| Author |
 Topic  |
|
JanineRoberts
United Kingdom
19 Posts |
 Posted - 08/28/2008 : 21:54:29
|
Written by Janine Roberts
Monday, 18 August 2008 01:37
extract from her book "Fear of the Invisible."
Jackie and John Fletcher said I should post up some of my research in my book - It's just been published on Amazon and it looks at the basic research underlying vaccination....
Here is part of what I have written about MMR... In an earlier chapter I explained that all the viruses that exist are made by cells - both healthy and ill cells - so when they need viruses for a vaccine, they get cells from monkeys, chicken embryoes etc and put these in an incubator. These cells are called the vaccine "substrate" - the vaccine is drawn from the incubator, filtered so nothing bigger than viruses remain in it and then given to our children... the problem is - lots of things are smaller than viruses... read on...
MMR Vaccine Contaminated
A year after I met with the top government regulatory scientists at the NIH Emergency Workshop on SV40 in 1997, they met again in Washington for another workshop on vaccine safety. At this there were representatives of all the major US government health organisations and of the vaccine manufacturers. A third similar meeting would be held a year later in 1999.
The main issue at the November 1998 meeting was whether or not it would be safe for manufacturers to produce the viruses needed for vaccines from cancer cells. Pharmaceutical companies were at that time seeking government approval for this, on the basis that cancerous cells, as 'immortal' and permanent, would be cheaper to use than cells they had to regularly replace by, for example, buying more monkeys.
These workshops looked at the issue broadly, by comparing the safety of the different ways available for making our vaccines. As everyone present was a scientist, the discussions were much more open and frank than they are when journalists are present.
They started with the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine (MMR). One of the first speakers on this was from the federal Food and Drugs Agency (FDA) and what she had to report was very disturbing.
'Today I would like to present an update on the reverse transcriptase [RT] activity that is present in chicken cell derived vaccines.' My attention was immediately grabbed. I knew that the mumps and measles viruses used for the MMR vaccine are grown in fertilised chicken eggs, as are also the viruses for the Flu and Yellow Fever vaccines. (The rubella virus for MMR is produced differently - in artificially grown cells taken originally from an aborted human foetus.)
Dr, Khan was reporting the result of a just concluded two-year investigation into the safety of MMR led by the World Health Organisation. She explained that this was initiated in 1996 after the discovery in MMR of RT; an enzyme whose presence they believed could well indicate that retroviruses had contaminated the vaccine. This had greatly alarmed them as some retroviruses are thought to cause cancers - and AIDS.
WHO had then quietly, without telling the public, without withdrawing the vaccine, organised MMR safety studies at various laboratories to see 'whether this RT activity was associated with a retroviral particle, and even more importantly, whether this retrovirus particle could infect and replicate in human cells.'
What they then discovered confirmed their worse fears. Dr Khan continued: 'The RT activity is found to be associated with retroviral particles of two distinct avian endogenous retroviral families designated as EAV and ALV.' Now ALV stands for Avian Leukosis Virus. It is associated with a leukaemia cancer found in wild birds, so definitely was not wanted in the vaccines. EAV was however less dangerous, at least for birds as it is natural for them to have it.
Khan added that they had also found another possible danger; 'There was a theoretical possibility that the virus [ALV] could ... infect the [human] cell' thus integrating its genetic code 'into the human DNA' to cause cancer. The only reassurance she could give was that her team had watched vaccine cultures for a full '48 hours', and, in that time period, no merger of viral and human DNA had been observed. I thought this much too short a period to guarantee safety. Cancers develop over years.
Dr Khan then warned; 'there is a possibility that there could also be potential pseudotypes (merging between) ... the measles vaccine virus and the retroviral sequences' - meaning there was a risk that bird viruses might combine with the measles virus in the vaccine to create dangerous new mutant viruses, They had not seen it, but it could happen.
She acknowledged much longer term safety studies were needed than 48 hours, but said that long-term studies of measles vaccine cultures were very difficult: 'because the measles vaccine virus itself lyses [kills] the culture in about three to four days.' This had prevented them from studying the longer-term consequences of this contamination of the MMR vaccine.
