Damned Heretics

Condemned by the established, but very often right

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

Qualified outsiders and maverick insiders are often right about the need to replace received wisdom in science and society, as the history of the Nobel prize shows. This blog exists to back the best of them in their uphill assault on the massively entrenched edifice of resistance to and prejudice against reviewing, let alone revising, ruling ideas. In support of such qualified dissenters and courageous heretics we search for scientific paradigms and other established beliefs which may be maintained only by the power and politics of the status quo, comparing them with academic research and the published experimental and investigative record.

We especially defend and support the funding of honest, accomplished, independent minded and often heroic scientists, inventors and other original thinkers and their right to free speech and publication against the censorship, mudslinging, false arguments, ad hominem propaganda, overwhelming crowd prejudice and internal science politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, health and medicine, diet and nutrition.

HONOR ROLL OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTHSEEKERS

Henry Bauer, Peter Breggin , Harvey Bialy, Giordano Bruno, Erwin Chargaff, Nicolaus Copernicus, Francis Crick, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw, Freeman Dyson, Peter Duesberg, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, John Fewster, Galileo Galilei, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Edward Jenner, Benjamin Jesty, Michio Kaku, Adrian Kent, Ernst Krebs, Thomas Kuhn, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling, Eric Penrose, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick, Sherwood Rowland, Carl Sagan, Otto Rossler, Fred Singer, Thomas Szasz, Alfred Wegener, Edward O. Wilson, James Watson.
----------------------------------------------

Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

Skepticism is dangerous. That’s exactly its function, in my view. It is the business of skepticism to be dangerous. And that’s why there is a great reluctance to teach it in schools. That’s why you don’t find a general fluency in skepticism in the media. On the other hand, how will we negotiate a very perilous future if we don’t have the elementary intellectual tools to ask searching questions of those nominally in charge, especially in a democracy? – Carl Sagan (The Burden of Skepticism, keynote address to CSICOP Annual Conference, Pasadena, April 3/4, 1982).

It is really important to underscore that everything we’re talking about tonight could be utter nonsense. – Brian Greene (NYU panel on Hidden Dimensions June 5 2010, World Science Festival)

I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing ever interfered with my learning was my education. My name as you already perceive without a doubt is George Bernard Shaw, and I certainly approve of this blog, in that its guiding spirit appears to be blasphemous in regard to the High Church doctrines of science, and it flouts the censorship of the powers that be, and as I have famously remarked, all great truths begin as blasphemy, and the first duty of the truthteller is to fight censorship, and while I notice that its seriousness of purpose is often alleviated by a satirical irony which sometimes borders on the facetious, this is all to the good, for as I have also famously remarked, if you wish to be a dissenter, make certain that you frame your ideas in jest, otherwise they will seek to kill you.  My own method was always to take the utmost trouble to find the right thing to say, and then to say it with the utmost levity. (Photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt for Life magazine) One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny, and is likely to interfere with happiness in all kinds of ways. – Bertrand Russell, Conquest of Happiness (1930) ch. 9

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Belief)

BEST VIEWED IN LARGE FONT
Expanded GUIDE TO SITE PURPOSE AND LAYOUT is in the lower blue section at the bottom of every home page.

Albany spotlights AIDS lore

New York Assembly fights over whether accused rapists should be tested

Examination of paradigm logic in courts and legislatures will grow

albany.JPGIn line with our prediction that the days of the HIV∫AIDS paradigm are numbered, because the implications will increasingly be fought over in the courts and the legislatures, we see from the New York Times yesterday that an HIV Testing Bill Starts War Among Assembly Democrats..

The debate over the issue, including a lengthy private meeting this week among Democrats who control the Assembly, reflects conflicting concerns about the health of rape victims and about the civil liberties of suspects who have not yet been tried. Backers of the measure say victims should have all the information they can get before they decide whether to take the powerful cocktail of medications to fight the AIDS virus.

