Gay Patriot Header Image

Log Cabin Misses Boat on Ryan White Act

Hey, Log Cabin (Republicans) sans Patrick….. why aren’t you taking on Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) on this?  She is the one stopping it.  Your press release sounds like there is some mysterious, unnamed force of nature keeping the legislation from passing.

Log Cabin calls on members of both parties in Congress to reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act before they leave town to campaign for re-election. “Real people will be hurt if Congress fails to pass this important legislation by October 1st,” said Log Cabin Executive Vice President Patrick Sammon. “It’s time for all sides to put aside small differences and reach a compromise.”

President Bush has called on Congress several times to reauthorize and reform the CARE Act, which is the principal federal program that provides life-saving assistance to tens of thousands of Americans with HIV/AIDS.  Senators and House members from both parties have developed a bi-partisan compromise to update the program with reforms that reflect changes in the epidemic. “We will be very disappointed if a few lawmakers hold up reauthorization of this important legislation,” said Sammon. “Delaying reauthorization will cause great uncertainty for states and real worry for those who depend on the CARE Act for survival.”

If Congress fails to reauthorize the law by October 1st, a provision in the existing law will revise funding formulas to include all patients in a jurisdiction with HIV.  Currently, the law counts only those diagnosed with AIDS.  As a result, states that do not have up to date HIV reporting systems will likely see significant funding cuts. “Now is the time to act. There’s near unanimous agreement on both sides of the aisle and among community groups that this law needs to be reauthorized. We need members of the House and Senate to step up and get this done,” said Sammon.

Oh please don’t tell me that the New Log Cabin is going the other direction — apologists for the Democrat Party!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)



  1. Perhaps they believe that type of inflammatory rhetoric gets them nowhere.
    It appears you believe that every statement by a Republican should inflame division and bickering (especially if you can nail a Clinton).
    But it looks like they think they can get more with a more reasonable tone than yours.
    Maybe they didn’t get the “GOP Talking Point” letter yet.
    Its obviously the fault of the Unionized, Liberally Biased, Anti-American, Terrorist Lovin’ Postal Office.

    Comment by keogh — September 15, 2006 @ 12:03 pm - September 15, 2006

  2. keogh believes that since the MSM and American public put Slick Willy through so much stress as President, we ought to give the 2nd Mrs Clinton a break on acountability.

    Right keogh… who’s padding the kneelers for sinners now?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 15, 2006 @ 2:26 pm - September 15, 2006

  3. Oh, it hardly needs to be inflammatory.

    It simply needs to be something on the order of, “Action on the bill is currently being delayed by Democratic Senators Clinton (D-NY), Schumer (D-NY), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Menendez (D-NJ), Boxer (D-CA), and Feinstein (D-CA). This is due primarily to their objections to changes in the funding formulas that would shift emphasis from their constituents and influential agencies in the New York City and San Francisco metropolitan areas to communities elsewhere that are suffering an explosion in the number of HIV infections, especially among poor minorities, and have traditionally not received the same level of support as have urbanized, more-affluent areas.”

    People are always amazed when I say that, especially since I do fundraising for one of the organizations that will have to take a cut if the formula changes. However, what we realized a long time ago is that we were serving not only people from San Francisco, but ones from the Central Valley and several other areas, who had to drive all the way in because their local agencies couldn’t offer the same level of care. To me, it makes sense to distribute the funds so that residents of these farther-flung communities don’t have to drive hundreds of miles to get help, or move to the city. In the short run, it may hurt us financially, but in the long run, it will help with the treatment of the epidemic.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 15, 2006 @ 2:33 pm - September 15, 2006

  4. Since when did telling the truth (as NDXXX did most eloquently) become “inflammatory rhetoric”? I think Log Cabin has a responsibility (because no other group will) to hold the Democrats responsible for their actions.

    But I guess Log Cabin won’t either.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — September 15, 2006 @ 2:56 pm - September 15, 2006

  5. For 401(k) and all other liberal apologists for the RATS and especially for Juan and Evita Clinton, this turn of events should convince you who is NOT looking out for the community’s best interests. THIS IS WHO IS KEEPING YOU DOWN.