So far, she added, they had only managed to analyse a small part of the retrovirus contamination in the vaccines. 'Our ongoing studies are directed towards doing similar analysis' of other retroviral genetic codes found in the vaccine preparations.' It was suspected that other retroviruses might also be present. She also noted that 'about 20 years ago similar RT activity was reported' in the vaccine. Apparently nothing had been done about it at that time and the public were never told.
She concluded by explaining what the World Health Organisation (WHO) had decided to do about this chicken leucosis virus (ALV) contamination. It would take the risk of quietly allowing MMR to continue to be contaminated. It would permit vaccine manufacturers to continue to use retrovirus contaminated eggs, because 'you cannot get ALV free flocks in places where you are making yellow fever vaccine.'
Dr Andrew Lewis, head of the DNA Virus Laboratory in the Division of Viral Products, then warned. 'All the egg-based vaccines are contaminated,' including 'influenza, yellow fever and smallpox vaccines, as well as the vaccine for horses against encephalomyelitis virus' for 'these fertilised chicken eggs are susceptible to a wide variety of viruses.'
This was an eye opener for me. Before I started on this investigation, if I thought about it, I would have presumed our vaccines were made of selected viruses in sterile fluid to which a small amount of preservative chemicals has been added. I think this is what most parents presume.
It was thus a shock to discover from this top-level scientific workshop that the viruses in our current vaccines are not in a sterile fluid as I had presumed, but in a soup of unknown bits and pieces, a veritable witches' brew of DNA fragments, added chemicals, proteins and, even possibly prions and oncogenes, all of which would easily pass through the filters used to be injected into our children.
Our vaccines, I thus learnt, are not filtered clean but are suspensions from the manufacturers' 'incubation tanks' in which the viruses are produced from 'substrates' of mashed bird embryo, minced monkey kidneys or cloned human cells. These suspensions are filtered before use but only to remove particles larger than viruses. The point of the vaccine is that it contains viruses, thus these must not be filtered out. This means there remains in the vaccine everything of the same size or smaller, including what the manufacturers call 'degradation products' - parts of decayed viruses or cells.
I also learnt that the only official checks made for contaminants in vaccines are for a few known pathogens, thus ignoring a vast host of unknown, unstudied, small particles and chemicals. These eminent doctors reported at these vaccine safety meetings that it is simply impossible to remove these from our common vaccines - and this would of course also apply to vaccines for pets, farm animals and birds.
I went to the published reports of the MMR manufacturers and found these confirmed what the scientists at this workshop had reported. A manufacturer stated in 2000 that it made the MMR vaccine with 'harvested virus fluids.' It stated frankly that their 'Measles vaccine bulk is an unpurified product whose potency was measured through a biological assay for the active substance rather than through evaluation of integrity of physical form. Degradation products are neither identified nor quantified.' In other words, it left the latter in the measles vaccine along with all contaminants that lay there quietly, or worked slowly. The pharmaceutical company admitted checking the measles vaccine only for obviously active contaminates. It did not measure how much the vaccine was polluted with genetic code fragments, other viruses, or with parts of bacterial, animal, bird or human cells.
......
The latest information I could find on the retroviral contamination of the MMR vaccine was in a 2001 scientific paper from the CDC. This reported that 100 MMR recipients were tested to see if they were contaminated by either of the two types of retroviruses identified by Dr Khan and others. The conclusion was dramatic. 'The finding of RT activity in all measles vaccine lots from different manufacturers tested suggests that this occurrence is not sporadic and that vaccine recipients may be universally exposed to these [chicken] retroviral particles.'
They then concluded: 'Despite these reassuring data, the presence of avian retroviral particles in chick embryo fibroblast-derived vaccines [like MMR] raises questions about the suitability of primary chicken cell substrates for vaccine production.' They recommended considering stopping production in fertilized eggs, and growing the vaccine viruses instead on 'RT-negative cells from different species, such as on immortalized [cancerous] or diploid [laboratory grown] mammalian cells.' I was amazed to learn this, for, to the best of my knowledge, nothing has been done since this report was made to render MMR safer. The measles vaccine is still produced from contaminated chicken embryos.
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/cber05.html#VaccinesandRelatedBiological
http://www.fda.gov/cber/advisory/vrbp/vrbpmain.htm
http://www.emea.eu.int/humandocs/PDFs/EPAR/mmrvaxpro/060406en6.pdf.
Janine Roberts
author of 'Fear of the Invisible'
How scared should you be of Viruses and Vaccines... |
|
|
thomas p
United Kingdom
314 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2008 : 12:03:41
|
| You seem to be the only author published by IMPACT. Is this a vanity publishing house? |
 |
|
|
JanineRoberts
United Kingdom
19 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2008 : 16:30:13
|
Thomas - I find that you persistently reply to postings on this forum in a highly negative way. often without actually looking at the science reported. No - Impact Investigative Media Productions is not a "vanity publishing house" but a new publishing house.
Since you have checked, you would also have discovered that over a 40 year period my books have been published by several publishing houses and that I have had excellent reviews. My work has also been published by such newspapers as the Financial Times, Independent, Melbourne Age, Sydney Morning Herald.
In addition I have testified to the US Congress on human rights issues - because of the books I have written.
Janine Roberts
author of 'Fear of the Invisible'
How scared should you be of Viruses and Vaccines... |
|
|
|
John Stone
United Kingdom
1254 Posts |
|
|
Occam48
691 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2008 : 08:01:51
|
Perhaps she didn't want to publicise views like these John (all from her web site)
"It then took me over 8 years to travel from accepting without question that a virus causes polio and another causes AIDS to discover that most people, including myself, have been vastly misled."
"Powerful evidence was presented to Congress linking the summer polio epidemics to summer-used heavy metal pesticides."
"bacteria primarily caused it, and the flu viruses present were virtually harmless" Of course its correct to say bacterial secondary infections could have caused deaths, but only after the primary flu infection
"antiretroviral chemotherapy drugs - which logically cannot be lifesaving" Flys in the face of all the evidence eg HAART, prolonged survival times such as this news
http://www.hivandhepatitis.com/recent/2008/072908_a.html
"world of the cell and of its messenger particles or viruses, a world that may well extend across galaxies"
So the authouress doesn't believe there is an HIV/AIDS link (shades of wingnut Ken H & his "childish scribblings of electron micrographs")
Thinks polio is associated with pesticide use & not the polio virus then we have galactic metaphysics etc etc
|
Edited by - Occam48 on 08/30/2008 13:05:49 |
|
|
|
John Stone
United Kingdom
1254 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2008 : 19:27:14
|
Occam
This is just abusive ad hominem - you attack Janine Roberts' views and her character without addressing the arguments. |
|
|
|
Occam48
691 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2008 : 20:13:20
|
She belongs to the school of thought that denies a link between HIV & AIDS John, see the direct quotes from her web site & then read some real evidence, such as the one that I posted real clinicians dealing with real patients and extending lives!
There is absolutely no doubt that polio virus is the causative agent of polio but she repeats these myths to sell her book to the gullible!
Let me quote:
"These advances have transformed HIV from being a fatal disease, which was the reality for patients before the advent of combination treatment, into a long-term chronic condition."
|
Edited by - Occam48 on 08/30/2008 20:47:39 |
|
|
|
John Stone
United Kingdom
1254 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2008 : 20:46:47
|
Occam
It is still ad hominem, and innuendo. If Janine wanted to hide her views why would she publish them? And why - if she wants an easy life, or to make loads of money - does she take on big pharma? |
|
|
|
Occam48
691 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2008 : 20:50:36
|
| Unfortunately John what she is peddling is clearly nonsense contradicted by HIV patients leading longer lives because of specific anti-retroviral therapy but then that doesn't make a good story to sell books does it John! |
|
|
|
John Stone
United Kingdom
1254 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2008 : 21:07:19
|
It doesn't make a good story to sell retro-viral therapy either. Humbug!