A “powerful cocktail of medications” is a phrase that implies that the medications may not be that pleasant and life enhancing to take without a very good reason to do so, an admission that suggests that reporter Danny Hakim is not totally au fait with the Times policy of worshipping the HIV∫AIDS paradigm and its promoters as if butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths, and there is nothing to worry about once one takes ones “meds”, the very same meds which are causing half of the AIDS deaths in the US at the present time.

But the main point of noticing this item is to present it as one of the exhibits in a new department of the Museum of Paradigms Past, which is sure to be a rapidly expanding showcase of court cases and political disputes that are going to focus attention on the flawed logic of the HIV∫AIDS paradigm and spotlight its inconsistencies and questionable claims.

For as the implications of this non-science (pron. ‘nonsense’) spread into legislative disputes and court challenges, of which the recent case in Adelaide was but the first of a growing number (several are in the works, including one in Toronto), more and more defense lawyers are going to be led to see through the transparently gimcrack hypothesis which is thoroughly disproved by its own literature, the mainstream papers which are often written by its chief proponents, which increasingly embarrass them by turning out to contradict their very premise, the paradigm that it is HIV that causes AIDS symptoms, and not drugs, malnutrition and familiar diseases.

aidstest.jpgLawyers live by reason and in our experience have no trouble seeing the suspect nature of the HIV∫AIDS case, and the possible explanation for the misleading testimony of the paradigm promoters in their self interest in the continuation of record funding for a complaint that is 33 times less important in causing deaths than cancer.

We confidently predict that this news item will be the first of many to see the debate over what we really need to do about AIDS, and what is to be trusted or not to be trusted in its ideology, spreading ever wider into the courts and legislatures of the world.

The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

May 25, 2007
H.I.V. Testing Bill Starts ‘War’ Among Assembly Democrats
By DANNY HAKIM

ALBANY, May 24 — Gov. Eliot Spitzer and a majority of state lawmakers are backing a bill requiring H.I.V. testing of suspects indicted on rape charges. Nevertheless, its chances of passage are unclear, as the legislation is the subject of contentious debate in the Assembly.

The bill has more than enough votes to pass the Assembly, judging from its voluminous list of co-sponsors. But it remains to be seen whether the Assembly leadership allows it to come up for a vote, though prospects appear to be more favorable than in previous years.

“This year, it seems to be on course to at least get to the floor and it could very well succeed there, based on the number of sponsors on the bill,” said Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol, a Brooklyn Democrat who opposes the bill and is chairman of the Codes Committee, which must clear it.

The debate over the issue, including a lengthy private meeting this week among Democrats who control the Assembly, reflects conflicting concerns about the health of rape victims and about the civil liberties of suspects who have not yet been tried. Backers of the measure say victims should have all the information they can get before they decide whether to take the powerful cocktail of medications to fight the AIDS virus. The federal government has made a small amount of grant money available to states that adopt such a measure.

A spokesman for the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, said on Thursday that Mr. Silver was not available for comment because of the Jewish holiday of Shavuot.

Paul Larrabee, a spokesman for Mr. Spitzer, said, “The governor believes that a victim of a rape or a sexual assault needs to know as soon as possible the H.I.V. status of their attacker. This information is critical to both the physical and emotional well-being of the victim.”

Given that the bill was submitted by the governor’s Division of Criminal Justice Services, and given its history of support in the Republican-led Senate, it appears that the measure will succeed or fail based on the outcome in the Assembly. By all accounts, the internal debate over the issue has been intense.

“There’s a big war on this issue in the Assembly,” said Nettie Mayersohn, a Queens Democrat and the chief sponsor of the bill. “This is a decision that should be made by the woman and not by the legislators in Albany.”

Mr. Lentol and other opponents stress, among other things, that the bill might give rape victims a false sense of security if the suspects in their attacks test negative. Those who have contracted the virus often do not test positive right away. He said he feared that rape victims would stop taking their antiviral medications prematurely.

“The test may come back negative but it might be the wrong guy, or he might be in a window period where he hasn’t tested positive,” Mr. Lentol said.

“I know that to some people, especially some women, it could be viewed as a paternalistic kind of thing, that she should have all the information at her disposal,” he continued. But he said he viewed keeping potentially misleading information from victims as coming out “on the side of protecting a person’s health, no matter who they are.”

Others argued that requiring tests of those who are indicted, but not convicted, would set a troublesome precedent. Under current law, H.I.V. tests are not required until after conviction.

“Everyone wants to protect the victims of sexual assault, and there’s no question about that,” said Assemblyman Keith L. T. Wright, a Manhattan Democrat. “But we run a very slippery slope if we start testing people just by virtue of indictment.

“There really are no protections for privacy with those tests,” he added. “The D.A. would have that information, and who knows, maybe the newspapers.”

Ms. Mayersohn said a provision for victim counseling in her bill would ensure that victims understand the uncertainties of testing. She said victims or their representatives should be presumed to be capable of making well-informed decisions, and “understand about the window period, that there is a small chance that the guy might be H.I.V. positive but in the early stages.”

“She and her doctor are going to decide whether she is going to continue the medication or stop the medication,” she added.

A bill identical to Ms. Mayersohn’s has been introduced in the Senate. Mark Hansen, a spokesman for Senator Joseph L. Bruno, the Republican majority leader, said, “It’s consistent with bills we’ve passed before.”

Of course, given current trends around the world to count HIV antibodies as a deadly weapon, and to threaten anyone with jail for murder who, knowing they test positive for HIV antibodies, sleeps with a woman without telling her, it is hard to endorse the movement led by the UN and the CDC to test everybody in the country.

Indeed, as far as we know, it is still generally forbidden for anyone who is HIV positive to enter the States as a visitor or immigrant. SIECUS Policy Updates – December 2006

Bush Orders Easing of Travel Restrictions on HIV-Positive Foreigners

On December 1st, World AIDS Day, President Bush issued an executive order to the Secretary of State that may ultimately change rules that prohibit HIV-positive foreigners from entering the United States unless they are granted a special waiver. Bush’s order does not change current immigration law but initiates a rule-making process that could create a categorical waiver for business or tourist visas for up to 60 days. The United States is one of only approximately 15 countries worldwide that place a travel ban on HIV-positive foreigners, including China, Iraq, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.1

A travel ban waiver for HIV-positive foreigners has been in place since 1993 when Congress enacted the National Immigration and Nationality Act. According to the Act, foreigners traveling to the United States, including those not requiring a visa for entry, who reveal that they have a “communicable disease of public health significance,” are barred from entering the United States. Congress included HIV as a dangerous communicable disease, despite recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services that only infectious tuberculosis should be used to exclude foreign visitors and immigrants.2

Under current regulations, travelers can apply to a U.S. Embassy for a short-term waiver for either up to 10 or 30 days in order to attend conferences, conduct business, receive medical treatment, or visit family members.3 The Department of State also has the authority to issue “blanket waivers” for HIV-positive travelers who are attending certain U.S. conferences or international sporting events.4 Earlier this year, for example, the federal government designated the Gay Games 2006 as a special event for which participants could apply for the blanket waiver.5 Once a traveler has asked to be included under a blanket waiver, however, the individual must obtain a waiver every time he/she wishes to enter the United States.6

Advocates have severely criticized the ban as violating human rights and have pointed to the potentially deleterious effects for travelers who return to their nations of origin with a marked passport disclosing their HIV status.7 Additionally, several British studies have illustrated the adverse effects of the current policy on visitors’ mental health as well as on their adherence to HIV drug protocols as travelers may purposefully not bring medication with them as part of an effort to hide their HIV status.

