Making Our Case In the Battle For Truth
John Lauritsen
Conference: Challenging Avaricious Viral Paradigms
Vers Pont du Gard
16 June 2018
Good morning.
Much has happened in the last third of a century. We are still
fighting against the most colossal blunder and hoax in medical
history. I am proud to be among you.
I've been thinking back to the beginning of the epidemic. In the
early 1980s came the first reports of allegedly rare diseases among gay
men and intravenous drug users. It was scary. And
mysterious. The media did their best to terrify us. We were
told to check ourselves for swollen lymph glands, marks on our skin,
night sweats.... We were told to avoid sex, wash our hands a lot,
and be afraid.
From the very beginning, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) ordained
that a new infectious agent was responsible. They completely
ignored drugs and anything peculiar to the circumstances of the two
main risk groups, gay men and intravenous drug users. I sensed
that the CDC were on the wrong track, and naively thought that I would
able to help them. After all, I was a survey research analyst,
and as a gay activist, I knew the gay world. Boy, was I ever
wrong! Behind the scenes, people were fabricating the AIDS
narrative, and the last thing they needed was for me to butt in with
reality checks.
For a while I couldn't decide whether the CDC were dishonest or
incompetent, and finally concluded: both. They were truly
incompetent, ignorant of elementary statistics. At the same time,
they lied. Government agencies, mainstream media, AIDS groups,
Big Pharma — they all lie, all of the time. My first major “AIDS”
article (1985) showed that the CDC were deliberately construing “AIDS”
as an infectious disease, rather than sicknesses caused by toxins.*
Looking back on the AIDS war, I am overwhelmed by its enormity. I
long since gave up trying to track the deaths of people with “AIDS”
diagnoses. I stress, “diagnoses”, since there really is no such
thing as “AIDS”, which has never been defined rationally. The CDC
changed definitions many times, began conflating “AIDS” with “HIV
disease”, and simply stopped reporting on “AIDS” deaths. What we
do know is that well over half a million people with “AIDS” diagnoses
have died in the United States alone. In addition, countless tens
of thousands of people with “HIV-positive” diagnoses have died without
ever progressing to an “AIDS” diagnosis. To put these figures
into perspective, in all of World War II, there were 407,316 military
deaths; in World War I, there were 116,708. These casualties were
recorded to single digits, whereas a plus or minus figure for “AIDS”
deaths would run to hundreds of thousands. No one knows.
Almost all of these deaths of people with “AIDS” or “HIV” diagnoses
were caused by worthless and toxic drugs — and the terror caused by
AIDS propaganda — and by the false information given out by the AIDS
Establishment: heroin users were told to keep shooting up, but with
clean needles; gay men were told that poppers were harmless.
In this talk I'm going to concentrate on two main points. One,
our messages should be as simple as possible. Two, we must
survive.
From the beginning, AIDS talk has been technical. The AIDS
Establishment bombarded us with propaganda about branches of the immune
system ... T-cells and CD4 ratios ... retroviruses ... new and rare
diseases ... to the point of information overload. On our side,
Peter Duesberg countered by talking about pro-viruses, biochemical
activity, titres, latency period, mitosis, and so on. The Perth
group put forward technical arguments that the ELISA and Western Blot
tests are worthless.
It is one thing to communicate with specialists, but it is also
important for us to communicate with open-minded non-specialists.
I'll give an example. In 1988 the New York Native published an
article of mine, “The Epidemiology of Fear”.** The AIDS
Establishment, grossly misinterpreting some rather tentative research,
was claiming that unless effective drugs were developed, virtually
everyone infected with HIV would die. Writing as a survey
research analyst, I showed that journalists were totally ignorant of
basic statistics, as well as common sense.**
I always sent copies of my articles to my parents, who lived in a small
town in Nebraska. My mother called, saying she had some questions
about that article. I assumed she had not understood some of the
statistical concepts, so I started to explain them. She said:
“Oh, that's obvious.” Then she said she'd written down a list of
things she didn't understand. “First of all, what is DNA
synthesis?” I was taken aback. Most of us have a general
idea what DNA synthesis is, but it is something else to describe it on
the spur-of-the-moment. And frankly, I can never remember more
than one of the DNA building blocks: thymine or thymidine.