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Occam48[/i]
[br]Unfortunately John what she is peddling is clearly nonsense contradicted by HIV patients leading longer lives because of specific anti-retroviral therapy but then that doesn't make a good story to sell books does it John!
|
Edited by - John Stone on 08/30/2008 21:07:55 |
|
|
|
Occam48
691 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2008 : 21:51:14
|
No John but unfortunately for Janine antiretroviral treatment is a success story in the treatment of AIDS:
what does she write "and another causes AIDS to discover that most people, including myself, have been vastly misled" its nonsense & you know it John people are living longer lives because of targetted anti-retroviral therapy, don't defend something that's clearly untrue John |
Edited by - Occam48 on 08/30/2008 21:54:50 |
|
|
|
GUS THE FUSS
United Kingdom
1465 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2008 : 23:01:46
|
Occam Ye! you talk pharma spew yet once againIf this was non allopathic the inventor of the ART treatments would be swinging high and dry...
http://www.ijdvl.com/article.asp?issn=0378-6323;year=2008;volume=74;issue=3;spage=234;epage=237;aulast=Sharma
Methods: Hundred patients on ART were studied prospectively over a period of two years. All patients were asked to visit the clinic if they developed any symptoms or on a monthly basis. They were screened clinically and investigated suitably for any ADRs. Result: Out of the 100 patients, ten patients did not come for follow-up; only 90 cases were available for evaluation. ADRs were observed in 64 cases (71.1%) - the maximal frequency of ADRs was seen with zidovudine (AZT) (50%) followed by stavudine (d4T) (47.9%), efavirenz (EFV) (45.4%) and finally, Nevirapine (NVP) (18.4%). Most common ADRs were cutaneous (44.4%) followed by hematological (32.2%), neurological (31.1%), metabolic (22.2%) and gastrointestinal (20%). Most common cutaneous ADRs observed were nail hyperpigmentation (14.4%) and rash (13.3%). Immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS) was observed as a paradoxical reaction to ART in 20 (22.2%) cases. Conclusion: To optimize adherence and thus, efficacy of ART, clinicians must focus on preventing adverse effects whenever possible, and distinguish those that are self-limited from those that are potentially serious.
MMR RIP
|
|
|
|
John Stone
United Kingdom
1254 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2008 : 23:02:49
|
Occam
You are always defending things that are clearly untrue, and you won't even use your own name.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Occam48[/i]
[br]No John but unfortunately for Janine antiretroviral treatment is a success story in the treatment of AIDS:
what does she write "and another causes AIDS to discover that most people, including myself, have been vastly misled" its nonsense & you know it John people are living longer lives because of targetted anti-retroviral therapy, don't defend something that's clearly untrue John
|
|
|
|
Aasa
Canada
771 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2008 : 02:19:29
|
Janine,
Welcome aboard! I find it helpful to listen to others' ideas and try to understand things from others' viewpoints and/or using other paradigms, if possible. Earlier this month, I attended a conference where TOFT (Tissue Organisation Field Theory)was mentioned. I was not familiar with this, but apparently TOFT challenges the somatic cell mutation theory of cancer. The TOFT theory is outlined in the book, "The Society of Cells:Cancer and Control of Cell Proliferation ", written by Carlos Sonnenschein and Anne Marie Soto. This theory proposes that the default state of all cells in the body is proliferation, which is controlled by tonic inhibitory cell signalling. Apparently, estrogen and various other chemicals can disrupt or disinhibit the tonic inhibitors. This is something I would like to learn more about, and it is also a theory which is not widely accepted at the present.
Anyway, the reason I even mentioned this, is because listening to the reasoning behind others' viewpoints, helps some of us with the development of our own ideas, and hopefully will guide us closer to whatever may be the "truth" in various situations.
Personally, I would like to hear more about your thoughts and ideas, unlike Occam who seems to be doing his(her?, since we do not know who this person is) best to try and discredit you at the starting line here.
Please don't take the negative comments at this site personally, as there are folks here who would like to hear and consider whatever you have to contribute. I, for one, am among them, and sometimes share what I learn here with many colleagues in Canada. |
|
|
|
JanineRoberts
United Kingdom
19 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2008 : 05:12:08
|
Hi, `lots seems to have happened since I last looked at this forum!
This perhaps should be listed as a new topic - but as I am being challenged here..
But first, I really want to say - please do read the book if you have many questions - for I develop the arguments in it with great care over some 20 chapters, Giving snippets of the book is necessarily taking some things out of context. The book actually finishes off optimistically, drawing from new cellular biology - but you will not know that from my posts so far!
HIV is looked at in the second half of my book - for, when investigating vaccine contamination I learnt that the polio vaccine might have contained HIV along with other monkey viruses... it was only screened for it from about 1997... at that time I thought this would be my next film - so I started to research it rigorously - only to find that there were major difficulties with HIV theory.
I am being asked on this forum why are AIDS Victims living longer - for, if antiretroviral drugs are prolonging lives, surely this is firm evidence that AIDS is caused by a retrovirus?
I used to think so - but this is what I have since learnt...
There have been very major changes to the official definition of AIDS since the illness was first described - with Africa given its own extraordinary and unique diagnostic rules - under which, if an African suffers from diarrhea for a month, has a persistent itch (dermatitis ) and intermittent fever (or a ten percent weight loss) - then they will be told that they have HIV and will soon die of AIDs if they cannot get antiretrovirals. They need not be tested for HIV although this is now recommended. This is called the Bangui Definition of AIDS and is on the World Health Organisation Website. These diagnostic rules are being widely used by African governments. The utter tragedy is that, under this vague clinical definition, the effects of impure water supplies (affecting 70% of Africans south of the Sahara) and of other illnesses are being diagnosed as AIDS.
In the West, before antiretroviral drugs became available (powerful drugs some of which are also marketed as chemotherapy against cancer )- people were rapidly dying of AIDS - but this is because in the West there was at that time a totally different clinical definition of AIDS.
AIDS was at first diagnosed like most diseases - by the evident symptoms of illness. In 1981-2 it was described as a condition in which two illnesses, fungal pneumonia (PCP) and severe Thrush, appeared together, often accompanied by a skin cancer, Kaposi Sarcoma. These 3 illnesses became known as the ‘AIDS Indicating'. The principal cause of death was PCP, caused by a fungus that is normally harmlessly in nearly all of us, but which had suddenly become a killer. Once diagnosed, death was usually less than eleven months away.
A few hundred such cases were diagnosed in the UK and USA in the early 1980s. The patients were mostly in an urban partying gay scene in which a great deal of anal sex was fuelled by intensive and multiple drug taking.
At that time many toxicologists working for the FDA thought they knew what was causing this - over a hundred scientific papers were published in the early 1980s linking such cases to inhaled recreational drugs that caused the fungal infections of the throat and lungs. Surveys in UK, Canadian and USA cities found a 90% correlation with certain inhaled drugs. Some also blamed steroids heavily prescribed for STDs.
Then in 1984 came the discovery of what we now call HIV. There was an immediate change to diagnostic rules. HIV antibodies found with the HIV test became the key diagnostic symptom for AIDS. Antibodies are normally said to protect us. But with HIV - antibodies were said not to protect.
If antibodies against an HIV protein were found, it was predicted confidently in 1984 that within 10 years one of the above AIDS-defining and death-producing illnesses would follow. As many were now found to be HIV [antibody] positive a panic rapidly spread. It was soon predicted that 1.5 million Americans were already infected and on the way to soon dying of AIDS.
But the HIV positive did not die in such numbers - so in 1987 the CDC rewrote the official definition of AIDS to put up the numbers. In future, HIV would no longer necessary for an AIDS diagnosis.
The CDC had in 1987 run into trouble when it lobbied the White House for greatly increased funding for AIDS research, on the basis that AIDS was now a major epidemic among heterosexuals. When the White House demanded the evidence, the CDC was forced to slash its estimate of the number of Americans infected from 1.76 million to 600,000 (a cut some have since mistakenly attributed to the just-introduced antiretrovirals).
The Chicago Times reported on May 31, 1987 that ‘the nation has become transfixed by a fear of deadly disease not seen since the polio epidemics of the 1940s and 1950s' but this fear, it said, was ill-founded for ‘AIDS still ranks as one of the rarest of diseases.' ‘Deaths from AIDS are far less frequent than the various forms of heart disease that kill more than a million Americans every year, rarer even than deaths from alcohol-related liver disease, diabetes, atherosclerosis, influenza and pneumonia, motor-vehicle accidents, homicide, suicide or accidental falls in the home.'
