AIDS, Yuppie Flu and the Common Cold

AIDS, Yuppie Flu and
the Common Cold

   Modern 'scientific' medical practise relies very largely on medicines whose ultimate effect is to impair the patient's immune system.

   This is no secret, no great discovery. It is discussed in all the relevant literature. But it has never seemed significant until today when the world is faced with an epidemic rooted in a pervasive crippling of the immune system. The drugs synthesized since the end of World War II have achieved their end--the antibiotic sterilization, more or less, of patients' bodies--at the expense of the immune system, and AIDS is the last stop on the line. The immune system cannot be undermined indefinitely without a price being paid. The chickens have come home to roost.

Harris L. Coulter Ph.D
(AIDS & Syphilis: The Hidden Link, 1987)

 

   What do AIDS, yuppie flu, and the common cold have in common?

• They all reflect a state of diminished resistance to infection, in other words a state of lowered immunocompetence due to a weakened immune system and reduced vitality.
• They are all lifestyle-related problems insoluble by traditional medicine.

   As immunocompetence depends on the maintenance of homeostasis within the body, and as homeostasis in turn depends on correct diet and other lifestyle factors, it again becomes clear that these health problems are caused, primarily, not by germs or viruses, but by wrong diet and other lifestyle factors, not the least of which factors is the use of medical drugs which further damage an already damaged immune system.

   Most of the germs and viruses associated with the common cold, yuppie flu and AIDS reside acquiescently within the bodies of all people, all the time, in a form which is harmless; they are a normal part of our make up as they are in all animals. They change form to become pathogenic (harmful) only with the deterioration of the milieu surrounding them, ie the milieu interieur. For this reason the infections are referred to as opportunistic infections, 'attacking' only when the opportunity is presented. These microbes appear in different forms, more or less in a predictable sequence according to the body's state of deterioration; thus a mild state of immunodeficiency may result in only a slight head cold, while a poorer state may result in a heavy cold or more chronic respiratory condition and so on. An even more run-down state of vitality will permit more infections to commence, such as candida, herpes, hepatitis and other symptoms which together are called a complex or a syndrome denoting the patient's overall condition; hence the terms AIDS-related complex (ARC) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), the latter being one of a number of names for yuppie flu.

   As in all areas of medicine, the subject appears to be more complicated than it really is, but despite all the confusing names there is in fact only one disease which is a toxic, out of balance, run-down milieu interieur in a body showing all the signs of it. This run-down state is a direct result of harmful habits, wrong diet, overwork, stress, late nights and so on which, according to degree, can soon reduce a vigorous young person to chronic fatigue and its associated syndrome. And if in addition to 'respectable' bad habits, habits more outrageous to the body are indulged in--such as recreational drugs, continued sexual excesses, and the inevitable associated heavy use of antibiotics and other medical drugs--the body together with its immune system becomes reduced to tatters, additional life-threatening infections break out, and recovery may or may not be possible.

   Thus it can be seen that AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) is no more than a downhill extension of a less serious syndrome, the so-called chronic fatigue syndrome, the entire show from start to finish being self-generated without the assistance of germs and viruses caught from someone else. That microbes from outside may or may not add to the problem is not disputed; the fact is they are not necessary.

Yuppie Flu

   Yuppie flu is one of a number of names given to the condition of general malaise and fatigue accompanied by various troublesome infections which results when the body for one reason or another becomes chronically run down. The condition is known also as chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis. The malaise of chronic fatigue was described in a book published in the 1920s called Chronic Fatigue Intoxication by Edward H. Ochsner, BS MD FACS, Professor of Clinical Surgery, University of Illinois, in which he described the connection between toxemia and the state of disease:

   'Long-continued, excessive use of narcotics and alcoholic stimulants favor its development.

   'That mental over-work and emotional over-stimulation are often contributory causes is quite evident.

   'The foundation for this affection is very frequently laid during the period of adolescence, the years when ambition is apt to run riot and when the wish and the will to do and dare far exceed the physical strength to execute.

   'One of the most common combinations of causes is the combination of over-working and overeating, when excessively fatigued, or severe exertion on a full stomach. These combinations so alter the end results of digestion that the pabulum which is absorbed acts as a mild poison instead of a true food.

   'Ordinarily the body rapidly recuperates from moderately excessive fatigue but if this excessive exertion is persisted in day after day for a considerable period of time and particularly if the work is done at an abnormally high rate of speed, the point ultimately comes when the system becomes so supersaturated with fatigue material that it is no longer able to rid itself of this excessive accumulation.'

   Professor Ochsner went on to describe the types of people who most frequently suffer chronic fatigue and they are of course the very same types who have it today.

   For many years the illness of chronic fatigue was thought by doctors to be in the minds of people who felt wretched without being able to display an obvious symptom, but since our more affluent and permissive lifestyle has led to the condition occurring more commonly and in more serious forms in which multiple infections are displayed, the illness has now been recognized as real.

   A comparison of young peoples' lifestyles of fifty years ago and today clearly reveals the causes of 'yuppie flu' and why today it is not just flu, not just fatigue, but a syndrome of associated problems. Fifty years ago most people, even if they had wanted to, could not afford to drink hard liquor, smoke tailormade cigarettes or dine in restaurants. Not many people drank much at all; no one except society people did these things or had wine with meals. Children took cut lunches to school and when thirsty they drank water. Nice girls--and that was just about all girls--never smoked, touched liquor or did anything more daring. Even Saturday night was not too late a night because hardly any young folk owned a car and the dances ended at 11:30 so people could catch the last train or bus home. No one had much money, so chronic fatigue was pretty well outside of peoples' financial resources. In fact, no one knew there was such a thing as chronic fatigue, let alone herpes, myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), candida and things like that. Marijuana was thought to be the name of a Mexican dancing girl.

   ME, yuppie flu, chronic fatigue syndrome or whatever else you want to call it is nothing more than a badly rundown state of the body which results in a depleted state of immunocompetence, and as this state is an acquired one, it becomes apparent that what is known as the chronic fatigue syndrome is different from AIDS only in matter of degree.

   Apart from the factors of a 'fast-living' lifestyle that lead to chronic fatigue syndrome, there are two additional factors that are probably more destructive to the body than all the others. They are: antibiotics and 'recreational' drugs, the most common of the latter being marijuana. Whereas these drugs have been until recently regarded as fairly harmless, it is now known they are terribly destructive to the immune system. In regard to marijuana, a recent report reveals it to be, in the words of a scientist of pharmacology, a devastating drug that attacks and impairs the brain. Dr Gabriel Nahas, consultant to the UN Commission on Narcotics and Professor of Anaesthesiology at Columbia University, New York, said that marijuana was a sinister drug and much more devastating than doctors had thought, in view not only of its acute impairing properties but of its long-term toxic effects on lung and immune defences, brain and reproductive functions. Dr Nahas said studies had shown hashish smokers had six times the average incidence of schizophrenia, which was irreversible, and that children of mothers who smoked 'pot' faced ten times the danger of developing leukemia. Put that in your pipe, man (but don't smoke it).

   The syndrome of infections and other symptoms associated with chronic fatigue, most of which stem from within the body, include various forms of herpes, candida, glandular fever, hepatitis and chlamydia, which are often accompanied by swollen lymph glands, fevers, sweats, sore throats and other vague and not identified symptoms such as headaches and various aches and pains, all of which simply add up to the fact the body is sick right through. Thoroughly confused as to whether his patient has chronic fatigue syndrome, ME, glandular fever (infectious mononucleosis), or yuppie flu, which amount to the same thing anyway, the doctor mutters something about a virus, dispenses some more antibiotics out of pure habit, and hopes the patient won't get any worse. But antibiotics, besides being useless against viruses, are an immune suppressant and toxic in the body, so you can bet they will, in the long run, do more harm than good. They merely add another risk to an already risky lifestyle, if indeed they are not already implicated.

   Glandular fever, sometimes called student's disease or kissing disease, is said to be transmissible to susceptible subjects by the Epstein-Barr virus. As well as being included in the range of complaints now known simply as ME it is also part of the AIDS-related complex (ARC) and of AIDS itself. It is characterized by the usual signs that accompany immunodeficiency such as fatigue, sore throat, headache, depression, enlarged lymph nodes, and abnormal lymphocytes in the blood.

   However, a two-year study of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome at the University of Washington School of Medicine, reported in July 1990, concluded that no evidence could be found to support the hypothesis that chronic fatigue syndrome was caused by the Epstein-Barr virus or any other virus. What the researchers did find was that the 'victims' . . . 'had a strikingly higher rate of lifetime and current major depression' than people without the syndrome. Once again it is important to realize that although depression may be a factor in causing the syndrome, it is just as likely that depression is, like the fatigue itself, just another of the symptoms. Thus, while it is logical to suspect an apparently common denominator to be the cause of a certain disease (such as the Epstein-Barr and other viruses associated with hepatitis, cancer, AIDS and so on), a more in-depth assessment reveals such viruses to be only effects and not causes, the real cause of disease being the disrupted homeostasis within the body.

   As mentioned earlier, the common cold never occurs to people with proper homeostasis, even when concentrated virus solutions are squirted directly into their nostrils. With declining community health standards fewer and fewer people are capable of displaying such resistance to infections, a fact borne out by the increasing incidence to all kinds of infections, including rarer varieties such as malaria, Ross River fever, Lyme disease* and Legionnaire's disease.

*Lyme disease was named after the town of Lyme in Connecticut where the symptoms were first associated with tick bites. The belief is now widespread that a special spirochete germ from a special sort of tick is the cause of the disease, but this has never been proven. Other kinds of ticks are now said to be carriers of the germ and in Australia the bite of the common bush tick has eventuated in symptoms accepted to be Lyme disease. However, confusion exists in medical circles because not only do the ticks vary from place to place but so do the spirochetes. In Australia the spirochete allegedly carried by the bush tick has evaded detection altogether.

   Because many common bad lifestyle habits are accepted as normal and apparently harmless, and because their damaging effects are insidious and not clearly related to the lowered vitality they gradually cause, when the symptoms begin--fatigue, swollen glands, sore throat, headaches, etc--the lifestyle factors escape scrutiny and it is assumed some sort of germ or virus is responsible. The suspects, usually viruses but sometimes germs, are of course to be found, and association is often sufficient in the eyes of medical researchers to establish their guilt. So it is with another 'up and coming' 'disease' displaying headaches, sore throat, fevers, sweats, aches and pains, swollen lymph glands, chronic fatigue, etc, called Lyme disease, held to be caused by a spirochete (germ) picked up from a tick bite. However, millions of people get bitten by ticks without getting Lyme disease, just as it is possible to pick up the spirochete associated with syphilis without getting syphilis. Thus, while poison from a tick bite, with or without spirochetes, will obviously tend to impair the recipient's homeostasis, the ticks' participation should be looked upon as merely an additional factor in an already deteriorated situation.

   In view of the confusion that has always existed about the association of germs and viruses with various disease conditions, including Lyme disease, one would wonder why medical research is still so firmly dedicated to the germ theory. It is interesting, however, that the blame for Lyme disease has been given (by association) to a germ (spirochete), and it is interesting too that Professor Luc Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV, now that he no longer believes HIV to be the cause of AIDS (see Chapter 9), believes a germ is involved. Will his germ, when he discovers it (which no doubt he will), resemble the spirochete of Lyme disease? Or perhaps one of the many germs that were blamed for beriberi?

AIDS-related Complex (ARC)

   A complex means the same thing as a syndrome, which is a group of signs and symptoms that collectively indicate or characterize a disease or other abnormal condition.

   When AIDS was first recognized as a more or less complete breakdown of the immune system and not merely the coincidental onset of a number of unrelated infections, much inquiry ensued to identify the reason for the breakdown. These inquiries revealed that preceding the syndrome of full-blown AIDS there occurred a lesser 'pattern of signs and symptoms like those of the chronic fatigue syndrome, which indicated the likely progression to AIDS; so to differentiate between the two conditions between which there was no clear demarcation, the lesser pattern was given the name of AIDS-related Complex (ARC). That ARC was the same as the pattern of signs and symptoms appearing in the 'straight' heterosexual world as chronic fatigue syndrome seemed not to be noticed, and so it was assumed they are separate illnesses. If you were heterosexual and presented with fatigue, headaches, candida, herpes and swollen lymph glands, the diagnosis would be chronic fatigue syndrome; if you were gay, the same symptoms would be diagnosed as ARC or even AIDS.

   There are, of course, many pathways to the fatigue and malaise of chronic fatigue syndrome and ARC, which means they are not confined to any particular segment of society. Not only are yuppies and male homosexuals in the running, so too are students, teenagers, executives, playboys, doctors, housewives or anyone else one way or another overstressing their bodies.

   But it is far worse for a homosexual person to be diagnosed with ARC than it is for a housewife to be diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome because ARC carries with it the implied sentence of death which can be as devastating as the bone-pointing ritual of the Aboriginals and which, together with further suppression of the immune system caused by subsequent medical treatment, as likely as not ensures progression to full AIDS.

   That ARC does not necessarily mean further deterioration to AIDS is demonstrated by the many people with ARC (or chronic fatigue) who have stabilized their condition or, better still, have regained their health. The lifestyle factors which comprise the vicious spiral that leads to full AIDS are necessarily of a more damaging nature than those needed to cause ARC. As will be described later, these factors do not include the so-called AIDS virus, which has never been demonstrated, let alone proven, to cause AIDS, and in fact in many cases cannot even be detected.

AIDS: What It is Not

   There are thousands of people in modern world countries and perhaps millions in third world countries who are thought to have AIDS simply because they 'test positive' for the feared and supposedly deadly retrovirus called HIV. Most of these people are in average health, not displaying the sickness of the syndrome which is AIDS. So how on earth can someone without a syndrome be said to have the syndrome? AIDS is a syndrome and if you don't have the syndrome you don't have AIDS.

   Moreover, even if it were true that HIV was the cause of AIDS, and this has never been more than supposition as will be shown, the fact that antibodies to the virus are detectable in someone's blood does not mean they harbor the virus at all; on the contrary, it means the same as in the case of all viruses, which is that the body has in the past encountered the virus and has mounted a defense against it.

   That some of these HIV positive people, particularly those in the high-risk category (those busy destroying themselves), will eventually display AIDS is only to be expected, but that does not prove anything other than that their high-risk behavior is responsible, because it is a fact that even in the high-risk group, less than three per cent of 'AIDS antibody positive' people have proceeded to develop 'full blown' AIDS. And how many of these were taken over the brink by destructive medical procedures and the associated paranoid fear of their death sentence? The typical paranoia associated with the 'deadly AIDS virus' was displayed on one occasion in Sydney when a policeman, bitten in a struggle with an AIDS suspect, later in abject fear shot himself dead with his own service pistol!

The Medical Definition of AIDS

   There has been a great deal of confusion among doctors as to how to diagnose AIDS, and this is no wonder when it is considered that most of the information of the subject released by the so-called AIDS establishment is based on pure supposition. A virus is supposed to be the cause but can hardly ever be found; antibodies to the virus can be found in most cases but not in all cases. People with the antibodies mostly don't get sick while some without antibodies do. So, setting aside the theory of the virus as more or less irrelevant, the 'official' method of diagnosis has been on the basis of whether a patient had one or more of the classic symptoms, such as pneumocystis pneumonia, Kaposi's sarcoma, cytomegalovirus, or others of the AIDS complex or chronic fatigue syndrome. As already mentioned, any of these could get you an AIDS pronouncement if you happened to be a male homosexual or an intravenous drug user, whereas for anyone else a diagnosis would be made in an unbiased fashion and be called simply pneumonia, hepatitis, or perhaps chronic fatigue.

   As this method of diagnosis is at best only an 'educated guess', a new system has been proposed by which a patient will be defined as having AIDS if their T4 (also called CD4) lymphocyte level falls below a certain figure. Thus, if and when this method is adopted, a person without a syndrome will be decreed to have the syndrome simply on this account, but even if at this stage the diagnosis is wrong, it won't be for long, because as fear takes hold and the destructive medical drugs get to work, the patient's already compromised immune system can only get worse. When fear alone (see reference which follows) can reduce a patient's normal T4 cell count by over fifty per cent, from 494 to 234 in one week, the new method of diagnosing AIDS would appear to be based on just as shaky a foundation as the 'official' AIDS theory itself.

   Medical 'maverick' Dr Laurence Badgley of San Francisco has had as much experience personally helping AIDS patients as anybody, and is the author of two books about it, Healing AIDS Naturally and Choose To Live. About T4 cells he has this to say:

   'People with AIDS must learn that much of what they are told about AIDS is mere speculation, ie theories. The idea that the virus invades white blood cells, called T4 helper cells, and destroys them is one such theory. This theory and myth has been presented to the public as fact. The idea that a diminished number of T4 cells is the critical factor in the development of AIDS is another such theory. The idea that a number of T4 cells below 200 is the magic measure of whether a person should start taking AZT is a pig-in-the-poke choice of numbers.

   In my own medical practise I have a few patients who have had less than 50 T4 helper cells for months and years and they haven't become weakened or ill with serious infections. On the other hand one patient who followed a natural therapy had a T4 cell increase from less than 100, to over 600, at which time he developed pneumocystis carinii pneumonia.

   T4 white blood cell counts are intimately related to mental focus. One of my patients was without symptoms and went to another doctor for an 'AIDS test'. The doctor did the test, which was positive, as well as the T4 helper cell count, which was 494 and normal. Upon learning that his antibody test was positive, the patient went into a tailspin of depression and fear. One week later he returned to the doctor because of his anxiety, and his T4 helper cell count was taken again. After one week of depression and no other symptoms his T4 cell count fell over 50% to 234.

   This intimate relationship of the mind and body raises a question about the true nature of the AIDS epidemic. It is not far fetched to postulate that much of the immune system depression among AIDS- est-positive patients might be the result of doctors telling them that it is likely they will get AIDS and die. The brain is a giant immune system gland that operates on hope, joy, and optimism. The gland turns off in response to mental attitudes of fear and depression.

   The question is raised as to how many people are dying because they have been programmed to die. The observation is made that doctors who tell their patients they have a terminal disease are programming their patients to die. The charge is made that these doctors are performing malpractise.'

   A current news item reports that Australian hepatitis experts at Sydney's Westmead Hospital are currently agitating for speeded up approval for a new 'breakthrough drug' for hepatitis C. The drug is called alpha interferon, and according to 'eminent medical researchers' it has proved very successful, 'the preliminary results showing that 65% of hepatitis C patients have responded excellently to it'* and that 'some 25 to 40% of sufferers are potentially cured'. The side effects included depression, skin rashes and low white blood cell counts.

*This percentage of favorable reactions is the typical percentage gained by the placebo effect in all kinds of diseases, and in the absence of controlled studies cannot be attributed to anything other than the placebo effect. In chronic disease, the immense power of the placebo effect--both for good and sometimes for bad--cannot be overestimated (see 'The Mental Factor' in Chapter 16).

   Those people at risk of hepatitis C, said the experts, were intravenous drug users, people receiving blood transfusions, renal dialysis patients, people who have been tattooed and male homosexuals. But aren't these the people who are also vulnerable to AIDS? Could it be--the question arises again--that AIDS experts, yuppie flu experts and hepatitis experts are all trying to solve the same problem? That the 'different' diseases they specialize in are, in fact, all only slightly different symptoms of the one disease?

   Whether you agree or not, pay attention to this paragraph of the report: 'Professor Farrell said alpha interferon did have side-effects but they could be managed. Serious side-effects--in about five percent of patients--were depression, skin rashes and a low white blood cell count' (author's italics). What is meant by 'they could be managed'? Does this mean that 'high-risk' patients whose symptom--hepatitis--is one of the pre-AIDS symptoms, will be given a drug which will add more AIDS symptoms? Lower their white cell count?

   What if their white cell count hits the magic 200 level?* Will they be plucked out of the hepatitis category and put in the AIDS category? Given AZT?

*Currently the AIDS establishment recommends that AZT be given at levels below 500!

   The blind leading the blind is not malpractice, but it is just as sad to behold.

AIDS: What It Is

   AIDS is a state of illness characterized by depleted vitality and a progressive increase in severity of a number of opportunistic infections, all of which are associated with a more or less complete breakdown of the immune system. The name AIDS is an acronym standing for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, and although this title accurately describes as well the condition called chronic fatigue syndrome (the two syndromes differing only in degree), it is applied only to the more severe, more or less final stage. Again it must be made clear that the mere trace of a suspected viral infection (HIV or any other virus) does not constitute AIDS, nor does it mean that AIDS will develop.

   None of the infections which together constitute AIDS are new to medicine; what makes AIDS a 'new' disease, just as ME and chronic fatigue syndrome are 'new', is the unusual appearance of a number of the symptoms at the same time or in close succession. That chronic fatigue syndrome and AIDS are 'new diseases' is not because new strains of viruses have evolved, it is because a new lifestyle has evolved, availing to an already semi-sick society the additional potential for destruction: permissiveness, junk food, promiscuity, and a bewildering array of drugs both medicinal and 'recreational '--a lifestyle reminiscent of that which led to the decline and fall of ancient Rome, only using drugs instead of wine.

   The evidence that medical drugs are a major, if not the major, factor in AIDS is overwhelming. Dr Joan McKenna, Director of Research, T&M Associates, Berkeley, California, has researched AIDS since 1981. She began by searching all the medical literature of the past for reports of illnesses displaying AIDS-like symptoms.

   One report she found was on an epidemic of pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) among children in European orphan asylums after World War II after the children had been given penicillin and terramycin to protect them from infections. PCP is one of the classic symptoms of AIDS and is the main denominator in AIDS diagnosis. Pneumocystis carinii exists dormantly in all healthy humans and becomes pathological only when the immune system is selectively damaged.

   The outbreak of PCP among the orphans was not due to contagion but due to the individual damage caused to the children's immune systems by the very drugs designed to protect them.

   Thus it became evident to Dr McKenna that the habitual prolific use of antibiotics by some homosexuals was the main common factor among all the factors involved in AIDS.

   In reviewing the medical histories of 100 homosexual men, Dr McKenna noted the most common problems encountered by them were:

• Gonorrhea --multiple incidents, up to twenty a year, treated with antibiotics.
• Hepatitis --high incidence, some chronic.
• Non-specific urethritis --multiple incidents, sometimes chronic, perhaps six or seven episodes a year, with increasing doses of antibiotics as antibiotics became less effective
• Dermatological eruptions --treated by continuous use of antibiotics, tetracycline and corticosteroids for five to eighteen years.
• Psychological conditions --for which were taken sedatives, tranquillizers and mood drugs.
• Chronic sore throat --more than fifty per cent reported frequent episodes treated by antibiotics.
• Herpes simplex --twenty-five per cent reported chronic herpes, ninety per cent herpes within the past ten years.
• Allergies --high incidences both chronic and severe treated by allergy medications and symptomatic suppressants.
• Lymphadenopathy --frequent to chronic swollen lymph glands in forty per cent of cases.
• Diarrhea--high incidence, various treatments.
• Recreational drugs --nearly universal use of marijuana, multiple and complex use of LSD, MDA, PCP, heroin, cocaine, amyl and butyl nitrites, amphetamines, barbituates, ethyl chloride, opium, mushrooms and 'designer drugs'.

   Dr McKenna said that out of the 100 men, one fourth shared nine or more of these conditions, and the only ones out of the 100 diagnosed as having AIDS or ARC all came from this smaller group.

   Dr McKenna went on to describe the grotesque damaging effects of the various antibiotics and added that although 'recreational' drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, poppers' , etc are all immunosuppressive and therefore major co-factors in AIDS, 'they should not deflect attention from therapeutic drugs whose immunosuppressive impact, all in all, is probably far greater'.

   The dangers associated with antibiotics have long been known, but this knowledge has not prevented careless and prolific use of them in the treatment of patients who are totally unaware of the dangers. In 1975 Dr Maynard Murray, MD B.Sc,* of Fort Myers, Florida and a practising physician and physiologist for forty-five years, said in his book Sea Energy Agriculture (Valentine Books, 1976):

   'Despite drug industry propaganda, these new medicines are fraught with shortcomings, and the long-term effects may prove them more harmful than beneficial.
   Dr Finland and his colleagues recently examined Boston Hospital records covering a period of 24 years in order to evaluate the long-term results of wonder drug therapy. They learned that wonder drugs had reduced the death rate from infection caused by pneumococci and streptococci, but there had been an increase in deaths due to infection from bacteria which previously were considered harmless. [This is what happens with AIDS.] Reliance on antibiotics to combat infectious diseases is to live in a fool's paradise, noted Dr Finland.'

*Quotation taken from Dr Murray's book Sea Energy Agriculture (1976). Dr Murray: Bachelor of Science 1934; Medical degree 1936; University of Cincinnati plus five and a half years' post-graduate study of internal medicine and ear, nose and throat specialty. Taught and directed experiments at University of Cincinnati from 1937-47, thereafter in private practice. Convinced that faulty nutrition was the major factor in human disease, Dr Murray reasoned that trace minerals deficient in the soil existed plentifully in fresh seawater, having been leached there from the land by rainwater over the centuries.
   After forty years of experiments using seawater in carefully measured amounts as fertilizer, he proved his beliefs by showing that his experimental crops produced superior health in animals of all kinds. Possibly the most significant result was with a strain of mice which, because they usually develop breast cancer, are used in cancer research. When fed in accordance with Dr Murray's principles these mice did not develop cancer and maintained sound health and good condition to an advanced age.

   The measure of damage to the immune system by which the progression of AIDS is assessed, apart from the obvious symptoms, is the count of white T cells in the blood; the lower the T cell count, the poorer the outlook. It is the common belief that the diminution of the white cells is entirely due to the predatory activity of a virus which, it has been theorized (but never demonstrated), enters the white T cells and destroys them, so greatly damaging the immune system. This belief, held worldwide, began with the hastily formed opinion of a single researcher employed by the US National Institute of Health, Dr Robert Gallo, and this opinion, still not formulated into a plausible theory--let alone proven--is why the entire world fears a virus which has never been shown to destroy white cells in the human body and which in many cases of AIDS cannot even be detected.

   Research has disclosed that in only fifty per cent of AIDS patients can active HIV be detected, and even when it can be detected, only 1 in 10,000 white cells shows signs of it at most, and sometimes only 1 in 100,000 cells. Fewer than 1 in 500 of a host's T cells contain even dormant HIV. Obviously if a patient has no HIV present you cannot blame it for destroying the white cells. Furthermore, assuming HIV is harmful to white cells in the body (and to repeat: this has never been demonstrated), if it inhabits only 1 in 10,000 white cells it could never kill enough of them to remotely approach the body's normal capacity to make new ones. As the world's leading virologist, Professor Peter Duesberg of the University of California said recently: 'The idea of a virus killing so few cells and by so doing killing the body, is like trying to conquer China by shooting five Chinese soldiers a day.' Impossible.

   However, there is a simple watertight explanation of why AIDS patients display diminished numbers of T cells and in some cases none at all: long-term destructive living habits, especially the use of drugs--including medicinal drugs--so overtax the immune system that the thymus is gradually destroyed, and as the thymus is the only source of new T cells in the body, when the old T cells wear out there can be no new ones to replace them. An additional demolishing effect on the immune system and specifically destructive to the thymus is severe emotional stress, an illustration of which has already been given. Autopsies of AIDS patients show that in every case the thymus is severely atrophied or destroyed.*

*The New England Journal of Medicine on 6 January contained a report (Hersch, Reuben, Rios et al) on ten homosexuals, eight relatively healthy and two with signs of AIDS. All had had multiple bouts of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) and associated medical treatment, all had used recreational drugs, and all had T cell ratio reversal as well as abnormal levels of thymus hormones, suggestive of thymus dysfunction or failure. At the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in June 1983, scientists reported that autopsies of twelve homosexuals who died of AIDS showed their thymus glands to be almost totally destroyed.

   That explanation being correct, the question arises why do some children have AIDS? To answer that it must be emphasized that a lot of people are said to have AIDS simply because they test positive to HIV antibodies. This is not AIDS, nor does it mean AIDS is likely. To repeat, AIDS is a syndrome of infections which have nothing to do with viral antibodies. Children with real AIDS are born with defective immune systems, usually of mothers who are, or have been, drug addicts. Hemophiliacs, no matter how 'clean-living', are at risk of AIDS because for a start they have been born with defective systems and throughout life are compelled to suffer the constant trauma of blood transfusions and the associated constant trauma of medicinal drugs, the combined effects of which over a long period are destructive to the immune system. Even transplant patients on immunosuppressing drugs to prevent tissue rejection of their new organs frequently display AIDS-like symptoms, which only makes senseif you set out to depress the immune system what would you expect?

   Although it had been observed by some doctors for a good number of years, AIDS first attracted the attention of the US medical profession in about 1981, not long after the advent of the 'gay liberation', and because most of the new cases were male homosexuals it became known as 'the gay disease'. Gay liberation was a follow-on to the permissive society of the 1960s and 70s in which it became fashionable in all stratas of society to indulge in promiscuous sex, recreational drugs, junk food and fast living. When gays were 'freed' and lost a lot of their inhibitions, some of them went wild. In the cities where they congregated, gay bars opened, then gay discos and gay 'bath houses'. In these places some homosexuals indulged in the most unbelievably promiscuous sexual behavior, sustained by chemical drugs, marijuana, alcohol, etc, performed over and over to exhaustion, and it was only from this sub-group of homosexuals-the ones most dissipated and depleted--that AIDS took its toll. This fact was obvious right from the start when the Center of Disease Control (CDC) conducted its first investigation into AIDS, long before the HIV theory was concocted. The most outstanding factor common to AIDS patients, the CDC noted, was that they were all far more sexually active than the average (about four times as much) with a correspondingly intense history of medical treatment.

   Anal sex is acknowledged to be a major factor in AIDS and the official explanation for this is that the delicate membranes of the human anus are more easily permeable by the HIV than are the membranes of the female vagina, and this, say the 'experts', is also the reason why the AIDS virus has not spread much into the heterosexual world. This explanation is, however, absurd, because leaving membranes right out of it--if ninety-five per cent of homosexual AIDS patients are of the anal receptive persuasion,* why did not the person who gave them the virus get AIDS too? The dominant partner in the anal sex act must have HIV himself in order to inject it into his passive partner, so why are so few dominant partners affected? The answer obviously has nothing to do with HIV.

*Among 400 consecutive homosexuals screened for AIDS in South Florida at the Institute of Tropical Medicine, Miami, between January and November 1983, Doctors Mark Whiteside and Carole MacLeod found that the only ones who had symptoms of AIDS or ARC were the 'receivers' or 'passive partners' in anal intercourse.

   The reason that the dominant homosexual sex partners are far less prone to AIDS than the anal receptive passive partners is that their behavior is less destructive to their immune systems. They tend to have different personalities, they rely less on drugs, and they are incapable of the wanton promiscuity so weakening to the body, whereas the passive partners tend to indiscriminately use chemical drugs such as poppers (amyl nitrite and butyl nitrite) to enhance their sexual highs and to relax their anal muscles. While the dominant partners cannot physically be so promiscuous and avoid the use of drugs that will prevent them achieving an erection, the anal receptive partners, not being so restricted, can be far more promiscuous, having numerous sexual contacts with different partners every day. A survey of over 1000 male homosexuals, described in the Spada Report (James Spada, Signet Books, 1979), throws more light on this subject. The majority of homosexuals interviewed were promiscuous in varying degrees, and while some preferred always the dominant role in sex and some the passive role, most of them indulged in both. However, some gays gained so much extraordinary pleasure from the passive role that they indulged in it with as many partners as they could, as often as they could, and it is significant that so many from this sub-group came down with AIDS. This sexual high of the passive partner is achieved by the physical stimulation of the prostate gland which produces an orgasm of 'out of this world' intensity and which is greatly prolonged, variously described as 'absolutely mind blowing', 'volcanic', 'fabulous', etc and which leaves the subject mentally and physically absolutely drained. As if this sort of behavior wasn't weakening enough, it is also known that some of the anal lubricants used by anal receptive gays are immunosuppressive when absorbed into the bloodstream, as has been shown to be the case with sperm in the anal canal.

   In addition to such wanton behavior are the further immunosuppressive effects of medical drugs, antibiotics, etc which are liberally prescribed by doctors to 'control' the many infections and sexually transmitted diseases common among promiscuous people. Antibiotics are particularly damaging to the immune system and it is no wonder AIDS progresses rapidly once a certain point is reached, particularly when the bone-pointing death sentence of AIDS is pronounced and the deadly AZT* chemotheraphy is commenced.

*See the statements by Duesberg and McKenna in the addendum to Chapter 9, and also 'AZT' in Chapter 10.

   The pronounced immunosuppressing effect of semen injected into the anal canal has been traced by Dr Richard Ablin of State University, New York, to the enzyme transmutamenase contained in semen and, apart from animal experiments to demonstrate this, there is additional evidence that the high incidence of AIDS among hemophiliacs is due to the same enzyme contained in the drug Factor VIII, upon which hemophiliacs constantly depend. In Lancet, April 1985, Dr Ablin wrote:

   Association is not proof of cause, and agents such as HIV may turn out to be passengers on an already sinking ship. It would be reasonable to postulate some other transmissible agent, even a noninfectious one, which contributes to immune dysfunction and possibly predisposes to opportunistic infections . . . As an alternative to the hypothesis that AIDS is solely an infectious disease I suggest that the opportunistic infections and tumors such as Kaposi's sarcoma seen in AIDS patients result from a combination of lifestyle hazard and immunodeficiency, whereas in patients with hemophilia the infections are a consequence of immunosuppression resulting from infusion of anti-hemophiliac factor.

   To what extent semen is a major factor in AIDS has not been determined, but the fact that it is a factor certainly helps to explain the predominant role of receptive anal sex in the disease. It has of course been pointed out that anal sex has been practised widely in some communities for centuries with no reported ill effects, which is true, but never in history have anal receptive sex partners received such amounts of semen so constantly, accompanied by so many drugs, as since the advent of gay bath houses, and it is a fact that the cities in which AIDS first appeared are the very cities in which bath houses first appeared.

   Of course, only a relatively small proportion of all homosexuals are so neurotically drawn to outrageously treat their bodies by what in the AIDS business is called 'high-risk behavior', and therefore the majority of homosexuals, HIV positive or not, need have no more fear of AIDS than the average heterosexual, which fact is already being borne out by the steady decline in AIDS cases among them. The decline is not because gays are using condoms or clean hypodermics, it is because the majority of the 'high-risk' gays have either already perished or have wised up and moderated their behavior. This fact cannot now be disputed, given the large number of previous AIDS patients, homosexual and heterosexual, who have regained good health by adopting a better lifestyle, just as have other so-called incurables in the past overcome cancer, leukemia, MS and other 'terminal' diseases.

   Thus it can be seen that AIDS is not the slightest threat to anybody providing they do not debilitate their bodies with drugs, malnutrition and other high-risk behavior and, if they clean up their lifestyle really well, nor will they need fear the other so-called terminal diseases. The great AIDS epidemic, predicted year after year by the virusmongers, simply has not happened, not because people are practising 'safe sex' or using condoms, but because still only relatively few people are living dangerously enough to completely destroy their immune systems.

   That drugs of all kinds are the bottom line in the drama of AIDS was pretty clear right at the beginning, but the fact was obscured due to incompetent data recording. Because it was clear that intravenous drug users were getting AIDS as well as homosexuals, the patients were divided on the records as being in one or the other of these categories, which did not allow for the many cases where homosexuals fell into both categories, and because such patients were listed only in the homosexual category the impression was given that drugs were not implicated at all in that great number of cases. But not only that, no drugs other than intravenous drugs were even mentioned. There seemed to be not the vaguest notion that other drugs can be every bit as dangerous, but when all drugs are taken into account, including alcohol, marijuana and the other countless recreational drugs, plus the antibiotics, etc taken by the cartload, the fact emerges loud and clear that the indiscriminate use of drugs is the number one AIDS factor. That the constant use of medical drugs alone can cause AIDS is illustrated by the case of a heterosexual doctor in San Francisco who came down with AIDS through his addiction to medical drugs. Fortunately by completely changing his lifestyle and abandoning all drugs he averted imminent death and made a fine recovery.*

*Refer to Roger's Recovery from AIDS by Dr Robert Owen, Davar Press, Malibu, California, 1987.

   Why the 'AIDS Establishment' based in the Center of Disease Control, US National Institute of Health (CDC & NIH) holds on to its hysterical belief in the virus theory of AIDS is incomprehensible--assuming its members are sincere--because the true story is as clear as the nose on your face and has been for a long time. As far back as 1968, AIDS was starting to appear among drug addicts. In that year Professor Gordon Stewart of Tulane University in New Orleans commenced a three-year study of drug addiction in New Orleans and New York City. He reported that the drug addicts suffered all kinds of opportunistic infections--eighty-five to ninety per cent of them had hepatitis to some degree. He said they were emaciated with 'various weird blood-born infections' together with candida and cryptococci. Darrell Yates Rist, New York journalist and AIDS researcher reported: 'The intravenous drug users were in the lead, and only later the gays picked it up. The first case of AIDS I know of in the US was in 1976 when the baby of an IV drug user died of pneumocystis in San Francisco.'

   Dr Joseph Sonnabend of New York City made similar observations. He said:

   'I was seeing patients with a whole range of problems for years before AIDS came along. Swollen lymph glands, bladder problems, bowel problems of course. I was telling them this was going to lead to some major problem though I didn't know what. People would come in for treatment for gonorrhoea, get their shot of penicillin and go straight back to the bath houses to have sex again. They'd do that ten times a year. Of course there were going to be problems. One of my promiscuous patients would already have hepatitis B, hepatitis A, syphilis, gonorrhoea, cytomegalovirus, herpes simplex, Epstein-Barr virus.'

   A novel published in 1978, Faggots by Larry Kramer, described the typical behavior of some of the big city gays who indulged in orgies of drugs and sexual perversion almost every day, some of them averaging twenty or more sexual acts a week. The author described fifty-six different drugs used indiscriminately for kicks, and these did not include intravenous drugs or medicinal ones. All of them were immunosuppressive, all of them were associated with promiscuity.

   That drugs, chemicals and junk food have become a normal, everyday part of life in some social circles is illustrated by an account in the book Herpes, Cause and Control by Dr William Wickett (Pinnacle Books, 1982):

   'We even took care of Max, a Hell's Angels type who was referred to us by the Venereal Disease Clinic. He had been treated there twice for syphilis and innumerable times for gonorrhea. He now had herpes. Max also admitted to having been addicted to heroin in the past, to smoking two packs of cigarettes a day, to taking amphetamines and sedatives, and to being a regular user of marijuana, usually in combination with large quantities of beer.

   There was no mistake, Max had herpes genitalis. There were blisters along the length of the penis and several more on the scrotum.

   But, alas, Max withdrew from our study. When we explained we were testing a new drug, one from which we had seen almost no side-effects, he declined. Said he, 'I don't want to put anything in my body that might be harmful.''

   Although at present the greatest number of people with AIDS (PWA) in the USA are still male homosexuals, the highest incidence of new cases is among young drug-addicted heterosexuals in New York City, and in Australia the highest incidence is among poorly situated Aboriginals in Northern Queensland who, like hapless teenagers abandoned by society with little hope for the future, seek solace in drugs, liquor and junk food.

   If HIV were necessary to cause AIDS, how on earth did it find its way to north Queensland, there to selectively attack a group of underprivileged Aboriginals and nobody else? Is it mere coincidence that these Aboriginals practise a self-destructive lifestyle similar in many ways to the self-destructive lifestyles of other people with AIDS?

   Having described the lifestyle factors that lead to the end state of physical degeneration called AIDS, it must be emphasized that AIDS is no more a fatal disease than any other disease of civilization, including cancer, providing corrective steps are taken before damage becomes irreparable. HIV has absolutely no effect on a healthy body; any harm it may cause is entirely by fear implanted in the patient's mind by doctors brainwashed by the deluded authorities' in the US AIDS 'establishment'.

   Dr Laurence Badgley has seen AIDS patients die, but he has also seen them recover, and to repeat the last part of the quote from his book Healing AIDS Naturally: 'The question is raised as to how many people are dying because they have been programmed to die. The observation is made that doctors who tell their patients they have a terminal disease are programming their patients to die. The charge is made that these doctors are performing malpractise.'

   'Brainwashing' is a potent force, and most people have heard of how primitive Australian Aboriginals can punish one of their tribe with death simply by the ritual of 'bone pointing'. The capacity of the mind* to influence metabolic processes within the body for good or evil exists within everybody, primitive or educated, and a classic case of self-inflicted 'bone pointing' is described in a book on psychotherapeutics by Dr Arthur Hallam of England, The Key to Perfect Health published in 1912:

   'But perhaps the most extraordinary case in point was furnished a few years ago by a late member of the medical profession, Dr Richardson, whose death was due to his own mental influence--he thought himself to death. He sustained injuries which were not serious, by falling off his bicycle, and he might easily have recovered from them if he had not taken up a feverish idea that they would produce lockjaw. He was progressing favorably when he announced to a brother physician that he would have lockjaw during the week and would die of it on the following Sunday. Despite all attempts to persuade him that the idea was absurd, he insisted on being treated with anti-toxins. If this had any effect at all, it seemed to increase the power of his imagination, and as a result, he developed alarming symptoms on the Thursday, and it became clear he would not recover. He died on the day he appointed, and of lockjaw, as he had predicted! He thought himself to death!

   The case is remarkable, not because it is rare for people to 'think themselves to death', for they are doing so every day of the year, but because the victim was a physiologist, supposedly reinforced by special training in the effects of the mind on the body. This training did not save him, but, as the evidence suggests, it made him worse. Mimetic disease killed him, and everything he knew of physiology helped to kill him.'

*See 'The Mental Factor' in Chapter 16.

   Finally, emphasis must be added to the warning of the harmful effects of the useless anti-HIV medical drugs such as AZT, which alone are capable of destroying a functional immune system and, when added to the effects of the HIV bone-pointing ritual, remove all hope of recovery. Death of course will be blamed on HIV, and the drug companies will claim credit for having kept the patient alive for a while. With 'friends' like that, who needs enemies?

   Clearly the HIV theory of AIDS is wrong, and clearly Dr Richard Ablin is right: HIV when it can be found in people with AIDS is only a passenger on an already sinking ship. It is a mistake to accept that the ship cannot be saved; people with AIDS and the doctors who treat them have made enough mistakes already. The HIV theory, never tested, never proven, has degenerated from a bad mistake into a monumental farce, and the following chapter describes how it came about.