All Episodes
Previous Next
April 7, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
01:46:29
The Viral Delusion Episode 4 - AIDS, The Deadly Deception
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It was just, you know, set the stage, set the stage of declaring politically, a pandemic was politically instigated.
It was declared.
April, HIV, the AIDS thing, April 23rd, 1984, before any scientist or anybody else in the world knew there was it.
AIDS, with a capital A-I-D-S, Contagious Infectious Disease, you know, nobody knew.
No scientific paper was published or anything about it.
It was just declared on that day, and it became government policy, and it's still government policy to this day.
That set the stage.
Not only that, it set the stage with having a disease with a virus that has never been obtained from a human being.
The End
Government health officials say scientists have now found the likely cause of the mysterious and deadly disease known as AIDS.
Acquired immune deficiency syndrome has killed more than 1,750 people.
AIDS is always fatal, and another 2,300 people have it.
Dr. Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute is the man responsible for the breakthrough.
He found AIDS is a type of human cancer virus which he named HTLV-3.
It invades the cells making up the immune systems of the body.
Today researchers here at the National Centers for Disease Control said they have found several cases where people who had been sex partners both had the condition.
The scientists say this probably means they are dealing with some new deadly sexually transmitted disease.
AIDS panic was really dominant, like COVID panic is now in all the media.
And the idea was that everybody was going to die of AIDS.
Every sexual being was going to die of AIDS.
The first model was called the tertiary transmission model.
That's everybody who's ever had sex and everybody they, or whoever they had sex with, and everyone they ever had sex with was in this mix where the virus, the deadly virus, could come through.
So maybe some nuns were safe.
At first, only gays and IV drug users were being killed by AIDS. .
But now we know every one of us could be devastated by it.
I had just come over from Sweden, moved back to the States, to New York City from Sweden, and I was petrified.
I suddenly was told I was going to die, and I believed I was going to die, and we were all going to die.
There is now a danger that has become a threat to us all.
It is a deadly disease and there is no known cure.
The virus can be passed during sexual intercourse with an infected person.
Anyone can get it, man or woman.
So far it's been confined to small groups.
But it's spreading.
They were shunned, AIDS patients, in the 1980s.
They were seen as contagious, typhoid Mary's, they're going to transmit this killer disease to everybody.
And they arrived on the ward, the patients are known to be HIV positive, often arrived on the wards in spacesuits.
And certainly the staff wore these spacesuits, these hazmat suits.
and visors and there was the patient in the bed and he's just a normal person and it just seemed amazing to me that you know we're treating people like they come from Mars or they're aliens.
So I decided I'd like to go work in the field and they opened a new purpose-built hospital It was one of two PhDs hired to set up the chemistry group in the Diagnostics Division at Abbott Laboratories.
and it was the ward that was opened by Princess Diana, the Princess of Wales. - It was one of two PhDs hired to set up the chemistry group in the Diagnostics Division in Abbott Laboratories.
So I wanted to work on this, like everybody else in the Bay Area wanted to work on AIDS.
We wanted to put our skills to work to try to cure it.
Be heroes.
To carry it on people's shoulders, you know, like all the young scientists wanted to do.
It was just fascinating, you know?
I wanted to be a journalist and I wanted to write for Spin Magazine.
So I called, I said, do you need any help?
So, turn the page, it was 1987, and I passed by in the village, a newsstand, and I saw a cover of the New York Native.
And the cover was Gowell on one side, Deuceburg on the other, a split cover.
And it had Gallo saying, HIV kills like a truck, it would kill Clark Kent, or whatever the quote was.
And it had Duisburg saying, the virus is harmless, I wouldn't mind being injected with it.
And then it said, which man is right?
Professor Peter Duesberg at University of California, Berkeley.
World's leading authority on retroviruses.
He identified the genes, was the first one to characterize the genome of a retrovirus.
HIV is a retrovirus, you know.
1987, he published an invited article by Cancer Research on retroviruses in general, HIV in particular, as to their ability to cause disease.
And it was like a legal document.
Point for point for point for point for point.
How retroviruses, you know, cannot cause disease and they do not cause disease.
And he published that.
And I can tell you, think about it now.
This caused a huge stir in the government at that point, 1987.
Two years after they already declared that AIDS is sexually transmitted, contagious, caused by a virus, etc.
And here's World Authority of Retroviruses saying, no, no, no, no, no.
So in my youthful insanity, I put a call in to Peter Deusberg.
I left a message.
I remember the phone rang and woke me up.
And I answered the phone.
And it was Peter Deusberg calling from the lab.
And I plugged in my tape recorder, still in my pajamas.
And I interviewed him on the spot.
It is dormant all the time.
It never becomes active.
It is dormant to begin with, it's dormant when you die from it, it's dormant when you suffer from it.
There's no report in the literature describing the virus ever to be active in a patient, in a human being, only in cell culture.
That's one of the major reasons why I don't believe that this virus is the cause of AIDS.
I got a very intimidating phone call.
Bob Gallup himself called and he was yelling and screaming and it was very paternalistic.
He said, do you want a career in journalism at all?
Do you want to be like Barbara Walters?
Do you think this is how to be like Barbara Walters?
To do this kind of crazy stuff?
To talk to Peter Duesberg about HIV?
And he said, you seem like you have a good head on your shoulders.
So he was trying, trying, it was really interesting now that I think back on it.
Like, wow, this little, this rock and roll magazine.
So in other words, that went straight to the, you know, to the power center.
They knew, they knew, they followed everything.
He was a member of the National Academy of Sciences, would have gotten the Nobel Prize had he kept his mouth shut.
No, they killed all his funding after that.
He never got another penny to this day of federal money, grant money.
The government punished him.
So then I went and started talking to my fellow scientists, academic people.
At UCSF, University of California, San Francisco, there'd be all these biotech company people there, pharmaceutical people, and we'd get together once a month, listen to a seminar, and afterwards we'd go to a Chinese restaurant, talk about all these things that are going on in our lives, our businesses, our research work, we talked about AIDS from the very beginning, when it popped up in the 80s, even before it had a name, and then here it was in 84, you know, aha, it's a virus and everything, oh good, I'm a chemist, I'm going to make inhibitors to kill this retrovirus.
And so the other people working here and there.
And then by 87, I've been starting to question this stuff.
85.
But between 85 and 87, I started talking about the problems with this whole notion that AIDS is contagious and caused by a transmissible infectious agent.
They wouldn't talk to me.
They literally would not talk to me.
Wouldn't even address my answer, wouldn't just turn and walk away.
Now think about that.
As long as your audience has already heard me, non-stop, yak, yak, yak, yak.
I'm a scientist.
Typical scientist of the old school.
You love to talk about the things that are on your mind, and answer questions, ask questions and things.
And here these people were.
Colleagues of mine, who would not talk.
So I was working in that field then until the early 1990s.
I was a staff nurse.
I had a period as a charge nurse in general medicine and surgery.
And then I came back into the HIV field as a charge nurse.
And then I became what's called a nurse specialist, clinical nurse specialist for HIV patients.
So my caseload was in the community, what you call home visiting nursing in America.
And I had patients all over North London, and I'd be in my car all day.
I'd be visiting.
I'd be caring for people.
Some people would be dying.
Most weren't.
Most were clinically healthy and had very little conditions, very little medical conditions.
They didn't have any of the AIDS-indicated diseases.
And this interested me a lot, the fact that I had a big caseload of HIV positive patients who weren't unwell, they had no constitutional illness.
And I was interested in that because it seemed to be that we were creating a whole strata of patients in the HIV field that were clinically healthy, but they had this marker, this HIV antibody test.
And once they had that test, they were automatically treated differently, and they were seen differently.
They were seen to have this killer virus, and everything about them was interpreted in that lens.
So everything about those patients, everything medically about them, was down to HIV.
My first problem with AIDS was, I was working at the oncologic department in Kiel at the time, and we had our first AIDS patient there.
was suffering from a lymphoma.
It was in the 90s, right?
Yeah, it was in the 90s.
And then I asked, well, this guy, yesterday he had a lymphoma, how comes he has AIDS today?
And they told me, well, he has a positive HIV test.
Then I looked and said, okay, but that's not a new disease now.
It's just a new test.
If you make your diagnosis like that, there's just the spread of a new antibody test, not of a new disease, because yesterday he had lymphoma.
Now he has AIDS.
So now we make two diseases out of one.
And that was the big thing which the CDC created this epidemic because they included more and more previously known diseases in the AIDS definition.
Like tuberculosis, like cerebral carcinoma, like recurrent pneumonia, like recurrent zoster infections.
Very normal diseases, which we always have, but in the presence of a new antibody test, these diseases got a new name, and that was AIDS.
The more old diseases they included in the AIDS definition, the higher The Epidemiological Corp.
I have to show you that list of AIDS-defining diseases.
There were 23 of them that had nothing to do with each other.
Including cervical cancer.
They had to do that in the 90s because women refused to get AIDS.
