WHAT  CAUSES  AIDS

Wow, that's an awesome question but the answer may not be what we have been told.  Why is it
that when something new arrives on the planet, that the alarmist go into action and play upon the
fears of society?

If one goes back to the beginning of the AIDS crisis, we find that it all started in this country, not Africa or to do
with monkeys.  Gay men on both sides of the coast were going to the hospital sick and dying for no apparent
reason.  After researching this aspect of the situation, two plausible explanations emerged.  One being the use
of "poppers" by the gay community which definitely destroys the immune system and two being the immunization
of gay men for Hepatitis which could have been contaminated.

In the beginning, it was accepted that AIDS was a life-style disease which would make sense because even to
this day, AIDS is almost 90% male in the United States population.  So what changed?  In 1984 Robert Gallo
who was working for the National Institute of Health, received specimens from a French scientist in which Robert
Gallo decided to steal.  He did so and proclaimed to the world that he had found the "probable" cause of AIDS,
even though only thirty some of the original seventy some AIDS cases had HIV in them.

All of this was proclaimed via a new conference with the full backing of the United States government, even
though Robert Gallo had not produced written documents nor had a peer review of his work to substantiate his
claims.  From that point in 1984 until today, HIV and AIDS have been living together without official paperwork.  
The whole world has been dubbed into believing this fraud.

If one goes back and researches the first drug for this illusive, unproven virus, it was AZT which turned out to
be a failed, chemotherapy drug from the 1960's.  It turned out to be a death sentence by liver failure to almost
all who took it.  One might ask why would a failed cancer drug be given to the sickest of the population?  

After that, the next generation of the anti-viral drugs came upon the scene which have their own set of
problems, risks and are highly toxic.  Nevertheless, if HIV had been proven scientifically to cause AIDS, then the
risk may be worth it.  On the other hand if AIDS is caused by environmental/lifestyle issues, diet, stress, etc. of
the person, then these drugs are deadly and should not be used.

There are many AIDS rethinkers who believe that the hypothesis that HIV cause AIDS should be re-thought.  I,
for one, want the math to add up, which it does not.  For example, AIDS is equally divided between the sexes in
Africa.  How can a virus know what continent that it is on and who to affect?  I believe that Africans are dying
from what they have dying from in my lifetime, that is mal-nutrition, unsanitary living conditions, malaria and TB.  
They have now been lumped under the AIDS umbrella.  Why would we give toxic drugs to unhealthy people as
we gave AZT to the AIDS patients in our country?  We would only bring on their demise that much faster.

Why would anyone not want an open discussion about the true causes of AIDS?  The current paradigm refuses
to debate, what are they scared of, the truth?  In reality there is a great loss of revenue at stake here.

AIDS does not fit the standard profile for a sexually, transmitted disease.  It is not in the sex, age group, race or
location of the country which has the most sexually transmitted diseases.  Think about this, there are
approximately 14,000 true, AIDS cases each year in the United States.  Most of the sexually transmitted
diseases range from many thousands to millions of cases each year, up to 13 million total.

Dr. Nancy Padian has shown that HIV positivity is not transmitted by heterosexual sex by the largest and longest
study in the United States.  This is documented at Padian, Heterosexual Transmission of HIV in Northern
California; Results from a Ten-year Study, Am. J. Epidemiol., Vol 146: 350-357. (1997).  

Another alarming issue is that HIV does not fulfill Koch's Laws of Medicine.  These are the golden standard of
laws for the germ theory of medicine.  The following is where is it not fulfilled:   

a) the virus must be found freely in the fluids of the patient, it is not, a PCR or DNA Test must be used.
b) the virus must be found in 100% of cases, if has not.  There are in fact HIV negative
cases of AIDS.
c) the virus must be taken out of the victim, be transferred to an animal species such as the
chimpanzee and the animal must get AIDS.  This has not happened in over 20 years, the   
apes are dying of old age.

Another important point that I would like to make is about something called a titer or "viral load" in the blood.  
There is no virus in any HIV or AIDS persons' blood.  I repeat NO VIRUS in the blood.  Shocking, isn't it.  The
blood is taken to a laboratory where proteins are added to the sample and if a positive reaction occurs it is
believed that a person has HIV.

This whole issue of what the doctor's are referring to as a "viral load' must be addressed.  On face value it
sounds like a real live virus in the blood, doesn't it.  In fact, there is no such thing as a viral load.  A viral load is
in reality an "antibody load".  Check history and you will find that having antibodies to any germ is a good thing
because it means that you were exposed to it and your body produced antibodies to it.  

However, in this one, particular case, it means that you have a sexually, transmitted disease, cannot get
insurance, will be placed on highly, toxic drugs, told that you will get AIDS and die; all this ruining your life on the
basis of a hypothesis, not scientific, proven facts.  With such high stakes at risk here, it's high time that AIDS be
re-evaluated, a closer look under the microscope.  The question to ask is, who and why are they afraid of the
truth?