portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article coverage global

corporate dominance | gender & sexuality | health

Pharma myths about AIDS/HIV

Propaganda from pharma corporations like Glaxo-Wellcome perpetuate the AIDS is a virus myth while suppressing important info about poverty, chemical addictions and malnutritional as cause of immune suppresion..
Research into the pharmaceutical corporation's AIDS story is resulting in findings that death from AIDS is not from the virus HIV, instead a combination of factors such as poverty, malnutrition, chemical addictions and other immune suppressing agents..

Here are some points brought up by Christine Maggiore in "What if everything you knew about AIDS was wrong?"

If HIV is the virus responsible for AIDS, then why is viral load in HIV + people with compromised health in low numbers?

Viral load data from PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests assumes "fragments of genetic material PCR finds corresponds to viral load counts". PCR cannot test for viral load directly..

HIV is a retrovirus and non-cytotoxic (non cell killing), yet is claimed to be responsible for killing T cells, the lymphocytes responsible for maintaining a functional immune system..

Glaxo-Wellcome's pharmacocktail AZT is a thirty year old chemotherapy drug that was used unsuccessfully against cancer. Chemotherapy is cytotoxic, and after initially beginning to take AZT, HIV + people show a short term rise in T cells. However, this short term rise in T cells can be attributed to AZT destroying the bone marrow (source of T cells). When AZT attacks the bone marrow, the blood system responds to this destruction by producing more T cells. After long term use of AZT, the bone marrow cannot produce T cells and after the emergency short term rise in T cell count, there is a long term and permanent decline in T cells, usually attributed to "AIDS". If people discovered that the AZT was the actual cause of T cell decline, how would they react?

AIDS in Africa

GW Bush and his pet pharma corporation Eli Lily tell people that AIDS in Africa is a crisis that needs intervention, namely in the form of pharmaceuticals to combat the HIV/AIDS virus..

Here is some other info on "AIDS in Africa"..

Four symptoms required for AIDS diagnosis;

persistant cough
weight loss (10% or consistent over 2 months)

These symptoms are often a result of malnutrition, tuberculosis, unsanitary water and malaria, all problems resulting from poverty and living conditions..

AIDS in gay men

Use of nitrites by gay men during the peak "SF AIDS epidemic" and and ongoing combination of malnutrition, alcoholism, depression and other factors, though very different from Africa, these also contribute to immune suppression. The gay community may need to be open and honest about the focus on materialism and excess drug use when dealing with homophobia and community acceptance. Psychological factors when dealing with right wing homophobia from family or former friends, stress of coming out and immigration to the "gay mecca SF" without dealing with emotional baggage from their point of origin. Being ostracized by family is a serious stress that can impact health and well being, covering up with alcohol or drug use only magnifies the problem..

Neither of the above situations will gain any profit for pharmaceutical corporations if people just live healthier. happier lives and poverty is alleviated. Naturopathy, homeopathy, detox and cleansing, ayurvedic medicine are also other options for restoring the immune system to a functional level..

This book is available from the ACT-UP co-op on 1886 Market Street in SF, or by visiting the virusmyth website;


add a comment on this article

Alive and Well AIDS Alternatives 15.Feb.2005 15:44

mary moth

This site has info in Maggiore's book;


GREAT POST 15.Feb.2005 17:04

Paul King

Thanks for a great post. This article may interest you: -

The Hidden Face of HIV - Part 1
"Knowing is Beautiful"

by Liam Scheff

As a journalist who writes about AIDS, I am endlessly amazed by the difference between the public and the private face of HIV; between what the public is told and what's explained in the medical literature. The public face of HIV is well-known: HIV is a sexually transmitted virus that particularly preys on gay men, African Americans, drug users, and just about all of Africa, although we're all at risk. We're encouraged to be tested, because, as the MTV ads say, "knowing is beautiful." We also know that AIDS drugs are all that's stopping the entire African continent from falling into the sea.

The medical literature spells it out differently - quite differently. The journals that review HIV tests, drugs and patients, as well as the instructional material from medical schools, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and HIV test manufacturers will agree with the public perception in the large print. But when you get past the titles, they'll tell you, unabashedly, that HIV tests are not standardized; that they're arbitrarily interpreted; that HIV is not required for AIDS; and finally, that the term HIV does not describe a single entity, but instead describes a collection of non-specific, cross-reactive cellular material.

That's quite a difference.

The popular view of AIDS is held up by concerned people desperate to help the millions of Africans stricken with AIDS, the same disease that first afflicted young gay American men in the 1980s. The medical literature differs on this point. It says that that AIDS in Africa has always been diagnosed differently than AIDS in the US.

In 1985, The World Health Organization called a meeting in Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic, to define African AIDS. The meeting was presided over by CDC official Joseph McCormick. He wrote about in his book "Level 4 Virus hunters of the CDC," saying, "If I could get everyone at the WHO meeting in Bangui to agree on a single, simple definition of what an AIDS case was in Africa, then, imperfect as the definition might be, we could actually start counting the cases..." The results - African AIDS would be defined by physical symptoms: fever, diarrhea, weight loss and coughing or itching. ("AIDS in Africa: an epidemiological paradigm." Science, 1986)

In Sub-Saharan African about 60 percent of the population lives and dies without safe drinking water, adequate food or basic sanitation. A September, 2003 report in the Ugandan Daily "New Vision" outlined the situation in Kampala, a city of approximately 1.3 million inhabitants, which, like most tropical countries, experiences seasonal flooding. The report describes "heaps of unclaimed garbage" among the crowded houses in the flood zones and "countless pools of water [that] provide a breeding ground for mosquitoes and create a dirty environment that favors cholera."