So they had to boost up the women AIDS cases.
So all these different diseases had nothing to do with each other.
And a virus with three genes, a retrovirus with three genes.
HIV would be the first retrovirus to cause any disease.
Of course, it doesn't do any.
But with these three genes, it would cause all these things.
Pneumocystis carinii, pneumonia, Kaposi's sarcoma, cervical cancer, cryptosporidium, all kinds of things I don't remember.
But one of the first things that made me suspicious back, I think it was 84, 85, 85 for sure, about this HIV business was, How does this virus know that you're gay, and I'm supposed to cause Kaposi's sarcoma in you, and not in these IV drug users?
Like, you know, I give them TB or something like that, you know?
You know?
I mean, that was one of my first suspicions, you know?
And also, how does that little virus know not to cross the street?
You know, like in the Castro years.
They live here where the gay guys are, you know, where they have all these AIDS diseases, but it doesn't go over here in this other part of town.
It's a virus that knows your zip code, whether you're gay or straight, white or black, or whether you're rich or poor.
And in Africa, fever, diarrhea, persistent cough, weight loss, and TB, those are the AIDS-defining diseases in Africa.
You know?
It's too expensive to do the HIV test.
There are antibody tests in Africa, so it's not even part of the definition.
But you have those diseases of poverty and malnutrition.
Fever, diarrhea, persistent cough, weight loss, and TB.
That's AIDS-defining diseases, which are also the diseases of poverty and malnutrition.
So when you have a definition like that, yeah!
Half the population of Sub-Saharan Africa is going to be AIDS-caged, if they're malnourished, you know?
They came up with the definition at a World Health Organization conference in October of 1985.
The WHO and the CDC convened the conference at the capital city of the Central African Republic, Bangui.
And from that conference emerged what has been known since then to this day As the Bongi definition of an age case and it was based not on Kaposi Sarcoma, Pneumocystic Arrhenia Pneumonia, anything else along those lines as in America.
It was based on clinical symptoms and those clinical symptoms define an age case in Africa and they are chronic diarrhea, A 10% loss of body weight over several weeks.
Persistent dry cough.
What's the problem with that definition of AIDS in Africa?
Because I've had all those clinical symptoms when I've been in Africa.
I didn't die.
I wasn't sexually active.
They all went away.
Because those are the same symptoms that help define a case of tuberculosis.
Malaria, protein anemia, malnourishment, unclean drinking water.
That's what will produce those same symptoms in a person.
They overlap.
I mean, the overlapping of symptoms is crucial for a loose definition where as, you know, the old song at the play in the 1930s had it, you know, anything goes.
That's one of the first things, those discrepancies, goes back, by 1987 I realized this whole shoot match with contagious sexually transmitted HIV Not terrible.
In fact, it was crap.
And I was just a nurse specialist.
I'd come through the services, and on the first day's ward, we had a lot of patients coming in who were young, HIV positive, and they'd have vague chest symptoms, vague flu-like symptoms, really, if at all, and they were treated as though they were dying.
And the patients were counseled towards this.
They used Kubler-Ross's model of death and dying, which is about getting you to accept your own death.
It's very, very pernicious.
And you saw a lot of young patients, HIV-positive, put on this care pathway that's just a death pathway.
You know, remember I said I was in the diagnostics business for quite a while here, and I'm glad we've just started.
You use clinical diagnostics not to screen people.
But to help a clinician decide, rule out this, rule out that condition, people have symptoms.
That's why you had clinical diagnostics.
That's helpful because you're starting with something and you have a specific goal in mind of what you're trying to rule in or rule out.
They have a use there.
But with AIDS they were used as a prognostic thing.
symptoms and said i'm going to do some tests to see if i can rule this in and rule that out that's helpful because you're starting with something and you have a specific goal in mind of what you're trying to rule in or rule out they have a use use there but with aids they were used as a prognostic thing
i mean in the beginning where you have people with no symptoms and you just if you're having to be a gay person or you want to do something they take a blood test without your permission you get a employment physical or something like that and they test without your permission to see if you're positive for hiv you'd probably do it with sars cov2 now and these other Those are screens.
No tests should ever be used as a screen.
They should never.
Until I started doing my PhD, I had no idea about what all this meant.
I just thought, this is a disease, this is a test.
And suddenly, it all started unfolding in front of me, like everything I thought was correct, wasn't correct.
That it means something else, or could possibly mean something else.
What is the HIV antibody test?
I'd run it on loads of patients, given them results.
I didn't know how it worked.
So I started looking at it, and I found all sorts of very strange information about what's contained in the literature from the drug companies that manufactured the test.
...is different to what patients are told in the clinics.
And then I found Papadopoulos Eliopoulos' work, showing, demonstrating that the HIV antibody tests don't necessarily detect antibodies to HIV, they detect other antibodies and other things, other material in the body.
The HIV test has never been compared with HIV itself.
In fact, the inserts that come with all the tests for HIV, the antibody test, the western blot, the PCR test, say there, explicitly within there, that there's no reference standard, meaning there's no virus itself to compare the test against to see whether or not it's really detecting the virus.
Much less a disease.
What we're told, and what the data sheets say, is that the HIV antibody test is testing for antibodies to Parts of the virus, so certain proteins of the virus, elicit, evoke antibody responses in your body.
And therefore it's those antibodies that the HIV ELISA test is testing for, not the virus itself.
And that's got nothing to do with whether you've got AIDS or not.
It's to do with whether you have the virus.
That's the idea.
But, Because of the way antibody tests are, they're not totally specific.
So those antibodies that are produced by the so-called HIV proteins can be produced by other antigens in your body.
So you can have what look like HIV proteins, that are produced by other causes other than HIV.
But those antibodies could be due to a whole host of other conditions in your body.
Other exposures that you've had to other proteins due to due to transfusion, due to due to vaccination, due to having other Autoimmune conditions like systemic lupus erythematosus And other conditions.
There's at least 70.
I've seen a greater list.
Nearly 80 conditions that you can have.
And I don't mean just medical conditions, but biological conditions.
The state of your body.
And why would you then believe that your HIV positive antibody test is due to HIV when the disclaimers that the manufacturers show It could be due to other conditions, yeah?
It turns out that a pregnant woman, pregnant at the time of a test, or having been pregnant within the last few years, if she were to be given one of these antibody tests, not an AIDS test, there is no AIDS test, there's an antibody test, if she's been pregnant, or if she is currently pregnant, she will likely register positive On an HIV antibody test.
What Alan Whiteside and the other mainstream researchers in South Africa did was to extrapolate from those numbers, which were always very large, and extrapolate from them to the rest of the country.
I published an article in a midwifery journal with a medical doctor exposing the test, the antibody test, and publishing the data sheet from Abbott Laboratories.
And I can tell you All hell broke loose because the public health authorities in the UK phoned the Journal.
They wanted the article stopped.
And they wanted to know why they published it.
The journal editor was put under a lot of pressure to pulp it, but she didn't.
And the reason why Midriffey Journal, an obstetric nursing journal, wanted to publish it was that the time in 1999, the Department of Health wanted to make it mandatory that all pregnant women were offered the test or took the test.
And they saw our article Giving other explanations for the HIV test as dangerous.
We were dangerous.
That's the word they used.
It was dangerous publishing this because you put people off having the test.
But there's nothing dangerous about giving people information.
I can give you another example from the WHO's weekly epidemiological record.
WHO claimed in 1982 That there were approximately one million HIV-positive Africans in the country of Uganda.
Okay?
It was close to a million.
Ten years later, other studies came out from the WHO indicating that the total number of people who had died in Uganda between 1982 and 1992 was about 45,000 over a 10 year period.
My question was, what happened to the other 955,000 Ugandans who were supposed to have HIV and AIDS who didn't die?
How do you explain that?
HIV care in those days, it was the HIV antibody test.
That was the gateway into this nether region of existence.
And then every month you had your T4 count and your PCR viral load test.
Notice PCR.
That's one of the links with COVID.
So the doctors will look at the T4 count, how many T4 cells they had.
These are the helper cells that orchestrate the immune system, like a conductor orchestrates an orchestra.
And then the viral load test was interpreted as the amount of circulating virus in your body.
Of course, All those are oversimplified definitions that we use to manipulate patients.
Because the viral load test is not the amount of circulating virus in the body at all.
And we know that.
It's not.
But at the time, that's what we were told.
When PCR came onto the scene, they said, Aha!
Now we can find HIV everywhere.
It's everywhere.
It's rampant.
In other words, so PCR is the amplification technology that comes along and allows these tinkerers, I guess.
It's like this toy for them.
And now they thought they could crush Peter.
And I remember when these articles began to come out.
Oh, Peter Duesberg may have had an argument, but not anymore, not with PCR.
And Carrie, inventor of PCR, comes out as a staunch defender of Peter Duesberg.
It's just a process that's used to make a whole lot of something out of something.
That's what it is.
It doesn't tell you that you're sick, and it doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that.
