VIRUSMYTH HOMEPAGE

AIDS & HIV
Currently unrecognized aspects on causation with implications for treatment and prognosis

By Jens Jerndal

July 2001

The true history of AIDS in a nutshell

In June 1981 a researcher in Los Angeles, Dr. Michael Gottlieb, published a report on the first five documented AIDS cases (though still unnamed). The US Communicable Disease Center (CDC) took immediate notice and launched a theory, which has since been relentlessly reinforced by all means and has led to the present official dogma about AIDS and the HIV.

Our officially sanctioned medical science, being what it is, i.e. mechanistic, reductionist and narrowly specialized, immediately argued in terms of a single cause, preferably an invader such as a bacterium or a virus. The Communicable Disease Center (CDC), being what it is, namely specialized in infectious disease, immediately saw an epidemic – from five cases! At that time official medicine still knew very little about the human immune system and how it functions. To blame drugs or chemicals was the last thing it was interested in, and that has not changed.

In 1982 the French scientist Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute thought he had discovered a new retrovirus and sent a lab sample to the prominent career virologist Robert Gallo in the USA for an opinion. Gallo took advantage of Montagnier's trust, and ventured to claim the discovery as his own. For this he was later found guilty of "scientific misconduct".

Once media with the encouragement of the CDC blew up this "gay disease" as a potential threat to the population at large, there was naturally great pressure to find the cause and a remedy. By 1983 media had whipped up a public awareness that soon began to show signs of a budding panic. A solution was becoming pressing.

Then in April 1984, with the official backing of the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Margaret Heckler (a lawyer, not a doctor), Gallo held a press conference, declaring that the new retrovirus, which he claimed to have discovered in some of a small number of AIDS patients he tested, was the "probable" cause of AIDS. The new retrovirus was peremptorily named "the Human Immunodeficiency Virus" (HIV). The word "probable" was immediately dropped, never to be admitted again. Margaret Heckler proclaimed, "Today we add another miracle to the long honor roll of American medicine and science".

The cause of AIDS had been established by government decree and a media coup. Would it be pure coincidence that 1984 was election year, and that Ronald Reagan wanted to be re-elected?

Directly after the press conference, Gallo patented his test for HIV antibodies, which has since made him a millionaire. As will be explained in the following, this test is not only inadequate and essentially meaningless, but it turns into an insidious death trap for those who test positive.

Now that a cause had been assigned, a remedy had to be found. And one appeared on the scene with lightning speed under the names of Ziduvine and Retrovir, but better known as AZT. What few people know is that AZT was originally developed in the US in the early l960ies as chemotherapy treatment for cancer. It was, however, found unsuited for human consumption due to its extreme toxicity, and was therefore not even patented but shelved and forgotten. A few years later it was patented by the US National Institute of Health (NIH), but still not authorized for use.

AZT was now quickly sold to the pharmaceutical giant Burroughs-Wellcome by the US medical authorities who owned the patent, and rushed through the US drug testing protocols at record speed, dispensing with normally required safety procedures, to emerge as the only authorized treatment for AIDS. The one and only drug trial on which this authorization was based, was later shown to have been manipulated and fraudulent in order to produce a positive result.

AZT is not an "anti-viral medicine", as is deceitfully claimed, but a DNA chain terminator or cell poison. In other words, it is an extremely toxic form of chemotherapy which, if taken in large enough doses, and long enough, will inevitably cause death by itself. The long list of its serious and life-threatening side effects reads just like the list of symptoms ascribed to full-blown AIDS. Anyone can check this by reading the information the manufacturer has to provide by law.

It is thought-provoking to observe how this old cancer drug, that for 20 years had been banned because of its extreme toxicity, was now promptly released as the only authorized remedy for AIDS patients belonging to the socially undesirable "risk groups" male homosexuals, intravenous drug addicts, Haitian immigrants, prostitutes and hemophiliacs.

It is also a chilling thought that the latest and by far the largest "risk group" targeted for marketing AZT and its more recent companion drugs, is the population of black Africa, and especially its pregnant mothers and newborn children. No wonder South Africa´s President is reacting; the first political leader with enough vision, common sense and courage to do so.

AZT has carried one of the highest pricetags of any drug on the market, while at the same time it must have been one of the cheapest to put into circulation, thanks to its long and unglamorous history. Talk about profiteering. Every AIDS patient who has taken AZT as prescribed, has died after a year or more of agony and suffering. AZT has been one of Wellcome's greatest profit makers, selling for billions of dollars, and making their shares soar on the Stock Exchange.

