WHEN THE RULES WENT OUT THE WINDOW

[Guest guest]

Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:55:45 +0000

" Sepp Hasslberger " <sepp

HIV Aids - Are antibodies good or bad?

 

 

 

 

 

A recent article by Jon Rappoport that throws up an interesting

question: Antibodies are considered a positive development in all

germ-related illnesses. Why, when it comes to Aids, antibodies are

interpreted as negative, as a sign the person needs medication?

 

Kind regards

Sepp

 

 

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/08/29/hivaids_are_antibodies_good_or_b\

ad.htm

 

 

 

WHEN THE RULES WENT OUT THE WINDOW

 

AUGUST 28, 2005. In the spring of 1984, Dr. Robert Gallo and

representatives of the US government announced that the cause of AIDS

had been found. During this televised press conference, a virus was

named. It would later be called HIV.

 

What very few people realized at the time was, Gallo, the purported

hero, hadn't published a single paper that made a serious effort at

PROVING that HIV was the cause of AIDS.

 

Until that moment, researchers at least paid lip service to the idea

that you had to publish evidence, and that evidence had to be tested

and retested by other scientists, before any conclusions about disease

causation could be publicly advanced.

 

After all, this was what separated science from speculation.

 

But on that day in 1984, everything changed.

 

Even when many researchers realized that Gallo's claim of discovery

was unsupported by the facts, all but a few of them remained silent.

They gave up without a struggle.

 

The day after Gallo made his preemptive 1984 announcement, all

government funding for AIDS research took a sharp right turn.

Suddenly, there was no money for investigation into the cause of AIDS.

Now, the $$ were slated for people who could establish the mechanism

by which HIV attacked and destroyed the immune system.

 

So any potential rebellion in the ranks was squashed by the

re-assignment of dollars.

 

While I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., in 1987, I discovered

the above facts. I also learned that researchers don't simply cast a

net into the water when they are searching for the cause of a disease.

They are, from the outset, narrowing their field of inquiry.

 

Gallo had been researching the possible role of so-called retroviruses

in cancer. Despite Gallo's optimistic assertions, this effort had

yielded nothing of significance. But when the word AIDS appeared on

the horizon, he decided to gather his forces and find money to keep

researching this type of virus as a potential cause of AIDS. That was

his territory, so he went with it.

 

But it was a strange starting point for him. If he thought that

retroviruses caused cancer---which is all about out-of-control

proliferation of cells---why would he think that retroviruses would be

involved in the destruction of immune-system cells---the hallmark of AIDS?

 

As I wrote my book, I saw more and more holes in the HIV hypothesis.

If HIV was not the cause of AIDS, then what was AIDS? The CDC had just

issued a new definition of the disease, in which more and more

so-called opportunistic illnesses were listed as markers for AIDS. It

was asserted that these marker illnesses were ushered in by the

initial immune-system collapse caused by HIV.

 

But if HIV was a fraudulent cause, then what we were left with? A

whole host of diseases that were connected by nothing more than a

word: AIDS.

 

And that word was being used to connect people in Haiti, starving

people in Africa, heroin addicts in New York, gay men in San Francisco

and New York, and hemophiliacs.

 

We were also assured that HIV would cause widespread deaths beyond

those populations. AIDS, for example, would soon kill large numbers of

heterosexual men in the US.

 

It never happened.

 

Why not? Was this the first germ that had such esoteric preferences

for certain " risk groups? "

 

During the years since 1987, I met many people who had been diagnosed

as HIV positive. They remained healthy, and the common denominator

was, they hadn't taken the AIDS drugs.

 

I also met many people who told me stories about their healthy friends

and family who had, on the strength of an HIV positive diagnosis,

taken AZT, rapidly declined, and died.

 

AZT, a failed chemotherapy drug, attacks all cells of the body and

destroys the ability of cells to reproduce. In other words, it kills.

 

The HIV blood test itself was riddled with flaws. A falsely positive

result could ensue because of 60 or more factors that had nothing to

do with HIV.

 

I deconstructed and reconstructed the AIDS legend. If you boldly and

arbitrarily and falsely announced that a certain group---say, people

who inhabited a certain park in a major city---had been exposed to a

deadly germ; and if you then undertook a major propaganda campaign to

convince these people to get tested for the germ; and if the test

yielded false-positive results like crazy; and if you made a major

push to have people who tested positive take a deadly drug; you would

essentially be consigning these people to destruction.

 

Name a group. Any group. Put them through this step-by-step process,

and many of them end up dead.

 

That was the assembly line. It still is.

 

In writing AIDS INC., I examined every so-called high-risk group for

AIDS, and I found factors---non-viral factors---in each group that

could easily account for the immune-system collapse that was being

called AIDS. The factors tended to be different for each group. Some

factors were recent. Some were age-old.

 

When I wrote AIDS INC., there were only a handful of recognized

scientists who were speaking out against the fraudulent and

death-dealing " research " behind AIDS. Among them, Peter Duesberg and

Harvey Bialy. I had learned much from Peter and Harvey. Since those

days, a number of other scientists have stepped up to the plate. They

are largely ignored by the press.

 

Now we see stories in the press about a vaccine that will possibly

work to prevent HIV from causing immune-system failure. Such a vaccine

will, they say, produce antibodies against HIV in the body. This is

taken to be a sign that the person is immune to HIV.

 

However, the standard HIV blood tests look for these same antibodies.

If they are found, the person is said to be on the road to AIDS.

 

To say there is a confusion here is a vast understatement.

 

You see, traditionally, the production of antibodies, by the human

body, was taken to be an indication that the body had warded off a

disease. The germ entered the body, antibodies were produced against

it, and the body knocked out the germ.

 

But with the advent of the AIDS legend, another rule was thrown out

the window. Suddenly, antibodies to HIV were taken to be a gravely

negative indicator.

 

Yet, even as the traditional rule was trashed, researchers were saying

that a vaccine that induced those same antibodies was protective, was

good, was a breakthrough.

 

In 1988, I spoke with a researcher at the National Institutes of

Health. He told me that, when a vaccine was found, every person who

took it would be given a letter. The letter would say that he was

immune to HIV, and if he ever tested positive for HIV on a blood test,

that result should ignored, because he was immune, not on the road to

AIDS.

 

Antibodies naturally produced by the body against HIV=infected with

the killer virus. The same antibodies produced by taking a

vaccine=protective immunity.

 

There are researchers who understand this ridiculous and dangerous

contradiction. But most of them will not speak out. As a well-known

virologist at UCLA once said to me, " HIV is not an issue I'll comment

on. It's political. That's all I'll say. There are other people in the

research community you could approach, but they won't talk to you,

either. "

 

There is more to the AIDS story, much more....

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com

 

--

 

 

 

The individual is supreme and finds its way through intuition.

 

Sepp Hasslberger

 

 

My page on physics, new energy, economy: http://www.hasslberger.com/

 

Critical perspective on Health: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/

 

Antiprohibition and cannabis: http://www.unsaccodicanapa.com/

 

Communication Agents: http://www.communicationagents.com/

 

Freedom of choice - La Leva di Archimede: http://www.laleva.cc/

La Leva's news: http://www.laleva.org/

 

Robin Good - http://www.masternewmedia.org/

 

Trash Your Television!

http://www.tvturnoff.org/ http://www.tvnewslies.org/

 

Not satisfied with news from the tube and other controlled media?

Search the net! There are thousands of information sources

out there. Start with

 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

http://www.truthout.org/

http://buzzflash.com/

http://www.joevialls.co.uk/

http://www.Rense.com/