"[L]atrines are built above water streams. During rains the area residents usually open a hole to release feces from the latrines. The rain then washes away the feces to streams, from where the [area residents] fetch water. However, not many people have access to toilet facilities. Some defecate in polythene bags, which they throw into the stream." They call these, "flying toilets.''

The state-run Ugandan National Water and Sewerage Corporation states that currently 55% of Kampala is provided with treated water, and only 8% with sewage reclamation.

Most rural villages are without any sanitary water source. People wash clothes, bathe and dump untreated waste up and downstream from where water is drawn. Watering holes are shared with animal populations, which drink, bathe, urinate and defecate at the water source. Unmanaged human waste pollutes water with infectious and often deadly bacteria. Stagnant water breeds mosquitoes, which bring malaria. Infectious diarrhea, dysentery, cholera, TB, malaria and famine are the top killers in Africa. But in 1985, they became AIDS.

The public service announcements that run on VH1 and MTV, informing us of the millions of infected, always fail to mention this. I don't know what we're supposed to do with the information that 40 million people are dying and nothing can be done. I wonder why we wouldn't be interested in building wells and providing clean water and sewage systems for Africans. Given our great concern, it would seem foolish not to immediately begin the "clean water for Africa" campaign. But I've never heard such a thing mentioned.

The UN recommendations for Africa actually demand the opposite -"billions of dollars" taken out of "social funds, education and health projects, infrastructure [and] rural development" and "redirected" into sex education (UNAIDS, 1999). No clean water, but plenty of condoms.

I have, however, felt the push to get AIDS drugs to Africans. Drugs like AZT and Nevirapine, which are supposed to stop the spread of HIV, especially in pregnant women. AZT and Nevirapine also terminate life. The medical literature and warning labels list the side effects: blood cell destruction, birth defects, bone-marrow death, spontaneous abortion, organ failure, and fatal skin rot. The package inserts also state that the drugs don't "stop HIV or prevent AIDS illnesses."

The companies that make these drugs take advantage of the public perception that HIV is measured in individual African AIDS patients, and that African AIDS - water-borne illness and poverty - can be cured by AZT and Nevirapine. That's good capitalism, but it's bad medicine.

Currently MTV, Black Entertainment Television and VH1 are running "Know HIV/AIDS"-sponsored advertisements of handsome young couples, black and white, touching, caressing, sensually, warming up to love-making. The camera moves over their bodies, hands, necks, mouth, back, legs and arms - and we see a small butterfly bandage over their inner elbows, where they've given blood for an HIV test. The announcer says, "Knowing is beautiful. Get tested."

A September, 2004 San Francisco Chronicle article considered the "beauty" of testing. It told the story of 59 year-old veteran Jim Malone, who'd been told in 1996 that he was HIV positive. His health was diagnosed as "very poor." He was classified as, "permanently disabled and unable to work or participate in any stressful situation whatsoever." Malone said, "When I wasn't able to eat, when I was sick, my in-home health care nurse would say, 'Well, Jim, it goes with your condition.'

In 2004, his doctor sent him a note to tell him he was actually negative. He had tested positive at one hospital, and negative at another. Nobody asked why the second test was more accurate than the first (that was the protocol at the Veteran's Hospital). Having been falsely diagnosed and spending nearly a decade waiting, expecting to die, Malone said, "I would tell people to get not just one HIV test, but multiple tests. I would say test, test and retest."

In the article, AIDS experts assured the public that the story was "extraordinarily rare." But the medical literature differs significantly.

In 1985, at the beginning of HIV testing, it was known that "68% to 89% of all repeatedly reactive ELISA (HIV antibody) tests [were] likely to represent false positive results." (NEJM - New England Journal of Medicine. 312; 1985).

In 1992, the Lancet reported that for 66 true positives, there were 30,000 false positives. And in pregnant women, "there were 8,000 false positives for 6 confirmations." (Lancet. 339; 1992)

In September 2000, the Archives of Family Medicine stated that the more women we test, the greater "the proportion of false-positive and ambiguous (indeterminate) test results." (Archives of Family Medicine. Sept/Oct. 2000).

The tests described above are standard HIV tests, the kind promoted in the ads. Their technical name is ELISA or EIA (Enzyme-linked Immunosorbant Assay). They are antibody tests. The tests contain proteins that react with antibodies in your blood.

In the US, you're tested with an ELISA first. If your blood reacts, you'll be tested again, with another ELISA. Why is the second more accurate than the first? That's just the protocol. If you have a reaction on the second ELISA, you'll be confirmed with a third antibody test, called the Western Blot. But that's here in America. In some countries, one ELISA is all you get.

It is precisely because HIV tests are antibody tests, that they produce so many false-positive results. All antibodies tend to cross-react. We produce antibodies all the time, in response to stress, malnutrition, illness, drug use, vaccination, foods we eat, a cut, a cold, even pregnancy. These antibodies are known to make HIV tests come up as positive.

The medical literature lists dozens of reasons for positive HIV test results: "transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune disorders, malignancies, alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that are unclear..."(Archives of Family Medicine. Sept/Oct. 2000).

"[H]uman or technical errors, other viruses and vaccines" (Infectious Disease Clinician of North America. 7; 1993)

"[L]iver diseases, parenteral substance abuse, hemodialysis, or vaccinations for hepatitis B, rabies, or influenza..." (Archives of Internal Medicine. August. 2000).

"[U]npasteurized cows' milk... Bovine exposure, or cross-reactivity with other human retroviruses" (Transfusion. 1988)

Even geography can do it:
"Inhabitants of certain regions may have cross-reactive antibodies to local prevalent non-HIV retroviruses" (Medicine International. 56; 1988).