At the same time, statistics from San Francisco indicated the AIDS epidemic might be ending. Professor Andrew Moss, an epidemiologist at the University of California, reported in 1987: ‘the serioconversion rate [numbers testing HIV antibody positive} in gay men crashed quite a few years ago. San Francisco's doing new estimates and they're a lot lower than any previous estimates' - in fact down from 21% in 1982 to just 1% in 1983 and continuing downwards for the next four years.
Remarkably, some who previously tested positive were now testing negative, as was reported by John Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. Professor Susanna Cunningham-Rundles of Cornell said: ‘I believe there are people who have encountered the virus and successfully fought it off.'
But within months the CDC regained the epidemic it was beginning to lose by the most extraordinary of tactics. It issued new diagnostic rules for AIDS. It did so by quietly instructing doctors that they should now diagnose AIDS even in the HIV negative if they suffer from any one of a very extended long list of ‘AIDS-indicating illnesses.'
The CDC and UK health authorities produced a list of some 17 illnesses that should be diagnosed as AIDS without laboratory evidence of HIV infection. It stated that ‘with laboratory evidence against HIV infection', (that is, with a negative HIV test) ‘any of the provided list of diseases could be diagnosed as AIDS,' (This is called the ‘Section 1 B' list) Remarkably this list includes the three original AIDS diseases, PCP fungal pneumonia, severe Candida (Thrush) of the throat or lungs, and Kaposi Sarcoma. These were in future to be called AIDS even after a negative HIV test. Since these original AIDS diseases were diagnosed in some 63% of all AIDS cases in the UK in 2006, a positive HIV test is now almost redundant for an AIDS diagnosis.
Onto this list, as not requiring a positive HIV test for an AIDS diagnosis but a CD4 count below 400, in 1987 went a further 14 new ‘AIDS indicating illnesses,' including bronchitis ‘of any duration' and a herpes ulcer suffered for more than a month. This is despite these illnesses having existed for centuries before AIDS arrived and having their own bacteria, viruses or fungi, that have to be present for the illness to be diagnosed.
This redefinition also allowed that, after a positive HIV test, a person could be diagnosed with AIDS if he or she was diagnosed with just one of a different and longer list of illnesses provided by the CDC, including septicaemia, pneumonia, meningitis, bone or joint infection, an abscess in an internal organ caused by streptococcus or other bacteria. Why such illnesses need HIV was not explained. For children, ‘multiple bacterial infections' would henceforth be sufficient for an AIDS diagnosis! Thus despite the apparent absence of HIV, a child might be put on powerful antiviral drugs.
Finally, and even more surprisingly, the CDC ruled that people who ‘have either a negative HIV antibody test' or ‘an opportunistic disease not listed in the definition as an indicator of AIDS', may be diagnosed with AIDS ‘on consideration of ... a history of exposure to HIV.' This totally astonished me. Under this, even a person with flu could be diagnosed as having AIDS despite a negative HIV test, if a friend had a positive HIV test.
By redefinition, AIDS thus became an illness that can have the most incredible range of symptoms. No wonder this redefinition caused an immediate panic! In Italy the new definition immediately put up the AIDS figures by 188%. In the US it went up by 280%! AIDS thus became by definition a collective name for a legion of old diseases, without even the need for HIV to be present. But critically this also meant that any specialist working on just one of these disorders would now be able to tap into the growing AIDS budget.
Also most importantly, with this redefinition came a great watering down of the risk factor attached to an AIDS diagnosis. With so many people now diagnosed with AIDS in the absence of the original deadly ‘AIDS Indicating diseases’, the average life expectancy after diagnosis now went up greatly without any need for medication.
in 1993 the definition of AIDS was modified once more. From this year, feeling ill no longer a necessity for an AIDS diagnosis.
In addition to the above, in future AID could be diagnosed in people who had none of the ‘AIDS Indicating’ illnesses – and did not feel ill! The CDC predicted that this redefinition would more than double the number of official AIDS cases.
The new provision added was that a person without evident symptoms of illness could be diagnosed with AIDS if they had less than 200 CD4 white blood cells in a micro-litre (#956;L) of blood The CDC estimated that there were at that time 120,000 to 190,000’ Americans who did not know they had AIDS since they were not ill, had no AIDS symptoms but who did have a CD4 Count of below 200.
