With moves to make HIV testing mandatory for all pregnant women this is now a subject that concerns all our mothers and daughters, the HIV tests and drugs have already devastated the gay community so I hope you all take time to look at this.

The time to recommend antenatal HIV screening for all pregnant women has arrived
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/181_03_020804/zie10288_fm.html

As you will see or hear the HIV test should never have been allowed onto the market.

Liam Scheff Interview on AIDS
Heather Anderson- Just to start off with can you give the listeners a bit of a background about yourself?
Liam Scheff- Who am I? I’m an independent journalist, what does that mean, it means I didn’t graduate from graduate school in journalism, I was a writer, I had some success, I got hired at a newspaper, I was good at asking questions, I worked at a little paper in Boston, I did a lot of independent stuff for other things.
Mostly it means I’m a very curious person with good research skills, that shouldn’t put me too far above anybody else in the list in the audience.
I did grow up in a family of doctors and medical researchers, I have no particular fear of doctors, no particular love or hatred of them, they’re just people to me like people in your family.
And so it was very easy for me to ask many questions without feeling worried that I was going to be punished because I grew up watching people argue about medicine.
You know when you grow up in a family of doctors something happens to you, you see that the things that you’re told are absolutely true are ideas that can be used in arguments by uncles against each other.
These things that are sacrosanct and you know you are told this is absolute suddenly becomes just the latest idea that’s there and one of my uncles could say to the other “well of course that’s wrong and that’ll be proven wrong in this paper and this is what I’m saying and that’s old fashioned.”
You know, just the idea that you’re not supposed to question a doctor that there’s something religiously profoundly sacred about what comes out of the guys in the white jackets was lost on me from a very early age because I saw them drunk.
Heather- I’ll say briefly which is probably a crazy word to use when talking about this issue but can you briefly explain what the HIV/AIDS myth is or what the alternative theories about HIV and AIDS are that you have been researching and that you have been writing about?
Liam- Yeah sure, AIDS is a brand name, there was a phenomena in this country, in my country, in the United States in the early 80’s in a very small community, the gay community over here.
We still imagine as many people in western countries do that we’re supposed to care about adults… who adults have sex with and that sort of thing.
Now this goes beyond me at this point, I don’t really understand it though I have my religious friends and my strong spiritual interests, it’s just beyond me to understand this.
But this is something we’re really concerned about, so if you’re gay or if you’re want to have sex with somebody of the same sex you always have a hard time in this country and in many parts of the world for a long time.
The gay community in my country didn’t really exist until after, well there was the so-called sexual revolution here in the 60’s where again a really small part of the population decided to experiment a little bit with flaunting the Judeo- Christian moral structure regarding sex and marriage and this sort of thing.
And the gay people sort of followed along and decided well if it’s good for the goose you know and what happened was there was this thing called Stonewall.
There was a protest at a bar in New York where if you can imagine the police were regularly bothering and beating up the gay guys who were going to their bar in their little neighborhood tavern in Greenwich Village in New York.
And there was a protest and after that in 69 there was a sort of a gay community, these guys lived in these little gay ghettoes the regular culture still doesn’t want to sort of acknowledge that people have many types of sexuality.
And what happened was what happens to any culture living in any sort of ghetto, you develop ghetto like behaviors, you have a tiny world that you live in, it’s a few blocks long, you can’t go home, you can’t really talk to the people that you used to know before you came out, people did a lot of drugs, they did a lot of partying, they had a lot of STD’s, they took a lot of antibiotics between and before and after sex partners and going to the baths and all that kind of stuff.
And you know they got sick over the course of a decade for a lot of reasons, I don’t know all of the reasons, but they certainly wore themselves out, by the late 70’s some of them were dying, when they went into the hospital they weren’t treated very well, a lot of them were more or less poisoned, they were given very, very…
There’s something in the West that I call the “the patient is very sick let’s drug them mercilessly medical standard”, so you take anybody who’s sick, who has a multiplicity of illnesses and effects going on in their body and then you give them drugs that absolutely decimate their immune system and you hope that they survive.
So this is what happened, these guys went into the hospital, they were injected with Pentamidine which is a fungicide, they were given radiation and they were having effects from these carcinogenic drugs they were doing, it was a mess and a lot of guys died.
And you know the original idea was that they died or they were sick because they were doing all this stuff but that didn’t really make some people happy because they felt it would increase homophobia.
And then some guys at our at out National Cancer Institute essentially, the National Institute of Health got a hold of it and they decided that they would try to prop up the idea that it was all caused by the sex, you know that fit well with the idea it was gay people and all the rest of it.
And then they made it a brand name, first it was called GRIDS and then it was called AIDS, and then once it was a name, AIDS, for what happened in a particular community, whatever you think the cause was, I think it’s multi-factorial and I think that’s pretty clear in the medical and historical record.
But whatever the things going on were they took the name AIDS, when I say they I mean my government, the American government, the Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization and a couple of years later in 1985 marched over to Africa, had a meeting there and decided anything going on in anybody who had persistent diarrhea, who was losing weight was also the same disease.
The same sex disease.
Now in Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa you have a situation where you have a continent which is not necessarily as well structured or livable as New York City or West Hollywood, there’s not as much clean water, there’s not access to food all the time, there’s a persistent Malaria, Cholera, Tuberculosis, Sepsis, other Dysenteries, parasitic problems, there are corrupt governments, there are civil wars, there are people sometimes marching through your village with machetes and cutting you into pieces.
So what you have in Africa is essentially a different terrain but in 1985 there was a meeting in Bangui the capital of the Central African Republic where a CDC official, Joseph McCormick decided, and he records this in his biography, Level 4 Virus Hunters of the CDC, that whatever was going on they would be able to start counting the cases however imperfect their way of diagnosing it would be, and that diagnosis in Africa would be diarrhea, weight loss, fever etc.

