CHAPTER FIFTEEN
How far has the medical world really come toward a prevention or cure for AIDS? The answer is simple:
No progress has been made at all. None. Billions of dollars have gone into the pockets of government
scientists and bureaucrats and medical researchers and drug companies—and their largest stockholders,
including the Rockefellers—and the public today has no greater protection against infection with AIDS
than if no research had been done, and a person infected today will still die from the disease with onehundred
percent certainty. The only progress—which has come from those doctors courageous enough to
remain in the front lines of this war, despite its futility—is in treatment of many of the most common
symptoms, such as pneumonia, that show themselves as the virus works its deadly path through the body.
In other words, good doctors who care can now prolong life and diminish suffering. But that's all we have
to show after more than a decade of fighting this epidemic.
Intelligence reports on the work done at Fort Detrick indicate that it will not be possible to produce a
vaccine against AIDS. A vaccine won't work, because what will work on one strain of HIV will not work
on another. The virus can alter itself, simply by altering a single amino acid on its outer shell. The
virologists at Fort Detrick have learned that there are almost 10,000 possible mutations of the AIDS virus.
As Dr. John Seale has reported: "The outlook for a successful vaccine is bleak. None is available for
lentivirus diseases of animals. Search for a vaccine against infectious anemia of horses for eight years,
and against maedi-visna in sheep for forty years has proved futile. Indeed when antibodies to a lentivirus
are produced artificially by vaccination, animals die after subsequent infection more rapidly than those
which are not. In spite of many successful vaccines, it should be realized that for the majority of viral and
bacterial diseases, vaccines do not work.
"No simple, effective, curative drug, like penicillin, will be available for AIDS in the foreseeable future,
because once a person is infected, the viral genetic code is permanently inserted into the human genetic
code of cells in the brain and other tissues. Any drug which blocks replication of the virus will have to be
taken for life. All drugs used so far are highly toxic and expensive. If a cheap, apparently effective drug
becomes available, it will take several decades to be certain that it is both safe and effective. Nevertheless,
many companies will announce 'promising' new drugs and a 'breakthrough' in the treatment for AIDS for
simple commercial motives."
The classic example is AZT. "AIDS victims are being deprived of the best possible treatment because drugs cost too much," according
to an Associated Press story based on an important Congressional report. "The report, issued by the House
Government Operations Committee, says it is 'appalling that despite the fact that AIDS must be
considered the single most compelling challenge to public health in recent U.S. history, unfortunately
neither the president nor the Secretary of Health and Human Services has articulated any national policy."
The committee said AIDS victims are being exploited through 'the unnecessarily high cost' of drug
treatment.'"
Take AZT. One drug company, Burroughs Wellcome, is making a huge fortune off AZT. The company
admitted, in an article in the New York Times in the spring of 1994, that their profit was already in excess
of $300 million. This is one of the cruelest hoaxes ever perpetrated on a desperately ill group of people
who are paying large sums for a treatment that, far from curing or retarding AIDS, is actually helping to
kill them.
AIDS patients are taking this costly drug in the tragically mistaken belief that its approval by the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) means that it must serve a beneficial purpose. What AZT's victims are
not aware of is that they are using the most toxic drug ever considered, let alone approved, by the
government. So horrific is AZT's toxicity that only about half the AIDS patients can tolerate it. The other
half must be taken off it—or they die. Harvey Chernov, an FDA drug analyst, recommended that AZT's
side effects—including anemia—were too severe to warrant approval. But he was overruled. AZT is one
of the worst medical frauds of our time. One former government intelligence agent who used his
connections to dig deeply into the secret story of the AIDS epidemic told me: "The AZT fraud is the
greatest swindle since old John D. Rockefeller sold raw crude oil as a cure for cancer—and made about as
much profit per pint bottle as Burroughs Wellcome makes on one AZT pill."
The fervent manner in which the medical profession and the media defend and promote the use of AZT
could lead one to believe that—innocently or intentionally—they are serving a policy designed to murder
people. No less than the Journal of the American Medical ssociation—which receives substantial
advertising revenues from Burroughs Wellcome and the pharmaceutical industry—has backed the use of
AZT. Thanks to this concerted support, the number of AZT users now stands at more than 25,000 and is
climbing steadily, primarily among homosexuals.
Even more obscene is the program pushed by one of the chief promoters of AZT, William Haseltine of
Harvard's School for Public Health, who advocates that healthy gays be given the drug as a preventive
measure. For whatever reasons, Haseltine seems to have taken leave of his Hippocratic oath (first, do no
harm), not to mention his senses. AZT is highly toxic, severely damaging kidneys and liver, killing bone
marrow, causing muscle-wasting, dreadful nausea and violent bouts of vomiting as the body tries to rid
itself of the poison. It destroys the immune system, leads to leukemia through the destruction of cells and
causes cancer. Even the FDA issued a bulletin admitting that AZT is "a potential carcinogen."
The fact is that AZT will hasten the onset of AIDS, not delay it, because of the drug's depressive effect on
the human immune system. Burroughs Wellcome cannot supply data on the cumulative, long-term effects
of AZT—and no wonder. Where would they find enough long-term survivors to tell the tale? The U.S.
Army has conducted tests that concluded that AZT is largely ineffective as a treatment for blacks; it only
aggravates symptoms in the majority of black patients.
Dr. Michael S. Gottlieb says that individuals exposed to HIV "may be subjected to the adverse effects of
AZT without proof that it is effective in these circumstances." Dr. Peter Duesberg of the University of
California at Berkeley puts it more bluntly: "AZT is incompatible with life." Here's the simplest—and
most honest—way to put it: AZT is a killer drug. Why, in God's name, would anyone who was healthy
ever consider using AZT? Certainly nobody would, unless it was advocated by a medical "authority" who
presumably knew what was best for them.
How the FDA could have passed AZT is a mystery, unless, of course, as several researchers have
concluded, the fix was in. For AZT is as expensive as it is deadly. The cost for one year's dosage is about
$10,000—if the patient lives that long. (That cost, incidentally, is about half borne by the U.S. taxpayer.)
The FDA didn't even try to protect people. AZT received a virtual free pass through the FDA testing
process—and was approved faster than any other drug in the history of the FDA. Given the labyrinthine
difficulties of winning approval for even the most beneficial drugs, what happened with AZT could be
described as nothing short of miraculous. The mystery of why is deepened by the fact that Burroughs
Wellcome, which hadn't participated in the drug's development, was awarded sole and exclusive rights to
AZT. There's a scandal of monumental proportions waiting for the first enterprising reporter or
Congressman with the tenacity to bring forth the whole truth.
Beginning in April, 1986, AZT tests were launched by the FDA in 12 medical facilities across the U.S.
Under the code name "Phase 11," the tests were supposed to be "double blind, placebo controlled," but
turned out to be an almost worthless mess of uncorrelated data signifying, at best, utter incompetence—at
worst, complicity.
Placebo testing was invalidated because of AZT's horrible side effects. The patients knew what they were
getting; AZT is so toxic there is no way to conceal the horrible taste. And no one could have failed to
know which patients had the placebos—they were the ones who weren't vomiting. Even more glaring,
doctors administering the tests soon discovered that there were substantial blood-profile differences
between AZT users and those who received placebos; AZT showed up as the cause of a depression of
some blood elements. The two doctors, Dr. Reichman and Dr. Fischl, most responsible for the tests did
not inform the medical profession or the public that the tests were totally unblinded.
One of the 12 centers was in Boston. An FDA inspector was shocked by what she found in the tests.
There were, she reported, "multiple deviations from standard protocol procedures." So bad were these "deviations" that she recommended the Boston test data simply not be used in the study. She was
overruled. On the administrative side, the forms provided to record symptoms were so badly designed that
data could not be properly analyzed—and had to be discarded. An FDA inspector noted that in several
instances, reports were altered without explanation as to why. (Critics charged that this data was falsified
after the number of deaths and serious adverse side effects became apparent.)
One group of twenty-three AIDS patients were treated for less than four weeks, rather than the required
twenty-four weeks. For the remaining twenty weeks of their uncompleted test period, statistical
projections about this group were no more valid than guesses. The discrepancies discovered at the twelve
centers were so outrageous that the "Phase 11" tests were summarily halted before completion. And on
and on and on.
An emergency FDA meeting was held to discuss these anomalies and, incredibly enough, a decision was
made to retain the false data. Why? A secret intelligence report on the FDA's machinations states that they
decided that "retaining the (false) data didn't really change the results very much." But how would the
FDA know this? The answer is: It wouldn't. In other words, they would treat this as if they were the
Queen in Alice in Wonderland. The results would mean whatever the FDA wanted them to mean.
The media, of course, hyped by government officials, defended the FDA with the seemingly humane
rationale that it would have been "unethical" to withhold AZT from dying patients while the normal
testing procedure for approval was carried out. The media had no way of knowing the real facts: Between
eight and twelve percent of the 4,805 AIDS patients treated with AZT died during the first seventeen
weeks of the trials. Faulty data-keeping made it impossible to determine whether that was better or worse
than a similar group of patients who were not treated with AZT.
Yet, for some reason, none of the patients who died during the test were given autopsies. This would
surely amount to criminal negligence if it were a case involving an individual doctor or the county
medical examiner. What possible legitimate reason could there have been for consistent failure to conduct
standard autopsies? The FDA refuses to answer all inquiries. Not even the the intelligence agents who
tried to answer that question were able to discover much. That is a secret the FDA has successfully kept to
itself—so far—even stonewalling the question of where and when the patients on AZT died.
After Phase 11 tests, the FDA completely lost contact with 1,120 patients in the program—didn't even
know where they lived, or whether they were still alive. To solve this glaring deficiency, the FDA
announced they would rely on "statistical projections" about the status of those 1,120 patients. In other
words, the FDA would simply guess what happened to them. And that would serve as reality. Generously,
the FDA accorded the 1,120 missing patients a survival rate of seventy-three percent—and the Journal of
The American Medical Association duly reported this "fact," whereupon it became conventional wisdom
for most of the medical profession.
Even researchers who have supported AZT have been forced to make damning admissions. In their book,
AIDS: The Deadly Threat Revised and Expanded, which was partly based on the fraudulent report put out
by Burroughs Wellcome, Alvin and Virginia Silverstein stated: "AZT and other drugs that have been
found to be effective against the AIDS virus generally work at the stage when the virus is reproducing
actively and bursting out of infected cells. The virus lurking in bone marrow, brain, or skin cells,
however, may be more resistant to the action of the drug. That is why AZT can slow or halt the progress
of the disease, but is not a cure. It leaves a reservoir of dormant virus that can break out later if the drug is
stopped."
Not to mention the risk of cancer. An early FDA bulletin, before Burroughs Wellcome exerted its full
influence: "AZT induces a positive response in cell transformation assay, and is therefore presumed to be
a potential carcinogen." Subsequent studies confirmed that AZT did indeed cause cancer in animals.
In their favorable report, even the Silversteins were obliged to acknowledge this deadly detail. "The side
effects of AZT, too, are worrisome," they wrote. "A new dimension was added to these worries by two
reports suggesting that AZT might cause cancer.… Then in mid 1990, doctors at major AIDS treatment
centers reported a steep rise in cases of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (an aggressive cancer of the lymph
nodes) among AIDS patients taking AZT."
The Silversteins put a charitable spin on that bad news: "There is no evidence that AZT is causing
lymphoma. Instead, doctors believe that AZT is allowing people with weakened immune systems to live
longer, thus increasing their chances of developing opportunistic cancer."
So there you are. AZT offers AIDS patients the chance to pay $8,000 to $10,000 a year for a drug that
will make them horribly ill, damage their immune system, cause kidney, liver and neurological
damage—not to mention the risk of cancer—while leaving them with a "reservoir" of AIDS virus ready to
burst out at any moment to overwhelm a considerably weakened body.
Despite its negative impact, AZT has now been joined by a newcomer, DDI. DDI is even less effective in
stemming AIDS than AZT. DDI is another cruel hoax. So far there is absolutely no evidence that DDI is
effective against AIDS. What the evidence does show is that DDI is even more toxic than AZT! Sixtythree
percent of those on DDI, according to the American College of Gastroenterology, were suffering
severe pancreatitis. The side effects of DDI will far outweigh any supposed benefits to AIDS patients.
But the drug scam continues. With science now poised to enter realms of genetic engineering never before
imagined, there is astonishing hope for the fortunate, but greater danger than ever for the unwanted. The
future will be a very treacherous place, indeed.
Chapters 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - Appendices - Footnotes
All of the events and characters depicted in this book
are non-fictional
Copyright © 1994 by Dr. Gary L. Glum
All rights reserved under International and Pan-American
Copyright conventions. Published in the United States by
Silent Walker Publishing, Los Angeles.
ISBN 0-9620364-1-2
Manufactured in the United States of America
Typography and binding design by Silent Walker Publishing
First Edition |
|
SILENT WALKER
PUBLISHING
LOS ANGELES |
Disclaimer:
The information on this website is presented for educational purposes
only. It is not intended as a substitute for the diagnosis, treatment and
advice of a qualified licensed professional.
Throughout this
website, statements are made pertaining to the properties and/or functions
of nutritional products. These statements have not been evaluated by the
Food and Drug Administration and these materials and products are not
intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
Yadda-yadda
This is a crazy world. What can be done? Amazingly, we have been mislead. We have been taught that
we can control government by voting. The founder of the Rothschild dynasty, Mayer Amschel Bauer,
told the secret of controlling the government of a nation over 200 years ago. He said, "Permit me
to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws." Get the picture?
Your freedom hinges first on the nation's banks and money system. Freedom is connected with Debt Elimination for each individual. Not only does
this end personal debt, it places the people first in line as creditors to the National Debt ahead
of the banks. They don't wish for you to know this. It has to do with recognizing WHO you really
are in A
New Beginning: A Practical Course in Miracles, an informational study.
Disclaimer - The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The myriad of facts, conjecture, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information in the articles, stories and commentaries posted on this site range from cutting edge hard news and comment to extreme and unusual perspectives. We choose not to sweep uncomfortable material under the rug - where it can grow and fester. We choose not to censor skewed logic and uncomfortable rhetoric. These things reflect the world as it now is - for better and worse. We present multiple facts, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information.
Journalism is (or used to be) the profession of gathering and presenting a broad panorama of news about the events of our times and presenting it to readers for their own consideration. We believe in the intelligence, judgment and wisdom of our readers to discern for themselves among the data which appears on this site that which is valid and worthy...or otherwise. See full legal disclaimer
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. (attributed to Voltaire), but certainly embodies what the 1st amendment of the constitution refers to as the freedom of speech
Bill of Rights
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Queen
Victoria
