Folks, we're back again, third installment on the little series I'm doing here on germ theory and AIDS. Tonight's topic, we are going to begin with AIDS. Now, you even mentioned this word today and people get scared. Well, fear not, folks. Hopefully, after hearing tonight's show, you will be a lot less scared. And I'll have saved you a lot of trouble, a lot of anguish, a lot of fear related to this hoax called AIDS. I'm going to draw heavily tonight again from the works of Dr. Bill Holub, who has been telling America basically since 1984 that AIDS is not at all what it seems. His work, his seminal work on AIDS, a compendium that's about 50, 60 pages, has about four or five hundred references in it. In fact, even more than that. It's one of the most well-documented pieces of scholarship I've ever seen. And I'm not going to bother to read you all those references. But I am going to read you some excerpts from that piece of work because after hearing it, I am sure you will change your opinion on this disease, this alleged disease called AIDS. I'm reading from the work of Dr. Bill Holub. Multifactorial damage, not HIV. The percent of people theoretically exposed to the virus who subsequently develop AIDS is very small. It is about one percent. This fact and many other pieces of information strongly support the role of many cofactors contributing to immune suppression. With the immense number of cofactors already indicated, it is clear that AIDS cannot possibly be caused by HIV. However, the cofactors scenario cannot make as large profits for the medical-pharmaceutical complex as does the HIV hypothesis because their formula is HIV, medication, and death. Now, folks, cofactors simply refers to cofactors, other things involved in producing acquired immune deficiency syndrome outside of the virus. Thus, susceptibility, as defined as poor health, is the major factor in AIDS and not microbes. In a well-referenced work by Drs. Patrick Donovan and Herb Joyner-Bay, many obvious documented susceptibility factors are described, including many concurrent infections, antibiotic use, malnutrition, food tolerance, malabsorption syndrome, stress, smoking, and in parentheses, and in parentheses, we see that Philip Morris is increasing the marketing of Marlboro's for the gay community, lack of sleep and exercise, etc. This cofactor concept is supported by many in the area of AIDS research. For example, receiving any blood products, transfusions, protein factors, allergy shots, gamma globulin shots, protein hormones, etc. are specifically and dramatically immunosuppressive. Actually, immunosuppression is a synonym for poor health. While we cannot go into this in depth here, you must understand that the immune system is poorly understood by many in the health care field. The immune system is not a system, and it does not fight the bad guys, germs, cancer cells, etc. The immune system is actually a group of cells, white blood cells, and their associated organs, circulatory lymphatic and other systems. The actual job of the white blood cell is not the exciting romantic pentagon-like soldier function of fighting the enemy, as I had told you in one of the previous shows, folks, but is rather the boring, necessary job of building and maintaining your body. Thus, white cells are far more like janitors than a SWAT team. In the case of AIDS, you can discount another word as not accurately describing what is happening. We have established that AIDS is not acquired, and now we can tell you that AIDS is not an immunodeficiency, at least not until modern medicine treats it. The person diagnosed with AIDS actually has a hyperactive and competent immune system. Their immune system is very capable of producing all the necessary healing reactions, such as fever, swollen lymph nodes, high antibody titers, etc. These are all indications of an active immune system cleaning up toxic damage. Now, remember what I mentioned on the last shows in the germ theory, folks. The disease is the cure. Remember, what modern medicine has labeled disease is your body in the process of eliminating toxins. And this is exactly what Bill Hollib is saying in reference to AIDS. These are all indications of an active immune system cleaning up toxic damage. When medicine, quote-unquote, treats that person, and or if that person continues a toxic, self-damaging lifestyle, then their health and their ability to heal is what actually becomes deficient. They are actually deficient in good health advice, something you unfortunately cannot get from modern medicine. AIDS is not transmitted. Of course, AIDS was claimed to be sexually transmitted. If you claim that a disease is specific to a certain sexual lifestyle, then you are saying that it is sexually transmitted. If one accused gays of having this, quote-unquote, new disease, then it was a gay sex that caused the disease. One of their proofs was that the men with AIDS had 