The Orphanage Story
Heather- I would especially like to know about the story that you covered about the orphanage in New York, about the forced AIDS experiments in that orphanage.
Do you mind talking a little bit about that?
Liam- No sure, if there’s a purpose or a fate to anything I would say that one of the reasons that I got brought into this or one of the things that brought me into it was this thing that happened in New York.
I was told by some activists in New York of an orphanage in New York and I was put in touch with a woman who had her kids… they were her niece and nephew, taken away because she wasn’t giving them these AIDS drugs.
Now the reason she wasn’t giving them the drugs was because the drugs when she gave them made them, especially the young boy very, very, very sick, to the point of total lethargy, stunting of growth all sorts of really horrible problems.
The orphanage he was taken into was called The Incarnation Children’s Center and this was established in the late 80’s early 90’s as essentially an iceberg on a very cold sea, it was a net to grab, to pick up these babies that were abandoned at the hospital from the women who were doing crack, from these crazy crack addict mothers who were ruining their lives and ruining their children’s lives.
So there were all these crack babies and this Incarnation Children’s Center was really rescuing them, OK that’s a good thing from my perspective but guess what happened, in a couple of years the AIDS establishment sees an opportunity and they decided these aren’t crack babies anymore these are now AIDS babies and all you have to do to convince anybody is to give them one of these tests.
And they decided they can use these kids to experiment with drugs on and to shove all of these old failed, cancer chemotherapy drugs that they call AIDS drugs on and that’s what they do and that’s what they were doing.
And I went there in 2003 and I went in with my source who’s kids were there and I saw the kids with the tubes shoved into their noses and into their abdomen, drugs like AZT which is a nucleoside analogue, the job of these failed cancer drugs is to stop cell development and growth and the job is to do it at the genetic level or to stop protein assembly and the job is to do that right there in the cell.
And these drugs are good at doing that and they will stop your cells from growing and developing, they’ll stop your bone marrow from producing blood and you’ll get anemia and you’ll die, you’ll have deformations because the proteins won’t assemble correctly, you’ll get lumps on your body and that’s what these kids exhibited.
And this is what I saw in the orphanage and this is what I saw in the kids that I knew and I interviewed a lot of people from there, I interviewed kids from there, I interviewed health care workers from there for about a period of 2 years, I wrote about that in a story called ‘The House That AIDS Built’, a story called ‘Inside Carnation’ you can read these all at my website so I’ll give that to you at the end.
And I got the same story over and over again, we shoved the drugs in the kids mouths when they were awake, when they were asleep, they throw up all the time, they have diarrhea all the time, they are miserably unhappy with the drugs but we have to give them because they are life saving drugs.
To which I say are they life saving drugs?
They die on the drugs, when the kids didn’t want to take the drugs, this was the story that I got from everybody including the doctor, Dr. Katherine Painter who ran the place, they’d get them through tubes shoved into their nose and if they don’t take them that way they’ll take them in for surgery at Columbia Presbyterian and they’ll put an abdominal gastric tube and they’ll shove the drugs through the tube.
And this is apparently standard practice in AIDS care for children, you can find the study from University of California, San Diego I believe that says that you can reduce the time you can get these kids to take these very poisonous drugs.
I don’t buy it, I read the labels, the labels say that the drugs stop the development of normal cells, of blood, that you can die taking them, that kids throw them up when they take them, that’s good enough for me.
I mean it’s fine with me if an adult wants to take a drug that kills them I couldn’t care less if they have a chance to read the package material, who am I to stop you throwing yourself off a bridge if that’s really what you want to do and you feel that it’s in your best interest or whatever it is or if the drugs make you feel better for some reason then they do then I wouldn’t take that away from you.
But these kids had no choice and many of them die and when they die of course they call it AIDS, they used Thalidomide a very poisonous drug on one of the kids because this is a drug now being used in AIDS care because it’s all… it’s pretty insane stuff and I people have lost their way and their pretty crazy, I don’t know, I don’t really understand all of the mentality behind doing this.
But that was the story, we made a movie, we worked with a company, there was a BBC documentary that we worked on called Guinea Pig Kids that was seen by a lot of people and then got buried I think because it’s just too ugly I don’t think people want to deal with it.

