The Lazarus Effect?

Vanity Fair is doing its best to help us feel better about whatever it is we’re doing in and to Africa. They’ve painted a rainbow coalition of the bright and brainless to sell us the future vision for a new and improved Africa.

The issue is edited by everybody’s favorite sex-and-death rock and roller, Paul Hewson – that is, Bono – who remembers enough from catechism to know that sex must equal death (at least for poor people – it’s an Irish Catholic thing, you know).

If I’m being cryptic, or bitter, please excuse me.

But do have a look at the article on the miracles of Nevirapine, and tell me what it is that we’re going to do, in actual reality, with these poor folks…

If I am to believe the marketing, I must accept that all the poor and starving in Africa are actually living about as long as Europeans did in the Middle Ages, because they have normative, reproductive sex once in a while.

(Then have a look at this sex survey to see how much we do it, and figure out how we dodge that sex-death curse)…

Or this one:

There’s a misperception that there’s a great deal of promiscuity in Africa, which is one of the potential reasons for HIV/AIDS spreading so rapidly,” said Dr. Paul van Look, director of Reproductive Health and Research at the World Health Organization, who was unconnected to the study. “But that view is not supported by the evidence.”

But, never mind, you know, because I’d hate to be in Denial about how dangerous it is for Black people to have sex in Africa (or anywhere else).

So, back to it. Everybody in Africa is going to die, unless we…. and here’s where I fall off the great ol’American Liberal Turnip Truck.

What is it, exactly, precisely, that we’re going to do, actually DO, for the people of a great many nations, who are not as wealthy as we?

Are we really going to:

* Drug 40 million people with “life-saving” (life-ending) Aids drugs?

* Put condoms on (and circumcise) a couple dozen million black penises?

* Ignore the infrastructure problems of most villages and cities in Africa, hoping that people do better with drugs that make people vomit and have diarrhea, than with a regular supply of clean, potable water?

* Infiltrate sovereign nations for the purpose of building pharma factories – for poisons – but never for anti-mosquito pesticides (that’s anti-malaria to you and me – yes, like DDT, for example)?

* Buy Gap clothing, rubbing ourselves in a warm and tender way, knowing that we’ve just helped pay for another pregnant woman’s dose of Nevirapine?

By God, I think we are.

So, what’s the upshot? How long does it last? And what are we really there for?

Let me repeat that – what are we really there for?


* Population Control – don’t kid yourself, condoms and drugging pregnant women has one, and only one net result.

* Drug sales

* Mineral, Oil and Resource Control – Africa, for all of its poverty, is a rich, rich place for what makes markets tick and turn.

* Bodies to do labor, cheap. Even China is using Africa for their low-end labor – once and again the world’s slave market.

Now it’s up to you, you tell me what I’m missing. What are the missing pieces. Make some predictions, tell me what Africa looks like after 10 years of the Aids pogrom. I mean, program.

Is Africa in worse, or better shape?

Has the population control worked, or backfired?

Will we (the Imperium) get those resources we want, we really, really want (oil, minerals, diamonds, and food for the new nuclear power plants)?

And how long will it take before we lose interest? Before we bleed it dry, again, and move on?

Or will it, somehow, work? Will the Western influx somehow turn enough of Africa into a new…Texas?
Will we pen up the Serengeti and sell tickets? Move the local tribesmen into bee-hive apartment blocks, a la Beijing, and put them to work answering phones for our credit card companies?

I mean, what gives? What’s the future of Africa, in Bono-land?

Your thoughts, please, while I ponder the great religion of our age – the Church of Aids….



  1. I’ll repost a few pieces of articles referenced in the blog:

    Sex Survey (US):


    Among the other findings:

    • About 96 percent of U.S. adults have had sex.
    • Sixteen percent of adults first had sex before age 15, while 15 percent abstained from sex until at least age 21.
    • The proportion of adults who first had sex before age 15 was highest for non-Hispanic blacks (28 percent) compared to 14 percent for both Mexican-Americans and non-Hispanic whites.
    • Six percent of blacks abstained from sex until age 21 or older, fewer than Mexican-Americans (17 percent) or non-Hispanic whites (15 percent).
    • Black men and women were more likely to report having 15 or more partners in a lifetime (46 percent and 13 percent, respectively) than other racial or ethnic groups.
    • Seventeen percent of men and 10 percent of women reported having two or more sexual partners in the past year.
    • Twenty-five percent of women and 17 percent of men reported having no more than one partner of the other sex in their lifetime.
    • Twenty-six percent of men and 17 percent of women have tried cocaine or other street drugs (not including marijuana) at some time in their life. Seven percent of men and 4 percent of women had done so within the past 12 months.
    • Non-Hispanic whites had a higher percentage of ever using cocaine or street drugs (23.5 percent) than blacks (18 percent) or Mexican-Americans (16 percent).
    • Adults who were married or had more than a high school education were less likely to use street drugs than others.

    The survey, formally titled the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, did not include homeless people, prison inmates or other institutionalized adults.

    The questions about numbers of sexual partners specified heterosexual relationships, and thus the survey did not measure the extent of gay or lesbian sexual partnerships. However, Porter said there was no such specificity in the questions about ever having had sex or about the age of first sexual activity, so answers to those could have referred to straight or gay sex.

  2. From the Vanity Fair Piece

    The doctors measure the aids virus’s progress in attacking the immune system by testing each patient’s level of CD4 immune cells. Patients with a count of more than 500 are released without further treatment. Those whose CD4 levels are between 500 and 350 are told to come back for more tests in three months. Those who score between 350 and 0 are eligible for ARVs.

    • [Question – What is an “HIV test” – do they mean that thing that is non-standardized, cross-reactive, and only said to ‘work’ for the people the medical authorities say they work for?]

    The first-line regimen is usually a combination of three pills, taken twice a day. If side effects occur, the medication is adjusted. But if the virus is resistant to the first-line regimen, it is withdrawn and a completely different cocktail is prescribed. This second-line regimen is much more expensive, costing between $500 and $1,200 a year. The Clinton Foundation has just negotiated a deal with two India-based manufacturers of generic ARVs to provide the second-line regimen for a dollar a day to 1.5 million Africans by 2010.

