When AIDS first appeared in America and in Africa, it sure seemed like a new disease.
People who looked healthy suddenly got very sick and died very fast.
Well, now we know AIDS is not a disease (a Syndrome is a collection of symptoms) and it's not new (the symptoms are each known, if sometimes rare, conditions with known treatments).
But, still, why did the immune systems of (1) overachieving gay men, (2) over-the-top-drug users, and (3) never-before-so-underfed Africans suddenly collapse so... well... suddenly?
The description of the victims gives clues. Let's look closer.
We've all heard of the sexual revolution (and tried to enlist). But there were actually two of them. The first came just after World War II. The government funded war research on effective treatment of sexually transmitted disease because they feared another mother-wife revolt like that caused in WW I when soldiers came home all syphilitic.
After the war, the drug companies announced the end of sex-as-death. This was great for men... until they found that women wouldn't go along. Women feared pregnancy.
There was a group of men who didn't have this problem. Gay men could have as much sex as all men want to.
Ten years later, the birth control pill started the second sexual revolution. Women could have sex with no unwanted side effects. But men still had a problem: women just weren't so horny.
YOU CAN NOT BLAME SEX
There's a theory that some gay men had so much sex that they wore out their immune systems. But men having sex with men isn't new. And gay men seem to be having fewer sexual partners. By branding male-to-male sex as "gay," a whole population of men who would now be called "bi" were frightened out of the picture. Giving a name to what came naturally for some made it a term of mockery for those who were too scared or unattractive to go for it. The pool of part time men-with-men sex participants was depleted. Half of the gay men were driven to the gym to bulk up to play the missing role.
Sex wasn't new. And drug use wasn't new. What was new was the type of drugs that appeared.
Let's take non-medical drugs first. In the United States, the Mafia had long controlled alcohol and powered drug distribution. As medical and "patent" medicines such as heroin and cocaine were gradually made illegal, the new distributors were able to increase the dosage and availability of convenient-to-dispense powered drugs. Where heroin and cocaine in low dose patent medicines were sold across the counter to women who would never dream of drinking alcohol, now women were taught to drink and powered drugs became a rite of passage for young men beyond alcohol.
However, as the smarter Mafia figures died out, to be replaced by what Jimmy Breslin called The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight, Columbians and other outsiders took over the business. They took a global view and regulated prices and size of dose to effectively move their customers from gentle cocaine to crack cocaine to powered heroin to injected heroin.
Meanwhile, gay men had discovered a very enjoyable form of nitrate which could be inhaled. This put them on the track for other pleasurable drugs. (It was later discovered that one of the two original AIDS defining diseases, KS, can often be the result of inhaling nitrates.)
So overachieving gay men met the new white powders.
But even the never-seen-before power of expertly merchandised new recreational drugs was not enough to cause AIDS.
It was new medical drugs that tipped the assault on man's body. Antibiotics were the first drug since aspirin that actually worked. Doctors were delighted. This business of bedside manner being the only thing that doctors had going for them was no longer so true.
The problem, of course, is that antibiotics work by killing. They kill bad stuff, they kill good stuff.
The body can only take so much.
The gay men enjoying the sexual revolution went to doctors for STD treatments. The doctors came up with a new theory: if antibiotics can kill STDs, perhaps they can prevent them. The body would be filled with antibiotics at all times so if any STDs came along, Pow! we got them.
Now we know that overuse of antibiotics has created millions of people whose immune systems are near collapse. The idea of regular use of a drug as a preventative seems to be a sure route to immune disfunction.
Several unique historical events created the Perfect Storm that hit a special group of open minded gay men and drug users. (Well, maybe you would call them obsessed.)
A one-time, unique combination of unusual factors came together to create something new and rarely seen. The Perfect Storm raged and left. What is the result today?
Not all people who develop AIDS are horny drug fiends. But we are all assaulted with antibiotics in medicine and food.
Speaking of food, overachieving men and overworked women (sorry about the cliches, society made me do it) make eating badly a matter of pride,
At HEAL meetings, we meet non-drug using, sexually moderate persons who can not accept the above thesis. But they are their first HEAL meeting because they tested HIV+, not because they are within weeks of death. They probably will not develop AIDS. They will get sick as everyone on the planet does. The only difference is that they will believe that HIV made them sick while others will blame the weather, bad spirits, germs, bad diet...
Speaking of diet, the original AIDS patients had notoriously bad diets. Seems they thought having sex was more fun than shopping for yogurt, getting stoned more fun than chopping vegetables.
BACK TO AFRICA
This whole diet discussion brings to us to Africa.
Roberto Giraldo, a board member of HEAL, attended a conference with an African who had been away from his home continent for many years, Getting off the plane, entering the airport, he exclaimed, "The people have become so small!"
Africa has been so destroyed by dictators, wars, pollution that the population is on the move away from nature and food into shanty towns with running sewers. Sure, not everyone, not everywhere. Just where the "AIDS pandemic" is located.
Environmental medicine is considered a joke by the experts, but a total toxic environment has been created is parts of Africa. A land where starvation for generation after generation is the norm. Where traditional society and any form of comfort is long gone.
And guess what? The human immune system has suffered. After a while, some permanent damage remains. And the following generation is weaker.
But whole societies have suffered and starved before. What created the Perfect Storm in Africa?
Did I hear you say antibiotics? Africans know that antibiotics are one of the only two classes of medicine that work. They have been demanding them for decades. But Africa doesn't have a concerned government to regulate medical drugs. Anyone can get antibiotics and take them at the wrong doses for the wrong period of time. The antibiotic assault hit Africa harder than the US. Weaker people and stronger drugs were the unique "AIDS cocktail."
We could lament that we're all in for it now: sex is bad, drugs are bad, nature is bad.
But this website is called HEAL. We cannot help notice that every cell in our body is programmed to grow, live and reproduce. No matter that profit goads some to destroy sex, drugs and nature, our body exists to live. The aim of medicine was to comfort the body in sickness so that it could recover and resume growth, life and sex. The current fad for anti-life medicines to kill every bad thing in us kills everything good in us also.
HEAL meeting leaders declare that testing HIV+ is a wake-up call, not a death sentence.
Can you wake up enough to raise your head back up to see the road and apply just enough brake to round that blind curve ahead?
Sexual explorers practice "edging." It is staying just at the edge before "the little death."
It makes things last longer - getting there is half the fun. Can you see yourself sharpening your senses, making every minute count, making sex, drugs and nature better for yourself?
No! Not after the test, you say. Not after I've had HIV+ burned on my forehead, carved in my heart, smashed across my genitals.
Well, let's look at what the test is (as opposed to what it does to people.)
HIV Test Background
The first article in a respected scientific journal putting into question the value of the HIV Test was BIO/TECHNOLOGY (June 11, 1993).
It points out that you don't have to have HIV to test positive.
The authors found that the HIV antibody test does not yield consistent results, either within one laboratory (when a single sample is tested more than once), or between laboratories (when several laboratories test the same samples). One serum (blood) sample from the same person which was sent to 19 different laboratories yielded 19 different patterns of bands on the Western blot test.
Some of the groups which tend to test false-positive include: >IV drug users, >Africans, >malnurished, >TB, >MS, or >malaria patients, >multiple blood transfusion recipients, >people who have received a flu vaccine, >people who have had multiple infections.
The scientists state that the test is a measure of stress not specific to HIV. (HIV, by the way, has never been isolated.)
The implications are:
>Many lives have been changed for the worse because of an unreliable test.
>People who were said to have died from AIDS or HIV may have been killed by treatments such as AZT or early or aggressive treatment with toxic drugs such as AZT, ddI or ddC.
Ah yes, the test. That's why we're here.
Everywhere we go, we're told: get tested.
This is our duty: Get tested again and again until you're told you have a deadly disease with no cure and you are forced to take expensive medicines which make you sick from "side effects" which probably won't go away but which require more expensive medicines which make you fat in the stomach and shrunken everywhere else so that the idea of someone touching you is horrible, so that the idea of smiling and having fun would be hard even if you weren't required to be grateful and docile and poor and ugly all the time.
Can't we just go back to the day when sex only caused hairy palm syndrome?
The test is important because it colors everything in life. The stress level rises and just doesn't come down. The human contact level becomes a choice between lying and being pitied and shunned. The hope level slips below the horizon as fast as the falling safe which you wish would hit you and solve the whole problem.
The full "HIV: Against science" article in the HIV page comprehensively documents that (1) HIV can't be seen, (2) doesn't kill by itself and (3) none of the HIV tests are accurate.
Each of the tests is required to have a legal disclaimer that any test results should not be considered to indicate the presence of HIV nor to predict progression to AIDS. The idea is that if you take enough unreliable tests you'll get a reliable result.
Yet newcomers to HEAL meetings firmly believe that the morning after a certain sexual experience with a stranger, they experienced certain "flu like" symptoms which were so different that they knew it was HIV.
We need a research grant into finding out what sex experience makes you feel like dying (in a bad way) but only after certain "flu like" symptoms and within a period of months if it happened in the eighties but within ten years if it happened in the nineties but within fifteen years if it happened in the 00s.
Men coming back from the baths used to note they would have a sore throat the next day. Have anything in there, maybe?
Perhaps there actually are different flu strains which have slightly different symptoms as they tell us each "flu season." This site doesn't believe that every drug company statement is wrong. Perhaps sudden contact with a stranger causes "flu like" symptoms. It sure did when soldiers returned from Europe after WW I.
The thing that the test sellers have going for them is that everyone who tests positive is going to get sick, just as everyone else will get sick some time in their lives, over and over til we all die. It's called life - sickness and death are part of it. But the test victims are primed to blame it on HIV. All of society requires them to believe it.
And there's the piece of paper that says it.
SLOW, FRIGHTENED PEOPLE LEAVE NOW
This article is now going into the realm of speculation. Or to use the scientific term: we are proposing a theory. It will be up to you to get a grant, conduct a double-blind test and publish in a peer journal to disprove it. (Or you can be a AIDS researcher and just say you have "probable cause.")
