From the front page of the Mail & Guardian (South Africa) Jan. 24, 2001

The AIDS Blunder by David Rasnick, PhD
Member of Thabo Mbeki's AIDS Advisory Panel (South Africa)

The contagious, HIV hypothesis of AIDS is the biggest scientific, medical blunder of the 20th Century. The evidence is overwhelming that AIDS is
not contagious, sexually transmitted, or caused by HIV. I have come to realize that embarrassment is the main obstacle to exposing this simple fact.

So why are we barraged, almost daily, by an endless litany of AIDS horrors and HIV statistics? Why do virtually all doctors and public health
officials profess their unswerving allegiance to the unproven hypothesis that AIDS is contagious and sexually transmitted when the evidence is
greatly against it?

There are more than 100 thousand doctors and scientists who have built
their careers and reputations by simply accepting the articles of faith
about AIDS. At this late date, it is simple human embarrassment that is
the biggest obstacle to bringing the AIDS insanity to an end. It is the fear
of being so obviously and hopelessly wrong about AIDS that keeps lips sealed, the money flowing and AIDS rhetoric spiraling to stratospheric
heights of absurdity.

The physicians who know or suspect the truth are embarrassed or afraid
To admit that the HIV tests are absurd and should be outlawed, and that the
anti-HIV drugs are injuring and killing people. We are taught to fear
antibodies, and to believe that antibodies to HIV are a harbinger of disease and death ten years in the future. When you protest this absurdity and
point out to health care workers that antibodies are the very essence of anti-viral immunity your objections are met with either contempt or
embarrassed silence.

The National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the
Medical Research Council of South Africa, and the World Health
Organization are terrorizing hundreds of millions of people around the world by their
reckless and absurd policy of equating sex with death. Self preservation
compels these institutions to not only maintain but to actually compound
their errors, which adds to the fear, suffering, and misery of the
world-the antithesis of their reason for being.

The only way we can free ourselves from the AIDS blunder and bring an
End to the tyranny of fear is to have an open international discourse and
debate on all things AIDS. Anger will be a natural response to facing
the enormity of the scandal of AIDS. Anger has its place but it should be
put aside quickly. It is a mistake to focus on villains and on whom to
punish. The AIDS blunder is a sociological phenomenon in which we all share a
measure of responsibility.

Ultimately, the AIDS blunder is not really about AIDS, nor even about health and disease, nor even about science and medicine. The AIDS blunder is
about the health of our democracies. A healthy democracy demands that it’s citizens keep a skeptical, even suspicious, eye on its institutions in order
to prevent them from becoming the autonomous, authoritarian regimes they are now.

The AIDS blunder shows that we need to rethink and restructure our
institutions of government, science, health, academe, journalism and media.
We must replace the National Institutes of Health as the primary gatekeeper of research funding with numerous competing sources of funding. We
must restructure the peer review processes of scientific publishing and funding so that they do not promote and protect any particular dogma or
fashion of thought or exclude competing ideas. A robust and mean investigative journalism must be revived, rewarded and cherished.

Finally, as citizens we must take back the authority and responsibility
for our own health and well being and that of our democracies.

What the fuck are you going on about and why are you even here?

What I am going on about is one of the worst crimes against humanity since the Witch Hunts of the middle ages. I am here to try to make the World a better place like most of the other people on this Board.

Ninty per cent of the people on this board who have replied to my posts and those of other Dissidents are in full agreement. Do you work for a drugs company or just like being rude to others in the struugle for peace, freedom and justice?

Really?

Sounds like you're more interested in the struggle to rut like a rabbit without wrapping that rascal.

"Ninty per cent of the people on this board who have replied to my posts and those of other Dissidents are in full agreement."

No!! You don't say! Imagine that, 95% of the leftists and "dissidents" that read your nonsense agree with you.
Try as you might, your whole premise is ludicrous. It can't even be argued for or against because it reduces the discussion to absurdity.
Who knows what your motives are but anything other than pure mockery is too good for you.

You say AIDS is not contagious and not transmitted sexually?

If it is not contagious, how else can you account for its exponential growth? The exponential growth that has taken place in say... the past 10 years for example?

Excerpted from United News of India:

CIA Report on HIV/AIDS Baseless
by Annapurna Jha
November 10, 2002


''Mr Gates interest in HIV/AIDS projects in India is not meant for charity,
as it appears. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation contributing funds to
fight AIDS is to protect his billions of dollars of investments in
pharmaceutical companies interested in conducting field trials in India,''
Mr Mulloli said.

Health Minister Shatrughan Sinha has already rejected the CIA report, and
the National Intelligence Council clearly stated the CIA estimates to be
'highly exaggerated' and not based on surveillance data collected in India.

Mr Gates has reportedly funded the controversial report and also made huge
investments in companies involved in AIDS drug research.

Charging that the CIA's direct and unwarranted involvement in Indian public
health issues amounted to direct intervention in its domestic affairs and a
challenge to its soverignity, Mr Mulloli questioned the basis on which the
CIA said that 310,000 people had died in India due to AIDS in 1999 alone.