By 1986, two years after Gallo´s press conference, alternative views on AIDS had begun to appear in print, exposing a constructive holistic approach, but these were effectively suppressed, and never even mentioned in conventional medical publications, nor in mainstream media.

In 1987 Dr. Peter Duesberg, who was Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California at Berkeley, a distinguished member of the American Academy of Science and probably the world's foremost expert on retro-viruses, stepped forward and became the most authoritative advocate in the USA for an alternative view. He, and eventually hundreds of top scientists and experienced health practitioners all over the world, among them several Nobel Laureates, began to question most of the postulates of the officially proclaimed AIDS doctrine. But their well-established views have consistently been denied publication in professional journals and are hardly ever reported by mainstream media. More importantly, they have been ignored or actively suppressed by practically all publicly sponsored medical institutions which have close links with the pharmaceutical industry.

Professor Duesberg claims that HIV cannot possibly cause AIDS, that AIDS is not contagious at all, and that drugs of all kinds are the main factor for the failure of the immune system, which we now call AIDS. Many top scientists have since come to agree with him. Even Montagnier, the original discoverer of the HIV, has declared that in his opinion the HIV cannot alone cause AIDS. Duesberg further claims that by prescribing AZT to treat HIV, doctors in fact produce AIDS in their patients. He provocatively calls this "administering AIDS by prescription".

Professor Duesberg was promptly given the full political treatment of heavy-handed suppression of his views. Scientific journals that had published all he had submitted previously now refused to publish his papers. He was banned from speaking at conferences and from participating in TV programs. He was submitted to strong pressure with threats and bribes from US health authorities to return to the fold and officially back the virus dogma. The final blow, when he resisted, was the withdrawal of his research grants and the downgrading of his status at the university.

Does this sound like the freedom of expression inscribed in the US constitution? Does this sound like freedom of science? – Doesn´t it rather sound like censorship and dictatorial powers over the minds of those who think differently, inluding some of the most eminent scientists of the day? Wouldn´t you call this a monopoly on opinion and thought? A monopoly on "truth" established by political decree? And what could it possibly have to do with science?

In spite of fighting against such very heavy odds, Duesberg has been given increasing support from hundreds of prominent independent scientists and health professionals from all over the world who are free from vested profit or career interests and brave enough to challenge the establishment.

Please note that those who question the official HIV-AIDS hypothesis have nothing to gain by doing so. On the contrary, they are risking their careers and their livelihoods, and it is costing them money. In stark contrast, to most of those who fanatically and without sufficient proof try to impose the official AIDS dogma, it means big money, political power and prestige.

Last year, when President Mbeki of South Africa decided to invite some of the most prominent "dissenting" scientists to a discussion panel in order to hear different scientific opinions on the causation and possible remedies for the syndrome, the AIDS industry felt so threatened, that it published full page advertisements in the US newspapers to counter "a few colleagues who claim that the cause of AIDS is in doubt". It failed to mention that the mentioned "few colleagues" are now numbered in the thousands and include some of the most distinguished experts in the field, among them several Nobel laureates and professors at highly prestigious universities. If this can slip by as misrepresentation of facts, then the continued statement, "There is no such scientific controversy" is nothing less than a blatant lie. The advertisement is full of unsubstantiated and deceptive assertions. Who paid for these advertisements? – The answer is "amfAR", a "benefic" AIDS organization generously funded by the manufacturer of AZT!

Incredible as it will sound to most, it is a fact that there is still no proof whatsoever of HIV causing AIDS, in spite of the ever-present dogmatic pounding for 17 years by the press of the phrases "HIV, the virus that causes AIDS" and "AIDS, the disease caused by the HIV". And none of the expensive toxic drugs prescribed for AIDS has so far cured a single patient.

Some may argue – believing in the well-rehearsed chorus of the newspapers, for which they are being handsomely paid in advertizing money – that the new drugs, HAART and others, have produced miracles, prolonging life and improving life quality for the patients. Well, I beg to differ: Anyone who has attentively and objectively followed the development of AIDS and its treatment, knows that the "side effects" of the drugs have been devastating, that those who have chosen not to take the prescribed drugs have survived much longer, and with very much better quality of life.

There are two important facts that have made it possible to get away with this grave deception:

One is that AZT was prescribed in massive doses during the first years, and for this reason most patients who took the drugs as prescribed died in less than 2 years. Then doses were gradually and very substantially reduced, and this alone accounts for longer survival. With no drugs at all, I have no doubt whatsoever that survival figures would have been far better still.

The other fact is that the basis for published statistics has changed over the years. The longer survival shown in later years is in part only an illusion due to the inequality of the data included. One explanation is that with the proliferation of Gallo´s profitable test, the number of healthy people diagnosed as HIV-positive has grown, and the longer they live, the better the survival statistics. Survival of people with full-blown AIDS being treated with cell-poison is another matter, and if they now live longer it is because they are getting smaller doses of the drugs than before, or less toxic drugs.

An additional factor that may also positively influence survival time, is greater patient awareness and independence, with increased use of alternative forms of treatment.

AIDS is different from all other diseases

AIDS is different from all other diseases, infectious or not, for the simple reason that it is not even a disease at all. It is a condition of the human organism which allows disease to take hold because the defence system is no longer active or efficient enough. People do not die directly of AIDS. They die of one of a long list of illnesses that all existed independently before AIDS, and that are usually easily overcome by people with an efficient immune system. The general condition we now call AIDS has also existed always, though it was rare. In a past era it might have been called phthisis.

The official AIDS diagnosis (distinct from just being HIV-positive) is a construct that has been changed several times since the documentation of the first AIDS cases. It requires 1) a positive HIV-test; 2) the presence of one of the growing list of different illnesses that have been listed as companions to, or a result of, AIDS; 3) a low T-cell count.

This is a circular definition, which admits only AIDS-cases where certain anti-bodies can be detected. All other AIDS-cases, with the same symptoms and prognosis, are not called AIDS. Through this cunning but unscientific dodge, it is claimed that in all AIDS-cases HIV is present. Then this artificially conceived 100 percent correlation is adduced as "proof" that HIV causes AIDS, and that AIDS is caused by HIV.

But even if there had been a true 100% coincidence or association between AIDS and HIV antibodies, this could never be accepted as scientific proof of causation. If that were proof of causation, then there is even more valid proof that it is the cock that causes the Sun to rise every morning. 100 percent correlation and always the same time sequence. Consequently full scientific proof that it is the cock that brings the sun over the horizon every morning! And the sunrise is at least not subject to a selective definition which considers it to have risen only if the cock has actually crowed, which is the construction made with regards to AIDS.

Even so, the correlation is only one-sided, since many people who have been diagnosed as HIV-positive never develop AIDS. If we think this sounds like a major inconvenience for the promoters of the HIV-causes-AIDS hypothesis, we underestimate their resourcefulness.

There are two complementary strategies to dodge that little problem. First indoctrinate people to believe that anyone who is "HIV+" must necessarily develop "fullblown AIDS", and that taking the expensive "anti-viral" drugs early will "delay the onset of AIDS", thus buying a few extra years, although there is no actual cure for AIDS to date, so eventual death is inevitable. Outrageously, the drugs are also claimed to "improve the quality of life" for the patient.

Once patients have been scared and bullied or seduced into accepting this drug regime, they are doomed. They will promptly begin to develop "AIDS symptoms" from the drugs, and within a few years (how many depends on the dosis administered, the general state of their immune system, and if they receive complementary supportive therapies) the drugs will kill them, and they will become tragic victims of the terrible AIDS "epidemic", recently promoted to "pandemic". See there the proof that HIV causes AIDS, and that AIDS is incurable, in spite of the doctors´ and the pharmaceuticals´ heroic scientific fight against it.

The second strategy is useful when an HIV-positive person refuses to take the drugs. It is then declared - without proof of any kind - that the virus has an indeterminate period of incubation or latency, but that sooner or later AIDS will manifest. The assumed incubation time has been conveniently stretched from about 3 years when the hypothesis was new, to now 20 years (or indefinitely) as the years have gone by with drug-free HIV-positive people remaining healthy.

The fact is that no proof whatsoever exists, for either the assertion that testing positive to HIV must lead to AIDS or the assertion that AZT – or any other drug - will delay the onset of AIDS. In fact, the very opposite is true, since AZT inevitably produces AIDS in those who take it long enough, and so the 100% correlation - and thus the "proof" that HIV causes AIDS - is vindicated, if the HIV-positive person takes AZT or a similarly toxic drug. Just think of the juicy profits from this strategem to the inventor of the patented test method, and the manufacturer of the drug! And the correspondingly fat "kick-backs" to those in medical authority who have imposed this tale of horror on a trusting public and awarded a treatment monopoly to handpicked drug manufacturers, outlawing all other forms of treatments.