The same is true for the confirmatory test - the Western Blot.
Causes of indeterminate Western Blots include: "lymphoma, multiple sclerosis, injection drug use, liver disease, or autoimmune disorders. Also, there appear to be healthy individuals with antibodies that cross-react...." (Archives of Internal Medicine. August. 2000).

"The Western Blot is not used as a screening tool because...it yields an unacceptably high percentage of indeterminate results." (Archives of Family Medicine. Sept/Oct 2000)

Pregnancy is consistently listed as a cause of positive test results, even by the test manufacturers. "[False positives can be caused by] prior pregnancy, blood transfusions... and other potential nonspecific reactions." (Vironostika HIV Test, 2003).

This is significant in Africa, because HIV estimates for African nations are drawn almost exclusively from testing done on groups of pregnant women.

In Zimbabwe this year, the rate of HIV infection among young women decreased remarkably, from 32.5 to 6 percent. A drop of 81% - overnight. UNICEF's Swaziland representative, Dr. Alan Brody, told the press "The problems is that all the sero-surveillance data came from pregnant women, and estimates for other demographics was based on that." (PLUS News, August, 2004)

When these pregnant young women are tested, they're often tested for other illnesses, like syphilis, at the same time. There's no concern for cross-reactivity or false-positives in this group, and no repeat testing. One ELISA on one girl, and 32.5% of the population is suddenly HIV positive.

The June 20, 2004 Boston Globe reported that "the current estimate of 40 million people living with the AIDS virus worldwide is inflated by 25 percent to 50 percent."

They pointed out that HIV estimates for entire countries have, for over a decade, been taken from "blood samples from pregnant women at prenatal clinics."

But it's not just HIV estimates that are created from testing pregnant women, it's "AIDS deaths, AIDS orphans, numbers of people needing antiretroviral treatment, and the average life expectancy," all from that one test.

I've certainly never seen this in VH1 ad.

At present there are about 6 dozen reasons given in the literature why the tests come up positive. In fact, the medical literature states that there is simply no way of knowing if any HIV test is truly positive or negative:

"[F]alse-positive reactions have been observed with every single HIV-1 protein, recombinant or authentic." (Clinical Chemistry. 37; 1991). "Thus, it may be impossible to relate an antibody response specifically to HIV-1 infection." (Medicine International. 1988)

And even if you believe the reaction is not a false positive, "the test does not indicate whether the person currently harbors the virus." (Science. November, 1999).

The test manufacturers state that after the antibody reaction occurs, the tests have to be "interpreted." There is no strict or clear definition of HIV positive or negative. There's just the antibody reaction. The reaction is colored by an enzyme, and read by a machine called a spectrophotometer.

The machine grades the reactions according to their strength (but not specificity), above and below a cut-off. If you test above the cut-off, you're positive; if you test below it, you're negative.
So what determines the all-important cut-off? From The CDC's instructional material: "Establishing the cutoff value to define a positive test result from a negative one is somewhat arbitrary." (CDC-EIS "Screening For HIV," 2003 )

The University of Vermont Medical School agrees: "Where a cutoff is drawn to determine a diagnostic test result may be somewhat arbitrary... .Where would the director of the Blood Bank who is screening donated blood for HIV antibody want to put the cut-off?...Where would an investigator enrolling high-risk patients in a clinical trial for an experimental, potentially toxic antiretroviral draw the cutoff?" (University of Vermont School of Medicine teaching module: Diagnostic Testing for HIV Infection)

A 1995 study comparing four major brands of HIV tests found that they all had different cut-off points, and as a result, gave different test results for the same sample: "[C]ut-off ratios do not correlate for any of the investigated ELISA pairs," and one brand's cut-off point had "no predictive value" for any other. (INCQS-DSH, Brazil 1995).

I've never heard of a person being asked where they would "want to put the cut-off" for determining their HIV test result, or if they felt that testing positive was a "somewhat arbitrary" experience.

In the UK, if you get through two ELISA tests, you're positive. In America, you get a third and final test to confirm the first two. The test is called the Western Blot. It uses the same proteins, laid out differently. Same proteins, same nonspecific reactions. But this time it's read as lines on a page, not a color change. Which lines are HIV positive? That depends on where you are, what lab you're in and what kit they're using.

The Mayo Clinic reported that "the Western blot method lacks standardization, is cumbersome, and is subjective in interpretation of banding patterns." (Mayo Clinic Procedural. 1988)

A 1988 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that 19 different labs, testing one blood sample, got 19 different Western Blot results. (JAMA, 260, 1988)

A 1993 review in Bio/Technology reported that the FDA, the CDC/Department of Defense and the Red Cross all interpret WB's differently, and further noted, "All the other major USA laboratories for HIV testing have their own criteria." (Bio/Technology, June 1993)

In the early 1990s, perhaps in response to growing discontent in the medical community with the lack of precision of the tests, Roche Laboratories introduced a new genetic test, called Viral Load, based on a technology called PCR. How good is the new genetic marvel?

An early review of the technology in the 1991 Journal of AIDS reported that "a true positive PCR test cannot be distinguished from a false positive." (J.AIDS, 1991)

A 1992 study "identified a disturbingly high rate of nonspecific positivity," saying 18% antibody-negative (under the cut-off) patients tested Viral Load positive. (J. AIDS, 1992)

A 2001 study showed that the tests gave wildly different results from a single blood sample, as well as different results with different test brands. (CDC MMWR. November 16, 2001)

A 2002 African study showed that Viral Load was high in patients who had intestinal worms, but went down when they were treated for the problem. The title of the article really said it all. "Treatment of Intestinal Worms Is Associated With Decreased HIV Plasma Viral Load." (J.AIDS, September, 2002)

Roche laboratories, the company that manufactures the PCR tests, puts this warning on the label:
"The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test... .is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection."

But that's exactly how it is used - to convince pregnant mothers to take AZT and Nevirapine and to urge patients to start the drugs.

The medical literature adds something truly astounding to all of this. It says that reason HIV tests are so non-specific and need to be interpreted is because there is "no virologic gold standard" for HIV tests.

The meaning of this statement, from both the medical and social perspective, is profound. The "virologic gold standard" is the isolated virus that the doctors claim to be identifying, indirectly, with the test.

Antibody tests always have some cross-reaction, because antibodies aren't specific. The way to validate a test is to go find the virus in the patient's blood.

You take the blood, spin it in a centrifuge, and you end up with millions of little virus particles, which you can easily photograph under a microscope. You can disassemble the virus, measure the weight of its proteins, and map its genetic structure. That's the virologic gold standard. And for some reason, HIV tests have none.

In 1986, JAMA reported that: "no established standard exists for identifying HTLV-III [HIV] infection in asymptomatic people." (JAMA. July 18, 1986)

In 1987, the New England Journal of Medicine stated that "The meaning of positive tests will depend on the joint [ELISA/WB] false positive rate. Because we lack a gold standard, we do not know what that rate is now. We cannot know what it will be in a large-scale screening program." ( Screening for HIV: can we afford the false positive rate?. NEJM. 1987)

Skip ahead to 1996; JAMA again reported: "the diagnosis of HIV infection in infants is particularly difficult because there is no reference or 'gold standard' test that determines unequivocally the true infection status of the patient. (JAMA. May, 1996)

In 1997, Abbott laboratories, the world leader in HIV test production stated: "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV antibody in human blood." (Abbot Laboratories HIV Elisa Test 1997)

In 2000 the Journal AIDS reported that "2.9% to 12.3%" of women in a study tested positive, "depending on the test used," but "since there is no established gold standard test, it is unclear which of these two proportions is the best estimate of the real prevalence rate... " (AIDS, 14; 2000).

If we had a virologic gold standard, HIV testing would be easy and accurate. You could spin the patient's blood in a centrifuge and find the particle. They don't do this, and they're saying privately, in the medical journals, that they can't.

That's why tests are determined through algorithms - above or below sliding cut-offs; estimated from pregnant girls, then projected and redacted overnight.

By repeating, again and again in the medical literature that there's no virologic gold standard, the world's top AIDS researchers are saying that what we're calling HIV isn't a single entity, but a collection of cross-reactive proteins and unidentified genetic material.

And we're suddenly a very long way from the public face of HIV.

But the fact is, you don't need to test HIV positive to be an AIDS patient. You don't even have to be sick.

In 1993, the CDC added "Idiopathic CD4 Lymphocytopenia" to the AIDS category. What does it mean? Non-HIV AIDS.

In 1993, the CDC also made "no-illness AIDS" a category. If you tested positive, but weren't sick, you could be given an AIDS diagnosis. By 1997, the healthy AIDS group accounted for 2/3rds of all US AIDS patients. (That's also the last year they reported those numbers). (CDC Year-End Edition, 1997)

In Africa, HIV status is irrelevant. Even if you test negative, you can be called an AIDS patient:

From a study in Ghana: "Our attention is now focused on the considerably large number (59%) of the seronegative (HIV-negative) group who were clinically diagnosed as having AIDS. All the patients had three major signs: weight loss, prolonged diarrhea, and chronic fever." (Lancet. October,1992)

And from across Africa: "2215 out of 4383 (50.0%) African AIDS patients from Abidjan, Ivory Coast, Lusaka, Zambia, and Kinshasa, Zaire, were HIV-antibody negative." (British Medical Journal, 1991)

Non-HIV AIDS, HIV-negative AIDS, No Virologic Gold standard - terms never seen in an HIV ad.
But even if you do test "repeatedly" positive, the manufacturers say that "the risk of an asymptomatic [not sick] person developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known." (Abbott Laboratories HIV Test, 1997)

If commerce laws were applied equally, the "knowing is beautiful" ads for HIV testing would have to bear a disclaimer, just like cigarettes:

"Warning: This test will not tell you if you're infected with a virus. It may confirm that you are pregnant or have used drugs or alcohol, or that you've been vaccinated; that you have a cold, liver disease, arthritis, or are stressed, poor, hungry or tired. Or that you're African. It will not tell you if you're going to live or die; in fact, we really don't know what testing positive, or negative, means at all."

great disinfo post 17.Feb.2005 01:19

retro viro logic


Better yet - volunnteer for an intravenous injection of HIV tainted blood --- for science --- to demonstrate that HIV doesn't cause AIDS!

Come back in a few years to let us know how your doing...

Dr. Willner did just that 17.Feb.2005 02:51


Dr. Willner did just that SEVEN TIMES including live on television in Spain. He never became sick.

If you don't believe me do a web search on Dr. Willner.

More on Dr. Willner 17.Feb.2005 03:16



Caption from an accompanying photograph:

Author of Deadly Deception: The Proof That Sex And HIV Absolutely Do Not Cause AIDS, Dr. Robert E. Willner stuns Spain by innoculating himself with the blood of Pedro Tocino, an HIV positive hemophiliac. This demonstration to prove the HIV virus does not cause AIDS and is in fact harmless was reported on the front page of every major newspaper in Spain. His appearance on Spain's most popular television show evoked a 4 to 1 response by the viewing audience in favor of his position against the "AIDS Hypothesis", yet this historic event was never mentioned in the U.S. press... Why?


Billion dollar scam exposed 17.Feb.2005 03:25

Paul King

Behind every 'AIDS' story lies a money making scam.

