"I began this
investigation in May and have since farmed ALL of my other
investigations to other investigators. I intend to remain
engaged in this until the courts and/or legislature has ended
this criminal enterprise.."
"After having investigated
thousands of crimes and arrested hundreds of criminal gang
members and other assorted predators, I know a criminal enterprise
when I see one."
"HIV/AIDS makes Enron look like a neighborhood poker
game."
"I have never written about anything more important.
This story changed my life, and if you have the time and patience
to understand what I have written, it may change yours as
well.
If Americans, our courts, and our legislature permit the continued
corruption of science and medicine by our pharmaceutical industry,
I fear that the 232-year experiment we call “The United
States of America” will have failed."
Last June, I posted this
report about US hospitals and how many rely on fraud, preventable
injuries and infections to patients to compensate for losses due
to our government's insistence that private hospitals treat and
care for uninsured and underinsured citizens, indigents, and illegal
aliens.
I learned how hospitals destroy good
physicians and how predatory hospital chains like Tenet,
Kaiser Permanente,
and Adventist pressure local
physicians already in successful private practice to join their
groups. Those who refuse are targeted for sham
peer review by corporate administrators and MDs who accuse
non-compliant physicians as dangerous, incompetent, or disruptive.
While a few tenacious victims expend their life savings to preserve
their clinical privileges, others aren't so lucky. Faced with
the malicious and devastating loss of their medical careers, many
take their own lives; which is what the health care corporations
prefer anyway. To them, it's only business – nothing personal.
I was never impressed by concerns about "the evils
of big
pharma." I assumed that drugs are expensive because of the
R & D that goes into finding cures for disease. Until now,
I never imagined that some of those same drug companies would
support junk science to fund researchers who would then produce
expensive drugs that cause illness and disease around the world;
or support junk legislation that would force healthy mothers and
their children to take drugs that kill (under the threatened loss
of child custody), and then use their subsequent sickness and
mortality as evidence that a non-existent disease actually exists.
Such a scheme would have made Machiavelli weep with
joy.
A New Investigation
I was not concerned about "big pharma" until my
visit to Washington DC last May. I was there to meet with members
of Semmelweis Society International
(SSI). This is an impressive group of medical professionals –
physicians, nurses, surgeons, medical and law school professors,
and former CEOs of health care corporations. Because of my
own experience with retaliation and my ongoing interest in
US healthcare and sham peer review, I was interested to hear their
stories directly from them.
I accompanied Gil
Mileikowsky, MD, the OB/GYN who first explained sham peer
to me in 2006. I spent five days with the members – all dedicated
men and women who care deeply about the political corruption of
healthcare and who risked their own careers to report fraud or
abuse within the healthcare system. I recorded and edited their
testimony, and posted this
video after members testified before the US Congress and Senate.
I was also honored to testify regarding my experience as an LAPD
whistleblower.
Two recipients of the Semmelweis "Clean Hands Award"
were reporter Celia Farber and molecular biologist Peter Duesberg,
PhD. I had not heard of them before and knew nothing of their
relationship to a little known controversy about HIV and AIDS.
After 28 years as an investigator,
I consider myself pretty skeptical about things until I see proof.
Most of my work today is pro
bono, so I can pick and choose who I assist. Witnesses are
expected to lie, but if I discover that a client has misrepresented
facts or lied to me, I will usually drop the case. I'm fortunate
to have the time, energy, and resources to help good people get
out of undeservedly bad predicaments. Not all lawyers are like
Mike Nifong
or David
Sotelo, and not all private investigators work like Anthony
Pellicano. Without unbiased credibility, investigators are
nothing more than a liability to their clients.
As various members interacted with Farber and Duesberg,
I learned that the HIV/AIDS issue had not been entirely resolved.
Like Dr. Mileikowsky's story about sham peer review, this sounded
equally unbelievable.
When I returned to Los Angeles, several former members
began to question the wisdom of presenting the awards to Farber
and Duesberg. In response, SSI President (and neurosurgeon) Roland
Chalifoux issued this
press release to explain the rationale of the awards. But
when two dissenters persisted, Dr. Chalifoux asked me to conduct
an independent investigation of Ms. Farber and Prof. Duesberg,
citing my investigative experience, independence, and almost complete
lack of knowledge about HIV and AIDS.
Joyce Ann Hafford was a single mother living
alone with her thirteen-year-old son, Jermal, in Memphis, Tennessee,
when she learned that she was pregnant with her second child.
She worked as a customer service representative at a company called
CMC Call Center; her son was a top student, an athlete and musician.
In April 2003, Hafford, four months pregnant, was urged by her
obstetrician to take an HIV test. She agreed, even though she
was healthy and had no reason to think she might be HIV positive.
The test result came up positive, though Hafford was tested only
once, and she did not know that pregnancy itself can cause a false
positive HIV test. Her first thought was of her unborn baby. Hafford
was immediately referred to an HIV/AIDS specialist, Dr. Edwin
Thorpe, who happened to be one of the principal investigators
recruiting patients for a clinical trial at the University of
Tennessee Medical Group that was sponsored by the Division of
AIDS (DAIDS)—the chief branch of HIV/AIDS research within the
National Institutes of Health.
The objective of the trial, PACTG 1022,
was to compare the “treatment-limiting toxicities” of two anti-HIV
drug regimens. The core drugs being compared were nelfinavir (trade
name Viracept) and nevirapine (trade name Viramune). To that regimen,
in each arm, two more drugs were added—zidovudine (AZT) and lamivudine
(Epivir) in a branded combination called Combivir. PACTG 1022
was a “safety” trial as well as an efficacy trial, which means
that pregnant women were being used as research subjects to investigate
“safety” and yet the trial was probing the outer limits of bearable
toxicity. Given the reigning beliefs about HIV's pathogenicity,
such trials are fairly commonplace, especially in the post-1994
era, when AZT was hailed for cutting transmission rates from mother
to child.
The goal of PACTG 1022 was to recruit at
least 440 pregnant women across the nation, of which 15 were to
be enrolled in the University of Tennessee Medical Group. The
plan was to assign the study's participants to one of two groups,
with each receiving three HIV drugs, starting as early as ten
weeks of gestation. Of the four drugs in this study, three belong
to the FDA's category “C,” which means that safety to either mother
or fetus has not been adequately established.
Joyce Ann Hafford was thirty-three years
old and had always been healthy. She showed no signs of any of
the clinical markers associated with AIDS—her CD4 counts, which
measure the lymphocytes that are used to indicate how strong a
person's immune system is, and which HIV is believed to slowly
corrode, were in the normal range, and she felt fine. In early
June 2003, she was enrolled in the trial and on June 18 took her
first doses of the drugs. “She felt very sick right away,” recalls
her older sister, Rubbie King. “Within seventy-two hours, she
had a very bad rash, welts all over her face, hands, and arms.
That was the first sign that there was a problem. I told her to
call her doctor and she did, but they just told her to put hydrocortisone
cream on it. I later learned that a rash is a very bad sign, but
they didn't seem alarmed at all.”
Hafford was on the drug regimen for thirty-eight
days. “Her health started to deteriorate from the moment she went
on the drugs,” says King. “She was always in pain, constantly
throwing up, and finally she got to the point where all she could
do was lie down.” The sisters kept the news of Hafford's HIV test
and of the trial itself from their mother, and Hafford herself
attributed her sickness and nausea to being pregnant. She was
a cheerful person, a non-complainer, and was convinced that she
was lucky to have gotten into this trial. “She said to me, ‘Nell’
—that's what she called me—‘I have got to get through this. I
can't let my baby get this virus.’ I said, ‘Well, I understand
that, but you're awful sick.’ But she never expressed any fear
because she thought this was going to keep her baby from being
HIV positive. She didn't even know she was in trouble.”
