Epidemics: Chemical Causes Or Virus Scares?

June 2, 2005

2 Jun 2005 13:38:25 -0000

Health Supreme Update: Epidemics: Chemical Causes Or Virus

Scares?

sepp Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/06/02/epidemics_chemical_causes_or_vir\

us_scares.htm

--

(( Health Supreme Update: Epidemics: Chemical Causes Or Virus Scares?

))

June 02, 2005

------

The question of disease causation is a big issue. On its answer

depend fortunes and - unfortunately - millions of lives.

" What if we had strong evidence that, in fact, Aids is a

multifactorial syndrome caused by drugs, malnutrition, toxic Aids

medicine and the psychological devastation induced by the Hiv+

diagnosis, and that those who don't get sick aren't protected by a

genetic factor, but by the common factor of refusing to take toxic

Aids drugs? What if polio is actually caused by pesticides,

vaccinations and tonsillectomies; diabetes by antibiotics, other

medicines and organocholorine chemicals in the environment; leukemia

and most cancers by a wide variety of toxic chemicals that governments

permit in food; hepatitis by medicine and chemicals in the

environment... "

asks Marcel Girodian, a writer on Aids and other health issues, in a

thought provoking essay that examines the question of whether the

answers we are given about disease causation might really have a

political motivation, rather than being determined by altruistic

concerns for our health. His conclusions leave little room for doubt:

" Microbial and genetic disease causations predominate in science not

because they are the real causes of disease, but because of a variety

of economic and political factors. The primary factors are:

1) the enormous power wielded by the pharmaceutical and chemical

industries;

2) the willingness of government, the medical and scientific

establishments, the media and the NGO sector to prostitute themselves

to these industries;

3) the need to keep the population frightened and bewildered in

order to strengthen the government-corporate alliance's power, deny

people true freedom, justify interference in people's private lives

and provide a rationale for transferring the public's financial assets

to corporations;

4) The fact that professionals involved in all these endeavors

have attained wealth, power and status; and

5) the fact that they don't want to lose their wealth, power and

status. "

Hard to swallow you say? Well, read the essay and draw your own

conclusions or better yet, if what Girodian says does not tally with

your own experience and knowledge, do your own research on the areas

he points to.

Certainly there is motive - on the part of the petrochemical and

pharma complex of industries - to hide chemical causes and point to

the ubiquitous threat of " viral agents " . Such a slant on disease

causation would protect chemical and nuclear pollution from blame and

require ever new and expensive anti-viral " prevention " (can you say

" vaccine business " ?) and treatments. Good commercial practice if

nothing else.

Here is Girodian's article...

- - -

POLITICALLY MOTIVATED DISEASE CAUSATION - THE BIGGEST EPIDEMIC OF ALL

by Marcel Girodian

May 5, 2005

(first published here)

" Why do current AIDS researchers not investigate, and not even

consider the role of chemicals in AIDS or study other non-HIV AIDS

theories to solve the AIDS dilemma? "

— Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Director, Institute of Science in Society, London

Aids is caused by a virus, Hiv. Those who " catch " Hiv and don't get

sick have a genetic factor that protects them. Monkeys get sick

because they catch the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (Siv), cats get

sick from the Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (Fiv), and cows get sick

when they catch the Bovine Immunodeficiency Virus (Biv). Polio is

caused by a virus. Cancer is caused by viruses and genetic

predisposition. " We are closing in on the genetic causes of cancer, "

said Bill Clinton in 1998.

Africans are not dying because they are starving and have no clean

water to drink, they are victims of deadly viruses — mostly Hiv of

course, but also Ebola. Sars is caused by a virus. Leukemia is caused

by a virus. Rabies is caused by a virus. Cervical cancer is caused by

a virus. Bird Flu, Hoof and Mouth Disease, West Nile Disease are all

caused by viruses. Hepatitis is caused by six different viruses, at

latest count. " Legionnaire's Disease " is caused by a bacterium. Mad

Cow Disease is caused by an infectious protein, as is Creutzfeld-Jakob

Disease. Diabetes and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome are genetically

caused diseases. Children also die because of " shaken baby syndrome " —

initiated when a parent or babysitter shakes a baby in anger.

Autism is caused by " nerd " genes in the parents. Cerebral Palsy is

caused by bad genes and viruses. Meningitis and arthritis are caused

by viruses and bacteria. Encephalitis is caused by viruses.

Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome (EMS) is caused by tryptophan, a natural

amino acid sold in health food stores. And when cancer isn't caused by

viruses and bad genes, it's caused by Vitamin C!

What do all these well-publicized causations have in common? They all

serve as scapegoats to deflect guilt and deter lawsuits that might

otherwise be directed at powerful elites in business, the medical

establishment and government. Or serve to discredit natural health

remedies that are a threat to the pharmaceutical industry because they

are used by consumers as alternatives to super-profitable prescription

drugs.

What if we had strong evidence that, in fact, Aids is a multifactorial

syndrome caused by drugs, malnutrition, toxic Aids medicine and the

psychological devastation induced by the Hiv+ diagnosis, and that

those who don't get sick aren't protected by a genetic factor, but by

the common factor of refusing to take toxic Aids drugs? What if polio

is actually caused by pesticides, vaccinations and tonsillectomies;

diabetes by antibiotics, other medicines and organocholorine chemicals

in the environment; leukemia and most cancers by a wide variety of

toxic chemicals that governments permit in food; hepatitis by medicine

and chemicals in the environment (in addition to alcoholism)?

What if cervical cancer is really caused by medicine as well as toxic

chemicals in condoms and sexual lubricants? What if Mad Cow Disease is

caused by poisonous chemicals like phosmet mandated by governments to

be given to cows, Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease is caused by eye and brain

surgery (i.e., by doctors), and Sars is nothing more than atypical

pneumonia aggravated by severe air pollution and the World Health

Organization's (WHO's) need to come out with a " scare of the week " to

perpetuate its power? What if even influenza is caused by chemicals?

What if we could show convincing evidence that autism, Sudden Infant

Death Syndrome, Attention Deficit Disorder, encephalitis, meningitis,

cerebral palsy, allergies — even " Shaken Baby Syndrome " as well as

other maladies, are caused by childhood vaccinations mandated by

governments and staunchly defended by organized medicine? What if we

could show that rabies is caused by the rabies vaccine? That arthritis

is caused by vaccinations? That ebola is caused by ingesting acutely

poisonous chemicals? What if EMS was caused not by tryptophan, but by

the genetically modified bacteria its manufacturer used to produce it?

What if " Legionnaire's Disease " was just pneumonia caused when some

frail old men with weak immune systems got extraordinarily drunk at a

convention, a situation that is known to lead to pneumonia? What if

the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) deceptively called this a new

disease caused by a new bacterium in order to panic the US congress

into approving a new mass immunization program that would benefit the

CDC and the drug companies? What if we had evidence that " bird flu, "

Hoof and Mouth Disease and all the other diseases the WHO regularly

menaces us with are not a threat to humans, and are not caused by

viruses, rather by animals' debilitated immunity due to environmental

toxins?

In other words, what if we could conclusively demonstrate that George

Bush (I and II), Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and other bigwigs cause

cancer, the CDC and World Bank cause AIDS, the WHO and giant chemical

corporations cause polio, hepatitis, leukemia and bird flu, Margaret

Thatcher caused Mad Cow Disease, the American Medical Association and

drug corporations cause autism and arthritis, the Chinese government

and WHO cause " Sars, " and Reagan and Bush I, who heavily promoted

genetic engineering despite lack of evidence for its safety, caused EMS?

What if we could show that Nixon's advisors devoted the entire $30

billion budget of their " War on Cancer " toward a spurious theory that

it was caused by retroviruses because they knew that, in fact, Nixon

was the cause of cancer?

What if we could connect the dots and see the huge amounts of money

that pass from chemical and pharmaceutical corporations to

politicians, government regulators, doctors, scientists and the media,

and the pivotal influence this has on disease causations?

What if we could point out the obvious utility to the powerful of

blaming a virus for deaths in Africa instead of hunger, unclean water

and other factors — factors caused or made worse by centuries of US

and European government-supported racist exploitation, corrupt African

political leaders installed and propped up by the CIA, and the

rapacious policies of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund?

Then we might make some fairly reasonable hypotheses about corruption

totally overwhelming and politicizing the science of disease

causation. In a world awash with toxins, microbes are causing almost

all of the disease. You have to be pretty brainwashed and programmed

to believe that. But believe it people do, because programmed they

most assuredly are.

Whitewashing Toxins

" The unwritten rule of public health seems to be that infectious

disease always trumps toxicology. "

— Serge Lang, Professor of Mathematics, Yale University

In fact, there is strong evidence for all of the aforementioned

environmental and iatrogenic (caused by medicine or doctors) disease

causations. In most cases much stronger than the theories that

attribute these diseases to germs.

When US President Nixon launched his " war on cancer " over 30 years

ago, a large body of scientific literature already existed that linked

chemicals in the environment to cancer. There were also hypotheses —

but little else — linking retroviruses to cancer. One would have

expected that most, or at minimum a substantial amount, of the $30

billion spent on the " war " would have gone toward conclusively proving

the chemical connection. Instead the entire amount went to the

retrovirus theorists. They failed to prove that retroviruses cause

cancer, and the " War " is today widely deemed a failure.

In fact, it was a tremendous success. It succeeded in its real purpose

— which was not to cure cancer, but to absolve the chemical companies,

and the politicians who receive money from them in exchange for

favors, and the regulators who profit from the revolving door between

government and industry, from any blame, while convincing the public

that something was being done about the cancer problem and empowering

a " retrovirus establishment " that could be utilized in the future to

throw smokescreens over other politically sensitive diseases.

Environmental toxins are slow killers. Assuming you don't drink a

whole bottle of pesticide at once, environmental toxins in food and

water tend to kill you over years and decades, not minutes. Slowly

progressing diseases like cancer posed a problem for the virologists

in the driver's seat of the medical research establishment, because

viruses got their jobs done quickly, so the virologists couldn't blame

slow diseases on viruses like they wanted to, in order to increase

their power. So perhaps it was only a matter of time before a

scientist named Carlton Gajdusek proposed, in the 1960s, a theory that

some viruses — dubbed lentiviruses — caused disease slowly. His theory

fascinated the medical establishment despite the fact that he didn't

have much evidence for it. But it was an attractive idea that appealed

to the powerful, for all the reasons previously mentioned — so much so

that he was awarded the Nobel Prize and the top virology spot at the

US National Institutes of Health, one of the world's largest sponsors

of medical research. Gajdusek became the inspiration for the

generations of virus-hunting scientists to follow — the ones who today

have practically obliterated the toxically caused disease in favor of

omnipresent deadly viruses.

The industrial revolution is the foundation of most of the great

fortunes possessed by the elite few who control industry. If the toxic

products of industry are in fact behind most of today's serious

disease, to disclose and accept that fact would threaten industry's

very existence. If people went back to a simpler, more natural way of

life, getting along without cars and highways and lawnmowers and

processed, packaged food; instead growing their own vegetables without

chemicals, making their own fertilizer and clothes and becoming

self-reliant, the money flow to the world's industrial elite would dry

up and so would their slush funds for the politicians and academics

who help them make profits.

Since the notion that government operates in the interests of the

people is ridiculous on its face, and the fact that it operates almost

exclusively in the interests of the wealthy — throwing just enough

crumbs to the masses to prevent them from staging a revolution — is

evident to anyone who cares to see reality, the industrial origins of

disease must be whitewashed, and scapegoats found. This job falls to

the Scientific Establishment, who are almost completely dependent on

government and industry for their funding. Government and industry

make no secret of what happens to scientists who don't adhere to their

agenda — they are blacklisted, defunded, branded as crazy, and sped

into an involuntary retirement. Dr. Peter Duesberg, the eminent US

virologist who lost all federal funding and was censored, attacked and

academically isolated after he challenged the Hiv theory of Aids, is a

good example and hardly the only one. When other scientists see what

can happen to someone as distinguished as Duesberg, they quickly get

the message — conform or lose your career.

So, the old idea that science is " self-correcting " no longer applies,

though it's still asserted. There can be no self correction in a

totalitarian environment that punishes independent thought. And that's

what medical science has evolved into today.

The media's key role in creating epidemics

Today, theories that germs cause disease are quickly promoted to facts

by the media, and theories that toxins cause disease are ignored. A

low standard of proof is accepted for viral causations, and for toxins

the hurdle is set very high. In fact, it's hard to remember the last

time the CDC said that a new disease was toxin-related.

The mass media love " deadly viruses " for several reasons. First, " evil

new germ " stories sell newspapers and entice viewers to watch TV news

shows. The more viewers or readers a media outlet has, the more money

it can charge advertisers, who are the source of the vast majority of

the media's income. Thus the media have a pronounced tendency toward

sensationalism.

Their advertisers also include the very chemical and pharmaceutical

corporations that make the toxins that make many people sick. A

cardinal rule of media is, don't upset your advertisers, or they might

stop advertising in your newspaper or on your TV network. For these

reasons and others, most of the information you receive from most

media outlets, except the weather report, sports, crime, horoscope and

a few other innocuous categories, is highly filtered to remove

information that threatens those with power and money. The carefully

promoted image of journalists as the watchdogs of freedom and

attackers of the powerful, a myth promoted by Hollywood movies and

journalists' own PR, is largely a fabrication, and in today's era of

monolithic media ownership by enormous corporations, far from being

watchdogs, the media routinely censor and spin stories to protect

wealthy interest groups.

This is the rule, not the exception. The real goal of the media is to

provide a supportive environment for advertising, and that means not

only killing or spinning stories that could adversely affect

advertisers, but killing or spinning stories that might adversely

affect the economic system that makes corporate profits possible.

Public relations firms help with this process. They work for the

corporations and their job is to write news stories and get them

placed in the news media, sometimes with no editing at all, and with a

real reporter's byline. These stories are sheer propaganda, cleverly

disguised as news. By carefully selecting facts and sources, and

omitting ones that discredit the story (or strategically limiting them

so as to give a false impression of getting both sides) they subtly

enhance the public image of the corporation. Most people haven't the

foggiest notion that this goes on. But it is, in fact, ubiquitous in

the news business. And, oh yes, news is a business, by the way. A very

very profitable one. Not a public service enterprise. Sorry to shatter

anyone's illusions here.

One of the many ways that the PR firms and media subtly control your

thoughts is simply in the terminology that they employ. For instance,

calling doctors and scientists " the scientific (or medical) community "

makes your subconscious picture the positive associations with the

word " community " — i.e., good-hearted folks working together for

everyone's benefit. They rarely use the far more accurate descriptor

" the scientific (or medical) establishment, " which gives you the

highly realistic mental image of a group of people working together to

maintain their own power and profits. A Google search found that

" scientific community " is almost 50 times more common than " scientific

establishment. "

Similarly, a cliché that has been relentlessly pounded into our

cerebra by the governments and media is " the international community, "

which is a way to get everyone to feel good about the globalization

process that the elitists are using to create centralized world

government and usurp people's freedom to have a say in the way their

countries are run. Yes, those swell folks in " the international

community " are just like the nice people in the local hardware store

in your community. They're like the warm-hearted characters in " Mister

Rogers' Neighborhood! " They're not a secretive coterie of

fantastically wealthy plutocrats who want even more money than they

already have, and want power and control over every creature on earth.

Perish the thought!

The PR agencies, working through the media, have very effectively

woven into the public consciousness the notion that anybody who

disagrees with " the medical community " is a " conspiracy theorist. "

Want to present scientifically referenced objections to vaccination,

or fluoridation, or the Hiv theory of Aids? You're a conspiracy

theorist! This has been so firmly implanted into people's

subconsciouses that you can't even debate facts with them anymore.

They immediately dismiss what you say as a " conspiracy theory. " It's

like a Pavlovian stimulus that instantly shuts down all debate. A most

impressive accomplishment, and the establishments use it to discredit

many threatening realms of thought, not just alternative medical opinion.

In 1984, the US government made a mockery of science by presenting the

Hiv-causes-Aids theory of Robert Gallo, one of the scientists who

failed in the War On Cancer, as if it were almost certainly a fact.

They presented this news at a press conference, even though Gallo's

theories hadn't even been published yet for scrutiny by his peers. To

be fair, both Gallo and US Health and Human Services Secretary

Margaret Heckler called their viral cause, soon to be dubbed " Hiv, "

only the " probable " cause of Aids.

But within days, the New York Times and the rest of the media started

calling it " the Aids virus, " the word " probable " was dropped and a

causation was established without a scientific paper even having been

published. No debate was allowed. " The cause of Aids was established

by government fiat, " as Dr. Michael Lange of St. Luke's Hospital in

New York would later recall.

After the media cast the cause of Aids in stone, nobody noticed when

Gallo's papers were finally published and it was clear to anyone

reading them objectively that they didn't come close to proving that

" Hiv " caused Aids. For one thing, he claimed to have found Hiv in only

about 36% of the Aids patients he studied. In a saner world, that

would have been considered proof that Hiv couldn't possibly be the

cause. But few people in science objected because the Aids Gravy

Train, an enormous money machine powered by government and media

misinformation, was rapidly being engineered, and medical researchers

quickly realized the value of hitching a ride on it (a really fun ride

that has so far provided them with over US $120 billion in funds).

Years later, mainstream Aids scientists finally accepted what

dissenting scientists had maintained for years — that Kaposi's Sarcoma

(KS), the hallmark disease of Aids, was not caused by Hiv. But rather

than acknowledge the most likely cause, the toxic chemical Amyl

Nitrite, also known as " poppers, " which gay men sniffed for

aphrodisiac effect, the Aids mainstream decided that KS was caused by

another virus, HHV-8! Altogether predictable, and nary a skeptical

eyebrow has been raised in the media.

The WHO and CDC, whose insiders were fully aware that there was no

proof that Hiv caused Aids, started calling it " Hiv/Aids " , with the

" / " providing a typographical causation in lieu of the nonexistent

scientific one. It's silly — do we say, " I can't come to work today,

boss. I have rhinovirus/cold " ? The media quickly adopted this

self-serving convention which effectively glues the alleged cause to

the disease, and popularized it to the point that today even the

person on the street refers to " Hiv/Aids " in this stilted manner.

Almost 20 years after propelling the allegedly deadly " Hiv, " into the

popular imagination, media performed an encore with the disease dubbed

" Sars. " It took no time at all for the media to start screaming about

the WHO's " discovery " of " the deadly Sars virus. " Voluminous evidence

to the contrary was simply ignored, and remains today in that Twilight

Zone of Inconvenient Evidence that researchers acknowledge at their peril.

Journalist Gudrun Greunke tells us about another case where a disease

apparently caused by toxins was whitewashed by the Public Health

Establishment and their allies in the Media:

" The case that I am going to describe is not directly related to AIDS,

but I believe it is the beginning of a pattern, an example of how they

manipulate a disease, as they have with AIDS. The issue concerns the

Oil Toxic Syndrome, which surprisingly started at the same time as

AIDS, 1982. In a family a boy gets sick and is taken to hospital, then

three more members of the family become ill and, in the medical

records of the emergency room, it is recorded that they all have

pneumonia. A physician starts to investigate. Then come more and more

similar cases. The media only finds out about it a week later. The

physician explains to the relatives that he needs their help since

everything indicates that there is a food poisoning. After half an

hour of searching it is found that the common food was salad...Dr.

Muro displayed proofs that indicated that the agent responsible for

this poisoning was a pesticide from Bayer, but the health authorities

in Spain called and gave the case to the CDC. Dr. Muro was fired as of Hospital del Rey and officials from the CDC checked his

documents and proofs.

" The official view is that the agent responsible for this poisoning

was spoiled olive oil. Up to this date, any alternative view has

suffered tremendous censorship from the big media and the scientific

journals. "

Scientific journals that have abandoned science

Scientific and medical journals that publish theories about new

diseases ought to be impartial, but are not, because the pages of

these journals are crammed with advertising from pharmaceutical

corporations, providing millions of dollars in advertising revenue to

the journals annually. These drug companies do not profit if a toxin

is the cause of disease, they need the cause to be a germ, so they can

make drugs to " fight " it. The scientific journals have to accept that

germ premise of disease, and the miraculous alleviative powers of the

drugmakers' drugs, in the papers they publish. Otherwise the drug

companies would pull their ads, and the journals would go bankrupt,

or, if they didn't, at least would not be swimming in dough as they

are now.

Two former editors-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine,

Drs. Marcia Angell and Jerome Kassirer, recently published exposés

that warn that big drug company bucks paid to academic researchers is

biasing medical research. This is true, but it's also true that big

drug company bucks paid to medical journals for glossy four-color drug

advertisements biases the people who run the journals. The pro-drug

bias is in this way compounded. Drug firms have decisive influence

over the whole system from research to publication.

Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, recently confessed to a House of

Commons health committee that medical journals and the drug companies

have a relationship that is " somewhere between symbiotic and

parasitic. " He said that drug companies and their hirelings often try

to get papers touting their drugs published by dangling inducements

before journal executives — such as promising to buy a lot of reprints

of the article for marketing purposes. This can earn the journal a

great deal of money — as much as $1 million for a single article.

Journals also derive big income from publishing supplements designed

to meet a drug company's marketing needs. The major journals make tens

of millions of dollars a year from advertising. Now, nobody is

requiring drug companies to buy ads in medical journals, they do it of

their own free will. And they can choose not to do it of their own

free will, too, if a journal shows too much editorial independence in

evaluating papers submitted by researchers on the drug company payroll.

Imagine if a journal started publishing papers from dissident

scientists asserting that all this viral disease causation stuff is a

self-serving fantasy concocted by a diseased

medical-scientific-industrial establishment. The editor probably would

not be gunned down as he entered a restaurant, but he would very

likely be axed by his publisher, and find it rather impossible to find

similar employment elsewhere.

Enormous evidence of toxic causations routinely ignored

It was very apparent, in the early 1980s, that the gay men who were

getting sick from what would be called " Aids " were overdosing on

antibiotics, corticosteroids, other medicines and many different

recreational drugs, including heroin, cocaine and poppers. This was

due to the heavy sexual partying life led by a certain segment of gay

men at that time. They took recreational drugs as aphrodisiacs and

swallowed medical drugs in the belief that these would prevent them

from catching STDs. All of these drugs, when overused, are toxic and

known destroyers of the immune system. But if public health officials

had acknowledged this, that would have been an indictment of their

friends at the drug companies. And of their comrades at the FDA, who

often rubber-stamp whatever approvals the drug companies want. And of

the doctors who overprescribe these medicines. Anyway, why acknowledge

it when the viral alternative is so much better for all concerned?

If cows are exposed to dangerous pesticides that damage their immune

systems, how much better for the chemical industry and the politicians

they give money to if this can be laid at the doorstep of a new

" Bovine Immunodeficiency Virus " or a " prion " such as that which, the

media inform us without the slightest hesitancy or doubt, causes " Mad

Cow Disease. "

If cats get sick because of the appalling amount of toxins in

commercial cat food, and from harmful vaccinations, how much more

pleasant it is for the makers of those toxins and vaccines if the

blame can be put on a new " Feline Immunodeficiency Virus. "

And of course, the monkeys have Siv, said to be the ancestor of Hiv,

though it only seems to produce illness in caged monkeys, not in wild

ones. Of course, no scientist who wants to boost his career is going

to take note of the depressing and stressful conditions of lab

monkeys' captivity in tiny cages — even though stress and depression

are well proven to depress immunity.

Can it be any more than a matter of time before we will have

" immunodeficiency viruses " for every species of animal that gets sick

due to the increasingly unhealthy conditions caused by industry and

world leaders?

Is an autism virus waiting in the wings to make its debut, in case the

gene theory of autism fails to assuage increasingly skeptical parents?

Are politically savvy virologists now cooking up a theory that viruses

cause malnutrition?

Or will the scientists get creative and assign some of these diseases

to bacteria and molds instead of viruses? To keep the masses from

catching on?

Fattening the Wallets of the Scientists

Angell writes that " research is biased in favor of the drugs and drug

makers. The pharmaceutical industry spends a great deal to influence

people in academic medicine and professional societies. It does a

super job of making sure [that] nearly every important person they can

find in academic medicine [who] is involved in any way with drugs is

hired as a consultant, as a speaker, is placed on an advisory board —

and is paid generous amounts of money. "

On top of that, the studies themselves are now mostly financed by

industry. So imagine yourself in the scientists' shoes. You know that

if your study doesn't find favorably for the drug, you probably won't

be getting any more very profitable studies to conduct. Or consulting

fees. Or speaking fees. Or paid seats on " medical advisory boards. "

You " play ball " because not to do so is to jeopardize your career and

its accompanying opulent lifestyle.

How much money can these researchers make? Just by recruiting patients

into studies, many doctors and scientists make hundreds of thousands

of dollars a year above and beyond their regular salaries. Even as

much as a million dollars a year, according to some critics. Medical

scientists love to portray themselves as self-sacrificing

humanitarians, but the money they collect doesn't exactly put them in

the same tax bracket as, say, Gandhi, does it? Since caviar and

Château Mouton Rothschild Pauillac 1986 are habit-forming, the

temptation to make one's studies come to the " right " conclusions is

very strong.

Does that mean that figures are fudged, " serious adverse events " are

underreported or redefined so as to minimize them, and logical

discrepancies so obvious that a child would notice them are ignored?

Yes, yes and yes. Recently it was revealed that Dr. Edmund Tramont,

head of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) Aids division,

deliberately concealed evidence of severe drug toxicity in a US

government sponsored trial of the Aids drug Nevirapine, now being

urged upon millions of pregnant African women. Such revelations are

ignored or minimized by the media. In South Africa, a leading

newspaper that endorsed the use of Nevirapine refused to even run the

story. Other media that did run it filtered it tremendously and

focused on a single death that occurred in the US, rather than on the

thousands of severe reactions and more than a dozen deaths experienced

by African women during the Nevirapine trials. Predictably, Tramont

has been defended by leading scientific journals Nature and Science,

which profit mightily from drug company advertising. But, in fact,

Tramont's deceit is far from an anomaly, it is closer to being the

norm for behavior in a politicized medical and regulatory

establishment saturated with corruption.

Independent reviews have found that 90% of drug company-financed

studies report favorably on a drug, and only 50% of studies financed

by governments find favorably. One can only speculate about what

percentage of studies would find favorable results if neither drug

companies nor a politicized and dictatorial federal health bureaucracy

in cahoots with the drug companies were to fund the studies. 10

percent favorable? Two percent? Who knows?

Drug corporations don't make money fighting toxins, only germs.

Government regulators know that, and they know from observing their

colleagues that there's a senior vice presidency with signing bonus

waiting for them at the pharmaceutical or chemical corporation if they

" do their job well " while at the regulatory agency. So only germs can

be allowed to cause disease. Certainly not medicines. And certainly

not chemicals.

Scientists who work for government health agencies know they have

absolutely nothing to lose by skewing their science to favor the goals

of chemical and drug corporations. They not only ensure themselves a

lucrative future career path in private industry by doing this, but

they also know that they can't be sued. If class action lawsuits are

brought in the future because of deaths and disabilities caused by

corrupt government approvals of dangerous drugs and chemicals, it's

the government (i.e., the taxpayers) who will have to pay

compensation, not the scientists who managed the approvals. They will

be safely ensconced in sinecures at multinational corporations, making

a cool million or more a year.

Recent exposés have revealed that NIH scientists, supposedly working

to protect the public, are not only paid salaries higher than

presidential cabinet secretaries (over US $175,000 a year) but are

also permitted to have generous consulting contracts with many of the

very companies they are supposed to be regulating, often doubling or

tripling their incomes. They not only benefit from the

government-industry " revolving door, " they also profit from " a swivel

chair, where they sit at one desk and do both jobs, " as Congressman

James Greenwood put it. Not surprisingly, many of these well-fed

scientists do everything they can to promote the interests of their

benefactors in industry. Which means they exaggerate the threat posed

by germs, and then support the pharmaceutical solution to the alleged

threat.

This is ironic because there have always been scientists who disputed

the germ theory of disease. Many scientists feel that germs are the

effect of disease, not the cause, and that the cause is weakened

immunity in the host, usually due to toxins in the environment,

malnutrition and/or physical or emotional stress. Even the father of

the germ theory, Louis Pasteur, renounced the theory on his deathbed

and, agreeing with his rival Antoine Bechamp, said that " the germ is

nothing; the soil [i.e., the internal environment of the host] is

everything " before he expired.

Pasteur's deathbed confession was ignored by the medical

establishment, because without the germ theory, there could be no

pharmaceutical industry, and if toxins were recognized as the cause of

disease, chemical corporations would face rigorous regulation and

class action lawsuits, which would interfere with their profits.

So let's step back and have a look at this. Pharmaceutical

corporations give " research grants " and/or " consulting fees " and/or

" advisory board memberships " to practically everybody involved in

medical research. They fund whole university departments. They give

" campaign contributions " to all politicians who can affect their

interests. They engender an understanding with federal regulators

that, if they do their job well, when they leave government, the drug

company will offer them a prestigious job with expense account, fancy

corner office and busty secretary. They buy off the health bureaucracy

from top to bottom, so that the regulating agencies become de facto

extensions of the drug company. Agency bosses can then be counted on

to reward the scientists who are team players, and punish those with

independent minds and consciences who believe in protecting the

public, not the corporations.

Since it is politicians and regulators who permit chemical companies

to saturate food, water, the environment and our bodies with

disease-causing chemicals, indeed, often even require this poisoning

by law (laws lobbied for by the corporations involved) in such cases

as water fluoridation and aerial mosquito spraying, and require

children to be vaccinated, disease causations have to be found that

keep the politicians out of prison. Hence cervical cancer is caused by

a virus, Kaposi's sarcoma is caused by a virus, leukemia is caused by

a virus, and on and on, ad infinitum. As Janine Roberts pointed out,

" viruses can't be sued. "

Neither can prions or bacteria.

Neither can genes.

Neither can the sun, which some think is a scapegoat for chemical

causes of skin cancer.

Now scientists are even saying that it is your genes (not tobacco

companies) that determine whether you will become addicted to nicotine.

Will a new study soon find that the ancients were right, it's the moon

that makes people go crazy, and not antidepressants and other mood

manipulating drugs made by pharmaceutical companies? That would

certainly be convenient.

Drug and Chemical Corporations — Best Buddies

Yet the waters of deception run still deeper. Many of the major

chemical corporations that the politicians allow to dump the

carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, endocrine-disrupting chemicals

into our food, water and air have pharmaceutical divisions that make

the medicines to " fight " the " viruses " and " bacteria " and " prions "

that everybody knows are the real causes of serious disease. One part

of the corporation makes money causing the diseases, and the other

part makes money " fighting " them. And at every step of the way, the

politicians make the laws and loopholes that let them get away with it.

Firms involved in both chemicals and pharmaceuticals include the

biggest names in the business: American Home Products, Aventis, BASF,

Merck, Dow, Dupont, Bayer, Novartis, Syngenta, Astra-Zeneca, American

Cyanimid, CIBA-Geigy and many others. These firms merge and change

their names so often it becomes difficult to keep track of them.

One of the most notorious chemical polluters, Monsanto, has had

several pharmaceutical subsidiaries, including Searle and Solutia.

Then a few years ago Monsanto was bought (and eventually spun off) by

Pharmacia and Upjohn, a leading drug corporation that was itself

recently bought by Pfizer.

During all these years of corporate mutation, Monsanto took the

synergistic chemical-drug business plan one step further. After

polluting much of the world's water with toxic chemicals, they were

reported to be getting into the drinking water business, seeing it as

a huge profit maker as water got ever more polluted. Their dream may

have been that people should drink " Monsanto Springs " water to wash

down their lunch of Monsanto genetically modified food doused with

Monsanto herbicide. And then perhaps take Searle or Solutia

pharmaceuticals to " treat " the cancer that they might get from the

herbicides (sorry, the viruses). Maybe they calculated that the

profits from selling pure water would more than offset any losses

caused by people failing to develop cancer due to drinking clean

bottled water instead of the Monsanto-chemicalized water in their

wells or municipal water systems. Or perhaps they figured that the

herbicides in the food itself would suffice to cause the cancer, and

they didn't need the polluted water. It's unclear what became of

Monsanto's fantasy, but it's illustrative of the way the industry

apparently thinks.

Uncle Sam and his counterparts in other governments do all they can to

help the enterprise along. US legislators have even passed laws making

it impossible for parents with children damaged by vaccines to sue the

drug firms that made them. Instead, parents have to appeal to the

government for damages. In effect, the drug firms make the profits,

and the taxpayers assume all risk. That's then promoted as free market

capitalism, when it is really welfare for the rich investors who run

the corporations and bribe the legislators.

If we didn't have germ causations, a lot of very rich, eminent " public

servants " would be in jail, with their vast fortunes seized to help

compensate their victims. Obviously, that's not politically realistic.

With polio, there was never any real proof that it was caused by a

virus. There was plenty of evidence that widespread household use of

DDT and other pesticides in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, encouraged by

the government and of course by the chemical companies, caused

paralysis. And that vaccinations caused paralysis. Researchers Jim

West, Janine Roberts and others have richly documented how the Salk

polio vaccine actually caused increased cases of polio, and how US

health authorities conspired to cover this up by changing the

definition of what polio was. They reclassified most polio cases as

" non-poliomyelitis acute flaccid paralysis, " viral or aseptic

meningitis, Guillian-Barré syndrome and other diseases, and then

proclaimed the vaccine a miraculous success of modern medicine, due to

the fact that there were fewer " polio " cases (but many more

meningitis, G-B and acute flaccid paralysis cases) than before. A

blatant scam, whose perpetrators have gotten away with it due to the

popular media's unwillingness to cover the issue. Roberts told me

that, after her polio exposé was published last year in The Ecologist,

many journalists wrote to her expressing praise. Some wanted to run

mainstream press reports about the story, but they were nixed by their

editors. Think about this for a moment — a story about government

deceit and deception that paralyzed hundreds of thousands of children

(and continues to do so), and nobody will print it except small

non-commercial publications like The Ecologist. Surprising if you

thought the media were independent watchdogs, but not surprising at

all if you've figured out that they are a sophisticated propaganda

operation that unfailingly protects powerful interests from facts that

might harm them.

In more modern times, the CDC plays the same shell game with Aids,

constantly changing the definition of what Aids is in order to create

the illusion that it is increasing and that women get it too, not just

men. For example, bedeviled by the fact that Aids remained a disease

that was overwhelmingly restricted to males, in violation of their

prediction that it would become equally distributed between the sexes,

in 1993 the CDC added cervical cancer to the official list of Aids

diseases. It's hard to see any justification for this other than the

political need to feminize the disease in order to salvage CDC's

credibility. Also, confronted in 1992 with evidence of thousands of

cases of Hiv-negative Aids, CDC quickly deterred the threat this

represented to the sacred Hiv theory by reclassifying these cases as a

new disease — dubbed Idiopathic CD4 Lymphocytopenia (ICL).

The corporations' " NGO " and " Charity " subsidiaries

The World Health Organization presents itself to the world as a

dedicated, compassionate " global health watchdog. " Go to their website

and you'll see all the usual heartstring-tugging pictures of poor

African and Asian children who they are struggling to " help. " You

won't see any alternative views about their role in getting dubious

polio vaccines, deadly Aids drugs and toxic pesticides into the bodies

of vulnerable third world people.

Are hard-nosed reporters peppering WHO leaders with questions about

the facts brought out in the various exposés of polio and Aids? Are

they asking them why they recommend spraying Africa with dangerous

pesticides when this might cause paralysis and cancer? Are they

interrogating them about why they continue to urge Nevirapine on

pregnant third world mothers despite evidence of its severe toxicity?

Are they demanding to know, bluntly, whether the WHO is preventing

disease or causing it? Dream on!

Far from raising a skeptical eyebrow to pronouncements made by public

health careerists, the news media treat every new scare story WHO puts

out as if it were a fact, not an assertion made by a financially and

politically corrupted agency.

What people don't realize (because the media don't tell you) is that

pharmaceutical and chemical corporations now fund WHO, UNICEF, other

UN agencies and thousands of " health " charities both major and minor.

These " NGOs " then become part of the pharma companies' PR operations.

They haul out the photos of sick and diseased black children, post

them in their ads and on their websites, and suck at people's

consciences. The virus must be stopped, they shout. We need the

life-giving drugs, the vaccines! Not knowing the way they are

manipulated by images every day, few compassionate people can resist

these appeals. Their opinions are molded for them by pharmaceutical

industry money.

With the media's funding coming from the same sources, both industries

relentlessly promote the infectious disease model and pharmaceutical

solutions to problems that have political, nutritional and toxic causes.

It hardly seems a coincidence that a WHO subsidiary,

Codex-Alimentarius, is at the forefront of new campaigns in the

European Union and elsewhere to restrict people's freedom to use high

dose vitamins and other natural health supplements by making them

illegal or available only by doctor's prescription. This is something

that has been the pharmaceutical industry's wet dream for decades,

because they see non-patentable vitamins and herbs as low-cost

competition for their expensive drugs.

Millions of people who have used these supplements for years,

successfully maintaining their own health naturally without paying the

medical establishment, are in danger of losing that freedom. And

health watchdog WHO is leading this effort to restrict people's

choices and destroy their health.

In some European countries, people are already being restricted to 200

mg Vitamin C tablets, when there is evidence that only much higher

potencies can prevent and ameliorate disease. This action by the WHO

is also a part of politicized disease causation. By denying people the

right to take vitamins and other natural health supplements, WHO will

bring about lowered immunity that will result in more disease. And

deliver people right into the waiting arms of their funders at the

pharmaceutical firms.

Looked at another way, while chemical farming pushed by the big

chemical cartels (who also give money to WHO) is causing depleted soil

that reduces and degrades the nutrients in our food, WHO is working to

make sure that we can't get those nutrients back by taking dietary

supplements.

WHO/Codex claim they are considering these limits because there are

" studies " that show that vitamins and other health supplements in high

doses are potentially harmful. There may be some germ of truth to

that, as anything taken in ridiculously excessive amounts can be

harmful. But there's little evidence that the megadoses of supplements

that health conscious people commonly consume do any harm, and in any

event the matter can be dealt with by simple labelling, not by making

high doses illegal. Interestingly, there are many studies that show

that commonly consumed doses of over the counter drugs ranging from

antihistamines to pain relievers are potentially very harmful and even

fatal. As well as commonly consumed doses of pesticide residues on

produce. As well as commonly consumed amounts of milkshakes, peanuts,

Big Macs, chewing gum, booze and Coca Cola. But we don't hear WHO talk

about restricting those. Just who do WHO think they're kidding?

An innumerably greater number of studies have found tremendous benefit

from vitamins. In fact, hardly anyone has ever died from taking

megadoses of vitamins, but well over 100,000 people in the US alone

die every year from the side effects of properly used prescription

medicine. Yet prescription medicine is being encouraged everywhere by

the health authorities. WHO and World Bank and CDC and practically the

entire medical establishment have made it very clear — Africans need

toxic Aids drugs, not clean, unpolluted water, food and vitamins.

One must marvel at the coincidence that, just as the WHO's Codex is in

the middle of this effort to restrict the sale of vitamins, suddenly

new studies are published, and shouted by the media, that find that

high dose Vitamin C and E can cause cancer! Written by scientists who

would probably " find " that sniffing organically grown flowers causes

brain tumors if the orders came from their benefactors on Wall Street.

What's the reality that they don't tell you? That studies have shown

that vitamins alone, without toxic Aids drugs, reduce mother to child

transmission of the " deadly Aids virus " as much as the drugs do, and

by themselves are capable of stopping Aids. Not surprising, because

Vitamin C and E and other antioxidants work by countering oxidative

stress, which some feel is the real source of diseases that are

labelled " Aids. " Oxidative stress is a direct result of taking drugs,

not having enough or good quality food to eat, and ingesting toxins.

In his new book, Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases & Toxins: Curing the

Incurable, Dr. Thomas Levy notes that in 1949, at the height of the

polio epidemic, researcher Frederick Klenner reported that he had

completely cured 60 children of their polio simply by giving them

massive doses of Vitamin C for three days. His findings, although

published in a medical journal, were almost completely ignored by a

medical establishment that knew then, and knows now, that vitamins

cannot be patented.

Similar neglect greeted people like double Nobel prize winner Dr.

Linus Pauling and Dr. Matthias Rath when they insisted that Vitamin C

could cure many of today's worst diseases. They were not only ignored,

but ridiculed.

Do governments and the WHO strive to make vitamins that can counter

oxidative stress, polio, heart disease, Aids and many other diseases

cheap and widely available? Of course not. They are doing the

opposite, trying to make them expensive and illegal. Just as the drug

companies want.

Who is responsible for the hunger, malnutrition and lack of clean

drinking water that makes Africans get diarrhea and other symptoms

which are today reclassified as " Aids " ? One can easily make a case

that the World Bank's and IMF's privatization programs bear much of

the responsibility. The World Bank/IMF routine goes like this: they

lend the poor country money (much of which somehow finds its way into

the president's Swiss bank account), and, as a condition of the loan,

demand that the recipient country privatize basic commodities like

water, food and cooking gas so that well-connected financiers can

profit from them. This leads inevitably to higher prices charged to

people who cannot afford to pay. So people go hungry, drink

contaminated water because they can't afford fresh, and not

surprisingly get sick. Meanwhile, the president fulfills his part of

the bargain and announces that " Hiv " is what is making his people

sick, and calls upon " the international community " to send relief in

the form of toxic Aids drugs (paid for by the world's taxpayers with

profits diverted to the drug companies).

The World Bank is now additionally demanding, as a condition of these

" loans, " that recipient governments adopt uncritically the

establishment's infectious Aids model, and divert money from food and

water to toxic pharmaceutical drugs and condoms. While the World

Bank/IMF's advertising campaign tells people that the organization

fights poverty, their former chief economist, Joseph Stiglitz, says

that they deliberately create poverty by sucking out third world

countries' assets for the benefit of elite multinational banks and

corporations. Stiglitz refers to the World Bank/IMF's " privatization "

campaigns as " briberization. "

Is UNICEF any better? After all, they show lots of poor black children

on their website, and use cute children's drawings and even write

their logo in crayon in many of their ads. They must be the most

wonderful, caring folks, fighting to help children regardless of race

or color! Except that UNICEF, too, are now receiving " donations " from

virtually every drug and chemical corporation and, predictably, are

throwing their prestige behind the call for widespread testing with

unvalidated, wildly unreliable, suicide-inducing Hiv tests (made by

drug companies) and toxic, bone marrow eating, muscle-wasting,

liver-destroying (i.e., " life-saving " ) Aids drugs for children and

mothers. And, of course, they call this " defending the rights of

children. "

What they are doing is perhaps more accurately summarized on their

corporate relations website: " UNICEF has a dedicated media relations

officer who works with our corporate partners to maximise the PR

benefits of their partnership with UNICEF. UNICEF's Corporate

Partnerships team has extensive experience of working with some of the

world's biggest brands, " they note, sounding more like an advertising

agency than an advocacy organization for children.

Politicized Disease Causation benefits Eastern Elites, Too

The Chinese government seems awfully malleable these days. They have

embraced the WHO's " Sars virus " theory with open arms. Could this have

anything to do with the fact that the cities where Sars prevailed are

among the most polluted in the world, that air pollution is a major

factor in respiratory diseases like pneumonia (Sars), and that severe

air pollution is an indictment of the Chinese government?

Anyone who has been to China knows that Chinese people spit a lot. To

be more precise, they perform an action (I don't know the exact word

for this) to draw the phlegm up from their throats with a loud noise,

then spit it out. This is seen everywhere, and is an indication that

there are severe respiratory problems in China that necessitate this

spitting, most likely caused by heavy air pollution. Furthermore, the

action of drawing the phlegm up from the throat may irritate the

throat and make it more susceptible to infection. But this kind of

multifactorial analysis is not allowed in politicized medicine.

Unfathomable evil results from politicized disease causation, and not

just to humans. Some Chinese scientist had a half-baked theory that

Civet cats were responsible for spreading " the Sars virus " so the

Chinese government slaughtered thousands of them — many by drowning.

The politically motivated theory that Mad Cow Disease was infectious

enabled governments to order the slaughter of millions of healthy

cows, sheep and deer all over the world. This tended to put small

farmers out of business and opened the door — coincidence? — for

multinational farming corporations to take over.

There are now reports that, in Thailand, hunters are massacring

songbirds in huge numbers because the WHO has terrified them about

" bird flu. "

And Aids? With the Chinese government's determination to control the

country's rapid population growth by limiting families to one child

apiece, it's hardly surprising that they would accept and embrace a

" Hiv/Aids " theory that makes people scared to have sex, or at the very

least, causes them to wear condoms.

Fighting the " deadly viruses " with deadly chemicals

People defined as having " Aids " today are urged to take the

" life-saving " Aids drugs, but few people are told that these are

really chemotherapy drugs, the same class of drugs used to " fight "

cancer. Chemotherapy is highly controversial and extremely toxic — to

healthy cells as well as cancerous ones. Some scientists insist that

chemotherapy drugs actually kill people faster than the cancer would

if it were left alone or treated nutritionally. But cancer patients

get a break — they are given chemotherapy for a brief period only. The

treatment brings them to the brink of death, and then it is stopped.

The theory is that this will kill the cancer and the patient will recover.

Chemotherapy in Aids patients is implemented differently. They are

told that they must take it every day, for the rest of their lives. In

the early years of Aids, doctors gave patients 1,500 mg doses of AZT,

the most poisonous of all Aids medicines, and predictably, they died

quickly — of " Aids, " naturally, not AZT. Now the medical establishment

realize that they have to provide lower doses of the drugs, so that

people can survive longer with them, so that the doctors can claim

that the drugs are life-extending. But make no mistake — these drugs

are chemotherapy. They are deadly chemicals, given in low doses so as

not to kill immediately. If, by killing a patient slowly, the drugs

mimic the presumed effect of a " slow virus, " thus vindicating the Hiv

theory of Aids and protecting the medical establishment from exposure,

that's a nice ancillary benefit.

To " fight Hiv " and other germs, people today are urged by public

health authorities to put microbicides, antiseptics, antibiotics,

chemicalized spermicides and lubricants into their bodies — many of

them known carcinogens and immune system disruptors. Meanwhile,

natural substances like saliva and Vitamin C have been shown to

inhibit the " Hiv " virus, but the WHO and CDC do not encourage people

to apply saliva via oral sex prior to intercourse (which would make

chemical lubricants unnecessary), or to take Vitamin C if Hiv

positive. Why not? It's not because the drug companies that are so

financially interconnected with these agencies don't have patents on

saliva and Vitamin C, is it?

The WHO and UNICEF and the innumerable other NGOs that have arisen and

gotten rich and fat from Aids say they are very concerned about the

poor prostitutes who are catching Hiv from their clients! So they

distribute free condoms to the girls, and free advice to make sure

they are terrified by every encounter. But do they give any thought to

the hazards of condoms? Condoms are not just made of friendly latex

from a natural rubber tree. The industrial processing of latex

involves many chemicals classed as carcinogens or probable

carcinogens. German scientists recently reported that " one of the most

carcinogenic substances, " N-Nitrosamine, was found in huge quantities

in 29 out of 32 brands of condoms they studied. Worse, the condoms are

coated before packaging with spermicides and lubricants that contain

many more dangerous chemicals.

In Asian brothels, women turn multiple tricks a day, each time with a

fresh condom. So they are getting doses of many carcinogenic chemicals

in their mouths and vaginas, as often as ten or more times a day. And

this is being promoted as " safe sex. " Will these condom overdoses

predispose these women to cervical, oral or other cancers? Has anybody

at WHO even asked this question? (Oops, I forgot, cervical cancer is

caused by a virus!) If the prostitutes get lubricated condoms in their

anuses, this could be even more dangerous. Some researchers think that

the toxic chemicals in sexual lubricants are a factor in gay Aids, as

the anus is a much easier pathway into the bloodstream than other

orifices.

But enough of sex, let's talk about food. Why are chemical

corporations permitted to make their pesticides and herbicides

tasteless, so a person cannot tell if what he is eating is

contaminated? Governments order providers of natural gas used in

cooking to give their gas a scent, so people can tell if there's a

leak. But then, a gas leak will kill a person in minutes. Chemicals

take years or decades to kill you. The disease produced by eating

pesticide-contaminated food will likely be so distant in time to the

event producing it, no lawyer will be able to prove a connection. So

there's your answer — governments and the corporations that control

them fail to provide this basic human right of letting people taste if

their food is contaminated, because they can get away with it. And

with most food these days contaminated, letting people taste the

chemicals might incite a popular revolt against chemical farming.

Which would be bad for business.

Similarly, the US government is pushing hard for international laws

that make it illegal to label foods as genetically modified. So the

world's number one fighter for " democracy " and " human rights " is

making sure that people don't have the basic human right of knowing

what they are eating.

Why isn't the WHO, our " health watchdog, " trying to change this

unhealthy state of affairs, in the interests of the world's people?

See previous paragraphs for the answer.

The difficulty of undoing False Disease Causations

Once a disease cause has been " established " by a consensus bought and

paid for by corporate money, it becomes nearly impossible to dislodge

even after the original proponents of the theory die or are

discredited. Thus Pasteur's germ theory, the foundation for the entire

pharmaceutical industry, remains even after Pasteur renounced it on

his deathbed, and even after it was discovered decades later that

Pasteur had faked his laboratory records and committed many counts of

scientific misconduct. And medical institutes retain him as their

honored namesake. (As the Salk Institute does Salk.) And Gallo's

theory, that Hiv causes Aids, remains even after Gallo was found to

have committed scientific misconduct and fraud in his original Aids

experiments.

This is not only because entire multi-billion dollar industries have

been founded on medical frauds, but because something infinitely more

valuable — the reputations and credibility of the entire governmental,

medical, scientific, business, NGO and media establishments — would be

lost if the frauds were exposed. Imagine what would happen to the

entire medical and public health professions, and the media which

virtually always anoint their theories as facts despite lack of

evidence, if the public found out the questionable bases of so many of

the diseases that they are menaced with and mistreated for. " Hiv/Aids "

alone, if it were exposed as the medical-scientific-media-government

fabrication that it is, would cause an unprecedented uproar as people

realized that their friends and relatives had committed suicide or

died from the Aids drugs or gotten divorced or seen their careers

shattered or practiced celibacy needlessly. The demands for

reparations would be deafening. People would no longer trust their

doctors, their governments, the media, industry — and with that loss

of trust, the entire social fabric based on deference to authority and

expertise could unravel, opening up the real possibility of social

revolution — the nightmare of powerful and rich elites everywhere.

So after the germ is found to deflect the true toxic causes of a

disease, and it is " established " as the cause by a politically

motivated medical establishment, a second layer of political

protection kicks in — the need to protect the reputations, credibility

and financial assets of the medical and scientific establishments, the

government regulators who approved the causation, the media that

reported the theory as if it were a fact, the NGOs that raised funds

based on it, and of course the politicians who oversee the whole

system. With several dense layers of political protection, it then

becomes impossible for even the application of overwhelming logic to

dethrone the politicized disease cause. You can see a similar

phenomenon within the dental industry. They can't admit that mercury

fillings are harmful. To do so would sully their reputations too much.

So rather than eliminate them, they keep installing them in people's

mouths, while at least making alternatives available to the few people

who know about mercury's toxicity.

The medical establishment does correct small mistakes, but the really

big ones, the " whoppers " — like Hiv-Aids and vaccination — can never

be corrected, because confessing that they screwed up on such a

spectacular scale would exact too great a toll on the credibility of

the industry. And the longer these frauds go on, the more the

establishment's credibility becomes intertwined with them, the more

millions of people who die or are seriously harmed — the more

resistant the establishments become to undoing them, because this

would mean facing the consequences not only of their errors, but of

their failure, time and again, to correct them.

So, with medical/scientific/media/government reputations and Swiss

bank accounts/trust funds/Aspen chalets, etc. thus protected, the

disease causation is then further entrenched by the awarding of prizes

— Nobel, Lasker and others for the scientists, Pulitzer for the media

hounds, etc. This puts the official stamp of approval on a scientist's

theory and the media's misreporting of it. It becomes a fact, even if

it's never met objective standards of proof. The Nobel given to

Carlton Gajdusek for his theory of " slow viruses " essentially ended

all arguments as to whether there really are such creatures. To the

general public and to scientis

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/06/02/epidemics_chemical_causes_or_vir\

us_scares.htm

posted by sepp on Thursday June 2 2005

Print this article

June 2, 2005

Sorry to see that the article by Marcel Girodian was cut off due to a

technical glitch.

To see his whole article, this is the correct link:

http://www.thenhf.com/articles_117.htm

Kind regards