New York's HIV experiment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/4038375.stm
INSIDE INCARNATION
http://nypress.com/18/30/news&columns/liamscheff.cfm
'Guinea Pig Kids' - BBC Video
http://www.helpforhiv.com/videos.htm

The Tests
Liam- So you have a brand name, AIDS, and AIDS is the brand name that you put on anybody in the world who falls into a couple of groups, black, aboriginal, brown skin in my country, African American descendants of the African Diaspora, the slave trade, Hispanic people now, poor people, drug users, gay people, whenever they get almost any kind of illness we have a word for it and that word is the brand name, the four letter word.
The idea that it’s all the same thing is kind of a science fiction confection, I mean there’s just nothing to it, you can take it apart in a second but the way that they get the public to buy is to backward validate it.
So you can have a diagnosis of somebody you can say well “you fit into this group you see, oh look, you have the same disease that these guys who lived essentially in a ghettoized isolated part of the American population had, who were doing tons of drugs and suffering the prejudices of not being welcomed into society for 150 years.
Yeah, that’s the disease that you have and we know it, we know why, because we’ll give you a test.”
Heather- I’d like to ask you about the tests in terms of test validity, can you explain a little bit more about the HIV test?
Liam- There’s no such thing as an HIV test, there’s no test for anything particular particle and the way that you would know that is to open one of them so I’ll open one of them right now and here is the package insert to the 2006 Abbott Laboratories so called HIV test and you scroll through the pdf. and you find that there’s a section that says ‘limitations of the test’ and in that section you find a line that says “at present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV in human blood”, I’ll read that again, this is in the test that is used, “at present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV in human blood” that means that this test doesn’t test for anything.
Heather- So if someone was to go to the doctors and asked to get tested would they be able to like…can you request can I see the test and see that when they get tested?
Liam- God I hope so but I really don’t know, I don’t know what it’s like in Australia, I know here you’d get a really hard time.
There’s another line I want to read from this test, it says “HIV, Elisa test” it’s an enzyme test “detects antibodies to HIV in blood” now right on the same page it says “there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence of antibodies” so you have a lie there, it doesn’t detect antibodies in blood and thus is useful it says “in screening blood and plasma donated for transfusion and further manufacture and in evaluating patients with signs or symptoms of AIDS”.
Now hold on a second, we now have a question, the test doesn’t have any standards so you can just throw it out, it doesn’t tell you anything, when you read early in the test it tells you that it’s a protein test, this is the major test, there’s another kind of test that’s equally invalidated and it also says it can’t be used for diagnosis and I’ll get into that in a minute and that’s called the viral load test but again there’s no such thing as an HIV test and that’s not one either.
This test says there’s no standard but it detects antibodies, which is useful in screening blood and in evaluating patients with signs or symptoms of AIDS.
Evaluating but not diagnosing, what does that mean?
It says that AIDS and AIDS related conditions, so what is AIDS, I mean the test doesn’t test for any particular thing, there’s no standard to interpret it and it’s only useful in evaluating patients for signs or symptoms of AIDS, that’s awfully legal talk, it really means that you use it after you already diagnose somebody with AIDS.
So what does it say, what is AIDS, AIDS and AIDS related conditions are clinical syndromes and their diagnosis can only be established clinically, hold on a second, you mean that the test is used after you diagnose somebody, yes, that’s what they mean.
They mean that you look at somebody who’s in a particular group, that group that you associate, whatever you think it is, whatever you think has the kind of sex that kills them, there’s an old fashioned idea, right out of the inquisition, and then you give them the test.
Then it says that Elisa testing cannot be used to diagnose AIDS even if the recommended investigation of reactive specimens, reactive specimens?
I thought it was a plus or minus, no it’s not positive or negative, it’s a reactive or semi-reactive or non-reactive test, suggests it says that the antibodies to HIV are present, well it just says there is no standard for establishing whether there are antibodies to HIV.
So boy this looks like a maze to me, like one of those garden mazes from England, ok let’s just finish this line, “even if the recommended investigation of reactive specimens suggest that the antibodies to HIV are present, a negative test result at any point in the investigation of individual subjects” a negative test result, “does not preclude the possibility of exposure to infection with HIV” so the test doesn’t mean anything “the risk of an asymptomatic person” a healthy person, a non sick person “with a repeated reactive serum” that means that their just positive over and over again but they’re not sick “developing AIDS or an AIDS related condition is not known”.
Ok look, they go on and on and on through this thing with this sort of language, they talk about the cut off value, that is if it’s a reactive test there’s a point at which you draw a line and if you say that it’s reactive above this place we’re going to consider it positive and if it’s not reactive above a this place we’re going to consider it negative.
It says there’s no standard for it, it says that the proteins that you use in the test are synthetic, they’re grown in bacteria, they’re not part of a virus, you then mix it with some proteins from your blood and if there’s an antibody reaction between the bacterially grown proteins and the proteins in your blood, then you have some sort of reaction but that doesn’t matter really, right, because it only matters if your in the group that they say has AIDS, so what is AIDS, AIDS is any condition that occurs in people they consider at high risk.
The last thing I’ll say about the test is, almost anything can make the protein reaction happen, you eat a piece of cheese you develop antibodies to it, you have a cold, you drink, you have arthritis, you are pregnant, this is listed right in the test, pregnancy, drug abuse, you do any of these things you’re going to have a higher antibody response that’s going to specifically react with these synthetic proteins and this test you’re going to have a stronger reaction.
If you’re in that group, you’re skin is dark, you’re sexuality is ? or Greek to put it that way, you’re in that risk group and they’re going to say “aha, this reactive specimen, this is probably indicative of a true reaction and we have to run more tests and don’t go anywhere, Mr. Davis we have to do more tests” and that’s the way it works.

