Http___www.geocities.com_athens_atlantis_8820_aidtest.txt

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/8820/aidtest.txt HIV TEST IS A FRAUDGary Null, host of Natural Living, WBAI Radio, New York CityPortion of broadcast 3/21/96 GARY NULL: Hi everyone. I'm Gary Null. It's nice to have you with ustoday.
We're continuing with our series today on health issues, but we're going totake a little different turn; we're not going to talk specifically aboutnutrition. That is a part of health, but it's not the primary part ofhealth. In fact, when I have discussed in the past of how we can evaluateour health, it is only after travelling the world and seeing people incultures that are living long and very prosperous lives, in their body, mind,and spirit, social connections, family ties. and they've never taken avitamin pill, they've never had a colonic, they've never had the joy ofjuicing.
Well then, how'd they do it? You're going to find out. But we begin bylooking, for the next five minutes, at the news in the area of health andnutrition. And I try to present information that you would generally NOTfind in most other media. For example: Recently the Gay Men's Health Crisis put on it's annual MarchFor AIDS, and of course people wanting to see the condition of AIDS and theindividuals that it affects cured and people helped (which is a noble cause),never really ask: "Whatever happens to the money? Does anyone actually getbetter?," because all the hoopla is in the event itself.
Well, I'd like to make a few challenges. I'd like to challenge the mediato show that I'm wrong. I'd like to challenge the AIDS community in itsentirety to show that I'm wrong on this one issue, because this is the heartof the WHOLE issue: We're told that you should take and AIDS test, and if you have theantibodies to the HIV virus then the predictability is that you will, intime, after a latent period, will come down with AIDS - one of thetwenty-nine opportunistic infections - and die. I say that at just ON ONELEVEL, the test is a complete fraud. And I accuse the individuals who haveperpetrated this as being irresponsible and must, absolutely must, be heldlegally liable for wrongful death.
Now, I don't make claims spuriously, and I certainly don't make themwithout doing a great deal of research. Let me give you some specifics: It is impossible - absolutely scientifically impossible - and there's not ascientist on earth who can show me evidence to the contrary, and I open thedoor for them to do so [on my radio program to prove that HIV is present inall AIDS cases]. Call the C. D. C. after this show. Call any AIDSorganization. Tell them what I'm saying and say I will give them a forum tochallenge me on this issue. And if they cannot prove that what I'm saying iswrong, then they should acknowledge that telling people to have an HIV testis, itself, fraudulent.
No one, I repeat, no one under ANY circumstances should have the HIV test.
It is a fraud. A complete and total fraud. Why is it a fraud? Becausethere's no "gold standard." That means that it is impossible to claim thatHIV has been present in all AIDS cases. The C. D.C. admits that 43,606American AIDS cases have never been tested for HIV. Using the Centers forDisease Control's statistics, you can calculate an additional 18,666 have notbeen tested, totaling 62,272 cases.
In Africa, virtually no one is tested. The resources for HIV antibody testsare simply not available in most sub-Saharan African countries. Instead, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/8820/aidtest.txt Africans are diagnosed with AIDS on the basis of clinical case definitionwhich consists of a cough that is non-productive for about 30 days, fever, persistent diarrhea (again for about 30 days), and weight loss of greaterthan ten percent of body weight (again for 30 days). However, theseIDENTICAL symptoms can be caused by a number of diseases endemic in Africancountries. In fact, on the rare occasions when groups of African AIDSpatients have been tested, over 50% have had HIV NEGATIVE condition.
Even if all cases throughout the world had been tested and then found to bepositive, this would still offer NO PROOF that AIDS patients are infectedwith HIV. Since during the initial development of the HIV antibody test, andeven to this day, the tests were never verified by an independent "goldstandard." Absolutely not once, anywhere. I've just gone all over the world trying to find the independentverification of this test. I have not found it. The "gold standard" meansthat it is necessary to correlate a positive antibody test with findings ofactual virus in the body of the person being tested. And a negative testwith findings of no virus in the body. HIV antibody tests have been subjected to severe criticism by manyindividuals, including Dr. Eleni Eleopulos in her research, and others, for amultitude of reasons, the most important is that an antibody test is notvalid unless it has been authenticated by use of an independent "goldstandard" which, for HIV antibody tests, must be the presence of HIV itself.
Dr. Eleopulos' team thoroughly searched the literature on antibody testingand found no researcher anywhere in the world had yet met the requirements ofa "gold standard." Thus, they concluded that the relationship between HIVpositive antibody tests and HIV infection has not been sustained.
I'm Gary Null. Nice to have you with us. Offering a challenge to the peoplewho have believed that AIDS: A.) Is an epidemic. I have not seen anyevidence of that. B.) that it is spreading wildly within the heterosexualcommunity. That is absolutely a lie, and it's never been justified, and yet justrecently The Wall Street Journal, in its first article on the subject and theonly American newspaper to do what the [Sunday] Times of London had alreadydone over two years ago - this is a two year delay - finally informed thepublic that the Centers for Disease Control had been perpetrating a massivelie for public relations reasons on the average American. Feeling that,"Well, if we really were honest about AIDS and it really is only affectingpeople in small segments - intravenous drug users, fast-track gays,hemophiliacs, and people susceptible to the infection due to bloodtransfusions, then it would be an infinitesimal part of the population.
But because activists have been extraordinarily successful in getting theirvoices heard, making it politically incorrect to challenge them; so noweveryone assumes that everything we have been told about HIV is correct. Thetrouble is it is not; it's time to start correcting it. I'm going to ask my guest who's just on our line right now, standing by.
Jim Montevelli, nice to have you with us, Jim. Hi. How are you? Jim, I just want to finish a few thoughts and them I'm going to come back to you and we're going to start with you talking about consumerism,and how Americans are becoming somewhat dissatisfied with the "work, buy,spend, and throw-it-away ethic. All right? http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/8820/aidtest.txt But I just want to finish some thoughts here, and I'm repeating a little bit because some stations come in only 6 minutes into the show. Theyhave their own N. P. R. news they listen to and so I'll just pick it up fromhere. I'm challenging that the AIDS test is legitimate. It is NOTlegitimate. Therefore, laws that suggest people should mandatorily take it,testing babies, putting people on excessive toxic chemotherapies such as AZTor DDI or DDC or Bactrim when they test positive - even if they're completelyhealthy - just goes against all science and even all common sense.
What do you think would happen if you took every doctor working atSloan-Ketterling -- and by the way, this would be a very good idea; I reallythink this would be good -- and take every doctor working who has evertreated someone with AIDS, and say, "This is a person who has an HIVantibody, so-called, to the AIDS virus, and they're completely healthy andyou're now going to give them the most toxic chemotherapy agents known, invery high doses, all day long. Even into the night. They actually wake upand take it during the night. Would you take an equally toxic chemotherapyfor yourself, as a healthy American, every day, all day? And your family,every day, all day? And your children, every day, all day? Just as you'retelling people to take AZT?" What do you think would happen to that healthy person taking AZT? How longwould it take them to get cancer when they're totally healthy? Kidneydisease? Brain disease? Central nervous system disease? Wasting disease? Night sweats? Fever? Destruction of their immune system? Would it be aweek? A month? The very thing that you would expect would happen in a very short period oftime, and yet we're telling people to take AZT every day of their life. Andno one sees the madness of this? That there is no science? Science went tosleep on its ethics in America when it learned it could make a lot of money.
Today you have to ask: How many scientists do you know that exist who cannotbe bought? Now, to the test itself, which is a fraud, and I absolutely suggest that noone ever again take this test . . . and tell your public health officialsthat they ought to go back to school on A.) biochemistry, B.) virology, and C.) ethics.
Cross-reactions with non-HIV antibodies have been documented in thepresence of the following: First, other retroviruses besides HIV. Forinstance, the flu virus - that's right, the common cold virus. Now what doesthat mean? That means that you can get a cold, be a healthy individual, ahealthy gay, a healthy heterosexual. You go in and you get an HIV antibodytest. The antibodies to your flu virus or your cold virus could cross-reactand show that you're HIV positive. You would freak out. You'd wonder howyou got infected. And then immediately you'd be put on AZT and then guesswhat? You would end up with all kinds of immuno-depression.
Now, it also cross reacts with, guess what? Herpes simplex II. That'sright. All of you out there who have Herpes simplex, what is that, abouthalf the population? Half this radio audience? Yep! Half the population hasherpes. Well, herpes simplex II can cross-react with the HIV antibody testand make you "positive." Hepatitis B virus. All micro-bacterial species including tuberculosis,leprosy, and M avium [sp?]. Vaccinations like the flu vaccine, the hepatitisvaccine. Even pregnancy itself changes your hormones so that you can crossreact and create a positive antibody test. Blood transfusions. . . hemophilia. . . blood-clotting factor . . . sperm. That's correct: sperm also. A highly oxidized physiological condition (which occurs by the way when youstart using drugs or blood products), auto-immune diseases like lupus, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/8820/aidtest.txt arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis. That's right. Someone could go in and betested for the HIV virus -- which has, by the way, never been seen. It'snever been identified. It's never been isolated. There is no singleisolation of the HIV virus by itself in existence. Only antibodies. But nowwe're seeing that the antibodies are not true antibodies. There's no "goldstandard" because you could go in and have arthritis and test positive on theHIV antibody test. Sogrin's [sp?] disease, cancer such as multiple myeloma, alcoholichepatitis, alcoholism, liver disease, natural occurring antibodies such asantibodies to carbohydrate, nuclear antigens, human T-cells, mitochondria,cellular actin [sp?] tapeworms, parasites, malaria, malnutrition. Those arejust some of the things that you didn't know that I'm telling you today cancross-react to create a positive antibody test. That means that an awful lot of Americans have probably died who werecompletely healthy and had a positive cross-reaction and were put on AZT.
Remember the couple that tested positive? The heterosexual couple testedpositive and killed themselves, committed suicide. So many thing happenbecause of this.
According to a Dr. Langick [sp?], almost all reactions, especially inlow-risk populations, represent false positive results. Unquote. Both onthe ELISA and the Western Blot. In the general population, it has beengenerally accepted by mainstream AIDS researchers that positive results arelikely to be false positives. Many, many articles that I have, have been written in the scientificliterature, expressing concern about this problem. According to Dr. Gimenson [sp?], he said, quote, "At some point of extremely low disease prevalence itis expected that the positive predictive value of most powerful assay serieswill deteriorate to a substandard level of performance." Unquote. The mathematics of the relationship between test specificity, diseaseprevalence and positive predictive value consistently predict that inlow-prevalence populations - the average person, by the way, - almost allpositives are false positives. Now, in the general population - which the C. D.C. estimates to have aprevalence of HIV infection of 0.04% - using a test it shows that the averageperson would not be positive, but could show positive. Though I'm justsuggesting this; I'm suggesting a challenge. I'm suggesting that the HIVantibody test should not be used. I'm suggesting that it meets no scientific"gold standard". I'm suggesting that because it cross-reacts with so many other things,including, in Africa, that it cannot be distinguished - you cannotdistinguish the difference between what we're calling AIDS and so many otherconditions such as malaria and tuberculosis. And in fact there's no "goldstandard" even for the HIV positive test. For example: the Western Blot by which you're measuring four strands ofthe gag gene in one country, three in Australia, two in Africa. The P-120,P-160, P-41, P-32, P-24, P-31 - so what they're doing is if you testedpositive in one country you could go to another country and test negative.
Same test, same blood. Just because they have different standards. There'snot even a standard, a universal standard. So it is crazy. It's crazy. And I'll tell you this: Why don't you dothis: Ask your average doctor who would give you an antibody test, ask him,"Describe the Western Blot. What is it exactly? What exactly is itmeasuring? How exactly does it measure it? And how exactly is it differentfrom the ELISA test?" http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/8820/aidtest.txt Then say this: "Did you know that they stopped using the Western Blot inmost of Europe and in England in 1992, because they saw that it was soworthless?" Then ask your doctor, "Did you know that the man, Robert Gallo,makes a royalty off every one of these tests that are done? That it is oneof the most profitable tests in the word? And who does the money go to?" I'm Gary Null. I'd like for you to think on that. Now, let's go over toJim. Jim, how are you doing? MONTEVELLI: I'm doing OK, Gary. That was very interesting.
Well, it's the kind of thing that no one talks about. You're certainly not going to read about it in the New York Times. You're not goingto read about it in most of the AIDS publications, because everyone hasalready accepted it as absolute religious dogma that the HIV test islegitimate. And hence they make our determination of who is going to getAIDS based upon a false test that has no standard. MONTEVELLI: Well, I'm definitely going to look into that. I found it veryinteresting. I've never heard any of that.
I know, and so I put this challenge out. I challenge any doctor in the world to show me that I'm wrong. And fair enough; find a doctor - butremember: they must show that if a test is to be considered a "gold standard"it must have certain criteria. For instance, if you're going to say, "We'regoing to test you for smallpox," right? And your blood is going to be testedto see if it reacts against smallpox. It can't react against anything else,otherwise it would be a false positive, correct? Then did anyone know that we had all these false positives with MONTEVELLI: I'd never heard that. That's why I found that very interesting,that the test was very unreliable, and other thing can trigger it off. All these other things can. Do you know that seven out of ten people in San Francisco who had a flu vaccine, a flu shot after they gaveblood, then tested positive on an HIV antibody test? And yet all of themwere in low-risk groups, then later tested negative? MONTEVELLI: Well, I can certainly see. You're basically saying that AZTcan cause a lot of AIDS-like symptoms, or basically kill people . . .
I'm saying that AZT cannot be distinguished from AIDS in its Now I have the manual of AZT, and I have the Merck manual on its side-effects. All the side effects are virtually indistinguishable fromAIDS. So, think of Kimberly Bergalis. Think of Ryan White and healthy youngpeople who tested positive and could have tested positive. Ryan White's ahemophiliac . . . A lot of false positives.
So let's say they test false positive, but they're otherwise healthy.
They're put on chemotherapy. Now, do you know any human being who couldstay healthy being given one of the most toxic chemotherapy drugs - so toxicthat when AZT was originally created it was not created by BurroughsWellcome, it was created by the National Cancer Institute and they banned it.
They wouldn't use it because it was too toxic. Now you give this to a http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/8820/aidtest.txt healthy young immune system. What do you think is going to happen to thatimmune system? MONTEVELLI: Well, I can see why it would definitely cause problems. You bet it would. So then the person ends up having a complete breakdown of the immune system. Now here's the "Catch-22": As the immunesystem continues to deteriorate, then you start flooding the body withantibiotics. What happens when you flood the body with antibiotics? Furtherbreakdown of the immune system. And in time, then the person developsthrush. Well, I can take any healthy person in this audience, stress theirimmune system for three days, and they'll get candida. Now either yourebuild the immune system, rest the person, detox it and clean it so itre-creates normalcy, or you give it an antibiotic.
MONTEVELLI: You're also making the point that there's a lot of money made asa result of AZT and the patents on these drugs and on the AIDS test.
I don't believe one nickel should be spent on the war on AIDS.
Not one penny. Not one nickel. And do you know why? Because we are spending six billion dollars. More money will be spent on AIDS this year than on cancer and heart disease combined. We have600,000 people dying of cancer - 1.7 million new cases. We have a millionpeople dying of heart disease. We have 50 million people with heart disease.
And yet the most AIDS cases that we can find on an un-reliable test is600,000 people. Six hundred thousand! - And since the whole history of AIDSin this country, and consider that at least one third of those were nevertested. And now look at how many that were tested and would have tested falsepositive and that gives you an idea that we've been putting money into acampaign that is based upon bad science. And we should pull back and get ridof the politics. Get rid of all the special interest groups. Get rid of allthe screaming activists who are self-serving and take a good look. What dowe have? And what we see we have are people and conditions based onlifestyle that should be modified.
But if you go tell someone, "Hey, what you did could have caused yourdisease," they're going to get up and scream in your face. They don't wantto hear that. They don't want to be responsible. Nobody wants to beresponsible.
And I say - and by the way I just challenged HIV antibody test - but I'mready to challenge every single aspect of this because I've been studying -I've spent thousands of hours - I just spent a whole lot of time in Europeand all over the world. I've got film footage from five countries in Africawhere doctors who have lived there and worked there their WHOLE CAREER, Jim,their whole career in the epicenter of so-called AIDS, will tell you, "I'venever seen a case of AIDS." They're in the epicenter. They've seen thousands of cases of malaria andT. B. And they say, "You know why? It's really strange. Someone will comeover here and photograph all these people in villages where there is noelectricity and no running water and no sanitation, no sewers . no FOOD.
They see people dying. They say, 'Hummm, must be AIDS."' And they take all the people that they consider AIDS and they make a figureout of that. Now the country gets five million dollars for AIDS. They getnew vehicles. They get loads of condoms. And they make new roads. Not anickel goes to feeding the people. Not a nickel goes to fixing theirtuberculosis or their malaria. Not a nickel goes to putting in new water http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/8820/aidtest.txt systems or sanitation. No money goes into any of the things that couldfundamentally shift the people's health. As a result, when the doctors there DO - through Christian charities,through Catholic organizations, through the Jesuit organizations - feedpeople and help them with their malaria, lo and behold the miracle of amiracle, they no longer have AIDS. Well, of course they never had AIDS.
They had T. B. and malaria and now they don't have it. Now they're well.
But does any news media want to cover that? Does any AIDS organization wantto put that in their magazine? You bet not. So I just think it's time that we stop all this nonsense and be honest.
And you know, you almost get to a point in America where you don't know ifanyone can ever be honest again about anything.
MONTEVELLI: (Laughs) I know what you mean! Did you ever . . . if Tom Brokaw . . . SCREW THESE PEOPLE, MAN!!! I don't know ANYBODY in the media who can be honest anymore. I can't find apolitician that's honest. I can't find a lawyer that's honest. I can't findan activist that's honest. I can't find ANYONE in the AIDS organizations thatis willing to be honest because everybody's got their ego attached, theirself-interest attached. Do you know how many hundreds of thousands of jobs are now in thesefoundations that are completely self-serving? The whole PURPOSE of theirfoundation is to promote. And no one says, "Where'd you get your money? Howmuch of your money came from Burroughs Wellcome?" Do you know the largestgiver or research grants in England is the Wellcome Foundation, the BurroughsWellcome company that makes AZT is giving more money to doctors? Are thosedoctors going to turn around and bite the hand that fed them? Are they? And in America, we're the whore of whore countries. Right? we'll Hey, am I wrong? If I'm wrong tell me I'm wrong. MONTEVELLI: As far as I know, you're right. I want to look into this AIDSthing. I want to know more about this, and I think it's very interesting.
You say very provocative things, but you back it up with a lot of evidence.
So I want to look into it. Have I ever said anything that I don't have the documentation for? MONTEVELLI: No, you usually have evidence of everything you talk about . .
. I have evidence for everything, and if you come down to my office, I'm sitting here with over 100,000 studies. I've got the largest privatecollection of AIDS research and alternative approaches in this country. Iwouldn't be saying this if I hadn't gone out there and spent hours and hoursand hours. By the way, do you know anyone who's gone out to interview KaryMullis who won the Nobel Prize for creating the PCR? GARY NULL: When I was interviewing him I said, "Do you know why anyone hasNOT come to interview you?" And he said, "Yeah. I know why." I said, "Whyis that?" He said, "I've got something to tell them that they don't want to http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/8820/aidtest.txt hear, and that's going to go against everything they've been publishing andeverything they believe. So they just kind of avoid me." [Editor's note:Noble Prize Winner Mullis has stated that HIV is not necessary for AIDS andcannot by itself cause AIDS.] EXCERPT FROM NATURAL LIVING 6/14/96 BROADCAST GARY NULL: This is for those who believe that HIV tests are legitimate: I've asked my audience not to take HIV tests. I consider them a scientificfraud. And I defy any doctor, any scientist in this audience, to prove mewrong. I've just completed the most in-depth, comprehensive investigation ofworld-wide literature. I've done over a hundred interviews with leadingscientists, biologists and retro-virologists and I can't find where there'sANY legitimate tests that you could take to determine if you even have whatwe're calling an HIV virus, which you'll see on upcoming programs, that I'meven going to challenge that the HIV virus exists, let alone the HIVlegitimate test.
Well, there was a group of individuals - clearly from one organization inNew York City - who also, I might add, get a lot of their money fromBurroughs Wellcome, the makers of AZT. And one of these people confronted meon the street about a month ago. I was walking out of a health-food storeand walking down the street and this guy comes up and just starts screamingin my face: "You're telling people they shouldn't be getting an HIV test? That's the only way we can save people!" I listened to him rant and rave and carry on. And I said, "Well, show methat the HIV antibody test is specific for the HIV virus, and I wouldrecommend it. But you can't do that. Show me the evidence. Bring it overto my office. I'll sit and go over it with you." And of course he had noevidence because there is no evidence.
The Western Blot test is a fraud. Absolute fraud. And I'm calling anydoctor who uses it: "Be wary. The day may come when you get massive lawsuitsand I hope you do. I hope they sue your ass off." Because think of all thepeople that we're now going through all the process of documenting, who'vecommitted suicide and who have had their lives ruined because they testedpositive for this "antibody." This is another case where American sciencegoes crazy, but for a different reason: pure, unmitigated greed.
Well, guess what I got today? This is from the American Journal ofEpidemiology. Research done at Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and PublicHealth; Volume 141, Number 11. Let them quote exactly from the title of thearticle. Listen carefully, audience, because I promise you - I promise you, you won't read this in the New York Times. Quote, "Multiple False Reactionsin Viral Antibody Screening Assays After Influenza Vaccination", unquote.
That's the title of the article. The article is by a Dr. Lown Samunson[sp?], Johanna Buffington, Craig Shapiro, Robert Holman, Tara Shrine [sp],Brenda Grossman, Alan Williams, and Lawrence Schoenberger. These are alldoctors. And it goes on to say that U.S. blood donors are routinely screened byenzyme immuno assay for antibodies to human immuno-deficiency virus one,human T-cell lymphotrophic virus type one, hepatitis C virus. And then itgoes on to talk about how the influenza vaccine that people are routinelygiven -- in fact, blood donors are ROUTINELY given this after they giveblood, plus, look at how many in the American population get influenzavaccine. All fall we're told to get an influenza vaccine. All winter we'retold to get an influenza vaccine. Now this shows that the antibodies in that influenza vaccine, GUESS WHAT! - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/8820/aidtest.txt will cross react with the HIV antibody test. Which means that if you have noHIV at all, if you had this vaccine, you could end up getting a falsepositive test. Even if it's repeated, you could get a false positive test.
Imagine . . . And by the way, this is not the only study of its kind. Ihave a couple other studies, including some people in San Francisco that weregiving blood and 70% of those who gave blood were then given the influenzavaccine. Of those who were given the vaccine, 70% tested false positive.
What do you think goes on in a person's mind when their suddenly told thatthey have HIV, the virus that "kills," when in fact, you're never tested fora virus. That's not humanly possible with this, because no one to date hasever isolated the HIV virus. Not Luc Montagnier, not Gallo, not any of thepeople. All you have is strands of what they're calling particles of an HIV.
Well, think of what you would do when you went home. Your immune systemwould go right through the floor. You'd be depressed, you'd be anxious.
You'd be terrified. You'd be paranoid. Think of what would happen when you had to start telling everyone in yourlife that you had HIV. Your doctor would immediately, in the knee-jerkreaction that those simpletons will do, would put you on the most toxicchemotherapies known. Chemotherapies that in a healthy individual will KILLyou, will create the very symptom that we're calling AIDS. And no doctor onEARTH is capable of distinguishing the difference between diseases that we'recalling AIDS caused by the retro-virals that we give individuals - and theso-called disease, itself.
And now you start taking these. And your immune system initially shoots upfor a few months because your body's on full alert. And then it plummetsdown, and it continues to go down. Why wouldn't it go down? Five, six timesa day you keep giving it chemotherapy. But you don't give it chemotherapyfor a month as some people with cancer have, or even two months. You have totake it every day the rest of your life. And then, what had been acompletely healthy, normal person now is dying. And they're suffering froman iatrogenic1, drug-induced, doctor-induced death. There was no virus there. There was not even an antibody to the virus. Itwas cross-reacting. NOW we have evidence that it cross-reacts with malaria,tuberculosis, arthritis, lupus, hepatitis. Yep. And yet we still allow thefraud of the AIDS research to continue on, where 100,000 scientists arebilking the American public for more money each year than is spent on canceror heart disease. And by the way, I'll say something else: Are you aware that in England ifyou test positive for HIV you get a car free; you never have to work the restof your life. Here in the United States you immediately go on disability andspend the rest of your life - even if you're COMPLETELY HEALTHY - and Iinterview people who you will SEE, who will tell you right on tape that theyhaven't worked a day since they showed up and said they had some nightsweats. And they get all kinds of special advantages. They don't have towork.
They automatically get Social Security disability payments - they even geta sticker, some of these people. They get free transportation and community[aid] . . all this kind of stuff! You didn't know it, did you? Well, youdidn't have a gay lobby behind you. You didn't have everyone wearing thosenice little red ribbons, did you? So you see, you made the mistake ofgetting cancer. You fool! You got heart disease! You should have gottenAIDS! Well, it's about time this whole septic system got challenged. I'm sick ofit. I'm going to challenge it and, God, I'm going to challenge this fraud! Wait until you see the documentary coming out. It's "comin' at ya," like itor not, like a ten thousand pound Gorilla. It's going to come up, over the http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/8820/aidtest.txt hill in about three months. And hopefully at that time, with the orchestraof good quality scientists that are NOT frauds, NOT greedy, and NOT lying,people will know more about this disease syndrome than they've ever knownbefore.
Just thought I'd share that with you because I'm particularly interested inthis guy who spat in my face for about three minutes. I'm going to send himover a series of articles today because he was emphatic: "HIV tests areabsolutely accurate." I said, "No they're not. There's no science tosupport that." "Everybody should get an HIV test! We're lobbying to getEVERYBODY an HIV test." Hey, their lobbies are pretty good. Look at all thepregnant woman now, look at all the babies. All it takes is a really activist group and they can get their agenda set.
But what if their agenda is the wrong agenda? That concerns me. And I'malso embarrassed at how few journalists have looked at the truth, who KNOWthe truth and want to report on it. Maybe they won't get invited to FireIsland or East Hampton this summer. Well, too bad. 1 i·at·ro·gen·ic (º-²t"r.-jµn"¹k) adj. Induced in a patient by aphysician's activity, manner, or therapy. Used especially of an infection orother complication of treatment. [Greek iatros, physician; see -IATRIC +-genic.] --i·at"ro·gen"i·cal·ly adv.

Source: http://inormous.net/webdav/docs/http___www.geocities.com_Athens_Atlantis_8820_aidtest.txt.pdf