Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 7 Num. 25

("Quid coniuratio est?")

AIDS Inc. -- Part 2

There was such a response to the previous CN on the banning in the United States of the book Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS by Bryan Ellison and Peter Duesberg, that I thought I would re-post the following. It is my synopsis of Jon Rappoport's book, AIDS Inc. Because Rappoport covers Dr. Duesberg's challenge to official AIDS dogma, they may be banning his book next!

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +


During World War II, Nazi scientists developed a chemical weapon known as parathion. "After minor alteration, it became a pesticide... 60 times more toxic to humans than DDT. It is widely distributed in the Third World."

"Phosvel, a pesticide outlawed in the U.S., was marketed in the Third World in the 1970s, and may still be trading in Latin America. Its victims are called 'zombies.' They die slowly and agonizingly, with paralysis and asphyxiation coming at the end. Field workers who suffer weight loss and an increasing inability to move should not be assumed, by researchers a continent away, to be suffering from a virus."

The author affirms that, by and large, the most toxic pesticides are used in the Third World. What is more, they are used routinely and with little regard for safety.

Consider the class of pesticides called organophosphates. Here is a list of symptoms which can be caused by organophosphates:

Headache, dizziness, flu-like symptoms, excessive sweating, difficulties walking, diarrhea, many skin problems, delayed nerve disease.

"Headache is now listed by the World Health Organization as a significant symptom of 'early HIV disease.' Many researchers state that HIV causes a mild flu-like episode soon after exposure. Night sweats are taken as a sign of Pre-AIDS. Leg weakness is considered an early symptom of AIDS dementia. Diarrhea can be a sign of pre-AIDS and also a major symptom of AIDS in the Third World. AIDS patients often present numerous skin rashes and skin problems. Nerve disease is said to be the reason for AIDS dementia."

"In other words, the symptoms of exposure to organophosphates reads like listed symptoms for AIDS."

Consider also the large number of dangerous drugs which are routinely dumped on the Third World by Western pharmaceutical firms. "These drugs can produce immunosuppression-leading-to- opportunistic-infections -- the pattern ascribed to AIDS. Yet they are completely written out of the AIDS disease-equation by U.S. federal health agencies."

For example, one West German firm (Hoechst) makes a pain-killer which is sold without prescription in Brazil and throughout Africa. "It can also cause anemia -- and underlying immune suppression -- and that is why it is banned in the U.S."

"One certainly can't ignore the infant formula deaths either, in which diarrhea and malnutrition [note: Malnutrition is, by far, the most common cause of immune suppression in the world.] have been linked to infant-preparations manufactured by Abbott, American Home Products, Nestle, and Bristol-Meyers."

All of these symptoms are often mistakenly grouped under the heading AIDS. In "AIDS, a Global Perspective," released by the World Health Organization, the authors note "the elimination of the requirement of the absence of other causes of immunodeficiency" for the diagnosis of AIDS. In other words, it is now acceptable to overlook any missing factors and just diagnose whatever it is as "AIDS."

"This amazing WHO [World Health Organization] guideline implies that from now on, all human immunosuppression will be laid at the door of the HIV virus."


An article appearing on page 1 of the December 21, 1987 issue of the New York Times entitled "Doctors Stretch Rules on AIDS Drugs" details how doctors have begun prescribing AZT for their patients who have no symptoms of AIDS.

In September, 1987, "William Hazeltine, chief of pharmacology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, suggested an even wider possible use for AZT. Give it to people considered at high- risk for AIDS even though they don't test positive for HIV."

In other words, Hazeltine was recommending the use of AZT as a preventative step. "For prevention, use a drug, AZT, which damages bone marrow, the place where raw material for immune- cells are turned out; a drug which causes severe anemia."

The author shows that, in spite of FDA approval of AZT, there is much room for doubt as to the safety or usefulness of the drug. For example, he cites molecular biologist Peter Duesberg: "AZT is very, very destructive to healthy cells. No doubt it's a dangerous drug."

In October, 1987, in an article in New York Native, John Lauritsen reviewed the FDA trial of AZT. In his article, he cites the opinion of Martin Delaney of San Francisco's Project Inform regarding the FDA trials of AZT: "The multi-center clinical trials of AZT are perhaps the sloppiest and most poorly controlled trials ever to serve as the basis for an FDA drug licensing approval... causes of death (among volunteers) were never verified. Despite this and a frightening record of toxicity, the FDA approved AZT in record time, granting a treatment (recommendation) in less than five days and full pharmaceutical licensing in less than six months."

Other AZT studies which had been done previously showed a significantly higher death rate for volunteers ill with AIDS who had taken AZT.

"Harry Chernov, an FDA analyst who looked over the pharmacological data on AZT recommended that the drug not be approved for release. Nevertheless, the drug was released, and it is now being prescribed loosely by many physicians for their patients who have no symptoms."

"AZT attacks the immune-cells where it is speculated that HIV is doing damage. Although AZT tends slightly to favor, as a target, viruses to healthy cells, in practice it kills many healthy immune-cells."

Page one of the December 21, 1987, New York Times warns of the dangers of AZT and of its overuse: "Defying official recommendations, a growing number of doctors who treat carriers of the AIDS virus are prescribing a powerful, potentially toxic drug even before patients develop serious signs of the disease."


"Malnutrition is recognized as the single largest source of immune-suppression in the world."

In the Third World, three symptoms are central to a definition of AIDS: 1) weight-loss of 10% or more, 2) chronic diarrhea, and 3) chronic fever. But these three symptoms are also signs of chronic malnutrition.

So there is a fairly good chance that misdiagnoses have occurred. This is underlined by a paper published in the journal Nutrition and Cancer (1985, vol. 7, p. 85-91), which states "Based on observations of pneumocystis carinii pneumonia infections in malnourished children in Haiti, [one researcher] proposed that malnutrition with concomitant herpes virus infection could give rise to symptoms that are indistinguishable from AIDS."

One of the current myths surrounding AIDS is that it is just another of Nature's plagues which serves to put a stop to overpopulation. "A respected virologist told me exactly this several months ago. For him, there was really nothing one could do about AIDS except watch it decimate people and then, by itself, die out."

However, this is just "another thread in the logic that starts with the assumption that AIDS is one thing around the world, from one cause... The truth is, AIDS is not a single illness, it is an international operation, a business, a bureacracy. It is, in the Third World, a way of substituting harmful medical drugs for what is needed: food."

"It is also easier to dump corrosive medical drugs and pesticides on the Third World than to face up to their widening toxic effect on people. Easier to call their symptoms AIDS."

[B.R. The unwritten codes of the wolf-pack of "professionals" discourage independent thought.] Suppose you are a member of one of these gangs of "scientists" and it begins to dawn on you that what you had thought was completely ascribable to "AIDS" was in reality attributable to a multiplicity of factors? Suppose that you find "a combination of drugs, pesticides, starvation, older diseases, and other environmental factors, all capable of causing immunosuppression, all capable of producing the symptoms of what is called AIDS? What happens is, if you want to satisfy your medical peers, if you want to win research grant monies, you overlook the anomalies and say it's all AIDS. If you don't, you admit the picture is diverse and confused. You face facts. You lose grants."

The author includes part of an interview with former senior White House policy analyst Jim Warner. Some interesting excerpts from that interview include the following:

WARNER: The government really hasn't fulfilled its role in providing good information [on AIDS]. We just may not know enough. With AIDS, we're dealing with a syndrome, not a disease. We may see a patient who has a genetic defect that's causing his immune deficiency [instead of HIV being the causative agent]. I'm not satisfied we know all we think we do, by any means.

INTERVIEWER: Several university scientists I've spoken with have -- off the record -- criticized what they call "HIV dogma." They feel if they speak out against the rush to judgement for HIV as the cause of AIDS they may lose money. Grants begin with the assumption that HIV has been proven as the agent of the disease.

WARNER: I'm of a mind that if no other lessons should be required of any university science curriculum, there should be a good survey course in philosophy and a grounding in logic. I'm appalled at the conceit and arrogance [of certain scientists].

INTERVIEWER: Suppose proof emerged that HIV is not the AIDS virus. How difficult would it be to alter the course of research?

WARNER: It's very difficult to change people's minds. It's not impossible, but there is a head of steam built up.

INTERVIEWER: Peter Duesberg, a distinguished molecular biologist at Berkeley, has said that HIV does not cause AIDS. Have you asked people at NIH [National Institute of Health] what they think, specifically, of his arguments?

WARNER: Yes. I've been told that Peter Duesberg's refutation of HIV has been discounted by the scientific community. I was given no explanation as to why. I was very offended. No evidence was presented to me. Just that Duesberg had been "discounted." That's absurd. It's not a scientific response to dismiss Duesberg as a crank.

[ be continued...]

I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."

If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail address, send a message in the form "subscribe cn-l My Name" to (Note: that is "CN-L" not "CN-1")
For information on how to receive the new Conspiracy Nation Newsletter, send an e-mail message to
Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc? (1) telnet (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom

See also:

See also: ftp pub/users/bigred

Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt. Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9