|
CTM
Eclub digest version, 22nd April 2005
|
||||
|
Up Close and Personal
Euro-Army Should Fill Us with Fear
As the running of the eurozone sinks into chaos, with its largest economy - Germany - mired in recession, the EU now seems to be making the wrong kind of progress in all directions. A report by the pan-European business organisation Eurochambres predicts that, on current projections, the EU economy will only catch up with the present performance of the American economy by 2056 - and even that is dependent on the improbable condition that the EU's productivity grows at an annual rate 0.5 per cent faster than that of the United States. Meanwhile Nick Witney, the former senior Ministry of Defence official who now heads the new European Defence Agency, last week wrote to The Telegraph to deny my report that he is playing a key role in building up an "EU defence identity" separate from both NATO and the USA. Mr Witney must hope that we don't read his evidence to a House of Lords committee last year in which he agreed that his agency's purpose is to promote the European Security and Defence Policy, whose objective is a "European defence identity". It was disingenuous of him to claim in his letter that he is only concerned with co-ordinating defence procurement. Nowadays, as he well knows, it is precisely the nature of the armed forces' electronics and weapons systems that dictates who they can fight alongside. At the centre of EU defence planning is the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) which will create a family of vehicles and weapons systems co-ordinated through the EU's GALILEO satellite programme. If the British Army is reorganised around FRES, as Mr Witney's former ministry wants, it will be equipped to fight alongside other EU forces, but not alongside the Americans. The real danger Britain now faces, through our breakneck
integration with the EU's defence and procurement policy, is that our
Armed Forces may soon be as effective as the Growth and Stability Pact.
And that will be no joke at all.
EU Creche Matches Annual Fees for Eton European Union civil servants are building a subsidised creche for their children where places will cost more than £20,000 a year - almost as much as fees at Eton. The 180-place creche is due to open next year, but the costs are already raising eyebrows in Brussels. Even hardened Eurocrats, used to generous living at the expense of EU taxpayers, have been startled. A year's fees at Eton are £22,380. Fees at private creches in Brussels are no more than £6,000 a year and public creches cost less. But places are hard to come by and waiting lists are long. The creche is being built by the Council of the European Union, the main decision-making body of the EU, which is made up of ministers from each member state, and run by a rotating presidency, at present held by Luxembourg. The presidency and ministers and officials attending meetings are supported by a permanent general secretariat, whose workers will be the main beneficiaries. They will be expected to pay no more than £3,500 a year, thanks to subsidies provided by the EU taxpayer. Diplomats and officials at other EU institutions will pay the full price. Vittorio Griffo, the director general of administration, said the fees included £5,000 towards purchasing and converting the premises, spread over the next 27 years. "The standards are not Hilton Hotel,
you won't find any gold taps, we have nothing to hide. We are simply following
Belgian national standards." EU Food Law Judged 'Invalid'
The so-called Food Supplements Directive, drawn by EU governments in 2002, tightens controls on products such as vitamin supplements and mineral plant extracts. Only vitamins and minerals on an approved list should be used in supplements, according to the Directive. It also imposes restrictions on vitamin doses. Furthermore, health food manufacturers have until 12 July this year to submit detailed and complete dossiers to prove that their ingredients are safe. The costs of doing this, however, would be too big for many small firms, associations argued. Food industries also said that 5,000 products would be threatened by this legislation, including more than 200 nutrients and some vitamin C products. The British Health Food Manufacturers Association (HFMA), the National Association of Health Stores (NAHS) and the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), brought the case ahead of implementation of the law, due in August. The Advocate General, Leendert Geelhoed, came down on their side in his statement. The Directive "infringes the principle of proportionality, because basic principles of Community law, such as the requirements of legal protection, of legal certainty and of sound administration have not been properly taken into account. The Directive is, therefore, invalid," he stated in his conclusion. However, he did not say he was opposed to the legislation in principle, leaving a door open for EU officials to redraw it. The legal action was initially launched in the UK courts, and was handed over to the European Court of Justice last year. One third of UK women and a quarter of men take health food supplements. Reactions "It is commendable that the EU Advocate General has seen through the flawed science and law of the Food Supplements Directive and reached his recommendations today", said Dr. Robert Verkerk, Executive Director of the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH). "This is a great day for the tens of millions of people who believe passionately in the benefits of natural, preventative healthcare", he added. A positive reaction also came from the European Parliament, as MEP John Bowis, a health spokesman for the Conservative group said: "Conservative MEPs warned at the time that this Directive was several steps too far in the realm of the nanny state and I am delighted that at least at the first stage of the judicial conclusion, common sense and consumer choice is being endorsed." The European Commission, on the other hand, declined to comment on the Advocate General's conclusions, saying it would prefer to wait until the final judgement of the Court. The opinion of the Advocate General is not legally binding, as the European Judges are the ones to give the final ruling. However, in most cases, the judges follow the recommendations of the Advocate General. The final ruling is expected before August, as this
