http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/epidemics.htm en-us sepp@lastrega.com Sun, 28 Dec 2008 19:19:11 GMT http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/2008/12/28/aids_an_iatrogenic_depopulation_strategy.htm It is hard to make sense of the numerous contradictions in the official explanation of what causes Aids and how to best fight the scourge. But then - the confusion may be fully intentional. Aids as a strategy and cover for de-population would make perfect sense. It is race specific, its victims are the poor and socially deviant, and if we believe the press, the whole population of the African continent is at grave risk. A high percentage of those treated eventually do die. What they die of is the hard question that must be asked. Aids testing, prevention and treatment are promoted by the medical/pharmaceutical world and by the mainstream press as essential counter-measures. Yet both Aids testing and treatment target certain racial and social groups and the populations of developing countries, especially if they are located on the African continent. The interpretation of test results is largely arbitrary. Prevention consists of giving both mother and child a highly toxic shot of medicine, and treatment - more often than not - seals the fate of the victim. Treatment leads to a more or less certain death. All that is promised is that the death will be slowed by "life extending" drugs. What makes me think of a deliberate strategy with regards to Aids and the confusion that surrounds it, is the point-blank refusal of the reigning pharmaceutical/medical establishment to even address those contradictions, to discuss in an open way with those who point out that something's not right. Perhaps I am too suspicious, but it seems to me that so much bungling cannot be the result of mere inadequacy. Contradictions, Contradictions Some of the most egregious contradictions I have found over the years are: Tests identify people who "have Aids" but they do not find a virus, merely some specific proteins that could be (and apparently are) associated with a host of non-Aids conditions. The interpretation of tests is different for people with different life stories. Likelihood of a positive test result is increased by being gay or promiscuous, by being of African descent or just by living in a poor part of town, yet "universal testing" is being advocated. In Africa, the definition of Aids does not rely on a test. It is sufficient if you have the symptoms of several of the diseases that are rampant there, diseases brought on by poor hygiene and by bad nutrition. Instead of helping Africans overcome the endemic diseases of their continent with better sanitation and freshly grown produce, we send them toxic Aids drugs and industrially produced, often genetically modified grains. Prevention and treatment of Aids are always highly toxic. More Aids victims die of iatrogenic liver disease brought on by the doctor-prescribed pharmaceutical drugs than of the "opportunistic" diseases that a failing immune system is said to bring on. People who refuse treatment often do not get ill - especially if they adopt a healthy lifestyle - some have been documented to stay healthy for decades. Most people who take Aids drugs suffer horrible "side effects", among them immune deficiency brought on by the drugs. They also die early. Yet no studies have been done to compare a natural, healthy regimen of nutrition and good life with the recommended antiretroviral drug treatment. The isolation of the viral entity that is said to cause Aids has never been published in a peer-review journal. The virus cannot be isolated from sick individuals. No one has shown how the viral entity actually CAUSES immune deficiency. Yet a Nobel prize has recently been awarded to Luc Montagnier and a collaborator for the discovery of HIV. That rabbit hole is very deep. The more you dig, the more absolutely incomprehensible facts and contradictions emerge. One of the most articulate critics of the Aids orthodoxy is Dr Andrew Maniotis, a Professor of Pathology and Program Director in the University of Chicago's Department of Pathology, Anatomy, Cell Biology and Bioengineering. In the following piece, Dr Maniotis highlights the failures of the paradigm that says Aids is caused by an infective agent called HIV and it must be treated with anti-retroviral drugs. In the second part of this post, Dr Maniotis comments on an article in the New Statesman that comments on the controversy around Aids. Perhaps I should be clear that Dr Maniotis, while pointing at the various inconsistencies, does not advocate any conspiratorial view of Aids. If I imply such a conspiratorial (de-population) connection, that view is mine alone. The failures of the HIV/Aids hypothesis According to former NIH director, and Nobel Laureate, Harold Varmus who formed the committee that named “HIV” “HIV,” retrovirus-derived DNA sequences (genes that come from viruses whose genes are made out of RNA instead of DNA), may be ancient molecular “parasites” in their associations with other organisms. As such, they may not be recognizable as foreign molecules to the human immune system (which explains the STEP trial and 60 other "HIV" vaccine disasters, perfectly). Thus, “retroviruses” or their components are not immunogenic (capable of being seen as foreign by the human immune system), because “HIV’'s” molecules, and those of other “retroviruses” are not seen as foreign or non-self,” because they are, and always have been, part of the incredible repertory of the combinatorial complexity of the normal human genome. Supposedly, if we are around on this planet millions of years from now, the human immunoglobulin cassette (that part of the T-cell genome that immunologists claim can be instantaneously rearranged to respond to foreign antigens) new immuonglobulins will continuously be produced to counter any “foreign” molecular challenge, which are not yet present on this earth yet. Therefore, we have NOT sequenced the total human genome, because some of it’s sequences don’t yet exist. And they may not exist in persons said to have “AIDS,” hepatitis B or C or D, as a response to a foreign virus, but these signatures may instead represent the breakdown products of autoimmune diseases that cause cells to spit out “virus-like particles.” As molecular parasites, and as response of our own cellular reactions to common diseases, foreign proteins or metabolic and even psychological stressors such as an AIDS or cancer death sentence, “retroviruses,” their genes, and their molecules, may be simply a byproduct of our stressed cells, because they always have been, are, and always will be, made by our own cells. The amazing thing is that: some antiretroviral drug regimens in some people (almost half of them it appears) can stop the cells from producing these stress responses and their consequent virus-like particles as shown in the German drug addiction clinics by Heinrich Kremer and Juliana Sacher. But these doctors warn, when taken long-term, HAART will cause damage to the bone marrow and others systems, as literally dozens of mainstream clinical trials have demonstrated. It isn’'t only the 60 vaccine failures that raise issue with the “HIV=AIDS” hypothesis. And it isn’'t that cures for cancer or “HIV-disease” have been foiled in every case by “mutation.” Other failures of the “HIV=AIDS” hypothesis include: The failure to really isolate “HIV,” from all other objects in the Universe, or to explain what its confusing presence in healthy drug-naïve persons means; The failure to appreciate, that the association of a molecular marker with any disease state, does not prove, disprove, or even suggest causality; The failure of the Nobel committee to appreciate, in the case of Montagnier’'s and Barre-Sinoussi’'s recent award of the Nobel Prize, that their Patient One’'s “viral” isolate,” was derived from a fellow with swollen lymph nodes, a history of syphilis and syphilis treatment the year before, a history of gonorrhea, a history of cytomegalovirus infection, a history of herpes I and II infection, a history of Epstein-Barr virus infection, and God knows what else; The failure to appreciate, in the case of Robert Gallo'’s so-called amplification of “HIV” markers in stimulated tumor-cell cultures not killed by “HIV,” that “HIV markers” are detectable in less than half to a third of of 72 healthy persons, and not persons now considered to be AIDS patients. And as shocking as it is, a failure to appreciate that there still is no rational or acceptable cell culture model or method to grow HIV” in Petri dishes; The failure of the Nobel committee to appreciate that, a) “HPV” (human papilloma viruses) molecular sequences that are sometimes associated with cervical cancers are just that: they are molecular sequences, not Human papilloma viruses. HPV virus particles, to date have not been shown to induce cervical cells or any other kind of cells to become cancerous, and b) the failure of the Nobel Committee to acknowledge and heed the widely publicized warnings in the Journal “College of American Pathologists (CAP),” and also by senior investigators at the National Cancer Institute, and the company Digene who make “HPV” molecular tests, that HPV-sequences” have not been validated against the clinical occurrence of clinical cervical cancer. In this context, the Nobel committee also failed to appreciate the shameful carnage currently being perpetrated by the so-called first cancer vaccine GARDASIL (made by the same company Merck, who 20 years ago claimed that their hepatitis B vaccine was the first “anti-cancer” vaccine, before France filed a class action suit to stop the hepatitis B vaccine mandate for its young citizens, because it harmed so many); The failure to sequence the “HIV” genome as a consistent pattern or sequence, or to identify specific proteins that are not also found in normal, “non-infected” contexts; The failure to inform the public (and most scientists) that reverse transcriptase is not specific to viruses, nor are the gag, pol, env, p24, and other so-called “HIV-specific” genes and their products, which all can be detected in normal, “non-infected” contexts, and which are published on Medline; The failure a) to block transmission of “HIV” or AIDS in mother to child transmission studies (MTCT) as shown by the Cochran Meta-analysis and other peer-reviewed reports, which showed increased “HIV mutation rates” after black box label drugs such as nevirapine were discontinued in the U.S., and ashamedly administered to more than eight hundred seventy five thousand African mother-infant pairs by Max Essex of Harvard, and others and b) the failure to acknowledge or appreciate that safety officers of the NIH, such as Dr. Fishbein, who monitored such trials as a safety officer, were fired, while those individuals such as Edmond Tremont who directed the nevaripine trial(s) were not even reprimanded after he had changed the data in safety reports that Dr. Fishbein and others had uncovered, in order to push forward George Bush’s PEPFAR pogrom and the eugenics pogram on Africans; The failure to understand why ARV’s (anti-retrovirals) in some individuals, can prevent "AIDS syndromes," because their toxicity to normal immune cells can not only can block these cells from expressing HIV-specific” molecules as a normal response to a physiological stress, or as evidence of a rare genetic polymorphism, but because these drugs are so toxic, that like antibiotics, they suppress both fungal and bacterial growth, but cannot prevent theoretical virus proliferation, because if the HIV” paradigm is correct, these genomes of “HIV” are rapidly integrated into the DNA of the “infected,” and will never be sensitive to drugs designed against their “molecules.” The failure of microbicides, condom campaigns, and circumcision, that more often than not, have increased the rate of detecting “HIV’s” molecular markers, instead of decreasing them among African human “lab rats;” The failure to a) appreciate the disaster and infant mortality caused by breast feeding dissuasion campaigns, designed to decrease infant mortality from “HIV-infection,” but which increased infant mortality 20 times in formula fed infants, compared to mother-infant pairs that didn'’t listen to their doctors, and who weren'’t dissuaded from breast feeding, and b) the failure to appreciate the corresponding terrorism that has been waged against new mothers to promote formula dumping on 3rd World nations, and perhaps because of a hatred of the human female’s breast and the disgusting nature of breast feeding; The failure to acknowledge how projected and WHO-manufactured “HIV” and AIDS”... Epidemics Sepp Hasslberger Sun, 28 Dec 2008 19:19:11 GMT http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/2008/04/23/rethinking_aids_day_scientists_call_for_new_thinking_on_hiv.htm On the 24th anniversary of the day a human retrovirus was named in a press conference, called by the Centers for Disease Control as "the probable cause of Aids" an international group of scientists says it is time to re-assess that belief. Being diagnosed HIV-positive is a traumatic experience - emotionally, mentally and physically - HelpForHIV In the 70s we had Richard Nixon's and Jimmy Carter's War on Cancer, an all-out well financed research program that sought to establish a viral cause and to find a cure for the Big C. Despite much work and huge amounts of money poured into the program, no such virus was found and - famously - no cure either. Much of this research centered on the so-called lentivirus or retrovirus family - a class of virus that turned out to be a harmless byproduct of the human metabolism, rather than a cause of any disease. As the cancer research program folded for lack of results, a new focus was needed and a new direction of research. The announcement by Robert Gallo that a new virus, later named HIV or human immunodeficiency virus, was implicated in AIDS, gave that new focus and direction. But now, 24 years later, the hypothesis of HIV as "the probable cause of Aids" as Gallo had called it, shows signs of failure. Not all patients have the virus. As a matter of fact, no clear and clean isolation of the virus was ever published in a scientific journal. The distribution of Aids does not match what one would expect from an infectious disease, no cure has been found and no vaccine is in sight either. Scientists are defecting from the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, but there is great momentum in the money that funds research. As was the case with cancer, the only cause being looked into is a viral cause, because the only acceptable remedy is pharmaceutical. Other research has been terminated. The cracks in the viral Aids paradigm are many and re-examination is needed. Here is the announcement of Rethinking Aids...... Epidemics Sepp Hasslberger Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:55:00 GMT http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/2008/04/15/after_earth_day_rethinking_aids_on_23_april.htm The HIV-Aids Titanic hits its own iceberg Rethinking AIDS Day is the 23rd of April. Just one day after Earth Day, celebrated on 22 April to promote the need for reexamining our relationship with the environment, Rethinking AIDS Day prompts us to critically examine the widely held idea that the immune weakness we see in AIDS is caused by an infective virus. According to HEAL, "Rethinking AIDS Day (RAD) is April 23rd to remember (not celebrate) the anniversary of the infamous Gallo/Heckler news conference announcing the 'probable' cause of AIDS had been discovered. By the time the science was published and found wanting, it was too late." RethinkingAIDS has a call to action which goes into more detail about that botched announcement of "the cause" of AIDS: At an international press conference on April 23, 1984, Dr. Robert Gallo, a federally funded cancer researcher, announced that he had discovered "the probable cause of AIDS," a new virus which would later be given the name HIV. The world media accepted the discovery of HIV as the cause of AIDS as a matter of fact although no proof was presented that day or anytime thereafter. Now, twenty four years and $500 billion later, there is still no scientific evidence that Gallo ever isolated HIV from any of the AIDS patients he had studied, and there is still no published paper from any other scientist anywhere in the world demonstrating the direct purification of HIV from any human being. They also have an evolving page of initiatives: List of Events. Wearing a black ribbon (instead of the red one) is one of the ideas of how you can make that day your own. Anyone with a computer, an internet connection and some basic skills of finding information can confirm for themselves that the theory that tells us that HIV=AIDS=ILLNESS AND DEATH is full of holes. A number of articles on this site point out such holes, among them: HIV-Aids: A Tragic Error Why I Quit HIV - Is AIDS Myth Falling Apart? Alternatives to AZT in Aids Patients World AIDS Day 2004 - What happened to Koch's Postulates? HIV Test Bogus - Based on Circular Reasoning Seeing a great number of holes in the official theory, the question arises: What really does cause AIDS? Dr Harold Foster answers that question from the viewpoint of epidemiological geology, saying that those with certain mineral deficiencies - especially of selenium - are at risk. The book What Really Causes AIDS? is a free download from his site. There is more information on nutrient deficiencies and aberrated biochemical pathways as a possible cause of AIDS in Glutathione Peroxidase - Selenium, Aminoacids Overcome AIDS. Beldeu Singh, a Malaysian researcher and writer, argues that AIDS is really a consequence of our lifestyle. Nothing to do with a virus, as much as the medical establishment wishes to promote that cause. The dogma that HIV causes Aids which in turn causes death is like the Titanic and it going to sink just like the ship after it hit the iceberg. The real culprit, says Singh, is our infatuation with drugs, medical and non, but especially those based on the benzene molecule. Our use of chemicals to treat both emotional and physical problems is to blame. Unfortunately, this use of chemicals is sustained and promoted by a multi-billion dollar industry that has the ear of health authorities world wide. In his article, Singh illustrates the mechanism that is behind this common immune weakness.... Epidemics Sepp Hasslberger Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:22:04 GMT http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/2008/01/25/kaushalya_never_was_hiv_positive.htm Audrey Serrano, a woman living in the US and misdiagnosed with HIV was awarded $2.5 million in damages in December last year for the shock and for suffering the adverse effects of the drugs she had to take for years before the mistake was corrected. While that is a welcome break from the Aids propaganda we're subjected to from all sides, it really only reveals the tip of the iceberg of a human disaster of untold dimensions that is going on right before our eyes. Aids is an epidemic of medical failures if there ever was such a thing. - The virus that supposedly causes the immune weakness has never been scientifically isolated and no one has explained how it causes such weakness, throwing the whole theory behind HIV and Aids into doubt. - The test for the virus is notoriously unreliable - some 60 or 70 unrelated conditions are known to cause a false "positive" reading when no trace of the virus can be found. - A "positive" result for HIV antibodies should really be a cause for celebration. Everyone knows that when we have antibodies there is no longer any need to worry about getting sick. The body has successfully overcome the illness and is now ready to fight any future viral intruders. But no - not so with Aids. Here a positive test result means we are told to undergo treatment. - Treatment typically consists of a highly toxic cocktail of medicines to be consumed for years to come. Few can actually survive the ravages of the drug side effects, which have become the major cause of death in "Aids". But there is another dimension to this tragedy which perhaps even overshadows the fate of those coerced or cajoled into submitting to a fraudulent test and a deadly drug regimen. It is the tragedy of those who simply live in poor conditions, who more often than not are declared victims of Aids without as much as a test. Kaushalya is one of those. Her husband died of tuberculosis, not an uncommon occurrence in Delhi, India. She was labeled - falsely like Audrey Serrano in the US - as HIV infected. Widowed Kaushalya with her daughter in 1997. Today, the tall, healthy lady is happily married and has given birth to her third daughter To be sure, Kaushalya didn't win a millionaire's settlement in a legal action, but her story, described by Arun Shrivastava, social activist and environmental campaigner, gives us an insight into that other dimension, where Aids does its damage not by viral action and not even through the agency of a toxic 'medicine'. It tells of the stigma that the great unknown plague brings and of its genocidal consequences in the less developed countries. David Rasnik recently said, "AIDS has little to do with science and medicine because it is fundamentally a political and sociological phenomenon". Perhaps, after reading Kaushala's story you might concur with David and with Thabo Mbeki, the courageous African politician who dared challenge the scientists to uncover the real damage Aids is doing to the whole African continent. They do need your help.... Epidemics Sepp Hasslberger Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:34:58 GMT http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/2008/01/11/aids_the_mbeki_challenge.htm 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...... Health Sepp Hasslberger Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:30:05 GMT http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/2007/07/10/low_dose_naltrexone_in_aids_cancer_and_autoimmune_diseases.htm Low dose naltrexone (LDN) is a promising treatment for autism, Aids, cancer and autoimmune diseases. The costs are negligible and proponents say that the drug could help many, but clinical trials aren't in the interests of pharmaceutical manufacturers. Without further studies, there is no way to find how this drug supports the immune system. Naltrexone in MS - Image: Auburn Journal. Naltrexone is a drug that blocks the effects of opiate drugs and it was approved by the US FDA in 1984 for the treatment of addiction. Dr George O'Neil in Perth, Australia, has been very successful in treating addiction with naltrexone implants, a slow release form of the drug implanted under the skin, that will keep an addict free from the desire for the next fix for anywhere from three to six months. Usually this allows enough time for de-toxification and for a change in life circumstances, where the former addict can stay free of drugs even after the implant's effect wears off. For the treatment of drug addiction, the usual dose of naltrexone is 50 mg per tablet but there is another use of the drug that seems not to have been found by the original research: In a low dose of 3 to 4.5 mg (milligrams), naltrexone acts to straighten out the immune system and to fight a wide range of diseases involving a immune malfunctions. In AIDS, low dose naltrexone (LDN) has been given by Dr. Bihari alone or together with the standard anti-retroviral treatment, with excellent results in both cases. Jaquelyn McCandless and Jack Zimmerman are planning to extend that experimentation now, and they have set up a Yahoo Group (LDN in HIV AIDS) to share information about the trial and eventual outcomes. Here is the introductory message explaining what they are about to do:... Epidemics Sepp Hasslberger Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:36:40 GMT http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/2007/05/29/bird_flu_and_microwaves_are_we_killing_birds_with_radiation.htm Are we killing our feathered friends with radiation? The question might seem far fetched, but it really is not a big stretch of the imagination. Microwaves do cause heating and other, more subtle changes of biological tissues. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho of ISIS says: "Birds near mobile phone base stations do not breed well" in a recent article titled Mobile Phones & Vanishing Birds - Where did all the sparrows go? In addition to birds, bees have been getting sick and disoriented, and whole hives are being deserted - we even have a new name for the phenomenon: Colony Collapse Disorder or Vanishing Bee Syndrome. The mysterious illness has decimated the honeybee population in several nations. There are some links to pesticides, genetically modified crops producing poisons are a hypothesis, but also microwave radiation as used in communications equipment has been implicated. In a case of disappearance of bee hives documented in Germany a few years ago, the bees disappeared from hives where they were exposed to the microwaves from nearby cell phone relay towers, while other hives, situated behind sheet aluminium shielding, stayed put. Apart from birds getting disoriented and dying in the vicinity of cell phone towers, could the radiation be responsible for the persistence of what we call the bird flu? The illness has been killing chickens and other fowl and is officially attributed to a common virus with the designation H5N1. Former Royal Canadian Navy officer Larry Blackhall thinks there may be a connection. Apart from the appalling and very stressful conditions of the birds caged in huge factory farms, there may be another factor that has not been considered enough. In a paper he submitted to the Canadian Parliament's Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Blackhall says that the avian virus catastrophe may well be the undesired result of the interaction of two related technologies: A. Modern technological poultry production factory systems introducing the application of chemicals, medicines, biological agents and Electromagnetic radiation techniques, and; B. Cumulative background electromagnetic radiation.... Environment Sepp Hasslberger Tue, 29 May 2007 17:40:31 GMT http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/2007/05/07/alternatives_to_azt_in_aids_patients.htm Aids is a wholly a-typical epidemic. Its preference for intravenous drug users, people living in poor neighborhoods, gay white males and people of African descent of both sexes is an indication that the HIV virus must be a very selective virus indeed. Difficult to imagine how a virus distinguishes its victims in such a highly specific way unless ... yes, unless the epidemic is not virus based at all. To get an idea of how Aids testing selects for specific "risk groups", see Liam Scheff's “Knowing is Beautiful”. Aids awareness promotional image Abstinence from sex, condoms and anti-retroviral drugs are what's officially advocated to prevent the spread of Aids. Yet there are those who say that the immune deficiency seen in Aids is not of viral origin but is rather a matter of oxidative stress on the body's cells. In fact the elusive virus - its isolation has apparently never been proven in a peer-reviewed scientific paper - is not even present in many of the people who are diagnosed to have Aids. I invite you to read up about the validity of the non-specific tests, the non-infectious nature of the syndrome, and the highly toxic effects of the drugs prescribed to those unfortunate people who have been "diagnosed". To really get into this more deeply, just search "HIV" or "Aids" on this site - there is a google search window at the top of each page - and you will find a host of earlier articles that detail what I found while looking around. Start from there but by all means, please do your own research. After a lot of suffering, it is time to move on from knowing about Aids and knowing what it isn't to actually doing something effective about it. Beldeu Singh, a writer and researcher in Malaysia, is summarizing those things that are strange in the HIV/Aids paradigm. He also suggests that there are ways to prevent and treat Aids by simple nutritional means. Of course his suggestions presuppose that the basic nutritional and hygienic needs such as a few proper meals a day and clean, drinkable water, have already been taken care of. "African Aids" is largely due to malnutrition and endemic diseases. Our African brothers and sisters don't need anti-retroviral drugs as much as they need to be allowed to eat properly to start with, and to get clean water to drink. But assuming that those basic necessities are taken care of, what else can be done to prevent the development of Aids related illness? Let's see what Beldeu Singh has to say about that ...... Epidemics Sepp Hasslberger Mon, 7 May 2007 16:37:51 GMT http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/2007/03/26/solving_the_antioxidant_question_in_aids.htm The immune deficiency seen in Aids is caused by excess cellular oxidation brought about by external factors and the cure is entirely within our means - simply supplying the antioxidant nutrients necessary to reverse the oxidative overload. That is the gist of Beldeu Singh's recent article which you can read in its entirety below. Glutathione - key to reversing Aids Vitamin C, a heavy antioxidant, together with some amino acids and a mineral, are the principal arms we need to defeat the syndrome. The cocktail of anti-retroviral drugs normally prescribed is not only useless - it makes things worse than they would be without. The "side effects" of those drugs are practically indistinguishable from the symptoms of the illness they are supposed to slow down. I only want to add one piece of pertinent infromation to what Beldeu Singh explains below. He mentions Fe2+ and Fe3+, two forms of iron in the blood. Iron is contained in hemoglobin, the red blood pigment. Normal hemoglobin contains Fe2+ and altered hemoglobin also called methemoglobin contains Fe3+. The most important function of hemoglobin is the transport of oxygen in the blood stream. But once it is turned into methemoglobin, it no longer is able to carry oxygen. Aids patients have a high percentage of methemoglobin, that is, their blood contains the oxidized form of iron that is Fe3+. Consequently their cells are starved of oxygen and they die ... unless the over-oxidation can be reversed, that is. And this is where anti-oxidants come into the picture. It goes without saying that Aids patients are almost never given an analysis of their level of methemoglobin, and neither are they supplied with the simple nutrients that could reverse their condition. Knowing this, does it make you as mad as it makes me, when we are treated to "scientific studies" such as the one published some time ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association, that say "stay away from antioxidants - they may be bad for you". Now who would have an interest in making nothing of a perfectly good cure for all those people suffering from Aids? And coming to think of it - the solution has been right in front of our eyes for more than a decade: See Glutathione Helps Aids Survival and An Underlying Factor In AIDS Is Suggested. Yes, you are right - there may be a very dirty war going on for your health, or rather for your very profitable sickness. Certainly the solution, which antioxidant nutrients offer us, isn't being advocated by those who say they are fighting the epidemic. Here is a comment sent to Beldeu Singh today: Practically, this mechanism [of hemoglobin/methemoglobin], together with the oxidation hypothesis, explains Aids way better than the virus hypothesis and what's more - it opens a door to a simple, effective cure by giving glutathione or its precursors. Selenium works because it is a catalyst for the production of glutathione in the body. Aminoacid supplements work because they provide necessary raw materials for glutathione production. Vitamin C works because it reverses oxidation.... Epidemics Sepp Hasslberger Mon, 26 Mar 2007 21:46:09 GMT http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/2007/02/07/aids_court_case_exposes_scientific_contradictions.htm A legal case in South Australia has brought the scientific contradictions of the pharmaceutical AIDS paradigm into the spotlight. The defendant, Andre Chad Parenzee is appealing against his conviction on three counts of endangering life. The case challenges the validity of the theory that a virus called HIV does indeed cause a large number of disrelated illnesses that, individually, have been known before AIDS became a household word. Helen Lobato, in an article that first appeared on Melbourne Indymedia, put it this way: "An appeal case has HIV-AIDS specialists on tenter hooks awaiting the outcome which they say could set a dangerous precedent for public health campaigns and the criminal law. He is in custody awaiting sentencing and could face up to 15 years in prison. He was found guilty in February 2006 of endangering the lives of three women because he had unprotected sex with them without telling them he had HIV." The court has heard witnesses for the defense for a week and is now listening to what the prosecution's experts have to say. What is being discussed amid heated arguments against "aids deniers" are the scientific merits of the isolation of the virus that is said to cause AIDS, and thus of the tests that determine whether a person is infected or not. Next step: Does the virus actually cause all the illnesses that are ascribed to it or is it an innocent passenger that all of us carry while other 'risk factors', such as intravenous drug use, do the major damage. Beldeu Singh's recent article GALLO vs MONTAGNIER gives us a good look into the inconsistencies that exist, even in the words of the proponents of the "HIV-causes-AIDS" theory. Those are serious doubts which plague the debate the Australian judge will have to resolve. Typically, we don't find the "HIV-Aids experts" willing to discuss the merits of their views when challenged, but in this case, they have no choice. Here the article by Beldeu Singh:... Epidemics Sepp Hasslberger Wed, 7 Feb 2007 15:19:19 GMT