The researcher who claimed "probable cause" for HIV got into trouble when another researcher pointed out that the HIV in question didn't belong to him. Wouldn't matter except that it was the only HIV ever seen anywhere before or since. Wouldn't matter except that the first researcher could make a fortune with a patent on a test. Wouldn't matter except that the second researcher could make a fortune with a patent on a test.
A compromise was eventually arranged by the governments of US and France. It was agreed that an under-researcher put some French HIV in the American refrigerator where the American researcher unknowingly took it out with his left-over soft cheese. Both researchers could make their fortunes on the test.
The American researcher had another hairy moment when his bluff was called by Elizabeth Dole, (This was before her husband, Bob, ran for president, took Viagra, got so gross that she fled to South Carolina to campaign for election as Senator.)
Mrs Dole was hired to fix the image of the Red Cross. Questions were raised about the blood supply: Did it contain HIV? Since selling blood was the main business of the Red Cross, things needed to be smoothed over in Washington where Bob was leader of the Senate,
Seems that half of the blood was from junkies who it sold to Blood Banks. You thought those blood drives provided free and pure blood. But people only tend to give blood after a disaster and disasters don't occur on a regular schedule. In order to maintain steady employment, the Red Cross required junkie blood. They would mix it with the free stuff so that people couldn't insist on getting just the good.
Mrs Dole decided that a new test for HIV would restore confidence in Red Cross blood. It would be a very broad test with many false positives. The impression of safety would be more important than accuracy. They would throw away many gallons of good blood for effect.
The AIDS researcher was in a fix. He couldn't find HIV. Gone just like the soft cheese. The "probable cause" theory wasn't panning out. No peer review paper appeared in the medical journals. AIDS wasn't spreading into the general population. No other disease had ever appeared that hit only overachieving gay men and hopeless junkies. The "AIDS defining" PCP pneumonia and KS were revealed to be old diseases. KS couldn't even be directly tied to immune deficiency.
But we know he devised a test, saved the Red Cross, and became very rich.
It is the thesis of this paper that the researcher designed the test not to find HIV, but to reveal gay men, IV drug users and Africans under health stress.
Now a quotation from "Rethinking AIDS," Volume 8, Number 5, May 2000:
Professional HIV-testing expert Roberto Giraldo, MD, noticed something strange...
Using the officially stipulated serum dilutions, very few Americans test positive for antibodies that neutralize presumed HIV proteins (RA July, 1996). Among Americans in general, only about one in 260 test positive. That number plummets to just one in 7,500 if risk group members are excluded. Only when the risk group members are considered exclusively does the number become appreciable. About half of all gays and drug injectors in large cities test positive, as do 75% of all hemophiliacs (RA Nov. 1997). And 10-20% of the general populations of various African countries reportedly test positive.
The figures are even higher for risk group members who develop any of the diseases that compose the official AIDS definition. Among a mixture of gay men and African heterosexuals with these diseases, 88% test positive according to Gallo's original 1984 data (Science May 4). More recently, data analyzed in 1995 by UC-Berkeley retrovirologist Peter Duesberg (Genetica 95) showed that 82% of gay men with these diseases test positive.
With his data suggesting that perhaps all people may have varying amounts of "HIV antibodies" in their blood, Giraldo has a reasonable explanation for how Gallo may have established the ELISA and Western blot HIV testing standards: they happened to correspond with high success in identifying members of the AIDS risk groups, especially those who have AIDS diseases, while distinguishing them from people unlikely to belong to the risk groups or to have AIDS conditions.
End of quotation.
They know who we are
The first phrase that grabs attention is: About half of all gays and drug injectors in large cities test positive.
Inevitably a gay man comes to wonder “Why do I test positive?”
The answer is, “Because the test was designed to make your blood test positive.”
There has been a lot of discussion whether "gay" is a choice or a type of human nature.
Think about it: Do you wake up every morning and query, "Will I be gay today, will I be straight?"
Researchers have found that gay men have smaller right brains and larger genitals. (Maybe you were one of those researchers?) It is not inconceivable that a blood test could be devised to discover gay men. Or IV drug users - are they putting stuff into their blood - or what?
The gay and IV user test results are about 50% accurate. But if illness is present the accuracy increases to 82% to 88%. This also applies for Africans. So the test also reveals stress from disease.
(People not gay who do not use IV drugs and do not live in Africa test positive less than 2%.)
Wow, the HIV test has gaydar. Do you really need a test to tell you that you're a gay man in less than optimal health? Or an IV drug user in less than optimal health? Or an African in less than optimal... well you get the point. Ever look in a mirror?
The test, as the label says, was not created to diagnose disease. It was created to exclude certain unpopular and scary groups from publicly giving blood.
What is the test good for? Well, if they want to start a new round-up of gays, IV drug users and Africans, it will come in handy. It's currently being used as an effective way to market old cancer drugs which were previously banned as unsafe for human use.
Perhaps it's all right to market a broad, inaccurate test which causes gallons of blood to be thrown out as part of the cost of selling the stuff.
But it doesn't seem all right to throw out human lives to sell drugs only proven in tests to be toxic.
When the marketing ploy is a death sentence, why would you buy?