Nota: c'è un complotto nascosto volto a travestire gli effetti della contaminazione. Prima con la panzana dei virus che creano il cancro, poi con il virus che crea la leucemia, poi con il virus che crea l'immunodeficenza o la sindrome da fatica cronica, ed infine, dulcis in fundo, con l'industria della mappa del genoma che vuole farci credere ad una origine "genetica" (vedi Telethon 2000 in Italia) di malattie che derivano dalla continua contaminazione che dobbiamo subire fino a che non diremo basta. A questo punto c'è solo una speranza: che i responsabili rispondano del disastro. Che gli assassini restituiscano almeno il maltolto. O chiediamo troppo?

Lively debate

We like to think that here in the West, we engage in free and lively debate over the major contentious issues. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case. Whether we like it or not, limitations as to the depth of a given debate are almost always put into place and controlled by those who feed us our ‘news’. And for the vast majority of important topics, we are actually kept well within ‘safe’ debating boundaries. To the masses however, the debate appears deep and far-reaching. And judging by the current level of debate over the HIV controversy, in both the media and amongst a number of well-intentioned dissident voices, the debate appears to be quite safely limited. What do I mean by that? Firstly, let us get a concise summary of what is being said here.

The art of orchestrating and then assisting in the continuance of limited debate in ‘free’ society is admirably described by Noam Chomsky, US media and foreign policy critic.

He states

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. "

In the context of the AIDS debate, I believe that nowhere is this ‘safety zone’ ploy more apparent than in - "Can AIDS vaccine fend off HIV in monkeys? Did HIV originate from early Polio vaccine? Did it originate from Fort Detrick bio site, or from other covert experiments? We all gasp at the horror of it all. And yes, the activities surrounding animal experiments, mass vaccination and biological warfare programs are horrific. But by focusing ‘in a lively way’ upon "that nasty Fort Detrick, W.H.O and related agencies, with their grubby Sub-Saharan HIV-spreading vaccine programs" are we opening ourselves up to a subtle enemy? I say we are.

In books such as ‘AIDS Ebola and Emerging Viruses’, Leonard Horowitz reveals some interesting information on early covert government activities, as do the UK and US broad sheets from time to time, "early vaccine teams out in Africa…etc.,etc.,."It is my contention though, that these ‘revelations’, and innumerable others like them, only compromises and harm the campaign for the real truth. These so-called scoops are surface-scratchers. They inhabit Chomsky’s ‘safe’ zone. Taking Horowitz as an example, he begins his exhaustive study by assuming that HIV exists. Alongside this un-referenced assumption, he then exhaustively details fully referenced accounts of bio-warfare activities. The gravitas of Horowitz’s well-sourced footnotes on bio-warfare is, by association, lending considerable weight to his unreferenced assumption that HIV is out there….and stalking the planet. All that’s really taking place in this so-called ‘free-thinking’ arena is the subliminal reinforcement of the lie - that HIV exists. And exactly the same thing is happening in the ‘no holds barred’ front-page scoops linking the ‘spread’ of HIV to "Shocking Vaccine Activities!!"

Those more conversant in the art of psychological warfare should not be blamed for thinking that many of these articles could quite easily fall into the category of ‘insider plants’. As per the Chomsky protocol, the continuance of the belief requires a corresponding dissident view to ensure ‘lively’ debate. And at the end of these books/articles, the average reader will still mutter "Look, however this virus is spreading, it is spreading. Yes, it’s disgusting what has happened, but let’s stop fannying about ....and find a cure!!!" But haven’t we all had a jolly good talk about it!

In every single one of these ‘explosive’ articles though, not one of the ‘unsafe’ issues in the AIDS debate is ever, ever broached - a simple starter being does the virus actually exist? And what about the links between the pharmaceutical industry, the ruling media barons and the resulting flow of information? And what about their shared political ideology of ‘population control by all means necessary’? - a subject the broad-sheets never tackle.

In reality, the ‘HIV exposes’ proffered by Horowitz, Telegraph, Times et al, have done nothing but play straight into the hands of the same powerful agencies, in whose direct interests it is to continue a collective belief in HIV. And now given further support by errant broadsheet reader opinion, the pharmaceutical industries have open licence to continue the $multi-billion search for the ‘cure’. For an excellent insight into certain aspects of psychological warfare, please visit
http://www.africa2000.com/PNDX/pndx.htm
You will access eye-opening accounts of the variety of ways in which cultures and societies are having their ideologies unsuspectingly reshaped.

or losing the plot…

With the above in mind, I would now like to (contentiously perhaps) venture the
possibility that some AIDS dissident sites have a tendency to gradually lose the plot. The following examination of our own camp is not in any way intended to be divisive.

A whole number of sites out there are earnestly campaigning for the AIDS debate to be heard. Should it be of concern that these sites carry dissident articles announcing ‘Gallo’s original HIV hypothesis untenable.' and 'Montagnier admits.."we did not purify...[HIV]" right alongside Reuters/Associated Press articles such as 'HIV transmission rate rises or reductions in Chad, new slow-release protease treatment may offer hope to positive mothers.' etc.,?  Where's the logic? What's the train of thought? Either Gallo and Montagnier are to be forgiven, and we've got it all wrong, or the innumerable Reuters et al 'transmission rate' articles are all complete horse manure! Both articles cannot be right. With no frame of reference for the visitor, the juxtaposition of these articles only undermines the cause, bringing confusion to the mind of the new reader........our potential ally.

Contentiously again maybe, but http://rocktheboat2001.com/coverstory.html is a case in point. The above link is to a recent mainstream article airing the dissident AIDS views versus conventional AIDS wisdom. The reporter, a not unintelligent Colleen Dougher, had obviously sensed something of the controversy, and began her piece thus:

"Their [dissident] theories are a radical departure from everything most of us have ever heard about HIV and AIDS. But presented in the context of researchers who steal viruses and pawn them off as their own discoveries, an "AIDS establishment" with an ego and agenda to promote, a media that thrives on sensationalism and greedy pharmaceutical companies — some the size of small countries — who want to keep their products on the market, these theories can be a surprisingly easy pill to swallow."

What an excellent opening summary, punching deep into unsafe territory. But by the end of the article however, we read the following: "You could bounce back and forth trying to figure out who’s right and who’s wrong here." Why, why, WHY? Why did Colleen say that? She began so well! How did she get lost? The debunking of the massive fraud of AIDS and HIV isn’t difficult. Have we now lost Colleen, a potential and valuable media ally? Aah, but hang on a minute…perhaps we never had her in the first place. Perhaps the "bounce back and forth" remark is a reflection on Colleen's inability to grasp the nub of the debate? Her perspicacityin question? No, I don’t think that's the case at all. She writes what she sees, and what she sees here is confusion. I think that much of the fault lies in the compromising terminology used so frequently in the AIDS dissident debate, and where it leads us. What do I mean by that?

Firstly: whilst it was great to see many of the points raised in the Dougher article, the dialogue around "viral load, retro-viral, DNA, PCR, HIV is harmless'.. etc., etc.,"all of this will have lost, confused and probably turned off most, if not all first-time visitors to what is actually a totally gripping (and at the risk of sounding crass) enthralling true story. From beginning to end, the AIDS scam has got absolutely everything a headline-seeking journalist could dream of! And whilst Dougher's article may not have turned off all in the converted camp, that doesn’t swell our ranks.

Secondly: there is absolutely no proof for any of the above theories discussed anyway. "HIV, viral load, my count's up, DNA etc.," ...aren't they all just glittering tinsel on a towering Christmas tree of highly questionable and uncorroborated retroviral ‘science’? And when it comes to DNA, there is actually no more proof for the existence of this 20th Century psycho-product than there is for the existence of HIV. (collective inward gasp?) Crick and Watson, the founders of the supposed ‘basic building blocks for all life’ proposed their double helix as being a model 'most representative of what they believed a set of elementary building blocks might look like'. Today, Watson is the head of one of the most prominent genome facilities in the US, his supposed discovery - DNA, now a word on everyone’s lips, the cornerstone of a multi-$billion wholly immoral human and animal life-tampering program, and the cornerstone of much AIDS dissident ‘science-speak’. Watson’s ‘DNA-founding’ partner Francis Crick has retired to the desert, and is pondering on a number of theories, including how we all came from space. Meanwhile, here in the UK, the police are becoming increasingly vocal in their concerns that DNA testing is throwing up a lot of ‘false positives’.

With this sort of history, what comparisons can we draw to the history of HIV? Answer: it mirrors it almost completely.Gallo, Watson and Crick are not keen to have their theories, and subsequently their livelihoods, challenged. So with this new 'strand' added to the Crick/Watson double helix, where does that leave a lot of the revered arguments that have crept into the AIDS dissident movement? I think it leaves them all in Chomsky's very 'safe' territory.If we try to deconstruct one unproven AIDS theory by calling as our chief witnesses a whole host of other equally unproven theories, then our argument is intellectually inconsistent, causing only confusion, side-tracking and later on, considerable back-tracking, as the unproven nature of our original hypothesis becomes clearer over time.If enough mail comes back saying "please expand on DNA", then the deconstruction of the theory of DNA will certainly be included in a future issue of Credence AIDS update.

And thirdly: shoot me down in flames, but what about the terms "viral load" and "HIV is harmless" ? Despite there being a number of coherent papers debunking the so-called science behind these statements, we are still using them. Why? We can debate within the ‘HIV is harmless, viral load, DNA’zone for as long as we like. But will it actually get us anywhere? Will it punch holes? The HIV/AIDS hypothesis can be fatally deconstructed without the need for all of this talk. A letter I received from HEAL Vancouver included the following "We find the general public terribly ill-informed and confused about the subject of AIDS and HIV....So good clear information is very valuable."And if it's clarity they want, then I say, let’s give it to them!.

From a personal point of view, I think there should be a way of arranging information so that the clear-thinking, first-time visitor to a site recognises that site has a firm handle on the truth. There's nothing wrong in carrying opposing views, but they should be posted within a clear frame of reference. Posting conflicting information with no frame of reference, and using ‘theoretical language as fact’is not a good sales aid. The punter will not buy. Whilst we can frown at many of today's advertising campaigns,getting the all-important wider audience to listen to us in this technological, digital age,is as much about clear-headed, forward-thinking marketing strategy as it is about passion.

Steven Ransom.

World Without AIDS

Credence Publications
http://www.credence.org