We can make a simple case against the orthodox AIDS model. At one
point in the 1991 Meditel documentary, “The AIDS Catch”, narrator
Michael Verney-Elliott says, “AIDS was not behaving like an infectious
disease.” That's it. Truly infectious diseases do not
remain compartmentalized — tightly confined, year after year, to a few
so-called “risk groups”. Sooner or later, a truly infectious
disease will spread into the general population. This is
something an ordinary person can understand.
“AIDS” is not a coherent disease entity, but a construct, whose
definition has changed repeatedly. Basically, an “AIDS” diagnosis
requires two things: HIV plus one or more of the so-called
“AIDS-indicator diseases”. But the “AIDS-indicator diseases”,
which are now well over two dozen, have nothing in common. Some
are caused by bacteria, some by myco-bacteria, some by viruses, some by funguses, and
some by toxins. Some have no known etiology. Some, like
dementia or wasting, can have many different causes.
On the list of “AIDS-indicator diseases” is Kaposi's sarcoma (KS),
which was once the hallmark disease of AIDS. The most dramatic
moment in Larry Kramer's play, “The Normal Heart”, is where Kramer's
lover sees a purple spot on the sole of his foot. The audience is
shocked: they know that he is doomed. At first, KS was considered
to be a rare form of cancer. Patients were given cancer
chemotherapy, which quickly killed them. Everything changed in
1994, when top “AIDS experts”, including Robert Gallo, spoke at a
meeting called by the National Institute on Drug abuse (NIDA). At
this meeting, government experts admitted that KS was not a cancer
after all, but an affliction of the blood vessels. KS is not
caused by HIV. It is not associated with any kind of “immune
deficiency”, but rather with an over-active immune system. The
only tenable hypothesis for the occurrence of KS among gay men is their
use of “poppers” or nitrite inhalants, whose biochemical properties
make them ideal candidates for causing KS.
So then, if KS is not caused by HIV or “immune deficiency”, is it still
an AIDS disease? Yes it is and no it isn't. The AIDS
Establishment can't decide. Being committed to an infectious
disease model, they have proposed still another virus, HHV8, but this
is an absurdity from the standpoint of epidemiology.
The other half of an “AIDS” diagnosis is HIV infection, which can be
inferred through various tests — all worthless — or simply
presumed. Yes, presumed. If a gay man or intravenous drug
user presents with an AIDS-indicator disease, a doctor is permitted to
make an “AIDS” diagnosis by simply presuming that HIV is the cause.
It is all crazy, but a vast AIDS industry, running into tens or even
hundreds of billions of dollars a year, is based on this
craziness. I think that ordinary people, if intelligent and
open-minded, can understand the craziness of the prevailing “AIDS”
definition.
Another issue that can be understood by non-specialists is AZT, which
was once the premier AIDS drug. As I found, from documents
obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, AZT was approved for
marketing by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the basis of
fraudulent research. Blatant cheating took place, especially in
Boston. The FDA itself uncovered this cheating, but nevertheless
deliberately used data that they knew were false. AZT is the most
toxic drug ever approved for long-term use. AZT has no benefits
of any kind demonstrated by good, honest research. As a random
terminator of DNA synthesis, AZT is necessarily incompatible with
life. AZT is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of
thousands of people. Let us not forget AZT, although the AIDS
Establishment would like to forget it.
However, having said all that, it's no longer so simple as just
debunking the “AIDS” paradigm. The AIDS Industry (or racket)
keeps moving the goal posts and creating new paradigms, without
abandoning the old ones or ever admitting they were wrong. It's
like Hercules battling the Hydra monster: as soon as he cuts off one
head, two more heads emerge. The AIDS experts now talk about “HIV
disease” and “HIV infections” rather than about “AIDS”.
Here we need to confront the bogus tests that are used to diagnose “HIV
infection”. This necessarily gets technical. We need to
debunk the ELISA and Western Blot tests, and the misuse of the
Polymerase Chain Reaction tests. We need to argue that true HIV
infection, or viremia, has never been demonstrated, even in a single
case.
We AIDS critics don't need to agree with each other on everything, but
we need to explain what we mean by a “virus” — and in plain
language. Speaking as a layman — neither a doctor nor a
virologist — I sense that Peter Duesberg and the Perth Group have
different definitions of what a virus is. For the Perth Group, a
virus is a cell-free particle. For Duesberg and other molecular
biologists, a virus might be genetic sequences in DNA. Perhaps
I'm wrong about this, and in the discussion period someone can clear
this up.