    Can you imagine the caterwauling all over Daily Kaka and Demonic Underwear if it was Rick Santorum holding this up? So where is the outrage over Shrillary’s actions?

    Also – thanks to Bruce for posting this comment. The silence from the Drive-By Media is so heavy on this that I didn’t know it was going on until I read this blog. Gee, wonder why this is flying below the MSM’s radar???

    You get three guesses and the first two don’t count.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 15, 2006 @ 3:12 pm - September 15, 2006

  6. And as far as “a more reasonable tone than yours [the GOP],” I have yet to hear any RAT sound either more reasonable or modulated than any GOP figure as far as I’m concerned.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 15, 2006 @ 3:14 pm - September 15, 2006

  7. Bruce,
    You and your talking points are all about the inflammatory rhetoric. Don’t be coy, accept it. Its your style, I am used to it, but some people don’t think it does any good. Apparently the LCR doesn’t either.
    Why are you trying to kick them out of the Republican Party for that?

    Comment by keogh — September 15, 2006 @ 4:08 pm - September 15, 2006

  8. Inflammatory rhetoric?

    All I think we’re doing is demonstrating how Hillary Clinton, et al., are doing things that will result in poor minorities being denied money for HIV/AIDS assistance and prevention in favor of wealthy predominantly-white urban gays and their organizations receiving it.

    I might also add that Hillary, et. al., have received large contributions from those same wealthy predominantly-white urban gays and their organizations.

    Why LCR isn’t saying anything about it is frankly mystifying…..until one remembers that the organization is trying to solicit donations and credibility from those same wealthy predominantly-white urban gays and their organizations.

    Just stating the facts, keoghlester.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 15, 2006 @ 5:27 pm - September 15, 2006

  9. Thanks NDT I was honestly trying to figure out why anyone would object to changing the formula to include HIV infected people, but I didn’t think about the fact that dollars that currently go to certain areas may be shifted to others.

    Although it still makes the most sense to change the formulas.

    Comment by just me — September 15, 2006 @ 7:43 pm - September 15, 2006

  10. Though I disagree with Hillary’s position on this, Hillary is just fighting to make sure the most money goes to her state, even if it is as a expense of poor minorities in other states. As a Senator, that’s sort of her job, to bring home the bacon to her state.

    I mean, we could get all upity and say that a Senator’s job is to do what’s best for the country, but we all know that’s not how it works. It’s all about how much money you can get for your state. That’s what gets a politician re-elected.

    Comment by Chase — September 16, 2006 @ 11:43 am - September 16, 2006

  11. Oh, I know exactly what she’s doing, Chase. I’m just pointing out in an oblique fashion how what she’s doing runs contrary to the tongue-lashings she likes to give others for doing the same. 🙂

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 16, 2006 @ 11:59 am - September 16, 2006

  12. I love how merely pointing out the relevant truth is “inflammatory rhetoric”. Or as people have claimed at other times, “a smear”.

    When the Left starts saying stuff like that – you know you’re making progress 🙂

    Same with Muslims, in the other thread. Pope Benedict said something truthful about their tendency toward violence, so now it’s “How dare you smear us!!!” and rioting-to-get-even.

    Comment by Calarato — September 16, 2006 @ 12:17 pm - September 16, 2006

  13. Regarding the post, Mr. Bruce, did it ever, ever occur to you that the LC”R” didn’t take on Hillary’s position because they believed that is was the correct one?

    I guess that you didn’t.

    Supporting the reauthorization of legislation that might be faulty is not necessarily the best way to go. Even for “gay patriots.” For “gay re-distributionists,” perhaps, but they are hardly patriots, are they–they’re liberals, perhaps?

    Unless, of course, your goal is to merely extend government payments to states in the hinterland that don’t necessarily need it. I’m reminded of the fact that Indiana has 50% more terrorist sites–according to the federal government–than NYS does.

    Comment by raj — September 18, 2006 @ 4:34 am - September 18, 2006

  14. RajIan, your comment merely points out that contradiction is not an intellectual process.

    Read the second paragraph again:

    President Bush has called on Congress several times to reauthorize and reform the CARE Act, which is the principal federal program that provides life-saving assistance to tens of thousands of Americans with HIV/AIDS. Senators and House members from both parties have developed a bi-partisan compromise to update the program with reforms that reflect changes in the epidemic.

    That’s what LCR supports — the bipartisan compromise.


    “We will be very disappointed if a few lawmakers hold up reauthorization of this important legislation,” said Sammon. “Delaying reauthorization will cause great uncertainty for states and real worry for those who depend on the CARE Act for survival.”

    Hillary is one of the lawmakers holding up that reauthorization because she opposes those reforms in the bipartisan compromise.

    To summarize, what LCR supports, Hillary opposes.

    LCR does NOT think that Hillary’s position is correct. That much is plainly obvious to anyone who reads the press release.

    However, as invariably happens, you needed to contradict more than you needed to be intelligent, RajIan.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 18, 2006 @ 1:19 pm - September 18, 2006

  15. Sometimes you get what you want when you lobby by being polite. Sometiems you get what you want when you lobby by smacking someone upside the head (figuratively, of course.)

    As far as I can tell, you’re talking style versus substance Bruce. At least LCR is doing some lobbying on an issue important to our community.

    Comment by GOPValues — September 19, 2006 @ 6:29 pm - September 19, 2006


    Whose access to care are we talking about here? Most of us ‘HIV’ positive labeled persons in this country do not chose to access conventional, pharmaceutically-based, or at least, “HIV Specialist” care, including the highly toxic and experimental AIDS drug cocktails. As a person living in California, [mis]diagnosed ‘HIV’ positive for 16 years, I see this as a good thing, really. Time for true conservatives to support a model of competition[rather than the current model of monopoly] within our current healthcare system: in terms of research and access to a variety approaches, conventional and alternative, to care, to give consumers a choice and to let the marketplace of ideas compete for saving dollars and lives. I’m tired of LCR, which proudly displays their last national convention was sponsored by, among others, two pharmaceutical companies, and then issues a press release without any debate among members, chapters. Everyone agrees, they say. Oh, yeah? I know a number of Log Cabin members and leaders whom I have spoken with who do not agree with the enforcement of medical ‘correctness’ on HIV/AIDS policy. One of the changes that would actually help California, in terms of dollars only, not in terms of saving lives, is counting ACTUAL versus ESTIMATED ‘AIDS’ cases… Did you all read that? Hello! Has anyone else here been paying attention at how notorously in error ‘AIDS’ statistics have been and how they are often distorted to fit the circumstance: looking up when seeking to continue funding ‘prevention’ and education efforts and looking down when seeking to increase ‘care’ dollars.

    In their December 2005 “World AIDS Day” release, the American Academy of HIV Medicine or AAHIVM stated: “According to the Institute of Medicine Report of 2004 (Public Financing and Delivery of HIV/AIDS Care), there are a staggering 233,000 Americans who know they are HIV positive, are eligible for antiretroviral treatment [sic] but who still do not receive[or request] it.”

    This is reasonable to assume since a significant percentage of Americans share an alternative health care philosophy and practise, variously estimated at between 40-69%. AIDS Dissidents endorse a model of competition within our health care system to break up the current model of monopoly of conventional, pharmaceutically-based medicine. And we vigorously oppose the enforcement of medical correctness and scientific censorship within governmental and private non-profit insititutions, scientific conferences and the like, such as that enforced by the AIDS Industry and many organizations within the gay community and enabled by media.

    So, 100% of the monies allocated to address the health of persons given an ‘HIV/AIDS’ [mis]diagnosis are directed to 50% of those affected, if not infected. Sounds very caring and compassionate, huh?!

    And that’s just the tip of the iceberg… have you even allowed for the possibility we had gotten the basic science completely wrong on ‘HIV/AIDS’?


    Think only a few scientists, doctors, academics and journalists doubt the ‘HIV’ theory of immuno-deficiency? THINK AGAIN.

    DID YOU KNOW hundreds of dissenting or dissident scientists, including Nobel Laureates and members of the National Academy of Sciences– confirming alternative medicine’s long questioning of the virus/germ mode or ‘one-cause, one-course’ drug-based model– are calling into question the dominant, conventional pharmaceutically-based medical hypothesis for the alleged viral pathogenesis and progression of ‘HIV=AIDS?’

    Dissidents dissent from a legitimate scientific and medical bases as to the causatives and curatives for 30-something previously known and unrelated ‘AIDS’ clinically redefined illnesses, all of which occur in those diagnosed ‘HIV’ non-specific antibody negative. So, besides the definition and diagnosis of what is called ‘AIDS’ Dissidents are also challenging the accuracy and specifity of the ‘HIV’ non-specific antibody tests to measure infection with any virus since there are over 60+ known cross-reactors from pregnancy to the flu to immunizations to hepatitis to transfusions and on and on. It is a clinical conundrum or circular construct. TB + HIV = AIDS, whereas TB – HIV = TB and so on and so forth on down the list of 30-something previously known and unrelated illnesses.

    In this sense, then, no one has ever had ‘AIDS’ or become ill or died of ‘AIDS’ though persons diagnosed or misdiagnosed as such have become ill and/or died. It is not simply a matter of semantics, that we are playing some name game. Most of those [mis]diagnosed with ‘AIDS’ have no clinical symptoms except a non-specific clinical marker of under 200 T-Cells, andhundreds of thousands of ‘HIV’ positives in the US who are elligable clinically for AIDS drugs do not avail them. Although some AIDS Dissidents offer an alternative theory or explanation that ‘HIV’ positivity is a marker for a stressed immune system, there is insufficient evidence this is always or usually a wake-up call rather than a crank call for a poor health style. We therefore recommend all persons address their health irrespective of ‘HIV’ or ‘AIDS’ labels.

    We endorse a multi-factorial approach to immune suficiency and sustainability in addressing the oxidative stressors including physical[malnutrition], chemical[toxicologic], biological[dis-ease], psychological[chronic stress], and spiritual[religious reconciling]– of which ‘HIV’ non-specific, non-confirmatory marker positivity is no reliable indicator of worthiness or wellness.

    We are disbelievers in a ‘[SAME]SEXUAL=SIN=SICKNESS’ mindset having lead for many to the unquestioned acceptance of the ‘HIV=AIDS=DEATH’ paradigm.

    We endorse proportionate access to alternative health care for the 50%-2/3 of those ‘HIV/AIDS’ [mis]diagnosed in the US which the HHS says are not in ‘HIV’ Specialist Care.


    …including testifying before a joint legislative hearing in Sacramento, CA representing the Group for the Scientific Reappriasal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis in support of SB907 ND Licensure and arranging for another representative of The Group [main body of AIDS Dissident Scientists including members of South African President Thabo Mbeki’s Presidential AIDS Panel of International Experts] to provide testimony to the White House Commission on CAM [Complementary and Alternative Medicine] and many other organizations and individuals.


    Healthfully and Hopefully,

    Kelly Jon Landis
    1317 Euclid St., #9
    Santa Monica, CA 90404
    310-663-3895 [cell]


    YOU GOTTA HAVE HAART? [Highly Active “Anti-Retroviral Treatment”]

    HIV Epidemiology or Epidemio-illogic: An AIDS Numbers Game

    ‘HIV’ Super Strain: Another False Alarm

    Logical Fallacies Used Against HIV/AIDS Rethinkers or Dissidents

    Why People Diagnosed with ‘AIDS’ Are Living Longer Now

    Who Counts as Socalled “Long-Term Non-Progressors?”


    what is hiv?

    No laboratory has ever obtained an undisputed sample of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), despite countless attempts. Most laboratories, clinics and medical corporations have come to accept indirect signs, or ‘markers’, such as antibody reactions, proteins, genetic fragments, ‘virus-like’ particles, enzymes – that could suggest a virus but also other things – as proving the presence and existence of an ‘HIV’.

    If such a virus were ever isolated by standards applicable until the late 1970s, the expectations are that it would be a retrovirus – a concept of viruses adopted in the early 1970s. The genetic code of a retrovirus would work ‘backwards’ – ‘retro’ – transforming RNA to DNA. Most retroviruses are known as harmless passenger viruses a part of all of endogenous or naturally occuring genetic make-up. ‘HIV’ has never been found in suficient quantities to kill T-Cells and in fact there is no concensus even after 20+ years as to ‘HIV’s cytotoxic or cell killing mechanism. For a decade, researchers thought cancer was caused by a retrovirus. Professor Peter Duesberg, UC Berkeley, isolated the first retrovirus and is a Father of Retrovirology says ‘HIV’ is a harmless passenger virus that does not cause the syndrome known as ‘AIDS.’

    In 1984 some signs suggesting a possible new virus were detected in cell cultures by the scientific teams of Frenchman Luc Montagnier in Paris, and American Robert Gallo in Washington, who were trying to explain a single cause for ‘AIDS’. The French called their findings Lymphadenopathy Associated Virus (LAV), the Americans called theirs Human T-cell Lymphotrophic Virus III (HTLV-III). The US Government announced at a press conference in 1984 that a new virus was “the probable cause of AIDS,” yet before any scientific papers inviting peer scrutiny were published. When such papers appeared in Science some weeks later, a dispute erupted between Montagnier and Gallo. Gallo was found guilty of scientific misconduct by a Senate Ethics Committee, for misappropriating material and photographs of ‘virus- like’ particles from the French. Because of the financial stakes – Gallo and the US government applied for a patent for tests for ‘HIV’ the day of the press conference – the matter was eventually solved only by a closed meeting between the scientists which produced an official history of events, and a meeting between the US and French Presidents.

    However, neither Gallo nor Montagnier ever managed to purify samples of the virus they claimed to have detected. Many scientists believe that without fulfiling this traditional primary requirement of virus isolation, multiple confusions at the molecular biological level are inevitable over what or whether anything has actually been found. To this day, primary purification of ‘HIV’ has never been achieved. The last attempts, published in 1997 in Virology, revealed proteins and genetic fragments from microvesicles – sub-cell particles – but no virus.

    hiv antibody tests


    Over the years of the HIV/AIDS theory, different types of tests have been used to try to detect such a virus in patients. These have included (1) antibody tests, which look for a reaction in a person’s blood between their natural antibodies and synthetic proteins said to belong to HIV, and (2) Polymerase Chain Reaction – PCR – or ‘viral load’ genetic tests, which purport to use part of the virus’ genetic code to detect its presence.

    All these tests are indirect, or surrogate. They do not claim to detect any whole virus. Rather, they use markers to infer whether a virus might be present. Unfortunately for the accuracy of these tests, these same markers can be found in a variety of non-HIV situations. No HIV test of any kind has ever been validated against the one measure that is not indirect – the gold standard: physical virus isolation. This is because isolation of HIV by the previously conventional standards of viral isolation has never been achieved, despite numerous attempts.

    Of the antibody tests for HIV, there are two main types – called ELISA, and Western Blot. Neither was designed especially for HIV, but are examples of laboratory methodologies used in many investigations. Around the world many companies market their versions of the ELISA and Western Blot antibody tests for HIV.

    However, the uncertain, unvalidated nature of these tests is reflected in the product literature supplied by their manufacturers.

    A typical example for the ELISA reads:

    “At present there is no recognised standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.” – Axsym System, Abbott Laboratories

    A typical example for the Western Blot reads:

    “Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection.” – Epitope, Organon Teknika

    Neither Isolation Nor Validation

    Any scientist who declares that a genetic sequence, moreover a genetic sequence arrived at by human concensus, represents a naturally occuring virus, has compromised their scientific integrity. To further suggest that this genetic sequence represents a unique, exogenous, sexually transmitted and indeed pathogenic retrovirus is to enter the realms of pseudo-science. Without HIV isolation all is mere speculation. Even if HIV were isolated and the proteins tested for by the ELISA antibody test were actually proteins specific to HIV, an antibody test would still not be accurate enough for determining actual viral infection. Everyone tests HIV positive on ELISA if their serum is not diluted by a factor of 400 because of non-specific antibodies which bind to any proteins.

    “Of course we looked for it [HIV]… We saw some particles but they did not have the morphology [shape] typical of retroviruses. … I repeat we did not purify.”
    ~ Dr. Luc Montagnier, the “discoverer of HIV”
    (see French transcript of quote from the interview , Did Luc Montagnier Discover HIV? or video)

    “No one believed we really had that many isolates… No one believed we really meant that…”
    ~ Dr. Robert Gallo, also discovered “HIV”
    (see Gallo Investigated )

    ‘viral load’ / PCR test

    Polymerase Chain Reaction – PCR – or the ‘viral load’ test, purports to detect, and quantify, blood-borne HIV in patients. However, the genetic fragments it amplifies have never been proved to originate in HIV, or in any virus. The accuracy of PCR viral load is estimated by leading doctors at plus or minus 300% – i.e. a reading of 90,000 could be 30,000 or 270,000!

    The PCR was not invented for HIV. Its Nobel Prizewinning inventor, Dr Kary Mullis, calls the use of PCR in AIDS medicine, “a tragedy in the practice of Western medicine” and a “viral load of crap.”

    The uncertain unvalidated nature of the PCR for HIV is reflected in the product literature supplied by manufacturers. A typical example reads:

    “The Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection.” – Roche, Amplicor



    Since the beginning of the HIV/AIDS theory, it has been suggested that a virus kills a certain type of cell of the immune system – called T-cells, or CD4 cells. ‘T’ refers to the maturing of these cells in the gland of the Thymus, after their birth in the bone marrow. CD4 is short for Cluster Differentiation 4, referring to a method by which scientists group subsets of these cells according to protein markers on their surface.

    In fact there has never been any proof that an HIV kills these cells, or indeed that even when they seem in low numbers in a person’s blood, cells have not instead migrated out of the blood to bone marrow and elsewhere. Despite common assumptions, even by doctors, CD4/T-cell counting remains a poor predictor of wellness and illness. Since the Berlin World AIDS Conference of 1992 considerably less scientific importance has been attached to T-cell counting. T-cell counts are naturally variable, within an individual over time, between individuals, and between communities. The technology for counting T-cells is accurate only to approximately plus or minus 100 cells. The cells sampled for counting are taken from a person’s peripheral blood, where it is widely accepted, less than 10% of a healthy person’s T-cells will ever be found.

    CD-4 T-cells: What Do They Count For? [index of articles/papers]

    what is aids?

    Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is a medical diagnosis applied since 1984 in some branches of medicine and the wider public when a person perceived as infected with a human immunodeficiency virus (‘HIV’) experiences one of 30 odd conditions. But all of the 30 odd conditions exist or occur in persons diagnosed ‘HIV’ antibody negative and are only redefined as ‘AIDS’ when someone tests antibody positive.

    ‘Acquired’ specifies that the diagnosis does not apply to people with inherent immune deficiencies. ‘Immune Deficiency’ is conventionally taken to be the inability of a person’s body to protect against illness. Syndrome is a group of symptoms or conditions which seem to be more or less linked.

    The growing list of conditions defined ‘in the presence of HIV infection’ since 1984 as AIDS, have already all been known for decades. Thus TB plus ‘HIV’ is AIDS, TB without ‘HIV’ is TB. Cervical cancer plus ‘HIV’ is AIDS, without is cervical cancer. Etc.

    In the early 1980s the ‘AIDS-indicator’ conditions numbered two: pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (thought to be caused by an opportunistic protozöon, now thought to be fungal), and Kaposi’s Sarcoma (a quasi-cancer of the skin and other membranes, first reported in 1887). These two conditions were found increasingly frequently in the early 1980s in the USA and Europe in men having sex with men, and were hypothesised as resulting from infectious immune deficiency, inferred from counting people’s peripheral T-cells.

    The syndrome was for a while classified as Gay Related Immune Deficiency (GRID). The list of ‘defining’ conditions has increased substantially since 1984, though the major risk groups for ‘AIDS’ in the West have remained men who have sex with men, people with haemophilia (Haemophilia), and IV drug users (Drugs). Despite early alarms, HIV/AIDS has never become a heterosexual epidemic in the West, which does not mean it’s a gay disease, but it has failed to meet the parameters of the infectious model. ‘HIV=AIDS’ does not fulfill Koch’s Postulates as none of the apes injected with ‘HIV’ have developed ‘AIDS’ conditions.

    The international CDC definition of AIDS is specifically founded on ‘infection with HIV’, assumed or demonstrated. Thus by definition it is nearly impossible to have ‘AIDS’ that is not ‘correlative’ with ‘HIV’, though it is widely accepted that ‘Immune Deficiency’ can be ‘Acquired’ in a many ways. There are also many well documented causes and treatments for all of the 29 ‘AIDS’ redefined conditons or for addressing aquired immune deficiency.

    Between different regions of the globe, the criteria and means for arriving at an AIDS diagnosis vary. There are at least seven varying official criteria for diagnosing ‘AIDS.’

    In Africa, for example, the same official concept of AIDS can be found, but since a meeting in 1985 in the city of Bangui, Cote d’Ivoire, the World Health Organisation’s Bangui AIDS Definition has allowed for diagnosis of AIDS in Africa with no test performed for ‘HIV’, if a person experiences the relatively common African symptoms of weight loss, cough, fever and diarrhoea for more than a month.

    HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS. Why would a virus infect 1% of the US population and 30% of some Africa countries? Why would a virus cause different symptoms depending on your age, gender, and location? Why hasn’t 20 years worth of research and billions of dollars spent created a vaccine or “cure”? Why do the pharmaceutical companies and the government censor the scientists, doctors and laypeople that ask these questions and provide reasonable answers?

    The infectious model does not work that way. See how ‘HIV=AIDS’ unfills Kochs’ Three Postulates of the Infectious Model of Disease. This is why there will never be an ‘AIDS’ vaccine or cure for ‘AIDS’ or a manner to prevent transmission of the alleged ‘HIV.’



    How popular consensus and the medical establishment have often stubbornly clung to the wrong ideas, unable to think outside the box. When medically ‘correct’ wasn’t always.

    A Brief History of Mismanaged Epidemics
    [Disease]—[Popular Consensus]—[Actual Cause]

    Scurvy——Contagious—Malnutrition: Vitamin C deficiency

    Beri-beri—Contagious—Malnutrition: Thiamin deficiency

    Maternal Fever—Non-contagious—Contagious: Unsanitary doctor practices


    Pellagra—-Contagious—Malnutrition: Niacin deficiency

    SMON(1950s-70s, Japan)—New Virus—Iatrogenic: Pharmaceutically induced

    In science as in the law, the affirmative statement or theory bares the burden of proof for establishing itself. Those who critique it’s establishment in fact, are not required to reprove or replace another theory of it’s aetiology, especially when immune dysfunction has a multi-factorially influenced set of unrelated conditions, or according to Alternative Medicine, all illness/wellness is on a continuum and the result of immune sufficiency or deficiency. Alternative Medicine has long questioned the virus/germ mode or ‘one-cause, one-course’ drug-based model or theory of illness which is confirmed by the work of hundreds of AIDS Dissident Scientists, including Nobel Laureates, Members of the National Academy of Sciences and pioneers in their fields. Many often disconnect the alternative theories of diagnosis[PHILOSOPHY] from the alternative therapies of treatment [PRACTISE]– in how Alternative Medicine differentially diagnoses the individual and treats using a holistic, multi-factorial or ‘many-causes, many-courses’ approache to illness. They treat the underlying causes of symptoms, not diagnosing/treating diseases and certainly not diagnosing/treating syndromes, which are a ‘catch-all’ of redefined classifications or catagories of conditions. And therefore, Alternative Medicine does not generally recognize conventional disease classifications.

    “For disease, all experience shows, are adjectives, not noun substantives.”
    “There are no specific diseases: there are [only] specific disease conditions
    [or states of dis-ease].”

    Florence Nightingale (Nursing Pioneer, Disease Dissident)

    Interesting that AIDS Apologists, or those who defend or defer to the affirmative statement or new theory, in this case the ‘HIV=AIDS’ hypothesis, often compare AIDS Dissidents with Flat Earthers, but Galileo was a Dissident, the Flat Earthers were the mainstream scientific establishment.

    There is a famous story about Galileo, that is relevant here, I think. Galileo was in trouble with the Church authorities, for his observation of Jupiter’s moons, through his telescope. (The four moons that he saw are traditionally called the “Galilean” moons, after their discoverer.) Anyway, he offered to let an influential member of the Clergy look through the telescope at these moons, so that said clergyman would see what
    Galileo had seen. This pious man refused, saying that as long as he did not look, his religious faith could remain intact.

    Sadly, we are dealing with a kind of medical “church”, regarding the HIV theory; its members do not want their faith shaken (or stirred! 🙂 )

    Scurvy was thought to be transmitted by a microbe for 200 years even while Dissident Scientists were arguing it was a Vitamin C deficiency. The implication was that Seamen or Sailors engaged in ‘buggary’ were sexually transmissing a ‘bug.’ Homosexuality was deemed a psychiatric disorder by the medical and scientific establishment until 1973, a
    decade later the medical diagnosis of GRID– Gay Related Immune Dysfunction was described in the literature.

    See especially: Little Evidence for Effectiveness of Scientific Peer
    Review, British Medical Journal 326:241, February 1, 2003; Study
    Faults Industry Clinical Trials: Company-backed Tests Rarely Follow
    Guidelines, Report Finds; Associated Press, October 23, 2002, Trials
    Funded by for Profit Organizations Favor the Intervention: The
    British Medical Journal, August 3, 2002; 325:249; Scientists for
    Sale, Health Editor The Guardian, Thursday February 7, 2002; Medical
    Journal Eases Conflict Rules The Associated Press; Conflicts of
    Interest in Medical Journals, AMA Journal Critiques Report Data,
    Associated Press. Hidden Risks, Lethal Truths, Sunday Reporter, Los
    Angeles Times June 30, 2002; Something Rotten at the Core of Science?
    Trends in Pharmacological Sciences Vol. 22, No. 2, February 2001;
    Definning Disease A review by Marilyn Werber Serafini, from National
    Journal June 8, 2002: Pharmacracy.


    New quotes examining the supposed transmission of HIV/AIDS via sex, blood products etc. Top 100 Inconsistencies in AIDS Science. New quotes on the relationship between ‘recreational’ drug use and HIV/AIDS. Similar quotes regarding other AIDS drugs (collectively known as HAART). Scientific quotes indicating that not just injected street drugs are associated with HIV and AIDS. HIV tests and measurements are not as accurate as many claim. Is HIV/AIDS really transmitted between people, or is this just an illusion?
    Myths &Mysteries of HIV and AIDS (html orpdf formats).



    YOU GOTTA HAVE HAART [or Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy]?


    CDC data on number of AIDS cases and AIDS deaths. AIDS cases and deaths CLEARLY begin to decline *PRIOR* to the release of new “miracle” drugs! (Taken from: ). However, only 19% of so-called “HIV-positive” people were on the new drugs by the end of June *1996* (see: ). Also, the dosage of the TOXIC AZT has been lowered SUBSTANTIALLY (by at least 50%) since its release in 1987.


    of the HIV/AIDS HYPOTHESIS [100s of pages of articles, papers]


    [Especially note referenced contributions of The Perth Group of Austrailian AIDS Dissident Scientists, lead by biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, whose other extensive archives are found here
    and here: ]

    Roberto Giraldo, MD
    President of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis


    Synthesis of deliberations by the panel of 33 experts invited by the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki and the ten experiments they designed in attempt to resolve the controversy, endorsed by the African National Congress [made up of AIDS Dissident and AIDS Orthodoxy Scientists, Doctors, Academics]


    HEAL [Health Education AIDS Liason]

    ANOTHER LOOK [Breastfeeding and ‘HIV/AIDS’]

    MOMM [Mothers Opposing Mandatory Medicine]

    [Largest AIDS forum on MSN]

    V I R U S M Y T H
    [Largest AIDS forum on Delphi]

    Comment by Kelly Jon Landis — September 25, 2006 @ 7:35 pm - September 25, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.