Time: Mon Oct 28 16:22:38 1996
To: "Cravens, Roger D." <rbg3@CCDOSA1.EM.CDC.GOV>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: refused for cause
Cc:
Bcc:
At 09:54 AM 10/28/96 EST, you wrote:
>
>AEN News
>from ralph@TeamInfinity.com
>
>http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html
>
>Please disseminate widely...
>
>October 17, 1996 Feature Stories
>[What if everything we have been told about HIV and AIDS is a lie?]
>[The HIV Model Timetable as presented by Project AIDS International]
>[Their tithing dollars at work]
>
>
>WHAT IF EVERYTHING WE HAVE BEEN TOLD ABOUT HIV
>AND AIDS IS A LIE? BY JEFF OFSTEDAHL
>OCTOBER 17, 1996, ECHO MAGAZINE (Jeff4Echo@aol.com)
>
>It is the plague of the 20th century. It is grounds upon which people
>are drummed out of military service. It is upon which people lose their
>jobs. They lose their health insurance. They are denied life insurance.
>They have been denied housing, food and even pastoral counseling. Some
>are disenfranchised from their families. It is a four letter word, an
>acronym which spells certain death to all who are labeled as such.
>It is AIDS.
>
> Fifteen years into the "epidemic," it has become a multi-billion dollar
>a year industry which has made millionaires of scientists and drug
>pushers alike. Some 15 years later, people still are dying. With annual
>federal
>funding at more that $7 billion , AIDS research is better funded than any
>other disease. Yet, it has produced the fewest results. Why?
>
> Some important questions which need to be answered are:
>
> If HIV causes AIDS, why have thousands of AIDS victims never had
>HIV?
>
> Why have hundreds of thousands who have had HIV for many years
>remained perfectly healthy?
>
> Why does the co-discoverer of HIV now claim it cannot be the sole
>cause of AIDS?
>
> Why has more than ten years of AIDS research costing tens of
>billions of dollars failed to show how (or even if) HIV causes AIDS or
>attacks the immune system?
>
> What if AIDS is not, in fact, caused by a virus?
>
> What if for all these years the search for the definitive answer
>to the one of the worst afflictions to hit mankind in recent record has
>followed the wrong path?
>
> What if everyone is wrong?
>
> Impossible you ask? Not really. It has happened before.
> In the American 1930s, a devastating disease began to grip the
>poverty-stricken areas of the country. They called it PELLAGRA. The
>condition was marked with skin lesions, gastrointestinal disturbances and
>nervous disorders.
>
> Because of its "outbreak" appearance, scientists were quick to label
>the calamity as viral or bacterial in nature. As such, doctors were
>instructed how to treat their patients. Thousands died before the falsehood
>was
>discovered. It turned out, the dise ase was caused by simple malnutrition
>due to a B vitamin (nicotinic acid) deficiency.
>
> By the time the truth was discovered, scientists had come up with an
>elaborate life cycle for this new virus, which they said came from corn
>mold, involved farm animals, crows, and eventually ended up in people,
>who then died. In fact, the malady stem med from an over-dependence on corn
>in the diet (which has little nutritional value), and the new process of
>bleaching flour for white bread, a process which introduced toxic
>cysteine hydrochlorides into the body.
>
> An even greater example of the medical industry's mishandling of a
>disease occurred in Japan. It came after an observed outbreak of alleged
>immune suppression lasting from 1955 to 1978.
>
> In this case, subacute-myelo-optico-neuropathy (SMON) also was thought
>to be caused by a virus. After 20 years and countless deaths, researchers
>discovered the true cause of SMON: the chemical clioquinol, which was
>sold in Japan to treat upset stomach s. When ingested, it actually induced
>the
>same upset stomach. Thus, more was prescribed and ingested, perpetuating
>the vicious cycle.
>
> Current day AIDS dissidents believe the SMON model (the treatment
>causing the very disease it was supposed to fight) parallels what they
>call the AZT (zidovudine, known generically as Retrovir) cycle
>precipitating AIDS.
>
> Wait a minute.
> You ask: AZT is the cause of AIDS?
> AIDS dissidents? Once they were thought to be the fringe of the
>scientific community. The wackos, if you will. Today, a growing number of
>distinguished and world-renowned scientists and researchers is joining
>the AIDS dissident movement.