The Indian Parliament talked of a mere 114 AIDS related deaths in 1999.

--------------------------------------------

Excerpted from Pioneer News Service, New Delhi:

Sinha Rejects US Report on AIDS
November 10, 2002

India has rejected an US intelligence agency report which projects that the
country will have over 25 million people suffering with AIDS by 2010 even as
an NGO charged that the report was aimed at exploiting Indian market for
AIDS drugs and vaccines.



----------------------------------------

Excerpted from the Daily Pioneer:

Mysterious Malaise
by Purushottaman Mulloli of JackIndia
November 17, 2002


The CIA says India will have 25 million infected people by 2010, the maximum
in any country. But India has recorded only 287 AIDS deaths in 1997, 217 in
1998, and 114 in 1999. In whose interest is it to push up these figures?


-----


The Lancet (5), in 1990 on 20.2
million ELISA tests made in Russia, 20,000 were positive, but
only 112 were confirmed by the WB; in 1991, on 30 million ELISA
tests, a good 30,000 were positive, but of these only 66 were
confirmed by the Western Blot, that is a minimum percentage
(0.002%).


______



After the first speaker, Le Ann Dolan of AIDS Calgary, the local HIV/AIDS service organization spoke for about five minutes about the burgeoning
AIDS epidemic in Canada a member of the press interjected her first question.
"How many new AIDS cases were there in Canada last year?" Le Ann stopped, looked puzzled, and did not answer. The answer to this question
turned out to be that that there were only 221 new cases of AIDS diagnosed in 2001 (2002 figures are not available yet). And, that is no anomaly, the
case count has declined every year from a peak of
1,759 in 1993 [LCDC, 2002]



______



Oklahoma statistics: -
http://www.health.state.ok.us/program/hivstd/epi/1202_4.pdf

HIV POSITIVE CUMLATIVE FIGURES

121 deaths in 19 years (approx 6 per year).
Pediatric deaths - ONE

Hardly an epidemic in Oklahoma

(No breakdown of hetero percentage available).


_____


MONTANA

Total teenage cases since 1985 - 2 (TWO)
Heterosexual cases (male and female) since 1985 - 67 (SIXTY SEVEN)
Children one to seven in age since 1985 - 4 (FOUR)



http://www.dphhs.state.mt.us/hpsd/pubheal/disease/pdf/aids1200.pdf


_____


California



AIDS is down 92.5% from 1994 level. Source Calif. Department of Health Web Site.


_____-



Estimates that even the UNAIDS Chief Epidemiologist called 'utter bullshit' based on WHO guidelines that fit EVERY epidemic disease in the Third
World


_____




So called 'AIDS' is over in America and hardly exists anywhere else. Take for example India: -

India has recorded only 287 AIDS deaths in 1997, 217 in
1998, and 114 in 1999.

AIDS 'EPIDEMIC' IN RUSSIA ANOTHER MYTH
Anna Bazhenova
MOSCOW, Oct 05, 2001 (Itar-Tass via COMTEX) -- (extract)

Pokrovsky told a news conference here on Friday. As many as 1,438 AIDS patients, including 132 children, died since the time the first
HIV-infected person had appeared in the country. One thousand four hundred and thirty
eight in the whole of mighty Russia since the beginning of AIDS. Clearly AIDS is an epidemic in Russia as we have been told. An epidemic of lies
and gross exaggerations.....as per usual.

World "AIDS" figures just released show a similar
epidemic of EXAGGERATION globally.

..2,500 cases in Japan in over TWENTY years of CUMULATIVE reporting!

..1,100 in China, which is supposed to be "exploding" with "AIDS".

..8,400 cases in India in 20 years (far lower even then the 17,000 reported by Health ..Authorities
in India). See story below.

..18,000 in the United Kingdom

..19,000 in Canada in over TWO DECADES of the so-called "epidemic"of "AIDS"!



That is 49,000 cases in Countries with a total population over 1,500,000,000

(One and a half billion)

or under one per 30,612 population in over seventeen years.



WHAT GROWTH....OH, THE GROWTH OF THE EXAGGERATIONS AND OUTRIGHT LIES.

THE SPERM VS. THE AIDS VIRUS

A paper in the February 1992 issue of Applied and Environmental Microbiology reports that filtration techniques show the HIV-1 virus to
be 0.1 micron (4 millionths of an inch) in diameter. It is three times smaller than the herpes virus, 60 times smaller than the syphilis
spirochete, and 50 to 450 times smaller than sperm. (8)

THE FLAWED CONDOM

Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) researchers, using powerful electron microscopes, have found that new latex, from which condoms are
fabricated, contains "maximum inherent flaw[s]" (that is, holes) 70 microns in diameter. (9)

These holes are 700 times larger than the HIV-1 virus. There are pores in latex, and some of the pores are large enough to pass sperm-sized
particles. Carey, et al., observed leakage of HIV-sized particles through 33%+ of the latex condoms tested. In addition, as Gordon points
out in his review, the testing procedures for condoms are less than desirable. United States condom manufacturers are allowed 0.4% leaky
condoms (AQL). Gordon states, "The fluctuations in sampling permits many batches not meeting AQL to be sold." In the United States,
12% of domestic and 21% of imported batches of condoms have failed to meet the 0.4% AQL. (10)

CONDOMS FAIL TESTING

In a 1988 study sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, Bruce Voeller of the Mariposa Foundation in Topanga, California, a
non-profit organization dedicated to preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, ranked 31 brands of latex condoms according to
how well they met the U.S. and international quality assurance standards designed to ensure that condoms provide an effective barrier
against human sperm.