These are other interviews, this first was with Heather Anderson from 4ZZZ Radio at the end of 2006.

Interview with Jason Stephenson from HEAL in Sydney
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2007/02/140226.php

These were done by me, Cal Crilly at 4ZZZ Radio in Brisbane, Australia.

Michael Ellner of HEAL/AIDS interview 7/05
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/07/322202.shtml
Benzene, Corticosteroids and AIDS. Interview with Dr. Al Bayati 9/04
http://southafrica.indymedia.org/news/2006/08/10876.php

Anthony Brink interview 9/04
http://southafrica.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/6787.php

I update some news on AIDS on the blog at this link.
I’m not an activist.
http://www.myspace.com/starsludge

This was not uploaded, email me if you want a copy.

The Church of Reductionism
Liam- Reductionism is the idea and it’s sort of a religious idea that anything that happens no matter how clearly complex can only have one cause and that cause is a tiny, tiny thing you can’t see.
And this is sort of the Church of Reductionism, now we all know yes you can say malaria caused by a very particular organism, well it is but you have to live in an environment that’s conducive to growing that organism and if you don’t you’re not going to get malaria.
And then if you look at something like AIDS which again is any illness essentially in these particular groups that are considered to have that kind of dirty sex and then you look at something like your describing which is a normal childhood disease, well if it occurs when the doctors want you to have it then it’s ok but if it occurs normally the way it has always happened then it’s something you should be ashamed of and essentially you’ve broken your bond with the Church of Reductionism.
You know it’s an incredible thing and I’m not a reductionist so I tend to get into trouble, the world is clearly multi-factorial, there’s no problem that occurs in a large situation with many factors that isn’t caused by many factors and this goes very much for this brand name AIDS and it goes for this thing called Bird Flu.
I was enjoying reading the Bird Flu papers because when I was reading them it was very clear the people that they were describing lived in environments that they had no clean water and they were packed together and then when they went into the hospital they were drugged, sometimes to death and it even says so in the medical papers.
There was a paper called ’10 patients in Vietnam’ from the New England Journal of Medicine from 2004 where it’s almost hysterical, they say, I mean it’s morbid but they…I think 9 of 10 people die or some such thing…they say that they gave all of them just such a bevy of drugs as you couldn’t believe and then they admit that they gave 7 or so of them Corticosteroids which are immune suppressing drugs, then they say that 6 or so of the 7 patients on the immune suppressing Corticosteroids died, then they say maybe we shouldn’t give the Corticosteroids but they never say it was our fault.
They never say these people probably could have made it if we hadn’t drugged them mercilessly with drugs that took away their immune system when they were struggling with a bad cold.
So anyway I’m not a reductionist I suppose that’s my great sin.
I’m not trying to convince anybody of anything I don’t really care if people agree with me, which is a benefit of having done it for a few years, I’m just not worried about it anymore, it’s not a mission for me, I’m not trying to save anybody, I did try, got my heart broken by the situation, by what happened to the kids, what is happening and you know you get your heart broken a couple of times and you go well that’s…you know what I mean I did my duty, I did my penance, I towed that line…you understand what I’m saying?
Heather- Yeah, I know I understand.
Liam- You can only do so much before you give in to the reality so I guess I talk about it differently probably than I did in the beginning and I talk about it differently than most people, I’m not really an activist for it, I’m describing a social phenomenon.

As for AIDS drugs that don’t seem to work at all, I think instead the Selenium link should be looked at further since everyone can do this for themselves.

“NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Selenium supplements can slow the rise in virus levels in HIV-positive patients, which allows the number of beneficial CD4 immune cell to increase, according to results of a clinical trial supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health.
Low blood levels of selenium have been linked to high HIV virulence and more opportunistic infections, Dr. Barry E. Hurwitz and associates at the University of Miami in Florida report in the Archives of Internal Medicine. In lab experiments, the element suppresses HIV-1 replication.”
SOURCE: Archives of Internal Medicine, January 22, 2007.
Selenium may help lower HIV levels
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=healthNews&storyid=2007-01-23T021916Z_01_TON308337_RTRUKOC_0_US-SELENIUM-HIV.xml

This I believe is due to the combined depletion of the Selenium compounds Glutathione and S-Adenosylmethionine or SAMe.
SAMe is needed for Methylation of our retroviruses and this helps stop their transcription which in turn would affect reverse transcriptase levels and the viral load measure.

“These findings have potentially important therapeutic implications for the use of SAMe in protecting against SAMe and GSH deficiency in the CNS of HIV-infected patients.”
Cerebrospinal fluid S-adenosylmethionine (SAMe) and glutathione concentrations in HIV infection: effect of parenteral treatment with SAMe.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7675226&dopt=Abstract

I wrote about it in far more detail, you’ll find new concepts like Iodized salt causing Selenium imbalance and hyperthyroid symptoms here.
HIV is cured by Methylation
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=10354&st=0

My opinions.

error

error

Please use this version, which Cal reposted with better html editing:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/03/356495.shtml

Liam Scheff Interview on AIDS 12/06

Heather Anderson* Just to start off with can you give the listeners a bit of a background about yourself?

Liam Scheff: Who am I? I'm an independent journalist. What does that mean? It means I didn't graduate from graduate school in journalism - I was a writer, I had some success, I got hired at a newspaper, I was good at asking questions, I worked at a little paper in Boston, I did a lot of independent stuff for other things. Mostly it means I'm a very curious person with good research skills. That shouldn't put me too far above anybody else in the list in the audience.

I did grow up in a family of doctors and medical researchers. I have no particular fear of doctors, no particular love or hatred of them. They're just people to me like people in your family.

And so it was very easy for me to ask many questions without feeling worried that I was going to be punished because I grew up watching people argue about medicine.

You know when you grow up in a family of doctors something happens to you, you see that the things that you're told are absolutely true are ideas that can be used in arguments by uncles against each other.

These things that are sacrosanct and, you know, you are told 'this is absolute' suddenly becomes just the latest idea that's there; and one of my uncles could say to the other "well of course that's wrong, and that'll be proven wrong in this paper, and this is what I'm saying, and that's old fashioned."

You know, just the idea that you're not supposed to question a doctor - that there's something religiously profoundly sacred about what comes out of the guys in the white jackets - was lost on me from a very early age because I saw them drunk.

Heather: I'll say briefly, which is probably a crazy word to use when talking about this issue, but can you briefly explain what the HIV/AIDS myth is or what the alternative theories about HIV and AIDS are that you have been researching and that you have been writing about?

Liam: Yeah sure, AIDS is a brand name. There was a phenomena in this country, in my country, in the United States in the early 80's in a very small community, the gay community over here.

We still imagine as many people in western countries do that we're supposed to care about adults... who adults have sex with and that sort of thing. Now this goes beyond me at this point, I don't really understand it though I have my religious friends and my strong spiritual interests, it's just beyond me to understand this.

But this is something we're really concerned about - so if you're gay or if you're want to have sex with somebody of the same sex you always have a hard time in this country and in many parts of the world for a long time.

The gay community in my country didn't really exist until after, well, there was the so-called sexual revolution here in the 60's, where again a really small part of the population decided to experiment a little bit with flaunting the Judeo- Christian moral structure regarding sex and marriage and this sort of thing.

