Freethought Nation

September 21, 2006
Rebecca Culshaw on AIDS and Her Native Africa


I was born in Malawi, one of the countries supposedly hardest hit by “AIDS”, and even though I have only dreams of my early months under the African sun, they are always wonderfully warm and pleasant. Thus I have naturally long been curious about AIDS in Africa, and have often wondered about the dramatically different epidemiology and disease manifestation that were reported to be occurring in North America and Europe versus that seen in Africa. I assumed for many years that this was part of the “vast mystery of HIV” that science would some day explain.

One of the major reasons I began to work on mathematical modeling of HIV infection (other than my love for applied mathematics and a lifelong interest in the pathology of disease) was because there were questions about HIV and AIDS that really bothered me: Why do some people live so much longer with an HIV-positive diagnosis than do others? Why is it so difficult to produce a vaccine? -- among the more obvious ones. And so I entered the world of HIV research in the hopes that I would uncover at least partial answers to at least some of my questions. Instead, I encountered contradictory models, nonsensical data, inconsistent conclusions, and intensely confused scientists – and I came to the realization that what was mysterious and paradoxical was not the virus itself, but rather the entire virus theory. The scientific questions that remain unanswered are disturbing, but what is even more disturbing is the foundation of racism and prejudice on which the HIV hypothesis is built.

To understand the sociological motivations behind the HIV/AIDS paradigm, one must understand the racism and homophobia that have persisted in western societies for centuries. It is only very recently in the timeline of history that gays and blacks have been accorded equal rights under the law—rights that Caucasians and heterosexuals have long enjoyed. To understand the inherent prejudice behind the very definition of “AIDS”, one needs only to consider the official party line: “AIDS” infected humans when Africans consumed or did strange things with monkeys, and it has been spread throughout the world by gay men and sexually promiscuous, prostitute-visiting black Africans.

This ridiculous concept is utterly empty—the evidence for an African origin for HIV, much less AIDS, is essentially non-existent, and what there is is based entirely on the hypothesis that Africans have been doing bizarre and obscene things with monkeys that permitted not one but two distinct retroviruses, HIV-1 and HIV-2, to emerge and begin to cause massive immune deficiency the likes of which has never before been caused by a single—let alone two distinct—infectious agents. For this improbable enough scenario to even approximate a possible reality, these two “new” retroviruses in humans would have to be pretty new in monkeys, too, since nothing has changed regarding how Africans relate to monkeys in the last forty or so years, and logically, such a zoonotic jump, if it were possible, should have happened long ago. So if this were even partially so, AIDS ought to have existed in Africa significantly before it existed in New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, rather than after (1983), which is what happened.

For the current interpretation of the HIV/AIDS dogma to be true, we must somehow accept that either people of African descent are many times more genetically susceptible to “HIV infection”, or else that they are many orders of magnitude more promiscuous than are people in any other racial category. Neither of these ideas bears up under scrutiny, however. An analysis of HIV tests from the past twenty years shows that the predisposition of African-Americans to test HIV-positive is far more likely to be a result of biased test interpretation, as well as a reflection of inherent, hereditary differences than it is to be a result of anything related to behavior. The distribution of HIV-positive results among those of African descent is too consistent across the risk groups to be the consequence of behavior (or even a combination of behavior and predisposition to infection). More damning, however, to the concept that HIV somehow spreads more effectively among heterosexuals in Africa than in the West is the fact that in all studies that attempt to determine transmission rates, said rates are no different in Africa than anywhere else – in every study, constant per-contact infectivity through unprotected heterosexual sex is on the order of 1 per 1000. Clearly, such transmission rates, no matter how one interprets the odds ratio, are not sufficient to sustain a heterosexual epidemic anywhere in the world.

So what is going on? Why on earth have we been so quick to accept the concept of a virus that causes different diseases in different risk groups and even in different countries; a virus that is somehow transmitted far, far more efficiently if you happen to be brown-skinned?

Scientists jumped to such conclusions despite a lack of hard evidence, and the media and the public accepted them awfully easily. Would this have happened if the first five AIDS patients had been heterosexuals in the prime of their lives? Would this still be happening if we were not being fed the hypothesis that Africans and African-Americans are somehow, mysteriously, more “susceptible” to HIV than are Asians and Caucasians? I wonder.

The first five men with AIDS were not sexually involved with one another, so why was a sexually transmitted cause considered to be so likely? And of Robert Gallo’s cohort of seventy-two homosexuals with AIDS, only twenty-six had any trace of HIV. Yet somehow HIV (and therefore AIDS) was considered sexually transmittable. This conclusion was arrived at not by the traditional method of proving an infection is indeed an STI, which involves microbial isolation and contact tracing, but rather by simply assuming sexual transmission. Laboratory studies of “HIV,” in which researchers do experiments showing things like “HIV” not being able to penetrate latex or “HIV” being able to infect monkeys when rectally injected, do not use pure HIV particles at all, but rather molecular biology experiments consisting of combinations of proteins that trigger an antibody reaction. So how do we know anything about what HIV really does, where it came from, and even what it is? And even more fundamentally, how do we know what AIDS itself is, when its presentation and even its very definition have become so amorphous that no-one is in possession of all the facts?

The answer is: we don’t, anymore than we did back in 1984. Despite the fact that other viruses (cytomegalovirus and herpes virus, to give just two examples) were far more prevalent in AIDS patients than HIV ever was, the HIV train started rolling and hasn’t lost momentum since, and this one retrovirus became inextricably wound up in a complex, hard-to-grasp syndrome of immune deficiency which simple logic ought to tell us cannot possibly have a single cause.

What has the HIV hypothesis accomplished? More than twenty years after a cure for AIDS was promised to have arrived, there is none, and there likely never will be a vaccine. A massive industry has been built around T-cell testing, viral load testing, antibody testing, and drug development. Drugs have been developed to lower viral load and drugs have been developed to alleviate the sometimes horrific effects of the primary drugs. An entire plastic surgery industry has been put into place to mask the loss and redistribution of fat caused by the drugs. Now, pressure is on to distribute these drugs to those who need them far less than they need clean living conditions and adequate nutrition.

It seems I never stop crying for my Beloved Country, too.



Rebecca V. Culshaw worked on mathematical models of HIV infection for almost ten years. She received her Ph.D. in mathematics (with a specialization in mathematical biology) from Dalhousie University in Canada in 2002 and is currently an assistant professor of mathematics at the University of Texas at Tyler. She is a celebrated internet author as a result of her writings on Lew Rockwell, and "Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?", a book based on those essays is due this December.

from http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_wor ... /post.html

I read Joe McCormick's book, a former director for CDC -- and a true field-worker scientist. I find his argument convincing. He states that "urbanization" is the true cause of HIV becoming an epidemic. This is because westernization has overcome traditional sexual practices based on low population density in horticulture and pastoral cultures.

This sounds reactionary but McCormick's main argument was that homophobia stopped any true preventative action against AIDS.

His book is very well written -- of course whether Alan Caldwell's argument is true -- that the secret cancer virus testing in Africa -- through hepatitis vaccine -- caused AIDS -- who knows? That too can be chalked up to "urbanization" -- since science is just genocidal inherently!!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... rmick.html

http://paranoiamagazine.com/aidsamerica.html

I have been friends with Christine Maggiore since 1993, when I briefly served as on the board of directors of her organization "HEAL LA."

This is such a complicated issue that I have felt it necessary to leave it to others...

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

The current interpretation of the AIDS dogma identifies sexual practices as a causal factor. Joe McCormich identifies himself as a believer in this "sexual cause" dogma when he says that westernization changed sexual practices. In doing this he implies a sexual cause. He identifies westernizaition/urbanization as the cause of this change in sexual tradition.