"Many of the condoms now on the market would not get FDA approval if they were required to meet today’s standards," says Voeller.
Although all condoms sold in the U.S.are supposed to pass quality assurance tests, those marketed before 1976 need not meet the more
stringent requirements necessary to win FDA marketing approval. (11)

Dr. Collart reports that "Gotszche and Hording in their study of in vivo [real life] condom failure rates concluded ‘Condoms to prevent
HIV transmission do not imply truly safe sex.’ In addition Steiner, et al., observed newer lots of condoms had actual breakage rates of
3.5-8.8%, while actual breakage rates for older lots ranged from 9.8-18.6%. In a study conducted by Ahmed, et al., 29%-42% of those who
had used condoms experienced at least one breakage. In a survey conducted by the University of Manchester, 52% of those who had
obtained condoms from their family planning clinic had one or more either burst or slip off in the 3 months before the survey. In studies by Albert, et
al., and by Wright, et al., 36% and 38% of their respondents reported condom failures respectively." (12)

CONDOM + SPERMICIDE

Some have advocated the use of spermicide containing nonoxynol-9 in the prevention of HIV infection. However, the protective effects of
nonoxynol-9 have not been established in vivo for any of the viral STDs. Some reports suggest that spermicides (including nonoxynol-9)
may be associated with irritation and ulceration of genital and rectal epithelia, side-effects that may actually facilitate HIV infection. In a study with
Nairobi prostitutes, a higher rate of new HIV infections was found among women using nonoxynol-9 than among those not
using it. Additionally, in a study of rhesus monkeys who were exposed to a high dose of simian immunodeficiency virus following
vaginally inserted nonoxynol-9 foam, half the monkeys developed an infection. (13, 14, 15, 16)

CONDOM CLIMATE CONTROL

Condoms are sensitive to heat and cold, yet they are not normally transported in climate-controlled vehicles. Vesey, in his study of condoms,checked
72,000 trucks and has actual photographs of eggs frying in the backs of trucks used for condom distribution.

Partly due to Vesey’s study, Burlington County, NJ, banned the distribution of condoms at the county’s AIDS counselling center, because they
concluded that the risk of liability for condom failures was too great. (17)

DEADLY DELUSIONS

In a 1990 review article by April and Schreiner, the authors summarize recent studies on HIV infection and conclude, "Recent studies on
HIV prevention show the assumption that condoms provide reliable protection against HIV to be a dangerous illusion." The studies reviewed by the
authors showed that the rate of seroconversion (HIV infection) associated with condom use ranged from 13% to 27% and
more. (18)

Frosner concludes that "Available data now indicate that efficacy of condoms has been largely overestimated." (19)

In a study in Florida, where heterosexual couples used condoms, 17% of partners of AIDS patients became infected within 18 months, (20)
despite the frequency of sexual relations being lower if one partner is HIV-positive.(21) Detels, et al., (22) observed a risk reduction of only 3.3:1
for those who used condoms with all of their partners, and a 1.8:1 increase in riskfor those who used condoms for some of their partners as opposed
to using condoms for none of their partners. This would indicate that condoms are ineffective for prolonged or lifelong protection from AIDS. (23)

In addition, since 100% condom use is difficult if not impossible to obtain, the realistic number to look at would be the risk while using
condoms some of the time. It is more realistic to expect teens to be abstinent (which is 100% effective in preventing sexual transmission of HIV)
than it is to expect them to use condoms 100% of the time (which has an HIV failure rate approaching 100% with life-long use.) Joffe, et al., (24)
state: "The association between categories of condom use and history of an STD were not statistically significant at
conventional levels after adjustment for number of partners."

Cohen, et al., (25) conducted a study in which patients who had contracted an STD were given a condom education course. Within nine
months "19.9% of the men and 12.6% of the women returned with new STD," some multiple times. The STD reinfection rate actually increased for
women. Frosner states the U.S. government has withdrawn a $2.6 million grant to study condoms because "An unacceptably high number of
condom users probably would have been infected in such a study." He adds that the only safe sex is mutually monogamous and between two
non-infected persons. (26)

RISKY BUSINESS

The United States Public Health Service states that sexual relations, even with a condom, with a person who is HIV-positive is so risky that
alternative methods of expressing physical intimacy should be considered. Additionally, Public Health Services warns that the rate of HIV
transmission in anal intercourse is so high that the practice should be avoided. (27)

PANACEA OR PLACEBO?

In conclusion, Herbert Ratner, M.D., offers the best summary of all when he says,

Actually, the major accomplishment of the condom campaign to prevent AIDS is to impress the promoters, politicians and the public at large that
something is being done; and although well-intentioned, it offers more of a placebo than a panacea.

Publicizing the condom to the four winds is, for the most part, the bravura of a puritan who is trying to prove to the world
that he is not a puritan. To concentrate on the mechanical aspects of the sex act to the exclusion of the emotional and psychological aspects (which
the condom campaign ignores) is the essence of Puritanism. The only difference between the new and the old is that whereas the traditional puritans
were alleged to believe that sex was something to be isolated and repressed, neo-puritans accept sex as something to be isolated and exercised. (28)



Reviewed by Joel McIlhaney, M.D., of the Medical Institute for Sexual Health



NOTES

1.Weller, Susan C., "A Meta-Analysis of Condom Effectiveness in Reducing Sexually Transmitted HIV," Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 36, #12,
June 1993, pp. 1635-1644.

2.Smith, Richard W., The Condom: Is It Really Safe Sex? (unpublished, October 1990) pp. 8-9.

3.Collart, David G., M.D., Condom Failure for Protection From Sexual Transmission of the HIV: A Review of the Medical Literature, Feb. 16 1993.

4.Zenilman, Jonathan, et al., "Condom Use to Prevent Incident STDs: The Validity of Self-Reported Condom Use," Sexually Transmitted Diseases,
Jan.-Feb. 1995, pp.15-21;

5.Ravenel S. duBose, M.D., "Comments and Observations," Aug. 5, 1995.

6.Joel McIlhaney, Jr., M.D., "Chlamydia Trachomatis; The Most Common Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Disease in the United States," Medical
Institute for Sexual Health Sexual Health Update, Vol. 3, #3, Fall, 1995.
7.Friedman and Trivelli, "Condom Availability for Youth: A High Risk Alternative," Pediatrics, 2/97, p. 285.

8.Lytle, C. D., et al., "Filtration Sizes of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 and Surrogate Viruses Used to Test Barrier Materials," Applied
and Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 58, #2, Feb. 1992.

9."Anomalous Fatigue Behavior in Polysoprene," Rubber Chemistry and Technology, Vol. 62, #4, Sep.-Oct. 1989.

10.Collart, David G., M.D., loc. cit.

11.Nowak, Rachel, "Research Reveals Condom Conundrums," The Journal of NIH Research, Vol. 5, Jan. 1993, pp. 32, 33.

12.Collart, David G., M.D., op. cit.

13.Bird, K.D., AIDS, Vol. 5, pp. 791-796, 1991.

14.Voeller, B., AIDS, Vol. 6, pp. 341-342, 1992.

15.Kreiss, J.; Ruminjo, I.; Ngugi, E.; Roberts, P.; Ndinya-Achola, J.; and Plummer, F., 1989 V International Conference on AIDS, Montreal.

16.Miller, C.J.; Alexander, N.J.; Sutjipto, S.; et al., J. Med. Primatol, Vol. 19, pp. 401-409, 1990.

17.Vesey, W.B., HLI Reports, Vol. 9, pp. 1-4, 1991.

18.April, K., and Schreiner, W., Schweiz. med. Wschr., Vol. 120, pp. 972-978, 1990.

19.Frosner, G.G., 1989, Infection, Vol. 17, pp. 1-3.

20.Fischl, M.A.; Dickinson, G.M.; Segsl, A.; Flanagan, S.; and Rodriguez, M.; Presentation THP. 92, III International Conference on
AIDS in Washington D.C., 1-5 June, p. 178, 1987.

21.Klimes, I., et al., AIDS Care, Vol. 4, p. 151, 1992.

22.Detels, R.; English, P.; Visscher, B.R.; Jacobson, L.; Kingsley, L.A.; Chmiel, J.S.; Dudley, J.P.; Eldred, L.J.; and Ginzburg, H.M.;Journal of
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, Vol. 2, pp. 77-83, 1989.

23.Gordon, R., loc. cit.

24.Joffe, G.P.; Foxman, B.; Schmidt, A.J.; Farris, K.B.; Carter, R.J.; Neumann, S.; Tolo, K.-A.; and Walters, A.M.; 1992, Sexually Transmitted
Diseases, Vol. 19, pp. 272-278.

25.Cohen, D.A.; Dent, C.; MacKinnon, D.; and Hahn, G.; Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Vol. 19, pp. 245-251, 1992.

26.Frösner, G.G., loc. cit.

27.Byer, C.O., and Shainberg, L.W., Dimensions of Human Sexuality, Wm. C. Brown Publishers, 1991.

28.Ratner, Herbert, M.D., "Condoms and AIDS," ALL About Issues, Feb. 1989, p. 36.

Sounds like the best approach would be:

1/ Don't have sex in Africa with any of the locals, and

2/ Don't have gay sex with a male anywhere worldwide, especially the anal variety. (I don't know why you'd want to do that anyway, but apparently some do).

Are you even reading what you're posting.

