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.

Nobelist against HIV enters court drama


MacDonald, top gun witness for HIV∫AIDS in Adelaide, hauled in to answer for rash email confession

He protests HIV loyalty, but enables Kary Mullis to advise court that the cause of AIDS is “not settled”

Onlookers might be forgiven for seeing another widening crack in the HIV∫AIDS mountain in the events of the past couple of weeks, which led to a follow up court appearance yesterday of one of the top witnesses for HIV in the Adelaide appeal hearing of Andre Chad Parenzee, 36, who was convicted last year of sleeping with three women without telling them of his “HIV-positive” status.

Owing to the presence within commuting distance of the Perth Group the application for hearing his appeal has been turned into the first courtroom trial of the HIV∫AIDS paradigm and its high priests, who have been forced into the inevitably embarrassing position of having to justify the prima facie inconsistent and unproven hypothesis, which is not normally questioned by lawyers, judges or anybody else in the mainstream social system anywhere in the world. This can be counted as a great success for the critics of the paradigm, who finally have their day in court.

Apparently Emeritus Professor Peter McDonald, of Flinders University in Adelaide is one of those high priests, who has spent much of his career chairing a committee disbursing funds for research based on the paradigm. So it was no surprise when he was called to testify last month and said he had no doubt that HIV was the cause of AIDS.

What was a surprise, however, was the at-least-provincially celebrated Aussie professor‘s unguarded emails to Kary Mullis three days after the hearing closed, in which he asked the lively and independent minded Nobelist whether it was true that PCR – the polymerase chain reaction method of magnifying the DNA of a substance present in a sample so that there is enough to work with in establishing its nature – was unreliable:

“The group of denialists giving evidence are people from Perth [Eleni Eliopoulos-Pappadopoulis and Valendar Turner] who quote you as indicating that PCR technology is erroneous and misleading.”

From: Peter McDonald

Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 1:36 PM

To:
Cc: Robyn Richardson, Attorney General—™s Department of South Australia
John P. Moore, PhD

Subject:Appeal at HIV denialist trial in Australia

“I am assisting the prosecution in an appeal to the Supreme Court of Southern Australia about a conviction for criminal transmission of HIV. The basis for the appeal is that HIV does not exist and PCR technology is flawed. So in effect the technical basis for identification of virus is on trial.

“The group of denialists giving evidence are people from Perth [Eliopoulos-Pappadopoulis and Turner] who quote you as indicating that PCR technology is erroneous and misleading.”

“Can I ask you to comment on this statement? The Supreme Court will continue in another few days and I would appreciate your comment as a matter of urgency.

I look forward to your response.

Peter McDonald
Emeritus ProfessorAs it happened the Perth pair did not say that. What they said was that PCR was not a good way of proving the presence of HIV (see their Nature paper). Apparently this silly sally(which was copied to a presumably horrified John P. Moore, who is aware unlike the apparently fuddy duddy emeritus professor that Mullis is not an enthusiastic subscriber to HIV conventional wisdom) was an effort to get a quick and easy response from the surfing Nobelist rejecting any such disparagement of his 1993 Nobel prize winning experimental algorithm, an invaluable laboratory technique which is now used to free unjustly incarcerated innocents falsely accused of rape and murder, with successes numbering more than two hundred so far.

Then MacDonald could use his reply as a weapon against the Perth pair if they continued to challenge his no doubt heartfelt belief in the profitable scientific theology he has administered for two decades. If the case proceeds to appeal we presume they will be back in court again doing just that.

Mullis’s reply was priceless in its honest broker, Richard Feynman style of truth telling directness in replying to MacDonald’s gibberish with plain sense, in the manner which marks great scientists who seem to find it much easier than the average researcher to speak simply and clearly and directly on a big issue. (Perhaps this is because they have the wits and the courage to think and speak honestly, unlike many lesser people, and to address the big issues as well as the small ones.)

Mullis forthrightly set the scientifically challenged challenger straight with the following observation on the nub of the matter, which suggested that it wasn’t the accuracy of PCR that was in question, but its use as a means of validating the pestiferously pusillanimous paradigm by supposedly proving the presence of HIV:

A nucleic acid segment very similar in size and terminal base could easily, in a cursory examination, be mistaken for the sequence in question. If this happened in the course of a normal scientific finding, somebody would finally notice it. Papers are retracted all the time. I am not aware of the nature of the evidence you are considering, but when it comes to legal issues, retractions don’t necessarily make up for the original mistake, and if I were to offer advice to the courts system of Australia, I would plead that they realize that the AIDS/HIV issue is what is not settled scientifically, not the effectiveness of PCR.