1,100 sexual partners per lifetime, about 10 to 15 years, and their control group without AIDS had 500 sexual partners per lifetime. Therefore, sexual promiscuity caused the transmission of the disease, allegedly. But you have to ask an obvious question. If anyone sought out, homosexual or heterosexual, relationships in such numbers, averaging two different ones per week, and if each encounter involved drugs and medications, then they are obviously not having nourishing sex and do not have a healthy lifestyle. Having a malnourishing lifestyle has nothing to do with sexual preferences. Anyone can have a malnourishing lifestyle. All you have to do, and this is the consistent history in all AIDS persons, is eat poorly, use drugs, medications, have unloving malnourishing sex, be medically treated for chronic ailments, have poor emotional, spiritual inputs, etc. So it's not the number of sexual partners you have, but rather how nourishing is your sex life. Remember that food and sex are the core of human nature, and both are necessary inputs for human health. In a good review article, a very astute gay observed that a very homophobic culture created, quote, a disease for which supposedly the cure is to go back to all the styles that were preached at us in the first place. Another offered proof was that anal sex was a factor, because sperm pumped into a rabbit's anus, which was unnecessarily a horrible experiment, caused antibodies in their blood, and that could suppress immunity. Now, this typical example of bad science was, of course, poorly designed with absolutely no controls, and, I will have you know, ladies and gentlemen, that recent searches for HIV-1 in semen have proved absolutely fruitless. That's right, they cannot find HIV-1 in semen. Another supposed proof showed that a large percent of homosexuals showed antibodies to the alleged AIDS virus when anal intercourse was practiced. Now, once again, the bad science indicated in this report showed many other differences between the groups, which could explain the disparity, and no controls were run. In any case, other studies showed no antibodies to sperm in AIDS patients and no correlation between promiscuity and positive AIDS antibodies. Ladies and gentlemen, I hope you remember the little piece I read you from Michael Crickton's Jurassic Park a couple of shows ago, because you're going to come to find, if you take the time to research the actual studies that have been done on AIDS, that there are a bunch of, maybe well-intentioned scientists out there, maybe not, doing experiments to prove things that they want to prove, and not doing objective science. And that's going to become more and more clear to you as I read on tonight. Getting back to Bill Holland. Sexual transmission of AIDS has not been proven. Condoms have a relatively high rate of failure for preventing pregnancy, for which they were designed. And even if the virus was involved, condoms could not prevent transmission. And that's a fact you can check out in any of the research. They have already shown that the so-called AIDS virus exists in all body fluids, so they would have to outlaw all human contact. Now, it's common clinical knowledge when someone has suppressed immunity that all sorts of microorganisms and germs will grow on them, but they are not the cause. But rather, they are the consequence of immune depression. Believe it or not, they are there to help you. The issue over whether germs are causes or consequences of disease is very lengthy. We feel that germs are a consequence of the single disease called malnourishment, and that they are more likely to be trying to participate in repair and regeneration of the host than in killing or harming the host. In any case, AIDS has a plethora of germs involved, and any one or more of them could be equally labeled the cause. Any germ would have suffice as the, quote, cause of AIDS, but a new disease requires a new germ for new research money, and that is the crux of what we're talking about here, ladies and gentlemen. Thus, the 35 or so equally qualified germ candidates were passed over as a hunt for a new germ was and is subsidized. Opportunistic germs are supposedly those germs that proliferate in order to take over a host during an illness. Then, all germs could easily be considered opportunistic, including the AIDS virus. The alleged specificity of the HIV-1 infecting T cells and causing a decrease in helper-suppressor T cells is also true for almost every other germ. Now, folks, you, if you ever have even come across anybody doing AIDS testing, the first thing they do is they give you an antibody test, and the next thing they do is give you a T cell count. Now, listen to what we're saying here, folks. All the research that we are showing here has come across me and has come across through the work that Bill Holland has done. any germ practically will show a T cell decrease. That is