    • [There are ‘side-effects? Oh, who knew? And food and water? But who needs that? (they do)].

    I am introduced to a woman who developed lipodystrophy from taking her first trio of ARVs. A distortion of the body-fat distribution in the arms, legs, breasts, face, and buttocks, lipodystrophy is a common complication of stavudine, one of the medications that was in her first-line cocktail. When that was replaced with abacavir, the woman returned to normal. Still, she complains that the drugs are so strong she can’t stand them without eating well, but since she isn’t working, she can’t afford food. The need for nutritional support was underforecast and underfunded, Asiimwe tells me. It will likely be written into the next grant proposals later this year.

    • [This is always the story, and it’s a quarter of the way decent of them to actually report it, but it won’t make much of a dent, because it’s not a money-earner.]

    Another patient, Angélique, 16, started on ARVs four years ago. “She used to be sickly, and now she can go on with her life,” Asiimwe says. “She’s a good student, fourth in a class of 40, and wants to be a doctor. Both her parents died—she doesn’t know how—but she and her older sister were both probably infected perinatally by their mother when she was carrying them. Her neighbor, an old lady, became her guardian, but even the guardian died of aids. Her sister, who is also on ARVs, was taking care of her, but she now is in the hospital herself. We see many children with problems like this.” I ask Angélique if she has anything to say to the Westerners who will be reading about her. Her message is “Thank you so much for these ARVs, because otherwise I’d be dead.”

    • [Good, great. I’m glad. The drugs are sometimes good at killing local bugs, fungus, bacteria, etc, for a few months, because the drugs are good at dismantling the parts that make these bodies work – DNA, RNA and protein – and then they go to work on the liver, pancreas and heart, in exactly the same way. What would happen if we just decided to target TB, malaria, sepsis, dystenary and cholera? Wonder how that would go (but, again, not a money-earner, like ‘aids.’]

    Among those in the waiting room are some of the 316,414 pregnant women who have volunteered for H.I.V. testing and counseling in Rwanda since 2004. There is a drug called nevirapine that helps prevent perinatal transmission, but a mother with the virus can still transmit it through her milk. A video about the danger of infecting your baby through breast-feeding is playing in the waiting room. Most women are unable to afford formula, and those who can afford it don’t always have safe water to mix it with. The cheapest and most available alternative to infected breast milk is cow’s milk, but the clinics don’t have the money or infrastructure to distribute it. So here is another need that could be addressed with an influx of (Red) [Gap, etc] revenue.

    • [Nevirapine, nevirapine. No problems with Nevirapine, right?]

    “There is hope,” says Florence Mukakabano, the principal nursing officer at the university hospital in Kigali. “The medicine is at least sustaining people.” Mukakabano takes me through her hospital’s pediatric ward, through the malnourishment room, the malaria room, the chest-problem room. “This cubicle is for very sick ones who need oxygen,” she says, peering down at a tiny, nine-day-old girl with a mask strapped to her face. The girl is having difficulty breathing, for reasons not yet diagnosed.

    As we enter the next room, a 13-year-old orphan named Toma appears from under a crumpled sheet. He is H.I.V.-positive, and very small for his age. “Toma has come in to be trained on how to take his ARVs,” Mukakabano explains. “The drugs are very strong. He has to be taught how to eat. He has no family members. He came in very weak. Somebody brought him in. He does not know where he will go. When they are found to be positive, they are often abandoned by their families. He will go to an orphanage. We have many like this one.” There are roughly 160,000 aids orphans in Rwanda.

  3. Virological failure is a technical term among “HIV-AIDS” proponents that simply means a drug has failed to suppress virus because it doesn’t work and has killed the recipient.

    The AIDS establishment loves to study how drugs affect hundreds of hundreds of thousands of folks, and then attribute those morbid effects to a phantom virus’s ravages or mutability instead of drug toxicity. A good recent example in support of this charge was advanced by none other than the cat-man’s feline immune deficiency group led by Max Essex:

    January 11, 2007 in the New England Journal of Medicine, it was reported by Max Essex’s group that nevirapine increased the failure of the drug cocktail by only 41.7% compared to controls:

    “Nevirapine remains central to the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and to combination antiretroviral treatment throughout much of the developing world. Nevirapine administered as one dose to the mother and one to the newborn reduces mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1 by 41 to 47%, and well over 875,000 women and infants have received a single dose of nevirapine.”

    “A single dose of nevirapine is the cornerstone of the regimen recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) to prevent mother-to-child transmission among women without access to antiretroviral treatment and among those not meeting treatment criteria. However, nevirapine resistance is detected (with the use of standard genotyping techniques) in 20 to 69% of women and 33 to 87% of infants after exposure to a single, peripartum dose of nevirapine.”

    “Among 60 women starting antiretroviral treatment within 6 months after receiving placebo or a single dose of nevirapine, no women in the placebo group and 41.7% in the nevirapine group had virologic failure.”

  4. Good on bringing up the question, Liam.

    We seem to be stuck in the feel-good mode of “doing something” to help Africa/Africans. But as you say, blindly doing something is not going to cut it.

    In my view we have a choice, but it is made very one-sided by the combined forces of the “feel good” factor and the hidden push for population control designed to mitigate a human “population explosion”.

    The choice is between continuing to feel good and doing something, even if it’s poisoning the recipients of our aid, and opening our eyes and hearts to help Africa/Africans to be self-sufficient.

    Of course that second choice is going to run into all kinds of contrary considerations – it doesn’t fit with current economic realities, and it doesn’t fit with our agenda to control the population numbers.

    By self-sufficient I mean helping Africans to use their own resources to feed themselves, to construct infrastructure for clean water and sanitation, and to use their indigenous healing knowledge – combined with what we know about good nutrition – to stay healthy.

    Of course such a self sufficient Africa is going to be a formidable competitor on the world economic scene. No more exploiting their resources just for the asking and for a few bribes. No more European and US subsidized grain exports, while we keep their produce out of our own markets. No more billions for the toxic pharmaceuticals we like to ship to Africa to “treat aids”.

    It would be a radically different world, but in my view it’s the only chance we have to not incur the undying wrath of the survivors of what we currently are doing in Africa.

  5. Here are some thoughts on “Leave Africa to the Africans” from an economist, interviewed in Der Spiegel. The title says a lot:

    “For God’s Sake, Please Stop the Aid!”
    The Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati, 35, says that aid to Africa does more harm than good. The avid proponent of globalization spoke with SPIEGEL about the disastrous effects of Western development policy in Africa, corrupt rulers, and the tendency to overstate the AIDS problem.

    SPIEGEL: Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa…

    Shikwati: … for God’s sake, please just stop.

    SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.

    Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.

  6. And another:

    Choking on Aid Money in Africa

    Rambak threatens to become a bitter example of how development aid doesn’t really help. Again and again finance is hurriedly provided for one project after another, without any evidence of a convincing overall concept. The money is just thrown at projects as quickly as possible. In this case, Norway has made $500,000 available for just 500 refugees in the camps. The windfall immediately sparked off further need and a second camp, this time home to 345 people, has sprung up. It is the Italians who are footing the bill for the new camp.

  7. Choking on Aid Money in Africa

    And now, even the countries which receive aid are coming out with more words of warning. Never before have so many African intellectuals called for an end to the classic type of development aid. “Aid is not the solution,” was the headline of the Kenyan newspaper The Standard. According to the paper, aid does not go directly to the people but to “bureaucratic structures.”

    The worst thing about foreign aid, says the Monitor from Uganda, is that it prevents democratic development and urgently needed reforms. The paper also believes that aid stands in the way of long overdue and highly beneficial transparency in society.

  8. In the vein of the Lazarus Effect, and the “feel good” mode, is yesterday’s Seattle Times.

    An article centered around the pharmaceutical success against HIV/AIDS in the story of one girl in South Africa.

    Supposedly, the girl’s mother tested “positive” while pregnant with her. Thanks to drugs (I could not find any mention of what drugs she was actually given), the little girl is alive and well today. Although she has hearing trouble and suffered from a terrible rash at some point (kind of smells like nevirapine?).

    So, it’s the usual win-win situation for the AIDS establishment…

    They deem somebody “HIV positive” and pummel them with drugs. If they sicken and/or die, it was HIV’s fault. If they live, the drugs “saved” them.


    The “HIV virus” was painted as the culprit by a press campaign and the heavy toxic drugs were brought in, without toxicity testing, because “people were dying” and “the pandemic” was “going to wipe out mankind” if something was not done immediately (AZT, Nevirapine: Do Anti-Retroviral Drugs Cause AIDS? Feb 10, 2005). Some reports state that 25 milion Africans dropped dead last year!

    And it was predicted in the 1980s that this virulent virus is going wipe out entire nations in 20 – 50 years! Nutritional philanthry replaced consumer-driven philanthry that ensures that the nutrionally deficient people get deadly drugs to ingest which readily generate large amounts of free radicals in the body and quickly suppress the immune system further to a point of no return for the malnourished.

    Nevirapine is acknowledged by Boeringer Ingelheim, its German manufacturer, to be capable of causing severe liver damage and life-threatening skin reactions soon after patients start taking regular doses. This month a new warning about its dangers was issued by US health officials. Deaths have been reported from several countries. “Mothers who received the long AZT treatment had a higher rate of stillbirth (8% vs. 4%), severe anemia (7% vs 4%), infection or other HIV events (20% vs 17%), events related to pregnancy or delivery (24% vs 17%) than mothers who received the short course, although fewer died (3% vs 8%)” (Lallemant M et al. A trial of shortened zidovudine regimens to prevent mother-to-child transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1. NEJM. 2000 Oct 5;343(14):982-91: see; Can I Have My Chemo Supplement Please?). “AZT can be severely toxic, and there is compelling evidence that the drug probably doesn’t help infected people live longer unless they already have full-blown AIDS … AZT clearly isn’t a very effective anti-AIDS drug” (Cohen J. Fulfilling Koch’s Postulates. Science. 1994 Dec 9;266:1647). Yet, there is a dogmatic medical fraternity that insists on AZT as a necessary medicine.

    “The following is a list of some of the serious adverse reactions to AZT that have been observed in infants, children, and adults who took AZT for certain periods of time. It tells the story of the suffering of patients treated with AZT. These reactions include:

    “Neutropenia, granulocytopenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, myopathy and myositis, hepatomegaly with steatosis, hepatitis, pancreatitis, lactic acidosis, sensitization reactions, hyperbilirubinemia, vasculitis, abdominal pain, back pain, body odor, chest pain, chills, edema of the lip, fever, flu syndrome, hyperalgesia, syncope, vasodilation, bleeding gums, constipation, diarrhea, dysphagia, edema of the tongue, eructation,
    flatulence, mouth ulcer, rectal hemorrhage, lymphadenopathy, arthralgia, muscle spasm, tremor, twitch, anxiety, confusion, depression, dizziness, emotional lability, loss of mental acuity, nervousness, paresthesia, somnolence, vertigo, cough, dyspnea, epistaxis, hoarseness, pharyngitis, rhinitis, sinusitis, acne, changes in skin and nail pigmentation, pruritus, rash, sweat, urticaria, amblyopia, hearing loss, photophobia, taste perversion, dysuria, polyuria, urinary frequency, and urinary hesitancy”
    (Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati Ph.D: – cf http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe).
    Does it not look like a “medicine” that causes a wide range of illnesses?

    AZT is toxic and since it is “toxic by inhalation,” it is practically a poison. It causes widespread oxidative stress throughout the body and can cause congenital defects in the fetus and myopathy. The original label of the manufacturer warns that it is toxic by inhalation and can cause the same symptoms as AIDS but today it is the standard medicine for AIDS patients.

    Now there is an advertisement in a peer review journal that touts that it is well tolerated in children, improving cognitive function, growth and well being! It is already sounding like a health supplement (see;A WORLD TURNED UPSIDE DOWN : HEALTH SUPPLEMENTS MUST BE REGISTERED AS PHARMACEUTICALS WHILE TOXIC CHEMICALS BECOME HEALTH SUPPLEMENTS).

    Lets look at The Lazarus Effect closely and scientifically and scrutinize the consumer-driven philanthropy that is supposed to give life-saving drugs that are touted to impart medicine’s miraculous effects on dying patients in the poorest countries. If there is no such thing as a free lunch and free nurition to Africa’s poorest, why is there “consumer-driven philanthropy” that succeeds in administering dangerous and toxic drugs that can induce AIDS or the symptoms of AIDS in these poor people?

    Consider the test. “The doctors measure the aids virus’s progress in attacking the immune system by testing each patient’s level of CD4 immune cells. Patients with a count of more than 500 are released without further treatment. Those whose CD4 levels are between 500 and 350 are told to come back for more tests in three months” (see; Liam Says: June 24th, 2007 at 7:09 pm, From the Vanity Fair Piece, above). And we needs to test the depletion effects of these drugs on the body’s natural antioxidant defense mechanism. Who is going to give the grants for such research?

    Now consider the proposed scientific test. Administer the AZT or other toxic retrovirals such as Nevirapine and Stavudine and conduct the same test every week to test each volunteer’s level of CD4 immune cells. Lets do the test in several different countries. The conclusions are obvious – you will find different levels of immune suppression and lowering of CD4 cells depending on nutritional levels and age of the volunteer. Well, the problem of getting volunteers….hmmm…..well it shouldn’t be a real problem….now that there are people and manufacturers who advertise that these drugs produce beneficial effects and AZT is now being advertised to produce beneficial health effects like “improving cognitive function, growth and well being.” The CEO of the manufacturing company and his children should volunteer to enjoy some of these effects.

    A woman developed lipodystrophy from taking her first trio of ARVs. A distortion of the body-fat distribution in the arms, legs, breasts, face, and buttocks, lipodystrophy is a common complication of stavudine, one of the medications that was in her first-line cocktail. Stavudine, one of the medications that was in her first-line cocktail. When that was replaced with abacavir, the woman returned to normal. Still, she complains that the drugs are so strong she can’t stand them without eating well, but since she isn’t working, she can’t afford food(see above:Liam Says: June 24th, 2007 at 7:09 pm). Well, we need to check the depletion effects of this drug on the alpha-lipoic acid – the master natural antioxidant in the body.

    The fact of the story – consumer-driven philanthropy is directed towards people in the poorest societies who suffer from chronic malnutrition and these drugs are so strong that that they need to eat well to stand the drug toxicities – and they cannot afford the food that gives them that basic nutrition! Looks like a story from HELL.


    Dedicated to providing lifesaving drugs to Africans with aids, through a partnership between the Global Fund and companies such as Apple, Armani, and Gap, (Product) Red could be a revolution in consumer-driven philanthropy. First introduced in 1987, anti-retroviral drugs—ARVs for short—block H.I.V.’s assault on the body’s immune system. As the drugs have improved, becoming less toxic and easier to take, they have largely turned aids in the Western world from a death sentence into a manageable disease (see: Vanity Fair – The Lazarus Effect, July 2007). Really – lifesaving but toxic drugs? Which drugs are the improved drugs that have become less toxic? What comes across clearly is that consumer-driven philanthropy does not provide “lifesaving drugs” but toxic drugs. The truth is summed up within their own words and the question is…”How Toxic?”

    The fact about AZT (RETROVIR or ZIDOVUDINE) is that “It was often difficult to distinguish adverse events possibly associated with zidovudine [AZT] administration from the underlying signs of HIV disease” – Physician’s Desk Reference, 1994. THE ACTUAL COPY OF AN AZT LABEL Gives the Following Warning;-

    Physician’s Desk Reference, 1994 



    It is “the most toxic drug that has ever been licensed for long term consumption in the free world. … AZT is a prescription drug and according to the manufacturer itself it causes symptoms that are indistinguishable from AIDS. It has the following effects in the human body:-

    “Excruciating headaches; severe nausea; muscular pain; wasting of the muscles; damage to kidneys and nerves; excruciating pains in the legs; encephalitis; severe anemia requiring transfusions to stay alive; lymphoma (cancer); cancer in 49% of cases, versus 2% incidence in non AZT group; liver damage; nail dyschromia (fingernails turn black); insomnia; impotence; dementia; mania; ataxia (failure of muscular coordination); seizures; alopecia (hair falls out). It is a fairly well established fact that AZT was designed to kill the bone marrow. It causes neutropenia or leukopenia (loss of white blood cells) or bone marrow aplasia. Bone marrow toxicity. White blood cells are the basis of the immune system. T cells, granulocytes, those are all parts of the immune system. You kill those with AZT and the immune system is gone.”
    – Harvey Bialy 

    Research Editor Bio/Technology Science Journal

    The doctors measure the aids virus’s progress in attacking the immune system by testing each patient’s level of CD4 immune cells. Patients with a count of more than 500 are released without further treatment. Those whose CD4 levels are between 500 and 350 are told to come back for more tests in three months. Those who score between 350 and 0 are eligible for ARVs (Liam says: June 24th, 2007 at 7:09 pm). The fact is that most drugs that are used as “medicine” are immunotoxic or immunosuppressive and many drugs actually result in lowering in the white blood cell counts. Tragically AZT and the toxic retrovirals can lower the white blood cell count to the level that you actually qualify for treatment by the very same drugs that produced the medical predicament! It is such an awesome phenomenon of modern medical science that it deserves a special term – let’s call it the LAZARUS PARADOX.

    “The major side effect of AZT is bone marrow suppression which causes a decrease in the number of red and white blood cells” (see:HIV/AIDS,, June 25, 2007).

    AZT is a poison that is cytotoxic. Originally developed for chemotherapy, it was never approved for use in humans because of its toxicity. It kills healthy cells by terminating the DNA synthesis in cells. Its mDNA depletion activity explains muscular fatigue and muscular atrophy later in long term use. AZT is confirmed to be carcinogenic in mice. In humans, AZT increases the risk of lymphomas by 50 times. AZT decreases white blood cells by killing young CD4 lymphocytes. It causes anemia, vomiting, lactic acidosis, fatigue, muscles wasting and lymphocytopenia and it stimulates leukemia – all the classic symptoms of AIDS!

    It is paradox advocated by modern medical science, in the field of pharmacy that recommends it as the “pharmaceutically prescribed” drug. And once it becomes the “pharmaceutically prescribed drug,” the health authorities and doctors administer it without question even though in the same breath these doctors and authorities advocate evidence-based medicine. The layman with the gift of commonsense logic will tell you that you cannot give toxic drugs that produce the symptoms of AIDS to AIDS patients and evidence-based medicine will tell you the same but perhaps with the extra warning that such drugs must avoided by AIDS patients. However, in consumer-driven philanthropy such toxic drugs are lifesaving….exactly what the AIDS posse says.

    Our health science teacher in secondary school told us that when foreign substances or toxic substances or pathogens entered the body, its immune function responds by increasing the number of white blood cells or increasing the number of T4 cells. Research has proven that toxic substances have been observed to stimulate the release of T cells from the bone marrow and prolonged administration of toxic drugs will eventually exhausting the supply and causing immune cell depletion and anemia or interfere with cell division in the bone marrow. The initial rise in CD4 counts seen in the case Of administration of toxic AIDS drugs is interpreted as improved immune function! The bullshitting just won’t stop. And there are other side effects of toxic drugs.

    Liam says “I am introduced to a woman who developed lipodystrophy from taking her first trio of ARVs. A distortion of the body-fat distribution in the arms, legs, breasts, face, and buttocks, lipodystrophy is a common complication of stavudine, one of the medications that was in her first-line cocktail. When that was replaced with abacavir, the woman returned to normal. Still, she complains that the drugs are so strong she can’t stand them without eating well, but since she isn’t working, she can’t afford food

    (Liam says, June 24th, 2007 at 7:09 pm).

    Stavudine must be further researched and studied to determine if it depletes or interferes with Alpha-lipoic acid – the master antioxidant within the natural antioxidant network system of the body as a sudden depletion of this antioxidant tends to promote the conversion of protein into fats and that may be the cause of the distortion of fats in her body.

    One startling and noteworthy observation about such toxic medication is that they deplete the natural antioxidants in the body just like it happens in chronic malnutrition or by continuous use or exposure to chemical stressors. The additional action of such toxic drugs is that they generate large amounts of free radicals and promote the formation of secondary free radicals that oxidatively damage cell membranes, deplete mDNA and interefere with the cytochrome system and the Kreb’s cycle leading to a decline in ATP production and lowering of cell output. When such detrimental biochemical activity occurs in any biological system that is low in natural antioxidants, it will certainly lead to the development of disease conditions including AIDS when this biochemical activity affects and impairs the immune system. Consider the tragic irony of the woman who developed lipodystrophy after she was given AVRs.

    Evidence-based medicine demands that all drugs given or pharmaceutically prescribed to AIDS patients be tested for determine their profile with regard to their antioxidant depletion activity in vitro and in the mammalian system.

    A panel of leading AIDS specialists has developed recommendations for the use of anti-retroviral (AVR) medications in people with HIV – a virus that has not been seen in electron microscopy even though it supposed to an enveloped virus but there is no evidence of its “budding process” – a virus that is supposed to virulently attack the cells of the immune system and disable it but is being cultured in an immortal line of T4 cells since 1984!

    According to their current guidelines, treatment should focus on achieving the maximum suppression of the symptoms for as long as possible! This aggressive approach is known as highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). “The goal of the AIDS treatment is to find the strongest possible regimen that is also simple and has fewest side effects” and there is also emphasis on the quality of life! (see:HIV/AIDS,, June 25, 2007). Now how do you aggressively administer toxic drugs with the strongest possible regimen that reduce your red and white blood cell counts and cause side effects to achieve suppression of the symptoms for as long as possible and yet focus on quality of life? Only modern medical logic can possible twist an answer for you but only in the case of AIDS. So they are trying to move on to protease inhibiting drugs.

    Protease inhibitors (PIs) interrupt HIV replication at a later stage in its life cycle by interfering with an enzyme known as HIV protease. This causes HIV particles in your body to become structurally disorganized and noninfectious. Among these drugs are saquinavir (Invirase), ritonavir (Norvir), indinavir (Crixivan), nelfinavir (Viracept), amprenavir (Agenerase), lopinavir, atazanavir (Reyataz) and tipranavir (Aptivus). Darunavir (Prezista), a protease inhibitor approved in 2006, is intended for people who haven’t responded to treatment with other drugs. Darunavir is used in conjunction with ritonavir and other anti-HIV medications (ref:HIV/AIDS,, June 25, 2007). Please note two important facts in this literature as follows:-

    1. “HIV particles in your body to become structurally disorganized and non- infectious.” I have clearly stated one form of AIDS may be a latency disease of  the Epstein-Barr virus. 

    “This is primarily because many AIDS patients do not have the virus, pointing clearly to oxidative stress in malnourished people as the actual cause factor of AIDS and even when the reactivated EBV is involved, in certain groups of people, in the destruction of parts of the immune system, it occurs in conditions of oxidative stress and more startling is the fact that when EBV viral parts ‘hide‘ in cells of the immune system, they are reactivated by hydrogen peroxide which is a by-product of oxidative stress. So, however you look at the AIDS condition, oxidative stress is a critical factor. Logically, therefore nutritional intervention is the key and should form the basic thrust in responding to the AIDS problem (see:THE EPSTEIN-BARR VIRUS IN AIDS, Health Supreme, Sept 05, 2006))

    2. The “protease inhibitor approved in 2006, is intended for people who haven’t responded to treatment with other drugs.” The truth is that these drugs are meant for interfering with a viral replication process and do not have any effect on viral parts or viral particles and as Gallo says, only 40% of people have the HIV virus going by his simple fractionation method which does not meet the gold standard of virology. And that conclusively means that most people do not have a virus that targets the cells of the immune system and disables it but we do have a recommended medicine that causes bone marrow suppression that causes the red and white blood cells to decline or other drugs that lower the white blood cell count. So, the disease can be established and its progress accelerated by the drugs used on AIDS patients.

    It therefore becomes even more interesting, in fact madly exciting to note the correctly printed disclaimer on AIDS test kits which says that the tests cannot be used to diagnose and treat AIDS – but that is how hospitals diagnose the AIDS condition! All of these are components of a strange paradox in medical science that is strenuously defended by the AIDS posse that has lead to the growth of a multibillion dollar industry that is simply too lucrative to give up.

    The most common side effects of protease inhibitors (PIs) include nausea, diarrhea and other digestive tract problems. PIs can also cause a significant number of side effects when they interact with certain other medications you may be taking. That’s because all PIs, to one degree or another, affect an enzyme system in your liver that is responsible for metabolizing a large number of drugs.

    Newer side effects have also appeared with the continuing and widespread use of protease inhibitors. These include elevated triglyceride levels and problems with sugar metabolism that may sometimes progress to diabetes (see: HIV/AIDS,, June 25, 2007). Diabetes is a glucose metabolic disorder associated with secondary radicals called the peroxynitrite radical and diabetics have been shown to have relatively more free radicals in the body and consequently the diabetic population has a higher risk to cancers, arthritis and cardiovascular disease.

    This clearly proves that when the enzyme that is responsible for metabolizing drugs in the liver is inhibited, those drugs are not broken down but continue to circulate in the bloodstream or tend to accumulate in the liver. Circulating drugs generate free radicals throughout the body leading to glucose metabolism.

    There may also be abnormalities in the way fat is metabolized and deposited in your body. Some people lose much of their total body fat; others gain excess fat on the back between their shoulders (buffalo hump) or in the stomach (protease paunch) (ref: HIV/AIDS,, June 25, 2007). Quite obviously, the increase in blood triglyceride levels with the administration of PIs indicate that they block the conversion of fats into glucose just like some biguanides and the PIs may also be inhibiting the formation of alpha-lipoic acid in the body just like some statins inhibit the formation of CoQ10 in the body.

    The authorities have approved another class of drugs called Nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs). Three NNRTIs are approved for clinical use: nevirapine (Viramune), delavirdine (Rescriptor) and efavirenz(Sustiva). These drugs are said to bind directly to the enzyme reverse transcriptase but they all produce a major side effect – a rash. This means these drugs are destroying the lipid part of the cell membranes through oxidative stress.

    In addition, people taking efavirenz may have side effects such as abnormal dreams, sleeplessness, dizziness and difficulty concentrating – an indication of lipid peroxidation in the brain cells and impairing the MT protein system in brain cells.

    In a study of 1,160 patients on at least three HIV drugs, Swiss researchers found that more than two-thirds suffered symptoms such as vomiting, diarrhea or sleep disturbance, or showed problems in lab results, such as potentially serious abnormalities in blood cells, proteins or cholesterol. A “significant proportion” of these side effects were serious or severe, according to Dr. Jacques Fellay, of the University Hospital of Lausanne, and his colleagues. Of the lab abnormalities, 16% were serious or severe, the researchers report.

    A few patients had been hospitalized for conditions such as kidney dysfunction and severe fatigue that were “probably or definitely” due to their HIV treatment (Adverse Effects From HIV Drugs Found To Be Common, Reuters 19 Oct. 2001). All of these conditions could have been due to the patients’ HIV therapy, the investigators report in the October 20th issue of The Lancet.

    The continued and widespread use of drugs in treating people has become a public health issue and the aggressive use of toxic drugs that lead to disabling and immunosuppressive effects that can cause fatigue and symptoms of AIDS is distressing and any consumer-driven philanthropy of such drugs to the poorest of people on earth simply hurts human dignity as it disturbs the inner moral chord. These people need nutrition not drugs that are so strong that only weaken their chronically malnourished bodies.

    The fact is – there are alternatives to AVR and AZT (see:Alternatives to AZT in Aids Patients, Health Supreme, May 07, 2007). Palamara et al, investigated the effect of glutathione on the replication of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in chronically infected macrophages, a known reservoir of the virus in the body [AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1996 Nov 1;12(16):1537-41] Exogenous GSH strongly suppresses the production of p24gag protein as well as the virus infectivity. This is related to a dramatic decrease in both budding and release of virus particles from chronically infected cells (either macrophages or lymphocytes) This study suggests that GSH (glutathione) can interfere with late stages of virus replication and the suppression of virus replication by GSH is related to the selective inhibition of envelope glycoproteins. These results suggest a potential role of GSH taken in combination with other appropriate phytochemicals. But there is an even more interesting study.

    Herzenberg et al conducted in vitro studies that showed that low GSH levels both promote HIV expression and impair T cell function and they suggested a link between GSH depletion and HIV disease progression (Glutathione deficiency is associated with impaired survival in HIV disease, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Mar 4;94(5):1967-72). Their clinical studies directly demonstrate that low GSH levels predict poor survival in otherwise indistinguishable HIV-infected subjects while, specifically, that GSH deficiency in CD4 T cells from such subjects is associated with markedly decreased survival 2-3 years after baseline data collection. This finding “establishes GSH deficiency as a key determinant of survival in AIDS patients and the unnecessary or excessive use of acetaminophen, alcohol, or other drugs known to deplete GSH should be avoided by HIV-infected individuals”. And quite naturally, minerals that work with glutathione and enhance its antioxidant enzyme activity are equally important.

    Sprietsma J.E. showed that the way in which the right amount of cysteine, glutathione (GSH), and copper and zinc ions made available in the right place at the right time and in the right form can prevent an unchecked multiplication of (AIDS) viruses in a more passive or active way forms the basis for the AIDS zinc-deficiency hypothesis (A-Z hypothesis) presented in this article [Med Hypotheses. 1999 Jun;52(6):529-38. Review] Comment in: Med Hypotheses. 2000 Nov;55(5):456-7.

    Zinc and copper ions that remain available in sufficient amounts via cysteine/GSH are effective natural inhibitors/combaters of (AIDS) viruses and thereby prevent the development of chronic virus diseases that can lead to AIDS, autoimmune diseases, (food) allergies and/or cancer. These ions are important for the efficient functioning of the glutathione-catalase antioxidant system that converts hydroxyl radicals into water and oxygen and also convert hydrogen peroxide into water and oxygen. Their biochemical activity that converts toxic radicals and chemicals into useful intracellular water and oxygen are key to healthy function of the cells and for the promotion of antioxidant-driven biochemical pathways in the body. Deficiencies of these antioxidant enzymes and ions result is free radical induced pathways that lead to the development of disease states and aid the progression of disease conditions.

    Interestingly, most toxic medication and D-form chemicals tend to deplete the natural antoxidants in the body particularly glutathione and natural vitamin C. And such depletion impairs and disables or otherwise destroys the immune function but the experts and AIDS specialists insist on aggressive toxic interventions for as long as possible! And at the end of this period, the patients’ immune system is virtually gone and ready for opportunistic infections. That is the meaning of “as long as possible”.

    The AIDS scientists claim that “HIV infects and kills CD4+ T lymphocytes. They clearly assert that primary HIV infection is associated with a burst of HIV viremia and often a concomitant abrupt decline of CD4+ T cells in the peripheral blood (Cooper et al., 1985; Daar et al., 1991; Tindall and Cooper, 1991; Clark et al., 1991; Pantaleo et al., 1993a, 1994). The decrease in circulating CD4+ T cells during primary infection is probably due both to HIV-mediated cell killing and to re-trafficking of cells to the lymphoid tissues and other organs (Fauci, 1993a). And while they stick to the viral pathogenic cause that must produce the same disease in all infected persons, they also state that “HIV disease, however, is not uniformly expressed in all individuals” (see: Course Of HIV Infection, The Relationship Between the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, Sept 1995).

    The HIV postulate for AIDS also claims that, once the virus infects CD4+ T cells, the virus’ genetic material is permanently integrated into the cell’s chromosomes, establishing permanent latency within infected cells. Please note that they are sure about the disease – whether the HIV actually targets the T4 cells and destroys them followed by burst of HIV viremia which means the HIV acts virulently and the progression ought to be fast (like days and weeks instead of 10 – 12 years) or if their fictitious virus is breeding a latency disease by incorporating its genetic material in the host cell DNA. If the former is correct, why are the AVRs not effective in treating the viral infection? If the later is true, which it is not, how can it treated by toxic medication?

    How about consumer-driven philanthropy that is dedicated to giving toxic drugs to a large number of false positives? “In 1990, of 20.2 million HIV tests done in Russia only 112 were confirmed and about 20,000 were false positives, 1991 saw some 30,000 false positives out of 29.4 million tests, with only 66 confirmations…in 1991 alone some 8000 false-positive results were reported in pregnant women, with only 6 confirmations [presumably with the Western Blot test]” (Voevodin A. HIV screening in Russia, Lancet. 1992;339:1548). We are a testing culture. Furthermore, any increase in the false positive rate could turn a screening program into a social catastrophe (see: Screening For HIV: Can We afford The False Positive Rate? The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 317 No.4, July 23, 1987).

    Strangely hospitals are using test kits to diagnose AIDS that correctly carry a disclaimer they cannot be used to diagnose and treat AIDS and are not getting sued.

    If the virus existed, there would have been developed a virus specific diagnostic test, not one that tests only for proteins associated with oxidative stress and a vaccine would already have been produced. Since they are only testing for proteins, there are false positives and each of those tests kits come with a disclaimer. Hence people recovering from Malaria or Flu can also test positive! I would like to repeat what I have written long ago – there will never be an AIDS vaccine simply because there is no HIV virus and because it is a disease associated with chronic malnutrition and oxidative stress that depletes the natural antioxidants in the body.

    Gallo’s testimony in the Court Of Appeal in South Australia is highly illuminating. He claimed to have “isolated the HIV” and said that it was the “probable cause of AIDS”. The evidence on p1294 tends to show that HIV was isolated from only 40% of patients but the finding of positive antibody was in 88% of the patients! That shows that there are people who test positive without an “infection”.

    What about the remaining 12%? The evidence on p1300 proves that for adults AIDS with Kaposi’s sarcoma was only 30.2% while for adult AIDS with opportunistic infections was only 47.6%. So, between 52.4% and 69.8% of people with Kaposi’s sarcoma and opportunistic infections are not linked to AIDS, and HIV could be isolated as a supernatant in only 40% of AIDS patients, yet Gallo insists that HIV causes AIDS. It drills a hole in the concept of viral pathogenicity but the AIDS posse is ignoring this piece of truth. It hurts the business.

    Well if you could be blind or choose to ignore the confounding probability of a line of T cells established from a leukemia patient that could be infected with virus from the cells of AIDS patients and go on producing virus indefinitely when the retrovirus was killing the cells it infected, especially targeting cells of the immune system, like the T cells, you can ignore whatever that hurts the business and go on towards consumer-driven philanthropy that ensure people, even the false positives get their toxic doses instead of nutrition and a wide range of antioxidants.

    And it becomes possible to propagate the HIV cause of AIDS even with contradictions. Montagnier has actually stated that “it would be a tribute to their (dissidents like us) courage and honor to abandon the HIV cause of AIDS in the face of overwhelming evidence (Virus, New York, WW Norton & Company Inc, 1999). Ok fine. Let’s abandon the questioning of that dogma but let’s look at their science. At least that should be allowed.

    It is still science, isn’t it? In that book, Montagnier states that in AIDS patients, oxidative stress is massive and it occurs at an early stage. The cause of the oxidative stress is HIV! In an interview in 1995, Montagnier said that for the progression of AIDS, oxidative stress is a key factor. The contradiction here is that we should expect massive oxidative stress only at a later stage, after a large number of HIV replications have occurred, certainly not in the initial stages. Hello, people, if oxidative stress is the key factor for the progression of AIDS, then why prescribe toxic medication that generates a detrimental amount of oxidative stress? The answer ironically is – to aid the progression of AIDS. Oh blind me.

    So, that means any consumer-driven philanthropy dedicated to provide toxic medication to poor people has only one scientific aim – aid the progression of AIDS.

    Medical science, as it presents itself today, is largely a treatment science where disease conditions are to be treated with drugs while health science, which is about restoring health through biomolecules that promote and restore cellular function, has largely been abandoned. This chronic deviation is slowly and progressively repositioning toxic drugs and chemicals as clinically useful and later on as harmless or even beneficial for people who have not yet developed any symptoms.

    As a strategy, toxic drugs appear to be moving in that cycle and AZT is a good example that has dogmatic support (see: Beldeu Singh, Can I Have My Chemo Supplement Please? & see: A WORLD TURNED UPSIDE DOWN : HEALTH SUPPLEMENTS MUST BE REGISTERED AS PHARMACEUTICALS WHILE TOXIC CHEMICALS BECOME HEALTH SUPPLEMENTS).

    Now there is an advertisement in a peer review journal that touts that it is well tolerated in children, improving cognitive function, growth and well being! It is already sounding like a health supplement. We have created AIDS by Prescription. Where are we heading?

    There is an obvious case to distinguish four types of AIDS: one that is caused by free radicals generated by pollutants; another caused by lifestyle toxic chemicals such as in alcoholics, drug abusers and the gay population; the third being correctly labeled as “prescription AIDS” as it is caused by prescribed medications; and in any of these cases where there is HIV virus infection, the virus gains entry into the cell through the cell wall that has suffered free radical damage. In of all these cases, only when the immune and endocrine systems are severely degenerate or destroyed will the opportunistic infections set in to manifest the full blown AIDS (AIDS, Non-HIV AIDS, and ‘Prescription AIDS’, October 7, 2004, independent-media TV, Beldeu Singh, April 12 2004, Health Supreme – HIV-Aids: A Tragic Error).

    But there is no evidence of HIV and the closest to a viral related cause is possibly viral parts of the EBV virus which means we have AIDS by oxidative stress and AIDS by prescription of toxic medication.

    The adverse effects of alcohol and other drugs on the immune system have been documented since the beginning of last century. There is a growing body of human and animal evidence of the immunotoxicity of tobacco smoke, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroine, alkyl nitrites, metamphetamines, qualones and other street drugs. These facts form some of the scientific bases for the “drug-AIDS hypothesis”. We developed a very large number of prescription drugs and most of the allopathic pharmacopeia is toxic and these drugs generate free radicals in the body some of which cause mitochondrial depletion or have immunotoxic properties.

    Slowly, but surely, evidence is beginning to emerge that some senior officials within the UN may perhaps be beginning to get the message about the relationship between poor nutrition, depressed immunity, and AIDS (see;Nutrition and Immunity – The hungry can’t eat Aids messages, Sepp Hasslberger,, September 5, 2006).

    Taken alongside the recent 3-page World Health Assembly resolution calling on Member States to ensure that special attention be given to integrating nutrition into all HIV/AIDS policies, this is undoubtedly good news.

    Yes it’s about time that the UN policies on AIDS pursue a proper and biochemically logical response and practices that promote integration of nutrition into a comprehensive response to HIV/AIDS.

    This is primarily because many AIDS patients do not have the virus, pointing clearly to oxidative stress in malnourished people as the actual cause factor of AIDS and even when the reactivated EBV is involved, in certain groups of people, in the destruction of parts of the immune system, it occurs in conditions of oxidative stress and more startling is the fact that when EBV viral parts ‘hide’ in cells of the immune system, they are reactivated by hydrogen peroxide which is a by-product of oxidative stress. So, however you look at the AIDS condition, oxidative stress is a critical factor. Logically, therefore nutritional intervention is the key and should form the basic thrust in responding to the AIDS problem.

    Resolution WHA57.14 which urged Member States, inter alia, to pursue policies and practices that promote integration of nutrition into a comprehensive response to HIV/AIDS is therefore considered urgent.

    The recommendations of WHO’s technical consultation on nutrition and HIV/AIDS in Africa (Durban, South Africa, 10-13 April 2005), which were based on the main findings of a detailed review of the latest scientific evidence on the macronutrient and micronutrient needs of HIV-infected people, including pregnant and lactating women and patients on antiretroviral therapy, make more sense now than before these recommendations were drafted.

    Natural antioxidant oils are important for AIDS patients and of critical importance to AIDS patients who took toxic medication. These must be a blend of essential fatty acids (EFAs) with coconut oil and sesame seed oil. EFAs help to reduce oxidative stress in the cell membranes and promote the repair of cell membranes. Integrity of cell membranes is important in regulating vital cell activity including regulating transport of molecules across membranes. EFAs promote such activity at the cellular level their conversion to eicosanoids and improve sleep patterns and concentration, improve skin condition and they also have an anti-inflammatory effect.

    Coconut water and coconut oil has been shown to have anti-viral effect after its triglyceride is broken down in the liver into monoglycerides and Africa has plenty of this “tree of life”. Sesame seed oil helps elevate CoQ10 levels in the body. Increasing selenium intake from food sources such as brazil nuts and intake of milk thistle helps increase blood glutathione levels. So, the UN Resolution to integrate nutrition into the diet of AIDS patients is important but in most cases a proper nutritional intervention has been shown to improve the health and vitality of AIDS patients. Philanthropy must first focus on this area.

    You cannot restore a patient to health by working against his/her immune system and by working against his/her natural antioxidant defense mechanism. But that is exactly what toxic drugs do and it is a health science issue in any consumer-driven philanthropy.

Comments are closed.