THE SLOW DEATH OF THE AIDS/CANCER PARADIGM

When George Orwell wrote his visionary dystopian novel “1984”, he introduced a new form of imagined language created by the totalitarian state of Oceania. This language was devised to meet the state’s ideological needs. The language was called “Newspeak”. It superseded standard english which was called “Oldspeak”. It was a linguistic tool that was designed with intention to promote a particular world view and at the same time to remove the possibility of creative or inventive thought--thought considered to be heretical by state authority. It accomplished this goal by eliminating certain words from the language and by giving other words new meaning. The vocabulary was divided into sections: The A vocabulary was for business, the B vocabulary was to be used for politics and finally, the C section vocabulary included words that related specifically to science and the technical fields. It was a language created in such a way that the individual cipher lost the facility to contemplate the connections among the various disciplines and draw any meaningful conclusions. It was the language of manipulation and deception. Today it might fall under the rubric of “political correctness” as it defines the sanctioned boundaries within which it is permissible to have any discourse, political or scientific or the scientific that has become politicized. For example, much of science that reaches the general public is no longer the science done by individuals raising questions and seeking answers. Much of what passes for current science addresses itself to solving preformed notions of desired outcomes. It works backward to find a solution rather than forward to an honest outcome which might contradict the desired solution. The public (including physicians) is then given the dumbed down version of a duplicitous process, that has been filtered through self-appointed committees who decide by consensus what they want and do not want the public to know. Almost thirty years ago there was a committee convened that constructed what I shall call the AIDSworld view. AIDSworld has been, with malicious intent, linguistically structured in such a way that it has generated years of fear and confusion in the public mind. The strategy has been successfully accomplished by the clever manipulation of scientific language to construct a new genre of obfuscation that I shall call “AIDSPEAK. AIDSpeak lacks the essential fundamental characteristic of scientific language--precision. I begin this treatise on the HIV/AIDS paradigm with a reference to Orwell, because the language of HIV/AIDS has become so dense that the need for a way to elucidate rather than obscure and to begin to have a commonly understood vocabulary is one of the most paramount issues in this matter. The predominate questions to be initially addressed are: What is really meant in the AIDS literature with the use of words such as “virus”, or “isolation” or “viral load”? In AIDSpeak, a virus is not a virus, isolation is not isolation, an HIV antibody test is not an HIV antibody test, viral load is not viral load and immune deficiency turns out to have its origin in the objectively decreasing amounts of available energy. More importantly, the term AIDS has been used as if it were a singular disease. In fact, not only is there not a singular disease “AIDS”, the theory is not even that HIV causes AIDS, but that HIV causes AID which causes S. Thus, the first order of business is to deconstruct the language by reference to and analysis of the research in this area and to clarify the intentional vagueness by translating AIDSpeak into english. To simplify the complexity of AIDSpeak I will review a brief history of word corruption that has been used to convince the world that a new unique virus was discovered and classified and called by the flagrant misnomer, the human immunodeficiency virus-HIV. As asserted by Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier, the two researchers most associated with the HIV/AIDS paradigm, although not demonstrated by their published work, HIV (HTLV-III and LAV) is the cause of AID, not AIDS. The distinction is crucial. AID is defined as a decrease in the number of CD4+T cells circulating in the periphery. It was alleged that the demise of circulating CD4+T cell lymphocytes by this virus is the “acquired deficiency” by sex and or blood that dooms an individual to a future of disease mayhem and the development of one or more of the 29 listed conditions as defined by the Centers for Disease Control-the S or syndrome. This assumption of a killer virus as the sole cause of AID, (decrease in circulating lymphocytes) was made even though it was already known by work completed in the 1970s by one of the major AIDS cheerleaders and leading bureaucrats, Little Anthony Fauci, long time NIAID director, who seems to have conveniently forgotten his own early work that demonstrated that these immune cells leave the periphery under various stressful conditions. By the early 1980s it was already common knowledge among immunologists that the vagaries of lymphocyte levels in disparate diseases made their enumeration a “waste of time” and counting their numbers in the blood stream had little if any clinical significance. There was even a commentary in August 28th 1981edition of JAMA that stated that... “The T and B cell measures, having run through the sick, the elderly, the young, the pregnant, the bereaved, had finally run out of diseases. Each condition was the subject of many reports; so that now, to give but one example, we can conclude with some assurance that T cell numbers are up, down, or unchanged in old folks...and now it’s starting all over again, this time with T cell subsets...My strongest argument is this: Measurement of T and B cells and their subsets in diseases has no clinical meaning...Non-immunologists have naturally assumed that any subject occupying so much space must be relevant in some way--a logical but incorrect assumption.” These were warnings against using these unreliable cell counts as a measure of morbidity.