And the gay people sort of followed along and decided, well, if it's good for the goose, you know; and what happened was there was this thing called Stonewall.
There was a protest at a bar in New York where, if you can imagine, the police were regularly bothering and beating up the gay guys who were going to their bar in their little neighborhood tavern in Greenwich Village in New York.

And there was a protest, and after that in '69 there was a sort of a gay community. These guys lived in these little gay ghettoes. The regular culture still doesn't want to, sort of, acknowledge that people have many types of sexuality.

And what happened was what happens to any culture living in any sort of ghetto - you develop ghetto like behaviors, you have a tiny world that you live in, it's a few blocks long, you can't go home, you can't really talk to the people that you used to know before you came out. People did a lot of drugs, they did a lot of partying, they had a lot of STD's, they took a lot of antibiotics between and before and after sex partners and going to the baths, and all that kind of stuff.

And, you know, they got sick over the course of a decade for a lot of reasons. I don't know all of the reasons, but they certainly wore themselves out. By the late 70's some of them were dying. When they went into the hospital they weren't treated very well, a lot of them were more or less poisoned, they were given very, very --

-- There's something in the West that I call the "The patient is very sick, let's drug them mercilessly" medical standard. So you take anybody who's sick, who has a multiplicity of illnesses and effects going on in their body and then you give them drugs that absolutely decimate their immune system and you hope that they survive.

So this is what happened. These guys went into the hospital, they were injected with Pentamidine which is a fungicide, they were given radiation and they were having effects from these carcinogenic drugs they were doing. It was a mess and a lot of guys died.

And, you know, the original idea was that they died or they were sick because they were doing all this stuff, but that didn't really make some people happy because they felt it would increase homophobia.

And then some guys at our at out National Cancer Institute essentially, the National Institute of Health, got a hold of it and they decided that they would try to prop up the idea that it was all caused by the sex; you know, that fit well with the idea it was gay people and all the rest of it.

And then they made it a brand name - first it was called GRIDS and then it was called AIDS, and then once it was a name, AIDS, for what happened in a particular community, whatever you think the cause was - I think it's multi-factorial and I think that's pretty clear in the medical and historical record.

But whatever the things going on were they took the name AIDS - when I say 'they' I mean my government, the American government, the Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, and a couple of years later in 1985 marched over to Africa, had a meeting there and decided anything going on in anybody who had persistent diarrhea, who was losing weight was also the same disease. The same 'sex' disease.

Now in Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, you have a situation where you have a continent which is not necessarily as well structured or livable as New York City or West Hollywood. There's not as much clean water, there's not access to food all the time, there's a persistent Malaria, Cholera, Tuberculosis, Sepsis, other Dysenteries, parasitic problems. There are corrupt governments, there are civil wars, there are people sometimes marching through your village with machetes and cutting you into pieces.

So what you have in Africa is essentially a different terrain. But in 1985 there was a meeting in Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic, where a CDC official, Joseph McCormick decided, and he records this in his biography, "Level 4 Virus Hunters of the CDC," that whatever was going on they would be able to 'start counting the cases however imperfect their way of diagnosing it would be,' and that diagnosis in Africa would be diarrhea, weight loss, fever etc.


The Orphanage Story
Part 2

Heather: I would especially like to know about the story that you covered about the orphanage in New York, about the forced AIDS experiments in that orphanage. Do you mind talking a little bit about that?

Liam: No, sure. If there's a purpose or a fate to anything I would say that one of the reasons that I got brought into this or one of the things that brought me into it was this thing that happened in New York.

I was told by some activists in New York of an orphanage in New York, and I was put in touch with a woman who had her kids - they were her niece and nephew - taken away because she wasn't giving them these AIDS drugs.

Now the reason she wasn't giving them the drugs was because the drugs, when she gave them, made them, especially the young, boy very, very, very sick, to the point of total lethargy, stunting of growth all sorts of really horrible problems.

The orphanage he was taken into was called The Incarnation Children's Center, and this was established in the late 80's early 90's as essentially an iceberg on a very cold sea. It was a net to grab - to pick up these babies that were abandoned at the hospital from the women who were doing crack, from these crazy crack addict mothers who were ruining their lives and ruining their children's lives.

So there were all these crack babies, and this Incarnation Children's Center was really rescuing them. Okay, that's a good thing from my perspective; but guess what happened? In a couple of years the AIDS establishment sees an opportunity, and they decided these aren't crack babies anymore - these are now AIDS babies - and all you have to do to convince anybody is to give them one of these tests.

And they decided they can use these kids to experiment with drugs on, and to shove all of these old failed, cancer chemotherapy drugs that they call AIDS drugs on, and that's what they do, and that's what they were doing.

