Dear Readers,

Thank you for your e-mails. As I feel my way around in the relative dark of this movememt, your supportive comments have meant the world to me.

Hopefully my editorial has developed a style by now and visitors see what I am trying to do. Mostly I am asking a lot of questions, and attempting to bring the debate back to the beginning of this extraordinary quarter century that has featured a continuously changing story from the AIDS and pharmaceutical establishment.

What specific events led to the creation of what is today called HIV/AIDS? What do the AIDS people say HIV is? Why is the HIV test so nonspecific? Why is there no gold standard?

Why are they pushing so many pharmaceuticals on gays and Africans, drugs whose manufacturers clearly state that they are not effective in curing AIDS, nor HIV, but that they may in fact cause the ailments on the AIDS disease list?

What I have been avoiding is a discussion on the vast range of diseases, conditions, iatrogenic, psychiatric, or pscychosomatic symptoms of the modern human condition.

There are many organisms and substances in our world; some have great potential to do us in, and it is those we call pathogens. Some aren't meant to be with us, so it is important they are resolved. STDs, for example, are an unpleasant but real fact of an active sex life, certainly not exclusive to gay folk. Recreational drugs, while fun for many people around the world for thousands of years, take their toll.

Many bacterial and viral pathogens we adopt into our own DNA; our bodies are curators of an astounding collection of life forms. A recent study suggests that "RNA–RNA recombination during L1 reverse transcription followed by the integration of the recombinants into the host genome is a general event in genome evolution." (Anton Buzdin, Nucleic Acids Research, Nucleic Acids Research, 2003, Vol. 31, No. 15 4385-4390.) It is notable "that more than 40% of the human genome consists of retrovirus-like transposable elements, a feature likely to be common to all mammalian species." (1 Smit AFA. Curr Opin Genet Develop 1999; 9: 657-663.)

In a 2002 paper, "Vector integration: Pest not guest," L-J. Chang suggests the possiblity of "physiological conditions that change chromatin structure and transcription profile (eg stress and hormone signaling)" and these stressors "could affect HIV-1 infection and integration, and consequently disease progression." (Gene Therapy (2002) 10, 193-194. doi:10.1038/sj.gt.3301921)

It is clear that an all out assault on the human body, whether it be from organismas such as cryptosporidium, or candida, STDs, or toxins in the environment from recreational drugs, antibiotics, or additives in lube, or malnutrition and lack of sleep, could all have an impact on whether HIV progresses to AIDS. What is unclear is why the AIDS industry reacts so vehemently to this simple and classic reasoning.

Each of us require balance, and symbiosis with the organisms we share the biosphere. We are after all, part of nature. Sometimes I think that the medico-pharm community, encouraged and supported by governments of state and world, forgets the key fact that is our continuing evolution, and our humble but practical origins.

We are bacteria. We are virus and retrovirus. We are protein and protease. We are DNA, and RNA, and reverse transcriptase.

I humbly propose is there is no such pathogen called HIV, nor a new, unique disease called AIDS. The latter is a syndrome of system overload, and the former, an arbitrary, non-specific, and randomly changing collection of proteins bearing geneomic name tags. Mostly these are probably species that already exist and are known as yeasts, fungual organisms, and bacteria, present at subclinical levels in most of the population, or exogenous material such as toxins under attack by the immune system leukocytes.

Our lives - all lives - hang in the balance between harmony and war, both outside and inside our bodies.

I am against the censorship and the schoolyard behavior of these people who promote AIDS. True scientists wouldn't call nature quackery as many AIDS proponents tend to do at world conferences. What is true is that garlic cannot hurt you, but antiretroviral therapy can kill you.

Out of the AIDS industry came the Incarnation House, with unimaginable horrors inflicted upon helpless children. Out of the AIDS industry came lipodistraphy (the gaunt AIDS look), and out of the industry comes many inconsistencies.

Could it be that a unique new retrovirus attacking the immune system just popped up in the last hundred years, and suddenly hit gays and blacks in the 1980s out of the proverbial clear blue sky? I suppose it's possible. Anything is.

Were I to subscribe to that theory, it would have to be accompanied by a more sinister plot of science corrupted by intent of malice. Otherwise it is far too much of a fluke to be grouded in reality.

It makes more sense to me that it is an evolutionary blip on the human chain of history that homo sapiens will overcome as it deals with legions of relatively new environmental toxins, or perhaps it is an accident of a well-intentioned vaccine trial.

Or is it possible that HIV is nature as it always was, and AIDS is just a new name on an old picture - the picture your grandmother described when she said "...you need your rest, eat, eat, or you'll catch the death of you."

I am against the unbridled zeal of AIDS drug advocates pushing an unknown ending on millions of lives, and creating massive failures of human biosystems including liver, renal, cardiovascular, hematological, dermatological, and emotional. I am against the persistent demonizing of the personal lives of gay men. I am agaist the medical neocolonialism in Africa.

Something is wrong when hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on advertising for pharmaceuticals that "treat" the unacceptable side effects of antiretroviral "therapy" also known as HAART.

I am not alone in wanting some answers. The questions are simple: why attribute so much power to a molecule that can't even be isolated from blood plasma?

If 100% of Dr. Michael Gottlieb's patients as reported in 1981 to the CDC had Candida (yeast / fungal overgrowth)infections, than why was the yeast protein p24 described as a human t-cell lymphotropic virus "discovery"?

If the aspartyl protease enzyme inhibited by the drugs marketed to gays belongs to Candida, why is it attributed to a "new" molecule that hasn't been proven to kill any human cells?

Why weren't the adverse events casued by an experimental hepatits B vaccine suffered by gays all over Europe and the USA in the '80s made known?

Why instead was the wave of death and dying during the '80s - the decade following this experiment on homosexuals called "gay-related immune deficiency" and then HIV / AIDS, and not what it was: a vaccine gone terribly awry. Most of the subjects are now dead. This vaccine trial is said to have been successful, but the vaccine available today and since 1982 is not the same as it was between 1979 and 1981 to gays.

If there is no gold standard to test for HIV, and no test kit exists whose maker claims will actually diagnose HIV / AIDS, than why are so many millions of lives torn assunder by these tests anyhow?

Technorati Tags: