Revisiting the HIV / AIDS hypothesis

Is a 'virus' really to blame?

Until not so very long ago, I simply assumed that when it came to the question of whether HIV causes AIDS, the ‘science was settled’. I simply ‘believed’ it to be true, and never thought to ask any further questions.

In the introduction to his book, Deadly Deception, Dr Robert Willner writes:

“When we were children, our mothers and fathers said there was a Santa Claus, an Easter bunny, and a tooth fairy. Of course, we all believed it. After all, it was mom and dad who said they existed. And besides, we were only children. The evidence seemed so convincing: there were presents under the tree, colorful eggs hidden in strange places, and money under the pillow. It took maturity and facing the facts of life to make us cognizant of the truth. Most of us painfully gave up the myth.

Now as adults, for ten years we have been told by our scientists, our government and the media that there is a contagious epidemic called AIDS, and of course we all believe it. After all, it is the “authorities” that say so. Besides, now we are adults and we know better, it must be the truth - the evidence is so convincing; there are millions with the disease, they found the virus, and they even have a test for it!”

He goes on to say:

“But what if it is a myth? What if AIDS is 25 old diseases which are given a new name?

What if the facts are against the viral theory and there is no proof the virus causes anything?

What if the numbers are only predictions that have proven to be 91% wrong during the first ten years?

What if the test is completely unreliable?

What if the causes of acquired immune deficiency have been known for over sixty years?

What if those causes are more prevalent now than ever before?

What if the drug used to treat AIDS causes AIDS?

What if the evidence is overwhelming that sex has nothing to do with AIDS?

What if giving up this myth may save your life?”

To question this will quickly earn you the honour of being labelled an ‘AIDS denier’ which depending on your position, can cost your dearly – as world-renown molecular biologist Peter Duesberg – the “golden boy of biology”, quickly found out. In his autobiography, ‘Dancing Naked in the Mind Field’, Mullis writes: “finally, in what must rank as one of the great acts of arrogant disregard for scientific propriety, a committee including Flossie Wong-Staal, who was feuding openly with Duesberg, voted not to renew Peter’s Distinguished Investigator Award. He was cut off from research funds. Thus disarmed, he was less of a threat to the growing AIDS establishment. He would not be invited back to speak at meetings of his former colleagues.”

As I recently found out for myself, many people will respond angrily to the suggestion that this theory may be flawed, and the usual name-calling and character assassination is used to try and silence anyone who raises their head above the parapet – so strong is their ‘belief’ that they are correct. In his interview with Gary Null, Kary Mullis expresses his surprise that it is so:

“It's silly to hear people saying “you don't believe that HIV causes AIDS. You don't believe that?” I mean, it's just a word. But it's a very, very important distinction…science is not a set of beliefs… I don't believe in science. I don't believe in polio. I mean, we are under the impression that there was a disease called polio that it caught and it caused certain and he got into your brain, it was terrible for you. We have evidence for it. But we don't believe in it. It's not in some church somewhere. And if somebody came along 100 years from now, studied the whole thing and said, you know what, there wasn't ever a disease called polio, it was a mistake. It was something else. Then you could change your your mind about it. In science, you are always ready to have your favourite theory proven wrong. And if you’re not, then you shouldn’t be doing science.”

So before we go any further, I think it is worth making a few things clear:

1.) HIV and AIDS are not the same thing. This is a critical point to understand – many people conflate the two, which only serves to create further confusion, and prevents the fundamental question from being addressed which is simply; is a virus causing the disease? And if so, can we have an open and honest conversation about what evidence exists to support this claim?

2.) Neither I, nor I believe anyone who is questioning this, is ‘denying’ that AIDS exists.

3.) Just like with COVID, various theories have emerged over the years that HIV is a ‘bioweapon’. I think theories such as this are red herrings designed to distract, confuse, and most importantly – keep people trapped in a dialectic rooted in ‘germ theory’ (I discuss this matter in more detail here).

Dr Willner writes: “This is not some wild, unfounded theory about CIA agents testing a potential biological weapon on unsuspecting gays in the United States or on Blacks in Africa; nor is it an equally ridiculous story of green monkeys, or a concocted preposterous theory about a contaminated vaccine (although our government has sadly admitted to similar crimes). It is a true account of perfidy for profit and power.”

In 1994, at a press conference in North Carolina, Dr Willner inoculated himself with the blood of an HIV-positive individual, at which point he exclaimed “the lie is so compounded and so idiotic, and so unbelievable, that you literally have to fight your way out of the maze of these lies. They are all unadulterated lies, and the men responsible for them – and – belong in jail.”

The key then, is to focus on the fundamental claims, and ignore all the noise. I strongly encourage anyone reading this to do their own research and make their own their minds up. In particular, I would highly recommend that you consult the materials I have cited throughout this article in their integrity, for I believe they make the case better than I ever could. These are listed at the end.

What is HIV?

According to the WHO, Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a ‘retrovirus’ that “targets the immune system and weakens people's defense against many infections and some types of cancer that people with healthy immune systems can fight off. As the virus destroys and impairs the function of immune cells, infected individuals gradually become immunodeficient … The most advanced stage of HIV infection is acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), which can take many years to develop if not treated, depending on the individual.".

It is this ‘virus’, not AIDS itself, that can allegedly be transmitted from one person to another.

According to Brittanica, “the virus is found in highest concentrations in the blood, semen, and vaginal and cervical fluids of the human body and can be harboured asymptomatically for 10 years or more. Although the primary route of transmission is sexual, HIV also is spread by the use of infected needles among intravenous drug users, by the exchange of infected blood products, and from an infected mother to her fetus during pregnancy.”

WebMd states that “not everyone who has HIV will get AIDS. But the infection will advance to AIDS, usually in 10 to 15 years, if you don’t get treatment with antiretroviral drugs.”

What are the origins of HIV? According to UK-based HIV awareness charity Avert “it is widely believed that HIV originated in Kinshasa, in the Democratic Republic of Congo around 1920 when HIV crossed species from chimpanzees to humans … up until the 1980s, we do not know how many people were infected with HIV or developed AIDS. HIV was unknown and transmission was not accompanied by noticeable signs or symptoms.”

The source for this statement appears to be a paper published in 2014, titled “The early spread and epidemic ignition of HIV-1 in human populations”, in which the authors also state that “thirty years after the discovery of HIV-1, the early transmission, dissemination, and establishment of the virus in human populations remain unclear.”

It is certainly interesting to note that despite the fact that it is ‘well established’ that HIV is a ‘contagious virus’, how it was transmitted to humans “remains unclear”, and that when it did transmit, it was “not accompanied by noticeable signs or symptoms”.

Furthermore, given the unusually lengthy inoculation period, one does wonder how the conclusion was reached that the “infection will advance to AIDS, usually in 10 to 15 years”. The first AIDS case, a San Francisco resident named Ken Horne was identified in 1980 (42 years ago). We do not know when Mr Horne is alleged to have been infected with HIV. Was it the previous year? 2 years? 4?

This figure does seem to have jumped around quite a bit. Dr Willner writes: “HIV disease (asymptomatic) will become AIDS (symptomatic) in from 2 to 30 years (this is called the latent period). It has been "corrected" constantly upward, and a latent period of 45 years has recently been proposed. When they extend it to 75 years (human life expectancy), then it could be said the entire earth's population is dying of AIDS!”

In his paper “Human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: Correlation but not causation”, published in 1989 (just 9 years after the first case was identified), Peter Duesberg wrote: “No such virus or microbe would require almost a decade to cause primary disease, nor could it cause the diverse collection of AIDS diseases. Neither would its host range be as selective as that of AIDS, nor could it survive if it were as inefficiently transmitted as AIDS. Since AIDS is dermed by new combinations of conventional diseases, it may be caused by new combinations of conventional pathogens, including acute viral or … there is no proven precedent for the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS only years after the onset of antiviral immunity and yet remains as inactive as it is in asymptomatic infections.”

Dr Willner also writes the following: “"Slow" or "lente" viruses do not exist! It is another hypothetical invention designed to explain what is obviously nonsense. It has no basis in fact, no precedent in science, and is contradictory to 20 years of research findings. Retroviruses can only be replicated by the host cell, and are dependent on the life-cycle of that cell. Therefore, the virus must replicate within hours or days in order to survive.

For over 20 years, an exhaustive investigation of retroviruses reveals that there is no such thing as a "slow virus". There is nothing biochemically or genetically different about HIV that could account for this.

As Dr. Duesberg puts it, "There are no slow viruses, only slow virologists." Once again, another "hypothesis" appears in order to explain yet another inconsistency.

It is always speculation in place of proof.

It is universally recognized that certain risk behaviors increase the likelihood of certain diseases to appear: Smoking with lung diseases, diet with cancer, chemicals and radiation with cancer, and now, drugs with AIDS!”

What is AIDS?

The WHO defines Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS), as the “development of certain cancers, infections or other severe long-term clinical manifestations.”

It opens up the individual concerned to what are referred to as ‘opportunistic infections’, defined by the NIH as “infections that occur more often or are more severe in people with weakened immune systems than in people with healthy immune systems … [including those] living with HIV”.

According to Brittanica “the progression of the syndrome does not follow a defined path; instead nonspecific symptoms reflect the myriad effects of a failing immune system. These symptoms are referred to as AIDS-related complex (ARC) and include fever, rashes, weight loss, and wasting.”

These symptoms are indeed, “nonspecific”, and can manifest for any number of reasons. Take for instance the ‘secondary symptoms’ associated with syphilis, which according to the NHS, can include “a blotchy red rash that can appear anywhere on the body, flu-like symptoms, such as tiredness, headaches, joint pains and a high temperature (fever), and swollen glands."

As the name suggests, an individual that goes on to develop AIDS is thus considered to be ‘immunodeficient’. The British Society for Immunology defines ‘immunodeficiency’ as one or more ‘disorders’ that result “in partial or full impairment of the immune system, leaving the patient unable to effectively resolve infections or disease.”

These disorders are said to be either:

1.) Primary – “inherited immune disorders resulting from genetic mutations, usually present at birth and diagnosed in childhood” (said to be “the rarer of the two”)

2.) Secondary – “acquired immunodeficiency as a result of disease or environmental factors, such as HIV, malnutrition, or medical treatment (e.g. chemotherapy)”

Although the society mention chemotherapy in their fact sheet, and go on to discuss how “several types of medication can result in secondary immunodeficiencies … a common side-effect of most chemotherapies used in cancer treatment”, they completely omit any mention of illegal drugs, all of which are also known to be immunosuppressive.

With the exception of this strange omission, all of the above is confirmed by Dr Willner, who writes: “the causes of acquired immune deficiency have been listed in medical texts for over 70 years. They are, in order of importance: malnutrition (starvation), drugs, radiation, and chemotherapy.”

‘Immunodeficiency’ therefore, is not a condition that is exclusive to an alleged HIV infection.

How does AIDS affect people?

The aforementioned ‘opportunistic infections’ that may affect an individual over time, are said to include “severe illnesses such as tuberculosis (TB), cryptococcal meningitis, severe bacterial infections, and cancers such as lymphomas and Kaposi's sarcoma”.

Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), are the two diseases that were initially thought to be specific to a new ‘virus’. According to Avert, “in 1981, cases of a rare lung infection called Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) were found in five young, previously healthy gay men in Los Angeles. At the same time, there were reports of a group of men in New York and California with an unusually aggressive cancer named Kaposi’s Sarcoma. In December 1981, the first cases of PCP were reported in people who inject drugs. By the end of the year, there were 270 reported cases of severe immune deficiency among gay men - 121 of them had died.”

According to Johns Hopkins “Kaposi sarcoma is always caused by an infection with a virus called human herpesvirus 8, which is also known as Kaposi sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV). How the virus is initially acquired and spread is poorly understood … The cancer is usually triggered by a weakened immune system in people who are HIV-positive, who have received an organ transplant or whose immune systems are weakened for other reasons, including age.”

The full time timeline of the the cases (all of which are detailed here), clearly demonstrate that the common denominator in these early cases is not sexual orientation, but a certain lifestyle, which in some cases involves the heavy use of drugs.