true for most germs. A low T cell count, which is one of the corollary symptoms that we find for AIDS is nonsense. It can be caused by almost anything. Now, remember that many germs could do all the same things that are claimed for the so-called AIDS virus. They are the result and not the cause according to the logic of Sutton's law. And let's remember when Willie Sutton, the famous bank robber, was asked why he robbed banks, he replied, because that's where the money is. Quote, sick germs grow in sick people because that's where the ideal environment is. Now, remember what I said about germs over the last couple of shows. Well germs grow in well people because that's where their ideal environment is. We change germs from well to sick. They do not change us. The dog wags the tail. The tail does not wag the dog. One wonders why the name of the alleged AIDS virus has undergone so many name changes. HIV-1 was known as HTLV-3, human T-cell leukemia virus, and as LAV, lymphadenopathy associated virus, and was probably renamed because the American and French scientists continue to squabble over who, quote, owns the cause of AIDS. Because remember, there is great profit in owning this virus as the great Gallo scandal has pointed out. The date, to date rather, there is no evidence that the HIV-1 plays any role in the cause of AIDS. HIV-1 is found everywhere in the body. It has been found almost everywhere in the world. Its rate of infectivity is less than 1%. It has been around well before 1980 and may have been around for centuries or more. And remember that we all make our own viruses. Why has this one been picked upon as the alleged cause of AIDS? Retroviruses, of which HIV is a member, were very popular subjects for research and research grants during the early 80s. They have been trying to implicate them in some human cancers, and there certainly is money available for cancer research. The data, however, shows the retroviruses to be opportunistic, as are the other germs listed in figure 15. And I'm going to read figure 15 for you later. Certain viruses often appear in very sick people and are not specific in any disease association. HIV-1 seems to be in cells everywhere in the body, blood, brain, spinal fluid, saliva, tears, etc. Thus, it is not T-cell specific, as was originally claimed. Now, remember, folks, they're trying to tell you that HIV goes into your T-cells and knocks out your immune system through your T-cells, and that is a bold-faced lie. HIV not only appears to be everywhere in the world, but appears to be totally different in different locations and to be a whole spectrum of different viruses. In fact, the more you look, the more variants you find. Not surprising, since different people make different viruses. In a totally no-risk group of aboriginal Indians from Venezuela with almost no contact with civilizations, HIV was found, not only widening its occurrence, but suggesting that this virus has been around for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years. The only correlating factor in this tribe was the association with malaria, which is also an immunosuppressive illness. Again, it appears that HIV only appears in sick people and does not cause them to be sick. Constantly, throughout much of the literature, it has been suggested that other factors, quote-unquote, play a role in AIDS, but these admonitions seem to be ignored as the money and technology in medicine gears up for another decade of HIV testing, HIV drugs, and HIV vaccines, even though there is no scientific evidence that these avenues will be worthwhile. Now, remember, folks, practically every report I have seen from the CDC and from the National Institute of Health tell you that AIDS has no cure, and yet in the same breath they will tell you that drugs like AZT, DDL, and other things are effective. I hope you will take the time to check out the research because you will get a good laugh one day. Viruses are not alive and are made by us. One should understand that the search for viruses is not an easy task. They cannot be seen or in any way be directly shown to exist in any sample of human tissue. For this reason, virtually all viral research is dependent upon coaxing viruses to be made by cells in grossly abnormal tissue cultures. None of these findings or results can actually be extrapolated to processes involved in human health or disease. In fact, all tissue culture derived data, while perhaps interesting, has absolutely no valid application in the study of health or human disease. It is most likely, as with most germs grown on artificial media, that viruses isolated and blamed for AIDS do not even exist in the humans with the syndrome. In fact, they are most likely artifacts of the involved process of repeated transfers of material from various tumor cells grown in synthetic environment using synthetic nutrients. Any good microbiologist or virologist would