What did that mean to be a defender of Peter Duesburg?
I should rephrase it.
He wasn't a defender of Peter Duesburg, but he was staunchly in the HIV dissident position and camp, which meant Bob Gallo never proved anything.
I was working on a project where we were measuring HIV in people's blood at this place called specialty laboratories in Santa Monica.
I was just a consultant there.
I came in about three days a month, and we were working on that.
And at some point, we needed to re-up our grant from the NIH to work on that.
And I had to write it.
And so the first line of that was, HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.
And I wrote that, and then I said, well, I need a paper, some kind of scientific paper, to reference that statement.
Because when you make a statement like that, that's like a fact.
You need to say, here's how come I know that.
You put a little one.
If it's the first statement you've made, and then you put down at the bottom of the paper, you have a one, and you say, here's a paper by somebody that describes why that statement's true, right?
And so I said, well, what's that?
I don't even, let me think about, what is that paper?
Who do I go to for that?
And I looked around, I asked a couple of virologists at that company, and they said, no, you don't have to reference.
I said, I have to reference that, because I don't know, I don't know where that came from.
How do I know that?
And it turned out that nobody knew it.
There wasn't a scientific reference, like a paper that somebody had submitted with like experimental data in it and like logical discussion and said, here's how come we know that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.
There was nothing out there like that.
Nothing.
Harry actually started to cry.
I'll never forget it.
He just broke down and he said, he started talking about how it feels like such a hostile planet.
And he said, I go out surfing, I go out and get in the ocean and it seems like a beautiful world.
It is a beautiful world.
But there's just this hostility and they're just after him and they just want to crush him and they're so dishonest.
And I just, it was like time just stopped.
And I thought, see this, this is it right here.
This is a human being.
Yes, he's a scientist, a genius, a Nobel laureate and all of that.
But it was always the human being and all of these people that came across to me that resonated with me.
First, I looked for, you know, just in a computer searching kind of stuff like that.
But then I said, there's got to be somebody that knows this.
You go to experts and ask them.
And so I asked all these people, one after the other, and none of them had it.
None of them.
And I was getting really freaked about that.
That's when I first started saying, they don't know.
Nobody really knows.
This whole thing is a big sham.
It's ridiculous.
I was a believer, and the AIDS organizations not being present at the university, so I give lectures on HIV and AIDS, you know.
And an Austrian professor, Fritz Pohl, he asked me, hey, you, you're giving talks on HIV.
Did you check the evidence?
And I said, look, the whole world is saying this.
And he said, no, no, he was not asking the world.
He's asking me.
I became a red face and said, no, I have not checked because, no, I just heard it.
And then he said, look, this might be dangerous.
If you scare somebody to death and there is no reason, you contribute to his suffering and even dying or suicide, man.
And then he gave me the copy cards, you know, that I am able to copy everything, and he said, look, every paper which is of interest, you copy twice for me, and Friday afternoon we are going to discuss all on this.
And this is how I was pushed into this field, you know.
And then I went, of course, I found the publication of Gallo and then of Montagnier, and I saw virus in the title, but a virus structure.
A nucleic acid of a given size, a given sequence, with an envelope, it doesn't appear in a paper.
Only single molecules were added and said to be part of a virus, and a certain activity said that it's representing a virus.
But it was never isolated, never seen, In a human being, in a plant or in an animal, you know, just photographs from cell cultures, which everybody knows.
These are showing typical structures of cells dying in the test tube, you know.
So this is how I ran inside and I was deeply shocked.
I was deeply shocked.
And indeed, the big questions over whether HIV exists as an exogenous retrovirus, as something that comes from outside the cell and inserts itself into a cell.
Is it our own genetic material?
Is it an expression of our own genetic material due to background radiation in the environment?
All these issues, Papadopoulos, Eliopoulos, And the Perth group of scientists had all discovered by the end of the 1980s.
So I went into all of this in great detail and it completely destroyed my faith in having a clinical career in HIV nursing.
This HIV thing, the only place that I know of that it exists is in the laboratory.
Nobody has ever published obtaining or isolating or even seeing HIV in a human being.
That's why they'd use the antibody test.
One of the first things I found out in 1991, for a big story I did called Fatal Distraction, was that when they tested seminal fluid, they actually didn't find HIV in seminal fluid.
And that was in this... A lot of the good stuff was in these obscure journals, certainly not the AIDS journals or the official big deal medical journals.
This one was in a fertility journal, called Fertility and Sterility.
I can't believe I remember that.
Patients were told when their T-cell count went below 200, they're near to death.
Yeah?
They're going to get opportunistic illnesses and die.
I had patients whose T-cell count went down to 10.
They never had a day's illness in their life.
They didn't believe it.
What they were told by the doctors doesn't add up.
I've not died.
I've not got an illness.
I've got a T-cell count of 20.
I should be dead.
I've got a viral load.
You know, patients were told their viral loads, the amount of HIV in their blood because of the PCR test, was high.
They've got replicating virus out of control.
It's in the thousands.
You're going to be dead tomorrow.
There's nothing wrong with them.
AIDS is not a contagious disease at all.
It doesn't behave anything like a contagious disease.
It doesn't follow any of the criteria of a contagious disease.
I mean, it's supposed to be sexually transmitted.
That was a big scare.
It didn't matter, gays, sex, straight sex, it didn't matter.
That's why they said in Africa, oh Africa, sexual transmission is going to decimate the continent.
Remember, I'd just come out in the late 70s, early 80s as a gay man.
over the period of AIDS.
Remember, I'd just come out in the late 70s, early 80s as a gay man.
I knew the history of the psychiatricisation of gay men in the 90s, you know, any few years earlier.
Gay men were being given electroconvulsive therapy, were being given hormone therapy.
Some of them even had psychosurgery because our sexuality was seen as pathology, you know.
Yeah?
Now in the 1980s, we're being told our sexuality means we're diseased.
How could sociologists not see the parallel there?
Within 10 years, 15 years, you've got the American Psychiatric Association taking gay sexuality off its list of psychiatric disorders.
Then a few years later, we're back on the general list as a disease vector for AIDS, yeah?
It's the same thing.
It's pathologization of human behavior.
AIDS was contagious, sexually transmitted, caused by the HIV, human immunodeficiency virus, started in Africa, and gone.
You couldn't question any of that.
So they accepted that, but the science that was left was, okay, it's sexually transmitted.
How contagious is it?
How transmissible is it?
That's allowed.
Okay, that's not dogma.
The rate of it being transmitted sexually was not covered under the dogma.
That's a totally legitimate scientific question to ask and to investigate.
So Nancy Padian did one of the biggest studies on this area of trying to To quantify how efficient HIV was to transmit sexually, and there have been studies on gay men, and she did one of the biggest ones on heterosexuals.
To get in the study, one of the sexual partners had to be HIV positive.
How?
By the antibody test or some way.
There's no way to confirm it, to say, oh, they actually have the virus in them.
No, there's no way to do that.
All they had to do was either be HIV positive or have an antibody.
I think in those days it was just with the antibody.
And the other sexual partner had to be negative.
So that was their discordant couples.
And that way you follow them over a period of time and see how efficiently the HIV negative people became positive over years.
Zero during the study.
Not a single HIV negative sexual partner became positive during the course of that period.
At some point she ended up saying, even though she had done this 10 year study with it, I think at the end of the day she went with the establishment lie.
She said it!
Absolutely.
No, she said it sexually transmitted.
That's absolutely true.
But her data, which is in her documents, published the number zero.
But also in that same document was an estimate of what it probably is.
you know, which means she just plucked it out of the air.
I used to interview Robert Ruth Bernstein all the time, and he was always finding all the studies and demonstrating that AIDS did not appear in the context of higher sexual activity, although that there's never and he was always finding all the studies and demonstrating that AIDS did not appear in the context of higher sexual activity, although that there's never been a pandemic or an
AIDS did not appear where sex was more sex, where more sex was.
It didn't appear in the porn industry.
It didn't appear among prostitutes.
It did not appear where sex was happening.
At the International AIDS Conference in July of 2000 in Durban, Thank you.
When I would get into the cab, these South Africans, mostly Asians, but a lot of Africans driving the cabs, They'd say, what are you here for?
And I'd say, I'm here for the AIDS conference.
They'd say, where are you from?
And I said, I'm from America.
Oh, I heard this from several cab drivers.
You American researchers that are the cheapest tippers here at this conference.
I said, get out of here.
Oh no, Americans are the worst.
We would try to avoid picking them up sometimes.
But he said, you know, what was even more astonishing And these American researchers and their cheap tipping habits, they all wanted to know where they could find prostitutes.
I said, wait a minute, you're telling me that at the International AIDS Conference, participants in the conference are going around Durban looking for prostitutes?
He said that on every single night.
Yes, absolutely.
Since 1984, people all around the world have been having all kinds of sex and children have been getting born and condoms have been breaking.
And nobody could argue that the reason we don't have mass death from AIDS is because of safe sex altogether.