And I went there in 2003, and I went in with my source who's kids were there, and I saw the kids with the tubes shoved into their noses and into their abdomen.

Drugs like AZT, which is a nucleoside analogue, the job of these failed cancer drugs is to stop cell development and growth, and the job is to do it at the genetic level or to stop protein assembly, and the job is to do that right there in the cell.

And these drugs are good at doing that, and they will stop your cells from growing and developing. They'll stop your bone marrow from producing blood and you'll get anemia and you'll die. You'll have deformations because the proteins won't assemble correctly. You'll get lumps on your body. And that's what these kids exhibited.

And this is what I saw in the orphanage, and this is what I saw in the kids that I knew. And I interviewed a lot of people from there, I interviewed kids from there, I interviewed health care workers from there for about a period of 2 years. I wrote about that in a story called "The House That AIDS Built," a story called "Inside Incarnation." You can read these all at my website so I'll give that to you at the end.

And I got the same story over and over again: "We shoved the drugs in the kids mouths when they were awake, when they were asleep; they throw up all the time, they have diarrhea all the time, they are miserably unhappy with the drugs but we have to give them because they are 'life saving drugs'" - to which I say are they 'life saving' drugs? They die on the drugs.

When the kids didn't want to take the drugs - this was the story that I got from everybody, including the doctor, Dr. Katherine Painter who ran the place - they'd get them through tubes shoved into their nose, and if they don't take them that way, they'll take them in for surgery at Columbia Presbyterian and they'll put an abdominal gastric tube, and they'll shove the drugs through the tube.

And this is apparently standard practice in AIDS care for children. You can find the study from University of California, San Diego, I believe. That says that you can reduce the time you can get these kids to take these very poisonous drugs.

I don't buy it. I read the labels. The labels say that the drugs stop the development of normal cells, of blood; that you can die taking them, that kids throw them up when they take them; that's good enough for me.

I mean it's fine with me if an adult wants to take a drug that kills them. I couldn't care less if they have a chance to read the package material. Who am I to stop you throwing yourself off a bridge if that's really what you want to do and you feel that it's in your best interest, or whatever it is, or if the drugs make you feel better for some reason, then they do, then I wouldn't take that away from you.

But these kids had no choice, and many of them die, and when they die, of course, they call it AIDS.

They used Thalidomide - a very poisonous drug - on one of the kids, because this is a drug now being used in AIDS care because, it's all... it's pretty insane stuff... and I, people have lost their way, and they're pretty crazy; I don't know, I don't really understand all of the mentality behind doing this.

But that was the story. We made a movie, we worked with a company, there was a BBC documentary that we worked on called "Guinea Pig Kids" that was seen by a lot of people and then got buried, I think, because it's just too ugly. I don't think people want to deal with it.

[end excerpt]

New York's HIV experiment
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/4038375.stm

INSIDE INCARNATION
 http://nypress.com/18/30/news&columns/liamscheff.cfm

'Guinea Pig Kids' - BBC Video
 http://www.helpforhiv.com/videos.htm


The Tests
Part 3

Liam: So you have a brand name - "AIDS". And AIDS is the brand name that you put on anybody in the world who falls into a couple of groups: black, aboriginal, brown skin in my country, African-American descendants of the African Diaspora, the slave trade; Hispanic people now; poor people, drug users, gay people.

Whenever they get almost any kind of illness, we have a word for it, and that word is the brand name, the four letter word.

The idea that it's all the same thing is kind of a science fiction confection. I mean there's just nothing to it, you can take it apart in a second. But the way that they get the public to buy is to backward validate it.

So, you can have a diagnosis of somebody, you can say, "Well, you fit into this group, you see, oh look, you have the same disease that these guys (who lived essentially in a ghettoized isolated part of the American population had, who were doing tons of drugs and suffering the prejudices of not being welcomed into society for 150 years). Yeah, that's the disease that you have, and we know it. We know why, because we'll give you a test."

Heather: I'd like to ask you about the tests in terms of test validity, can you explain a little bit more about the HIV test?

Liam: There's no such thing as an HIV test - there's no test for any particular particle. And the way that you would know that is to open one of them, so I'll open one of them right now. And here is the package insert to the 2006 Abbott Laboratories so-called HIV test. And you scroll through the pdf, and you find that there's a section that says "Limitations of the test." And in that section you find a line that says "at present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV in human blood."

I'll read that again - this is in the test that is used - "at present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV in human blood." That means that this test doesn't test for anything.

Heather: So if someone was to go to the doctors and asked to get tested would they be able to like... can you request can I see the test and see that when they get tested?