Incidentally, to add insult to injury, the test methods used to check for antibodies against the illusive HIV are unspecific and most unreliable. More than 60 – some now say 70 - common medical conditions unrelated to AIDS and HIV have been identified that can produce a false positive test result, among them pregnancy. Should this not be more than enough to shake the very foundations of the reigning AIDS dogma?

It is important to recognize that there is a large number of AIDS cases (i.e. patients with a fatally inactive or malfunctioning immune system) where no "HIV antibodies" are, or ever were, present. On the other hand, there is a vast number of people diagnosed as "HIV-positive" with a sufficiently effective immune system to be in normal health, many of them ever since the HIV-test was invented in 1984, provided - and this is crucial - that they are not taking AZT or any similar drugs, nor are exposed to toxic chemicals, and are sufficiently well nourished, generally look after themselves and psychologically refuse to accept their death sentences.

Interestingly, antibodies to a virus has up till now always signified immunity to that particular virus, and consequently that one has nothing to worry about. To produce antibodies for protection against infection is the purpose of vaccinations. A vaccine against HIV would thus be expected to produce the dreaded antibodies in those vaccinated and make them test "HIV+". What, then, we may ask, is the difference between vaccine-induced antibodies and naturally acquired antibodies?

It should be noted, that one of the many unverified claims made by the AIDS industry is that the HIV has been isolated. So far, nobody has been able to isolate a single identifiable HIV from an AIDS patient. Not what we thought they told us, is it? Furthermore, the frequent reference to "viral load" is another smoke screen of no value, that proves nothing about the actual existence in the body of a particular virus misnamed HIV, nor does it give any valid indication of clincial outcome. The whole set-up is based on a few indirect and unspecific indices propped up by fantastic speculation and imaginative conjecture, much of which goes against the very grain of solidly established medical science.

The hidden benzene connection

At the beginning of the AIDS "epidemic", one of the high risk groups identified, was Haitian immigrants. What these could have in common with the prime high risk group, identified as young homosexual men in California and New York, was always a mystery.

Several years of research by C.S. Byrnes and Jeremy F. Selvey of the People's International Health Project (PIHP) and Project AIDS International in Los Angeles, California, into what they call "the benzene link", has finally shed light on the Haitian mystery. This research has also gone a long way towards establishing a link to several other mysterious illnesses affecting the immune system, as well as the nervous system. All of them were at first thought to be infectious diseases, usually attributed to a new virus, just like AIDS.

Byrnes discovered that the US immigration authorities treated all Haitian immigrants against parasites with clioquinol, a benzene product. Incidentally the same drug has been heavily marketed in Africa. Recent research by the physiologist and bio-physicist Dr. Hulda Regehr Clark has furthermore established that precisely the combination of benzene and certain common intestinal parasites will cause AIDS, as well as various forms of cancer. See the implications for Africa?

Kaposi's sarcoma was one of the most typical symptoms of early AIDS cases among the gay population of the US. However, it has never appeared among heterosexuals. So what is the virus like, that distinguishes between homosexuals and heterosexuals?

Byrnes and Selvey discovered that a new anal lubricant produced specially for the gay community was introduced in 1978, barely two years before the first AIDS cases were reported. It turns out that this lubricant contains benzene derivates, the absorption of which was probably enhanced by "Poppers" (amyl nitrite), a drug US homosexuals began using in the l970ies in order to increase sexual pleasure. Pharmaceuticals taken via the rectum are often more effectively absorbed than those taken orally; hence the use of suppositories in medicine.

From inside the homosexual communities, it was observed that it was mostly the partner who let himself be penetrated anally (i.e. the "passive" partner), who fell ill, while the "active" partner often remained healthy. Also, "passive" homosexuals were harder hit, the more sexually active they were.

Finally, PIHP has shown that for several years homosexuals got Kaposi's sarcoma only in the USA. Every AIDS patient outside of the US who developed Kaposi's sarcoma was found to have lived for a time in the US. Then, as the new lubricant was made available by mail-order in European countries, Kaposi's sarcoma started appearing there as well, but again only among homosexuals.

Professor Duesberg has also pointed out the link between benzene derivates and the so called SMON (Subacute Myelo-Optic Neuropathy) "epidemic" in Japan, for a long time thought to be a virus infection but eventually proved to be caused by Enterovioform, a drug for intestinal infections manufactured by Ciba-Geigy. A Japanese researcher's claims to have isolated a SMON virus turned out to be false. This "epidemic" went on for some 15 years and many thousands of people became paralysed, demented, or died, from their medical prescription, before the truth was discovered and the drug was finally outlawed in most countries. I am wondering if it is still available in Africa.

Another benzene-derived "epidemic" was the Pellagra "plague" known since the 18th century. In 1937 it was finally deemed to be caused by vitamin deficiency and not bacteria as previously believed, but it persisted in the US till the l970ies. It hit people on a basic corn diet, supposedly because corn lacks the vitamin Niacin, necessary for vital functions of the skin, nervous system and brain. A link has now been established between pellagra and a bleaching agent containing hexachloral benzene used to bleach corn flour in many parts of the US right into the l970ies.

In 1981 yet another "epidemic" broke out in Spain, the victims of which showed very similar symptoms to those of AIDS. For a long time it was assumed that it was an infectious disease caused by a virus, since it hit people in clusters within the same family or social group. It took years of serious detective work to establish that the cause was a contaminated cooking oil, sold by street peddlers and not by regular shops. The oil had been diluted to lower the price and widen the profit margin, and it contained benzene derivates. Many died, others fell seriously ill in AIDS-like symptoms, including fever, night sweats, muscle wasting, cough, cramps, pneumonia, hepatitis, cerebral oedemas, neuropathy and multiple secondary infections.

Most insecticides and pesticides, including anti-parasitic drugs, have a destructive effect on the human immune system, and many such agents that were outlawed long ago in Europe and the USA, are still promoted, sold, and indiscriminately used in Africa.

To treat a state of chemical poisoning with more poison makes no sense. Treating immune deficiency - whatever its cause - with AZT or other forms of toxic chemotherapy that kills off the remaining cells of an already damaged immune system, makes even less sense. And yet, this is the "treatment" imposed on innocent trusting patients by our medical authorities.

In England the manufacturer of AZT, then Burroughs Wellcome, was sued by the widow of a hemophiliac, who died after 18 months on their drug. The point is that he was diagnosed in 1985, but he was healthy without symptoms of any kind till he started taking AZT in August 1989. The reason for taking the drug was his doctor´s insistence that being HIV-positive, he would inevitably develop AIDS, but that the drug would "delay the onset of AIDS".

A week after he began taking AZT he became very sick, and 18 months later he died of AIDS. The history of AIDS is replete with similar cases where no legal action has been taken.

While we are on the subject of hemophiliacs, we find a little known anomaly: Very very few of the wives of HIV-positive hemophiliacs have become HIV-positive. Now, if it is an infectious disease transmitted by sexual intercourse, how come the wives of the sick men are not infected? And there is more: From the pornographic film industry it is reported that many male so called porn stars have died of AIDS, but their female partners seem to have escaped unscathed, although many of them have been performing frequent unprotected sex with these same men for years. On camera. This is another strong indication that neither HIV, nor AIDS is spread by sexual intercourse.

The "voodoo effect" and the mind-body connection in AIDS

When discussing the various factors that contribute to the development of AIDS, we must not underestimate the role of low self-esteem, emotional rejection, guilt, fear, failure and loneliness, all of which cause mental-emotional depression, which in turn is one of the most powerful factors to negatively affect the human immune system.

It is easy to see how the mere pronunciation of the HIV-AIDS diagnosis, inescapably leading to an agonizing death while putting near and dear at risk too, can have a devastating effect on the immune system, and may then become a self-fulfilling prophesy and a death sentence in itself.

Depression and drugs may or may not be related. A depressed state of mind and low self-esteem is often the reason for resorting to drugs in the first place. On the other hand, falling into the habit of drug abuse in pursuit of pleasure, or from curiosity, can lead to such depletion of available energy, typically through overload of the adrenal glands, that a depressive state and a malfunctioning immune system follows as the physiological result. The two can also be independent but coincident. For instance, someone having taken drugs for some time, thereby straining the immune system, may be apparently doing allright until s/he experiences the break-up of an emotional relationship, whether by death or for other reasons, and sinks into a deep depression. Shortly afterwards s/he is diagnosed with AIDS, and from then on a vicious circle begins with no hope of survival. Or, the depression may be caused by the diagnosis, resulting in the same vicious circle and death.

