Reviewed by John Kirkham
(Click here for more info)
For each book sold through Altheal $3 is donated to our charity the Immunity Resource Foundation
I'm now of the opinion that using artistic rather than scientific vehicles to convey the dissident message is likely to be a more effective way of breaking the issue through to public awareness and this novel is an excellent example of an artistic dissident vehicle.
The novel depicts an ideal dissident scenario: a televised trial of Robert Gallo, Glaxo and the FDA due to a class-action lawsuit brought by those whose relatives died on AZT. The book is well structured and the author ties together many diverse threads of argument against HIV/AIDS in an admirably cohesive way. The book shows what would happen in a justice-based world, we even have the addition of that ultimate dissident fantasy: a supportive mainstream TV channel!
The story starts with a decision by the defence not to cross-examine but I feel that if the counter arguments had been presented and then knocked down this would have made the story even more effective. The novel highlights some of the unwarranted assumptions made by the AIDS establishment and serves to emphasise how AIDS science is contrary to the well-known principle of Occam’s Razor upon which proper scientific method is based. In particular, chapter 12 gives a good exposition of why HIV fails Koch’s first postulate. It also makes two other important points: the well-known fact that antibodies neutralise virus and the reality that in the early years not only HIV but even HIV antibodies were not looked for in the vast majority of cases classed as AIDS. Chapter 13 develops this further by pointing out the many diagnosed AIDS cases that were found to be HIV negative and ends with a well crafted analysis that exposes flawed representations in the NIH report “The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS”. Chapter 15 on Koch’s third postulate is less convincing because SIV, rather than HIV, should be critiqued in relation to chipanzees.
The novel goes on to point out the shoddiness of the fundamentally flawed ‘best evidence’ Nature papers and chapters 23 and 24 give a concise account of the manipulations and deceptions perpetrated by Robert Gallo in order to establish HIV/AIDS.
Chapters 27 and 28 detail the fraud that lead to the approval and widespread use of AZT. This is followed by examples contrasting the health of HIV positives before and after starting the drug. In chapter 44 the author shows statistical insight, exposing how the CDC’s own data oppose HIV/AIDS. Chapter 45 makes a useful distinction between 4 kinds of AIDS and tops the whole package off very nicely.
I would like to have seen a more diverse consideration of causality in early AIDS as the book focuses almost wholly on poppers in this regard. The book could also have gone into more depth about AIDS in Africa.
The novel is clearly very well researched, ending with a very extensive list of references. Overall, what we have here is an impressive book that starkly exposes HIV/AIDS as a travesty of science that could not be more disgusting.
Note: I do not receive any financial benefit whatsoever for either referrals or any ensuing sales of this book.
By the way you may wish to compare the events in this novel with what really happened when Glaxo was taken to Court over AZT:
“It was a very nice case to take to court because there were no complications but just before trial the manufacturer or the local supplier, Glaxo Smith Kline South Africa, made the allegation he’d suffered from an opportunistic infection.”
“Something had shown up in a pathology examination and when they did a check it had been disconfirmed, but this new allegation at the last minute threatened a massively extended trial which was beyond our means to maintain and secondly, our key expert was a person indisposed, her mother was on the way out and she in fact died a month and a half or so after the trial date. She wasn’t able to leave her and come to give evidence, so it was just a concatenation of unexpected misfortunes which knocked the trial off the rails, it was totally dismissed without trial.” See interview with lawyer Anthony Brink