The glaring similarity between what happened involving a previous psychological operation and one we are currently facing should be striking. Here you will find a lengthy article by Celia Farber that will show how the public were preyed upon.
I am reproducing below responses from 2006 to that article to succinctly show that we are up against a very big game that operates by way of deception.
They are easily recognized by their tactics.
Viral Marketing
I commend Harper’s Magazine for publishing Celia Farber’s report [“Out of Control,” March 2004] on the corruption of AIDS science. As a mathematician who has worked for nearly a decade studying the immunological aspects of modeling HIV progression and treatment, I believe that the HIV theory of AIDS begs far more questions than it answers. The so-called mysterious or paradoxical features described in the vast scientific literature are evidence that the current paradigm is in serious need of reassessment. In the words of Stephen Hawking: “A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.” The HIV theory does neither.
This debate should have happened long ago, before an unproven hypothesis of an immune-destroying retrovirus was thrust upon a vulnerable public, and without being thoroughly critiqued in the scientific literature. Despite the promises made in 1984, there is still no cure and no vaccine. Instead, there has been a fundamental erosion in scientific and clinical-trial standards, with implications reaching far beyond HIV.
To do the best we can for those affected by AIDS—including those in Africa, where AIDS presents a clinical picture quite different from that in the developed world—there urgently needs to be an honest scientific debate.
Rebecca Culshaw, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Mathematics
The University of Texas at Tyler Tyler, Tex.
Here is another letter to the editor about this matter.
I am a gay, HIV+ scientist, and until I read Farber’s article I knew nothing about the controversies surrounding the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. The article prompted me to do my own research on the issues involved, and to consult my HIV doctor and others in the field. What I have learned has frightened me and ultimately freed me.
I had always been confused by certain aspects of the treatment of AIDS. I wondered why my friend passed away from liver failure, when his virus seemed under control. I wondered why HIV+ individuals were being told to take three FDA Class 4 drugs daily for the rest of their lives, although most drugs in this class are chemotherapies, and we don’t give cancer patients chemotherapy every day. My reservations made me engage in treatment interruptions prior to 2000, when they were regarded as “suicide.” My HIV doctor recently told me that the SMART study, which concluded that treatment interruptions were contraindicated, was plagued by methodological flaws. He recommended that I stay off medications as much as possible, contrary to the advice of the American Academy of HIV Medicine. He agrees with Peter Duesberg regarding the extremely negative, immunosuppressive effects of chronic drug use and malnutrition, and that these are likely important co-factors in AIDS progression.
Their calling card is heaping abuse of the honest.
Consequently, I have been unable to understand the extremely vitriolic, character-assassinating responses that have appeared on the Internet following the publication of Farber’s article. It does not seem radical to suggest that chronic drug use and malnutrition can make a person very ill. Why does doing so make Duesberg “crazy” and Farber a “crackpot”? And how is that kind of language even remotely appropriate in a scientific debate? Science is full of alternative theories—they’re essential. In science, one does not set out to prove a particular hypothesis; one tests rival hypotheses in order to rule them out. No hypothesis regarding AIDS can be rejected until its espousers receive the funding necessary to test it.
Mark A. Biernbaum, Ph.D.
Rochester, N.Y.
Did AZT kill Freddie Mercury?