3,493 words 
HIV/AIDS is the most politicized disease in history. Other pandemics have come and gone, but it has remained a stalwart and pioneer disease ever since giving birth to the cult of colored-ribbon activism. After 40 years of sympathy and hundreds of billions spent on the cause, the official statistics are as follows: five people cured and roughly 42 million dead.
It is an anticlimactic anniversary that should leave the execs of AIDS Inc. feeling even more apprehensive given the new Trump administration. The bombshell appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services reportedly caused top pharmaceutical executives to have an emergency conference in 2024. For 20 years Kennedy been a critic of the vaccine industry and in 2021 he upped the ante by publishing a book implicating Anthony Fauci and big pharma in a scheme of corruption and conspiracy going all the way back to HIV/AIDS. It’s worth reviewing the journey of the AIDS industry from its early days to learn how it truly went viral – and whether Kennedy can do anything about it.
From the very beginning, AIDS science was imbued with a sense of cavalier exceptionalism and disregard for timeworn standards. On the 23rd of April, 1984, Margaret Heckler of the US Department of Health and Human Services announced in a hurried press conference that HIV was the “probable cause of AIDS.”[1] In the years leading up to this announcement, the viral hypothesis was unconventional and unfancied. No peer-reviewed articles or scientific papers were released in support of the semi-triumphant proclamation, although interestingly the co-discoverer of HIV Robert Gallo and the National Institute of Health managed to file a patent application for an HIV antibody test.
In many ways Gallo can be considered the godfather of HIV and AIDS matrimony. Character assessments of Gallo paint the picture of an intelligent but neurotic and power-hungry control-freak whose compulsivity landed him charges of academic misconduct on at least two occasions.[2] Gallo had misappropriated the viral samples that would be used to demonstrate HIV, most likely from material provided by Luc Montagnier of the Institut Pasteur in France. This resulted in legal action and a diplomatic fallout between France and the United States, but eventual agreement for joint-recognition was brokered, with the US in effect taking the helm of the AIDS mothership. An astonishing 24 years would pass before the Nobel Prize Committee decided to weigh in on the disease of the century, and a rather telling scandal erupted in the process. Contrary to the earlier international agreement for shared recognition, only Frenchmen Luc Montagnier and his colleague Françoise Barré-Sinoussi were awarded the Nobel Prize for their role in the discovery of HIV. Robert Gallo, the man credited with proving that HIV causes AIDS, was excluded.[3]
The papers belatedly provided by Gallo and still often assumed to contain the empirical evidence for HIV causality once again caused a scandal. They contained last minute alterations that made false claims about results of his laboratory’s experimentation; original draft documents uncovered by investigative journalist Janine Roberts show that handwritten edits had reversed the results of the lab’s scientists.[4] This finding prompted a group of 37 medical doctors and senior researchers to lobby the esteemed journal Science to remove all four of the seminal papers on account of the “stunning disregard for the scientific process and a very disturbing breach of public trust.” The effort was unsuccessful but not unexpected given that the government’s own agencies produced reports that amounted to little more than lip-service. The Office of Research Integrity concluded that the lead paper was “fraught with false and erroneous statements” while a Congressional Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations scathingly criticized the papers’ integrity.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, Gallo’s original 1984 papers found a positive antibody test response for 88% of his AIDS patients, not 100%, and he found what he described as HTLV-III [HIV] in less than 50% of the patients.[5] The empirical shortcoming led Gallo to appropriate cell culture from Montagnier’s laboratory that supposedly contained the AIDS virus. Several years later, Montagnier made a historic admission live before cameras: he was never able to produce a purified sample of HIV. The problem was that the matrix of proteins used to test for HIV antibodies were not specific to HIV at all – meaning Gallo’s patented testing procedure was invalid. This bureaucratic backstory was scandalous enough; though it was not what spawned the HIV dissident movement.