President Bush’s order has received praise from the HIV/AIDS community as an initial step in removing all restrictions on HIV-positive immigrants. “It’s a step away from a terribly discriminatory and inappropriate policy, but it doesn’t go far enough,” explained Leonard Rubenstein, executive director of Physicians for Human Rights. “If you want to remove stigma from AIDS, you have to go for the whole distance and eliminate all restriction on entry to the United States for people with HIV.”8

Representative Barbara Lee (D-California) has said that she will introduce legislation in the 110th Congress to overturn the ban.9

For more information about the current travel ban, see Global Health Council’s Policy Brief: End Restriction on Travel to theOn December 1st, World AIDS Day, President Bush issued an executive order to the Secretary of State that may ultimately change rules that prohibit HIV-positive foreigners from entering the United States unless they are granted a special waiver. Bush’s order does not change current immigration law but initiates a rule-making process that could create a categorical waiver for business or tourist visas for up to 60 days. The United States is one of only approximately 15 countries worldwide that place a travel ban on HIV-positive foreigners, including China, Iraq, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.10

A travel ban waiver for HIV-positive foreigners has been in place since 1993 when Congress enacted the National Immigration and Nationality Act. According to the Act, foreigners traveling to the United States, including those not requiring a visa for entry, who reveal that they have a “communicable disease of public health significance,” are barred from entering the United States. Congress included HIV as a dangerous communicable disease, despite recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services that only infectious tuberculosis should be used to exclude foreign visitors and immigrants.11

Under current regulations, travelers can apply to a U.S. Embassy for a short-term waiver for either up to 10 or 30 days in order to attend conferences, conduct business, receive medical treatment, or visit family members.12 The Department of State also has the authority to issue “blanket waivers” for HIV-positive travelers who are attending certain U.S. conferences or international sporting events.13 Earlier this year, for example, the federal government designated the Gay Games 2006 as a special event for which participants could apply for the blanket waiver.14 Once a traveler has asked to be included under a blanket waiver, however, the individual must obtain a waiver every time he/she wishes to enter the United States.15

Advocates have severely criticized the ban as violating human rights and have pointed to the potentially deleterious effects for travelers who return to their nations of origin with a marked passport disclosing their HIV status.16 Additionally, several British studies have illustrated the adverse effects of the current policy on visitors’ mental health as well as on their adherence to HIV drug protocols as travelers may purposefully not bring medication with them as part of an effort to hide their HIV status.

President Bush’s order has received praise from the HIV/AIDS community as an initial step in removing all restrictions on HIV-positive immigrants. “It’s a step away from a terribly discriminatory and inappropriate policy, but it doesn’t go far enough,” explained Leonard Rubenstein, executive director of Physicians for Human Rights. “If you want to remove stigma from AIDS, you have to go for the whole distance and eliminate all restriction on entry to the United States for people with HIV.”17

Representative Barbara Lee (D-California) has said that she will introduce legislation in the 110th Congress to overturn the ban.18

For more information about the current travel ban, see Global Health Council’s Policy Brief: End Restriction on Travel to the US by People with HIV at www.globalhealth.org.
So we would probably decline an “AIDS test” even if offered one for free. though we speak only for ourselves, of course, since this is a medical matter and one has to have a medical license to offer any medical advice to others. This is not to say that we agree that a positive HIV test has any significant scientific or medical meaning, since the scientific literature says otherwise.

Of course, universal testing makes no sense as public policy since it will yield far too many false positives, as this relatively nonscientific but enlightened commentator, one Mike Adams, wrote in his post at Newstarget a couple of years ago, Mandatory AIDS testing proposal is public health lunacy. Any reader who agrees with the underlying GIGO theme of this blog that nutrition is a key to human health – Garbage In Garbage Out – will find Adams’ take interesting.

So if you have mandatory nationwide testing, you’re going to get a lot of people who are inappropriately diagnosed with AIDS and who get scared out of their minds and start taking anti-AIDS prescription drugs, which of course boosts the profits of prescription drug companies. If all of this sounds like some grand conspiracy, don’t worry, it isn’t. It’s more like a bunch of bumbling medical authorities making silly suggestions about testing the entire population for a disease that isn’t even close to the top of the list of public health concerns. The mainstream media has blown the AIDS myths all out of proportion. Let me explain…

With that said, consider how crazy this whole AIDS testing proposal is: conventional doctors want to violate your body by forcing you to take a test for a disease that’s largely fictional, which will undoubtedly produce false positives, which will earn you the label of “diseased,” which will practically force you into a regime of high-cost AIDS drugs, which will enrich the pharmaceutical companies and, meanwhile, transfer even more power to doctors who could then DEMAND that you submit to all sorts of additional tests.


NewsTarget
Solutions for personal and planetary health:
Based on a newly published report, some doctors are now actually calling for the nationwide, mandatory testing of all adults for AIDS. When I hear ridiculous public health ideas like this one, I have to stop and consider: what’s the real motive behind this? It seems clear to me that the motive for this one is to sell more AIDS drugs. Because the first thing that will happen if you start testing the entire adult population for AIDS is you will get a lot of false positives.

In fact, there are an increasing number of doctors who say that AIDS isn’t even caused by HIV. There’s a great book on this subject by Dr. Gary Null called “AIDS: A second opinion,” where Dr. Null says that AIDS is really just an immuno-suppressed state. There’s no hard, scientific diagnosis for AIDS in the medical community: a doctor can assemble a list of symptoms related to poor immune system function and call that AIDS.

So if you have mandatory nationwide testing, you’re going to get a lot of people who are inappropriately diagnosed with AIDS and who get scared out of their minds and start taking anti-AIDS prescription drugs, which of course boosts the profits of prescription drug companies. If all of this sounds like some grand conspiracy, don’t worry, it isn’t. It’s more like a bunch of bumbling medical authorities making silly suggestions about testing the entire population for a disease that isn’t even close to the top of the list of public health concerns. The mainstream media has blown the AIDS myths all out of proportion. Let me explain…

I’m not saying that the HIV virus doesn’t exist or that lots of people aren’t suffering from immune system suppression. But what I am saying is that the label “AIDS” is rather loosely applied to a great number of people who are really only suffering from correctable biological side effects of making poor lifestyle decisions (food choice, diet, lack of exercise, use of recreational drugs). If you’d like to see some supporting information from doctors and researchers who have looked into the AIDS question in great detail, check out Dr. Peter Duesberg’s website. Dr. Duesberg is the professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and is one of the most outspoken whistleblowers on myths about AIDS. There’s also a great book on Amazon called, What if everything you thought you knew about AIDS was wrong?” that goes into more detail.

I’ve personally talked to several people who were diagnosed with AIDS and then later found out that they didn’t really have AIDS at all. All they had was a suppressed immune system, and by changing their diet and taking a few herbs, including immune boosting substances such as reishi mushrooms, garlic and a variety of rainforest herbs, were able to restore full immune system function and no longer showed any symptoms of AIDS whatsoever. In fact, when they went back to another doctor and asked to be checked out for AIDS, they were told they didn’t have AIDS and that they’d never had AIDS.

So to me, this whole idea of testing the entire nation for AIDS is utterly ridiculous, because you’re going to get a whole lot of false positives. And besides, there are far more important things to be testing for.

Why don’t we test people in this country for nutritional deficiencies? That would do a lot more good than testing people for AIDS; we have well over half the population now suffering from chronic vitamin D deficiencies, and that number is even higher in those with dark skin pigmentation because of its UV blocking effect. Why don’t we test people for that? I’ll tell you why we don’t: because if you test the country for vitamin D and you find that half the population doesn’t have enough vitamin D, then you can’t sell them overpriced pharmaceutical products to solve their “disease.” To solve the vitamin D problem, the only thing the people need to do is start drinking cod liver oil by the tablespoon, or exposing their skin to natural sunlight on a regular basis.

Our medical community doesn’t test for nutritional deficiencies because nobody makes any money when the tests come back positive. Anybody can sell nutritional supplements, of course, but what I mean is that there’s no controlling interest of the drugs that would be used to treat vitamin D deficiencies as in the case of AIDS. AIDS drugs are patented, so they can be controlled and marked up to produce tremendous profits. Hence the push for AIDS testing.

But you can bet that if vitamins were patented and controlled by Big Pharma, we’d have nationwide, mandatory testing of nutritional deficiencies rolled out almost overnight. When there’s money to be made, the diagnostic tests will magically appear to create demand for those products. After all, nobody needs AIDS drugs if they aren’t labeled with the AIDS disease name. If you want to create demand for AIDS drugs, you first have to point your finger at a bunch of people and tell them they have AIDS. (And most people are stupid enough to actually believe their doctors on this one, go figure…)

The same scheme worked with ADD and Ritalin. The organized medicine industry just flat-out invented a fictitious disease and created a billion dollar industry selling drugs to “treat” it. Why wouldn’t the same gig work with AIDS, too? Heck, why not create a whole slew of fictional diseases like Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and milk people for money selling quack treatments through the channels of organized medicine? In fact, that’s exactly what’s happening. (Or, if that doesn’t work, you can always just redefine diseases. A year ago, if your LDL cholesterol was 110, you were considered normal. Today, you’re considered diseased and will be put on a statin drug. Same LDL cholesterol, new definition. Neat medical shell game, huh?)

So whenever I hear someone suggesting that we should require mandatory testing for a certain disease, I have to ask myself: what’s the economic incentive here? Are there other diseases or vitamin deficiencies that we should be testing as a higher priority? Because you could do a lot more good in this country and dramatically reduce health care costs by testing for nutritional deficiencies like magnesium, zinc, vitamin D or the B vitamins. If you want to talk about public health, let’s talk about public health that works. Let’s talk about being able to prevent diseases with a nickel’s worth of nutritional supplements per day per person. Because that’s what you can do with simple vitamins and minerals. Zinc alone, if given to expectant mothers, can reduce the incidence of low birth weight infants by nearly one third. Vitamin D supplementation can prevent prostate cancer, breast cancer, osteoporosis and many other disorders. And magnesium, of course, can greatly improve cardiovascular health and actually help prevent heart attacks. And we haven’t even talked about the healthy oils and how supplementing with omega-3 fatty acids or macadamia nut oil can greatly enhance cardiovascular health while improving nervous system function.

If you want to talk about public health and what kind of testing we should be doing, let’s start with the things that can create the greatest positive public health impact. But you see, those aren’t the things that the health authorities want to test for, because once again, they really have no desire to send a bunch of people to the health food stores to buy nutritional supplements. It’s all about testing only for those things they can treat with drugs, surgery or radiation.

That’s why there’s the big push for mammograms, by the way. Mammograms actually cause breast cancer because they emit so much radiation. Dr. John Gofman, author of Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, says that 83 percent of all breast cancer is actually caused by mammograms and other forms of medical radiation. (Read more about the uselessness of mammograms here.)

Yet there’s always this breast cancer prevention push, and there’s a message that if you don’t get mammograms, you’re not taking care of your health. Why do you think mammograms are so heavily pushed by organized medicine? It’s because if you come up with a positive, they’ve got drugs to treat breast cancer. And that’s the first thing you’re going to be shuffled off to do if your test comes back positive: you’re going to find yourself talking to an oncologist who’s likely to recommend chemotherapy.

Why do you think they’re still using PSA tests for prostate cancer, even though the very inventor of the PSA test announced in late 2004 that the test was utterly and completely worthless? Dr. Thomas Stamey of Stanford University says that it has no scientific basis whatsoever and doesn’t correlate with prostate cancer. (Click here to read more articles on the demise of the PSA test.) Yet it’s still being used all around the country to scare men into thinking they have prostate cancer, and to get them to submit to expensive, invasive therapies like radiation, chemotherapy and surgical procedures that are quite often medically unnecessary. What the men need, again, is sunlight and vitamin D. You can eliminate the vast majority of prostate cancer in this country by getting people to take in a healthy dose of sunlight and giving them basic nutritional supplements like cod liver oil, zinc and selected herbs.

So out of the long list of things that we could be doing to enhance public health, to eliminate chronic disease and to improve nutrition, the only thing that these doctors can come up with in terms of a suggestion is to test the whole country for AIDS. On my list of the top 1000 things that we need to do to improve the health of our population, testing the whole country for AIDS is somewhere down around #972. There are so many other things that we should be doing first. If we want to invest the effort of testing the whole population for something, let’s start by testing for nutritional deficiencies and treating those with low-cost, commonly available vitamins, minerals and food supplements that can not only prevent chronic disease, but can actually help reverse diseases. Let’s start there.