The story: -

FLEMINGTON, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 16, 2005--

Results of a new national survey of 864 physicians and 1,339 members of
general public revealed that a significant majority of both groups believe
that mandatory, federally funded HIV testing would improve the overall
health of the U.S. population.

The national e-survey was conducted by HCD Research during February 12
as part of its continuing investigation of the social, political and
economic issues confronting the U.S. health care system. The margin of
in the survey was plus or minus 3% at a 95% confidence level.

The survey revealed that among the general public:

-- 63% of Americans believe that mandatory, federally funded HIV testing
would improve the overall health of the U.S. population

-- 60% indicated that the associated health care benefits of mandatory,
federally funded HIV testing outweigh the social implications

-- 40% indicated that the social implications of mandatory, federally
HIV testing outweigh the associated health care benefits

The most frequently cited social concerns of those representing the
public who were not in favor of mandatory testing were:

Difficulty obtaining life insurance 76%

Job/employment issues 71%

The least frequently reported social concerns were:

The cost of testing is too high for public funding 52%

Difficulty in marriage and other social relations 51%

Inadequate access to medical and psychological counseling 46%

Among the sample of physicians:

-- 64% believe that mandatory, federally funded HIV testing would improve
the overall health of the U.S. population

-- 59% reported that the associated health care benefits of mandatory,
federally funded HIV testing outweigh the social implications

-- 41% indicated that the social implications of mandatory, federally
HIV testing outweigh the associated health care benefits

The most frequently cited social concerns by physicians who were not in
favor of mandatory testing were:

Difficulty obtaining life insurance 84%

Job/employment issues 77%

The least frequently reported social concerns were:

Difficulty in marriage and other social relations 48%

Inadequate access to medical and psychological counseling 44%

The cost of testing is too high for public funding 34%

"Physicians are a distinct group who share similar education, income and
status in society, and it is intriguing that their views reflect those of
the general public on serious and evolving health care issues such as this
one," noted Glenn Kessler, Co-Founder and Managing Partner, HCD Research.

According to a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine, health
experts recommend that virtually all Americans be screened routinely for
HIV AIDS virus, much as they are for cancer and other conditions. In
addition, the report cited recent federally funded studies which
that the cost of routinely testing and treating nearly all adults would be
outweighed by a reduction in new infections and the opportunity to start
patients on antiviral medications early in the disease progression.

HCD Research is a marketing and communications research company
headquartered in Flemington, NJ. The company's services include
and web-based marketing and communications research. HCD Research also
developed readmylipz.com, a political ad testing web site for the 2004
Presidential campaign. For additional information on HCD Research, access
the company's web site at www.hcdi.net or call HCD Research at (908)

For more information or to schedule an interview with Glenn Kessler,
Co-Founder and Managing Partner, HCD Research, please contact Vince
McGourty, M&M Communications, Inc., at 908-638-5555 or


M&M Communications, Inc.
Vince McGourty, 908-638-5555
HCD Research
Glenn Kessler, 908-788-9393



HCD Research

Marketing company for the drugs and test companies.

Trip Trepagnier, Vice President, Marketing Research Services

He also was director of centralized marketing and headed U.S.
marketing for Bayer Diagnostics, and held sales and marketing management
positions of increasing scope and responsibility with DuPont Diagnostics.

Glenn Kessler, Managing Partner

Prior to founding HCD Research, Kessler held sales and marketing positions
with Roche Diagnostic Systems, Inc. and Ortho Diagnostics Systems, a
Johnson & Johnson company. He served as director of national accounts and
was a member of the Roche Diagnostic Operating Committee.

Ina Noble, Director, Marketing Research Services

Noble has held sales and marketing positions with SMG Marketing Group,
IMS, Dentsply
International, Becton Dickinson and Company, EM Diagnostics, Inc. and ER
Squibb and Sons, Inc.

Arthur J. Kover, Ph.D. Senior Consultant, Adversting Research Services

Dr. Kover is a leader in the design and execution of advertising research
programs. During the 90's, he was the Chairman of the Marketing Department
at Fordham University's Graduate School of Business. Prior to entering
academia, Dr. Kover spent 20 years directing research initiatives at some
of the world's largest advertising agencies including, Kenyon & Eckhardt
(now Bozell), Cunningham & Walsh and J. Walter Thompson.


Funny how the senior personel of this market research company worked for
just about every manufacturer of multi million dollar AIDS and Hep C
diagnostic machines.

Who thinks their survey was without bias?

RDI is a distributor of fine immunochemical products including pure
Janssen drugs for in vitro research (anti-fungals, anti-psychotics,
anti-histaminics, anti-neuroleptics and more..) , monoclonal antibodies
against items as CD clustered immunoglobulins, anti-growth factors,
receptors, proteins, tumor markers, toxins, viruses, cytokeratins,
cytoskeletal proteins, and ion transport proteins (NA K & Ca ATPase etc)
high purity immunochemicals as cytokines, growth factors, and chemokines,
  Gold conjugates EM/LM/Bioassay use, detection systems as our POLY-HRP
Product line and reagents for sensitive ELISA and histochemical
development, Cytochrome P450 enzymes and antibodies for drug research,
 new Elisa kits for  Biogenic amines (histamine, adrenaline,
serotonin and more). , Other Kits for Cytokines, IgG Subclass, Steroid
Hormones , Bioprocess Contaminants (see master kit list) .... &    Pure
Antigens for immunoassay development and in vitro research use.  CLICK
HERE to see our list of pure/USP grade drug/metabolites/analytical


Ortho Diagnostics Systems

The right assay at the right time-ready for automation

Only Ortho has all the assays required today for donor screening. Ortho
has an unparalleled track record of being first to market with assays and
systems technology. And we'll continue to provide new tests and
technologies as needed to continue to ensure a safe blood supply.

Screening Assays

HCV Version 3.0 ELISA
HIV-1 p24 Antigen ELISA
HIV-1/HIV-2 Peptide EIA
HBsAg System 3.0
HBc ELISA System

Confirmatory Assays

Chiron™ RIBA™ HCV 3.0 SIA
HBsAg 3.0 ELISA Confirmatory Test
HIV-1 p24 Antigen Neutralization Kit


Bayer Diagnostics

ACS:180® SE Automated Chemiluminescence System

ADVIA Centaur® Immunoassay System

Bayer Immuno 1® Immunoassay Analyzer


Roche Diagnostics is the premier diagnostics company, with unrivalled
breadth and depth of technology, broad product and service offerings, and
a strong global presence. Our products and services meet the expectations
of people working in large and small medical laboratories, physicians'
offices, pharmacies, research labs and industry as well as the needs of
patients requiring assistance with self-monitoring.

Main products: - AIDS and Hep C machines


This seemingly genuine study turns out to be a carefully engineered piece of propaganda intended to give the green light to manditory testing. The result would be billions of dollars in sales for these multi million dollar machines.

Behind every 'AIDS' story lies a money making scam.

finally someone is talking about this... 17.Feb.2005 08:52

i'm a dissident too

What makes any of us think that the war on AIDS is different than any other "war on (drugs, terror)?" Why don't people want to look deeper into this issue? How can AIDS in Africa be SO different that AIDS in the US? Dig deep and think about who benefits from the millions of dollars of funding given to programs, countries, etc. Most people who die of AIDS do so because of the pharmaceutical toxins they are taking to "supress" the virus. I work with drug addicts and a good 75% of them who are IDU's (intraveneous drug users) have HEP C. Not very many have HIV. Hep C is an actual health epidemic and we are still focused on HIV/AIDS. I remember growing up in the fear based late 80's, early 90's...think about what you have actually researched on HIV/AIDS on your own. Why shouldn't we use our critical thinking skills, political perspectives and dissent to examine this issue along with the many other fear based lies fed to us by those in charge?

Fascist Warning 17.Feb.2005 09:22


Someone posted a link to

Please, let's get real here. That is a quote from the SPOTLIGHT, a far-right fascist, anti-semitic newspaper that denies the Holocaust. Come back when you have some real information and stop trolling here.

I hate you people. 17.Feb.2005 15:30


Ive recently lost a good friend because of this shit. He refused to take the drugs and now is very sick and has AIDS dementia (when he could have still been healthy) and to make matters worse I know that in his strange mental state begun having unprotected sex with others... I quote: "I'll never use a condom again!". He thinks he's the seccond comming and was put on this earth to spread the truth about AIDS... Kind of ironic really - an other unnecessary human sacrifice to show that AIDS is caused by HIV and that without the drugs we will all die.

All you people do is help the companies that don't want to supply a cure to Africa. Looting for diamonds, oil and uranium is so much more profitable than healthy happy people. Kids could be born healthy and their parents could live to see them grow up. Condoms could stop the spread. But you people would rather let humanity die than be proved wrong.

You are killers. 17.Feb.2005 15:41


See my friend got HIV when he was young and dumb, having unprotected sex. He did not want to believe he would really die. When you people convinced him that the drugs would not work you murdered him. When he couldn't face his own mortality you used that to convince him that HIV would not cause AIDS. Now he is a murderer.

Alternative theories still speculative 17.Feb.2005 15:45


It is certainly true that there are a lot of political motives in AIDS research, and some of them evil. I also belive that some of the alternative theories of AIDS are promising and should continue to be reasearched. The economic and social sanctions applied by the medical community on Peter Duesberg's lab, for example, are attrocious, and attention should be brought to this attrocity. However, in regards to ideas about the disease itself, I think that a brief socio-political analysis of the AIDS research community is hardly a stand-in for medical research, and that until real medical research is conducted, titles implying that the HIV/AIDS causality is a "myth" are very imprudent. Neither hypothesis regarding the causality between HIV and AIDS has enough support to be considered strictly proven. Unless you are trusting your life to hearsay or the opinions of a small group microbiologists, I would still regard HIV as a dangerous disease until it has been shown to be harmless. People can make scientific research say whatever they want providing that their audience is not well versed in interpreting scientific literature (which most of us aren't), regardless of their position on society or motivation -- a condition which should be taken as seriously when reading indymedia as when reading the new york times.

You have the sites mixed up or are lying 17.Feb.2005 19:14


"Please, let's get real here. That is a quote from the SPOTLIGHT, a far-right fascist, anti-semitic newspaper that denies the Holocaust. "

The site has no political agenda but it would be fair to say most members are left wing. The site is in no way connected with 'SPOTLIGHT' and is a long established dissident site.

You are either confused or simply making this up to try to discredit the information.

The only fascist around here is the puritan 'AIDS' money making scam.

Nothing makes sense about AIDS being an std 17.Feb.2005 19:23

David Lane


Population: - 86,241,697 as of July 2004
Population Growth: - 1.88% (well under most countries in Africa)

Death rate 5.53 per 1,000

Median age: - 22.1 years (Lots of young people)

HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate: - Less than 0.1% (One sixth of the U.S. figure)

HIV/AIDS deaths: - Less than 500



The U.S. Army study of 1.1 million G.I.'s who were stationed in the Phillipines (over a ten year period) and kept 100,000 prostitutes in business (70% were said to be HIV positive.

The study showed only ONE was HIV positive and not sick.This was the only case of mass HIV testing in the World.

Condoms in the Phillipines are of such poor quality that only 8% can even hold water.


There are 400,000 to 500,000 prostituted persons in the Philippines.

Prostituted persons are mainly adult women, but there are also male, transvestite and child prostitutes, both girls and boys. (International
Labor Organization. Dario Agnote, "Sex trade key part of S.E. Asian economies, study says," Kyodo News, 18 August 1998)

In the Philippines, a recent study showed there are about 75,000 children, who were forced into prostitution due to poverty. (Dario Agnote, "Sex
trade key part of S.E. Asian economies, study says," Kyodo News, 18 August 1998)

There are 400,000 women in prostitution in 1998, excluding unregistered, seasonal prostitutes, overseas entertainers and victims of external trafficking. One fourth of them are children and each year 3,266 more children are forced into the sex industry. (GABRIELA, Diana Mendoza, "RP
Has 400,000 Prostitutes," TODAY, 25 February 1998)

Military prostitution, it added, has always been a problem in the past when the US bases were still in the country. Past experience clearly showed that the security of the Filipino people, especially women and children, from the US military was never taken into account.
("Ex-streetwalkers fight VFA: Form advocacy groups in urban centers," The
Philippine Journal, 18 September 1998)


Subsequently, the U.S. built 23 military installations covering a total area of more than 240,000 hectares ofland (2,400 sq.km.) by the time of the signing of the Military Bases Agreement in 1947. At its peak the bases
occupied nearly 1% of the country's total land area not to mention 11,000 hectares of territorial waters and a large swath of air space.


"Why don't Filipinos want US troops in the Philippines?

There is a long history of US military intervention in the Philippines from the Philippine-American War (1899-1916) in which the US colonized the
Philippines. Filipinos resisted and one-eighth of the Filipino people were killed. Even though the Philippines officially became independent from the US in 1946, the US ensured control of the US military bases in the Philippines and access to Philippine natural resources.

The US military bases were finally kicked out in 1991 after mass protest from the Filipino people who were tired of special protected status for US soldiers, toxic wastes (that until today, the US refuses to clean up), the prostitution of Filipinas, and the spread of alcoholism and drug use. Filipinos don't want these again. "




Legal prostitution.
Massive red light district.

Population: - 16,318,199 (Jan. 2004)
Median age: - 38.7
Death rate: - 8.67 per 1,000
Life expectancy: - 78.68
HIV/AIDS Prevalence (adult) 0.2%
People living with 'AIDS' : - 17,000
Total deaths: - 110 (2001 est)


Legal prostitution and very liberal sexual attitudes and yet only one thid the prevalence of 'AIDS' compared to America. The Phillipines with up to half a million prostitutes and low condom usage has one sixth the prevalence of 'AIDS' compared to America. ONE SIXTH!

retrovirals are for westerners only 17.Feb.2005 19:30

retro viral logic

good comments sad - it is sad that these people are indirectly promoting indirect murder, and that they are incapable of expressing regret or remorse for doing so.

Sorry you lost your friend - s/he is partly responsible.

Anti AIDS-deniers site: 17.Feb.2005 20:14


About Paul King... 17.Feb.2005 20:25


THE GREAT HIV / AIDS HOAX 17.Feb.2005 22:42



The multi-billion dollar AIDS/HIV fraud is based on two fabrications: that AIDS is a single disease and that it is caused by the HI virus or the "HIV virus" as some medical/media masterminds call it - perhaps they think the V in HIV stands for volcano.

In Japan "AIDS" is virtually unknown : yet, in random tests, 25% of people were found to be "HIV-positive".
HIV-positive response means nothing of any relevance to health: it can be triggered by vaccination, malnutrition, M.S., measles, influenza,
papilloma virus wart, Epstein Barr virus, leprosy, glandular fever, hepatitis, syphillis ... : over sixty different conditions.

Dr Robert E. Willner, inoculated himself with the blood of Pedro Tocino, a HIV-positive haemophiliac, on live Spanish television: an event which was not picked up the pharma-beholden British or US media.

The great HIV/AIDS lie was created by Robert Gallo who was found guilty of "scientific misconduct". "...instead of trying to prove his insane theories about AIDS to his peers...he went public. Then, with the help of
Margaret Heckler, former head of Health and Human Services, who was under great political pressure to come up with an answer to AIDS, the infamous
world press announcement of the discovery of the so-called AIDS virus came about.

This great fraud is now responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands... It was no accident that Gallo just happened to patent the test for HIV the day after the announcement...Gallo is now a multi-millionaire because of AIDS and his fraudulent AIDS test." Dr.

By grouping together 25-plus different diseases and other allied factors -
pneumonia, herpes, candidiasis, salmonella, various cancers, infections, vaccine and antibiotic damage, amyl nitrate damage, malnutrition etc.and,
particularly in Africa, TB, malaria, dysentery leprosy and "slim disease" - and calling the whole thing an "AIDS epidemic", a multi-billion dollar/pound "AIDS research and treatment" racket has been created.

The mythical "HIV-induced AIDS plague" in the Third World generates huge sums of cash from Western relief organisations whilst smokescreening the
vaccine/drug boys, responsible for the carnage.

Every death of someone "HIV-positive" is recorded as an "AIDS death".

Periodically, the BBC/ITV/Press visit
Africa/Yugoslavia/Russia etc to
report on the "HIV/AIDS victims" and how they cannot afford the "life-saving AZT." Glaxo Wellcome's lethal drug, AZT, in combination with the diagnosis of
HIV-positive and the prediction, stated or implied, that - "You will die of AIDS" is one of the great pieces of Medical Black Magic - Voodoo Medicine at its most impressive: people have committed suicide on the
basis of the ludicrous diagnosis.