tell you that germs identified by tissue culture techniques bear little resemblance to the original tissue plus germs sampled. So, folks, we're saying that when we are isolating viruses for AIDS research, we are not looking at the actual thing that is in the human beings. And this is something that I know because I have been in the field of microbiology and I know this, the stuff that we're saying about AIDS here in this particular case is absolutely true because it is backed by a lot of data, but it's unfortunately data that you do not read about in the Times. The comments about the quote-unquote long-term incubation of HIV also proves that the virus has always been with us and only proliferates when a person becomes ill. If you get a cold today, does that mean that you actually caught the cold virus last week, last year, or 50 years ago? Germs don't incubate. They are always there and only awaiting a situation in which they are needed. After seven years of waiting, only 133 cases of AIDS have been shown out of 13,000 reported alleged infected heterosexual transfers. Does that sound like a high infectivity or incubation period? The recent false report published in April of 93 of those little HIV is busy inside lymph nodes is complete nonsense because that is where most of your lymphocytes hang out and that's where you would expect to find the HIV healing message. A very wise doctor admitted that medicine is still not sure of the role of the virus that is involved in AIDS and that they should not use any treatment experimentally. He said, initial enthusiasm over any new treatment should not obscure the need for considered evaluation over time. The triumph of enthusiasm over time produced the only Nobel Prize ever offered in psychiatry in 1949 for the frontal lobotomy. What about the monkey AIDS called stades? Well, they have been trying to blame the African monkey as well as the people of Africa for starting this supposed epidemic but there is no proof except that sick monkeys can get similar viruses to appear. Now, finally, to totally dispute any role for HIV and AIDS, the following list sums up all the scientific evidence against the AIDS-HIV hypothesis. These points were gleaned from the works of Dr. Duesberg, yes, Dr. Peter Duesberg, folks, who published an extensive review with 278 references, also from Dr. Jonas, Dr. Ruth Bernstein, and many others, all of which clearly showed why HIV could not possibly be responsible for AIDS as the group for scientific investigation of the AIDS-HIV hypothesis has been saying for years. I'm going to start reading this list, folks. You are going to like it. I have referenced every single thing I'm about to read here. It is true, it is fact, and I hope you will pay very close attention. One, 97% of U.S. AIDS cases come from abnormal risk groups, i.e. IV drug abusers, male homosexuals who use toxic drugs, hemophiliacs, crack babies and crack mothers, recipients of blood products, etc. healthy people with normal health risk do not get AIDS. Two, less than 5% of AIDS patients with symptoms are carriers of HIV. Evidence of HIV is not found in all AIDS cases. According to the CDC, you can have AIDS without any evidence of HIV. That's like being convicted of murder with no evidence being required. Folks, I hope you heard this. The CDC says that you can have AIDS without HIV. And yet millions and millions of dollars are being made out there to test people for HIV and give them a death sentence and drive them to the grave just from the weight and the heavy pressure of carrying around an HIV positive test. But, remember, I just told you that the CDC itself will tell you that AIDS does not mean you will have the HIV virus in you. And that's true. Because right now, there are more than 5,000 cases, diagnosed cases of AIDS, allegedly, people, 5,000 people walking around the United States who have been told they have AIDS, who have been clinically shown to have AIDS, according to the modern medical establishment, and yet who have not one single trace of the HIV virus. Think about that, folks. Think about that very carefully. Number three, HIV would have to produce all of its symptoms in a few days to a few weeks. HIV has no genes to enable it to incubate for the alleged 10 or more years. Four, 91% of all AIDS victims are males. If sex transmission were actually occurring, then females should have the same rate of AIDS. Both pregnancy and other sexually transmitted diseases have been on the rise for the past 10 years. So women should be at least half of the AIDS cases, but they are not. Five, AIDS is equal to about 50 other diseases in its pathology and in its symptomology, yet many of these diseases are not induced by immune deficiency, and we're talking about copacysarcoma, lymphomas, wasting disease, dementia, and autoimmune illnesses, nor are these diseases caused by microbes, and yet the symptomology, the description of