In other words, PCR was not designed to be used as a test for the presence of HIV in blood and even if it was that would not be the issue, which is really the validity of the HIV∫AIDS causal paradigm.

Then Mullis added this stinger:

I have enclosed a paper I published some years ago which encapsulates my personal opinion concerning the cause of AIDS. I represent a very small minority among scientists who have seriously considered this matter. Many scientific issues which are controversial are often decided in favor of the minority, by experiments. Some of the time the majority gets it right.

Prosecuting people based on an unproven hypothesis would seem to be unfair and rash.

To cloak the real issues in a veneer of irrelevant technological detail is, in my opinion, a bit of a sham, unworthy of Australians.”

Dear Dr. McDonald:

I will not try to convince anyone that PCR can be used successfully to specifically make multiple copies of any nucleic acid sequence that can be uniquely defined by two “primer target sequences” comprising the termini of the sequence of interest. The veracity of this no longer has anything to do with me. I think this has been confirmed by a huge number of laboratories around the world. The rapid spread of this simple technology would not have occurred had it been ineffectual or flawed in any persistent way.

The matter which you are considering, if I understand it correctly, is that the presence or absence of a given nucleic acid sequence, as determined by PCR, can be used as a reliable marker for a living organism in a biological sample. This is done quite often in scientific studies, but that does not mean there could never be exceptions. Remember scientific studies are done with the understanding that findings will be subject to scrutiny from colleagues. A nucleic acid segment very similar in size and terminal base could easily, in a cursory examination, be mistaken for the sequence in question. If this happened in the course of a normal scientific finding, somebody would finally notice it. Papers are retracted all the time. I am not aware of the nature of the evidence you are considering, but when it comes to legal issues, retractions don’t necessarily make up for the original mistake, and if I were to offer advice to the courts system of Australia, I would plead that they realize that the AIDS/HIV issue is what is not settled scientifically, not the effectiveness of PCR.

I have enclosed a paper I published some years ago which encapsulates my personal opinion concerning the cause of AIDS. I represent a very small minority among scientists who have seriously considered this matter. Many scientific issues which are controversial are often decided in favor of the minority, by experiments. Some of the time the majority gets it right.

Prosecuting people based on an unproven hypothesis would seem to be unfair and rash.
To cloak the real issues in a veneer of irrelevant technological detail is, in my opinion, a bit of a sham, unworthy of Australians.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Kary B. Mullis

[Mullis attached his 1995 Genetica paper entitled —œA hypothetical disease of the immune system that may bear some relation to the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome—?]
Professorial panic

(Pic left is of Flinders University)

Perhaps MacDonald was in something of a panic when he wrote his first email since he was faced with the possibility that any minute the judge would deliver a verdict in favor of the plaintiff being allowed to appeal to the Supreme Court of Southern Australia that his conviction was possibly based on bad science, which will open up the can of scientific worms that is HIV∫AIDS-think even further to close examination by some experienced and high quality legal minds, with possibly disastrous consequences for his fund disbursement activities.

In that case, he might have imagined that Mullis would give him a handy knife to twist in the guts of the Perth duo when they appeared to testify once again in the appeal hearing proper.

Indiscreet admissions

Instead he got this rather rude comment on his favorite scientific belief. So what did he do? Rashly, he gratefully and quickly sent an obsequious message back informing Mullis that he wasn’t so committed to the HIV∫AIDS orthodoxy after all, at least as far as HIV transmission goes. He even admitted the possibility that HIV pathogenesis might be reassessed.

“Overall I think I share with you some scepticism about the jump from scientific observation to a deduction that HIV transmission and pathogenesis is set in stone and becomes a legitimate basis for criminal prosecution.

I personally do not believe that it is appropriate to lock people in jail for sexual transmission of HIV —” but that is the law!”

Peter McDonald

Sent: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:46:17 +1030

To: Kary Mullis
Cc: Robyn Richardson, Attorney General—™s Department of South Australia David Crowe Christine Maggiore

Subject: HIV/AIDS/legal proceeding

Many thanks for taking the time to respond to my request.

Your views were helpful in terms of confirming the validity of PCR in which you were being quoted as —œhaving no confidence in the technology—?.

Overall I think I share with you some scepticism about the jump from scientific observation to a deduction that HIV transmission and pathogenesis is set in stone and becomes a legitimate basis for criminal prosecution.

I personally do not believe that it is appropriate to lock people in jail for sexual transmission of HIV —” but that is the law!

I thank you for your assistance and would be happy to keep a dialogue.

Kindest regards from down under

Peter This conciliatory but self-incriminating message he perhaps inadvertently copied to HIV∫AIDS critics David Crowe and Christine Maggiore, and to Robyn Richardson, Attorney General—™s Department of South Australia, just as Mullis’s message had been.

So not surprisingly MacDonald quickly found himself in court trying to explain how these friendly sentiments stacked up against his earlier fervent subscription to the global paradigm.

The judge is onto it

As Jeremy Roberts in the Australian reported today (Thurs March 1):

“Defence lawyer Kevin Borick asked if Professor McDonald had —œa reasonable doubt as to how HIV causes AIDS?—?

—œI have a doubt about the details,—? said Professor McDonald.

Prosecution witnesses told the court that HIV attacks immune system cells, which decline in number over time, leading to the patient contracting AIDS.

Professor McDonald was asked to consider evidence that there were conditions in which immune system cells declined, but the patient did not test positive to HIV.

Professor McDonald said the court faced a —œdefinitional—? problem, in that AIDS was defined by several symptoms, one of which was a positive test for HIV.

Professor McDonald said he remained certain that HIV caused AIDS, but was unable to point to a single paper which, by itself, proved the link.

—œWe have heard about a large number of papers published in this court and I can not agree that there is no evidence that HIV causes AIDS — taken together the evidence shows HIV results in AIDS,—? he said.

He stood by his statement in the email that it was —œinappropriate to lock people in jail for sexual transmission of HIV—?.

He said —œcriminalisation—? of HIV transmission would undermine the public health system, which relied on people voluntarily submitting to HIV tests and treatment.

—œWith treatment to get the viral load down, the risk of transmission are vastly minimised,—? said Professor McDonald.

—œThe vast majority of patients who are infected with HIV who come into a system of treatment do not behave in manners that cause them to transmit their infection — it is part of the system of care.—?

AIDS specialist called to explain evidence

* Jeremy Roberts
* March 01, 2007

AN eminent doctor was yesterday hauled back into a Supreme Court witness box to explain comments he made in private that appeared to conflict with his sworn testimony.

Emeritus Professor Peter McDonald, of Flinders University in Adelaide, had testified early last month that he —œhad no doubt—? that HIV was the cause of AIDS.

His evidence was part of series of high-powered prosecution experts against an appeal of a HIV-positive man, Andre Chad Parenzee, convicted last year of exposing three women to HIV.

An infectious diseases expert, Professor McDonald chaired the national committee which distributed funds for HIV research from 1988 to 2004.

He was pivotal in organising the appearance of more than six prosecution witnesses in the case, including the co-discoverer of HIV Robert Gallo.

They were rebutting testimony by two defence witnesses, medical physicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and emergency doctor Val Turner, that HIV did not exist and so did not cause AIDS.

But yesterday Professor McDonald was asked to explain an email he sent to US-based scientists just three days after he gave evidence, which was later forwarded to Parenzee’s defence team.

—œI think I share with you some scepticism about the jump from scientific observation to a deduction that HIV transmission and pathogenesis is set in stone and becomes a legitimate basis for criminal prosecution,—? the email says in part.

Defence lawyer Kevin Borick asked if Professor McDonald had —œa reasonable doubt as to how HIV causes AIDS?—?

—œI have a doubt about the details,—? said Professor McDonald.

Prosecution witnesses told the court that HIV attacks immune system cells, which decline in number over time, leading to the patient contracting AIDS.

Professor McDonald was asked to consider evidence that there were conditions in which immune system cells declined, but the patient did not test positive to HIV.

Professor McDonald said the court faced a —œdefinitional—? problem, in that AIDS was defined by several symptoms, one of which was a positive test for HIV.

Professor McDonald said he remained certain that HIV caused AIDS, but was unable to point to a single paper which, by itself, proved the link.

—œWe have heard about a large number of papers published in this court and I can not agree that there is no evidence that HIV causes AIDS — taken together the evidence shows HIV results in AIDS,—? he said.

He stood by his statement in the email that it was —œinappropriate to lock people in jail for sexual transmission of HIV—?.

He said —œcriminalisation—? of HIV transmission would undermine the public health system, which relied on people voluntarily submitting to HIV tests and treatment.

—œWith treatment to get the viral load down, the risk of transmission are vastly minimised,—? said Professor McDonald.

—œThe vast majority of patients who are infected with HIV who come into a system of treatment do not behave in manners that cause them to transmit their infection — it is part of the system of care.—?
OK, not bad wriggling, we would judge. Allowing for small verbal inaccuracies in Jeremy Roberts’ on the spot reporting, it seems that MacDonald averred his fidelity to the overall concept of HIV causing AIDS but admitted he had no idea how it did it and could not quote a paper which definitively established the claim, but he was sure that “all the evidence taken together showed it”.

Kary Mullis effectively testifies

This is surely a set of statements which will confirm in the judge’s mind the impression given by Robert Gallo’s fast talking and inexact testimony, which the judge has been going over in the interim and must have found hardly stands up to close inspection. That impression has to be that the defense of HIV is more a matter of fudging and loose claims than it is of specific facts nailed down in peer reviewed papers.

This defense can now be contrasted with the forthright decisiveness of a Nobelist’s opinion on the matter, and his paper on the topic, which presumably is now being examined with interest by the judge.

Is this Vesuvius for HIV∫AIDS?

It is becoming hard to imagine that the judge will not allow the appeal to go forward, a decision which will have momentous consequences if properly exploited and made known around the world by the dissident camp. It is also hard to conceive that the world press will be as quiet as they have been to date about this matter once that decision is posted.

All in all, another crack in the HIV∫AIDS mountain through which the volcanic lava of scientific correction may blow after twenty two years of media suppression.

It is not inconceivable that MacDonald and other paradigm poo-bahs will end up looking like the inhabitants of Pompeii after the eruption of Vesuvius in Roman times caught them off guard, and quickly reduced them to grotesque statues excavated by archeologists later.

If that is the case the HIV∫AIDS paradigm and its supporters will become the monuments to misguided science that the literature of the field has always told us they are.

7 Responses to “Nobelist against HIV enters court drama”

  1. Michael Says:

    Nicely reported Truthseeker.

    I agree with all of your observations.

    I think that HIV, with the masses, is about to make a sincere change from a “scientifically accepted fact” to the realm of an unprovable “belief”, right beside ghosts and vampires and boogymen.

    Of course this does take time and does not happen overnight, at least not without a full admission from the leading thugs of AIDS Inc., which I do not think would be forthcoming without the threat of a noose around their necks, but….

    I suppose I would be deluded to believe that the big ship lollipop could come to any abrupt halt. It will most likely be more of a slowly slowing down with a prolonged and torturous, but inevitably inevitable, sinking, as the masses slowly awaken to the obvious.

    bloop bloop bloop glug glug.

  2. Martin Kessler Says:

    Until experiments like those proposed by Peter Duesberg are run and published and reported by the mainstream media, the AIDS meme will continue.

  3. Truthseeker Says:

    Alas, a more sophisticated political mind than ours has commented on the above to the effect that “i would love you to be right but you have a snowball’s chance in the tropics…if that “

    and has emailed Jeremy Roberts with the following prediction:

    “the judge has no wish at all to make adelaide the showcase for the international dissident circus trial of the century and no matter how much he was impressed (maybe) by eleni and val, and how off put and unimpressed he might have been by the prosecution experts, this would not persuade him to render anything other than the following

    the court will find that although there appears to exist a certain amount of legitimate questioning in the scientific “community” about aspects of the hiv equals aids equation, it does not constitute sufficient grounds to grant an appeal in a criminal matter, and that the courts are not the places to decide such issues.”

    We agree with this on the principle that the lower one’s expectations in most situations the more promising the outcome, and this is a very low and rather cynical level of expectations. In the case of parties, we have found, for example, that the less one expects before going to a party the more rewarding it turns out to be. In fact, it is very often worth sticking around a party past the time one would normally go home in order to exploit this tendency, which usually pays off. In other words, expecting absolutely nothing to happen at the tail end of a party very often results in a payoff in terms of people and conversation and more that one might otherwise miss.

