For the first time in history, orthodox thinkers from the unique viral origin theory of AIDS, and dissidents who uphold the multiple cause non-viral theory, were invited to present their differing points of view in a public, democratic framework.
A first similar meeting was organised by the government of South Africa in 2000 – behind closed doors. The resulting report of the South African « panel » was divided into two parts. The dissidents stated that poverty was the principal cause of immune deficiency ; for them the fundamental needs in Africa are : clean drinking water, adequate sanitation, housing, correct nutrition, agriculture and basic health care for endemic diseases (and the immediate halt of all AIDS tests and treatments). The orthodox proposals based on the unique viral cause of AIDS asked for improved epidemiological surveillance and access to tests and anti-retrovirals (needing an infrastructure way over the budget of most third-world countries). The same year, during the world AIDS congress in Durban (South Africa) those with commercial interests in the test patents from the Pasteur institute, circulated a petition which listed all the traditional AIDS dogmas and avoided replying to any of the questions posed by President Mbeki’s government (The Durban Declaration*). This petition was signed by 5000 people and immediately published by Nature, a so-called scientific journal which had refused to publish the scientific arguments of various dissidents since 1992. This was end of open democratic discussion until Paul Lannoye’s courageous initiative 8 December 2003.
As “a person concerned by AIDS at the heart of the debate” invited as an observer, I was hoping for progress in the official discourse which I qualify as “AIDS-speak”.
Here are some of my impressions concerning the orthodox participants.
The UNAIDS representant rattled out the official litany, sharing tragic impressions of the orphans in Mali where the population is increasing. “AIDS is the greatest epidemic for 600 years”. Even WHO figures don’t confirm this hallucination. Mortality due to AIDS on the whole African continent is less than the United States alone. Then we heard about his trips in big air-conditioned 4-wheel-drives and first class air travel for meetings with heads of state around the world. His travel expenses alone would provide basic medical health care for an African village for a year or more. Please know that many letters to UNAIDS over the years asking for the proof of isolation of HIV and/or its cause of AIDS have gone unanswered. Isn’t this proof vital to justify current world AIDS politics,
Next we heard the commissioner, responsible for development and humanitarian aid exposing his figures in the style of a master accountant. Its great that the European Union have created funds but what will they be used for? Buying non-proven, highly toxic and expensive medication based on equally expensive non-specific tests which react positively to most of African endemic diseases? All this will only add to the debt and dependency of the third world. Wouldn’t it be better to dig some wells, build some houses and schools, install proper sanitation, encourage agriculture and provide basic health care for the real problems? (Tuberculosis is the greatest cause of death in Africa - not AIDS!)
After these first presentations I started to wonder: “Where is the human being in all this? Have the experts lost their hearts?”
Professor Clumeck, head of the Infectious Diseases at Brussel’s St Pierre University Hospital stuck rigorously to the tunnel vision of cocktails to the exclusion of all else. Once again, a vision of analysis and treatment of cells, ignoring the human being. This is the norm as medical training today is financed practically 100% by the pharmaceutical industry. The next day’s Belgian headlines heralded the good professor’s engagement in AIDS vaccine research.
That’s when the TV crew disappeared after the “official” presentations.
I used to believe, before the AIDS madness, that vaccination introduced a small quantity of an infectious agent into our bloodstream in order to stimulate our immunity against that agent. Why have the fundamental traditional laws of virology disintegrated into AIDS-speak to camouflage the inability of retrovirologists to justify their hypotheses and the resulting ongoing fruitless research? This research has contributed zero benefit to public health, and made a fortune for the pharmaceutical industry (Big Pharma) and its employees. If virology was to retain its credibility, a vaccine against HIV/AIDS would have the immunising effect of rendering a person “HIV positive”. The arrogance of the present medical paradigm denies the right of the individual to choose (or even be fully informed about) his diagnosis and treatment, and his potential positive involvement in his own healing process. In any other domain this would be considered a breach of fundamental human rights, but AIDS has become a law unto itself. How long will we allow this madness to continue its destruction?
Two very important papers were published this year about the errors of interpretation of the causes of AIDS and its epidemiology during the 1980s. Co-author Stuart Brody explained how the explanation “sexual transmission” was in fact due to “medical transmission”. Non-sterile equipment in the brush and lack of means in birth centres were the real causes of transmission of microbes. Often this contamination provokes false positives to the rare AIDS tests performed in Africa. The “Bangui definition”, created by the WHO in 1985, allows the presence of certain symptoms to allow the label of “AIDS” – without a test. Most of these symptoms are common to Malaria, Tuberculosis and other parasitic diseases.
Finally Professor Montagnier spoke about the importance of antioxidants to diminish oxidative stress. Which is natural as he is promoting sales of “Immune Age” on the web, French and international pharmacies. He upholds, reputation oblige, the simultaneous use of anti-retroviral “cocktails”. Despite the fact that he was the first researcher to admit in 1990 that HIV alone could not cause AIDS, and later to admit that his 1983 lab cultures, patents and American agreements in pocket, had not been “purified”. I interpret this as Montagnier saying that antioxidants can attenuate the damage done by the cocktails. If you ever read Asterix in Switzerland, with the same logic, the Swiss were beating up the Romans and then bandaging them up again after the fight. One important concession was that PCR, used to detect “viral load”, is not sufficient to diagnose AIDS.
My conclusion is that informed consent and freedom of therapeutic choice are fundamental human rights. Medical ethics have vanished since the infamous political and media announcement about AIDS by Dr Gallo and American Health Minister Margaret Heckler in 1984. All research into the multiple causes of AIDS and immune-boosting treatments have been rigorously buried by an orthodoxy, which has imposed an illegal monopoly on AIDS for twenty years.
Thanks to Paul Lannoye for supporting the beginnings of a “Lazarus” effect in International AIDS politics, for the well-being of Africa, for patients and for world-wide public health.
Thanks to the dissidents for their warmth, availability and humanity. Luc Montagnier was the only official presenter who stayed and chatted at the end.
A last word : “Putting HIV above poverty won’t solve the AIDS problem in 100 years”. Dr Sam Mhlongo, South Africa.
You can find some of the dissident presentations
In English on http://www.altheal.org/texts/texts.htm
En Français sur : http://www.sidasante.com/novindex.htm
An official report should be out some time in February.
*A rebuttal of the Durban Declaration
Mark Griffiths, 20/12/03
E-mail : <firstname.lastname@example.org>
P.S. Here's an alternative version of isolated HIV :