Dr Willner writes: “In 1981, it was proposed that an acquired immune deficiency was the basis for a new syndrome of diseases (AIDS) that appeared to be surfacing amongst promiscuous male homosexuals and intravenous drug users. Dr. David Durack, of Duke University, a recognized expert on infectious diseases and the immune system, though admitting the prevalence of drug use (particularly "poppers" or amyl nitrite) and repeated multiple infections, ignored these well known causes of immune deficiency and announced that this "truly new syndrome" must be due to "some new factor … It appeared to be an epidemic at first, because the drug-addicted segment of the gay population began to suffer the effects from years of drug use. They became an identifiable group when they came out of the closet just prior to the epidemic”.

When the outbreaks began happening, the CDC themselves wrote “another hypothesis to be considered is that sexual contact with patients with KS or PCP does not lead directly to acquired cellular immunodeficiency, but simply indicates a certain style of life. The number of homosexually active males who share this lifestyle may be much smaller than the number of homosexual males in the general population.

Exposure to some substance (rather than an infectious agent) may eventually lead to immunodeficiency among a subset of the homosexual male population that shares a particular style of life. For example, Marmor et al. recently reported that exposure to amyl nitrite was associated with an increased risk of KS in New York City (7). Exposure to inhalant sexual stimulants, central-nervous-system stimulants, and a variety of other "street" drugs was common among males belonging to the cluster of cases of KS and PCP in Los Angeles and Orange counties.”

It is also interesting to note that in 1979, “a government initiative encouraged gay men in Manhattan (especially promiscuous ones) to participate in an experimental hepatitis B vaccine being developed by Merck and the National Institute of Health” (the article says 1974, but the poster shown below has the date 1979 in the corner, and according to the New York Times, this is the correct date).

How is HIV diagnosed?

According to MedicalNewsToday “most testing sites use HIV antibody tests, called ELISA tests, for rapid screening of HIV. These tests detect antibodies that the body creates in response to an HIV infection.”

So these tests are not testing for the presence of a ‘virus’, but rather antibodies.

Antibodies are defined by Brittanica as “a protective protein produced by the immune system in response to the presence of a foreign substance, called an antigen. Antibodies recognize and latch onto antigens in order to remove them from the body.”

Usually, antibodies are considered proof of a past infection. Mullis writes: “Antibodies to viruses had always been considered evidence of past disease, not present disease. Antibodies signaled that the virus had been defeated. The patient had saved himself.” But curiously, this doesn’t apply here.

Investigative journalist, Liam Sheff, writes: “When you take an HIV test, your blood isn’t tested for a virus, it’s tested for your body’s natural antibody response to the proteins in the HIV test. These proteins are supposed to stand in for HIV. In order for an antibody test to be clinically meaningful its proteins should accurately represent the proteins of a specific virus or particle … there is considerable evidence that the putative HIV test proteins occur commonly in both sick and healthy people.

According to the medical literature, HIV tests can cross-react with antibodies produced from nearly 70 disease (and non-disease) conditions. These include yeast infections, arthritis, hepatitis, herpes, parasitic infections, drug use, tuberculosis, inoculations, colds and prior pregnancy. The HIV test is also more reactive with people who are chronically exposed to environmental stressors, bacteria, fungi, parasites and toxins (for example, people living in poverty without sufficient food and clean water, such as in Africa).

If you’ve been exposed to any of these conditions, it is possible that your body will produce antibodies that can react with the HIV test proteins. This is, of course, very different from what we’ve been told about HIV tests for 20 years.”

This is all confirmed in the scientific literature. Here’s one example, taken from the paper Laboratory diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus infection, published in 1993: “False-positive HIV ELISAs have been observed with serum from patients with a variety of medical conditions unrelated to HIV infection.... False-positive HIV ELISAs [also] occur because of human or technical errors associated with doing the tests or because of antibodies that coincidentally cross-react with HIV or nonviral components in the tests... Notable causes of false-positive reactions have been anti-HLA-DR antibodies that sometimes occur in multiparous [pregnant more than once] women and in multiply transfused patients. Likewise, antibodies to proteins of other viruses have been reported to cross-react with HIV determinants. False-positive HIV ELISAs also have been observed recently in persons who received vaccines for influenza and hepatitis B virus.”

Scheff goes on to provide evidence from the the test-makers own package inserts. The full list is available here, I have included just one as an example, from Abbott Laboratories, where they say: “at present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood.” (Abbott Laboratories HIV Test - ElA).

The insert in question can be found here.

Scheff writes: “based on the extensive review of HIV tests in the medical literature, the term “HIV-positive” could be seen to have one non-debatable meaning: “Non-specific antibody to commonly-occurring protein-positive.” An HIV-positive test result may help identify patients who have a lot of antibodies in their blood.

This might indicate a high historical exposure to illness, which might serve as a warning to better support immune function by improving general health.

But a positive HIV test result on its own does not seem to be capable of indicating the absolute diagnosis a terminal, fatal virus or condition.”

And this all still holds true today.

MedicalNewsToday writes: “The most common cause of a false-positive HIV result is when the test detects antibodies for a different infection or substance. For example, recent viral infections may cause a false-positive ELISA test result. However, a false-positive result can also result from another condition, such as an STI or an autoimmune disorder. Autoimmune disorders that may cause false-positive results include lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.”

They go on to provide the following example: “A 2020 study reported false-positive HIV results due to a schistosomiasis infection. In a 2018 case study, a person with babesiosis had a false-positive HIV test, which became negative after successful treatment.”

Other conditions that may generate a false positive include the following: Epstein-Barr virus, autoimmune disorders, such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, Lyme disease, STIs, such as syphilis, having recently received a vaccination, such as for flu or hepatitis B, prior pregnancies, receiving gamma globulin or immunoglobulin.

Remember how the symptoms of ‘ARC’ were remarkably similar to those of syphilis? And remember how gay men were being enrolled in hepatitis B vaccine trials prior to the outbreak?

The presence of these antibodies is what is claimed to be the evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Mullis writes: “I did computer searches. Neither Montagnier, Gallo, nor anyone else had published papers describing experiments which led to the conclusion that HIV probably caused AIDS. I read the papers in Science for which they had become well known as the AIDS doctors, but all they had said there was that they had found evidence of a past infection by something which was probably HIV in some AIDS patients. They found antibodies.”

But these antibodies are not specific to HIV, and neither are the symptoms of AIDS. The test, is then used to then tell people – even those who are healthy, that they should then be put on medication. Dr Willner writes: “On the basis of a meaningless test, individuals are subjected to the killer drug AZT … because they tested positive for antibodies to an innocent virus. They will die of an acquired immune deficiency caused by AZT - and many of them are perfectly healthy! … AZT, a drug so toxic that it was discarded as a treatment for cancer, and which causes AIDS, is being given to individuals.”

AZT or ‘zidovudine’, a drug originally invented to treat cancer became in 1987, “the first of these drugs to be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the purpose of prolonging the lives of AIDS patients.” (source)

It is known to cause pancytopenia: “In our study, the zidovudine-induced bone marrow suppression, namely severe anemia or pancytopenia, was the major side-effect limiting tolerance of the higher dose AZT.”

Pancytopenia is “a condition in which a person's body has too few red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets”, which as Dr Willner says in his press conference, “is the definition of AIDS”.

Its “therapeutic effects arise by its incorporation during HIV reverse transcription, resulting in chain termination.” (source) AS Dr Willner says in his talk “it is a terminator, like in the movie. It terminates life”.

Given that people are encouraged to go on these drugs as quickly as possible after a positive test, that we know is flawed, and that these drugs, by definition cause AIDS, why in the world does anyone think that a ‘virus’ has anything to do with any of this?

Let’s try to summarise our findings so far:

1.) ‘Immunodeficiency’ (AIDS) can be caused by any number of things, all of which are established, and I would argue somewhat ‘obvious’. HIV is claimed to be one of them.

2.) One does not need to be HIV-positive to be ‘immunocompromised’.

3.) These diseases that can be contracted by an HIV-positive individual are not specific either, and can ‘target’ anyone who is ‘immunocompromised’.

4.) The diagnosis seems to be based purely on whether an individual tests positive for HIV, as explained by Mullis:

“The CDC has defined AIDS as one of more than thirty diseases accompanied by a positive result on a test that detects antibodies to HIV. But those same diseases are not defined as AIDS cases when the antibodies are not detected.

If an HIV-positive woman develops uterine cancer, for example, she is considered to have AIDS. If she is not HIV-positive, she simply has uterine cancer. An HIV-positive man with tuberculosis has AIDS; if he tests negative he simply has tuberculosis.

If he lives in Kenya or Colombia, where the test for HIV antibodies is too expensive, he is simply presumed to have the antibodies and therefore AIDS, and therefore he can be treated in the World Health Organization’s clinic.

It’s the only medical help available in some places. And it’s free, because the countries that support the WHO are worried about AIDS. From the point of view of spreading medical facilities into areas where poor people live, AIDS has been a boon.

We don’t poison them with AZT like we do our own people because it’s too expensive. We supply dressings for the machete cut on their left knee and call it AIDS.

The CDC continues to add new diseases to the grand AIDS definition. The CDC has virtually doctored the books to make it appear as if the disease continues to spread. In 1993, for example, the CDC enormously broadened its AIDS definition.

This was happily accepted by county health authorities, who receive $2,500 from the feds per year under the Ryan White Act for every reported AIDS case.”

5.) The test for HIV is itself non-specific.

6.) No experiments have ever been conducted that prove that HIV causes AIDS.

So where is the evidence that HIV causes AIDS?

Credit for the discovery of the virus is a somewhat ‘murky affair’. Mullis writes “There had been an international incident wherein Robert Gallo of the NIH had claimed that a sample of HIV which had been sent to him by Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute in Paris had not grown in Gallo’s lab. Other samples collected by Gallo and his collaborators, from potential AIDS patients, had grown. Gallo had patented the AIDS test based on these samples, and the Pasteur Institute had sued. The Pasteur eventually won, but back in 1989 it was a standoff and they were sharing the profits”.

The central figure however appears to be Robert Gallo, who at a press conference in 1984, accompanied by Secretary of Health and Human Services Margaret Heckler, announced that “the probable cause of AIDS has been found: a variant of a known human cancer virus”.

Dr Willner writes “that very day, Dr. 2 Gallo filed a U.S. patent for an mv test kit which was destined to make him very wealthy”.

In 2003, Nature published an article titled “HIV-1 Pathogenesis” as was part of its “20 years of AIDS science” special edition. AIDS researcher Mario Stevenson writes:

"Despite considerable advances in HIV science in the past 20 years, the reason why HIV-1 infection is pathogenic is still debated... considerable efforts have gone into identifying the mechanisms by which HIV-1 causes disease, and two major hypotheses have been forwarded."

Stevenson concludes his article by acknowledging how little is known about HIV: “[W]hat we know represents only a thin veneer on the surface…”. In order to understand HIV better, Stevenson says, “a permissive, small animal model would be a key experimental tool.”

Nearly 20 years on, researchers seem to be no closer to understanding any of this, as detailed in this 2017 paper where the authors write “A better understanding of the mechanisms employed by HIV-1 to escape immune responses still represents one of the major tasks required for the development of novel therapeutic approaches targeting a disease still lacking a definitive cure.”

Dr Willner writes: “although 60 thousand papers have been written with money obtained from AIDS grants, not one of those papers proves scientifIcally that the virus causes AIDS.”

In 2020, we find this article published: “HIV Does Not Cause AIDS in the Way We Thought”, in which the authors state that “For decades, it was believed that HIV progressed to AIDS in a pretty straightforward manner: spreading through the body as a free-circulating virus, attaching itself to immune cells (predominately CD4+ T-cells) and hijacking their genetic machinery in order to create multiple copies of itself… Emerging research suggests that this is probably not the case, or at least not the disease pathway we had long presumed. In fact, since as far back as the late-1990s, scientists had begun to observe that HIV can also spread directly from cell to cell without creating any free-circulating virus.”

For obvious reasons, no experiments in humans have ever been conducted to prove transmission. However, Dr Willner, injected himself on live television with the blood of an HIV-positive patient, in order to demonstrate that HIV is not to be feared – and this wasn’t the first time he’d done it either:

“Two years ago, while researching chelation therapy in Spain, Willner met Pedro Tocino, a Spanish hemophiliac who was HIV-positive, but otherwise healthy, and on AZT. Desperate to get Tocino off the drug, Willner confronted him. “I said, ‘if I stick you and then stick me with your blood, will you be convinced that you shouldn’t be on AZT?’ He started at me for a full minute, then he smiled and said yes.” Two days later, Willner was on the highest-rated television show in Spain talking about the stunt, and although the Spanish authorities were trying to drum up charges on which to arrest him, the call-in vote was four to one in support of him. Tocino reportedly remains in good health”.

During the press conference in North Carolina, he says in reference to Fauci hearing of his ‘stunt’: “Well, he's gonna have to stick himself 300 times to transmit the virus’ 300 times to transmit a virus? You cannot have an epidemic under those circumstances! If you cannot transmit it by blood, you certainly cannot transmit it sexually. Unless you're into some real sadistic acts during sex. I don't know how much blood you want to draw. It's literally unbelievable what they're getting away with.”

It is also said that the ‘virus’ has never been isolated – a claim that is disputed by the establishment, but is likely to be true, because virologists have an interesting definition of the term ‘isolation’. Mullis writes: “Nobody has actually purified HIV, there's no little bottle of HIV anywhere on the planet.

That's just got HIV, and they have cell lines that they think that is growing in there, a lot of people would think is not even there at all … if a postdoc were to write a review of the literature that showed without much doubt that HIV was the cause of AIDS, that guy would be famous.

Now there's 100,000 guys out there who had the opportunity and 10 years has passed. We've been waiting for this star postdoctoral fellow to distinguish himself forever and get a lifelong grant from Tony Fauci. But he hasn't shown up.

No one has bothered to write a definitive review, any journal would take it.

That right there proves it, that HIV does not cause AIDS.”

I will be writing a separate post on the optic of isolation, as the contents are relevant to all ‘viruses’, but in the meantime, I recommend watching this exchange between Dr Andrew Kaufmann and Dr Judy Mikovitz, who claims to have ‘isolated’ said ‘virus’.

But even if the virus has been isolated, to claim that it is the cause of a disease simply by virtue of the fact that non-specific antibodies are found, is a logical fallacy. It does not prove anything – in the same way that “the presence of flies in garbage does not prove the flies cause the garbage”.

Creating the epidemic

So, invariably people will ask where is the epidemic coming from? It is really worth re-iterating at this point, that here, like in other similar cases, it isn’t just on thing. There a multiple factors involved, which is why AIDS as it turns out, is essentially an all-encompassing term for a large number of diseases.

As a reminder, this is what Dr Willner said on the matter: “the causes of acquired immune deficiency have been listed in medical texts for over 70 years. They are, in order of importance: malnutrition (starvation), drugs, radiation, and chemotherapy.”

If you want a simple summary of it all, I would look no further than Jon Rappoport’s 10 minute long presentation.

Malnutrition / Starvation

Dr Willner writes: “AIDS in Africa is what it has always been - slow starvation and malnutrition - and it hasn't changed at all, except for the name. Simply compare any AIDS patient with the appearance of a crack cocaine baby or the horrible television pictures of starving Somalians, or prisoners in the concentration camps of XXII Bosnia-Herzgovena and Nazi Germany. The epidemic in Africa simply does not exist. It has been an invention based on completely false information provided by indigent families seeking funds from charitable agencies and also by AIDS workers seeking to protect lucrative jobs.”

Drugs

In the case of drugs, it is well known that they are ‘immunosuppresive’. Take the example of smoking heroin: “A 40-year-old heroin smoking man presented with acute onset severe shortness of breath … Another possible cause for the spontaneous pneumothorax could be pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP). The authors feel this is unlikely but cannot rule it out as PCP samples were not taken at the time of the pneumothorax.”

Parkinsons is also “increasingly recognized as being one of the neurologic complications of HIV” (source). In 1984, just 3 years after the outbreak had started, The CDC reported that “the compound N-methyl-4-phenyl-1, 2, 3, 6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP) has been identified in underground laboratory preparations of a potent analog of meperidine (Demerol) … a street-drug contaminant has appeared that can cause parkinsonism in drug abusers.”

One does wonder if the ‘illegal’ drug industry, and the ‘legal’ drug industry, are in fact, one and the same (if you haven’t seen it yet, I would recommend watching season 4 of the Netflix show Ozarks).

As we previously discussed, a number of ‘treatments, including AZT, were rapidly introduced to help combat the ‘virus’. All of them carry serious ‘side effects’. The following table, taken from Liam Sheff’s article, tells you everything you need to know:

At the time, and still today, gay men are encouraged to take various antibiotics prophylactically, such as doxycycline, which are also known to be immunosuppressive. And we’ve already discussed the health problems that are attributed to the use of amyl nitrate or ‘poppers’, that have been linked to Kaposi’s Sarcoma.

Lifestyle

Before I get called a ‘homophobe’, no, I am not talking about same-sex relations, but rather the fact that many of these men were ‘burning the candles from both ends'; spending all night at the bathhouse, not sleeping, not eating properly and the heavy use of a cocktail of drugs (including alcohol). It is indisputable that all of these factors, over time, will ‘wear a person down’, as is illustrated for us in this exchange between Null and Mullis:

Null: “Let's say that we gave you hepatitis, not once, not twice, but five times. And then when you woke up in the morning, before you had the cigarettes, and the alcohol, we gave you a handful of antibiotics. Let's say we give you a bunch of penicillin. And then then we also gave you some rectal infusion of sperm, which we know is immunosuppressive. And we also gave you every kind of drug imaginable; ecstasy and poppers so you can keep having your erections and sex all night. Let's say just didn't have two or three sexual acts, let's say you had 5-10 sexual acts per night. [And] You did that for the next two years. Every day.”

Mullis: “I would not expect to live through it. I can without sleep for two nights, and then I start bumping into things. I start dropping things. I don't mean going completely without sleep, I mean, going to bed at 3:30 and waking up at six o'clock to go surfing that kind of thing. That's not enough for me. I need more than that. I need to have, you know, a fairly decent diet”.

Null: “well then, where's the surprise of guys who did this for three or four years at the same level and more intense than you did? And now they come down with one of these 29 or multiple 29 opportunistic infections. ”

Mullis: “I don't think there is a surprise. Those guys that live next door to me, they I mean, I talked to him they were they were so you guys looking awfully pale, don’t you guys go out in the sun anymore. And the answer is no. We're working. We're hanging out of the bathhouse and it's fun. Why don't you come over there? We'll show you. But I mean, I don't think anybody should have been really surprised, that’s the shock of the whole thing, actually, when you look back and say, “Why did they think it was just some virus that this guy Montagnier pulled out of a lymph node, when he could have pulled anything out of that lymph node, it probably had 100 different things in there that he could have identified. Why did anybody fall for that?”

If you’ve watched the film ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’, you’ll have seen for yourself Freddy Mercury was in effect, doing exactly this. But strangely, the constant drinking, partying, drug taking etc couldn’t possibly be the cause of his sickness. No, no, it must have been the ‘virus’.

Fear

MedicalNewsToday, when writing about false positives, mention that “False-positive HIV test results can have a significant emotional and social impact on a person.”

And indeed, who wants to be told that they have contracted a deadly virus, that means they only have several years left to live – especially if they feel perfectly healthy?

If you haven’t already, have a read of my Twitter thread on rabies for a brief discussion on how the ‘nocebo effect’ could apply here, where I also discuss the practice known as ‘bone pointing’.

Mullis says “just the fear of AIDS has probably killed about 1000 people, just the fear. It doesn't make you feel good to think you might be getting a fatal disease all the time and worrying about it every morning. Is this cold the beginning? Is this flu, the beginning of AIDS? There's a lot of people with HIV who are always worried every time they get any little disease. They're worried sick about it. And some of them probably end up dying just because they're worrying about it.”

If you are unconvinced by this explanation, I suggest watching the documentary House of Numbers.

The forgotten victims

Before we wrap this up, I wanted to also take the opportunity to draw attention to another group that has not received much attention – and those are the children born to HIV positive parents.

This matter was originally investigated by the late Liam Scheff who wrote a series of articles on the topic, and was involved in the creation of the BBC’s short documentary ‘Guinea Pig Kids’.

Even if you are still not entirely convinced that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, to a certain extent, adults who have been presented with the evidence, are free to believe whatever they like, and should be free to take drugs like AZT if they so wish.

But when it comes to children, there is nothing – no cause grand enough – that justifies what is recounted below.

I have included one of Liam’s articles below for easier reading. I feel compelled to add a ‘trigger warning’ here, as the contents are upsetting. But I encourage you to read it nonetheless; people turning a blind eye is in part, why the individuals involved, have been able to get away with all of this for so long.

Thank you, Liam, for having had the courage to report on this.

---

START OF LIAM’S ARTICLE

In New York’s Washington Heights is a 4-story brick building called Incarnation Children’s Center (ICC). This former convent houses a revolving stable of children who’ve been removed from their own homes by the Agency for Child Services. These children are black, Hispanic and poor. Many of their mothers had a history of drug abuse and have died. Once taken into ICC, the children become subjects of drug trials sponsored by NIAID (National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease, a division of the NIH), NICHD (the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) in conjunction with some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies – GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Genentech, Chiron/Biocine and others.

The drugs being given to the children are toxic – they’re known to cause genetic mutation, organ failure, bone marrow death, bodily deformations, brain damage and fatal skin disorders. If the children refuse the drugs, they’re held down and have them force fed. If the children continue to resist, they’re taken to Columbia Presbyterian hospital where a surgeon puts a plastic tube through their abdominal wall into their stomachs. From then on, the drugs are injected directly into their intestines.

In 2003, two children, ages 6 and 12, had debilitating strokes due to drug toxicities. The 6-year-old went blind. They both died shortly after. Another 14-year old died recently. An 8-year-old boy had two plastic surgeries to remove large, fatty, drug-induced lumps from his neck.

This isn’t science fiction. This is AIDS research. The children at ICC were born to mothers who tested HIV positive, or who themselves tested positive. However, neither parents nor children were told a crucial fact – HIV tests are extremely inaccurate.(1,2)

The HIV test cross-reacts with nearly seventy commonly-occurring conditions, giving false positive results. These conditions include common colds, herpes, hepatitis, tuberculosis, drug abuse, inoculations and most troublingly, current and prior pregnancy.(3,4,5) This is a double inaccuracy, because the factors that cause false positives in pregnant mothers can be passed to their children – who are given the same false diagnosis.

Most of us have never heard this before. It’s undoubtedly the biggest secret in medicine. However, it’s well known among HIV researchers that HIV tests are extremely inaccurate – but the researchers don’t tell the doctors, and they certainly don’t tell the children at ICC, who serve as test animals for the next generation of AIDS drugs. ICC is run by Columbia University’s Presbyterian Hospital in affiliation with Catholic Home Charities through the Archdiocese of New York.

Sean and Dana Newberg are two children from ICC. Their mother used drugs and was unable to care for them properly, so they were raised in foster care, until their great-aunt Mona adopted them.

Mona Newberg is a teacher in the New York Public Schools, and has her Master’s degree in Education. She adopted the children when Sean was three and Dana was six. She was already raising their older brother, who was never given an HIV test or AIDS drugs. He’s now grown, healthy and serving in the Navy. Their mother used heroin and crack cocaine since she was a teenager. She was given an HIV test in the late 80s and tested positive. “She had three children before Sean and Dana,” said Mona. “Nobody told us that the test cross-reacted with drug abuse, let alone pregnancy. It’s not a valid test.”

Because of the test result, the doctors at Columbia Presbyterian put Sean on AZT monotherapy when he was 5 months old. Use of AZT monotherapy is now considered malpractice because it can cause debilitating, fatal illness including fatal anemia. Dana spent her first four years at Hale House, a NY orphanage for children whose parents abused drugs. Hale house was participating in an AZT drug trial when Dana was there. “We can’t get the records from Hale House, so I don’t know what happened there,” Mona said. “I never gave Dana the drugs after I got her, but I know she arrived with a filled prescription for AZT.”

Sean has been on life support twice as a result of the AIDS drug Nevirapine. Dana was put on AIDS drugs in 2002, even though she wasn’t sick. Since being put on the drugs, Dana has developed cancer. Both children have been taken into ICC and kept there against their will and against Mona’s wishes for one reason – Mona has questioned the safety of the AIDS drugs AZT, Nevirapine and Kaletra and stopped giving the drugs when they made the children ill.

In the summer and fall of 2003, I visited Mona, Sean, Dana and ICC. I spoke with Mona about her experience and her decision. (The names of Sean, Mona and Dana are aliases which they requested to protect their identities, but their stories are accurate and unaltered).

Liam Scheff: What led you to question the safety of the drugs?

Mona: When I first got Sean at three years old, he was a vegetable. He’d never eaten solid food. He had a feeding tube that went through his nose into his stomach. AIDS medications change the taste buds. AZT, especially, makes it so kids can’t stand the taste of food and won’t eat. The nurses fed Sean AZT, Bactrim and six cans of Pediasure a day through this tube, which stayed in his stomach for over two years. Nobody ever bothered to change it. When I got Sean, I continued to give him the drugs as prescribed for about 5 months. But after each spoonful, he got weaker. I thought, wait a minute – this stuff is supposed to be making him better, why is he getting worse? Sean had night sweats and fevers 24 hours a day. He had no energy. He couldn’t play. He couldn’t get up for ten minutes without lying down. Nurses came regularly to give him blood infusions to manage the AZT anemia. After the infusions, he’d be nearly comatose for two days. He was like a limp doll. Every time I gave Sean the drugs, he got weaker and sicker. I didn’t know what to do but I didn’t want him to die. So I stopped everything that appeared to be killing him. I stopped the AZT. I stopped the Bactrim. I stopped the nurse from coming to give the infusions. It wasn’t immediate, but Sean started to improve. His fevers subsided. He could eat. He gained weight. Within a couple months, he was actually running and playing with the other children. Sean was born with a chronic lung condition because of his mother’s drug use, but even his lungs improved. I couldn’t believe it. When Sean was born, the doctors told his mother that he was going to die. They told her to buy a coffin for him. He barely survived. When I took him off the drugs, he was healthy for the first time in his life. I was so happy, I told everyone - including the doctors and nurses - what had happened. I didn’t know not to.

When the hospital found out I wasn’t giving him the drugs, they contacted Agency for Child Services (ACS). An ACS worker came to my door, and told me I had to register the kids with an infectious disease doctor – Dr. Howard at Beth Israel. I was taking Sean and Dana to a Naturopathic MD, and they were both healthy and strong. I told them that we had a doctor. They said, “Too bad, you have to see Dr. Howard now.” Howard was terrible for the children. He ignored the only thing that actually bothered Sean – his lung condition, and insisted that he go on a new drug for HIV. He said, “There’s a new miracle drug. It just came on the market. I guarantee if you give it to Sean, you’ll watch the miracle happen”

LS: What was the miracle drug?

Mona: Nevirapine. Howard put Sean on Nevirapine. Sean’s health immediately deteriorated. He got sicker, his lungs congested, he lost weight, his cheekbones sunk, his liver and spleen started to go. Six months after he went on Nevirapine, he had complete organ failure. He was on life support for two weeks at Beth Israel Hospital. Then I did some research on Nevirapine, and found out that it caused organ failure and death. When Sean finally got out of the hospital, Howard discharged him on hospice care. Six months earlier, he was healthy. Now they were telling me to prepare for his death. Once I got him home, I stopped giving Sean the Nevirapine, and he was able to eat again. He started to gain some weight back. Sean was so weak after being on life support, with all those tubes in him. He’d gotten so thin. But he finally started to recover. When I took Sean to Dr. Howard, he was always surprised to see that Sean was improving. Howard would ask me, “Are you sure you’re giving him the medication, Mrs. Newberg?”

LS: In times of improvement, he suspected that you weren’t giving Sean the Nevirapine?

Mona: Right. He only worried when Sean wasn’t sick! AIDS doctors always think there’s something wrong if you’re not dying.

After that Howard started keeping Sean in the hospital for longer periods of time for the lung problems we used to treat at home. Howard kept Sean for 25 days and fed Sean the Nevirapine himself. Sean ended up back in intensive care with organ failure. He was placed on life support for two weeks. He got a hospital staph infection because Howard wouldn’t let him leave. He was eight years old, and just wanted to come home. A month later, the hospital finally discharged him. Then ACS called me for a meeting. The ACS worker told me I should put Sean into Incarnation Children’s Center until he was stronger. They told me that ICC was this wonderful place. They said in four months he’d be strong enough to come back home. ICC took Sean off the Nevirapine and put him on Viracept, Epivir, Zerit and Bactrim. Sean improved off the Nevirapine, but the new drugs definitely made him sick – just not as badly. He had trouble walking, and his arms and legs got even thinner. I visited Sean at ICC for five months. Then, when I wanted to bring him home, they said, “We don’t recommend that Sean leave here. You have a reputation for not giving meds.”

LS: ICC refused to let Sean come home?

Mona: Right. They kept him for a year and a half. I had to get a lawyer to get him out.

LS: What was it like for Sean at ICC? Mona: There were children in wheelchairs, on crutches, with deformations. There were AZT babies. Their heads have a different shape, with the eyes spaced wide and sunken in. The drugs cause severe developmental problems. Many children have misshapen, weak limbs and distended bellies. Many are learning disabled. The kids at ICC are constantly medicated with all kinds of drugs. When children refuse the drugs the nurses hold them down and force feed them. Sean wanted to get the hell out of there. During my visits I noticed that many children at ICC were walking around with tubes hanging from their undershirts, and I wondered what they were. Then one day, I saw the nurse come in with a whole tray of medications and syringes, and I watched her inject this medication into the tubes coming out of their stomachs. I couldn’t believe it. I thought, my god, what’s going on here? Every child who had a stomach tube took their medication that way, from the three-year-olds to the teenagers. It horrified me. I couldn’t understand it. When I found out what was being done, I thought, surely this must be illegal. There’s no way they could be doing this legally. I expressed my concerns to Sean’s ACS case worker. I said, “Do you know what they’re doing to those kids in there? This reminds me of Nazi Germany.” He said, “They’re doing wonderful things for these children.” I called Albany, the state capital, and talked to Dan Tietz at the New York State Department of Health’s AIDS Institute. He said, “What are we going to do if these little children refuse to take the medication? How are we going to save their lives if we don’t perform this operation?”

LS: Who performs this operation?

Mona: The children are sent to Columbia-Presbyterian for the operation. The surgeons there do it. I was at ICC one day, and saw a fourteen-year old boy named Daniel refusing the pills. I actually saw him run from the nurse when she came to give him his medication. He said, “The medication makes me sick and I don’t want to take it.” His aunt was there, and she said, “The medication makes him very ill.” The ACS case worker, Wendy Wack, came in, and said to the aunt very clearly, “Daniel has refused to take his medication. We’ve changed it three times and he’s still refusing. Now, the only thing left is the operation.” She said, “If you refuse the operation, we’ll call Agency for Child Welfare – and take Daniel away from you.” His aunt signed, and they took Daniel away. When he came back a few weeks later, he had a tube in his stomach.

LS: Does Sean have the tube?

Mona: No. He doesn’t want that tube in his stomach. He’s been there long enough to know you get the tube if you say no to the medication. He’s terrified, so he never refuses the drugs. The children at ICC who don’t have the tubes tend to be a whole lot healthier and live a whole lot longer than the ones with the tubes. I was talking to a boy named Amir. He’s 6. His stomach was so swollen. He said, “My stomach is swollen, it got big.” He said, ”They cut me,” and he showed a little cut on his side. He’s had a tube for a long time. Amir was an AZT baby. His face has that wider shape. He also has lypodystrophy from the drugs. He has huge fat lumps on his back and neck. They’ve taken him away for surgery twice but the lumps grow back. Sean’s little friend Jesus just died. He was 12. He had a tube. He had a stroke from the drugs. There was a little girl, Mia. She had a tube. She had a stroke and went blind. She died recently too. Carrie, a 14-year-old girl died last year. She had a tube. There’s a three-year-old, Patricia. She’s had a tube since she arrived. She’s going home with it in her. I don’t think she’s going to make it. I used to talk with the child care workers about the drugs. I got to know all of them and they were all very friendly with me. I said, “These drugs are killing the children.” They said, “We know.”

LS: They agreed with you?

Mona: Yes, but what can they do, they just take care of the kids. The doctors and nurses give the medication. Telling the doctors that the drugs make you sick doesn’t do anything. They just stare at you blankly. They don’t care. Compliance is the main goal of ICC. All the kids in ICC come from families who’ve failed to comply with the drug regimen. LS: ICC is part of a national program running AIDS drug trials. Have you ever signed a waiver permitting them to use your children in a drug trial? Mona: No, never. But ACS has signed for me when I didn’t want to give Sean drugs. When I said, “No,” the ACS case worker grabbed the form and said, “I’ll sign it. You don’t need to.” They’re always switching medications – they never ask me if it’s okay. Right now, most of the kids at ICC are on Kaletra. Kaletra was on fast-track approval. It was released before testing was complete. But they do know something about Kaletra. It causes cancer. It says on the label, that this drug causes cancer in test animals.

I fought for a year to get Sean home. ICC wanted to put him in a foster home where someone would be paid to feed him the drugs every day. I got a lawyer and we finally got Sean out of there. My lawyer was able to get Sean’s ICC medical records. He told me, “Sean was tortured at Incarnation. He was tortured.”

END OF LIAM’S ARTICLE

---

In 2004, the BBC aired the documentary Guinea Pig Kids, which shone a light on experiments being carried out on HIV-positive children residing at the Incarnation Children’s Centre in New York. UK-based Glaxo SmithKline were supplying the drugs. The full documentary can be viewed here. In it, the narrator visits the grave where some of the children who succumbed to the trials: “More than 1000 children’s bodies are buried in a mass grave, owned by the Catholic church, which include children who were enrolled in the trials. Officially, their deaths are recorded as having occurred only from natural causes.”

A year later, NBC News reported that this research was not confined to New York, and had in fact been “conducted in at least seven states — Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Colorado and Texas — and involved more than four dozen different studies. The foster children ranged from infants to late teens, according to interviews and government records.”

At around the same time, BBC presenter Mike Thomson writes “I then began trawling though papers at the Public Record Office in London and discovered evidence that there had been numerous such trials on children and babies in Britain too during the 1950's and 1960's. Many also involved testing the Trivax vaccine on children in care homes. Exactly who these children were and how this affected them is hard to tell. Professor Gordon Stewart, now emeritus Professor of Public Health at Glasgow University was one of the medical experts sent to assess the data. He told this programme that when he arrived at the offices of local health authorities to ask for the results he was told that for some reason they had all been destroyed.”

In 1996, Nigeria, “a secret government report concluded that the drug manufacturer Pfizer undertook an “illegal trial of an unregistered drug” when the company enrolled nearly 100 Nigerian children with meningitis in a trial testing its antibiotic trovafloxacin (Trovan) against ceftriaxone during a 1996 meningitis epidemic.” The book / film The Constant Gardener is based on these events.

Today, many people have expressed outrage over the idea that they, and their children may be used as ‘guinea pigs’ for the ‘experimental gene therapy’ COVID vaccines.

As it turns out, there is nothing new under the sun. And I find myself wondering once more, whether what we have been living through, has been in part, to shine a light on the darkness that has ruled this place for such a long time.

I will be writing more on the subject of human and animal experimentation, as I think it is something has been kept out of sight for far too long.

Further resources

Books & Articles

• Kary Mullis – Dancing Naked in the Mind Field

• Jon Rappoport – AIDS Inc.

• Liam Scheff – The House that AIDS Built

• Dawn Lester & David Parker – What Really Makes you Ill

• Dr Peter Duesberg – Inventing the AIDS Virus

Films & Documentaries

• House of Numbers

• Guinea Pig Kids

Interview & Talks

• Kary Mullis / Gary Null interview

• Dr Robert Willner press conference in North Carolina

• Jon Rappoport presentation