Time: Sat Nov 02 04:21:38 1996
To: 
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Astounding info about AIDS
Cc: 
Bcc: Alfred Adask, Art Bell, Bill Van Mastrigt, Chris Wilder, CIADRUGS, Dean, Denver newspapers, Electra, frederick mann, Harvey Wysong, Jean-Pierre Weingarten, Jim McCall, Joe Newman, liberty lists, Nancy Lord, Neil Nordbrock, Richard Ginn, Richard McDonald, The Arizona Republic, Tucson Citizen, TV stations, William Cooper

Memo

From:  Paul Andrew Mitchell

Date:  November 2, 1996


Dear Internet Friends,

I am making a personal request here
for direct discipline of Mr. Roger
Cravens, at the Centers for Disease 
Control in Atlanta, Georgia.

After making several requests to be
removed from his private email list,
nothing happened and I continued to
receive unwanted email from him,
either directly, or via other lists
of which he and I are both members.

This annoyed me very much, because
I had previously made a polite inquiry
of Mr. Cravens to disclose the 
authority he had to use CDC resources
to be screening inbound email and
re-posting it on so many lists. 
(I was routinely getting 5 copies
of everything from him.)  Mr. Cravens
did not answer my inquiry about his
authority, if any.

At that point, I became rather annoyed,
and I decided to escalate, first by 
sending him 10 copies of my demand to
be removed, then 25, then 50, then 100.
I finally ended up sending 350 copies
of the White House Constitution to
Mr. Cravens, before somebody at his
end chose to notice and respond.  They
use a local area network (LAN), and the
LAN administrator intervened.

After all that dust had settled, now I
get the following.  I want you to know
that I have made it very VERY plain
to Mr. Cravens that he does NOT have
my permission to put me on his private
email list, as he has done below.
After all that has happened, I am 
frankly shocked that he would take
it upon himself to do it again, less
than one week after our little "blow up"
over this matter.

I am probably in "hot water" with CDC for
re-posting a message concerning possible 
CDC complicity with the Gulf War Syndrome.
Evidently, it has been reported that
officials within CDC knew about the
shipment of biological weapons to Iraq.
Can this be his motive?  If not, then 
what is?

You can see for yourself that my email
address has been placed back on Roger's
private email list, to wit:

/s/ Paul Mitchell


>From: "Cravens, Roger D." <rbg3@CCDOSA1.EM.CDC.GOV>
>To: "Ruffin, Michael" <mar5@CCDDN1.EM.CDC.GOV>,
>        "Miller, Joan K." <jkp1@CCDOSA1.EM.CDC.GOV>,
>        "Pollard, Robert A." <rap3@CCDOSA1.EM.CDC.GOV>,
>        Rush Limbaugh <70277.2502@compuserve.com>,
>        "'Steven Baker (S)'" <ACCESS@PHOENIX.NET>,
>        Robert Ireland <aircav@zapcom.net>,
>        "matthew.sadler" <balchain.com!matthew.sadler@chattanooga.net>,
>        "'Ross Cavitt (P/S)'" <cavitt@juno.com>
>To: Ross Cavitt <Cavitt@msn.com>, Paul Cordingley <crs1026@INFORAMP.NET>,
>        Patti May <jcook@eagle.ca>, "'Robert Cooke (AOL)'" <kd4dpc@aol.com>,
>        Randolph Langley <langley@scri.fsu.edu>,
>        mbmartin <mbmartin@srasds.attmail.com>,
>        MilitiaNet <MilitiaNet@aol.com>, mm505 <mm505@mindspring.com>,
>        "MR.BILL888" <MR.BILL888@edm.net>, newcol419 <newcol419@aol.com>
>To: "N. Shay" <nshay@bbs.cresnet.org>, NYO41ed <NYO41ed@aol.com>,
>        "'Pat Swindall (P)'" <plspbnet@aol.com>,
>        Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar],   <----- Note Well
>        Patricia Neill <pnpj@db1.cc.rochester.edu>,
>        "Peter L. Sroufe" <psroufe@ibm.net>,
>        Richard Comer <rcomer@thor.pla-net.net>,
>        "Robert D. Baker" <rdbake@harold.eastky.com>,
>        RevCOAL <revcoal@pcnet.com>
>To: "richard.dale" <richard.dale@juno.com>,
>        "Rick.Slater" <Rick.Slater@Dartmouth.Edu>,
>        Richard Ridgeway <ridgeway@CCM.SEIKOTSI.COM>,
>        RightAway <RightAway@aol.com>,
>        "R. J. Tavel,  J.D." <rjtavel@iquest.net>,
>        "Robby Noel (P)" <robnoel@primenet.com>,
>        "Rob Schofield (P)" <rosco@cyberia.com>,
>        Roger Sayles <rsayles@aol.com>, Scangene <Scangene@aol.com>
>To: scottd1 <scottd1@map.com>, scotty07 <scotty07@ix.netcom.com>,
>        "'Sean Hannity'" <seanh@mindspring.com>,
>        SkyWriter <SkyWriter@Public-Action.com>, sm9m <sm9m@aol.com>,
>        "Scott Hudson (P/S)" <sphudson@mindspring.com>,
>        Starfyre <starfyre@blarg.net>, "'Rickey Stein'" <steinda@umdnj.edu>,
>        "'Microwave Rider'" <ticom@l0pht.com>,
>        Patti Johnson <whitewolf@toad.net>
>Subject: Astounding info about AIDS
>Date: Mon, 28 Oct 96 09:03:00 EST
>
>
>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