From the emerging picture of the typical AIDS patient's situation, we now discern another possible co-factor, that we may call subconscious programming. It is actually not uncommon for people to unconsciously program themselves to die. They may at some point feel that the situation in which they find themselves is unacceptable, and so they unconsciously commit a form of subtle suicide. Their immune system stops functioning, and they die of some form of cancer, or from what in AIDS is called an opportunistic infection. I have seen many examples of this.

An HIV-AIDS diagnosis may in fact be compared to certain black magic practices, such as Voodoo, when a spell is cast on somebody who firmly believes in it. Accepting the validity of the spell, the victim subconsciously programs him/her/self to die, and death occurs as ordained. It is a kind of fatal nocebo, or negative placebo, working through the subconscious mind.

In the case of AIDS, public hysteria works in two ways. For one thing it accentuates the social alienation already experienced by homosexuals, prostitutes and drug addicts. Once AIDS is diagnosed and becomes known, the victim is likely to lose his job even if he is well enough to work, and also to be aggressively cut off from normal social contacts. He would often be looked upon as an evil and dangerous bringer of Death, which further accentuates his feeling of alienation and hopelessness, and sinks him ever deeper into a depression. At the same time he is subjected to the general consensus that AIDS is incurable and that there is no hope. Officially nobody has ever been cured of AIDS; it is just a waiting game. Sooner or later - the maximum time suggested in the early days was about 5 years - death will come. This is the message the patient receives consciously and unconsciously, day and night, from doctors and nurses, from family and friends, from public media. The poisonous chemotherapy administered by conventional medicine adds heavily to the load.

Even his close ones, who see no hope, may begin to signal subliminally that they too suffer, and that since he has to die anyway, he might as well get on with it. Soon he will be so weak and depressed that he just gives up, programs himself to die and accepts death as a redeemer.

How can we expect anyone to recover from AIDS under such circumstances? It takes superhuman psychological strength and immutable independence of mind to fight such odds and recover. Yet without "anti-viral" chemotherapy some have done it, though media won't tell us about it. Officially they are quietly awaiting their time, even after 20 years.

The devilishly cruel scenario Gallo and the US medical authorities have set in motion goes like this: The whole population must be scared into taking the test, and all who test positive are hard-sold the AZT or similar toxic treatment, leading to certain death.

As for the tests, it has been shown that a person may test negative or positive, depending on standards that differ from country to country, and from laboratory to laboratory. Even at the same laboratory, consecutive tests can come out differently for the same person. There is no so called "gold standard", and the manufacturers themselves warn that there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence and absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood.

In a trial, a person tested positive in two ELISA tests, then positive in one Western Blot test used as confirmation, but in a second Western Blot test he tested negative. The maximum test procedure ever used on patients in real life, is two ELISA and one Western Blot. As you can see, even this leaves room for doubt. In most cases, only one test is performed, the supposedly less accurate ELISA test. On this basis death sentences are pronounced, that are then executed by way of drugs.

So you see how life-threatening it can be to have a so called "AIDS test", which is nothing of the kind, only a non-specific non-standardized antibody test with no predictive value for the development of AIDS. Not only can the medical establishment do nothing to save the unfortunate victims declared positive, but it will do its best to demonstrate "scientifically" through its treatment - and at exorbitant costs - that HIV = AIDS = DEATH.

It doesn't take a mathematical genius to figure out how many billions of dollars the drug companies and their collaborating doctors can make on such tests, that they try to frighten everybody into taking. Far more than the 500 - 600 million dollars a year that Wellcome's drug AZT has brought in on account of those diagnosed as either HIV-positive or suffering from AIDS, practically all of whom have died in agony, with not a single documented cure.

Let´s face it: AIDS is not a disease: It's a multibillion dollar growth industry.

Judging from the hysterical hype and terror whipped up by media around this invented "epidemic", the day may not be far away, when the test will be enforced by law on the entire population, with compulsory "treatment" for the unlucky ones who happen to test positive.

Will there be any hope for all those who get sucked into the official pharmaco-political profit mill as HIV-suspects? - Effective dissemination of unbiased and honest information to raise the awareness level of the people, and the use of holistic common sense seems to be the only way out of the grand AIDS tragedy. It is nearly twenty years too late to avert it.

Jens Jerndal is a Doctor of Holistic Medicine, who practised holistic medicine for 16 years, and a former Professor of the Philosophy and Principles of Holistic Medicine at the Open International University for Complementary Medicines in Sri Lanka. E-mail: paradocs@canaldirecto.com, website: www.life-expansion.com

VIRUSMYTH HOMEPAGE