Positive Health Online

In 1988 I coauthored (with investigative journalist Simon Martin) a book with the title ‘World Without AIDS’ (Thorsons) and in 1994 my other book on this topic ‘You Don’t Have to Die’ (coauthored with Jim Stronheker) was published in the USA by The Burton Goldberg Group. In these books my coauthors and I documented the scandalous degree of misinformation which was emerging from official sources regarding this disease. Only slowly is this knowledge becoming available to a wider audience – about which more later.

In both books (but with more documentation in the later text) we questioned the validity of the HIV = AIDS formula. We showed that there were a great many recorded cases of people with AIDS who were not HIV positive; that many people who had been HIV positive for upwards of 14 years were not ill – often due to their own health enhancing efforts, and the avoidance of drugs; that some people who had been HIV+ were now HIV-; that people who took the AIDS drug AZT were far more likely to die as a result of the drug than they were from AIDS; that the much heralded heterosexual AIDS epidemic was extremely unlikely to develop, that HIV tests are inaccurate at best; that the AIDS epidemic in Africa was a myth . . . . . and so on and on.

The books did not make much impact on the public at large. They were (and are) read by people already sceptical of the official propaganda line and failed to either get reviews in mainstream settings or become required reading for the public at large – faced as they were (if they ever looked) with literally hundreds of ‘AIDS’ titles.

Thankfully others with a greater chance of influencing public opinion have promoted this message, most notably Neville Hodgkinson a leading medical journalist, who wrote a series of articles for the Sunday Times in the early 90s. These effectively offered evidence which demolished the official line on AIDS. Hodgkinson has recently published (Fourth Estate – £17.99) a new book (AIDS – the failure of contemporary science [subtitled’ How a virus that never was deceived the world]) based on his research into the topic.

As well as confirming and expanding on the views expressed in my books, he demonstrated that ‘HIV’ is not a virus but a collection of gene products that can appear when immune system cells are chronically stimulated in the body or drastically manipulated in the laboratory. No two identical ‘HIVs have been isolated, even from the same individual’.

His work and publications such as Continuum (172 Foundling Court, Brunswick Centre, London WC1N IQE) have been at the forefront of promoting these messages, albeit to a largely converted audience. The fact is that the public (UK-Europe-USA-worldwide!) have been sold a distorted and discredited picture of this horrible disease, and have accepted the official view with little questioning. This should start to change soon as the evidence mounts that the official view is tragically wrong.

For example the government – after years of warning that a heterosexual epidemic was on its way – have now published their figures, and they reveal just how inaccurate this prophesy has been.

Out of a total of 12,565 people who have developed AIDS in the UK since 1982 only 161 have been heterosexuals who were not at high risk (intravenous drug users, haemophiliacs). There is little knowledge regarding the sexual proclivities of these 161 individuals (apart from the fact that they were not homosexual). It seems reasonable to assume that at least some were involved in unprotected anal sexual intercourse, a major means of transmission of the disease amongst homosexuals. To quote from the
Andrew Neil column in the Sunday Times (June 23 1996). “There are two overwhelming ways in which AIDS is transmitted; one is to stick a needle in your skin and the other is to stick a penis into an anus. Heterosexuals who indulge in anal sex, especially women with bisexual men, are just as much at risk as homosexuals. AIDS is not exclusive to sexual proclivity, it is closely associated to a specific sexual practice.”

Andrew Neil is correct, and the blunt manner in which he expresses himself is necessary, since there are no easy ways of saying what needs to be said. Without these particular sexual practices, and without widespread drug usage (not just intravenous drug habits, but use of sexual stimulant drugs such as amylnitrate, which are also implicated) it is unlikely that AIDS would have developed in the way it has done.

So where does the blame lie for the disinformation and misinformation which continues to be peddled about this disease?

Undoubtedly the answer has to be ‘vested interests’ . . . and who has an interest in seeing that the present distorted views continues to be accepted?

Those who are currently making not a fortune but an obscene degree of profit out of the situation – major drug houses. And also the huge support industry which has grown up around AIDS suffering.

Neil puts it a follows. “Aids has become an industry, a job- creation scheme for the caring classes: at one stage there were three times as many AIDS counsellors as AIDS victims . . . . the duplicity of the AIDS establishment has been fatal. Hundreds of millions of pounds that could have been spent on far greater risks to life – such as breast cancer – from which more die every year than have died of AIDS in 14 years – was siphoned off and squandered. Money that should have been targeted at the real risk groups was spread uselessly across the population instead.”

The future of AIDS will, I predict, be that the heretical concepts which I outlined at the start of this page (AIDS without HIV; HIV not such a pathway to AIDS; possibly HIV not even an absolute requirement for AIDS etc) will gradually become the accepted truth. Evidence is mounting that the presently accepted understanding of the disease is hopelessly simplistic and wrong, and that the real causes lie in poverty, malnutrition, stress, drug usage, and in the flouting of natural and normal behaviour.