See, don’t make the mistake of thinking that public health policy is driven by genuine public health needs. It’s actually driven by the mindset of conventional medicine, which is to treat everything with drugs, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. It’s driven by intellectual property: who owns the drugs, who owns the patents, who owns the lab equipment used to diagnose these diseases, and so on. It’s all about power, profit and control. It’s not really about public health. Because, again, if it were about public health, we’d be testing people for things like nutritional deficiencies that are responsible for so many of the chronic diseases now ravaging our nation.

If it were really about public health, we’d be spending 2 to 3 percent of GDP on education to keep people healthy, rather than what we’re doing now, which is spending 25% of GDP treating chronic disease in this country. If it were really about public health, every time a woman gave birth to a child, we’d hand them a manual called “Nutrition For Your Baby,” and we’d teach them the basics of how to keep that baby healthy and prevent chronic disease. But we don’t do any of that. We don’t educate mothers in this country about nutrition and how to protect the health of their babies. We don’t educate our children in public schools, and astoundingly, we don’t even teach our doctors about nutrition in our medical schools! How crazy is that?

So the only ideas they can come up with are things like, “Hey, let’s FORCE the entire adult population to submit to an AIDS test!” What are they going to do, throw you in jail if you refuse? If they pass a federal law mandating national AIDS testing, I promise I’ll be at the head of the march on Washington, holding up the banner of health freedom and demanding the law be ruled unconstitutional. It is, technically, a violation of the 4th Amendment, because mandatory AIDS testing is an illegal search of your body. For those who may have forgotten that the Bill of Rights actually exists (I know, it’s been difficult to remember in the post 9/11 era), here’s a reminder of what the 4th Amendment says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…

With that said, consider how crazy this whole AIDS testing proposal is: conventional doctors want to violate your body by forcing you to take a test for a disease that’s largely fictional, which will undoubtedly produce false positives, which will earn you the label of “diseased,” which will practically force you into a regime of high-cost AIDS drugs, which will enrich the pharmaceutical companies and, meanwhile, transfer even more power to doctors who could then DEMAND that you submit to all sorts of additional tests.

That’s the kind of power some U.S. doctors are now demanding over your body. And they’re going to frame the whole thing as a “public health” benefit! Gee, it’s all for YOUR own good!

No thanks. I’m quite healthy without the meddling of conventional doctors, their warped public health policies, and their egomaniacal ideas of subjecting the population to procedures that are essentially harebrained medical experiments.

###

About the author: Mike Adams is a consumer health advocate with a mission to teach personal and planetary health to the public He has authored more than 1,500 articles and dozens of reports, guides and interviews on natural health topics, impacting the lives of millions of readers around the world who are experiencing phenomenal health benefits from reading his articles. Adams is an honest, independent journalist and accepts no money or commissions on the third-party products he writes about or the companies he promotes. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a manufacturer of mercury-free, energy-efficient LED lighting products that save electricity and help prevent global warming. He’s also a noted technology pioneer and founded a software company in 1993 that developed the HTML email newsletter software currently powering the NewsTarget subscriptions. Adams is currently the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit, and enjoys outdoor activities, nature photography, Pilates and adult gymnastics. He’s also author of numerous health books published by Truth Publishing and is the creator of several consumer-oriented grassroots campaigns, including the Spam. Don’t Buy It! campaign, and the free downloadable Honest Food Guide. He also created the free reference sites HerbReference.com and HealingFoodReference.com. Adams believes in free speech, free access to nutritional supplements and the ending of corporate control over medicines, genes and seeds.
Allegedly Mike Adams receives no money for his copious postings on the Newstarget Network, an apparently well financed source of information on the benefits of good nutrition which energetically questions the motives and expertise of the medical profession. They run a board named Dangerous Medicine.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 354 access attempts in the last 7 days.