Pregnant women who are HIV-positive have been told to stop breast-feeding, dosed with AZT, have had abortions or have been sterilised. HIV-positive
babies who become ill -from vaccination or whatever - are automatically diagnosed as "suffering from AIDS".
"Considering that there is little scientific proof of the exact linkage of HIV and AIDS, is it ethical to prescribe AZT, a toxic chain terminator of DNA...to 150,000 Americans - among them pregnant women and newborn babies..? Rep.G Gutknecht US House of Representatives.

New Labour "Health" have now announced that all pregnant women in the UK will be "offered" a HIV test. Those who fall for the scam and who are diagnosed as "HIV positive" will be given the chance to have themselves and their unborn child permanently damaged by AZT etc. Pregnancy, itself, can cause a positive diagnosis.

AZT began as a "cancer drug" but was withdrawn for being too toxic: like being thrown out of the Gestapo for cruelty. Its effects include - cancer, hepatitis, dementia, seizures, anxiety, impotence, leukopaenia, , severe
nausea, ataxia, etc. and the termination of DNA synthesis. i.e. AIDS/death by prescription. AZT eventually kills all those who continue to take it.

"WARNING : Retrovir (AZT)...has been associated with symptomatic myopathy, similar to that produced by Human Immunodeficiency Virus..." Glaxo
Wellcome literature!

None of which stops the medical trade from pushing it on every trusting sap who is not ill to start with but is labelled with the "HIV-positive" nonsense and then destroyed by AZT; with "AIDS" getting the blame - and
more billions pouring in for the drug boys, vivisectors, animal breeders and the rest. The latest stunt is to give a "cocktail" of drugs - including AZT, of course, and at £12,000 per head, per year - to all homosexual men who are "HIV-positive".

A particularly good scam is to haul into court someone "guilty of deliberately infecting the victim with the 'HIV-Virus which causes AIDS' " which then develops into "full-blown AIDS" - no mention of vaccine,
antibiotic damage etc or full-blown AZT. Over 2000 - and rising, of the world's scientists are now disputing the HIV hoax, their efforts being continually suppressed by the AIDS establishment, the pharmaceutical/vivisection syndicate and their political and media lackeys

The REAL scam 17.Feb.2005 23:10


Giving pregnant women doses of anti-retroviral drugs makes transmission to the baby far less likely and HIV-positive babies are often cured completely through treatment with the drugs. Combinations of drugs in a few doses directly after transmission is often used to prevent the virus developing in people exposed.

But curing people of the disease is not profitable. Better not to develope a vaccine... Better to let them catch HIV not using condoms and clean needles, then develop full-blown AIDS then spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars treating it in the same way as diabetes and other non-terminal but permanent diseases.

But it won't last because every decade the disease becomes quicker and more lethal. The oldest strains took 20 years to develope... then 10 years and not only a couple. Time is running out. We don't need any more denial. We need a vaccine!

Ask Questions 18.Feb.2005 05:33

Mass Hysteria

There's really not enough "meat" in this posting, and it attempts to debunk the "AIDS" myth by scratching the surface. Still, I'm glad it was posted because we've got some debate going on here.
Simple facts for those who continually beat the "AIDS" drum...there isn't ONE HIV test approved by the FDA for the diagnosing HIV infection. Not one. Test kits bear disclaimers that state that there is NO standard for diagnosing HIV infection. That alone should make all of us questioning what's going on.
Because HIV hasn't been found in fresh, uncultured plasma and subjected to the scrutiny of Koch's postulates, it's role as THE cause of AIDS hasn't been proven. Mountains of correlation don't prove causation.
The fact that AIDS in Africa is distinctly different than AIDS in the west is another red flag. AIDS in Africa is equally distributed between the sexes. AIDS in the west is predominantly male. AIDS in Africa doesn't require an HIV test (which can't tell if one's HIV-infected or not, anyway), but instead relies on very ordinary symptoms that could be attributed to numerous illnesses common to Africans. AIDS in the US requires HIV tests, plus a CD4 count to determine if one has AIDS. Unlike the Africans who are diagnosed by actual illness, in the US, one can feel well, but based on lab markers, are determined to have AIDS. The patient is then started on a regimen of immune-suppressive drugs that mimic AIDS-defining diseases, and lo and behold...they finally get the desired result, AIDS.
The fact that the actual definition of AIDS has changed at least three times since an outbreak of illnesses amongst gay men in a few cities in the early 80's is another red flag. Why is the definition of AIDS a moving target? Why doesn't Canada define AIDS the same way as the US? AIDS in Canada still requires that the patient is actually ill. Canadian AIDS doesn't require a CD4 count. The difference between Canadian AIDS and US AIDS is that Canadians aren't started on AIDS drugs until they show symptoms of illness. Why the difference? Shouldn't the definition be the same globally?
These are just a few of the red flags that should be considered when discussing AIDS. There's plenty of information out there. Here are some sites to look at.

Are you people for real? 21.Feb.2005 00:27


If you believe HIV doesn't cause AIDS, you are a fool. More importantly, HIV will kill you, eventually, if you don't get treatment. My boyfriend is positive and almost died when his T cells went to 0 about 8 years ago. He didn't know he was infected at the time. The death of his T cells had nothing to do with malnutrition, depression, materialism, or any of the other bullshit I've read on here. HIV was the cause. After being put on the standard meds, his T cells worked there way back up to about 450-500, where they have stayed for years. As long as he takes his meds and keeps his immune system healthy he will be from opportunistic infections and diseases. I can't believe I'm wasting my time typing this, most intelligent people know what is up.

Anyone who doesn't have a good understanding of HIV/AIDS should read the book "And the Band Played On."

add a comment on this article