However, according to Rebecca Culshaw sexual habits are not statistically shown to be causally related to AIDS but that rather AIDS is causally statistically related to varying interpretation of tests for AIDS. The article above states that "For the current interpretation of the HIV/AIDS dogma to be true, we must somehow accept that either people of African descent are many times more genetically susceptible to “HIV infection”, or else that they are many orders of magnitude more promiscuous than are people in any other racial category. Neither of these ideas bears up under scrutiny, however."

Rebecca Culshaw writes, "Now, pressure is on to distribute these drugs to those who need them far less than they need clean living conditions and adequate nutrition.

So when Joe McCormick writes about "westernization" overcoming traditional "sexual practices" based on low population density in horticulture and pastoral cultures, he would do well to write rather about "westernization" overcoming traditional "horticultural and pastoral practices" that provided cleaner water and better nutrition.

_________________
Lora Cull

This sounds reactionary but McCormick's main argument was that homophobia stopped any true preventative action against AIDS.

How true ... Gay men screamed very loudly and dictated AIDS policy from the very beginning. The government was petrified of them. I read the following on a blog:


[...] And this reminds me about the AIDS epidemic killing MILLIONS of people. But.. we knew in the 1980's where AIDS had just started. Like in the new millenium we knew where SARS had started. With SARS we isolated people, killed off thousands of animals with the potential risk. There is no epidemic. With AIDS however, we let the Gay community kill millions of people, because we were afraid to act and isolate the few wealthy globe trotters to countries where the poor needed money, and questions weren't asked. And the sad fact is, the Gay community live off expensive immune-protecting drugs, while the Africans they playfully infected are dying.

Cuba and AIDS: traditional epidemiology solved the AIDS crisis in Cuba before it began:

Tom Coburn believes that at least a hundred thousand people, mostly gay men, who should be alive today are dead because certain people, again mostly gay men, with the best of intentions, used their political power to suspend disease-control measures for AIDS.

In Africa, anal intercourse, the most efficient way of spreading the virus, is a quite common means of preserving technical virginity in girls.

Every Gay Pride march should be followed by the number of children they have killed and will kill. Spiritually and physically. The policy in the UK and USA is to hide and protect the people with HIV and not isolate them.

I wouldn't advocate the Cuban method (supposedly it is very good, and people are cared for) because Cuba and America are two different countries. What works in one to help halt the spread of a sexually transmitted virus may have to be slightly tweaked in another, especially one that cherishes freedom like we do. And privacy. But freedom comes at a price. Responsibility. Obviously people aren't mature enough to take responsibility for their actions. Too caught up in their overwhelming lusts.

And who cares where AIDS comes from ... there have always been people who have had sex with animals since time memorial, if it came from Africans having sex with monkeys, WHO CARES ... why do we look at the statistics and make up excuses about who gets it, because we are afraid to be thought of as racist or homophobic. Alot of liberal White buttons are pressed by these accusations, enough to put damaging policies into action.

Why are we so afraid to tell someone not to be so sexually incontinent? To refuse the "booty call", to keep their dick in their pants or keep their legs closed?

This board is called Truth Be Known. There are some big truths in this AIDS puzzle that are NEVER TALKED ABOUT among behavioral scientists publicly or on TV. I know quite a bit about this disease, it's very personal to me. And I know quite a bit about "Black" people and "White" people in America. My family is a mix.

Some people think the government invented AIDS to kill off the Black man. Not a totally irrational thought perhaps ... But if so, then the government would be taking advantage of a weakness that was already there. Like the pusher with the drug addict. If the drug addict wasn't so weak and spineless, the pusher would be out of business. No one takes responsibility for themselves any more. Of course brown skin doesn't make HIV any easier to transmit. This is just common sense. It is behavior that transmits the virus. Unless it can be caught by sneezing. Then we're all doomed.