On July 16, at her scheduled exam, Hafford's
doctor took note of the rash, which was “pruritic and macular-papular,”
and also noted that she was suffering hyperpigmentation, as well
as ongoing nausea, pain, and vomiting. By this time all she could
keep down were cans of Ensure. Her blood was drawn for lab tests,
but she was not taken off the study drugs, according to legal
documents and internal NIH memos.
Eight days later, Hafford went to the Regional
Medical Center “fully symptomatic,” with what legal documents
characterize as including: “yellow eyes, thirst, darkening of
her arms, tiredness, and nausea without vomiting.” She also had
a rapid heartbeat and difficulty breathing. Labs were drawn, and
she was sent home, still on the drugs. The next day, July 25,
Hafford was summoned back to the hospital after her lab reports
from nine days earlier were finally reviewed. She was admitted
to the hospital's ICU with “acute and sub-acute necrosis of the
liver, secondary to drug toxicity, acute renal failure, anemia,
septicemia, premature separation of the placenta,” and threatened
“premature labor.” She was finally taken off the drugs but was
already losing consciousness. Hafford's baby, Sterling, was delivered
by C-section on July 29, and she remained conscious long enough
not to hold him but at least to see him and learn that she'd had
a boy. “We joked about it a little, when she was still coming
in and out of consciousness in ICU,” Rubbie recalls. “I said to
her, ‘You talked about me so much when you were pregnant that
that baby looks just like me.’” Hafford's last words were a request
to be put on a breathing tube. “She said she thought a breathing
tube might help her,” says Rubbie. “That was the last conversation
I had with my sister.” In the early morning hours of August 1,
Rubbie and her mother got a call to come to the hospital, because
doctors had lost Hafford's pulse. Jermal was sleeping, and Rubbie
woke her own daughter and instructed her not to tell Jermal anything
yet. They went to the hospital, and had been there about ten minutes
when Joyce Ann died.
HIV is caused by a retrovirus, right? Well, no,
not really. In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever for this
hypothesis. How could they all be wrong, asks Anthony Brink on
Consumercide.com.
His article is so well written that we will use
it to begin our series of examinations of the discredited, but
still widely believed, idea that there is such a thing as the
AIDS or HIV virus and that it causes a disease now knows as HIV/AIDS.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
Anthony Brink arbrink@iafrica.com
I suppose one has a greater sense of intellectual
degradation after an interview with a doctor than from any other
human experience. –Alice James
A response sometimes heard to the expression of
doubt about the integrity of the HIV-AIDS paradigm as a medical
model for understanding disease incidence is, “How could
all the doctors in the world be wrong?” There are many possible
answers to this question.
One might point out that unanimity has never guaranteed
the soundness of medical constructs, and examples of this abound.
The history of medicine both ancient and modern is a wrecking-yard
full of broken and abandoned ideas. In this century alone innumerable
medical theses have collapsed to which nearly all doctors once
subscribed, such as bacterial theories of scurvy, beriberi, and
pellagra, and more recently, the immuno-surveillance and retroviral
theories of cancer aetiology - for which billions of dollars funded
thousands of convincing research papers during the “War on
Cancer” declared by Nixon in 1971. Then there was swine flu:
1976 saw President Gerald Ford on television, at the behest of
the American medical establishment, solemnly urging all Americans
to get vaccinated against an imminent deadly influenza epidemic.
About 50 million Americans were panicked into being immunised
with useless or harmful vaccines rushed onto the market. Adverse
reactions resulted in damages claims of $2.7 billion. Not a single
case of swine flu appeared subsequent to the death of a sick recruit
undergoing basic training in a boot camp in New Jersey (hardly
an unusual event) that had ignited all the hysteria. Before HIV-AIDS,
and alongside the mad cow craze in Britain and the avian flu folly
in Hong Kong, the great swine flu fiasco was perhaps the most
telling instance in recent times of how Medicine can lose its
head.
Another answer to the question goes to the fact
that most doctors have scarcely more than a layman’s grasp
of the concepts that populate biology at its molecular horizon.
For instance, most would gape dully if asked to define the peculiar
characteristics of a retrovirus (like HIV, we’re told) as
distinct from other viruses, or distinguish endogenous and exogenous
retroviruses, or articulate the rival contentions advanced by
molecular biologists about whether the whole of retrovirology
might be a mistake, a wrong turn at a scientific road-fork, a
bad inference drawn from the evidence of certain metabolic biochemical
phenomena which look odd when seen against old-fashioned rules
of molecular genetics, and the possibility that retroviruses might
not exist as infectious agents at all - that it is rather the
classical dogma that needs an overhaul. Taxed about the HIV theory
of AIDS, most doctors can do little more than quote the claims
of their authorities, like priests citing papal bulls and encyclicals,
making obeisance to their cardinals.
A third answer would make the impudent point that
it is fallacious to imagine that doctors generally have a superior
capacity for reasoning than their patients. The notes given medical
students speak to the scant education that doctors receive in
this art. To read them is to see how flimsy medical and biological
theories are dished up as fact for rote learning, making the kind
of call-and-answer instruction one sees in farm schools in this
country look like an adventure in lateral-thinking training. Doctors
do so well at school because they’re the kind of guys who
are the most easily schooled. In myths and legends to outdo the
Hare Krishna people. Especially virologists, who occupy the haughtiest
medical echelons, but who seem to have the dimmest bulbs in the
upper storey. As revealed by what they swallow without a hiccup.
And regurgitate to their students. Like the timeless French fancy
(”Le Rage”) that a bite from a dog acting wild and crazy
can make you go mad and die. (But not the dog; man is the ‘end-host’.)
You can go the same way from eating steak. Although nobody can
plausibly say why. Or some cancers are caused by viruses and are
infectious. Or the most hilarious notion of them all: semen and
vaginal secretions can be deadly. Mothers’ milk too. But
not spit. All of a sudden. After millions of years. Thanks to
a mutated virus from monkeys. Or maybe the moon. And all of this
without any evidence. Not a shred. And there’s a funny part
to it. You might be feeling fine. But you’re sure to go in
six months time from any one of a couple of dozen diseases or
malignancies. No, make that two years, well actually five; shall
we say eight, or ten, or twelve, maybe fifteen; OK perhaps your
life is just shortened a bit. Definitely? Yes, most certainly;
no, not necessarily. Look, we don’t know. How, why? We don’t
have the faintest idea. Theories zigzag like a drunk at the wheel.
(”We are still confused, only we are now confused at a higher
level of understanding.”) Excuse me. Is this the circus?
Nor do doctors necessarily proceed from a more rational
mindset than Joe Public does. The opposite may be the case. That
HIV-AIDS as a medical construct could have taken root so richly
among doctors, despite its absurd fundamental tenets (which fly
in the face of everything known to virology), illustrates the
point. As Harvey Bialy, scholar in residence at the Biotechnology
Institute at the University of Mexico and editor at large of the
prestigious science journal Nature Biotechnology puts it, the
HIV theory of AIDS “turns immunology upside down and inside
out.” To begin with, never before was the presence of antibodies
taken to be prognostic of future disease. They used to be thought
of as good things – evidence, where the patient appears healthy,
of a successful immune response to a pathogen defeated. Former
molecular biology professor at Johns Hopkins and Harvard Universities,
Charles Thomas predicts that after the balloon pops, historians
will be studying the flight of common sense in the lunacy of the
AIDS age, “for a 100 years, …how America gave AIDS to
the world.” But since HIV-AIDS as a diagnostic construct
is still hegemonically regnant in our time, the point about the
way doctors as a group tend to think needs illustrating with a
different example. What better than the turn Medicine took during
the Third Reich.
The Nazis’ virulently irrational and barbarous
doctrines of racial hygiene found huge appeal for German and Austrian
doctors in that era. No other profession was as well represented
on Nazi party membership lists. From an ostensibly sober, rational
profession functioning as an elite caste in a culture that seemed
itself to be the fruit of the Enlightenment, just under half of
them were card-carrying Nazis. Of course not all engaged in the
sadistic butchery of untermenschen for which the Nuremberg Doctors’
Trials were conducted, but it would be a mistake to imagine that
such criminals were aberrant quacks from the fringes, flourishing
like vermin on the opportunities created within the Nazi eugenics
paradigm. In fact many medical practitioners and academics tried
or named in testimony at the trials had enjoyed international
eminence in their professional fields. Dr Edwin Katzenellenbogen,
for instance, (who got life imprisonment) had served on the faculty
of the Harvard Medical School.
Scholars of religious thinking have long known that
the more horrible and improbable the founding superstitions of
a new faith, the greater its capacity to mobilize the popular
imagination and the stronger the force of its revolutionary engine.
In Medicine, Religion’s first cousin, the same sometimes
applies. Like an infant upstart religion with imperial designs,
the HIV-AIDS paradigm calls for a vigorous rebellion against long-established
models of understanding. Woe betide any conservative scientists
reluctant to become conversos to the rude new creed, who point
out that the new theory is absurd on its face, that the link between
AIDS and sex is no stronger than its link with sleeping; they
become marginalised like Jews defying the demands of medieval
Christendom, not racked and burned, but ostracised - scientifically
defrocked, blacklisted and delegitimated, stripped of research
funding, banned from lecturing podia, kicked out of their laboratories,
rendered unemployable in academia or industry, menaced with confinement
in psychiatric wards, isolated from graduate students in whom
they might instill similar heretic doubts, and barred from publishing
in the journals that once craved their papers. But naturally;
radical political dissident Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics
at Massachusetts Institute of Technology has pointed out that
“if you serve power, power rewards you with respectability.
If you work to undermine power…you are reviled, imprisoned,
driven into the desert.” The AIDS phenomenon at root is a
vast pumping aggregation of interests with enormous political
and economic power. Doctors and scientists who challenge its sacred
tenets risk attracting the wrath of the revolution’s red
guards. They won’t be thrown from windows. But their careers
will be over. For their reactionary intransigence these critics
will be marked always with pejorative epithets, as persistent
as tattoos, like ‘discredited’, ‘loony’, ‘maverick’,
‘dangerous’ and ‘irresponsible and pernicious’.
Just to make sure we correctly tell the wits from the dunces.
And to discourage us from asking, “Well, what are these guys
actually saying?”
A fourth explanation lies in the fact that for all
their social status and prestige, in truth doctors generally function
close to the bottom of the food-chain in the medical-industrial
complex, and serve as little more than a thoughtless delivery
system for the pharmaceutical corporations – whose wares
they peddle makes the medical drug industry one of the most profitable
legal enterprises on the planet. Just how little room doctors
are allowed for independent judgment founded on their own observations
is revealed in the fact that in some places a doctor who declines
to follow an approved treatment regimen such as chemotherapy for
cancerous tumours, in view of his empirical assessment of its
utter uselessness and lethal toxicity, risks sanctions from his
controlling guild. Imagine the trouble a doctor would be in were
he brazenly to announce his conclusion that having investigated
the business, reactive HIV antibody test results are virtually
meaningless - pointers to no more than heightened non-specific
immunologic activity. And were he to refuse to diagnose negative
or positive, selecting for life or death, like a Nazi doctor calling
links or rechts. Or marking ‘+’ on the medical files
of slow or crippled German children, to mark them for murder during
the euthanasia programme.
In sum, one doesn’t have to cast about too
far for answers to the question, “How could all the doctors
in the world be wrong about AIDS?” Medicine’s penchant
for screwing up magnificently, its characteristic intellectual
sluggishness, and the appeal of “magical thinking” for
its practitioners is plain to anyone who turns back a few pages.
ALL content on this site is informational
in nature and is not to be taken as medically or scientifically proven
(even if it actually is). The ideas and opinions of the owner and others
are expressed throughout and are not offered as medical advice for the
treatment or cure of any disease. No guarantees of effectiveness are
offered. Please consult a licensed physician for any medical situation...
And demand Health Freedom!