And the AIDS, or rather HIV Establishment, has changed the game plan
still again. Now it is about “Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis” or
“PrEP”. People allegedly at high risk are expected to “take HIV
medicine (Truvada) daily to lower their chances of getting
infected.” (hiv.gov web site) Ads for Truvada, in print and
on their website, blatantly target gay men. The sheer horror:
healthy people are being brainwashed into taking a toxic drug to
protect themselves against a harmless or non-existent virus.
Now I want to talk about survival. We must be strong, because
psychological warfare is being waged against us.
The two key chapters in my 1993 book, The AIDS War, are “The Risk-AIDS
Hypothesis” and “Recovery From ‘AIDS’”. In the first, I focussed
on the early “AIDS” cases, who were very sick. I argued that
under the “AIDS” umbrella, different risk groups and different
individuals were getting sick in different ways and for different
reasons. And I then went into detail to describe what those
health risks might be.
In the other key chapter, “Recovery From AIDS”, I said that someone
with an “AIDS” diagnosis should examine his life, detoxify his body and
mind, adopt a healthful way of living, and expect health. This is
still true, but we now are dealing with people given “HIV infection”
diagnoses. These people may be completely healthy before getting
their diagnosis. After that, it's downhill. The
psychological consequences of the diagnosis are deadly. Even
deadlier are the drugs.
In counselling people diagnosed with “HIV infection” we need to
convince them that all of the HIV tests are worthless, and that true
HIV infection has never been demonstrated. We need to argue
against the protease inhibitors and other drugs in the
“cocktails”. Contrary to Big Pharma's propaganda, these are not
miracle drugs, which have enabled terminally sick patients to arise,
like Lazarus, from their sickbeds and begin to play tennis or climb
mountains. On the contrary, these drugs are causing healthy
people to get sick. They are causing hideous physical deformities
and death. In Massachusetts, where I live, the leading cause of
death among the “HIV positive” is death from liver failure caused by
the drugs. These are called “deaths before diagnosis”, since the
patients never developed an “AIDS-indicator disease”.
Now more than ever we need to deal with the psychological factors
affecting those with “AIDS” or “HIV-positive” diagnoses. In 1997
Ian Young and I edited a book, The AIDS Cult: Essays on the Gay Health
Crisis. Our contributors discussed the ways that AIDS propaganda
was making people sick. Fear was making people sick.
“HIV-positives” were programmed to become sick and ultimately to
die.
It is not easy. When we try to persuade an “HIV-Positive” that
HIV is either harmless or non-existent and that the drugs are
unnecessary and harmful, we are up against the AIDS Establishment, his
physicians, and the mainstream media. I myself have failed more
than once. One young man listened to me up to a point. He
still believed in the virus, but intended to fight it without taking
drugs. He was then in robustly good health, but unfortunately, he
continued to see a doctor. One day he told me that he was going
on the drugs after all. Almost hysterically he said: “I don't
have any T-cells!” I tried to explain that he looked perfectly
healthy and the T-cell tests were worthless, but he wouldn't
listen. Within a few months he had begun to lose muscle tone and
had his aura had become fey. (“Fey” is a Scottish word meaning
“under a spell of doom.”) I haven't seen him now for eight years,
and don't know what happened to him. Our
greatest enemy is FEAR, which wrecks our health and causes us to make
bad decisions. I experienced paralyzing fear early in the
epidemic. I knew that my health, and indeed my life, were in
danger. Fortunately, I was in-between jobs and had money in the
bank and there were cheap flights to London. Packing only a
carry-on bag, with good walking shoes and a book on country walks in
England and Scotland, I escaped what Michael Ellner called “the AIDS
zone”. They were wonderful walks. One in Scotland was
almost thirty miles long. For over a month, I walked and walked
and walked. On the first or second walk, my fear went away.
I felt at peace with the world and was happy to be alive.
Walking is a cure for many things including, as I've found out, high
blood pressure. But we all have to discover our own ways of
dealing with fear. For me, one way is music. Right now I'm
going back to the Bach Two-Part Inventions, practising each one slowly
until I finally feel I can do justice to it.
In
conclusion, we must be resourceful. We must survive. We
must be strong. We are David against Goliath. In the short
run, Goliath usually wins. In the long run, we will prevail,
because we have one thing that Goliath — the AIDS Establishment — does
not have. The Truth!
* “CDC's Tables Obscure AIDS-Drugs Connection”, Philadelphia Gay News, 14 February 1985.
** This article was included in my 1990 book, Poison By Prescription: The AZT Story, which is online as a free pdf book.
Back to “AIDS” page.