>
> "[The HIV model of AIDS] is without a doubt the biggest scientific
>medical error in the history of the world," said Dick Joslyn, founder and
>director of the AIDS dissidence group SPEAK-UP! The organization has no
>official membership. It is a network of activists and researchers who
>question whether AIDS actually is caused by a virus.
>
> "Despite the government's claims to the contrary, HIV has never been
>proven to cause disease," Joslyn said. "Scientists who have reviewed what
>researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have
>offered as proof that HIV causes AIDS have found the evidence to be
>inadequate, inconclusive and downright fraudulent."
>
> Joslyn's belief is supported by more than 200 distinguished doctors and
>scientists, some of whom are Nobel Prize recipients. No longer can these
>people be waved off as the lunatic fringe.
>
> Their arguments begin with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)
>itself. Joslyn contends the virus, if it truly exists, is a harmless
>organism within the body.
>
> To date, he contends no one has isolated the actual virus. Methods to
>determine the alleged virus include searching for antibodies to the virus
>through the use of Western Blot and Elisa tests. These labs tests do not
>isolate the virus. They react to certain antibodies in the blood.
> "The tests are inaccurate because there are at least 50 other
>conditions, including mumps, diphtheria and venereal warts, that will
>give a false positive," Joslyn explained. "They all produce antibodies that
>will react to the materials used in labs te sts."
>
> "The tests are inconsistent because some people have tested positive,
>then tested negative three months later," Joslyn said research has
>proved. "Someone may test positive at one lab, and the same blood
>sample will test negative at another."
>
> He points to the fact that Dr. Robert Gallo, the man co-credited with
>the discovery of HIV, filed for the patent (worth billions) on the HIV
>test only three days after he fraudulently announced he had discovered
>the virus which causes AIDS.
>
> Gallo's discovery itself is the root of all questions pertaining to the
>viral causation of AIDS. Since 1984, it has been assumed that HIV is the
>sole and direct cause of AIDS. The announcement didn't come in the form
>of published reports in medical re search journals from which other
>scientists examine the data, retest the hypothesis and either prove or
>disprove the theory. The announcement came from a highly publicized
>Reagan administration press conference announcing an AIDS "cure" now
>was within grasp.
>
> At that time, the country was demanding progress in AIDS research. AIDS
>activists were in the streets. It was an election year. Jeremy Selvey
>director of Project AIDS International (PAI) maintains that never once
>has the HIV hypothesis (which is HIV= AIDS=Death) been proven
>scientifically.
>
>
> Even the alleged HIV co-discoverer Gallo admitted two years after his
>landmark "discovery" announcement, in 1986, that he "saw no evidence"
>that LAV (the French version of HIV) was the cause of AIDS.
>
> In 1988, Gallo retracted his hypothesis of the "direct killing" of T4
>cells by HIV, and he suggested perhaps more important mechanisms than HIV
>are contributing to T4 cell depletion in patients diagnosed with AIDS.
>
> In 1992, Gallo was convicted of science fraud by the US Office of
>Research Integrity (a department of the National Institutes of Health
>(NIH)) for claiming he had discovered HIV. The discovery was then
>credited to French researcher Dr. Luc Montagnier who has stated on numerous
>occasions: "I do not believe that HIV is in and of itself the cause of
>AIDS. I believe we should place as much emphasis on potential co- factors
>as we have on HIV."
>
> According to Selvey, Gallo who has since left the CDC and is working
>independently for a university is under investigation by Congress on
>various charges of science fraud. This, Selvey contends, further casts
>doubts on the validity of all Gallo's research.
>
> Dissidents to the HIV hypothesis, like Selvey, claim Gallo who for
>decades unsuccessfully tried to prove a virus was the cause of cancer
>latched onto AIDS to revitalize funding for his research, and to take
>attention away from his disappointing cancer research.
>
> Further, they claim the US government eager to disseminate any new
>positive developments on the AIDS front, and thus get AIDS activists off
>its back over-anxiously grabbed onto Gallo's "discovery" and touted it as
>a miracle development.