Although they would probably try.
So where is it?
What happened to it?
Where did it go?
Where is, where are the bodies, where are the coffins, where is the mass?
You know, they said 90 million Americans were supposed to be dead from AIDS in America by 1990.
Before you had the tests, Mike, you had ill patients, you had sick people presenting.
Now, nobody doubts that.
From the late 1970s onwards, in major centres in the United States like New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, you had AIDS patients presenting, people with dysfunctional immune systems.
And you had the 29 indicator diseases for the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
So conditions like pneumocystis pneumonia, Kaposi's sarcoma, all sorts of other conditions, yeah?
Eventually they became 29.
Now, for years, for about five years, science didn't say that those were due to a virus, yeah?
Before 1984, AIDS was a multi-factorial condition.
In the very beginning, I had a guide who really, people think that maybe my guide, so to speak, who brought me into the dark forest was, you know, Peter Duisburg.
I did read Peter Duisburg's paper.
Michael Callan was a bomb, that's the word.
He was very open about his, uh, he was very promiscuous and he was very, you know, he would use words like slutty and he wrote about it and he talked about it.
And when AIDS hit, he came out like a real, very brave hero.
And he and Richard Brookwoods sat down, I think it might have even been a typewriter, and they wrote this manifesto called We Know Who We Are, Two Gay Men Declare War on Epidemic.
What they were typing forth and why they had such a strong sense of urgency was they wanted to bridge this abyss between, and they wanted to tell the straight world and the media world, there are things that we do in the fast lane of the gay community there are things that we do in the fast lane of the gay community that you guys don't know about and you don't understand, but now we're
And they wanted to talk about the bathhouses and the poppers and all the different drugs and all the antibiotics and all the repeated STDs.
So, basically the... Frankly, in terms of an immune system, the disaster zone that this illness came out of.
And so they were saying, there's really no mystery why you were getting sick.
And this was struck down ferociously, in all uncertain terms, by There was a competing, let's say, tribe or army in the gay world at the time, and that faction was led by Larry Kramer.
And Larry Kramer had written this book, Faggots, which is exactly this story, right?
post-stonewall reality of gay, bathhouse sexual life, which has a lot of chemicals in it, has a lot of things that just don't work for a human immune system.
Poppers to relax the anal muscles to be able to have all that sex.
Poppers by themselves in mice.
And certain experiments that the CDC did very early caused Kaposi's sarcoma and PCP pneumonia.
And that was struck off as, we're not taking that road.
Because there's no money in that.
That would have brought, you know, answers.
This stuff causes this, causes this.
Stop doing that, you'll be fine.
all the money is in the mystery virus, right?
So all of these forces came together and said, no, we're not going with like that, the paupers and the lifestyle and the, no, we're not doing it politically, we're not doing it, it doesn't work financially, it doesn't work for political correctness, just no.
Blackso, formerly Burroughs, welcome later, Blackso, Smith, Klein, right?
Blackso, makers of AZT, were all over the paupers industry.
They were in the paupers industry.
And they had, it turns out, I found out this fairly recently, of course, they had, they were paying people who were in, who were gay men, who were spokesmodels for AIDS in the community, who were viciously going after anybody who talked about paupers, and were saying, who were viciously going after anybody who talked about paupers, and were saying, you know, and a lot of this stuff has kind of percolated up and archives after people have died, that they seem to be just these like,
I think it's very very important that work was negated and set to one side.
and the proper makers.
I think it's very, very important.
That work was negated and set to one side.
All that's really important, that pre-HIV gay men's health issues were never really explored.
What people did to themselves... Look, if you're going to inhale amyl nitrate ten times a day for, you know, 80% of your life, you're not going to be well.
As soon as AIDS hit, and HIV, all this information, people like John Lawrenson saved people's lives.
From the very beginning, the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, ordained that a new infectious agent was responsible.
They completely ignored drugs and anything peculiar to the circumstances of the two main groups, gay men and intravenous drug users.
I sensed that the CDC were on the wrong track, and I naively thought that I would be able to help them.
After all, I'm a sociopathic visual channelist, and as a gay activist, I view the gay world.
Boy, was I ever wrong.
Behind the scenes, People were fabricating the AIDS narrative, and the last thing they needed was for me to butt in with the reality.
For a while, I couldn't decide whether the CDC were incompetent or incompetent, and finally decided both.
They were truly incompetent, ignorant of elementary statistics.
At the same time, they lied.
My first major AIDS article in 1985 showed that the CDC deliberately construed AIDS as an infectious disease rather than sicknesses caused by toxins.
Almost all of these deaths of people with AIDS or HIV diagnoses were caused by ruthless and toxic drugs, and the terror caused by AIDS propaganda, and by the false information that the AIDS established. and by the false information that the AIDS established.
Heroin users were told to keep shooting up with heroin, but to do so with clean needles.
Gay men were told that poppers or nitrided humans were harmless.
So what is the evidence for this now?
I'll give you some data just briefly.
This is from the Centers for Disease Control.
They interviewed and checked a risk group of male homosexuals.
And I point out again, not your average American homosexual male.
These are the ones, risk groups, who flaunt often or write about Having hundreds of thousands of sexual contacts on a weekend, 20 to 30.
And this is how they do it.
Not with testosterone alone.
That may be in there.
But of 140 or 50, which they asked, where's the number here?
Somewhere.
I had it here.
Well, here's 120 and there's no 50.
Yeah, so it's 170 they asked.
90, that's self-proclaimed.
96% use nitrite inhalants.
96% said, yes, we use that drug.
And they use it for 10 years and then they get "Numocystis pneumonia or diarrhea or Kaposi's sarcoma" and they say, "Can you find the virus please for me and give me a vaccine?" That's how it goes.
So the widespread use of aphrodisiacs and recreational drugs by a minority of male homosexuals explain why among the sexes, male homosexuals have formed an AIDS risk group, not because of sex. - Okay, let's go back to AIDS with not because of sex. - Okay, let's go back to AIDS with the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
That's been known for a long, long time.
And the causes of AIDS with the small letters, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, the principal leading cause around the world is malnutrition.
Where your body is just so weakened by poor diet or starvation type of things, you're susceptible to all types of problems, especially infectious diseases.
Your whole body can just conk out if you're not fed well enough and you get all these diseases.
That's the world's leading cause is poverty and malnutrition because poverty leads to malnutrition.
It also exists in the first world, in Europe and the United States, because there is still poverty here, and there's definitely malnutrition here.
But that's the principal cause of what's called AIDS, with capital letters in the United States, A-I-D-S, are drugs.
Originally, it was as the CDC discovered, reported in 1982, was recreational drugs, like amphetamines, poppers, nitrite inhalants, heroin, things like that in the gay community, which started using drugs in astronomical levels in the 70s.
People said, well, straight people use drugs too.
That's true.
But not at the level that the gay men were using back in the late 70s, up and through to the mid 80s.
I mean, astronomical levels.
They would go to those nightclubs and they would, like, inhale the little bottle, maybe 15 milliliters or so, of amyl butyl nitrite.
It's a liquid.
You open it up, it volatilizes in these nightclubs and things.
And these guys smell this stuff, you know?
And I'm a chemist.
These nitrite inhalants, those things are carcinogen, extremely potent chemicals.
The water-soluble type they used in bacon, you've seen nitrites in bacon with no nitrites?
That was the water-soluble type that kills bacteria and things, and also forms covalent bonds with the proteins in bacon.
I would not open a bottle of that stuff outside of a cume hood in a laboratory.
And these guys were inhaling it, you know, in these nightclubs.
Now remember, this Kaposi's sarcoma is only seen in these gay men.
Not in the hemophiliacs, not in IV drug users.
So one of the first things that made me suspicious back, I think it was 84, 85, 85 for sure, about this HIV business was, how does this virus know that you're gay, and I'm supposed to cause Kaposi's sarcoma in you, and not in these IV drug using, like, you know, I give them TB or something like that, you know?
You know?
I mean, that was one of my first, my first suspicions, you know?
By 1987, I realized this whole, whole shoot and match, Uh, Marissa, contagious sexually transmitted HIV was not tenable.
In fact, it was crap.
You know, my point is, John Lauritzen was right.
It was John Lauritzen and Hal David, I think, who wrote that pamphlet on poppers and AIDS.
And it was very, very good what they did.
They got the message out there, taking these sorts of drugs cannot be good for you.
Look, who hasn't taken something in their life?
You know, I'm no angel.
I'm no saint.
But I don't think it's good to advocate that as a lifestyle.
That's what happened in the gay community in the 70s and 80s.
The commercialised gay identity took over.
They manufactured this political identity that was linked to promiscuity, drug use, the bar scene, you name it.
Once people started to learn the risks, they changed their behaviour.
You look at all of the graphs on AIDS, the numbers went down before the drugs came out.
People started changing their behaviors, lifestyle, nutrition.