is the deadline for the law to come into force. UK Challenges Subsidy for Élite Euro-schools
Few taxpayers have even heard of the "European Schools", established 50 years ago to provide a free, highly academic education for the children of EU officials and accredited diplomats. Britain spends proportionally more than any other nation on funding the 13 schools, whose overall budget this year is £160 million. Under a treaty that governs the schools, the Government pays the salaries of British teachers seconded to the schools. About 240 of the 1,400 full-time staff at the schools are British, thanks to a growing demand for native English-speaking instructors. Teachers are paid up to £62,000 a year. In 2004-5, the Government spent just under £9 million on direct subsidies to the European Schools. Through British contributions to the EU's overall budget, an additional £5 million of UK taxpayers' money was channelled to the schools by the European Commission. The funding of European Schools is to come up for debate next month at a meeting of their board of governors. A briefing note on the British negotiating position, obtained by The Daily Telegraph, speaks of the "high costs" of running the schools. It adds: "The UK is required to make a disproportionately large contribution to the European Schools budget." There are some 2,000 British pupils at European Schools, out of a total enrolment of 20,000. The Government briefing note points out that several nations do well out of the status quo, notably Greece, Italy, Spain and France, and will be "difficult to persuade". The EC, under pressure from Britain, has thrown its weight behind reform. But it defended the schools' basic existence in a recent report, arguing that the availability of high-quality, multi-lingual free schooling "has made it easier for [EU] institutions to recruit experienced, highly qualified staff." That argument was challenged by Chris Heaton-Harris, a British Conservative MEP and campaigner against EU waste, who has used a string of parliamentary written questions to unravel the European Schools' finances. He said: "Eurocrats have the best pay and conditions of any bureaucrats in the Western world. They pay the equivalent of 16 per cent tax, they have huge salaries and allowances. How can the European elite justify giving themselves tax-payers' money for still more perks and -benefits?" The European Schools spend £8,000 a head on pupils annually, said Mr Heaton-Harris, an MEP for the East Midlands - nearly twice the amount spent on British state school pupils. The European schools teach a special curriculum with
a strong emphasis on foreign languages, as well as the culture and values
of the EU, leading to a unique "European Baccalaureate"
qualification. The schools' mission statement says pupils "shall become Europeans in spirit, while preserving their love and pride for their own countries, and shall be well prepared to complete and consolidate the work undertaken by their fathers, towards the creation of a united and prosperous Europe." Most of the schools are sited near major EU institutions in Brussels, Luxembourg and Frankfurt. A European School in Culham, near Oxford, opened to serve scientists working at the Joint European Taurus, a nuclear fusion research centre. In a formal report to national governments, the Commission conceded last year that the current system of "effectively open-ended EU funding" for the European Schools "has not provided adequate incentives for better resource management" - code for an embarrassment that cannot be defended. The report added that cost savings could be made "without
reducing the quality of service provided." French Poll a Blow to Hopes for European Constitution Europe's political establishment was sent reeling yesterday by the first opinion poll to suggest that French voters will reject the draft European constitution and deal the treaty a fatal blow. According to the CSA institute poll, 51 per cent of the French would vote against the constitution and 49 per cent for. The poll marked a 14-point slump for the Yes camp since the last survey three weeks ago. A rejection from France would plunge the European Union into a political crisis whose outcome is impossible to predict. In theory, all 25 EU members must ratify the constitution, or the document is doomed. In practice, a Czech or Polish No vote could probably be fudged. But the consensus in Brussels is that a No vote from France would be a death sentence for the treaty. The crisis is already leading to poisonous mutual finger-pointing between Paris and the European Commission in Brussels over who is to blame for the decline in French enthusiasm for the European project. The commission's president, Jose Manuel Barroso, has denounced the charged atmosphere in France as "giving excuses to europhobes and eurosceptics". Other European governments with their own referenda to fight over the next two years have watched, with dismay, Mr Chirac's sudden willingness to pick fights over Europe and confront Brussels. One British politician who follows French politics closely expressed irritation at Mr Chirac's "cynicism" over Europe, as well as his failure to develop a strategy for winning the referendum on May 29. He expressed equal gloom at the federalist rhetoric of other leaders in the Yes camp, notably the ex-president Giscard d'Estaing, touring the country assuring voters that the treaty is the founding political charter of a new Europe. "The French haven't got their act together yet," the British observer complained. "They have seemed more concerned with getting the 2012 Olympics than getting a Yes vote in this referendum. Between Giscard's romanticised overselling of the constitution treaty, and Chirac's continual cynicism and underperformance, there is a very serious danger that France could pull this whole thing down." The Yes campaign - led by a fractious coalition of Centre Left and Right leaders - has been dogged by infighting, with some leaders spending as much time warring with rivals in their parties as campaigning for the constitution. The No camp has benefited, above all, from a fresh wave of insecurity and protectionism sweeping France provoked by an EU directive designed to reduce red tape for professionals moving around the EU. Tens of thousands have taken to the French streets to denounce the directive. To British eyes, the "Bolkestein directive", named after a Dutch former commissioner, is uncontroversial. Its main sticking point, for the French, is a clause that allows professionals, such as Polish architects or British ski-instructors, to move on a temporary contract to another EU country and, initially at least, follow their home country's regulations and labour laws. But to many French workers, the prospect of thousands of low-paid, low-taxed and lightly regulated Czechs and Poles setting up in competition is proof that the EU has been hijacked by "Anglo-Saxon" free-marketeers and their acolytes from Eastern Europe. The No camp has watched its support surge as it attacked the directive. The Yes camp reacted with near-panic. Mr Chirac even
called the commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso, to tell him that
the directive was "unacceptable" and demand that it should
be "started again from scratch." Europe's Bogus Benefits
Under the EU arrest warrant, British citizens can now be arrested on the whim of a foreign magistrate in Greece or Slovenia. The Government's Draconian and illiberal house- arrest proposals are a direct consequence of the European Convention on Human Rights. That's freedom? Security? Brussels's proposals for independent defence structures outside Nato, its adversarial approach to America, its Galileo GPS (with China as a partner), are undermining the transatlantic relationship on which our security has depended for decades, and continues to depend. But Liddle's most preposterous claim is "economic strength". The Bundesbank has said "it can find no benefit for German industry" in the single market. Commentators from Peter Mandelson to the European Commission itself have highlighted the costs of EU regulation. The hubristic "Lisbon process" promising "the most competitive knowledge based economy in the world" by 2010, lies in ruins. The French and German economies are edging from failure to disaster, with the euro a key contributory factor. German unemployment is at levels not seen since Weimar. That's economic strength? Liddle perfectly illustrates the folly of EU propaganda,
flying in the face of reality and common sense. PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: For those unfamiliar with
the main infringements of freedom the EU espouses, please take the brief
tour on our book Ten
Minutes to Midnight. Credence also has a PAL video documentary
on the subject, entitled The
Real Face of the European Union.
Acquired ImmuneDeficiency Syndrome (AIDS)by Phillip Day
Profile In the 1970s to early 1980s, a group of otherwise seemingly healthy males were diagnosed with immune deficiency problems. Later, the common denominator found for those suffering from this ‘new disease’, AIDS, appeared to be that they were variously:
· homosexual · intravenous drug users · haemophiliacs
Symptoms AIDS, actually
not one disease but a collection of many different conditions brought
under the AIDS umbrella, manifests itself variously with opportunistic
infections such as thrush
, yeast
infections like Candida, pneumocystis carinii pneumonia
and
other, so-called AIDS-defining diseases. Sudden, unexplainable commencement
of fevers
, sweats
, flu-like symptoms, diarrhoea
, swelling of lymph
glands and rashes
on the
body. Dark, cancerous skin lesions, such as Karposi’s sarcoma
, are often found on the body.
Commentary One of the
greatest scandals in medicine today surrounds the classification of
AIDS as an infectious disease. The supposed pathogen, human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV
), despite much fanfare and fear-mongering,
has never been isolated according to any recognised and appropriate
scientific procedure. And so, from a scientific standpoint, HIV
can
be deemed not to exist. In the 16 years since Dr Robert Gallo’s ‘discovery’
of HIV
(for
which he was later indicted for science fraud), no empirical proof of
the existence of an HIV
virus
or retrovirus has ever been furnished to the scientific establishment,
much less satisfactorily connected with how AIDS symptoms are supposed
to be caused by it.
First
world AIDS All the evidence
shows that immune suppression (‘AIDS’) in the First World is primarily
brought on by long-term recreational or pharmaceutical drug toxicity
AND IS NOT INFECTIOUS OR SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED. AIDS in the first world
does not behave like a sexually transmitted, infectious disease at
all. AIDS is still within its risk groups after over 25 years supposedly
rampaging through a sexually driven public. Only 5% of the homosexual
community has a problem with immune suppression, 95% don’t. The 5% who
do will usually have a history of immuno-suppressant activity, drug-taking
(recreational and pharmaceutical), which will adequately explain their
current predicament.
If you are
going to tell the public that HIV is spread sexually, then where is
the AIDS epidemic in Britain today? Did Britain suddenly stop having
unprotected sex? And how come HIV is supposed to be spread through the
transfer of blood and other body fluids, and yet mosquitoes don’t spread
it? You do not need HIV to explain the phenomenon of AIDS either
in the western world or in third world countries.
Third
world AIDS Third world
or ‘African’ ‘AIDS’ is nothing more than the cynical reclassification
of diseases that have always killed Africans and other citizens: dysentery
, cholera
, diarrhoea, malnutrition
, TB
, malaria
and
parasitic
infections, brought on by the frequently contaminated water supplies
poor citizens in these regions are forced to consume. Africans are almost
always classified as ‘AIDS carriers’ through the arbitrary visual-only
Bangui definition.
Bogus
testing procedures Many unwitting
victims in the first world are drawn into the AIDS nightmare after being
frightened by advertising or newspaper articles into believing that
they might ‘be at risk’. And so they are talked into taking ‘an AIDS
test’. The ELISA
(Enzyme-Linked Immuno-Absorbent Assay) and Western Blot
tests are designed to highlight
the presence of the supposed HIV
, not by identifying any virus itself, but by
tracing the presence of antibodies in the blood, allegedly unique to,
and said to be stimulated by a virus or retrovirus no-one can seem to
find.
The only real
difference between the two tests is that the ELISA
is supposed
to measure antibody activity as a whole, whereas the Western Blot
measures reactions to separate
proteins supposedly making up the virus. As a result of this claim,
the Western Blot
method is deemed by most in the AIDS industry to be more specific
than the ELISA
test,
and will often be used to confirm a positive ELISA
test
and the equally unrealiable PCR viral load tests.
[1]
The problem is, all the diagnostic methods
employed by the recognised laboratories are far from specific. Author
Christine Maggiore
, herself a victim of these fraudulent tests,
states the major problem as follows:
“Both tests
are non-specific to HIV antibodies and are highly inaccurate. Non-specific
means that these tests respond to a great number of non-HIV antibodies,
microbes, bacteria
and other conditions that are often found in the blood of normal,
healthy people. A reaction to any one of these other antibodies and
conditions will result in an HIV-positive diagnosis. A simple illness
like a cold or the flu
can
cause a positive reading on an HIV
test.
A flu
shot
or other vaccine
can also create positive results. Having or having had herpes
or hepatitis
may produce a positive test, as can a vaccination for hepatitis B. Exposure
to diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria
commonly cause false positive results, as do the presence of tape
worms and other parasites. Conditions such as alcoholism
, liver disease and blood that is highly oxidated
through drug use may be interpreted as the presence of HIV antibodies.
Pregnancy and prior pregnancy
can
also cause a positive result.”
[2]
The triggering
of an HIV-positive result will lead invariably to prescriptions for
the deadly cell toxins AZT, ddI and other ‘HIV’ drugs (protease inhibitors,
etc.), which have an appalling history of causing the very immune deficiencies
they were supposedly designed to prevent, but they do rack up the drug
profits. South African barrister Anthony Brink remarks:
“In truth,
AZT makes you feel like you’re dying. That’s because on AZT you are.
How can a deadly cell toxin conceivably make you feel better as it finishes
you, by stopping your cells from dividing, by ending this vital process
that distinguishes living things from dead things? Not for nothing does
AZT come with a skull and cross-bones label when packaged for laboratory
use.”
[3]
And indeed
that is the case. With a skull and cross-bones on the outer label and
a reminder to wear suitable protective clothing
when handling, the inner contents of the AZT packaging include the
following side-effects advisory notice:
WHOLE BODY: abdominal pain, back pain, body odour
, chest pain, chills, edema
of the
lip, fever, flu symptoms, hyperalgesia. CARDIOVASCULAR: syncope, vasodilation
. GASTROINTESTINAL: bleeding gums, constipation
, diarrhoea
, dysphagia, edema
of the
tongue, eructation, flatulence, mouth ulcer, rectal haemorrhage. HAEMIC AND LYMPHATIC: lymphadenopathy. MUSCULOSKELETAL: arthralgia, muscle spasm, tremor, twitch. NERVOUS: anxiety
, confusion
, depression
, dizziness, emotional liability, loss of mental
acuity, nervousness, paresthesia, somnolence, vertigo
. RESPIRATORY: cough, dyspnea, epistaxis, hoarseness, pharyngitis,
rhinitis
, sinusitis
. SKIN: rash, sweat, urticaria. SPECIAL SENSES: amblyopia, hearing loss, photophobia
, taste perversion. UROGENITAL: dysuria, polyuria, urinary frequency, urinary hesitancy.