symptoms, which they call AIDS, is identical to these diseases, which, on the other hand, do not have any link to any microbes or any germ infection. Six, most HIV-positive people remain healthy for 10 years and probably will live much longer. Seven, seven, another interesting fact, many carpenthesarcoma and pneumocystis carini pneumonia patients have no HIV in them. eight, the HIV-positive American male homosexuals have 20 times the risk of carpenthesarcoma than all other risk groups. This suggests additional toxic factors. Okay, folks, we're going to take a break here, let Bill take his break, and we'll be back in a few minutes. Okay, back to this amazing little list. number nine, even when dying of AIDS, the HIV test can be negative, and since HIV is present in about one of every 10,000 T-cells, why are T-cells still disappearing even after HIV is gone? Ten, since you produce antibodies to HIV, how could you get sick after establishing your immunity? Many have classic immunity with antibodies and no HIV. Now, understand this, ladies and gentlemen. This is one of my favorites. We have set up most of the current AIDS test to test for the antibody. Now, usually, if you know any basic biology, when you have an antibody, it means your body is already fighting the disease. So, when we are shown to have antibodies to HIV, how could you get sick after having established your immunity? It's the same scam as we talked about with vaccines. Now, again, let me read this part. Many people have classic immunity with antibodies and no HIV. Now, think about that. Eleven, chimpanzees and accidentally inoculated health care workers, some 20,000, have not developed AIDS. Folks, that's documented fact. I'll bet you didn't know that. Twelve, why are there significant geographical differences? In Europe and the U.S., most cases are homosexuals. In Africa and South America, most cases are heterosexual. How does the HIV know what sexual preference people have? How could the alleged modes of transmission be so widely different from culture to culture? Thirteen, also, people in different risk groups and different countries get different symptoms. In the U.S., we see pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, colitis sarcoma, and candidiasis. In Africa, we see slim disease, fever, diarrhea, and TB, even though pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and candida is found in all people. Fourteen, cannot isolate the virus in 20 to 50 percent of AIDS-diagnosed people. Now, isn't that interesting? Think about that, folks. Think about what modern medicine tells you. They tell you if you have the disease, you must have the germ, and we're telling you right here, according to referenced scientific research, that 20 to 50 percent of the AIDS cases are there, but you cannot isolate the virus in them. You figure it out. Fifteen, retroviruses like HIV do not kill T cells. In fact, they promote cell growth and proliferation of T cells. Even in tissue culture, T cells can produce prodigious numbers of HIV, far more than possible in any AIDS patient, and the T cells are never harmed. Let me read that to you again, because you have been told that AIDS is out there destroying your T lymphocytes. That it's the crux of what AIDS is doing, and that's why you develop some kind of alleged immune suppression. Listen. Retroviruses like HIV do not kill T cells. In fact, they promote cell growth and proliferation of T cells. Even in tissue culture, T cells can produce prodigious numbers of HIV, and the T cells are never harmed. Sixteen, there are no AIDS cases where HIV presence is the only immunosuppressive factor. In fact, all AIDS cases have one or more known causes of immunodeficiency, including exposure to blood transfusions, excessive exposure to semen, excessive use of addictive recreational drugs, chronic or high doses of antibiotics, antivirals, antiparasitic agents, anti-inflammatories, anesthetics, opiate analgesics, antidepressants, surgical trauma, injury trauma, multiple recurrent viral diagnoses, malnutrition, lymphocytotoxic, autoimmunity, etc. Seventeen. Some HIV-negative people in risk groups are more immunosuppressive and sick than HIV-positive individuals in the match group with correlations to immunosuppressive factors. So, folks, the correlation with the symptoms listed under the umbrella of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome are more correlated to these risk factors that I just read a few seconds ago than to the HIV virus. Eighteen. Prior immunosuppression needs to be present to lead to HIV-positive, meaning that an unhealthy state is a prerequisite, what used to be called lack of resistance or increased susceptibility. Nineteen. Many cases of AIDS, by all criteria of the CDC, are HIV-negative. That's my favorite. I hope you'll think about that one carefully, folks. Twenty. HIV is supposed to be new, but many confirmed clinical cases can be