The natural decline in AIDS, which started, I have a nice graph of it, I think it was in the early Around early 90s, around 89, 90, 91, something like that, it peaked.
The interesting thing of it is there are about three or four definitions of AIDS.
They kept changing it and adding new diseases every year, not every year, but periodically.
And then they started peaking around 87, 88 somewhere in there, you know, and they couldn't have that go away.
So they keep changing it and then it comes up again and it starts peaking again.
And they couldn't have that go.
So in 1993, they had a really big change in definition.
And that was where you didn't have to have any disease.
All you had to be is HIV positive by the antibody test and have fewer than 200 CD4 cells per microliter of blood.
And you'd be perfectly healthy.
Otherwise, you wouldn't know there's anything wrong with you.
They measure your CD4 cells, white blood cells, and then certain white blood cells.
And if you had antibodies to HIV on that test, you were an AIDS case.
HIV-AIDS case.
And that, overnight, tripled the number of AIDS cases.
From December 31st to January 1st, 1993.
I forget the exact year it was.
I think it was 1993 when that came out.
The very next year, it tripled.
And then, it started going down again.
Because that was the definition change, but AIDS had always been going down and down and down and down.
It was so natural.
The gay guys had already figured it out in the mid to late 80s that their drugs were killing them.
And they stopped, they really pulled back on the poppers, the nitrite inhalants and other things.
And they spread that among themselves.
That wasn't coming from the CDC or anywhere else.
They did this among themselves.
I have graphs and I got them from the CDC.
You can see the cases of AIDS You know, it peaked up there around early 90s and it started going down.
And then they had the mortality.
Mortality always is offset, comes a little later than the actual cases of AIDS.
But it started, it had already peaked and was going down too, before they started out with HEART, Highly Active Intraretroviral Therapy, which was a mixture of two or three of these nucleoside analogs plus a protease inhibitor, HIV protease inhibitor.
Okay, within a year, months to a year of starting HAART, the natural decline in AIDS stopped.
The natural decline in AIDS stopped and started leveling out.
And the natural decline in AIDS deaths stopped after they started giving them the highly active antiretroviral therapy HAART.
Which meant that it wasn't doing them any good.
You know, the myth is that AZT came along and the cocktails came along and they really helped people.
They saved lives.
It's propaganda.
They haven't helped anybody.
Cancer chemotherapy, people don't understand that.
AZT and heart and these antiretroviral drugs, all of them, are for life.
Because by government policy, Anthony Fauci, You can't be cured of it.
You cannot be cured of AIDS.
That's what they've said from the beginning, and it hasn't changed.
It's great for the pharmaceutical industry.
They can keep testing people, and they can keep treating them with these very dangerous drugs, AZT, DDI3, D4T, D4C, D3C, and all these other drugs, you know, in a heart, and keep making billions.
So, it's a lie.
It's an absolute lie.
It's not just AZT.
They were killing so many gay men with the nucleoside analogs in the late 80s and early 90s.
They had to do something about that because it was very clear they were wiping them out with those drugs.
So they lowered the dose.
I think they went down eventually threefold or even more than that on the dose.
So it was more tolerable.
People could last longer on those drugs.
As a consequence, The immediate death tally goes down.
I remember in the 1980s when I first worked on the first HIV ward in the UK, 1987.
AZT, the Concord trial, was the research trial that established, they say, the efficacy of AZT or the inefficacy of it, depending on what you believe.
The way it was marketed, AZT, it was a failed cancer drug that was repurposed for AIDS.
Yeah, basically.
It was on the shelf.
It failed for cancer.
They took it off the shelf.
They said it showed in in vitro efficacy against HIV, which meant that in the lab, in the lab, it showed some effect on HIV.
So they started trialing it.
And once it was in the Concord trial, Oh, my God.
Patients were fed this idea that this was the only drug we've got.
I remember it was Wellcome that marketed it.
The old Burrows & Wellcome.
Wellcome did the test.
Wellcome did the trial, helped with the trial.
It was the Concord trial in 1987.
And patients were led to believe it's the only thing we've got in our arsenal of drugs.
It's the wonder drug.
That was the implicit message.
They didn't call it a wonder drug.
They said it's the only thing that we've got that works.
We've got this killer disease.
You've tested positive for it.
And this is the only thing we've got to give you.
Well, they all queued up for it.
Most of them, 99% of them, couldn't get it quick enough.
Some of them had timers.
They had timers on them.
Like, you know when you cook an egg?
Yeah?
You set it for three minutes or five minutes.
I like my eggs hard, so I have them for five minutes.
Right?
They had timers on them.
So the dosing was four hourly.
They had four hourly timers by their beds.
And they'll alarm and... Nurse!
I got my... I need my AZT now.
The alarm's gone off.
I need it now to control the virus.
You know, they were like... They were like...
Primed for it.
They were like a market.
It was marketed to people, and they were a willing market.
They swallowed it.
Literally, metaphorically, they swallowed it.
I've advanced this theory, which is actually kind of obvious and almost old-fashioned.
It is a chemical epidemic, not a viral epidemic, caused by the long-term consumption of recreational psychoactive and aphrodisiac drugs, or inevitably toxic DNA chain terminators and protease inhibitors, which or inevitably toxic DNA chain terminators and protease inhibitors, which are now prescribed to HIV-positive to prevent our pure AIDS.
Accordingly, AIDS is largely preventable chemical or medical lifestyle disease.
I think it was one of my two previous speakers said 30% of us die from doctors.
I think that's certainly true for the AIDS patients when they get these DNA chain terminators.
They're designed to kill human cells.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict that they would have to die from it.
It's a matter of dose and time.
But it is not survivable to take DNA chain terminators on the long run.
The first, the nucleoside analogs are cytotoxic drugs.
They're designed to stop cell division and kill cells.
And they haven't changed.
Those are still part of heart.
So those are toxic, lethal drugs to begin with.
They just reduced the dose and added these protease inhibitors which have their own spectrum of complications.
I mean, is it a coincidence that they gave people drugs that cause the very same Symptoms that they were claiming to... Of course not, because drugs are what cause those symptoms to begin with.
They happen to be recreational drugs, primarily, but they could be nitrite inhalants, they could be heroin, the amphetamines, things like that.
That's what was causing a lot of... Remember, a lot of these diseases they had were immune suppressive diseases.
You know, and drugs will do that.
Chemotherapy for cancer.
One of the serious problems of mortality in cancer patients is dying of infectious disease as a consequence of what they're doing to their immune system.
So it's no mystery there.
Chemotherapy for cancer can cause AIDS diseases.
And of course, they're giving this chemotherapy For cancer, these nucleoside analogs, to HIV-positive people for life.
Surprise, surprise, that they get sick, their immune systems conk out, their livers fail, their brains go wonky, they have all kinds of problems.
Yes, it's untaught. it's untaught.
A bone marrow depression hampers HGTUs and HGTUs.
That was the headline in the science report.
And that's what it is.
ACP was AIDS per prescription, because it really did the same problem which we wanted to hide.
And that's why doctors didn't notice it.
Acidity is a disgusting drug.
I worked with a haematologist at the time, in the early 90s, who said to me, I wouldn't take it if it's the only thing they had if I was positive, because it destroys your bone marrow.
That's his words, and I looked it up, and of course it did.
It makes people neutropenic, it gets rid of the white blood cells, and it affects the bone marrow.
It affects the bone marrow.
And a lot of the patients, when they went on AZT, their white cell counts dropped, their bone marrow was affected, and they died of opportunistic infections due to having neutropenia, low white blood cells or no white blood cells, and No ability to fight infection, because you need your white blood cells to fight infection.
So they've got opportunistic infections, which are diagnostic of AIDS, you know?
Very interesting, isn't it?
You know, a medically induced condition, you die of the condition that you expect to prevent.
So antiviral drugs prescribed to HIV positives, are they AIDS by prescription?
If we don't have a virus to kill, they couldn't possibly be justified in any way whatsoever for what they really are.
We did some tests in the laboratory and bought AZT from the biochemical company.
We ordered to test it in cell culture, 100 milligrams.
That's a fifth of the dose that is the standard of care for a pregnant mother Who is HIV positive in the third and second trimester.
Mothers are not supposed to drink beer in America.
But when they're antibody positive, they're supposedly taking five times that much every day.
And here's what they say.
You can read it to us a little bit.
Toxic by inhalation.
That's Sigma.
Sigma company.
Biochemics company.
They're not selling it for patients.
In contact with the skin, and it's swallowed.
Target organs, blood, bone marrow, that's where the T-cells come from.
If you feel unwell, seek medical advice.
Show the label where possible.
They have changed the label now.
They have took the scarlet goss bones off.
And wear suitable protective clothing.
That's written for scientists, trained scientists working in laboratories.
But the moms who are HIV positive and producing a baby get five times as much, and there's a unicorn on it, and it goes, welcome.
Yeah, serious!
That's how it looks on their label.
The same stuff.