The backroom deals and data improvisation going on at the time were largely unknown to the scientific world. From the onset, prominent scientists were skeptical or outright opposed to the HIV hypothesis, because it simply didn’t add up. It did not fit epidemiological data or the elementary rules of virology and immunology. It was an unlikely explanation for the social phenomenon of AIDS, yet was thrust into the spotlight and rubber-stamped on face value. This is why so many predictions of industry experts never materialized, anti-HIV drugs proved disastrous and policies failed in almost every way.
Contrary to public perception, the status of AIDS science was never one of consensus. Esteemed scientists have filled the ranks of the dissident movement from various fields of expertise. These include virologist and molecular biologist Stefan Lanka; Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies Henry Bauer; ex-Berkeley biology and chemistry scholar David Rasnick; epidemiologist and Professor Emeritus of Public Health Gordon Stewart; biologist and mathematician David Crowe; radiologist and molecular biologist Marco Ruggiero; biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and colleagues of the Perth Group (Australia); electron microscopist Étienne de Harven; organic chemist and developer of HIV diagnostic testing Rodney Richards; researcher and physician Alan Cantwell Jr.; infectious disease expert Roberto Giraldo; internal medicine specialist Claus Koehnlein; biologist Christl J. Meyer; toxicologist and pathologist Ali Al-Bayati; obstetrician and member of the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel in South Africa Christian Fiala; and many more.
One of the earliest and most principled among the dissidents was Robert Willner. The physician used to give fervent speeches in which he would also transfuse blood with HIV-diagnosed people live before cameras and members of the press. Other dissidents have offered to do the same under controlled conditions, but have had their research proposals rejected.
Eccentric biochemist and Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis has been a standout dissident since the AIDS inception, arguing that “human beings are full of retroviruses. We don’t know if it is hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands. We’ve only recently started to look for them. But they’ve never killed anybody before. People have always survived retroviruses.”[6] Nonadjacent fields of academia have also supplied a generous injection of support. Professor of African History at California State University Charles Geshekter is an anti-HIV-AIDS activist, as is professor of philosophy, ethics and critical thinking Helen Lauer. The late and great Yale mathematician and influential activist Serge Lang was a lifelong dissident who decried the rash declaration of HIV causing AIDS, arguing that the existing data analysis did not support such a conclusion and that it was a political ploy by the government.[7]
The biggest name – and pioneer in fighting the AIDS establishment – is Berkeley professor Peter Duesberg. Once the toast of the scientific world, his downfall came with his 1987 paper Retroviruses as Carcinogens and Pathogens: Expectations and Reality in which he claimed that retroviruses don’t cause cancer, nor could HIV cause AIDS.[8] At the time, Duesberg was the Watson and Crick of retrovirology, having mapped the genetic structure of retroviruses and successfully identified the first cancer gene. He was the youngest member ever elected to the National Academy of Sciences and was among the most well-funded scientists in America. But shortly after the publication of his politically incorrect paper the establishment transformed him from a scientific Skywalker to a dissident Darth Vader – with some AIDS spokespersons even slurring him as a mass murderer. While his professional credentials could not be taken away, he was stripped of his NIH funding, research grants, graduate students and full laboratory facilities. He was un-invited from conferences, maligned by colleagues who boycotted events that he attended, and banned from scientific journals – most melodramatically by Nature editor Sir John Maddox, who denied him the scientific convention of right of reply.
One of the reasons that the dissident movement has been so robust over the years is the fact that it is a multi-pronged assault that has managed to show that all aspects of HIV/AIDS orthodoxy have empirical inconsistencies and theoretical incompatibilities. The history of failed predictions, asymmetrical epidemiology, toxic drugs and long-term corruption all whiff of the tobacco science era.
The mutating definition of AIDS over the years and across jurisdictions has inevitably portrayed the syndrome as a shape-shifting enigma. Back in 1981, members of the male homosexual community were ailing from immunosuppression and one of two diseases: Kaposi’s sarcoma and PCP pneumonia. This simple set of criteria would constitute the first of many definitions for AIDS, which at that time was termed GRID (Gay-related Immunodeficiency Syndrome). The male homosexuals on which this first classification was based were users of nitrite poppers, and the two defining diseases were not new to the medical world as they were caused by viral and fungal infections respectively. As the symptoms began to broaden in the population, the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) then floated the name The 4H disease because there now seemed to be four risk groups: homosexuals, heroin users, hemophiliacs and Haitians. The acronym AIDS would win out, and by 1987 the syndrome’s catchment area was rapidly expanded to include 30 AIDS-defining diseases when in the presence of an HIV-positive test, from cancers to fungal and bacterial infections. The crude caterpillar definition had become a butterfly of diversity and inclusion, but only so that the swooping net of big pharma could score an increased harvest.
In 1993, the United States became the only country to include yet another trip-wire: a CD4+ (immune) cell count lower than 200 in combination with a positive HIV-antibody test would result in an immediate AIDS diagnosis, even if no symptoms or sickness were present. This was a radical change that meant the number of people in America with AIDS shot up, constituting the majority of patients by 1997. No other country used this standard, including Canada, which had an AIDS rate ten times lower than America’s.
Two worlds away in Bangui, Africa, an important summit led to the World Health Organization and CDC codifying a most remarkable definition. It instructed countries to not even bother with HIV tests in most cases, instead mandating a vague points system reference guide that diagnosed AIDS on the basis of symptoms such as weight loss of more than 10%, diarrhea lasting more than a month, repeat fever and persistent cough. This remarkable maneuver essentially redefined common symptoms of malnutrition and poor sanitation as evidence of AIDS. The purpose of this was to create the political illusion that the solution to these illnesses was not nourishment and access to clean water but the availability of expensive drugs coming from the First World.
HIV/AIDS had established itself as a sociopolitical phenomenon and the subject of an industrial protection racket. But as the dissidents would attempt to argue, its exceptionalism was even greater in the clinical domain, where the unassuming retrovirus managed to break all of the fundamental rules of microbiology:[9]
- In the world of viruses, incubation periods are very short, with rapid chain reactions achieving multiplication rates of up to 1000-fold in 8-24 hours. The replication time for HIV is also approximately 24 hours. This is at odds with the claim that HIV causes AIDS symptoms 5-20 years after infection.
- Normal viral diseases are self-limited by host immunity or host death in weeks. Officially, HIV/AIDS is not self-limiting, but appears to be a virus that camps out in the host indefinitely, progressively weakening the immune system as though it was cholesterol accumulating in arteries.
- At the population level, viral epidemics naturally increase and recede dramatically within months, producing a bell-shaped curve. The AIDS epidemic is not like this at all, rather being a long term and stable epidemic.
- Conventional viral infection is highly random in the population, while HIV/AIDS morbidity is highly predicted by risk groups. In the West these are homosexual males, IV drug users and those who take cytotoxic anti-HIV medication. In Africa the risk groups are those suffering malnutrition and poverty.
- Viruses normally cause disease because a high percentage of target cells die. In AIDS patients, there is a high level of T-cell loss, but this is not due to HIV as only 1 in 500 T-cells is infected with HIV.[10]
The technical profile of HIV immunopathology by its very complexity affords it much camouflage from the proper scrutiny that it deserves. Its clinical observations, putative modality and epidemiology are irreconcilable within the framework of the virus hypothesis. From the onset of the epidemic in the West, risk categories were incredibly predictable. Contrary to forecasts of a spread to the general population, the same demographics continue to characterize the highly non-random distribution. About 80% of carriers are male, of which one third are intravenous drug users and two thirds are male homosexuals who consume toxic recreational drugs and prescription DNA chain-terminators.[11]
Conversely, HIV/AIDS in Africa is highly random. Not only are men not at greater risk (as their greater promiscuity would predict), but there is a slight overrepresentation of women. Furthermore, there is no discernible difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Not even drug users constitute a risk group. The symptoms are also very different, with a notable lack of PCP pneumonia, dementia and Kaposi’s sarcoma – once hallmark secondary diseases for AIDS in the West.
These baffling intercontinental discrepancies were famously identified by South African president Thabo Mbeki in a letter to President Clinton in 2000.[12] In it, Mbeki noted that Africa’s 23 million HIV-positive cases produced 75,000 AIDS patients annually. In contrast, the United States’ 0.9 million HIV-positive population resulted in 45,000 AIDS patients annually. In other words, the risk to an HIV-positive American of developing AIDS was fifteen times greater compared to his African counterpart. This was no small medical miracle. Since more than 150,000 HIV-positive Americans with no symptoms were treated with anti-HIV drugs, President Mbeki had every right to be skeptical of American guidance on how to treat HIV-positives.[13]
In order to explain away the anomalous differences between regions of the world and the fact that poor HIV-positive Africans stood a much better chance of not developing AIDS than their American counterparts, the dubious assertion arose that the strain of HIV roaming around the world (subtype B) was different to the strains inside Africa. This still fell short of adequately explaining the existence of clear risk groups in the West, which for a viral epidemic was meant to have spread to the heterosexual population and sex workers long ago.
In order to override the epidemiological crisis of legitimacy, the testing inventory has been a major lynchpin of the AIDS machine. The methodology is not what most people might expect. It’s an enterprise with more or less the same non-specific, non-standardized and non-valid basis since Gallo’s HIV test patent swoop in 1984. Despite usage of the word test, the diagnostic apparatus entails elements of a questionnaire that gather subjective information such as lifestyle and sexual behavior. This information is presumably needed to help along the objective aspect of the testing process, which involves subjects submitting blood or saliva for laboratory testing. Different style tests are employed for this task, using different methodologies that are then interpreted differently depending on the laboratory. But what they have in common is that none can directly detect the presence of HIV. Instead, they detect certain proteins, antigens and antibodies that are said to be markers of the presence of HIV.
Formulating diagnostic tools to flag the smallest of viruses among the myriad of proteins and strands of genetic material present in human blood is an endeavor of polished pseudoscience. The industry’s most common tests, the ELISA and Western Blot, are both detectors of HIV-antibodies, which are cells produced by a person’s immune system in response to the HIV antigen. This is unprecedented in microbiology, as it predicates that the virus is pathologically active in spite of complementary antibodies indicating that the immune system has recognized, neutralized and conferred immunity. The CDC has changed its position on what antibodies signify, settling on the unfounded claim that antibodies indicate not just past but present and active infection, with minimal or no symptoms necessary for a number of years.[14] Furthermore, antibody tests have been shown to be susceptible to more than 60 factors that have the potential to cause a false-positive result.[15] These factors include having the flu, tuberculosis, herpes, leprosy, hepatitis, rheumatoid arthritis, an organ transplant, tetanus vaccination, flu vaccination and multiparous pregnancy. Some factors like anti-collagen antibodies, sticky blood and malaria are racial differences that skew people of African ancestry toward getting a false diagnosis. Some markers are neither specific to HIV/AIDS patients nor any illness, like the p41 and p24 protein antigens used in Western Blot tests, meaning that an uninfected person can test positive on this test.[16]
The unreliability of tests has meant that submitting a second test is standard practice, and in the occurrence of two conflicting test results, the contingency is to use a third test as a tie-break. That test is often the RNA PCR – a purported measure of HIV’s presence and viral load. Its reputation exceeds its validity. It cannot detect free and infectious viruses, but rather proteins and genetic sequences that are assumed to be exclusive to HIV. A study of approximately 3,000 individuals published in the Journal of the American Medical Association determined that PCR was insufficiently accurate to diagnose HIV infection without “confirmation” (another inaccurate test).[17] Like other tests, it breaches the unscientific threshold rate of false-positives[18] and is likely insensitive to naturally occurring retrovirus-like particles (HERVs) exuded by stressed host cells in the body.[19]
Adding yet more loaded dice to the testing crapshoot is the fact that there is jurisdictional variation between countries in how tests are scored. Patients testing positive in a country like Uganda can board a plane to Canada and have their diagnosis reversed using the same form of test. The ancillary criteria that tweak the number of AIDS-defining illnesses or lifestyle risk factors are ultimately there to maximize the scope of potential recipients of AIDS drugs. In the United States alone, five different criteria have been used by different groups.[20] No other disease compares to the medical and legal wriggle-room in definition and diagnosis afforded by the HIV-AIDS paradigm.
Notes
[1] Federal Official Says He Believes Cause of AIDS has been Found. By Lawrence K. Altman. 22 April 1984. The New York Times
[2] Dr. Don Francis on Working with Dr. Robert Gallo [Extra footage]. House of Numbers: Anatomy of an Epidemic [Documentary]. Dir. Brent Leung. Knowledge Matters, 2009
[3] Cohen, J., Enserink, M. (October 2008). Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. HIV, HPV researchers honored, but one scientist is left out. Science 322 (5899): 174–5
[4] “Top Scientists Ask Journal Science To Retract Original AIDS Papers.” 9 December 2008. Press Release. Rethinking AIDS
[5] Gallo, R. C., Salahuddin, S. Z., Popovic, M., Shearer, G. M., Kaplan, M., Haynes, B. F., Palker, T. J., Redfield, R., Oleske, J., Safai, B., White, G., Foster, P., Markham, P. D. Frequent Detection and Isolation of Cytopathic Retroviruses (HTLV-III) from Patients with AIDS and at Risk for AIDS. Science, 4 May 1984, Vol. 224(4648): 500-503
[6] AIDS; Words from the Front. By Celia Farber. July 1994. Spin
[7] Serge Lang, 1927–2005. By Jay Jorgenson and Steven G. Krantz. Notices of the AMS, May 2006. Vol. 53(5): 540
[8] Out of Control – AIDS and the corruption of medical science. By Celia Farber. March 2006. Harper’s Magazine
[9] Duesberg, P., Koehnlein, C., Rasnick, D. The chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition; J. Bioscience, 28: 383–412
[10] Schnittman, S. M., Psallidopoulos, M. C., Lane, H. C., Thompson, L., Baseler, M., Massari, F., Fox, C. H., Salzman, N. P., Fauci, A. The reservoir for HIV- 1 in human peripheral blood is a T cell that maintains expression of CD4. Science, 245: 305-308
[11] Serge Lang, 1927–2005. Page 553, By Peter Duesberg. Notices of the AMS, May 2006: 53(5), p553
[12] Mbeki’s letter to U.S. President Clinton, Washington Post, April 19, 2000
[13] The African AIDS epidemic: New and Contagious – or – old and under a new name? Peter Duesberg to the AIDS panel, 22 June 2000
[14] CDC. Revision of the CDC surveillance case definition for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. MMWR (1987) 36(1S):3S–15S
[15] Whose antibodies are they anyway? By C. Johnson. Continuum Sept./Oct. 1996
[16] Bauer, H. HIV tests are not HIV tests. J Am Phys Surg (2010) 15(1):05–09
[17] Rodriguez, B., Sethi, A., Cheruvu, V., Mackay, W., Bosch, R., Kitahata, M., et al. Predictive value of plasma HIV RNA level on rate of CD4 T-cell decline in untreated HIV infection. JAMA (2006) 296(12): 1498–506
[18] Owens, D., Holodniy, M., Garber, A., Scott, J., Sonnad, S., Moses, L., et al. Polymerase chain reaction for the diagnosis of HIV infection in adults: a meta-analysis with recommendations for clinical practice and study design. Ann Intern Med (1996) 124(9): 803–15
[19] Culshaw, R. Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS? Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books (2007)
[20] Bauer, H. HIV tests are not HIV tests. J Am Phys Surg (2010) 15(1): 05–09
12 comments
The way they define this thing is nearly as gay as the butt sex said to cause it!
Also, aren’t there connections between AIDS and Covid 19? Not just similar figures involved, but the PCR test false positives and nebulous terminology?
The theory in the black community is that government labs had worked on AIDS for years until they were finally successful during Nixon’s second term. Nixon signed off on it and it was released into the black community (No, I don’t know how). At first the scientists thought they had failed because nothing appeared to be happening, then in the late 70s a mysterious disease started appearing in the gay community and the rest is history. If AIDS was created in a laboratory we should suspect that the actual death toll is much higher than what we are told. 🧬
That story was started by the KGB in the late 1980s, and this junk conspiracy is still floating around.
Even as a kid I always found it dubious that all throughout history not a word then like a tidal wave HIV-AIDS hits in the 1980’s with Ryan White as the national poster child. Expand the definition to ensnare all in a wider net, much like ‘racism’ or ‘antisemitism’, to include malnutrition, all the Oregon Trail diseases, and everything that they say-abracadabra presto-change-o!- becomes AIDS cause “science says” like the dog-torturer swine fauci. Forty-two million dead and only five cured. Boy, that was money and time well-squandered. You’d think the ‘community’ would be very upset at being lied to for Big Pharma’s murderous profiteers but since lovely corporations like pfizer sponser their stupid parades, I’m sure they’ll blame this site for saying what they don’t want to hear.
Has anyone not diagnosed with HIV ever been recorded as dying from an AIDS-related illness?
Pneumonia does come to mind, though generally speaking, the typical opportunistic infections usually don’t do much to people with immune systems in normal working order. Anyway, if you’d like some better information, I recommend And The Band Played On by Randy Shilts; he understood the subject.
Hence ‘AIDS-related pneumonia’, given as the cause of death for Freddie Mercury, for example. But thanks for the recommendation.
This is a subject that hardly anyone will touch. And they really should. I’ve been skeptical about the whole HIV causes AIDS hypothesis for years (whatever AIDS is, it could be anything… like doing tons of drugs and having tons of sex with tons of people…).
One of the better books I read on this topic is “AIDS, Opium, Diamonds and Empire” by Nancy Banks (get over the fact that she’s black and of course has a penchant for her own “community”).
…For 20 years [RFK, Jr.] has been a critic of the vaccine industry and in 2021 he upped the ante by publishing a book implicating Anthony Fauci and big pharma in a scheme of corruption and conspiracy going all the way back to HIV/AIDS.
—
John Massaro, arguably the foremost historian and critic of the vaccine industry, has a little to say about RFK and vaccines, here: Just Another Kennedy | National Vanguard
…RFK gets very worked up over big businessmen who don’t believe in global warming, and has expressed a wish to imprison them. However, I think he takes more after his Uncle John than his father and Uncle Ted — that is, he’s not a total zero but does deserve a little credit. If, as is claimed, he was instrumental in cleaning up the Hudson River, and waterways throughout the western hemisphere, by filing numerous lawsuits against major industrial polluters, then I tip my hat to him. But these days he’s better known for speaking out against the depravity of the big pharmaceutical companies and federal “public health” agencies, especially in regard to dangerous vaccines that have been harming our children. Last year I read his book The Real Anthony Fauci, which goes far beyond the crimes of that infamous slimeball. The Kennedy name alone instantly lights up the landscape, and his authorship of a timely book with a provocative title guaranteed huge sales despite a media blackout. It quickly sold more than a million copies, while so many obscure authors struggle to sell a few thousand or even just a few hundred copies of their works. Having said that, I will add that The Real Anthony Fauci is a valuable read, especially for those unfamiliar with the putrid corruption of the medical-industrial complex, even though I do have some criticisms, namely the fact that RFK takes the Covid scamdemic seriously, and scatters his idiotic liberal ideas and biases throughout. Nevertheless, he fearlessly exposes the vile scum who are responsible for so much misery and death in the world, and in doing so has painted a target on his back. Perhaps there was a connection between his outspokenness on this topic and the arrest, on September 15, of an armed man impersonating a federal marshal who got near him at an appearance in Los Angeles.
But I don’t want to be too generous in my praise. The Jewish media, masters of deceit and confusion, have long been spinning RFK as an anti-vaxxer, but he’s anything but. Since the Kennedy name is catnip to so many, including well-meaning people who have been exposing the vaccine fraud, RFK’s input, both as a public speaker and a literary contributor, is frequently sought. He wrote the foreword to Vaccine Whistleblower: Exposing Autism Research Fraud at the CDC, published in 2015. Most of this book is a transcript of four secretly but legally recorded phone conversations with a conscience-stricken senior scientist at the CDC named William Thompson. These are RFK’s opening lines: “I have always been fiercely pro-vaccine. I had all six of my children vaccinated. I believe that vaccines have saved millions of lives and that broad vaccine coverage is desirable. To achieve those goals we need safe vaccines, transparent and reliable science, and an independent regulatory agency.” Some anti-vaxxer. The rest of the foreword, however, is hard-hitting and rational.
Nevertheless, it gets worse. I credit Brian Shilhavy, who runs the generally excellent (minus the biblical verses) website healthimpactnews.com, with exposing more unpleasant facts about this man. In a January 3, 2023 article that questioned the motives of some of the big shots who were blasting the Covid vaccine, there’s a brief video clip of RFK not only doubling down on being a fierce supporter of vaccines, but adding this gem: “We should have policies that encourage full vaccination for all Americans.” Furthermore, the article links to his 2021 tax return, which shows that he earned a salary of $497,013 as chairman and chief legal counsel of his 501-c non-profit organization Children’s Health Defense, sweetening his net worth of roughly $60 million. On childrenshealthdefense.org, he puts forth an insipid six-step plan to get the vaccine train back on the right track. He is a true believer in vaccines, as long as the manufacturers get the toxic ingredients out, but has never addressed the fact that no safe vaccine has ever been invented. Considering the tyrannical streak in his father and uncles, and his quotations above, if he had the power I wouldn’t put it past him to mandate that all Americans be injected with a whole slew of “safe” vaccines…
Like John says, RFK: “some anti-vaxxer.”
Well, whatever the cause is, drug companies seem to understand it well enough to prevent the deaths that were occurring from AIDS. They call their drugs anti-retroviral drugs…
If there is no evidence that AIDS is caused by a retrovirus, then what evidence can there be that anti-retrovirals cause a decrease in mortality?
Esteemed scientists have filled the ranks of the dissident movement from various fields of expertise…
—
I realize Mr. Zaha is referring to HIV dissidents rather than to White racial dissidents that we are more accustomed to in our pro-White circles. It’s a cinch that his esteemed scientists won’t be mentioning John Massaro in their ranks of dissidents, though he has the expertise as a top dissident on related matters and is a White racial dissident: Will Vaccines Be The End Of Us by John Massaro – Cosmotheism
John’s book blurb:
Vaccines are experimental blends of biological and chemical junk that don’t work and have maimed or killed an uncountable number of people. The big lie that they have “saved millions of lives” has been repeated so often and for so long that most consider it the indisputable truth. Yet any serious investigation will reveal that there are no vaccination success stories, only myths taught in medical universities and served to the public by the fake news establishment, both of which have strong financial ties with the big pharmaceutical firms that manufacture vaccines. Since 1796, when it all started, thoughtful people have emphatically condemned the procedure and exposed its dark underside. And now, with the Covid-19 hoax, the criminals who develop and promote vaccines are trying to force the most dangerous “medicine” ever invented on the entire world. As a result, we may be living on the brink of an unthinkable human tragedy. Massaro delves into taboo topics that many would find offensive, including race, religion, even the Jewish Question and that other big lie: the Holocaust.
“The title of this book asks if vaccines will be the end of us. A corollary question would be, ‘Will Jews be the end of us?’… it’s something that thoughtful men through the ages have pondered. The late William Pierce, founder of the National Alliance, a racial nationalist organization still in operation despite several setbacks, pondered it long and hard.”… Pierce believed that the conflict between Jew and Aryan man was a battle of Nature beyond any moral considerations, such as takes place throughout the plant and animal kingdom, and ultimately one or the other will be ultimately killed off.” -John Massaro, page 244
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.