I spent some
time in the US working among homosexuals deemed HIV-positive by the
medical establishment. In all cases, their plight could be laid at the
door of malnutrition, parasite/fungal infections, and recreational or
pharmaceutical drug abuse. Their sure and ready remedy was to cease
the drug abuse and move towards wellness with a properly constructed
regimen of sound nutrition and supplementation.
Our full report
on AIDS is contained in The Truth About HIV, the result of over
15 years’ research into this tragically misunderstood realm of medical
error. The further tragedy is that expectant mothers are now required
to take an ‘HIV’ test, resulting in more than a few cases being deemed
HIV-positive simply because of the antibody load picked up by these
tests. The resultant medication is as catastrophic to the baby as it
is to the mother. For this reason, we issue the following advisory to
all pregnant mothers around the world:
Health
warning to expectant mothers If you have
recently become pregnant, you may be recommended to take an HIV test
as part of a standardised ante-natal care package.
[4]
This test is highly inaccurate and remains
scientifically unproven. It should be refused on the following grounds:
1) All manufacturers
of these tests include the following or similar disclaimer with their
test kits: “At present, there is no recognised standard for establishing
the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV- 2 in human blood.”
[5]
2) The reason
for this disclaimer is because the AIDS test does not measure the presence
of a virus.
[6]
The AIDS test has been designed to detect levels
of antibody activity in the blood. Antibody activity in the bloodstream
is a normal occurrence in humans, but is being misinterpreted by the
AIDS test as indicative of the presence of HIV
. 3) As a result
of this misinterpretation, healthy individuals are being wrongly diagnosed
as HIV positive. Since this information has come to light, in excess
of 60 different medical conditions have been recorded that can give
rise to a false HIV-positive reading. These separate conditions include
flu, flu vaccination
, malaria
, tetanus
vaccination
, hepatitis
A and
B, hepatitis vaccinations, fungal infections, alcohol and drug use,
recent viral infections and even pregnancy.
[7]
Receiving a spurious but wholly devastating
diagnosis of HIV-positive will prompt your doctor to recommend a course
of ‘anti-HIV’ drugs. Known as protease inhibitors
or anti-retrovirals,
these drugs are highly toxic. They have the well-documented capacity
to harm the mother, and also severely to deform and even kill the unborn
child.
[8]
The current
levels of spending on AIDS drugs in the western world are phenomenal.
So too are the profits enjoyed by the AIDS drug manufacturers. As a
result, the information contained in this advisory is largely being
ignored by the medical establishment. Sadly, this is not an unexpected
reaction. The pursuit of profit at the expense of health, the wilful
employment of flawed medical procedures, the administration of dangerously
toxic drugs to expectant mothers, the disregard for the plight of thousands
upon thousands of wrongly diagnosed people, and a refusal by the medical
establishment to listen to sound contrary evidence or to admit medical
negligence - all are the hallmarks of that once-respected drug, thalidomide.
Do not allow either yourself or your child to face the possibility of
becoming another heartbreaking medical statistic. For more information
on AIDS, please obtain a copy of World Without AIDS, available
through Credence Publications
.
Take
action© If you have been diagnosed with ‘HIV infection’ or ‘AIDS’, the following protocol may be beneficial. Please note that conditions diagnosed as AIDS are dangerous and life-threatening, and a medical specialist should always be consulted. The following regimen, if you choose to follow it, must be rigorously adhered to, preferably under supervision of a doctor acquainted with nutritional and detoxification protocols:
· TIP: Hire the services of a medical doctor (MD) or naturopathic physician (ND), trained in nutrition and aware of the AIDS/HIV deception · TIP: Take no further ‘AIDS tests’ · PREVENTION: Consider immediately dropping the use of AIDS medications, especially nucleoside analogues and DNA chain-terminators. These are heavily immuno-suppressive and carcinogenic, bringing on the very symptoms of the problem you are trying to conquer · PREVENTION: Cease taking ALL recreational drugs, including the sex-stimulant amyl nitrite (poppers - known to cause Karposi’s sarcoma ). If you have a drug addiction, a suitable clean-up program should be sought out and rigorously adhered to · PREVENTION: If you are a homosexual, avoid sex and the lifestyle that goes with the ‘fast-track’ homosexual community. Unprotected sex with multiple partners heightens the chances of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, such as herpes , gonorrhoea, syphilis, etc.. Incessant drinking, the taking of drugs, the ongoing regimens of antibiotics, not eating properly, etc., are problems which themselves will generate antibodies that can be interpreted as HIV-specific by these tests (they are not). Once you have triggered a positive AIDS test, physicians will usually then prescribe dangerous cell toxins, such as AZT · DIET AND DETOXIFICATION: Follow the regimen for cancer explained in the appropriate section of this book. This regimen addresses fungal /yeast infections, cancer, immuno-suppressant problems, detoxification, nutritional support and a correct and cleansing diet. With AIDS, it is also what you give up that will make the difference between life and death.
Further resources The Truth
About HIV by Steven Ransom
and Phillip Day The ABC’s of Disease
by Phillip Day
“The greatest darkness
cannot extinguish the radiating light of even the
smallest candle.” (anon) PHILLIP DAY’S COMMENT:
Let us remind ourselves that lies are conquered by truth. What better
way can there be to introduce the beginning of the end of AIDS than
by reading the tremendous testimonies of those individuals who are alive
and well in spite of their diagnosis. These are the stories of people
who have come out or are coming out from under the curse of the myth
of HIV
.
Details
for the following testimonies are on file with Credence
Publications and associated organisations. Please contact us at Credence
Publications if you have a genuine enquiry or a testimony you would
like to share. “I had my positive diagnosis in 1987. In setting up the Long Term Survivors
Network, I have been challenged on using the term ‘survivor’, the argument
being that if the HIV
test is not an indication of future ill-health then we haven’t survived,
as we had nothing to survive. I would dispute that, for we have survived
an assault on the very basic human spirit; ostracism from society, poisoning
of the mind by fear, attempts to control our sexual and reproductive
needs as well as pressure to take toxic and experimental drugs. No mean
feat! The point is, it’s a possibility we may not be survivors of HIV
, but we are survivors in life. We should
not forget that alongside the questions around HIV
and the dilemmas and decisions we make, we are dealing with other
things that life throws at any of us.” Claire
W.
“When I tested positive in 1988, I was told I had only three years to live. Twelve years later, I’m doing just fine. I have never taken any AIDS drugs, even though they were suggested and even pushed. In 1996, I got married – five years after I was supposed to be dead. I’m very much alive and healthy and wish people would listen to me and other people like me for a change. Ignorance is the real epidemic.” Michele M.
“I’ve known over 200
people who died of so-called AIDS. Every one of them had sufficient
drug abuse or medical terrorism to account for their immune suppression.
When I was told in 1988 that I was HIV
positive and had about two years to live, it came as a complete shock
to me because I did not have a history of what was considered high-risk
behaviour. By 1992, I had learned enough to convince me that AIDS was
the greatest medical error of all time. As I write this, it has been
eleven years since I first got tested. I’ve never developed any AIDS-defining
illnesses. In fact I’ve never had a cold in nineteen years. I ride a
bike, I take no medications and no treatments – just good food
and ten minutes a day exercise for the immune system. I thank God
I was smart enough to ‘just say no’ to the doctors, so it didn’t
cost me my health. If anything, as a result of what I’ve learned, I’m
healthier today than I have ever been.” Ed
L.
“I tested positive in 1989 and have been living in wellness without the meds [medications] for ten years - something that still shocks people, even though I’ve always been just fine. After watching my friends get sick and die on AIDS drug therapies, I decided that HIV drugs are poison and you can’t poison yourself back to health. I learned to do nothing for HIV . Instead, I focus on being healthy.” Kim F.
“In 1989, my husband Philip and I were tested HIV positive. We couldn’t believe that two people like us, nice people from nice families, were having to deal first-hand with AIDS. The doctor provided Philip with experimental drugs six months to a year before they were available to the public. At least ten times the doctor told me that Philip would not pull through whatever infection he was going through. Ten times I went through the fear, heartache and panic that I was losing my husband. Six years after being told he had just months to live, Philip died in my arms. When I was told it was my turn to take the drugs, I realised I had to make the most important decision of my life. In desperation, I called Christine Maggiore . I asked Christine to give me just the scientific information and nothing else. No stories, no emotional hype, only the facts. I had to go to her office several times to read because I became so distraught that I couldn’t continue for more than fifteen minutes. Everything I was reading described and explained what I had been through with my husband. My worst fears were being confirmed - the drugs had made my husband suffer tremendously and had eventually killed him. I started attending ‘Alive and Well’ events… ultimately deciding that AIDS drugs were not for me. I decided to trust my own life. Believing in health is the first step to creating a healthy life. Holding onto the possibility of health is everything.” Cynthia R.
“I tested positive in 1990 and nine years later I am healthy and medication-free. When I was first told I was positive, I went through the standard terror with my life flashing before my eyes. I followed my doctor’s orders for treatment with AZT . After a year of feeling sick, I listened to my inner voice and quit AZT . Except for a brief foray into ddl, I’ve been off meds ever since. I have three recommendations for anyone who tests positive - education, education and education about all aspects and points of view on HIV and AIDS.” Erik D.
“What I find hardest is living with the stigma of HIV . I’m young, healthy, intelligent and very well educated on HIV and AIDS. Yet I am isolated by the fear and ignorance surrounding a condition I don’t even believe in. Being a leader rather than a follower can be lonely and difficult. Maintaining a stance against the majority of the human population is a trying task. I don’t have the time to educate everyone, even if they were interested. When I do tell others about what I know, they are so convinced that HIV =AIDS=Death, that they think I am doomed and that my optimism is merely fear or hope or both. I do have hope. I hope that people will look deeper and listen more. That they will demand to be treated as precious beings more important than politics, money and abstract theory. It takes people like us to be the first and the most determined. Life goes on. Choose to be part of it.” Dean W.
“I was required by law to take an HIV test in June 1995. The test is mandatory in Colorado for pregnant women, and I was expecting my second child. I was shocked when the result came back positive, because I’d been married and monogamous for nine years. I started taking AZT in my fifth month. After ten months on AZT , I was sick all the time. I had constant diarrhoea , nausea , fever, night sweats and was totally exhausted. I was crawling to the bathroom and vomiting for hours. My doctor told me the HIV was making me ill, and that the virus had mutated into a form that was resistant to AZT . Further drugs turned my skin yellow with jaundice. Since it was clear that the drugs weren’t keeping me from getting AIDS and were actually destroying my liver, I let my prescription run out. I figured I’d rather die from AIDS than liver failure. Almost immediately after I stopped taking my medicines, within a matter of days I started to feel much better…. My daughter is considered a success by medical standards because she tests negative(!), but I don’t care about HIV anymore. I am concerned about the effects of the AZT she was poisoned with while I was pregnant. Rachel has an enlarged cranium, seizures and a strange deformity near the base of her spine. At age three she still does not speak. I went to this conference on HIV and pregnancy at The Children’s Hospital here in Denver. A lot of mothers there had taken AZT during pregnancy and had their kids with them. Every single one of those kids had enlarged craniums. Their heads looked exactly like Rachel’s. They’re all AZT babies. I’m working now to repeal Colorado’s mandatory [HIV ] testing law.” Kris C.
“In those days, the late eighties, the media pressure was unbearable. I had used heroin for more than two years between 1979 and 1982, so I knew I was at risk. I still remember the dreadful feelings I had, seeing and hearing the TV press campaigns. They pictured tombs, blood and zombie faces, with frightening headlines like “AIDS KILLS… DON’T DIE OF IGNORANCE.” In February 1988, I finally summed up the courage to go and be tested for the AIDS virus. I waited nervously in the infectious diseases clinic. I can still remember the doctors’ sad faces as they told me I was HIV positive and that I shouldn’t think to get pregnant until more research on the issue brought better news. The world fell in on me. Having successfully fought drug use six years previously, the future looked hopeless. According to the impression I had been given, I had at best another five years…. I had met my husband in 1992 and, after we got married in 1994, we started to think about having a child. The doctors tried hard to discourage me from the idea of conceiving. I was disturbed by their conviction that it would be advisable to take AZT during pregnancy, to have a caesarean section and to refrain from breast-feeding. I took AZT for one month only before stopping. I gave birth to a wonderful, bouncy, baby girl. My daughter had her first HIV test when still in hospital, and then when she was three and six months old. The tests were all positive. I resisted the intense pressure to administer AZT to her. The last test was done when she was one year old, which was negative. I have decided not to go for any more ritual blood tests. What’s the point if I am convinced there is a gross error at the very base of HIV theory? Meanwhile, I hope to remain as healthy as I am, enjoying my life together with Michael and our daughter.” Monica G.
To Robin Keene, SCHNS, Communicable Disease Supervisor, Manatee County Health Department 3rd June 1999
Dear Ms Keene,
Please accept my resignation from employment with the Health Department. After months of struggle and extensive research, I regret I can no longer fulfil the Public Health mandate requirements of my position in good conscience.
Upon careful investigation, it is woefully apparent that a grand schism has existed in AIDS since Robert Gallo’ s politically charged announcement to the world that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. Unfortunately, only one side of the scientific data has been made readily available to the general public. This side is far more powerful, backed by the financial storehouses of federal government agencies like the CDC and the NIH , who fund most public information campaigns and research programs. This dominant science is promoted and even manipulated by pharmaceutical giants who have an obvious profit motive. Aided by a willing media , the Public Health Service has all but silenced contrary scientific opinions and thus denied the people their fundamental right to informed consent.
I hereby withdraw my participation in what may one day be seen as the greatest violation of the principle of informed consent in the history of Public Health.
Most sincerely, Mark Pierpoint HIV /AIDS Prevention Program Co-ordinator.
(Celia Farber writes:
“I tracked Pierpoint down, mainly to ensure that he was for real and
not some magical dream I was having. Sure enough, he answered his phone,
literally while packing his stuff over at the Manatee Health Department.
“I’m not the only one in here with serious questions about all this,’’ he said. “We all talk about it, and I can tell you there are several more who may follow me.”) [9]
On May 1, 1992,
at the age of twenty-nine, I was given five to seven years to live by
an HIV specialist. I had been solicited for the test when I went to
a health clinic for an entirely different reason. At first I was suicidal,
but then I sat about preparing myself for an excruciatingly painful
early demise and made ALL my decisions based on the fact I was ‘HIV-positive’
and doomed to die of AIDS. Over the next
ten years, I experienced excellent health and prospered in my business.
I married a man who said he did not believe I had HIV or that I would
die of AIDS. He said he loved me enough to assist with euthanasia if
it came to that, and I felt I owed him my life for his understanding
and support. I supported
this man financially and lived my life for him. Feeling I had nothing
to live for anyway, I gave him everything he wanted. Unfortunately,
all he really wanted was my money. He was incapable of having a loving
relationship, and my attempts at creating one with him were met with
violence. I endured abuse of every kind, all the while having feelings
of guilt for possibly exposing him to HIV. I believed this was the best
I could expect and would have sacrificed anything to have this one person
in my life who didn’t believe I was going to die of AIDS. Eventually
I learned how not to get beaten up, but there was no intimacy in our
marriage, only my giving and him taking. After nearly ten years of that,
and in light of my continued good health, I decided I could divorce
him, even if it meant I would have to face AIDS on my own. Something
had always seemed wrong with the diagnosis anyway.
I wasn’t certain, of course, but there were unanswered questions
in the back of my mind: “How did I catch this?” “Why am I always so
healthy?” “Why are antibodies bad?” One month after
I filed for divorce, a man entered my home at 1:40 in the morning and
crushed my skull with a 5-pound steel rod while I lay sleeping. When I opened my eyes, he said, “Your husband wants you f****ed
and killed, and I’m just gonna kill you.” He continued to strangle me
and eventually damaged most of the bones in my face. But then he stopped
and cried: “I can’t do this…. I’m not a murderer…. Why does your husband
want you dead?” My husband stood to inherit about half a million dollars
upon my death. The man who
attacked me went to jail convicted by a jury of premeditated, attempted
first-degree murder, but my ex-husband was never charged. I made a full
recovery, except for a barely visible scar above my right temple. I
even escaped a brain surgery some of the doctors wanted to perform.
I was granted an emergency divorce a month after the attack. It’s now nearly
thirteen years after my ‘diagnosis’, and I’ve had barely a sniffle in
the meantime. I’ve never taken any anti-AIDS medicines. Despite my excellent
health, the same HIV specialist still insists I’m infected with a contagious,
lethal virus and that I’ve put myself at risk having unprotected sex. When I decided
to see the specialist one last time just three months ago, asking her
to change my ‘diagnosis’, begging her actually for my life, she refused
and wanted to put me on medication; yet she pronounced me in excellent,
physical health. I showed her HIV test kit inserts from the tests she
gave me that state they are not to be used for diagnosis or confirmation,
that positive test results should be ‘confirmed’, that they should not
be used as the sole basis for the diagnosis of HIV. She patronizingly
explained the testing procedure to me, knowing full well that I completely
understood it already, and then stated, “I’ve done everything I’m supposed
to do.” She promised to send me a documented study that proves heterosexual
transmission of HIV, but no study ever came in the mail. That’s because
as far as I can tell, no such study exists. I’ve asked everyone for
it. I’ve posted it on the Internet and I’ve asked doctors and scientists
and I’ve searched everywhere I can think to look. No one seems to have
the study. It’s just assumed one must have contracted the virus through
heterosexual contact in the absence of any other risk factors. My life has
been totally altered because someone doesn’t want to admit they were
mistaken. Even though I have no fear of AIDS now, I still must live
with the stigma of a diagnosis people go to jail for if they have sex.
I can’t get disability, life or health insurance; and of course, there’s
absolutely no chance of ever having a normal dating relationship. I’m
forty-two years old, single, and childless because I didn’t want to
have to take AZT or have a C-section. No one wants to hire, train and
promote an HIV-positive person. There is a long list of things I used
to take for granted as my rights that I no longer have. So I have filed
a court case against the makers of the HIV tests used to ‘diagnose’
me. The case is barely underway at this time. The disclaimers the manufacturers
put in their kit inserts to protect them are no good under the laws
of the State of Kansas if they don’t make certain the person buying
the test actually knows the disclaimers exist. Well, I didn’t know about
those disclaimers, and it was pretty difficult to get my hands on them
after I heard about them. I’m asking the court not to allow this to
continue to happen to people. | ||||