>
> "Based on Gallo's unproven hypothesis that HIV is the sole and direct
>cause of AIDS, the US Public Health Service has embarked on a campaign of
>implied terror and misinformation that has continued to state HIV, the
>virus which causes AIDS,' can be con trolled by getting tested for the
>AIDS virus' and starting early intervention' in the event of a positive
>test result.'" Selvey writes.
>
> "HIV, the virus which causes AIDS," Joslyn restates for emphasis. "If
>you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes fact." "It is like a high
>priesthood in science," Joslyn explains. "What they believe is what is
>passed down to other scientists, doctors and the media. We're on the
>lowest rung on the totem pole, and we're supposed to believe everything
>they've told us."
>
> Joslyn believes doctors have no idea what research at the highest level
>entails. Most merely prescribe the course of treatment based on the
>dictates of the CDC. For the sake of argument, let us imagine that
>everything we have been told about HIV and t esting for HIV antibodies is
>based on false presumptions.
>
>What, then, causes AIDS?
>
> Enter AZT, the drug nicknamed "AIDS by prescription" by HIV dissidents
>like Dr. Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular and cell biology at
>University of California-Berkeley. A member of the National Academy of
>Sciences, pioneer in retrovirus research, the first scientist to isolate
>a cancer gene, and author of Inventing The AIDS Virus, Duesberg
>brings a world of credentials to the AIDS dissident movement.
>
> But he is not new on the scene.
>
> Duesberg has been challenging the HIV hypothesis for the past ten
>years. He believes AZT is one of the factors which, at the least,
>makes AIDS worse.
>
> AZT is a nucleoside analogue DNA chain terminator. In other words, it
>kills human cells indiscriminately by terminating DNA synthesis, which is
>the central molecule of life. AZT was claimed as the only drug of the
>AIDS crisis at a time when desperate AIDS patients had lost all hope.
>Burroughs-Wellcome alleged they were the creators of AZT. This was "only
>after realizing that a very profitable market existed for long-term'
>treatment with the drug," Selvey said. It was uncovered by PAI that AZT
>originally was created in 1961 by NIH researcher Dr. Richard Beltz. The
>discovery was the result of his research on nucleoside analogues dating
>back to 1951.
>
> According to Beltz, the reasons AZT was abandoned were: 1) Its extreme
>toxicity made it unsuitable for any chemotherapy, even short-term, and 2)
>It was carcinogenic (cancer causing) at any dose.
>
> Duesberg said, "Since AZT cannot distinguish HIV-infected cells from
>uninfected cells, and only one in one thousand CD4 cells is ever
>infected, AZT must kill 995 healthy cells for every one infected cell. AZT
>suppresses HIV by suppressing the manufact uring of CD4 cells,
>predictably causing anemia, immunodeficiency and other degenerative
>diseases."
>
> In its defense, Burroughs-Wellcome cites numerous studies to
>substantiate its claims that AZT both "prolongs life" and "enhances its
>quality." PAI contends all studies that tout AZT's benefits were made
>possible, either directly or indirectly, by gran t money from
>Burroughs-Wellcome. Impartial studies done without the influence of
>Burroughs-Wellcome indicate that AZT neither prolongs life or enhances
>its quality, PAI charges, based on unreleased data from studies conducted by
>the CDC.
>
> Following is a Burroughs-Wellcome list of side effects from AZT, the
>drug it says "improves the quality of life:"
>
>Anemia, cancer, bone marrow depletion, nose bleeds, hematologic toxicity,
>fever, malaise, loss of mental acuity, atrophy, diarrhea, diaphoresis,
>headaches, insomnia, confusion, anorexia, vomiting, neuropathy, skin
>rashes, anxiety, nausea, dizziness, impotence, depression, vertigo,
>hearing loss, photophobia, nervousness, seizures, and leukocytopenia -
>the immunodeficiency of white blood cells.
>
> In addition to the above, studies indicate that the original toxicity
>profile of AZT was fraudulently reported. It actually is 1,000-times more
>toxic to human cells than was originally reported, PAI documents. AIDS
>and gay activists ACTing-UP and demanding expedited drug approval, Selvey
>and Joslyn claim, played right into the hands of Burroughs-Wellcome's
>bottom line.
