accepted (over the behavior-related model). Now all researchers had to do was promise to search for a vaccine or treatment and they could get funding.

Dr. Robert Gallo (National Cancer Institute) and Dr. M. Essex (Harvard AIDS Institute) were the first to suggest that "AIDS might be caused by a retrovirus" as early as 1982. Keep in mind that Gallo's prior work at the NCI failed to prove his theory that retroviruses caused cancer. He also failed to show they caused Alzheimer's Disease. Gallo believed to have found the retrovirus HTLV III to be the one that destroys T-cells. He approached the head of U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Margaret Heckler to set up a press conference. On April 23, 1984, Heckler claims "The probable cause of AIDs has been found [HTLV III]" At the same time the press conference was going on, the blood test used to detect HIV was being patented, which would earn Gallo large royalties. Thus the AIDS Industry was born. Heckler claimed that a vaccine ready for testing would be ready by 1986. Everyone was happy that the cause had been found, especially gay activists, who were pleased the government had responded and would do something for them. But before the announcement, Gallo had bypassed a major checkpoint in scientific discoveries: he had not submitted his test results for peer review! Now no one had a chance to critique or verify his claim, and his test results were not published in Science magazine until one week after the press conference. We are talking about a major violation of scientific protocol here. Shortly after, researchers began to attack Gallo. Moreso, an International Lawsuit from France charged Gallo with scientific misconduct, because the Institute Pasteur claimed that Gallo had stole the discovery of Dr. Luc Montagnier, who had sent LTV (HTLV III) samples to Dr. Gallo six months earlier. This issue was settled diplomatically between Ronald Reagan and French President Jacques Chirac. Due to the settlement, the name of the virus was changed to an internationally recognized "HIV" and the profits from the blood tests was agreed to be split between Montagnier and Gallo.

It is now believed by the public that in order to get AIDS, you MUST be infected with HIV. However in Gallo's own original test results (in Science magazine, Vol. 224, May 4 1984), only 44 of 93 AIDS patients tested actually had the HIV virus. But Gallo claimed to be able to reproduce tests where up to 90% of AIDS patients had HIV, as did some other researchers, and thus it was soon internationally accepted by most that HIV must have something to do with AIDS.
Now let's meet one of the most outspoken critics on the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Dr. Peter Duesberg Ph.D. was the first man to map the genes in viruses (like HIV) in the National Cancer Program at UC Berkley in the 1970's. His memberships include National Academy of Sciences due to his discovery of cancer-causing genes. Having researched retroviruses for over 30 years, many have called him the world's best expert on retrovirology. Dr. Duesberg was skeptical of Gallo's claim from day one. He says that Gallo's claim would have been the first time in the history of human or animal biology that a retrovirus could be the cause of a disease. For the next few years, Dr. Duesberg researched every single scientific publication on HIV and AIDS. When his conclusions came out On March 1st, 1987, in Cancer Research Magazine, he stood alone against the tide of public opinion and the government-funded AIDS Industry. He argues that HIV is not causing AIDS; and that HIV is a harmless passenger virus that has lived in humans for centuries without causing diseases. He believes that AIDS is caused by other non-infectious factors like drug use, and ironically enough, AZT, the AIDS drug. That might come to a shock to those of you who trust pharmaceutical companies: AIDS drugs causing AIDS itself?! Stick with me...

Many of Duesberg's colleagues studied his research and have come to the same conclusion. Among those are Nobel Prize winners like Dr. Walter Gilbert, Biochemistry Dept, Harvard (Nobel Prize, 1980) and Dr. Kary Mullis (invented Polymerase Chain Reaction, or P.C.R., Nobel Prize, 1993). And still, Duesberg's arguments in Cancer Research have still to this day never been responded to by Gallo or anyone else. A group of 12 of these scientists created The Group for Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis. The group wrote a statement questioning Gallo's bold conclusions and asking for more independent research on HIV and AIDS. They wrote letters to practically every medical journal asking that their four-sentence long statement be printed; each time it was rejected. This made them angry, and they sought out to expand the list. It soon became 100 signatures and by 1994 reached 600; of these 188 had advanced degrees. The group of scientists has operated a newsletter and website for years now. Thus, many in the scientific community (including experts on virus' like HIV) have questioned the HIV/AIDS hypothesis from day one.