And the licensing study of ACT was published in New England Journal and was cut off after four months already, because at that point it looked like ACT was working, But if you looked at the side effect, then you could see that the patient only survived in the treatment group because of blood transfusions, because their bone marrow got down.
But they got life-saving blood transfusions.
And after four months, the situation looked like the treatment group did a little bit better than the placebo group.
On the basis of this study, ACT was released as a lifelong treatment.
And people couldn't stand this treatment.
They died like flies.
John Lawrenson had broken the AZT story.
It was really his story and he did such an incredible job.
But we also did good reporting on AZT and I got the FDA documents where it was the entire transcript of what they said behind closed doors when they approved AZT.
And they basically said, we have no idea what this thing is going to do.
It might kill people.
We don't know.
We better.
And they were basically leaning toward, we can't do this.
We don't know what this stuff does.
But this one head, some major guy at the FDA, chimes in in the middle of this.
And he says, listen guys, just approve it.
Just do this.
Just do it.
And they were very apprehensive, but they were important Pandora's box moment when AZT was approved without there being any how could there be safety data on AZT it was one of the most toxic drugs ever given to humans and it is now estimated to have killed upward of 300,000 mostly gay men
I have one patient who left from that from that time who was infected with HIV in 1985.
And he survived that because he didn't take the ACT.
But these are very few cases.
I have still some more patients who survived the ACT drama because they didn't take it.
But most of them took it because of fear, because, like today, most of them took the recommended treatment and that's why
I was so alert when I saw how the treatment against COVID was, the plan of the treatment for COVID, and I saw it was all immunosuppressive drugs, and I saw that we still have the same ceremonial mindset and Bodhicharyaji who recommended it, and he recommended AGT at that time.
Well, the reason that only one drug has been made available, AZT, because it's the only drug that thus far has been shown in scientifically controlled trials to be safe and effective.
It isn't a question of there are a lot of drugs around and only one is being released.
That's the only one that has been shown to be effective.
The demand from patients, the prescription was written, was signed, patients wanted it.
Yes, it had just come off the press, it was experimental really.
We gave it to people and I'm afraid I was part of that at the time.
So what I think about it now is, I'm not very happy about that, but I was part of that whole mindset, like everybody else.
All I can say in my defense is that I came out of that mindset ten years later.
So it's a bit like coming out of a cult in a way.
You know, maybe the HIV-AIDS paradigm is a cult.
It's a cult, like SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.
Once you believe in it, it infects every part of your life.
But anyway, that article came out, and it was a long time after it came out that I noticed that the most important quote, which was from a whistleblower at one of the major hospitals in New York, where he said, I stopped giving which was from a whistleblower at one of the major hospitals in New York, where he said, I stopped giving AZT to my patients because I noticed that the only patients Now, he didn't let me use his name.
I can say his name now.
His name is Dr. Michael Lenn.
That quote wasn't in the piece.
It wasn't in the magazine.
And we found out that there was somebody working in the editorial department who had actually cut it out with an X-XO knife.
I've removed a cloak.
Yeah, we had saboteurs who would cut quotes out.
Yeah.
The whole thing had a religious flavour to it, where being asked had an ideological flavour, that's the word.
And I remember with one Senior registrar, the senior Dr. Graydon in this country.
He's now a professor now.
He remembered me because I came up against him and he said, but this patient, we're not resuscitating him.
And I questioned it.
I questioned it always.
And he said, I've told you, anyway, I've given you the study.
The reference.
Go and look it up.
So I went and looked the study up, because I was starting to do a master's degree at the time, before I did my doctorate.
And I looked at the research design.
It was just observational data.
And in one meeting, In front of 20-something staff, I challenged this doctor, senior doctor on our team, he's a senior registrar, just below professor.
I said, you can't treat this patient based on this study, because it's pooled data, it's observational data, it's not a randomised controlled trial.
So, it's not a fact, it's just observational, an anecdote really, across 200 patients.
He was so angry at me, he did this, he reached out, got a book, it was bigger than this, and he threw it at me across the room.
And it hit me on the face, in front of all the staff in our unit.
And you know, I knew then, there's something wrong with this.
Because, you know, Every nurse, every RN, always challenges doctors.
It's part of the deal, you know, as the patient advocate.
But when I got a book thrown at me, across my face, and the doctor, he walked out of the room, walked down the hall, the clinical psychologist on our team ran after him and said, Rob, Rob, come back.
You cannot assault the nursing staff.
But I knew I'd put my finger on the Achilles heel here of the whole thing.
A new disease, pool data, pool data across 200 cases.
Are you going to start a palliative care pathway on a patient based on that?
35-year-old patient?
Oh, I knew there's something very, very wrong here.
It's death prescription.
You know, never mind the testing and all the flaws of that.
The application of this was very evil.
There's something very wrong here.
All those staff knew that I put my finger on the...
Buzzer here with the particular doctor.
And he did apologise for the assault later.
But it just showed to me, what are we dealing with here?
Where somebody goes to violence against you, because you ask them, you challenge the science.
Yeah?
You challenge the science.
I was my own boss, so they couldn't hurt me.
Now, had I been, like, in a university there at UCSF or something like that, I guarantee you my funding would have been affected.
I wouldn't have got it anymore, like Professor Peter Duesberg at the University of California at Berkeley.
So I have first-hand knowledge about how he's been treated over the decades.
And he had huge stature.
Anybody who spoke out about AIDS, you didn't have a career, you couldn't get money, I could speak out easily.
I had my own company.
I lost opportunities.
Even some of my companies folded because of silent, behind-the-scenes pressure on other funders and things like that.
Even here in South Carolina, a little company we moved, Viral Forensics, from California here to North Carolina, was quietly, overnight, contract was killed.
That's what happens if you speak out or against government, or institutional dogma, you will be punished.
So it's no surprise that most people who have any thoughts or disagree with many of the things that are being told to the public, that they know is not true, that's wrong, why they keep quiet.
The amount of money that's been spent on AIDS is a gigantic number.
I probably would estimate $50 trillion, roughly, give or take $5 trillion.
That's how much money has been spent on state-of-the-art Land Rovers, research centers, state-of-the-art clinics in Africa, and a lot of salaries for a lot of people who work in those clinics and at those antenatal clinics, hospitals, and wards.
There's a big financial incentive for going along with the reigning dogma.
That was brought home to me when I once gave a talk in a little landlocked country in South Africa called Swaziland.
And I was invited to Mbabani, which is the capital of Swaziland, to meet with the anti-AIDS crisis team.
When I made my, after I made my presentation, answered their questions, took some photographs after about two hours, a woman, a lawyer named Teresa, came up to me and she said, can I speak to you privately?
She's a lawyer.
She was a very prominent attorney in the Justice Department on the AIDS, you know, crisis relief team for Swaziland.
She said, I'm very, very perplexed.
What you just described, is exactly what goes on in Swaziland.
But she said, what am I supposed to do?
We picked you up at the airport in this state-of-the-art SUV.
And it's covered with AIDS paraphernalia.
It's a $50,000 automobile that they drive around in going from clinic to clinic.
She said, if I say anything like what you have been saying, I'll lose my position.
I said, I understand, Teresa.
Don't lose your position.
Don't repeat what I told you.
Keep it to yourself.
That's the best I can tell you to do.
And we had indeed talks with epidemiologists from the United States.
We invited them to come to Europe and we had talks with them.
And then they said to us, yes, we know that.
But they couldn't say anything about it because I have family, I have children, so it was clear that they shouldn't talk about this problem.
The Minister of Health in South Africa in the late 90s was a Zulu woman who was a physician, and she was really very, very talented and very good.
I had lunch with Manto at the AIDS advisory panel that I was on in Johannesburg a couple of days before the AIDS conference.
She told me a wonderful story about her teenage daughter.
Her teenage daughter had said to her, Mom, you're the Minister of Health.
You're not the Minister of AIDS.
There's other things afflicting South Africans involving health.
Get off the AIDS business.
There's lots of other things that are more important and you're responsible.
They eventually kicked her out of her office because she agreed with the criticisms.
As a physician, as a South African, as the Minister of Health.
Out.
Lot of state can't blame people for wanting to keep their jobs and their reputations intact.
How did they make the AIDS apparatus?
Tony Fauci, essentially, and his entire, you know, kingdom of money and power and influence, the whole PSYOP factory.
How did they manage to wipe out what was actually a really formidable dissent movement?
And by formidable, what I mean is it wasn't, people know the name Peter Duisburg, they know the name now, Cary Mullis, But it was actually a who's who of the best scientists in many disciplines, both in the United States and around the world.
They have a distortion machine.
In their distortion machine, what came out in the media was the only guy who doesn't think HIV causes AIDS is Peter Duesberg.
And they'd have like a cartoon of him, and they would make fun of his German accent.
I actually had a scientist at Berkeley tell me, point blank, a woman named Bea Singer.
I went into her study.
She said, do you want to talk about Peter Duesberg?
And she closed the door.
And she said, well, Peter may be right, but he doesn't understand how to play the game.