>
> Perhaps we should overlook the fact that, according to Joslyn,
>BURROUGHS-WELLCOME PAID NIH A REPORTED SUM OF $300
>MILLION FOR THE RIGHT TO MARKET AZT, WHICH PAI SAYS NIH
>DEVELOPED WITH TAXPAYER FUNDS.
>
> At the sinister level, Selvey has published a report which states he
>has a tape-recorded conversation with a low-level attorney who represented
>Barr Labs of Canada which was working to try and wrestle patent rights
>for AZT. The attorney allegedly explained to Selvey the trouble Barr Labs
>was
>having compared to the powerful Burroughs-Wellcome.
>
> Selvey wrote:
>
> "Calmly [the attorney] said NIH sold AZT to Wellcome. Wellcome was
>supposed to kick-back a large portion [of the profits] to the FDA, NIH
>and the CDC, and the NIH would make grants to the private AIDS
>organizations to promote the sale of more AZT, and the money would be
>spread around. He stated that the FDA studies showing AZT's effectiveness
>were so well done and the publicity campaign was comfortably in place, no
>one expected this degree of success. Instead of following through with
>kick- backs, Wellcome just grabbed the ball and ran with it,' and paid
>the AIDS organizations directly."
>
> After the senior partner of the law firm representing Barr/NIH was
>informed of the taped conversation, the junior attorney was dismissed,
>Selvey said.
>
> Additionally, PAI has a copy of a check (which was viewed by Echo
>magazine) it says Burroughs-Wellcome "laundered" through an NIH
>foundation called FAES (Foundation for the Advancement of Education and
>Science) to Dr. Sam Broder, who was on the NIH drug approval team, for
>$55,000. The date on the check is July 7, 1985, about the time AZT was
>licensed and approved for use on AIDS patients.
>
> How convenient.
>
> Imagine this hypothetical scenario from a drug company's point of view:
>
> *We have a disease which systematically breaks down the immune
>system and kills over a period of time.
> *We have a drug company with a 20-year-old worthless albatross
>of a drug sitting on its shelves, whose only benefit to the human body is
>that
>it breaks down the immune system over a period of time and leads to
>death.
> *CDC estimates millions of people around the world will be
>suffering from HIV by the turn of the century.
> *Get the government to approve the drug for people already
>experiencing immune system breakdown. They will die anyway. Who
>is to say the drug did them in? Better yet, get AIDS organizations and the
>government to recommend the use of AZT as soon as one gets a positive
>test result.
>
> What do you have? A billions-of-dollars-a-year cash cow revolving
>around treating people who are not clinically ill by giving them a toxic
>course of treatment based upon an unproven hypothesis.
>
> It's not a matter of just picking on AZT. Other antivirals such as ddI,
>ddC, D4t and 3TC, Joslyn says, also wreak havoc on the body's immune
>system. Selvey is more specific. He said these "synthetically
>manufactured molecules are being integrated into the genes of all human
>cells; therefore, they block the replication of genes; thus causing a
>deficit in new cells. Sooner or later there exists a lack of newly
>produced immune cells which causes the condition called AIDS."
>
> What about tracking the amount of HIV in the bloodstream via the new
>"viral load" tests? "Viral load PCR tests to measure the amount of HIV
>in the blood (if that is what they really measure) are meaningless," Joslyn
>contends, "because HIV does not cause AIDS."
>
>Coming next issue are answers to such questions as:
>
> Clearly, AIDS existed before AZT and other drugs. How do you
>explain that?
> Where have all the T-cells gone?
> What about protease inhibitors?
> Does a "cure" currently exist, or will there ever be one?
>
>The answers will shock and surprise you. One thing is certain. The gay
>community will not be amused. [end]
>_____________________________________________________________________________
>>From ECHO magazine, issue #185, October 17, 1996,
>vol. 8, no. 3. Their address is PO Box 16630 Phoenix, AZ 85011-6630.
>Phone: 602-266-0550. FAX: 602-266-0773.
>Email: Jeff4Echo@aol.com. Web site: http://www.echomag.com
>
>They have a bi-weekly distribution of 48,000.
>
>PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS, FAXES, EMAILS, ETC. to Jeff to encourage him.
>
>For more "AIDS-dissent" material, visit:
>RETHINKING AIDS website: http://www.xs4all.nl/~raido/index.htm
>_____________________________________________________________________________
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail