Why do I do this?

For several years now I've been hanging out in m4m aol chatrooms to reach gay men who are newly diagnosed or about to get tested.  In the 5 years that I had an aol website up, I received over 100,000 hits and helped save hundreds of lives, until AOL deleted my site.  I get a lot of static from it, especially in the HIV chatrooms.  Here is an IM that I received recently and my reply:

 AnitaShlg [1:15 AM]:  why do you insist on causing trouble when meds are keeping so many of us alive?   Dear Anita,   HIV meds have never kept anyone alive.  They are killing people slower than they used to because they are less toxic then earlier formulations and they are being given to people who aren't sick at the start.  I had over 200 friends who believed as you do.  They are all dead and buried or cremated now.   Everyone who followed my advice did well.  A couple were scared back to the doctors by well-meaning, but scared, people like you.  They are dead now too.   In all these years, can you tell me why there is not one properly controlled study to show that these drugs help anybody (except the people who market them?)  They compare one drug to another or different combinations of drugs.  Never do they have a branch of the study that includes people like me and the hundreds of thousands who have been "HIV-positive" for at least 20 years but have never sought treatment for their "condition."   There is no reason to even believe that these drugs are beneficial.  They are, for the most part, chemotherapy drugs that kill cells and are highly immunosuppressive.  Why would want to take immunosuppressive treatments when they are already thought to be immunosuppressed?   They are all based on the failed "HIV theory" of AIDS.  They destroy the bone marrow, the thymus, the liver and a lot of other vital parts of the body.  They in no way create health, although initially, because of their high toxicity, they kill off all sorts of parasitic and fungal infections and may temporarily alleviate some symptoms.  Their effectiveness is measured by invalid surrogate markers.    My information may cause trouble for people who are insecure in their beliefs, but it saves lives of intelligent people who want to be able to make truly informed decisions.  To my way of thinking people who are against the free flow of information, people who want to censor what others may see, are causing all the trouble.   E  

 

reply to Bootd's comment

To bootd's comments:

EJ was examined by 3 qualified medical doctors, none of whom saw any evidence of pneumonia.  She did not have any history of immune deficiency, a hallmark of "AIDS."  The coroner was probably ordered by the CDC to declare this an "AIDS" death.  Why did it take months to release the autopsy findings, which are currently being investigated?  How can anyone know if the child was "HIV-positive," when testing blood after death can cause false positives in a test that is not reliable in the first place?  It is much more likely that powerful antibiotics, and other medications given to a child who never had any toxic medications in her 3 year old body, was the cause of death. 

Viral load does not measure "HIV," despite what you've been told or believe, and t-cells are not a valid surrogate marker for health or disease progression in "AIDS."  An "HIV-negative" taking the same drugs would experience a rise in t-cell numbers too (until the drugs destroy the thymus and the bone marrow, at which point the victim will be told his virus is now resistant.)  And plenty of "AIDS" victims are dying with "undetectable" viral loads. 

Yes, there are people diagnosed "HIV-positive" who remain healthy with no medical intervention, but it has more to do with intelligence than luck -- unless you want to say we're lucky that we're intelligent.  These people have examined the evidence with scientific scrutiny and logic and do not believe in viral theory of "AIDS."  I've seen it in case after case without exception.  Those who believe in and fear the virus, even if they shun the medical treatments, inevitably fail.  Those who see through the nonsense enjoy good health, or, as you say in "AIDSspeak," "do not progress."

I'd like to ask you a question:  Since the doctor who discovered the virus never claimed it caused "AIDS" and admitted he didn't believe it could, and the doctor who stole the virus from him and theorized that it killed t-cells, later admitted he was wrong; the virus doesn't kill t-cells, how come you still believe that it does?

The entire medical community is in error.  And it's not just "AIDS," but most of modern medicine, which is why they work so hard and play so dirty to hide the truth.  If the truth were commonly known and accepted, I think we'd see an epidemic of people shooting doctors and probably an epidemic of suicides within the medical community.

A letter to the LA Times re: Christine Maggiore, a mother's denial

  Bravo to the LA Times for shedding some light, even if tainted, on the most underreported story of a generation -- the huge controversy in science: Is "HIV" the cause of "AIDS?"    You need to fact check a little better.  Apparently, we can't take government experts at their word.  Not just pediatric, but total annual new cases of "AIDS" have been plummeting since the definition of "AIDS" stopped expanding on 1/1/93.  CDC health education specialist Lampe's information is wrong.  All of it.  The total number of new US "AIDS" cases and totals in all subgroups, Blacks, Hispanic, women, children, gays, drug addicts, etc. have been on the decline for more than a decade.  The "more than 40,000" Lampe refers to would have to be the number of people identified each year as "HIV-positive" and not new "AIDS" victims  as she attests.  If the information specialists are so gross misinformed, what can we expect from the public?   To say we "are stuck" at this number implies that we wish it were more.  But the truth is 20 years after we were told that over a million Americans were "infected" (and the virus was spreading like wild fire) we are just now crossing that million line.   That certainly isn't my idea of an epidemic.  But, what I'd like to know is, if the plummeting of pediatric "AIDS" is "one of the biggest public health and medical successes in the US," why haven't we been getting the good news?  Why were there no headlines to announce that there were zero children diagnosed with "AIDS" in Los Angeles in 2003?  Why does the average person still think the problem is getting worse and worse, when in actuality, it is dying out?  If anyone is in denial it is the doctors and the "AIDS" establishment who fear losing face, losing control, and losing hundreds of billions of dollars by admitting their gross error.   Only now, in an attempt to discredit the "contrarians," that the issue makes news, do the figures become public info and the spin doctors try to use it to their advantage.    The federal health officials and "AIDS" experts who say that "HIV" unquestionably causes "AIDS" all have a vested interest in saying that.  To say otherwise will destroy their careers, their income and ostracize them from their peers.  But there are thousands of signatories to the Rethinking AIDS statement who believe otherwise, including many medical doctors and Nobel Prize winning scientists.  Why were none of these doctors interviewed for this story?   If, as Dr. Havens attests, the contrarian beliefs are "bogus baloney," why have the mainstream orthodoxy refused to open the subject to debate?  On the one occasion that they agreed to do this, at a conference held by South African president, Thabo Mbeki,  they later backed out of all debates and proposed studies and, instead, issued a decree.  Talk about pseudoscience!   Christine is villainized for breastfeeding her children, yet the World Health Organization recommends that "HIV-positive" mothers all over the world breastfeed exclusively for at least the first 6 months.    Does it take the sad death of a beautiful child to do what intelligent, moral men and women have been unable to do for over 20 years and shed light on what may well be the greatest medical blunder in history?  Anyone who doesn't believe that all the establishment doctors and all the government experts can be wrong, grossly underestimates the power of stupid people in large numbers.        *I put "HIV" and "AIDS" in quotations marks to emphasize that everything we "know" about them is assumed and not proven. This is done in the style of the late Dr. William Holub who, in 1987, was among the first scientists to publicly scrutinize and contradict the virus theory of "AIDS." This was true then, and still is today.

Response to solarjerom & delaney

This is a response to the comment on my previous post.

I am not about to write a book which would be required to dispute all of Martin Delaneys lies and disinformation.  I will start at beginning and deconstruct the bullshit, but once it is evident that this isn't science I will not continue to waste my time on this.  You can take it from me, or you can go through it item by item yourself until you get tired of reading fiction masked as fact.  There are better things to with your time, believe me.

The fact that solarjerom & Delaney both use the term "denialist" is a giveaway that we are up against people who will denounce us, but never honestly address the issues we raise.  We are "dissidents" in that we dissent from the common beliefs, but far from "denialists."  It's the AIDS Orthodoxy that are in denial.  They deny the simple facts there is no evidence in all of published science to support the "HIV" theory of "AIDS."  They deny (or ignor) facts like Robert Gallo even admitted that the virus doesn't kill t-cells; T-cells are not a valid surrogate marker for health or disease progression; The testing has been shown to be completely invalid; and their treatments are killing people.  They insist their treatments are helping people to live longer.  Intelligent scientists should address us as "dissidents."  Calling us "denialists" is demeaning name-calling and very unprofessional.