Liam: God, I hope so, but I really don't know. I don't know what it's like in Australia. I know here you'd get a really hard time.

There's another line I want to read from this test. It says "HIV Elisa test." It's an enzyme test - "detects antibodies to HIV in blood."

Now right on the same page it says, "There is no recognized standard for establishing the presence of antibodies." So you have a lie there. It doesn't detect antibodies in blood and thus "is useful," it says "in screening blood and plasma donated for transfusion and further manufacture and in evaluating patients with signs or symptoms of AIDS."

Now hold on a second, we now have a question. The test doesn't have any standards, so you can just throw it out, it doesn't tell you anything. When you read early in the test, it tells you that it's a protein test. This is the major test - there's another kind of test that's equally invalidated, and it also says it can't be used for diagnosis, and I'll get into that in a minute, and that's called the 'viral load' test. But again there's no such thing as an HIV test and that's not one either.

This test says there's "no standard" but it "detects antibodies", which is "useful in screening blood and in evaluating patients with signs or symptoms of AIDS."

'Evaluating' but not diagnosing - what does that mean?

It says "AIDS and AIDS-related conditions," so what is AIDS? I mean the test doesn't test for any particular thing, there's no standard to interpret it, and it's only useful in evaluating patients "[with] signs or symptoms of AIDS." That's awfully legal talk. It really means that you use it after you already diagnose somebody with AIDS.

So, what does it say, what is AIDS? "AIDS and AIDS related conditions are clinical syndromes and their diagnosis can only be established clinically."

Hold on a second, you mean that the test is used after you diagnose somebody? Yes, that's what they mean.

They mean that you look at somebody who's in a particular group, that group that you associate, whatever you think it is, whatever you think has the kind of sex that kills them - there's an old fashioned idea, right out of the inquisition - and then you give them the test.

Then it says that "Elisa testing cannot be used to diagnose AIDS even if the recommended investigation of reactive specimens" - reactive specimens?

I thought it was a plus or minus? No, it's not positive or negative, it's a 'reactive' or 'semi-reactive' or 'non-reactive test,' "suggests," it says, "that the antibodies to HIV are present." Well it just said, "there is no standard for establishing whether there are antibodies to HIV."

So, boy, this looks like a maze to me, like one of those garden mazes from England.

Okay, let's just finish this line:

"Even if the recommended investigation of reactive specimens suggest that the antibodies to HIV are present, a negative test result at any point in the investigation of individual subjects," a negative test result, "does not preclude the possibility of exposure to infection with HIV."

So the test doesn't mean anything. "The risk of an asymptomatic person" - a healthy person, a non sick person - "with a repeated reactive serum" - that means that they're just positive over and over again, but they're not sick - "developing AIDS or an AIDS related condition is not known".

Okay, look, they go on and on and on through this thing with this sort of language, they talk about the "cut off value." That is, if it's a 'reactive' test there's a point at which you draw a line, and if you say that if it's reactive above this place, we're going to consider it positive; and if it's not reactive above this place we're going to consider it negative.

It says there's no standard for it. It says that the proteins that you use in the test are synthetic, they're grown in bacteria, they're not part of a virus. You then mix it with some proteins from your blood and if there's an antibody reaction between the bacterially-grown proteins and the proteins in your blood, then you have some sort of reaction.

But that doesn't matter really, right, because it only matters if your in the group that they say has AIDS. So what is AIDS? AIDS is any condition that occurs in people they consider at high risk.

The last thing I'll say about the test is, almost anything can make the protein reaction happen. You eat a piece of cheese, you develop antibodies to it; you have a cold, you drink, you have arthritis, you are pregnant - this is listed right in the test - pregnancy, drug abuse. You do any of these things, you're going to have a higher antibody response that's going to specifically react with these synthetic proteins and this test, you're going to have a stronger reaction.

If you're in that group, your skin is dark, your sexuality is saphic, or Greek, to put it that way, you're in that 'risk group' and they're going to say, "Aha, this 'reactive' specimen, this is probably indicative of a true reaction, and we have to run more tests - and don't go anywhere, Mr. Davis, we have to do more tests!"

And that's the way it works.

[end excerpt]

These are other interviews, this first was with Heather Anderson from 4ZZZ Radio at the end of 2006.
 http://www.4zzzfm.org.au/index.cfm


Interview with Jason Stephenson from HEAL in Sydney
 http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2007/02/140226.php

These were done by me, Cal Crilly at 4ZZZ Radio in Brisbane, Australia.

Michael Ellner of HEAL/AIDS interview 7/05
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/07/322202.shtml

Anthony Brink interview 9/04
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/03/356482.shtml