identified going back to the 19th century and earlier to the 16th century. Twenty-one. Female prostitutes who are drug abusers have a high incidence of HIV-positive diagnoses, yet prostitutes who are not drug abusers show almost zero incidence of HIV-positive, indicating non-sexually transmitted factors. Over 85% of all AIDS cases involve drug abuse. Now, folks, that doesn't just mean it's from people injecting and it's spread by the blood, because I've already shown you that that's nonsense. The drug abuse is the key. That is an immunosuppressive factor. Remember, germs don't cause disease. The disease causes germs. Twenty-two. You can find HIV in only about 10 to 30% of HIV-positive gay men. So how could it be transmitted by sperm as once alleged? Twenty-three. Many people revert from HIV-positive to HIV-negative and remain healthy. And this, again, suggests other multiple factors. I'll bet you didn't know that, folks. Well, I know some of these people personally. Twenty-four. Every AIDS case shows positive tests for autoimmune reactions, indicating significant tissue breakdown caused by toxic and malnourishing exposures. Symptoms correlate with chronic autoimmune diseases, not infectious diseases. Symptoms correlate with chronic autoimmune diseases, not infectious diseases. Now, what this means, folks, is that AIDS is not an infectious disease. It is something, a umbrella of symptoms, that correlate highly with a number of different factors that are linked to immunosuppression. But it has nothing to do with HIV, and it has nothing to do with an infectious disease that is, quote-unquote, spread. Twenty-five. Twenty-five. There exist more than 800 HIV-negative immunodeficiencies and AIDS-defining diseases in all major American and European AIDS risk groups. And 2,200 HIV-negative African AIDS cases that meet all the World Health Organization's criteria for diagnosis of AIDS. These are the recently described mystery AIDS cases explained. Now, I hope you will think about that. I hope you're getting this on tape, because I know some of this is hard to grasp the first time. Twenty-six. Only about 50% of AIDS cases as reported by the Center for Disease Control are confirmed HIV-positive. Much of the remainder may be HIV-negative. And I know why Bill Holler wrote this this way, because in my own efforts to decipher and get AIDS research data from the CDC, you will find that they do not publish any of their data, any of their results. They publish you conclusions. Anything the CDC puts out about AIDS would never be accepted, even into the most lax scientific journals. Think about that, folks. Twenty-seven. HIV violates infectious disease rules used for over a century, which are Koch's postulates, because no viral traces can be found in many AIDS patients. And one of the basic tenets of Koch's postulate is that if you have the disease, you must have the germ. And that is simply not the case in AIDS, and, believe it or not, not the case in almost every example of alleged infectious diseases. Twenty-eight. HIV isolation is completely artificial, and it bears no resemblance to the systems of a living human being. You cannot even find the virus in most AIDS cases. Twenty-nine. HIV infects a very small number of T cells, which is about one in ten thousand, and it has no capacity to destroy any of them. They would be replaced faster than they would be lost. Retroviruses are not cytosital, which means they do not kill cells, and they actually promote cell growth. Now, remember, everyone out there is telling you that AIDS is a retrovirus, and it is killing your T lymphocytes, and that's why you get suppressed immunity. Well, it's all nonsense. Thirty. There are two viruses claimed to cause AIDS, HIV-1 and HIV-2, which have a 60% different structure. Rapid evolution of multiple viruses causing the same disease are highly, highly improbable. These works, and others, cast serious doubt on whether HIV can indeed kill lymphocytes and suppress immunity. Yet almost everyone in America believes that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Why? It is a simple use of propaganda phrases, slogans, and the media. As in Hitler's Germany, it was realized that if you repeat a lie loud and often enough, people will eventually believe it. This is what has happened in America today, and it is called advertising or brainwashing. So if you keep listening to the mass media, you will chant HIV equals AIDS over and over in your mind like Winston tastes good like a cigarette should, along with many other slogans. There is an interesting alternate hypothesis for viral action in disease states. It is very possible that viruses play an intercellular communicative role in the repair and regeneration of damaged tissues in the human being. It seems that a large section of the HIV virus' external envelope is almost identical to a substance naturally occurring in our bodies. This substance