And I just, he doesn't understand anything about how, you don't just go up against everybody and say that they're all wrong.
You can't just do that.
And I said, but he thinks they're all wrong.
And that's, he's behaving as a scientist shortly, right?
And she literally said something along the lines of, this is all in that piece, The Passion of Peter Duesberg.
Well, science isn't just, it isn't just science.
It isn't just who's right.
It isn't just who's right and who's wrong.
You have to play the game.
You have to play the game.
You have to know.
You have to... You can't just go up against everybody.
You have to... And I said, get along?
And she said, yes, yes, get along.
Office of Medical and Scientific Justice was one of them.
It was a group of lawyers, investigators, Physicians, scientists, I was one of the scientists, you know, to give expert testimony, things like that, for criminal and civil cases related to HIV.
And I've been involved in 50 or so of these cases over the years.
My very first case was a civilian case, so it wasn't a civil case, it was not a criminal case, up in Maine.
I do with a woman Who lost one child to antiretroviral drugs and the state wanted to take her daughter away because she refused to give her daughter antiretroviral drugs because she lost a son to the antiretroviral drugs and went to court because the state wanted to take him away because the mother is not doing the right thing.
She's not protecting their child against HIV.
We went to court.
Unfortunately, in Maine, they listened.
We had a couple of experts.
I was one of them up there.
And the judge said, this woman did everything, followed all instructions, everything the best medicine had to offer, and her child died.
You know?
And he said, the state of Maine does not have the right to make her go through this again.
I'm paraphrasing him, you know, on that.
So we won that.
Very first time I was on there.
Great decision.
She kept her child and they didn't take her kid away.
They brought these big hotshots in from Boston and tried to intimidate her and go on and so forth.
So that started the legal stuff that I got involved with.
So we had all these cases and we won a lot of them, won most of them actually.
And usually a lot of them, most of them didn't even go to trial.
Because as I mentioned earlier, all we had to do was show the package inserts that come with the test.
So the prosecutors had really no place to go because they were basing it on these people that were HIV positive actually were exposing other people to the virus.
When, in fact, the test could not tell you whether or not that person was actually infected with the virus.
So then, like I said, we were winning a lot of these cases, the ones that went to trial and the others.
I would testify in the courtroom, along with the other team.
And we would read those inserts and everything.
But then they started using more and more the PCR, viral load, instead of the antibody test.
And trying to say that the PCR is a better test than the antibody test, and they're using that.
And we want a lot of those too because the insert says the same thing, pretty much the same thing as the antibody test.
You can't diagnose AIDS or the presence of HIV or confirm the presence of it with these things.
So they went to that.
But we didn't stop there.
We kept looking for other ways to derail this HIV thing.
We started, we collaborated, consulted with some electron microscopists at universities.
It just so happened that in that same building there was a fellow who cultured HIV.
Little viral particles of HIV.
Been doing it since the 80s.
He got the HIV from Robert Gallo's lab.
At the NIH.
So we had authentic, in quotes, HIV as a reference.
Nobody had ever observed HIV using any method in a human being before.
So we wanted to have a reference standard.
And we had a reference standard in that building.
What I mean by authentic, it's what the CDC, what the NIH, what Robert Gallo considers authentic HIV.
That's all I care about.
So then we spiked that into some bad blood.
Nobody in the world had ever shot HIV in their blood.
So we took a sample of blood, and sure enough, there's nothing that looks like HIV in it.
So we added this HIV to it.
Voila!
There it is.
Right there.
Easy to spot.
You can see it has all the characteristics, morphology, size, and everything.
So he had some samples.
He did this for us in a few of the legal cases.
He would take blood samples from the person so-called infected with HIV.
With a high viral load, you know, or whatever.
You know, lots of virus in this person.
And guess what?
Without spiking it, you can't find any.
But as a control, you take the other half, you divide the blood into two portions.
One you put HIV in at the reference, the other one you don't do anything.
With the HIV, sure enough, there it is.
You know, you can see it.
And the one that we didn't add it to, there's no HIV in it.
So that's pretty clear evidence that you could show in a courtroom to a jury.
You know?
So that was what viral forensics was all about.
Eventually.
We were doing that as OMSJ until OMSJ closed its doors.
Because we couldn't collaborate.
We couldn't collaborate with the academic electron microscopists anymore.
Because one case that we were in, one of the government attorneys, she was an expert witness for the prosecutor.
She convinced the prosecutor to put pressure on the University of Massachusetts, the boss of this guy who was not a full professor, electron microscopist.
So he had to pull out.
He had to pull out.
The judge found out about this.
We told the judge about this.
We weren't even going to use him in that case, but she didn't want us using him, you know.
And the judge ruled that this was undue command influence, which is tampering, you know, with witnesses.
And the judge gave us two months to find another electron microscope.
Well, he couldn't find that.
No academic, nobody already had it.
The word's out.
Can't get it.
This happens so many times, this sort of thing.
And then we went back and said we couldn't find one.
So he gave us, I think, another three months.
And we still couldn't find one.
So that's when Bob leapt up.
He's the money guy.
He said, well, let's set up our own company.
And we called it Viral Forensics.
And it was an electron microscopy company.
And I hired a professional electron microscopist.
And I hired as a consultant a guy who had been Culturing HIV for vaccine production.
Nobody's ever succeeded in making an HIV vaccine, but they needed HIV to make the vaccine.
So he'd been doing that, God, I forget, 18 years or something like that?
A long time.
To work with us.
To help us build a lab.
To put in an electron microscope, culture HIV, and pick up where we left off.
And I found one here in Greensboro, North Carolina, Gateway University Research Park.
That was perfect.
They had a bunch of electron microscopes.
They even had cultured HIV, you know.
They had centrifuges.
They had all sorts of things.
And so we came out here.
I think it was April.
I came out here with my team, electron microscopists and the HIV guy.
And I think it was April 2017.
We met the people there.
And they were very, very interested to get us.
Because he had all this equipment.
The idea was put the academics and industry together.
A little marriage there.
That's the big thing these days.
And they had all this equipment, very few people using it.
And here we were, a company coming from California, wanted to relocate there, bring our own stuff.
And they were so happy to have us that they told, volunteered to buy us some expensive centrifuges and do all these sorts of things.
They really wanted us to be there.
We plan to be operational October 2017.
And I went back in the end of August, back to California, helped Terry pack up, move our stuff, our personal stuff out here.
And August 31st, that night, I got an email canceling our contract, our five-year contract with these guys.
And no explanation, to this day, no explanation.
And they never told us, but I went to the academic guy.
They wouldn't answer my phone calls or my email or anything, but I didn't have any ill will toward these fellows.
And I did talk to the dean, the academic guy.
He happened to be in his office one day.
I just walked in there and almost said his name.
I said, just tell me what happened.
He shook his head, shook his head, shook his head.
And he said, I said, just tell me what happened.
I just want to know.
He said, David, they don't want you here.
And I knew exactly what he was talking about.
I mean, you had to have somebody who had enough clout to force the dean to cancel my contract so i had to it was up above him you know so uh it wasn't just what wasn't just a professor you know they had to take it up probably the board who knows i don't know the details and they'll never tell me at this point it's moot so you were you were trying to
you were literally just doing the science that would have shown the falsity of the hiv in the blood claim Yeah.
And you weren't even allowed to do that science.
That's right.
That's right.
What they did was with every single dissenter, and they had many formidable dissenters.
Peter Duesberg was first, but it was three Nobel laureates.
Barbara McClintock, who never went on the record, but I did speak to her and she did say, I believe that Peter is right.
Peter gave me her number.
Barbara McClintock, Walter Gilbert, Nobel laureate.
Harry Mollis, Nobel laureate.
Harry Rubin, iconic virologist.
Richard Stroman.
Lynn Margulis.
Lynn Margulis is the name in evolutionary biology after Darwin.
Staunch defender of Peter Duesberg.
Serge Lang.
I watched it play out.
I watched these titans.
They were really titans of science, not just American science, but international science.
And I watched them despair.
I only really got this front row ticket to this whole story because nobody else wanted to interview them.
So I kind of had to feel, not to myself, there was a small group of us, but everybody got the message back in the editorial office or at the studio, at the network.
Everybody got this very clear memo, don't touch that.
And I got that memo too, don't forget, in the very beginning, don't touch that.
To say that Anthony Fauci controls the media is a real understatement.
Here's a story Peter Duisburg used to tell.
Peter was going to be on one of the talk shows, I don't know if it was CNN or if it was... I think it was actually one of the networks and they were just going to do straightforward journalism.
Oh, Dr. Duisburg, you are an esteemed retrovirologist.
Why don't you think HIV is the cause of AIDS?
Why, everybody disagrees with you, you know, but what do you have to say?
They flew him to New York.
They flew him to New York.
He was in his hotel room and about to go downstairs to get picked up by the car.
And the phone rings, oh, sorry, Dr. Duisberg, we have to cancel the interview.
And he says, you literally turned on the TV at the appointed time, and Tony Fauci was sitting there talking about the latest numbers and the latest scare.
So they must have had such a surveillance capacity even then.
And or spies and moles and all this kind of stuff.
So they knew, they absolutely knew when somebody was going to interview Peter Duisberg.
They punished by removing access, by getting people fired, by just a massive intimidation program.
The president of South Africa had just stopped what he was doing.
The president of South Africa, Thabo Embeke, in 2000 called 12 scientists.
He did the exact purely scientific right thing.
He called 12 scientists from one side and 12 scientists from the other, put them all in a room together.
And what they did to Thabo Embeke is a really grisly example.
And there's a lot of racism there, too.
Real racism in that story.
How they got the entire world's press to go against Thabo Mbeki as, you know, suddenly mass murderer, guilty of what?
Well, it went from condoms to being guilty of stopping antiretrovirals.
So now you see, I see, The fangs of the pharmaceutical industry coming out here because guess what the ethos is?
The ethos is drugs into bodies, drugs into bodies, drugs into bodies.
And what do you see with COVID?
And they're literally saying, you know, vaccines into arms, vaccines into arms.
Anybody who gets in the way of any of this complicating stuff is, you know, they found a formula and it worked.
It's a pack of lies, basically.
It's certainly pseudoscience.
If it's anything at all, it's pseudoscience.
But it's certainly a psy-op on those groups.
Gay men, black Africans, and drug users, certainly in the 80s and 90s, they were the targets.
They were the extendable communities that nobody would stand up for.
Most of the money seemed to be spent for a while on what were called KAP studies, Knowledge Action and production.
That was a way of saying that we were teaching Africans how to put on condoms on bananas so they would know how to properly protect themselves.
It went for salaries.
It went for the setting up of state-of-the-art clinics in very secure areas, like outside Slobisa in Zululand.
That was a very safe and secure area of South Africa.
The buildings and the money that went for these Western researchers was astronomical.
The money could have gone for the treatment of ordinary prosaic Common widespread ailments that make Africans sick or can cause death.
Tuberculosis.
Six month supply of anti-tubercular medicine is $20.
And the follow-up is about, for about four months, is about another $15.
That's where the money could go.
Anti-diarrheal salt tablets.
Prosaic stuff.
Not fancy.
Instead of being treated for the diarrhea, instead of being treated for tuberculosis, instead of being treated for protein anemia, they're told how to wear condoms.
And that is hideous, and actually abusive and evil in my opinion.
The other day I went to get a haircut and had a woman say, oh, I must have brought up Tony Fauci.
And she said, oh, I love Dr. Fauci.
I didn't say anything, but I just want to say, I really want people to understand that this man, Anthony Fauci, has presided over a system of vindictive funding, a funding apparatus, where because something is going against where because something is going against his stuff, his pet projects.
Now, of course, HIV is where Fauci becomes Fauci.
He starts in 1984 with HIV and Gallup.
When the government stated that AIDS was contagious sexually transmitted, caused by HIV, came from Africa, April 23, 1984.
The person that picked up from there was Anthony Fauci.
He says, OK, I'm going to run with that.
And he drove that narrative.
For decades, he drove that narrative.
He drove the narrative that's treated with these nucleoside analogs, ADT, and the previous inhibitors.
And the test and everything and all the infectious diseases that the CDC or anybody can want to work on for a while and promote, do something, whatever it is.
If they want to go to the third world, it could be Ebola or Zika in Latin America or MERS or SARS or whatever and SARS-CoV-2 for the whole globe.
Well, Anthony Fauci is your man to promote that and drive that narrative things.
And Anthony Fauci is not the one man, he's not the one man problem, he's the symptom, he's the symptom, in a one man, of the problem which is that American science is about, I'm not even going to use the word science, but when you get these, you get these industries, these chemical industries, pharmaceutical industries, biotech industries, petrochemical industries,
all this stuff, and they have business ideas, and they have business all this stuff, and they have business ideas, and they have business models, they get a scare going, really bad disease, and they show, with AIDS, they show these emaciated men, you know, and then they get this idea, they launch this idea, anybody can get it, anybody and then they get this idea, they launch this idea, anybody
And if people knew that since that first moment, Anthony Fauci did not put one federal research dollar to finding out why those men got sick, or why, how they might get well, he just, after Bob Gallo's 1984 press conference, he said, anybody who says, it wasn't even HIV plus anything else, even people who tried to say, HIV is the primary cause,
but this might play a role, or that, they got sidelines but this might play a role, or that, they got sidelines Defunded, discredited, and it was like, it was just HIV is the cause of AIDS because, Harry Mullis would say, because Robert Gallo standing up there with his ABA glasses said so at a press conference.
Fauci's a serial killer.
I wrote my dissertation on HIV-AIDS.
He was just warming up back then.
Serial killers escalate, and he was just getting started back then.
Yeah, he was partly involved.
I mean, Robert Gallo was the chief architect of the fraudulent theory that HIV causes AIDS.
It doesn't.
But Fauci liked it.
And of course, the vaccine is going to be an answer.
And here we are, how many years later, we still don't have one.
And this is the way Fauci rolls, right?
So when people started showing up who had AIDS, who were not HIV positive, like thousands of them, he invented a new disease.
I can't remember what he called it, but he moved all those people into that category because he couldn't really explain this any other way.
They had some other kind of disease wrong with them, right?
He went to his friends at Burroughs, and they had a drug that later became known as AZT.
And this drug was a chemotherapy drug.
It killed 100% of the lab animals, and it was so bad, they didn't bother to patent it.
So he gets them to dust it all off, and we're going to try this on AIDS patients.
Even backing up to HIV-positive people who nothing was wrong with them, and then HIV-pregnant women, right?
But anyway, they do this clinical trial, and it's unblinded in 19 seconds because the AIDS patients taking AZT, they're on the floor in the fetal position vomiting blood.
Everybody knew.
It was unblinded right away.
They approved it anyway.
And you might have seen a movie called The Dallas Buyers Club with Matthew McConaughey.
That was a true enactment.
The AIDS patients in the United States figured out the government's strategy for killing them.
So, they started going to Mexico to get drugs to bring them illegally into the United States that could actually be helpful because the government's drugs were killing them.
Fauci actually did a clinical trial using AZT on pregnant women who were HIV positive but asymptomatic, and I'm just wondering what universe that somebody even decides to do that.
I mean, the fact that it got approved is pretty bad, but the fact that somebody would conceive of it and still have a job made me the most frightening of all.
So I could go on, but that gives you a little smattering.
And just like right now, anybody who disagreed with him, he managed to silence them.
He took their funding away.
They were legitimate scientists, really good people, just like you have now Scott Atlas and John Ioannidis and people who are incredibly reputable, Peter McCullough speaking out.
They trash their names.
They have always done that.
They can't have a scientific discussion with anybody, so they just trash their name.
He trashes their name.
Nobody can disagree with him because he knows everything.
If I were Mr. Fauci, and I felt very confident about it, I would call him Dr. Fauci.
He shouldn't have a medical license.
He's never treated a single patient, by the way.
That's very telling.
But if I were Mr. Fauci, I would invite the people who were my detractors on to have a conversation.
See if I could talk them into thinking my way.
That's what science is supposed to be all about.
I have ideas.
You have ideas.
We don't have the same ideas.
Well, let's see what a conversation looks like.
Oh, no.
He can't have a scientific conversation with anybody.
In fact, I had Scott Atlas speak at, or he was a former White House doctor, speak at our conference back in mid-November, and he said that he cannot express the level of incompetence.
He said that not one time during his time there did Mr. Fauci or Mrs. Birx, the scarf lady, ever have a single piece of documentation for anything that they wanted to do.
He would bring briefcases full of articles and evidence, And they would roll their eyes and sigh and look off into space.
They had to tolerate him because the president wanted him there, but they had no interest in scientific discussion.
He said the level of incompetence of Fauci is so bad that he can't even pronounce medical terms.
And Atlas has a new book coming out to tell, I think, about what went on.
But it was extraordinarily distressing.
And he said at our conference, he said, get ready for this to go on for a long time.
Because these are stupid, incompetent people.
And the only thing they have is power.
They don't have any other capability of doing anything except just exerting power.
He's never practiced medicine.
His own sister during the AIDS thing.
So one of the problems with Tony is once he sets his idea on something, his mind on something, facts won't dissuade him.
And he's in a position, Mr. Biden said he spends more time with Fauci than he spends with his wife.
That's a scary thing.
He's in a very powerful position.
And, um, and he shouldn't have it.
He shouldn't be there.
He's the highest paid person in the federal government.
And, um, according to Atlas, he was, Trump was told by a number of people to get rid of him.
He said it was the most profound failure of leadership in the history of politics.
That Trump just didn't throw him out into the White House lawn.
He was an incompetent criminal.
What he has done is criminal.
What he's doing right now is criminal.
And I'm going to get him too.
▲
Export Selection