I have never heard of Rebecca Culshaw (not that I should have), but as a scientist she doesn't seem very ... objective. She seems to have an agenda. Just like this dirtbag has an agenda ...

http://www.natvan.com/american-dissiden ... 1093a.html

People like Culshaw just feed him fuel for his fire.

I will leave the scientific study of HIV up to the scientists. I am so glad there are drugs to help people with HIV stay healthy. But a large component to keep us healthy is not talked about because no one wants to hear it. No one wants to examine their sexual appetites. It is our God given right (oops, I don't believe in God) to do whatever makes us feel good (oh yes, and not hurt anyone else ... that we know of ... and don't look too far to find). We are so short-sited.

If you are being AFR_AID of AIDs , of AFR ican AIDS of the sex with monkey variety (for those who have had epiphany of monkey mind) please NO FEAR---BIG CON_DOM (Kingdom of Con) is here with NEW SOLUTION very promising.


_______
Ian Han

McCormick used the term "urbanization" -- the rest is my words to describe his work -- which you all should just read -- I gave the link! He was a CDC director and his research is from field work in Africa, Pakistan, Haiti, etc. So it's hard to be his credentials.

"The major insight was -- and this was the substance of a substantial discussion when I got back -- the major insight was that there was an equal ratio of male to female cases. It was very clear from this that we were looking at heterosexual transmission, not the homosexual transmission that had been touted at the major mode of transmission in the United States and in Europe. This was a real revelation.

Why was that so significant?

This changed the landscape of AIDS forever, because this showed us that everybody ... was susceptible to AIDS. This was not something special to people who practiced a gay lifestyle. This was something that could affect anyone. ..."


Notice that saying everybody is susceptible is not the same as saying that transmission is clearly sexual.

_________________
Lora Cull

Actually if you read the whole article it's impossible to ignore McCormick's emphasize on sexual transmission. For example after McCormick left the CDC (because of its corruption) he worked in Pakistan and as he notes in his interview McCormick believes the AIDS rate has been very low in Pakistan because of their repressive sexual codes. In contrast he states that prostitutes in urban areas in Africa are main carriers of HIV -- and India as well. Then McCormick states that the new influx of I.V. drug users in Pakistan may cause an epidemic -- so obviously he considers other avenues of transmission as well.

When McCormick states that "urbanization" is the main cause he's considering not just population density but also the commodification of culture through standardization.

This is the same cause for ANY plague -- for example the recent e. coli attack through spinach that was kept in bags for weeks! Why? Standardization of transportation (long distance trucking), refrigeration, monocultural grain-based feed causing high resistant bacteria, etc.

Western culture has spread plagues because we do not practice biodiversity along with shaman ritual initiation using sublimation of hormones through gender-based trance dance and chanting, etc.

We destroyed the circular housing that represented the sacred Feminine energy of ecology.

So this is the trade-off of technology -- even if there is a conspiracy involved with AIDS it can't be traced because civilization is based on Freemasonry: Order out of Chaos. More specifically this is nonlinear trajectories of "quantum chaos."

Quite so. I did read the whole article and for that reason I couldn't agree more with that observation concerning this particular interpretation that McCormick clearly expressed in this interview. It is really impossible to ignore McCormick's emphasis on sexual transmission. It's also nearly impossible to ignore his emphasis on biological transmission of a virus in his analysis. That's not to say he doesn't mention other corollary happenings as well.





Yes, he interprets the low rate in Pakistan to his theory of sexual transmission. Other theorists interpret the lifestyles and low rate as contributing factors to a lower occurence, but they would not name sexual transmission as one of those contributing factors in this Pakistan scenario.




McCormick stands in contrast to some other theorists who do not hold to the paradigm in which HIV is a virus that is carried and sexually transmitted.



Yes, the theory he works with interprets the transmission of AIDS via I.V. users as being the transmission of an HIV virus. This is not to say that McCormick does not also see other factors as contributing to what he calls the progress of the disease.



Yes, he notices all the correlary environments as contributing causes. When you, me or anyone says in general that "urbanization is the cause of AIDS" then it is necessary to try to name the specifics. McCormick names as one of the specifics the increase in sexual transmission due to urban social contexts.



Good specific; standardization of transportation can contribute to spoiled spinach. Spoiled spinach can in turn do a variety of things. In the unfortunate case of some people, they suffered sever poisoning.



Western culture has certain specific characteristics and dynamics. Lack of biodiversity is one of them. Shaman ritual initian using sublimation of hormones through gender-based trance dance and chanting, etc. is not on the national public school curriculum.



Another specific which would be worth pursuing in another post.



"Nonlinear trajectories of 'quantum chaos" is still kind of general. But, as far as a conspiracy with AIDS....some specific things can be traced in some ways. So for instance in one example, Rebecca Culshaw traces the type of tests that are done for AIDS and the types of interpretive models used to identify AIDS. They are not consistent.

_________________
Lora Cull

Here's another perfect example -- like the recent E. Coli epidemic -- Lyme's Disease is now considered a potential "biowarfare agent."

Well is it? I mean anyone who has studied ecology knows that lyme's disease comes from the totally disproportionate numbers of deer due to the disproportionate "edge effect" caused by the logging industry and the hunting industry.

Lyme's Disease, in otherwords, is a natural result of a deep disharmony in ecology -- but at the same time maybe it was created by the CDC or NIH!

Who knows? Maybe a mistake happened or it was another conspiracy for population control or.....

Maybe the Bush Neo-Nazis want's everyone to think a terrorist lives within every tick!!

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/331695.shtml

People who are interested in this subject I would like to state my opinion.

HIV is the name of a virus which is "thought to exist" in the human body. I believe that not only does HIV not cause AIDS. I also believe in fact an HIV virus has never been found in the human body before. In fact I grimace at saying "believe," as, it is a fact that it has never officially been found in any person. All the tests, the mock-ups, the diagrams, etc do not identify "HIV."

That is a fact. The reference is not one specific article but rather a process. You can go to The Perth Group's website (just google them) and find out what I am talking about.

What gives the HIV hoax away (other than thousands of healthy AIDS patients who chose to not take AIDS meds, the lack of proof (electromagnetic microscopic data), and epidemiological data (AIDS is still in its original risk groups and "infects" only 1 woman for every 9 men, something a virus simply cannot do by definition....unless there is a feminist conspiracy to eradicate the male population so that they can take over the world and make everyone drive lime green WV Beatles and read Jane Austen novels. Even still, why would they take out the gays (who pose no threat to them) or IV drug users (who are going to self eradicate themselves regardless?)...but what gives HIV away is the protective semantics you get from the AIDS advocates. You ask them for proof and all they give you is: "well, if you choose to ignore the vast amount of...what's the word they use....ah yes..."overwhelming" data. If you choose to ignore this overwhelming data then you have this right, but as for me, I cannot ignore this "overwhelming" data." This is ridiculous. It's a very clever way to avoid blame if and when HIV is finally revealed as a giant HOAX. The scientists and advocates of AIDS will simply say "wow, well it sure fooled me then, because I was convinced it was real because of all this "overwhelming" evidence."

Bottom line is the meds that they say are supposed to keep you alive and can allow you to "beat" this "terrible disease" are produced for around 5 bucks a bottle, while they charge around 500+ for that same bottle. If that is not suspicious enough wait till you hear how they diagnose Africans: By looking at them. Seriously. That is how they do it. They go a village or city and if a person is African, and they look ill...they have AIDS and that’s that. Testing is too expensive so they just do it by sizing them up now. I believe the term "junk science" is quite applicable here.

Are there people dying everyday of terrible diseases? Yes. Should we group 30 or so of these diseases, which are completely unrelated and call that "AIDS"? I say no way.

These same "AIDS defining diseases" have existed before HIV and all have known causes and cures/prevention.

I highly recommend watching Christine Maggiore's film called
"The Other Side of AIDS"


You can also go here to watch HIV = AIDS, Fact or Fraud? on Google Video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4396856850556632563&q=hiv


Here some other good websites:

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index.htm

http://www.rethinkaids.com/quotes/rethinkers.htm (scroll to the very bottom of this one for many more links)

http://www.theperthgroup.com/index.shtml (this is an excellent, in depth informative, empowring site. If you check out anything check this one out, but beware you have to read alot!! )

AZT = death!

_________________
http://www.positivelyfalse.com

Be excellent to each other - (Bill and Ted)

I have been friendly with Christine Maggiore since 1993, when I briefly served on the board of directors of her organization, then called HEAL LA. I've been horrified by the events of the past year and a half, but I am relieved to see that thus far the federales have not been on her case, as there was much talk of her being prosecuted.

Interestingly, if it had not been for Christine's impressive competence, I may not have gone in the direction I did, as I was at a crossroads of choosing which subject I wanted to pursue, the AIDS dissension or the Christ conspiracy. Since the AIDS dissension was in such capable hands with a beautiful queen bee already, I decided my credentials and abilities were better applied to the exposure of the Christ hoax.

Although what has happened to Christine is quite alarming, I continue to see little evidence to show that HIV is at the bottom of the decimation we have seen in Africa, which is constantly being held up as "proof" the reality of the HIV=AIDS paradigm.

I just had a deja vu while typing that last paragraph. I haven't had one of those in a while. Interesting.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Deja Vu is a good thing to have I think. It's the “Vuja De” that you have to worry about...you know...when you do something over and over but each time feels like it has never happened before.

I feel so bad about Christine Maggiore's daughter. Now people are jumping all over her and pointing fingers saying "told you so" and it's so horrible because her daughter didn't die from AIDS, but from what I understand was an [ear?] infection which was treated with a substance that she had a very poor reaction to. It really does suck, I have to say that the case is such.
I mean it's somewhere on the same lines as you writing the Christ Con and then a week later having lightning strike your house. I mean imagine what the idiots would be screaming about you. It's insanity, and so unfortunate.

What an interesting coincidence that not only do you know Maggiore but also that you were considering writing about AIDS. I think both AIDS and the Religion Con (as well as quite a few other subjects) are noble efforts and I wish one day I can aspire to do something to aid the movement as well. You are an inspiration to me for the subject matter you tackle and also the quality of writing you do, and also because you seem to be younger than most folks who stick their neck out there doing similar things, and for this you deserve to be backed by everyone who cares about truth and real progress.

It's so pathetic how we decide we're going to go to Africa and "help" those who have "AIDS". I recently wrote an anonymous 20 something page essay about the fraud that is AIDS to my HIV/AIDS class (which I was either violently castigated for, or from a few classmates, praised) here is an excerpt from my thoughts on Africa:
---.....Just like the notion that Africa was fine until HIV struck the populous. Africa is what we call POOR as DIRT and that means they don’t have access to proper nutrition and clean water, and this has been the case for years and years way before HIV and AIDS. If we really gave a half of a shit about those people we would be bringing them clean food, clean water and clothing. We would not only do that, but help them get farms started, irrigation systems, and help them become self dependant. We would try and respect their way of life, rather than try and impose our medical practices on their people. How much can a country grow if it is forced to depend on another? We really think we can ride in there on our white horses and come bearing the panacea to cure their problems, and then we leave after a few weeks and think we have done something good? I am ALL about helping not just Africans but EVERYONE who needs it. But you don’t help people by making them dependent on you. It doesn’t work that way, sorry.
As the old saying goes “if you can teach a man to fish…”

You help people by educating them.
And so we hear about how we go to Africa and “educate” these people. And what does this education consist of? It is making sure they understand, recite and repeat that HIV is caused by AIDS. HIV will kill you if it remains untreated. HIV can be overcome, all you must do is take these wonderful drugs.
This is education, you see. This is “progress.”

And so we go back to our running water, our warm showers, and sanitary environments and forget all about the fact that we didn’t do shit for those people at all. And we are applauded by our peers. And we smile for the cameras and embrace little children and show classrooms videos made by the “Christian Children’s Foundation” showing how lucky those poor people are that they have us to depend on. This is progress my friends. This is modern reason….
If I were to go to Africa to try and make a change, I would leave after years not weeks, and I would be in tears when I left because I would feel like I was leaving behind my family, and I would not leave until I felt that I really had made a difference. And who knows, maybe that is in my future. I am not financially capable of such a task at this point and I feel like I need to study more, but who knows, maybe it is in my future to do this. If I do, I promise I won’t go as part of any organization, any government funded clique, or any agency that is designed to make backdoor profits. Maybe it is in my future to help some other people, or do something else. The point is, we shouldn’t pawn off making some people we will never see again, repeat our rubric for education as helping them. I can promise as long as we call the problems of Africa an infectious disease, Africa will still be where it is today.....---

I'm curious what you know about HIV/AIDS. I personally feel like it's obvious that there is massive fraud by what you would call the "medical intelligenstia," but, as far as HIV even existing I am very skeptical of even this benign possible. The bottom line though, IMO is that this is a secondary concern. I mean to say HIV does not cause AIDS or to say HIV doesn't even exist at all, is basically saying the same thing; which is that the variable "HIV" in the equation is completely benign. And advocates of both theories still point to the same causes for the various unrelated diseases we call AIDS.
By the way, I don't know if you already have, but if you get a chance put "Dancing Naked in the Mind Field" on your to-read list. I'm not a particularly speedy reader and I finished it in 3 hours...enjoyed every chapter.

As far as HEAL, I was actually disappointed because I figured there may be a chapter in Phoenix where I could volunteer at, but no such luck.

_________________
http://www.positivelyfalse.com

Be excellent to each other - (Bill and Ted)

Thanks for the kudos. "Young?" Relatively speaking, perhaps, but certainly solidly middle aged...

If you have a first edition of Maggiore's book, I'm mentioned in it. I attended several of the meetings in LA, had lunch with Peter Duesberg, et al., where I told him he had very nice skin. Being a German, he looked like a deer in the headlights at that one. At Christine's house, I also met Robert Willner, MD, who had pricked his finger and then rubbed supposedly HIV-infected blood in it. He never got a chance to develop AIDS, as he died of a massive heart attack while eating at Denny's. (Some postulated it was a "CIA heart attack.") I was very friendly with Jon Rappoport for a while. I believe it was he who introduced me to Christine. Jon's AIDS Inc. was the first book I readon the subject, way back when. I was also in communication with TC Fry, author of The Great AIDS Hoax, until his untimely demise. He was quite a character. I once watched an amazing debate with Christine and David Rasnick on one side and a couple of establishment doctors on the other. Christine ran circles around the lot of 'em. I also met Duesberg's former partner Bryan Ellison, who likewise gave a talk at the same facility in Los Angeles. According to Duesberg, Ellison "stole" his entire work, but that so frequently happens between research partners.

So, what do I know? Well, I haven't kept abreast in the last several years, but that list of "credentials" might reveal a thing or two. Let's just say I have been fully apprised of the AIDS dissension for a long time and know just about all that it represents, although, not being up to date, I wouldn't want to get into any debate about it. I used to have an article on AIDS online, for which I was also castigated. I took it down for various reasons that I will not go into. I have always maintained that Christine is in a very dangerous situation and that she could be held legally liable for a number of things - she is a very courageous woman. I am hopeful that this horror with her beautiful daughter, who was born just a couple of months before my son, will not lead to her demise. There are other issues for which the feds could get her into serious trouble, including her work with women who are attempting to circumvent various AIDS laws regarding feeding AZT to their children or not breastfeeding.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it: