by John Hamer
In the film, Leung totally debunks HIV testing. But it transpires that HIV testing is almost irrelevant anyway as the WHO has provided a definition for AIDS which lists simple symptoms to use for diagnosing AIDS without testing...
“The WHO AIDS surveillance case definition was developed in October 1985 at a conference of public health officials including representatives of the Control CDC and WHO in Bangui, Central African Republic... For this reason, it became to be known as the Bangui definition for AIDS. It was developed to provide a definition of AIDS for use in countries where testing for HIV antibodies was not available.” Wikipedia
It stated the following:
Exclusion criteria
Pronounced malnutrition
Cancer
Immunosuppressive treatment
Inclusion criteria with the corresponding score
Score
Important signs
Weight loss exceeding 10% of body weight
4
Protracted asthenia
4
Very frequent signs
Continuous or repeated attacks of fever for more than a month
3
Diarrhoea lasting for more than a month
3
Other signs
Cough
2
Pneumopathy
2
Oropharyngeal candidiasis
4
Chronic or relapsing cutaneous herpes
4
Generalised pruritic dermatosis
4
Herpes Zoster (relapsing)
4
Generalized adenopathy
2
Neurological signs
2
Generalised Kaposi’s sarcoma
12
The diagnosis of AIDS is established when the score is 12 or more.
Although it was moderated nine years later with the instruction that testing should really be undertaken, it was instrumental in kick-starting the supposed AIDS epidemic in Africa. How convenient it is though, to create a disease from nothing in this fashion by artificially constructing a score-based system from arbitrary, unconnected symptoms.
But even with testing, it is quite easy to say that there is more HIV in one place than another, as the tests are interpreted differently in different countries. At one point in the film Leung straddles the US / Canadian border and comments, ‘No other disease behaves differently when you cross a border.’
He also visits South Africa to examine the ‘epidemic’ for himself. It is difficult to say what is more shocking about Leung’s visit to a poor indigenous village, the ignorance and superstition that people have regarding AIDS or the flies that pass directly from the open sewers to their food plates. Could it possibly be the latter that is the cause of any of the symptoms from the above symptoms table?
Leung interviews several scientists and doctors in the film and they essentially fall into two distinct groups. Those sceptical about the AIDS story include, among others, Kary Mullis, who shared a 1993 Nobel Prize in chemistry, Joseph Sonnabend, a physician who has been involved with AIDS research and treatment since the very beginning and James Chin, an epidemiologist at WHO for five years, whose characterisation of that agency’s statistics on the AIDS epidemic in Africa gives the movie its name. And then there is also Peter Duesberg, who was a cancer researcher until he was recently rebuked and subsequently ostracised for questioning the official line on HIV.
On the other side of the debate are, among others, Robert Gallo, Luc Montagnier and Dr. Anthony Fauci. This group, speaking in defence of the AIDS syndrome comprise a curious mixture of the detached and mildly irritated as they relate their weak arguments asserting that the virus exists, that HIV causes AIDS, everyone is at risk and anyone simply not agreeing with their viewpoint is an idiot.
However, when questioned more closely and intensively, they concede there are gaps in the knowledge of how HIV works, but contradict each other and in one instance, the subject actually contradicts himself. None of them are able to define AIDS in a simple and consistent phrase, are able to explain satisfactorily or convincingly how HIV works or are willing to address the problem of so many deaths attributed to AIDS that in fact were caused by the incredibly toxic drugs administered to cure it.
Leung himself avoids taking sides, rather playing the annoying devil’s advocate, persistently asking probing questions. As the film progresses however, it becomes obvious that the answers are totally inadequate and would not satisfy anyone with anything approaching a semi-functioning brain.
The film also relates the story of a girl by the name of Lindsey Nagel. She was originally a Romanian orphan adopted by Steve and Cheryl Nagel, a couple from Minnesota. Having been tested for HIV in Romania which proved negative, she was then tested again upon arriving in America and this time the test was positive. This is hardly surprising once it is understood that the tests can vary so much from country to country.
Of course, in the beginning, the Nagels followed their paediatrician’s recommendations to treat her with anti-retroviral drugs, which at the time meant high dosage AZT (the most common anti-AIDS drug). For months the Nagels watched helplessly as their healthy daughter deteriorated, getting sicker and sicker. Among other things, her growth became stunted. Of course all symptoms were ascribed to her supposed HIV infection and not to the drugs.
After nearly two years of this, the Nagels became aware of Peter Duesberg’s dissenting view by a relative who read an article about him. They became intrigued and wrote to Duesberg, who replied immediately, telling them to take Lindsey off the antiretroviral drugs or they would kill her. They did so and for that reason alone, Lindsey is still with us today.
The paediatrician concerned, in 2005 received an award for her leadership in treating HIV patients and in a subsequent interview about the award, had this to say...
“We started on AZT (Retrovir) for a child who was adopted and the parents said it was a poison and they called Peter Duesberg, the man who wrote a book claiming that AIDS isn't caused by HIV and they pulled the child from my care.”
However, others were not so fortunate...
“There was nothing you could do years ago. Most children back then did not live past seven to twelve years old. And it was hard; these were children that you got attached to. It was really hard. All we could do was provide some supportive care and treat their opportunistic infections. We had many deaths, ten to twelve in 1994.”
The doctor goes on to say that children stand a better chance of survival now, implying that the treatment has improved, but does not mention the fact that this is only because the dosage of retroviral drugs has been greatly lowered. However, these drugs are still nonspecific, toxic and eventually still do kill most of those who take them.
Of course, Lindsey Nagel is not the only one who benefitted from ending her intake of AZT, this is also happening in Africa too.
“Recently CNN dispatched a reporter to the West African country of Gambia to do a story on Gambian President Yahya Jammeh, who announced in January that he has discovered a cure for AIDS. President Jammeh has come up with a recipe consisting of seven herbs and spices that is administered to an HIV-positive patient once a day...
...Mr. Sow, according to his own testimony, has been HIV-positive since 1996 and had been taking antiretrovirals for the past four years until he volunteered to try President Yahya Jammeh’s new treatment. After only four weeks, he gained 30 pounds and felt like a new person. He feels cured, and has no more ‘HIV symptoms.’ ...Mr. Koinange is sceptical, though, not so much about the witness’s honesty (in fact, he interviewed a lot of patients who made similar statements), but of the scientific basis of the treatment, as the government refuses to provide any medical records that might back the patients’ claims.
But the patient, if one will listen carefully, may have provided a full explanation of the efficacy of the dictator’s dream-potion. He has been HIV-positive since 1996. What a strange virus this is, that
threatened to ravage North America so many years ago, as once a healthy person caught it (which could happen quite easily through normal sexual contact, we were told), the incurable and unstoppable disease AIDS always set in, inevitably killing the patient. Today in North America, the only people who are killed by AIDS are the same people who have always been killed by it, i.e., severe drug abusers and/or homosexual men engaging in a certain sexual practice (usually both). So the AIDS ‘disease’ has moved on to a new market, Africa, where millions of people are supposedly infected with the HIV virus and are going to start dying any day now. Yet, Ousman Sow had the virus from 1996 until 2003, seven years, before he started taking the antiretrovirals to ‘save’ his life. It was then, I would be willing to bet, that he started really experiencing his ‘HIV symptoms.’ Within only four weeks of ceasing the antiretrovirals, he regained lost weight and felt well again.
The cure that our witch doctor has inadvertently found may be nothing more than getting ‘HIV positive’ patients off their antiretrovirals.” James Foye
The treatment for HIV has always been non-specific, DNA destroying drugs. In a supreme irony, the prophecy of a destructive epidemic became on a small scale, self-fulfilling, as tens of thousands died from the very drugs that were supposed to cure them. Of course, they ‘officially’ died from the disease itself and not the drugs themselves. All of the defenders of the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy are paid, directly or indirectly by government (i.e., they work for the government, or a university that is subsidised by government or a pharmaceutical company whose AIDS drug business depends on people believing what the government says about AIDS and whose drugs are largely paid for by the government). Dissenters like Peter Duesberg, are shut out and disenfranchised, attacked or both.
“HIV does NOT cause AIDS. HIV does not cause anything. This is a staggering statement given the hype and acceptance by the scientific establishment and through them, the public that the HIV virus is the only cause of AIDS. HIV is a weak virus and does not dismantle the immune system. Nor is AIDS passed on sexually. There are two main types of virus. Using the airplane analogy, you could call one of these virus strains a ‘pilot’ virus. It can change the nature of a cell and steer it into disease. This usually happens very quickly after the virus takes hold. Then there is the ‘passenger’ virus which lives off the cell, goes along for the ride, but never affects the cell to the extent that it causes disease. HIV is a passenger virus!
So how on earth did it become the big bogeyman virus of the world? The person who announced that HIV caused AIDS was an American, Doctor Robert Gallo. He has since been accused of professional misconduct, his test has been exposed as fraudulent and two of his laboratory executives have been convicted of criminal offences. Tens of millions of people are tested for HIV antibodies every year and Dr Gallo, who patented his ‘test’, gets a royalty for every single one. Luc Montagnier, Gallo's partner in the HIV-causes-AIDS theory, has since admitted in 1989: ‘HIV is not capable of causing the destruction of the immune system which is seen in people with AIDS’. Nearly 500 scientists across the world agree with him. So does Dr Robert E Wilner, author of the book 'The Deadly Deception. The Proof That Sex and HIV Absolutely Do Not Cause AIDS'
Dr Wilner even injected himself with the HIV virus on a television chat show in Spain to support his claims. Other doctors and authors come to the same conclusions, among them Peter Duesberg PhD and John Yiamouyiannis PhD, in their book, 'AIDS: The Good News Is That HIV Doesn't Cause It. The Bad News Is ‘Recreational Drugs’ and Medical Treatments Like AZT Do'. That's a long title, but it sums up the situation. People are dying of AIDS because of the treatments used to ‘treat’ AIDS! It works like this. Now it is accepted by the establishment and the people that HIV causes AIDS, the system has built this myth into its whole diagnosis and ‘treatment’. You go to the doctor and you are told your HIV test was positive (positive only for the HIV antibodies, by the way, they don't actually test for the virus itself). Because of the propaganda, many people already begin to die emotionally and mentally when they are told they are HIV positive. They have been conditioned to believe that death is inevitable.
The fear of death leads them to accept and often demand, the hyped-up ‘treatments’ which are supposed to stop AIDS occurring. (They don't.) The most famous is AZT, produced by the Wellcome organisation, owned, wait for it, by the Rockefellers, one of the key manipulating families in the New World Order.
AZT was developed as an anti-cancer drug to be used in chemotherapy, but it was found to be too toxic even for that! AZT's effect in the ‘treatment’ of cancer was to kill cells - simple as that - not just to kill cancer cells, but to kill cells, cancerous and healthy. The question and this is accepted even by the medical establishment, was: would AZT kill the cancer cells before it had killed so many healthy cells that it killed the body? This is the drug used to ‘treat’ HIV. What is its effect?
It destroys the immune system, so CAUSING AIDS. People are dying from the treatment, not the HIV. AIDS is simply the breakdown of the immune system, for which there are endless causes, none of them passed on through sex. That's another con which has made a fortune for condom manufacturers and created enormous fear around the expression of our sexuality and the release and expansion of our creative force.
What has happened since the Great AIDS Con is that now anyone who dies from a diminished immune system is said to have died of the all-encompassing term, AIDS. It is even built into the diagnosis. If you are HIV positive and you die of tuberculosis, pneumonia, or 25 other unrelated diseases now connected by the con men to ‘AIDS’, you are diagnosed as dying of AIDS. If you are not HIV positive and you die of one of those diseases you are diagnosed as dying of that disease, not AIDS. This manipulates the figures every day to indicate that only HIV positives die of AIDS. This is a lie.
Many people who die from AIDS are not HIV positive and the reason that the figures for AIDS deaths have not soared as predicted is that the overwhelming majority of people diagnosed HIV positive have never developed AIDS. Why? Because HIV has nothing whatsoever to do with AIDS!
Anything that breaks down the immune system causes AIDS and that includes so-called recreational drugs. The vast majority of AIDS deaths in the United States involve homosexuals and this perpetuates the myth that it has something to do with sex. But homosexuals in the US are among the biggest users of drugs which genuine doctors have linked to AIDS. Prostitutes who take drugs often get AIDS; prostitutes who do not take drugs invariably do not get AIDS. The rise in the AIDS figures in the United States corresponds perfectly with the increase in the use of drugs - most of which are made available to people on the streets by elements within the US Government, including Bill Clinton and George Bush. In Africa, the breakdown of the immune system, now known as AIDS, is caused by ill health - lack of good food, clean water and the general effects of poverty. Haemophiliacs do not die from HIV-infected blood; they die, as they did before the AIDS scam, from a quirk in their own immune system. Their immune system locks into foreign proteins in the infused blood and on rare occasions it can become confused during this process and attack itself. Their immune system, in effect, commits suicide. HIV is irrelevant to that. Yet how many people today who have been diagnosed HIV positive are having their lives blighted by the fear that the symptoms of AIDS will start any moment?
AZT is the killer. There is not a single case of AZT reversing the symptoms of AIDS. How can it? It's causing them, for goodness sake. The AIDS industry is now worth billions of pounds a year and makes an unimaginable fortune for the drug industry controlled by the Rockefellers and the rest of the Global Elite.” David Icke, geo-political researcher, 2007
Interesting is it not, that the AIDS industry refers to those who try to expose the truth as being ‘deniers’ which has shades of the other great ‘denial’, that of the holocaust industry? So in effect they are psychologically likening doctors who try to tell the world what is really happening, with Nazis.
“I reported that in
early 1987 I had received a telephone call from a researcher for a TV company who had told me that his company (Thames TV) was planning a documentary about AIDS. ‘What do you think about AIDS?' he asked me. I told him that I thought that the threat had been exaggerated by some doctors, a lot of politicians and most journalists. The researcher was silent for a moment or two. I could tell by the silence that he was disappointed. It wasn't quite what he'd hoped to hear.
We're planning a major documentary,' he said. `We want to cover all the angles. Haven't you got anything new to say about AIDS?' ‘I don't think AIDS is a plague that threatens mankind,' I insisted. I then pointed out that I believed that the evidence about AIDS had been distorted and the facts exaggerated. ‘We really wanted you to come on to the programme and talk about some of the problems likely to be caused by the disease,' persisted the researcher. ‘I'm happy to come on to the programme and say that I think that the dangers posed by the disease have been exaggerated,' I told the researcher.