is called neuroleukin, and it is one of many cytokines like interferon, interleukin, etc. Factors which are involved in the repair of damaged nerve cells and other tissues. Do you really think that this is all a coincidence? We make all viruses, ladies and gentlemen. There are much more active viruses associated with AIDS. For example, cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr, which are both present in over 95% of AIDS patients contribute to virulent pneumonia. Folks, the AIDS label can be applied to any individual who has any acute or even asymptomatic infection, any persistent swelling of lymph glands, any chronic constitutional illness, any neurologic pathology, any secondary infection, any secondary cancer, and other things, with or without a confirmatory test. In general, 40-60% stated causes of death are largely incorrect, based upon the most accurate form of diagnosis, the autopsy. With all causes of death being so poorly identified by physicians, imagine the error rate in the diagnosis of AIDS. Accumulating evidence suggests that AIDS is essentially a new name being applied to a wide variety of old illnesses, and that the so-called AIDS or HIV tests may be no more than tests for any chronic illness. Both the diagnostic criteria and several laboratory tests that are supposedly specific for AIDS have shown very close correlations to hypogammaglobulin anemia, post-bone marrow transplant reactions, lupus, carcinoid tumors, neurologic pathology related to nutritional deficiencies, miastia gravis, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, malaria, leukemia, and 35 other common infections. All autoimmune diseases, such as lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Graves' disease, thyroiditis, and other diseases, including a hundred other descriptions. Now, what does this all mean? It means that most of the AIDS tests out there don't test for acquired immune deficiency syndrome. They test for an antibody to this virus, which has been shown by almost every piece of research out there, does not cause anything called AIDS. So, folks, if you are ever coaxed into taking an HIV test, please do not do it. They are inaccurate. HIV does not cause what we are calling AIDS in the first place. And most of the tests out there will test positive for a number of other diseases. Understand this well. This is documented fact. And if you leave here with anything tonight, I hope you will leave with the understanding that you should not get any AIDS test. It is nonsense. It is absolutely absurd. And you will be asking for trouble, as you will see in the next few minutes. In the early days of AIDS, one claimed diagnostic test was the decrease in helper suppressor T cells. This test could not verify AIDS because almost all infection caused these same results. Later, it was shown that this decrease in helper suppressor cells occurs with equal frequency in homosexuals who do not test positive for AIDS. Thus, the test is not specific for AIDS, only for any general illness. It also has no prognostic value and does not mean one has suppressed immunity. Other tests that appear told the same story. Thymus and alpha-1, Nealtarine, beta macroglobulin, ANergy, CD4, etc., all claim to be surrogate markers for AIDS, but all have been subsequently shown to be positive in most chronic illnesses. The many generations of currently available tests are fraught with major problems. making them all useless and dangerous. A partial list of severe problems associated with AIDS testing follows. One, the tests have a very large false positive rate. Falsy identifying a patient as having AIDS when in fact they do not. This percentage rate ranges from 40 to 500 percent, with many false positives in women. The ability to accurately identify the syndrome is usually less than 20 percent. Today's tests suffer from a 97 to 99 percent false positive rate in no risk screening applications. Swallow that, folks. Believe it. It is true. It is fact. I have verified it. Two, the tests are positive in many cases of alcoholism, malaria, and any autoimmune disease, including arthritis and 200 other illnesses. Three, the tests will show false positives if the blood sample is heated, frozen, stored for a long time, or not allowed to fully clot. In fact, 95 percent who test positive have absolutely no virus present. I hope you are all getting pissed off out there, folks, and I hope if any of you out there have ever gotten any kind of HIV test that you are fuming right now because you have been totally fooled. Four, the supposedly more specific virus tests, which are more expensive, less sensitive, and more prone to lab error, hence have large false positive and false negative rates. Now, even one of the most accepted tests that's supposed to be confirmatory for the HIV virus, the Western blot, sure, it'll tell you in certain low percentages of cases when that virus is present. But, folks, I think from what I have read up until today and in today, you will have at least a doubt as to whether HIV even causes AIDS. I know it does not. I hope you have a doubt in your mind and I hope you will go out and verify this for yourself. Get it, folks. Get it in your heads. HIV testing is a scam. HIV does not cause AIDS. The tests are totally inaccurate and have incredibly high false positive and false negative rates. There's a little section here that Bill Holub did showing that if HIV is present in about one per thousand people, and it's nowhere near this, by the way, and let's say that a test claims 98% reliability to identify the HIV virus, and again, there's not one test that is this high. This means that the test misses 2% of HIV positive people and falsely identifies 2% as having HIV positive. Now, you take this test. What is the probability of it correctly identifying HIV in you? Did you say 98%? Well, you are dead wrong. The correct answer is 4.7%. So you have a 4.7% chance of being identified as HIV positive correctly, and a 95.3% chance of being falsely identified as being HIV positive. And he goes into explaining it. I won't go into it now, but it's all very correctly done statistically. I hope, I hope you will leave this show tonight with the understanding that you do not need any kind of HIV testing, that what we are calling AIDS, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, is not acquired, it is not an immune deficiency, and it has nothing to do with that damn virus that they are calling HIV. HIV. I'm going to have to start to wind down here and continue on this train of thought in the next show, tomorrow night's show. Let me read you from one of my favorite articles that I picked out of the New York Times, the national circulation issue, Friday, October 9, 1992. It's a very interesting article because it appears with a wrong headline. It's actually under the title, New Tool for Detecting Dark Matter, and it talks about stuff going out in the universe. But it opens as follows. Scientists have found five people who were infected with the virus that causes AIDS by blood transfusion from one donor, and then did not develop any evidence of illness seven to ten years later. Now, the normal person would think, ah, well that would mean that AIDS, or rather HIV does not cause AIDS, but you know what the genius who wrote this article wrote? This suggests that it was a non-virulent strain. Now, I'm not going to read the rest of the article because it's a bunch of nonsense, but you can get an idea of what kind of purposely created stupidity there is out there regarding this disease. And you read it at times and you believe it. Burns me, folks. Really burns me. Folks, this is just a start. Tomorrow night's show, I'm going to bring you up into the present moment with information relating to what is really going on in Africa, what is going on with the alleged cases of women developing AIDS and the cases of children. And I am going to read you excerpts from two of the most important nationally published articles that I have yet found on the subject. And you are going to be floored. Because if you do not believe little old me telling you what I have been telling you for the last couple of shows, you will hear information tomorrow that is going to blow your mind. That is right out of some of the top people in the scientific community and published in national magazines. But I'm sure if you weren't keeping your eyes open that you did not find this stuff. And it happened very recently. Well, folks, I hope you will join us tomorrow. Tomorrow will be a very important show. It's important to me. I want you to get the word out that you do not have to be scared by this alleged acquired immune deficiency syndrome stuff. I don't want you to leave this show confused. I want you to have a very clear understanding in your mind. HIV does not cause AIDS. There is no bug out there creating this disease. People are going to be dying. It's part of the plan. They're going to blame AIDS. They're going to blame HIV. But that is to cover the truth. And hopefully in a future show, I am going to tell you exactly how your food, your air, and your water is being poisoned. And that is where you are developing these diseases. I already told you about inoculations. That's one part. But there's a lot more. Tune in tomorrow, though, folks, to get the last word on AIDS. I hope you'll be there. Again, if you want to hear anything, or rather, if you want to get anything from me, research information points you in the right direction for finding sources. If you want to argue with me by the mail, please feel free to do so. You can write to me, Alex Loglia, L-O-G-L-I-A, 217 East 85th Street, Suite 246 New York, New York, 10028. Take care, folks. Good night. And I hope we'll have you listening in tomorrow. Thank you. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night.