    This strange tendency can be exploited in realms than other parties, such as jobs, court cases and love, we have noticed, and so we believe that the very expression of profoundly negative expectations recorded above and sent to Jeremy Roberts may almost guarantee a more positive outcome.

    But we won’t say any more for fear of jinxing the brilliant strategy.

    Actually we think that the outlook is rosier because we detect a possible flaw in the cynical and pessimistic approach of Roberts’ correspondent, which is that the judge in Adelaide is not involved in the American system and will not necessarily respond in a way typical of those in the American system domestic or international. He is an Australian and an Adelaide judge, not even a Sydney or Melbourne jurist.

    Knowing the Aussies and allowing for this provincial level of independent thought it seems to us that the Adelaide judge possibly could care less about the politics of international or even national health and not be averse at all to forwarding the appeal, even if he does believe that such things as scientific justifications are no business of a law court to decide.

    In other words it is enough that the science is demonstrated to be unsettled to motivate him to send the case on, on the basis that it renders the facts of the case unverifiable beyond a reasonable doubt, and his politics may well also be uncooperative with HIV∫AIDS internationalism, whatever Melbourne might like.

    The mistake that some Americans may make is to think that the rest of the English speaking world is an extension of their own system and experience when of course it is anything but, and indeed may even tend to be the opposite out of resentment and anatagonism provoked by that very American provincialism. We can imagine that Gallo alienated the judge on this basis.

    Anyhow we will soon find out.

  4. MacDonald Says:

    Hmmm… I seem to remember distinctly something about a policy against publishing private mails without express permission…

  5. Truthseeker Says:

    Emails sent to more than one person are public not private, MacD, as any libel lawyer will tell you, and the policy at NAR is to publish all contributions to the public discussion if they rise to the level of genius, demented or not. We edit out envious insults, that is all.

  6. Dave Says:

    Also, you have to remember that it takes years of judical activism to undo a fraudulent paradigm.

    In the civil rights arena, everybody knows Brown v. Bd. of Education (circa 1954), but few people remember all the lower court cases (and losses) incurred by the NAACP in the 2 decades prior.

    Ditto with Tobacco litigation: If I remember correctly, it wasn’t until early 1990’s before a tobacco company had ever lost a case — and then the dam broke and billions of $$ were transferred from Big Tobacco to Plaintiff’s attorneys and gov’ts.

  7. Michael Says:

    The interesting thing to me, judging by the words of the affected HIV positives in the street, is that many of them are now questioning HIV and whether or not it is the cause of AIDS. In the last two days alone, two people who know of my own dissident position, shared with me that friends of theirs, who they least expected, surprisingly and unexpectedly voiced to them doubts that their HIV positive status means anything at all.

    This is really quite remarkable to me, in that it shows that the word in the street and in discussions among the HIV diagnosed, is rapidly turning to one of serious doubt.

    I do not attribute this to the present court case in Australia, which will inevitably further the public doubt as it dribbles and drabbles into the dialogues of the masses.

    I do attribute it to word of mouth, and person to person discussions among the masses.

    The dissident issue is obviously getting louder and louder, and the inertia of it is really quite remarkable.

    Look at the web discussions on this which were unheard of even two and three years ago; YBYL, Lew Rockwell, Tara’s, Hanks, NAR, Dean Esmay, Discussions on AOL and Microsoft Network, AIDS WIKI, and many other blog and discussion groups.

    Look at the media of Harpers and the ICC Guinea Pig Orphan reportage and LA City Beat, and the piece that featured Noreen.

    Look at all of the media reports and books that have come out exposing the lack of integrity at the NIH, FDA, Pharma companies, science, medicine, and research.

    The issue is very much seeping, if not sweeping, into the public consciousness, and this is where the real power to make or break a paradigm lies; with the very same masses who were caught up in the former terror and panic of HIV/AIDS.

    Our global society stands on the edge of a big jump into a bright new world in which the lack of integrity in our government, corporations, and public institutions and religions will not be tolerated.

    Once a point of anger has been reached, it will propel all of the global society into an all out drive for a purification of business, science/medicine, government, religion, and we will all be propelled by this purification to seek a better way for all of us to live.

    This bodes well for all of our futures, and the future of all of mankind.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 300 access attempts in the last 7 days.