AIDS: The Mbeki Challenge

Categories

Epidemics

Health

I have said for some years that AIDS has little to do with science and medicine because it is fundamentally a political and sociological phenomenon.

Dr. David Rasnick, biochemist and Aids critic.

What is the lesson we should be learning from President Mbeki of South Africa? Perhaps Mbeki is the only head of state and indeed the only prominent politician to think that Aids should be discussed, not dogmatically imposed. In 2000, Mbeki called a conference where critics and mainstream scientists could have done the discussing. Unfortunately, contrary views about Aids are just about the last thing a highly paid medical researcher wants to hear. Eight years later, we are still no closer to really understanding Aids than we were back then. So what did we miss?

South African President Thabo Mbeki - Image credit: AFP

Could it be that AIDS is something completely different from what medical science tells us?

Officially, Aids is a world wide epidemic caused by a sexually transmitted virus that happens to preferentially infect certain groups of people and not others. The 'infection' leads, if untreated, to almost certain death. In consequence, it is important that people abstain from sex or use condoms as a 'protection'. It is also important that everyone get a test to ascertain whether or not they have been infected - a positive test is more likely if you happen to be a member of a so-called 'risk group'. Medical science says it's doing what it can but after more than two decades has found neither a vaccine nor a cure. For the moment all that is available are drugs that can 'extend life span' by wrestling down the deadly virus.

Critics say that none of this is true. They charge that

- the HIV virus was never clearly isolated. Neither Gallo nor anyone else has published a paper in the scientific literature to show the virus and how it was found.

- since there is no standard (no virus), any test for 'HIV antibodies' cannot be not a valid test to establish infection.

- AIDS is defined as each one of a number of previously known illnesses, in the presence of HIV. Circular reasoning really, if we do not know the virus.

- No viable mechanism has been proposed for how exactly the virus hurts the immune system. HIV is said to be 'different' from all other known viral agents associated with illness.

- Virology says once you have developed antibodies, you are immune. The antibodies indicate you have overcome the infection and are now protected. Only in the case of AIDS apparently, when you have antibodies, that is taken as a sign of infection to be treated with ineffective but nevertheless toxic drugs.

- The drugs used to 'treat' Aids are so highly toxic they often are the cause of death of the patient. Liver failure has become a major cause of death of people under anti-viral therapy.

- Those who refuse drug treatments after testing 'positive' survive much longer without developing any of those 'aids defining' diseases, especially if they switch to better nutrition and generally a healthy lifestyle.

Certainly things do not add up, yet there is a complete block to discussing alternative strategies for understanding and overcoming Aids. It's drugs and more drugs, especially for the Africans said to suffer from the syndrome, but there is no real viral agent, and no proper treatment. So coming back to David Rasnick's view that "AIDS has little to do with science and medicine because it is fundamentally a political and sociological phenomenon", perhaps we should really look into the political and sociological side of Aids.

In a recent email discussion, There was a reply from Dan to David Rasnick's characterization of Aids. Dan says:

Absolutely agree. This g*#*!*d "science" debate can go on for years to come. The scientists for whom it threatens their life's work aren't going let go of it. It's an incredible paradigm shift that I wonder if medical science as we know it will survive intact. I doubt it.

People don't want to let go of "AIDS". It's part of our lives. It fulfills many, many societal needs. As a gay man, I can tell you that gay men will be the last to let go of this, and they'll be kicking and screaming all the way. It's not because they're such fans of "science". It's because of the many needs it fulfills. "AIDS" is a sociological phenomenon.

Then Michael Ellner said

I having been saying AIDS is a sociopolitical and economic phenomenon for decades --

I have also been saying that the late Casper Schmidt, MD was on to something and we would be far more effective if we factor in the Group Fantasy and the mass self-hypnosis...

Michael also attached his article about THE MBEKI CHALLENGE saying "perhaps the following will be helpful".

President Mbeki's experience has shown that scientific discussion of the causes of Aids is difficult if not impossible. Michael Ellner has summed up the situation of dogma versus debate that prevented any discussion back in 2000. He also describes Aids and the approach our symptom oriented medicine takes, the false perception of a virulent germ and the myth that has been spun around these ingredients. His article is not new but remains an important document for anyone trying to unravel the mysteries of Aids.

Michael was so good to allow re-posting of the article, which was originally published in CONTINUUM magazine, vol 6 no 11. Here it is...

- - -

THE MBEKI CHALLENGE

By Michael Ellner © 2000

Of Dogma and Debate - A Brief History

Debate gave life to science just as Dogma took life from religion. Noticing that the AIDS Establishment would not allow anyone, regardless of their qualifications or expertise, to question the sacred truths of The First Church of HIV, Mr. Thabo Mbeki, the President of the Republic of South Africa, saw that in the field of AIDS, the line between the debate of science and the dogma of religion was being blurred. So he began to ask questions. And the answers led to an advisory panel debate where the central question itself was broached - was it debate or dogma that was taking life?

As a result, when Mbeki stood up to open the 13th International AIDS Conference, he stood up to the International AIDS Religion itself. Knowing that he would be damned if he challenged the conventional wisdom that HIV caused AIDS and that the people of South Africa were doomed if he didn't, he followed his conscience. He boldly stated in gentle yet uncompromising terms that the primary threat to the health of millions of Africans was not HIV, but the drastic economic and social realities that they were facing. In truth, he was speaking up on behalf of many millions more around the world; millions whose health is breaking down not because of genetic flaws or viral infections, but simply because they are no longer able to meet their basic human needs.

I admire President Thabo Mbeki's courage and leadership and can only hope that the dissident movement will utilize this golden opportunity to bust the trust. The real gold though is in fact that the President opened a door for the people of the world to re-think conventional medical authority. The question is, will they do it? Will we?

AIDS Is a Symptom

Civilization is in a tailspin - everything is backwards, everything is upside down - doctors destroy health, psychiatrists destroy minds, lawyers destroy justice, the major media destroy information, governments destroy freedom and religions destroy spirituality - yet it is claimed to be healthy, just, informed, free and spiritual. We live in a social system whose community, wealth, love and life is derived from alienation, poverty, self-hate and medical murder - yet we tell ourselves that it is biologically and ecologically sustainable. Hidden in plain sight is the terrifying fact that we are either actively or passively participating in our own demise!

Consider hurdle number 1: modern medicine. I assert that over the last 100 years, Conventional Medical Science has become the largest and most powerful religion on the planet. I further assert that we have empowered doctors to help us ignore the harsh realities and (often fabricated) uncertainties of life. The sacred truths of medicine's high priests can be and are enforced by the full force of the most powerful governments in the world because we all depend on them to lie to us. Please consider these assertions seriously!

The stakes are very high indeed. The average person takes it on faith that sex=death, poisons extend lives and doctors know best, because people have been socially hypnotized to dis-trust themselves and believe what they are told. Whenever something doesn't make sense or a contradiction is exposed, the average person is able to ignore the fact by slipping back into the group trance, and the HIV/AIDS programming fills in the gaps. They know something is wrong about the AIDStory, but they are simply unable to trust their ability to evaluate the evidence. And so, we form unconscious contracts to act out our pre-conditioned roles. Which is why this is so much bigger than AIDS and HIV.

With a highly respected world leader like South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki however, questioning the conventional view of HIV/AIDS could actually inspire the people of the world to actually take the time to examine the evidence for themselves. But stand back if they were to actually do it!

Public Health officals would instantly lose their credibility. If all those HIV-doctors and world class scientists could be so reckless and irresponsible, why should anyone believe that the other doctors and scientists are being any more scientific or trustworthy when it comes to cancer, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, or even the flu? Why should we fund public health agencies if they can't be trusted? Conventional medical treatments and modalities would soon be held to the scientific method of validation, and about 80% of it's standard practice would be immediately discredited. Many government health officials, pharmaceutical executives and healthcare professionals would be facing massive lawsuits, not to mention criminal charges. The financial burden on the giant trans-national pharmaceutical corporations alone would threaten the economies of the world.

So, defending the dogma that HIV causes AIDS is indeed