First you tell us that Aids is not caused by HIV (if not this post than earlier posts and links you've given)
Then you tell us that, whatever causes it, it's not contagious. Certainly not sexually contagious.
Then to prove this you site Bill Gates involvemnet in India as some sort of proof of something.
Still waiting for even an attempt at verification that it's not contagious.
But the coupe de grace is that you then point to some conspiracy involving micro-holes in condoms which can allow HIV (which doesn't cause AIDS) to pass thru the latex during sex (which is an act not known to spread AIds) and then infect the partner(with HIV which is not contagious).
You, sir, are a nut.
Plain and simple.

A FEW 'NUTS' WHO AGREE WITH ME: -


AIDS DISSIDENTS include two Nobel Prize winners, one nominee for the Nobel Prize, one member of The National Academy of Sciences to
name a few.


Charles A. Thomas, Jr. Ph.D. (Mol. Biologist, Pres. Helicon Fnd., San Diego, CA)
Harvey Bialy, Ph.D. (Editor Bio/Technology, New York, NY)
Harry Rubin, D.V.M. (Prof. Cell Biology, Univ. Cal. Berkeley, CA)
Richard C. Strohman, Ph.D. (Prof. Cell Biology, Univ. Cal. Berkeley, CA)
Phillip E. Johnson (Prof. Law, Univ. Cal. Berkeley, CA)
Gordon J. Edlin, Ph.D. (Prof. Biochem. &q Physics, Univ. Hawaii, HI)
Beverly E. Griffin, Ph.D. (Dir. Dept. Virology, Royal Postgrad. Med. School, London, UK)
Robert S. Root-Bernstein (Prof. Physiology, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI)
Gordon Stewart, M.D. (Emeritus Prof. Public Health, Epidemiologist, Isle of Wight, UK)
Carlos Sonnenschein, M.D. (Tufts Univ., Medicine, Boston, MA)
Richard L. Pitter, Ph.D. (Dessert Research Inst., Univ. Nevada System, Reno NV)
Nathaniel S. Lehrman, M.D. (Psychiatrist, Roslyn, NY)
John Lauritsen (Author 'Poison by Prescription', New York, NY)
William Holub, Ph.D. (Biochemist, Live Sciences Inst. New York, NY)
Claudia Holub, Ph.D. (Biochemist, Live Sciences Inst. New York, NY)
Frank R. Buianouckas Ph.D. (Prof. Mathematics, Cuny, Bronx, NY)
Philip Rosen, Ph.D. (Prof. Physics, Univ. Mass. Amherst, MA)
Steven Jonas, M.D. (Prof. Preventive Medicine, Suny Stony Brook, NY)
Bernard K. Forscher, Ph.D (Ret. Editor Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., Santa Fe, NM)
Kary B. Mullis, Ph.D. (Biochemist, PCR inventor, Consultant, La Jolla, CA.)
Jeffrey A. Fisher, M.D. (Pathologist, Mendham, NJ)
Hansueli Albonico, M.D. (General Practitioner, Langnau, Switzerland)
Robert Hoffman, Ph.D. (Prof. Dept. Pediatrics Univ. Cal. Med. School, San Diego, CA)
Timothy H. Hand, Ph.D. (Dept. Psychology, Oglethorpe Univ. Atlanta, GA)
Eleni Eleopulos, M.D. (Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, West Australia)
Robert W. Maver, F.S.A., M.A.A. (Dir. Research, Mutual Benefit Life, Kansas City, MO)
Ken N. Matsumura, M.D. (Chairman Alin Foundation &q Research Inst., Berkeley, CA.)
David T. Berner, M.D. (Condon, MT)
Theodor Wieland, Ph.D. (Max Planck Institut, Heidelberg, Germany)
Joan Shenton, M.A. (Meditel, London, UK)
John Anthony Morris, Ph.D. (Biochemist, Bell of Atari College Park, MD)
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. (Prof. Pharmacology &q Toxicology, Rutgers Univ., Piscataway, NJ)

In addition there were 14 others who have added their signatures in July 1991.

By March 1993 the following persons had added their signatories:

Vahagn Agbabian, D.O. (Pontiac, MI)
Barry R. Alexavich (Cell Biologist, Bristol, CT)
David T. Berner, M.D. (Condon, MT)
Shelly B. Blam, Ph.D. (Alameda, CA)
Lawrence Bradford, Ph.D. (Benedictine College, Atchison, KS)
Carl Bradford, J.D. (San Diego, CA)
Michael Callen (Author 'Surviving AIDS', Hollywood, CA)
Melinda Calleira (Pres. Amer. Ass. Science &q Public Policy, Los Angeles, CA)
Hiram Caton, Ph.D. (Prof. App. Ethics, Griffith Univ., Brisbane, Australia)
Dennis Chaney, Ph.D. (Chaney Scientific Inc. Burlingame, CA)
Michelle Cochrane (Emeryville, CA)
Hywel Davies, M.D. (Cardiologist, Pueblo West, CO)
Marlowe Dittlebrandt, M.D. (Portland, OR)
Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D. (Prof. Mol. Biology, Univ. Cal. Berkeley, CA)
Bryan J. Ellison (Author, Berkeley, CA)
Michael Ellner (HEAL, New York, NY)
Fabio Franchi, M.D. (Trieste, Italy)
Trish Fahey (New York, NY)
Celia Farber (Writer, New York, NY)
Lawrence A. Falk, Jr., Ph.D. (Virologist Abott Labs, Consultant NCI, Chicago, IL)
James A. Fimea, Ph.D. (Laguna Beach, CA)
Harry Flynn, (Author, Hollywood, CA)
William L. Gardner, Ph.D. (Wellesley, MA)
Arnold W. Giddens (Shingle Springs, CA)
Robert Grabowski (Birminghan, MI)
Martin Haas, Ph.D. (Dept. Biology Cancer Center, Univ. Cal., San Diego, CA)
Alfred Haessig, M.D. (Emeritus Prof. Immunolgy Univ. Bern, Switzerland)
Urs Haldimann (Editor, Swiss Ass. Science Writers, Arisdorf, Switzerland)
Neville Hodgkinson (Science Correspondent The Sunday Times, London, UK)
John Holmdahl, Ph.D. (Los Angeles, CA)
Ross Horne (Montville, Queensland, Austalia)
Heinrich Kremer, M.D. (Mueckenburg, Germany)
Hans J. Kugler, Ph.D. (Editor Prev. Med. Update, Redondo Beach, CA)
Robert Laarhoven (S.A.A.O., Hilversum, The Netherlands)
Paul Lineback, M.S. (Eastern Oregon State College)
Henk Loman, Ph.D. (Prof. Biophysics, Free Univ. Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Judith Lopez (San Francisco, CA)
Maurizio Luca-Moretti, Ph.D. (InterAmerican Medical Health Ass., Boca Raton, FL)
William H. McIlhany, I.R.F. (Beverly Hills, CA)
Peter McKeever, L.L.B. (London, UK)
Michael D. Mellgard (Los Angeles, CA)
David Mertz (Dept. Philosophy, Univ. Massachusetts, Amherst)
Richard Mitchell, Ph.D. (Assoc. Prof. Sociology, Oregon State Univ, Corvalus, OR)
Joseph E. Morrow, Ph.D. (Cal. State Univ. Sacramento, CA)
Cindy Orser (Ast. Prof. Bacteriology, Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID)
Hannes G. Pauli, M.D. (Former Director Bern Univ. Med. Faculty, Bern, Switzerland)
Paul Rabinow, Ph.D. (Prof. Dept. Anthropology Univ. Cal., Berkeley, CA)
Jon Rappoport (Author 'AIDS Inc.')
Dennis D. Rathman (Staff Member Lincoln Labs, Lexington, MA)
Rodney M. Richards, Ph.D. (Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA)
Judith Riesman, Ph.D. (Author, Arlington, VA)
Michael Ristow, Ph.D. (Bochum, Germany)
Mel T. Roach (Avatar Research, Tuscon, AZ)
Gary Robertson (Broadbeach Waters, Queensland, Australia)
Frank Rothschild (Project Dir., Berkeley Project on Bioscience &q Society, CA)
David F. Salehi, Ph.D. (Lake Dallas, TX)
Caspar Schmidt, M.D. (Psychiatrist, New York)
Russell Schoch (Editor California Monthly, Berkeley, CA)
Frederic I. Scott, Jr. (Editor American Clinical Laboratory, Baltimore, MD)
Udo Schuklenk (Dept. Ethics, Monash Univ., Melbourne, Australia)
Jeremy F. Selvey (Los Angeles, CA)
David Shugar, Ph.D. (Prof. Biophysics, Univ. Warsaw, Editor Pharmacol. Therap., Poland)
Sonja Silva (Los Lunas, NM)
Ernest G. Silver, Ph.D. (Radiation Biologist, Oak Ridge, TN)
Lockie M. Swengel (Del Mar, CA)
Frederick Tobin, Ph.D. (Gorke, Australia)
Jack True (Clayton, GA)
La Trombetta (Burzynski Research Inst., Houston, TX)
Friedrich Ulmer, Ph.D. (Prof. Math. &q Stat., Bergische Univ., Wuppertal, Germany)
Michael Verney-Elliot (Meditel, London, UK)
Darrell G. Wells, Ph.D. (Emeritus Prof. Plant Sciences, Brookings, SD)
Wai Yeung, M.D. (Orinda, CA)

By September 1993 the following persons had added their signatories:

Jeanette S. Abel M.D. (Portland, OR)
Jad Adams, M.A. (Author 'AIDS; The HIV Myth,' London, UK)
Patricia Akeman, R.N. (Goleta, CA)
John B. Andelin, M.D. (Mercy Hospital, Williston, ND)
Mark Anderson, D.C. (Orlando, FL)
James C. Baker, Ph.D. (Santa Rosa, CA)
Andrew A. Benson, Ph.D. (La Jolla, CA)
Richard M.A. Berger, DDS (Berkeley, CA)
Robert W. Birge, Ph.D. (Berkeley, CA)
John S. Blankfort, DDS (San Francisco, CA)
Dorothy L. Bosworth, Ph.D. (Carlsbad, CA)
Tucker Brawner, DPM (Savannah, GA)
Brian E. Briggs, M.D. (Minot, ND)
Douglas W. Brown, M.D. (Portland, ME)
John B. Burgin, DDS (Crowley, LA)
Susan E. Caliri, DDS (Berkeley, CA)
Ivor Catt, M.A. (St. Albans, UK)
Asit K. Chakraborty, Ph.D. (Omaha, NE)
Jack G. Chamberlain, Ph.D. (Berkeley, CA)
Colleen Cook, R.N. (Wilmington, DE)
Daniel J. Corson, MFA (Seattle, WA)
J. Mark Cox, DDS (Midland, TX)
Etienne De Harven, M.D. (St. Cezaire sur Siagne, France)
Richard W. DeLisle D.C. (Leominster, MA)
James DeMeo Ph.D. (El Cerrito, CA)
Thomas A. Dorman, M.D. (San Luis Obispo, CA)
Mohammad Entezampour, Ph.D. (Dept. Biology Univ. North Texas, Denton, TX)
Rafael Escribano, Ph.D. (Dept. Span.&q Port. Univ. Cal. Riverside, TX)
Sami E. Fathalla, M.D., Ph.D. (Damman, Saudi Arabia)
Richard A. Fisher (Inter. Acad. Oral Med. &q Toxicol., Annandale, VA)
Scott D. Flamm, M.D. (San Francisco, CA)
Michael R. Fox Ph.D. (Richland, WA)
Donato Fumarola, M.D. (Inst. Microbiolia Medica, Bari, Italy)
Charles L. Geshekter, Ph.D. (Dept. History, Cal. State Univ, Chico, CA)
Todd Gestaldo, D.C. (Sunnyvale, CA)
Edward S. Golub, Ph.D. (Pacific Center for Ethics &q App. Biol., Solana Beach, CA)
John Hardie, BDS (Dept. Dentistry Vancouver General Hospital, British Columbia, Canada)
Robert J. Henderson, D.C. (Locust Valley, NY)
Charles A. Hill, M.D. (Houston, TX)
Charles Hoff, Ph.D. (Univ. South. Alabama, AL)
Mark E. Jarmel, D.C. (Santa Monica, CA)
Anne Marie Jeay, Ph.D. (Univ. Nancy II, France)
Jens Jerndal M.D. (Lanzarote, Spain)
Donald J. Johnson, DDS (Coeur d'Alene, ID)
William H. Jordan Jr, Ph.D. (Culver City, CA)
Dennis G. Kinnane, DOM (Torrence, CA)
Claus Kohnlein, M.D. (Kiel, Germany)
Stefan T.J. Lanka, Ph.D. (Radolfzell, Germany)
Barry A. Liebling, Ph.D. (New York, NY)
Michel Lobrot, Ph.D. (Univ. Paris VIII, Les Lilas, France)
Howard C. Mel, Ph.D. (Berkeley, CA)
Th. H.L. Michiels, M.D. (Vinkeveen, The Netherlands)
James W. Miller, M.D. (San Leandro, CA)
R. Munck, M.D. (Ceret, France)
Cindy Nelson, M.A. (San Francisco, CA)
Raymond W. Novaco, M.D. (Prof. Psychology &q Soc. Behavior, Univ. Cal., Irvine, CA)
Sam Okware, M.D. (Ministry of Health, Entebbe, Uganda)
David J. Orman, M.Sc. (San Diego, CA)
George N. Pasto, M.D. (Portland, OR)
M. Dennis Paul, MscM (Amherst, NH)
Jack Perrine, Ph.D. (Pasadena, CA)
John L. Philp, M.D., MPH (Stockton, CA)
Peter W. Plumley, FSA (Chicago, IL)
Ronald F. Price, Ph.D. (La Trobe Univ., Bundoora, Victoria, Australia)
David W. Rasnick, Ph.D. (Alameda, CA)
Richard A. Ratner, M.D. (Bethesda, MD)
Rogers Reddings, Ph.D. (Univ. North Texas, Denton, TX)
Stephen J. Repitor, DPM (Oak Park, MI)
Douglas Roise, M.D. (St. Joseph's Hospital, Dickenson, ND)
Steven Roman, Ph.D. (San Diego, CA)
Cristobal A.P. Sandoval, M.D. (Cuba)
Alex Santoro, M.A. (Kansas City, MO)
George Sarant, M.D. (Bronx, NY)
David R. Schryer, Ph.D. (Hampton, VA)
C. Grier Sellers, C.A. (Seattle, WA)
James T. Shepherd, M.D. (Port Arthur, TX)
John G. Shiber, Ph.D. (Univ. Kentucky, Prestonberg, KY)
Irving P. Silberman, O.D. (Hyde Park, NY)
Tony Smith, CAGS (New York, NY)
James P. Snyder, Ph.D. (Glenview, IL)
James K. Stack, LLD (San Francisco, CA)
Mark S. Stanley, Ph.D. (Dept. Biol. Sciences, Univ. North Texas, Denton, TX)
Ralph R. Stephens, LMT (Cedar Rapids, IA)
Joe Thomas, Ph.D. (ICMR-WHO Proj. on AIDS, Calcutta, India)
Richard A. Tuscher, D.O. (Portland, OR)
Jean van Camp, M.A. (New Martinsville, WV)
Raul Vergini, M.D. (Predappio, Italy)
James H. Warner, LLD (Rohersville, MD)
Edward J. Wawszkiewicz, Ph.D. (Chicago, IL)
Johathan C. Wells, Ph.D. (Fairfield, CA)
Adrian M. Wenner, Ph.D. (Dept. Biol. Sciences, Univ. Cal., Santa Barbara, CA)
Manfred Wetter, Ph.D. (Copperbelt Univ., Kitwe, Zambia)
Derek A. Wolfe, DBM (North Devon, UK)
L.B. Work, M.D. (Monterey, CA)
Hung-His Wu, Ph.D. (Dept. Math. Univ. Cal., Berkeley, CA)
James Wu, M.D. (Foster City, CA)
Stanley J. Zyskowski, Ph.D. (Farmington Hills, MI)
Chr. Anti-Com. Crusade (Long Beach, CA)
Mark Alampi (Project AIDS Inter., Los Angeles, CA)
W.H. Beauman (Chicago, IL)

This is not the full list


"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which
either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There
is no such document."

Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.


"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the
existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the
methods of classical virology."

Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology,
Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München.

Who am I to ruin your fun. You go ahead and believe what you need to believe.

OK David,

Put your health where your mouth is. Find somebody with HIV (I know, I know -- HIV doesn't exist, but play along and find somebody with that whatever-it-is that the medical establishment calls "HIV"), but not AIDS. Get some of their blood. Tranfuse it into your body. And see what happens. If you are correct, nothing will happen.

The proposal you make is not new. Dr. Wilner toured the world doing exactly that. After seven times, including a nationally televised demonstration in Spain, the end result was NO INFECTION. I can provide links if you wish.

David Rasnick Phd, Visiting Scientist, UC Berkeley also did this. I would have no problem doing so myself and have said this in public and in magazine articles as have many other dissidents.

The media has such bias on the subject that the public is never informed of the hundreds of studies, expert opinion and mountain of other evidence that AIDS was a medical blunder of vast proportions. AIDS is a multi billion dollar industry and serves both political and religious objectives.

If you take the time to REALLY research the subject in depth with an open mind you will be amazed that NOTHING fits together, adds up or makes sense.

Best wishes,

David

Simple maths?

We are told by the CDC : -

"The HIV/AIDS crisis at home remains tragic as precious lives continue to be lost to the disease. Each year 40,000
Americans are infected with HIV. Currently, an estimated 900,000 Americans are HIV positive and evidence indicates those numbers are increasing,
not declining or even holding steady."

What is startling is that this is the same line we've been told for years now. We supposedly have this increasing
number of "HIV converts" (40,000 per year), yet that number, 40,000 remains the same year after year. Weird. It like, 40,000, 40,000, 40,000, 40,000,
40,000 and on and on and we have 'evidence' for increasing seroconversions. Lame.

And that number, 900,000. Someone at the CDC just completely pulled that number from their ass.

In 1990 the CDC retroactively revised downward the estimates of HlV-infected persons for the period of 1985-89 (in the US). It went from 1.2
million to 0.75 million. The number for 1990 itself was said to be about I million (CDC, 1990). Then, in 1996, the CDC retrospectively revised
downward the 1992 estimate to yet another figure of 650,000. By 1996, the number of people said to be infected was between 650,000 and 900,000.

So there's that number 900,000 being used in 1996. Yet now in 2003 we supposedely still have 900,000
ESTIMATED infected people according to the SGN article (they use the word 'currently'). However, in 1999, to further confuse matters, the CDC
estimated HIV incidence as approximately 40,000 infections per year and the number of persons living with HIV at about 800,000 to 900,000
(MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999). So if you're head isn't just spinning quite yet, consider this; if, in 1996, they had an estimated 650,000 to
900,000 HIV 'poz' folk, in 1999 they had 800,000 to 900,000 'poz' folk. Why only increase the lower estimate? Do we now only have ONE estimate
and not a range? If we take the 1996 estimate of 900,000 and add 40,000 new cases per year until the end of 2001, we really should have 1,140,000
'poz' people. If we go back to 1992, when
the number was said to be a firm 650,000 and add 40,000 cases per year until 2002, we come up with 1,050,000 cases. So where they get this
40,000 number and 900,000 is beyond me. Perhaps they revised the numbers down without really telling anyone.

I hope you are all completely and utterly confused, because frankly, I think the CDC, with all their numerous PhD
heads running around, are as equally confused.

Don't let these Bush loving fascist sheep worry you. Only rascist homophobic neo fascists still hang to the AID$ scam. Keep up the good work. Joker.

Hey,

No emails since April 2003? What's going on. There must be more commentary, and even some progress towards a resolution to this bizzare thread... Where's Dave Lane and Fresca?? Whew! ?
Richard