At the San Francisco International AIDS Conference in 1990, Dr. Luc Montagnier (the French guy who discovered HIV) claimed "HIV Might be Benign" (harmless). He obviously made these statements against his own interests, owning half the rights to the patent on the HIV tests. But the conference attendees were too brainwashed and kept going on talking about new antiviral drug treatments.
Why is the scientific community (really, only those who write scientific journals and who dictate what is taught in schools) ignoring such credible scientists? "Too many people are making too much money off of it" claims Dr. Charles Thomas, Fmr. Harvard Professor and Founder of the Group for Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis. Dr. Thomas has learned that after two decades of his group being denied publicity, "...money is much stronger than truth." So...now you know why contesting the HIV/AIDS hypothesis has failed to overcome the scientific community. Now it's time you (the public) learn 10 Scientific Reasons HIV does NOT cause AIDS, and What the REAL causes of AIDS could be. It will also explain why conventional sex does not spread AIDS and why clean needles or condoms will do little or nothing to stop AIDS.

10 Scientific Reasons HIV does NOT cause AIDS

1. HIV (like all other viruses) is harmless after antibody immunity.
The HIV test does not test for presence or proliferation of HIV, or if it is attacking cells. The test shows if you have antibodies for the virus. If you have antibodies to chickenpox or the measles, it means you had it already. The virus is either eliminated or lays inactive in your body and will never make you sick again because your body has the antibodies to fight it if it begins to proliferate. Thus, when a person tests "HIV positive" this actually means they are now immune to the virus. This is why we give people vaccines, so that our bodies can produce antibodies against infectious diseases. No known viruses can proliferate faster than the body can produce antibodies to fight it off, and no known virus has been found to cause an illness ONLY AFTER the antibodies have done their job. Very rarely some infectious viruses can re-infect the host, but none of them do this ONLY AFTER antibodies are present.

2. HIV does not kill the T-cells it infects.
Because HIV infects T-cells, it was thought that HIV was killing them. But only under rare laboratory conditions do retroviruses kill their host cells. In fact, HIV researchers use T-cells to grow the virus because T-cells live compatibly with HIV.

3. HIV does not infect enough T-cells to cause AIDS.
Shortly after HIV is brought under control by the antibodies, the billions of virus particles become dormant and begin to disappear. HIV infects only 1 out of 1,000-100,000 T-cells. T-cells can reproduce at a rate of 5% per day. Therefore, even if HIV killed T-cells, it does not infect enough cells at a time to lower T-cell count and bring down the immune system. This is a notorious flaw in the HIV/AIDS hypothesis that supporters even claim has loose change. This is the reason it has been so hard to isolate the HIV virus (and thus create a vaccine for it); because it is so rare and hard to find.

4. HIV has no AIDS-causing Gene.
All retroviruses have only three major genes, GAG, ENV, and POL, and six minor genes. The amount of and sequences of genes in retroviruses is so limited, so they need all the genes to replicated. HIV is almost genetically identical to all other retroviruses. There are 50-100 different retroviruses that can be found in every healthy human body. HIV reacts no different than any of these in the way it mutates, becomes dormant, and re-activates. If none of these other retroviruses cause AIDS, why should HIV? If HIV DOES cause AIDS, why DON'T all the rest?

5. There is no such thing as a slow virus.
HIV is said to be a "slow virus" that takes 10-12 years after infection to cause AIDS. The only way to explain this would be to give HIV magical abilities to reactivate, mutate, migrate, and hibernate. Supporters of the slow virus myth base their hypothesis on studies of Epstein Barr, which they thought would include a cancer infection 10 years later, or herpes viruses, that reemerge in persons who have suppressed immunity and can't generate a sufficient defense. These both differ from HIV because large amounts of active virus can be found causing specific symptoms. In HIV, there are no symptoms until 10 years later. In total contrast, HIV is inactive but said to cause 30 different diseases 10 years later; none specific to HIV itself (some of those diseases, all of which are previously known include: strongyloldosis, aspergillosis, cryptococcosis, histoplasmosis, herpes simplex, Kaposi's sarcoma, toxoplasmosis, lymphoma, cytomegalovirus, leukoanceophalopathy, cryptosporidiosis, dementia). Viruses cause disease days, or weeks or at the very most, after infection - how long is a direct function of the "generation time" which is how long it takes the virus to infect the cell and generate new virus particles.

6. HIV is not a new virus, so it could not cause a "new" epidemic.
AIDS cases have increased exponentially ever since 1981. But HIV cases have stayed at roughly one million ever since the Center for Disease Control started testing in 1995. So for the last decade, we've had approximately the same number of people measured with HIV. Farr's Law of dating viruses states that an infectious virus will spread exponentially in a population (like a seasonal flu epidemic). If we've had the same number of HIV cases every year, HIV must be an old virus. HIV must have been infecting every generation for centuries, without causing AIDS. Duesberg claims HIV probably came into America with the first immigrants, and that anyone who has antibodies to it today, has gotten it parentally; from their mothers, not from dirty needles or unsafe sex.

7. HIV fails Koch's Postulates.
The universal test used by scientists to determine if a disease is being caused by an infection was developed over 100 years ago by Robert Koch, The Father of Bacteriology. Koch's Postulates states that 1) the organism/virus must be found in all cases of the disease, 2) you can isolate the organism and then 3) inject it into a new healthy host, and it causes the same disease in the new host, and 4) it must be found growing in the newly-diseased host. HIV fails part one because 10-20% of all AIDS patients have no HIV at all. When HIV is found, it is only in tiny amounts and is dormant. HIV fails part three because when health care workers accidentally are infected they rarely get AIDS (unless they use recreational drugs or AZT!).

8. AIDS has remained in its original risk groups for over 12 years; and different risk groups develop different diseases.
If a disease does not spread, it must be caused by something non-infectious. CDC studies show that AIDS is not spreading among the population at large and it is locked among its original risk groups; homosexual males (62%), IV drug users (32%), hemophiliacs (1%), and transfusion patients (2%) [CDC, Pharmac. Therm. Vol. 55, 1992]. Although HIV is evenly spread among men and women 50/50, AIDS cases are 90% male, 10% female [U.S. Army 1985-1996]. This could explain why drug use is more related to AIDS than HIV infection: In the U.S., males use over 80% of all hard psychoactive drugs. Among women with AIDS, approximately 60% use hard drugs also.

IV Drug Users who are HIV positive and die of AIDS develop Tuberculosis, Pneumonias, and Wasting Syndrome, whereas gay males (who do a lot of poppers) develop Kaposi's Sarcoma and Cytomegalovirus. The slow, wasting deaths of heroin addicts and other drug addicts have been documented in medical literature since 1898. What is interesting is that these same diseases are present in those risk groups WITH OR WITHOUT HIV. Drug users also loose the same T-cells as those who are HIV positive.

9. The International profile of AIDS patients is inconsistent.
A germ related disease would affect populations consistently. In the U.S., AIDS patients are 90% male 10% female. In Africa AIDS patients are 50% male 50% female. In the U.S., 97% of AIDS cases are among risk groups. In Africa, it affects people at random and there are no risk groups. Why does AIDS react differently in the Industrialized world? The best explanation for this is that HIV does not cause AIDS, and that in Africa, there is widespread malnutrition, parasitic infection, poor sanitation and other conditions causing immune deficiency. Those that test HIV positive and die of immune conditions are thus counted amongst official AIDS statistics. In the U.S. and Europe, where malnutrition is not a problem but where IV drugs are available and used mostly among males, we have 90% of immune deficiency among males, those of which who are HIV positive are counted amongst official AIDS statistics. One incentive for African countries to report deaths from diarrhea or poor sanitation as "AIDS" is to get money from the United Nations or World Health Organization.

10. AIDS occurs without HIV infection and most people with HIV never develop AIDS.
The evidence in support of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is based SOLELY on correlation. Correlation does NOT mean causation. In the beginning, the official statistics showed that there were 4,621 cases of those who have died of AIDS but were found to be HIV negative. Since then, the official definition of AIDS was created to eliminate every case of AIDS without HIV. So as Dr. Richard Strohman, Ph.D., Fmr. Professor of Cell Biology at UC Berkeley says, "If you ignore all the cases where there isn't a correlation; [of course] there is a correlation...it's a self-fulfilling prophecy...it's not scientific" So, when someone dies of one or more of 30 specific diseases and are HIV positive, they are said to have died of AIDS. But when someone dies of one or more of 30 specific previously known diseases, but are found HIV negative, they die of that specific disease, be it pneumonia or TB. Those patients are NOT counted among the AIDS statistics and the data is skewed to create a perfect correlation: everyone who dies of AIDS had HIV. The WHO estimated in 1996 that 28.1 million people worldwide were HIV infected, and there were only 1.4 million AIDS cases. Therefore, 95% of those with HIV do not have AIDS.

Furthermore, the list of diseases that AIDS encompasses has increased over the years, and has skewed the data to make it look like the number of AIDS cases is actually increasing. Whereas dying of one of 10 diseases and having HIV was considered an AIDS death, today one of 30 diseases and having HIV is sufficient to count in official statistics as an AIDS death. By increasing the number of AIDS cases to make it look like an epidemic, AIDS researchers, AIDS charities, the United Nations, WHO, and third-world countries all can demand or expect an increase in funding. But if you question the official hypothesis, you are threatening a lot of people with some serious money. You are also frightening religious conservatives who can use the fear of AIDS to promote abstinence. That's not to say that I really believe that either of them are "in on a conspiracy." I just think that this is a big gigantic scientific blunder, which many researchers and charities are too close-minded to open up for discussion because they know they benefit from the myth too much. If we continue to put all our eggs in one basket, and continue to fail to produce any meaningful research to help people with AIDS, and if we ignore what could be the true causes (drugs), we are allowing 100's of 1000's of people to die from preventable causes each year.

I'm not completely sure. But based on how it probably isn't HIV means we should shift the funding to finding out the true cause of AIDS. But here is what Duesberg and others hypothesize (but aren't boldly claiming without concrete proof, unlike Gallo did): Drugs are the cause of AIDS in 9 out of 10 cases. Since 1981, there has been an increase in the cocaine and heroin use in the U.S. [use, overdoses, and hospital visit data, CDC], and the correlation between these drugs and AIDS cases correlate pretty well. Whereas, the correlation between HIV and AIDS does not. HIV has remained affecting 1 million people every year, and AIDS has skyrocketed from zero to half a million over a decade. Unlike HIV, we have a pretty good idea of how drugs suppress the immune system. It should be no awakening revelation to us all that hard drugs, especially drugs that "speed" you up and make you able to stay awake for days, have an adverse effect on your immune system. It's like owning a car and once a week, driving it 160 mph for days straight without rest. Of course the car isn't going to last as long as if you were to drive it 60 mph! So far no long term studies on drug use and AIDS has been conducted even though hard drug users who loose the same T-cells as AIDS patients, and who develop the same diseases as AIDS patients. But what we have done is promoted hard drug use by passing out clean needles and telling addicts it's OK to do drugs as long as you don't get HIV.

Why are 60% of AIDS patients in the U.S. gay males? There are two possible reasons. First, let's look at drug use. It's amazing that 96% of all gay males have used one drug that was available legally, known by many as 'poppers' or nitrate inhalants. In addition, 90% use marijuana, 50-70% amphetamines, 40-60% LSD, 25% barbiturates, 10% heroin, 50-60% cocaine, etc, etc. , Poppers are knows to cause Kaposi's Sarcoma, a rare form of skin cancer that affects around the nose, lungs, throat, and skin. It is found very high in gay men not infected with HIV.

Next, let's look at the preferred method that many gays have sex: anal intercourse. Whereas the vaginal tissue lining is 3 layers thick, the anal tissue lining is only one layer thick. During sex, the anus tears and foreign viruses along with semen and bacteria have a direct route into the blood. Contamination with feces and bacteria has been blamed for 'gay bowel syndrome' where the rectum and colon become inflamed, accompanied by diarrhea and malnutrition. Foreign proteins found in sperm have been found to be immune-suppressant. It has been suggested that when they enter the blood, they can trigger an autoimmune reaction, where the bodies' immune system turns upon itself. Small cuts on the penis are routes by which infection can spread to the person on the giving end. The use of condoms can protect against these foreign proteins from entering the blood, but is still not enough to protect the recipient from rectal tearing, which still exposes them to chemicals used as lubricants. Is it possible that lots of anal sex that produces infections in the anus can possible cause AIDS? This is very possible; especially when done in connection with heavy drug use.
Many gay AIDS patients (the promiscuous and sexually active ones) have multiple infections of gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, herpes, cytomegalovirus, and other diseases. To combat these repeated infections, gays take huge amounts of antibiotics (which are drugs!), which also wear down the immune system. In retrospect, it is not all gay males who are at risk for AIDS, but just those who are living one type of gay lifestyle: the fast-track, heavy drug use, and sexually promiscuous one. These make up a very small percentage of gay males.

OK, what accounts for the other 1 out of 10 AIDS Cases besides recreational drug use? Why the AIDS correlation between blood transfusion patients and hemophiliacs? It is a medical fact that the more blood you receive during a medical procedure, the less your chance of survival. About half of all transfusion patients die within one year after receiving a transfusion. It's the same reason your body will reject the organ from a non-human animal, or why there may be a risk for foreign proteins found in sperm or feces getting into the blood system. In order for your immune system to be healthy, your body would like your own blood and it wants it to be clean. The risk of AIDS in transfusion patients directly corresponds with how much blood they received and the condition of their illness; but not whether or not the person's blood they received had HIV (antibodies) in it. Duesberg claims that specifically, it is foreign proteins found in clotting factor VIII that have a dose-response in suppressing immunity among hemophiliacs. A British study (the Darby Study) on HIV/AIDS and hemophiliacs seems to support the HIV/AIDS theory by showing an increase in deaths among hemophiliacs testing HIV positive, but the study failed to control for the foreign proteins and thus it is possible that it was these that were actually causing immunosuppression, not HIV. The most alarming observation about this study shows a huge spike in deaths among HIV positive hemophiliacs, around 1984, and more exaggerated in 1988. 1984 is when hemophiliacs started to be tested for HIV and told if they had HIV. Since emotional distress has been known to cause immunosuppression, can there be an effect from the fear, terrorization, and diagnosis of death one has when told they have HIV and will die of AIDS? Furthermore, the 1988 exponential spike can easily be explained by the introduction and increased access to the first major AIDS drug, AZT.

How AIDS Drugs Cause AIDS: AZT was a poisonous chemotherapy drug that was banned because it destroyed the immune systems of cancer patients too badly. In 1987, when the AIDS scare was at its height, the FDA was pressured to re-approve the drug, this time for those with HIV/AIDS. It is even prescribed for people who are healthy, and have no sign of AIDS (but are HIV positive). It does not cure AIDS, and is only supposed to slow the progression. It does this by destroying all cells randomly. AZT destroys the genes and cells, especially in the bone marrow where white blood cells are made. These are the very cells that AIDS patients need the most yet they are being destroyed by "AIDS drugs"! Yup - that's a good name for them; call them what they are: AIDS Drugs. AZT destroys bone marrow, kidneys, liver, intestines, muscle tissue, the brain, and central nerve system. Because HIV infects 1 out of 1,000 T-cells, 999 healthy t-cells must die to kill 1 HIV-infected cell. Even the drug literature itself admits that AZT causes this. AZT clinical trials were an abysmal failure and even FDA Toxicologist requested that AZT not be approved. However, AIDS activists won a "victory" by getting the FDA to approve AZT. AZT costs a patient an expensive $8,000-12,000 a year, mostly paid for by the tax-payer. The maker of AZT was Glaxo Wellcome, today GlaxoSmithKline, who have generated sales of over a billion dollars a year just from AZT! A bottle of AZT costs $5 to make but is sold at $500 and the markup is subsidized by the taxpayers. AZT tricks patients, because initially it creates a small increase in the amount of T-cells. Duesberg explains, "when you go on AZT, it starts destroying your bone marrow, and your immune system says overproduce as much as you can...and for a while people start producing more [T-cells] than they did before the treatment [AZT]. As Dr. Charles Thomas, Jr., Ph.D., explains, "All toxic substances, initially, administer a positive response for a little while, for example...making a person stronger and healthier, for example, low level doses of radiation...ethylene chloride [etc], produce a lengthening of a lifespan of rodents...higher doses of course will kill them." Duesberg says that within a year or two, those on AZT die from it. Worldwide, 200,000 people, many who are not sick and who have no AIDS symptoms, are being treated with AZT.

Studies show that physicians are less likely to question authority than other professionals. As long as the HIV/AIDS theory is the official stance of the American Medical Association and U.S. Department of Health, physicians will not question it. If HIV is harmless and AZT is what is causing patients to die, physicians will probably be the last to know. AIDS deaths from those on AZT are 25% higher than those not on the drugs. And at the International AIDS Conference in Berlin in 1993, it was admitted AZT was ineffective in preventing AIDS among HIV positives.

Tremendous pressure is put on women to get HIV-tested and to be treated with AZT if they are found to be HIV positive. This has been found to cause abortion, malformed heads, extra fingers and toes, and holes in vital organs like the heart. Even if we are to say that HIV could be dangerous, it still does not make sense to feed AZT to pregnant mothers and their babies. Within 12-18 months after birth, 40-90% of babies who test HIV positive at birth are later HIV negative, because they develop their own immune system. Mothers who refuse to take AZT or giving it to their baby can find their physician calling Child Protection Services and having them arrested and jailed. Worst of all, their babies can be taken away from them indefinitely and placed into foster homes and submitted to AZT. Adopted children are usually tested for HIV before entering the U.S., and many have been forcibly put on AZT and have since died as a result.

Other newer AIDS drugs, like ddI and ddC are similar to AZT; in the same class of "chain terminators." The newest types of treatment for AIDS are Protease Inhibitors, which are supposed to prevent the virus from detaching from the cell, so that it cannot reproduce and affect new cells. Pharmaceutical corporations that produce protease inhibitors, like Hoffman-LaRoche (Saquinavir), Abbot Labs (Ritonavir), and Merck (Indinavir), all announce their drugs at press conferences (and see skyrocketing share-prices starting that day) rather than publish their research for scientific review. Dr. Duesberg has researched extensively and says he found "no clinical benefits of these protease inhibitors whatsoever."

Well I hope that sort of helps everyone think about what other scientists are saying and If you feel compelled to question this a little deeper, theres more info on AIDS specifically can be found at The Group for Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis's website, www.rethinkaids.com or virusmyth.net or by google video-ing Aids Hoax. The information is out there, so research it more and learn the truth.