This was despite low number of CD3 white blood cells being found in hospitals to have no link to poor health or poor prognosis!
This time the redefinition vastly increased the numbers of people who would immediately be prescribed the expensive chemotherapy drugs commonly known as ‘antiretrovirals’. The CDC said all American citizens with a 200 CD4 below 200 had to be warned that they already had AIDS – and instructed to start immediately on these drugs, even if they did not feel ill and were otherwise quite robust. This also meant in practice that many now put on these drugs were more able to withstand their severe side effects.
If these people were not ill beforehand, they were likely soon to be, as they now faced a lifetime on powerful chemotherapy.
The very fact they were diagnosed with HIV was enough to make many to start to feel ill. Such a diagnosis will be a major source of stress all on its own.
The new definition also added 3 diseases to the list of 23 ‘AIDS-indicating illnesses. Onto the list came TB, bacterial pneumonia and invasive cervical cancer. The addition of TB alone would greatly swell the numbers of the poor diagnosed with AIDS – especially as TB could now be diagnosed as AIDS even in the absence of HIV.
Cervical cancer was added as an Aids Indicating Disease as a result of lobbying by lesbian women who were acting in solidarity with their gay brothers. Until then very few women were diagnosed with AIDS, but this could not last, or so thought Maxine Wolfe in 1993. She logically explained that, as a virus caused AIDS, it must be an illusion that women were not getting AIDS. ‘We don’t know if women were really asymptomatic. They simply did not have male-defined symptoms.’ Cervical cancer was thus added. The result was; ‘In the half-year following, over 9,000 cases in women were reported. The number of women said to have AIDS in the US went up by 300%.’
How this is reconcilable with the vaccine announced in 2007 against a different virus said to cause cervical cancer I just cannot guess. It is another mystery of government diagnostic rules.
By 1997 according to the CDC, 61% of all new AIDS patients in the US were, at the time of their diagnosis, not suffering from any of the AIDS defining illness– and yet were put on antiretrovirals for the rest of their lives.
But, a major new killer in AIDS cases has now emerged – kidney failure, a known side effect of antiretroviral drugs. It is now a major killer in AIDS cases in the West – yet is still not listed as an ‘AIDS indicating’ illness. Other known side effects of these drugs are cancers and heart disease – and again these are now major killers in AIDS cases.
AIDS patients in the West are indeed surviving longer than they did in 1984 – the redefinitions have ensured this by including those who were in a far better state of health overall at the time of diagnosis - they are thus able to survive antiretrovirals much better.
Jan
PS - this chapter in my book is after several chapters looking at the key experiments on HIV - including the one cited today as proving HIV
causes AIDS. I show that it proved nothing of the sort - the scientist who did the work made no such claim - he did not even try to prove the virus pathogenic.
I also look at other key issues relating to AIDS - including how the HIV test works or does not work and the sexual transmission of HIV - I am happy to answer questions - as I am aware that many here may not have heard of the scientific debate over AIDS - as it is rarely reported. It seems the BBC will not put up any posts questioning HIV theory.
I also give a long list of senior professors and doctors with good university positions who are questioning if HIV causes AIDS (many coming under quite nasty attacks for doing so.)
This you can find on my website www.fearoftheinvisible.com
Janine Roberts
author of 'Fear of the Invisible'
How scared should you be of Viruses and Vaccines... |
Edited by - JanineRoberts on 08/31/2008 05:57:25 |
|
|
|
JanineRoberts
United Kingdom
19 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2008 : 06:05:45
|
I just noticed I am being criticized for writing...
"world of the cell and of its messenger particles or viruses, a world that may well extend across galaxies"
For goodness sake, the context of this is that, when I look at just what viruses are and how they came about, I cite NASA scientific papers on the origin of life ... and their discovery that cell like bodies spontaneously appear in water exposed to the conditions of young solar systems - and evolutionary biologists on the origin of viruses.
This is plain nasty - trying to ridicule my work by deliberately putting it out of context.
Janine
Janine Roberts
author of 'Fear of the Invisible'
How scared should you be of Viruses and Vaccines... |
Edited by - JanineRoberts on 08/31/2008 06:17:09 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
MMR vaccines severely contaminated