After making a bunch of unsupported, anecdotal statements, which, if they were true, would be very easy to substantiate, Delaney's evidence that "HIV is the driving force in AIDS" (and that the drugs are effective) is the dramatic reduction in the death toll.  However, the dramatic reduction in deaths started BEFORE the introduction of the miracle cocktails, so, what then was the reason for this?  Another good question would be why weren't we told the dealth toll and number of new cases was going down annually?  Public perception is that it was worsening and worsening.

To understand why "AIDS" numbers started going down, one needs to understand why they rose so dramatically before the decline.  Several times since the beginning of the epidemic, the number of new cases per year was less than the previous year.  When this happened the CDC changed the definition of "AIDS," broadening it to make the numbers go up.  The new definition that went in effect on January 1,1993 added some female-only diseases dramatically increasing the percentage of female "AIDS" victims, and, for the first time included people with no disease but a lower than average t-cell count, were considered to have "AIDS."  This doubled the number of people with "AIDS" overnight.  When you put healthy people into the mix you can expect them to live longer than people who are sick at the time of diagnosis.  The truth is that no one is living longer or better than those of us who never touched the "HIV" medications, but doctors aren't looking at us. 

Each of Delaney's points can be deconstructed, but it takes at least 2 or 3 paragraphs to deconstruct one of his.  If you're not convinced his arguments are empty, comment on the particular point and it will be addressed.

 

My Introduction to the Dissidents

When I attempted to share my discovery with the major AIDS organizations, and eventually the White House, to my surprise, no one wanted to know about it..  AmFAR never replied to me,  GMHC wasn't interested, but sent me to ActUp.  ActUp wasn't really interested either but referred me to their Treatment Activist Group, who showed no interest either, but told me about a group called HEAL (Heal Education AIDS Liaison) who might be.

Unlike the pretty white boys (and concerned women) of ActUp whose meetings reminded me of Nazi rallies, the group at HEAL was a lot less polished and a lot more ethnicly mixed.  And unlike the ActUp rallies that filled the main hall, their meeting had a more clandestine feeling.  They were very interested in my discovery, and I was very interested in them.  What I saw were about 40 men and women of all colors and various states of health, but mostly healthy, who were sharing their experiences. 

Some believed herbal therapies were responsible for their good health.  Others credited various mushrooms or other home remedies, enemas, etc. for their ability to remain healthy with HIV.  The common thread with all of them, however, was that they had fired their doctors and rejected the medical intervention.  They were not only interested in my immune-boosting exercise, but also in something else I had just found.

After learning that I was HIV-positive and believing my discovery, which was (and still is) a common thread in all the holistic clinics throughout the world which were successfully curing cancer, I wanted to find people, other than my handful of friends, who might have also used this technique successfully with HIV/AIDS.  I put a little advertisement on the back page of the Village Voice.  I could only afford to run it for a couple of weeks and didn't get the response I was looking for. 

I got only one response to the ad and it wasn't from someone who had used this technique to cure HIV/AIDS.  It was a report by a couple of microbiologists (a professor at a local community college and his wife) who had done no original research, but merely evaluated everything that been published on the subject during the first seven years of the epidemic WITH SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY, and came to the conclusion that this was not an infectious, fatal syndrome caused by a virus and spread through sex and needle sharing, as we were being told, but a multifactorial lifestyle disease that was fully reversible.

Then I learned that there were many people, highly intelligent and respected in their fields, which included medicine, the sciences, law, religion, the humanities, education and journalism, who questioned the viral theory of AIDS, and that these people were frequently being silenced and shunned.  These are the AIDS dissidents, and I found myself to be one them.