AIDS Cannot Be Sexually Ot Otherwise Transmitted - David Rasnick PhD (HIV AIDS Hoax)

The phrase "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)" was coined by the U.S. Military referring to highly malnutrition people suffering from lack of proper nutrition, not having good enough foods to eat in war zones, during banker's wars for profit.

AIDS is and has always been a hoax, a big lie to kill people for profit to make billions by the corrupt, commission collecting doctors in private practice, the evil pharmaceutical companies executives, staff doctors and scientists, in close cooperation with U.S. terrorist Government officials; known as the "shadowy and or deep state, warmongering evil people".

There are many fabricated mythical diseases; AIDS is the most profitable of them all. The other highly profitable disease, but easily curable using fresh, green cannabis is cancer.


* Plandemic Truth Be Told - “Germ Theory” - Virology Or Toxicology.?


They were hooked from the start, four pioneers whose work changed the course of a modern plague—and they are not done yet.

- By MICHAEL HIRSON - May 03, 2006

TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO, CASUAL SEX carried little fatal risk, and homosexuality was seldom discussed in mainstream society. But all that changed during the summer of 1981, when several gay men in New York and California died of rare infections their bodies should have fought off with ease. The emergence of a new affliction, soon christened with what became a terrifying acronym—AIDS, for acquired immune deficiency syndrome—led to seismic shifts in sexual attitudes and forever changed the relationship between patients and the medical system.

Few people had a more intimate view of those changes than Anthony S. Fauci, Robert C. Gallo, Mathilde Krim and Bruce Walker. In 1981 the four were at different stages of medical careers that might have been spent quietly toiling in labs and clinics. Yet by fate and by choice, they found themselves at the front of the race to unlock the secrets of a new disease. In the years that followed, they took on unfamiliar, often uncomfortable roles—as targets (and later allies) of activists; as politicians and educators; as diplomats and foreign aid workers.

Here, the four describe what they’ve learned during a quarter-century of fighting AIDS. Their insights extend beyond AIDS to inform our understanding of how medicine should solve essential problems, whether cancer or the next pandemic.

His mentor worried he was throwing away a promising career in immunology, but to Anthony Fauci, who was also a specialist in infectious diseases, focusing on AIDS felt like destiny.

"I got goose bumps when I read the first reports of pneumocystis and Kaposi’s sarcoma in the summer of 1981. These two conditions are usually found in people with suppressed immune systems, such as those undergoing chemotherapy. That they were occurring in gay men in both New York and California suggested we were dealing with something infectious, possibly sexually transmitted and definitely new.

As someone trained in both immunology and infectious diseases, I felt as if I were somehow cut out to study this new syndrome. I put together a team, and we did research all day, then stayed up at night seeing very sick patients, almost all of them dying. I realized that if this disease were sexually transmitted, there was no way it would stay confined to the gay community. But it would take a long time to change the perception that AIDS was a disease of gay people. When I pushed aside my other research to focus exclusively on AIDS, my mentor asked, “Why are you diverting a great career for a disease involving 40 people?”

In 1984 I became head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and began pushing the Reagan administration and Congress for more funding for research, which we finally got. The irony is that because I was the one making noise about the disease, I became the public face of government in the eyes of AIDS activists. Larry Kramer, the founder of the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, attacked me in the media. His group would say, “Fauci, why are you killing us?” I would think, I am not killing you—I am trying to help you!

One day the activists were demonstrating on our campus, and I invited several up to my office. They were shocked—no one had ever seriously listened to them before. There was this attitude that the science would be contaminated if you brought nonscientists into the process. But once you got past the theater, the activists were making a lot of sense—why shouldn’t someone with weeks to live, for example, be allowed to take an experimental drug?

That meeting opened a dialogue between the activist community, doctors and regulators that led to many important changes, including how the Food and Drug Administration runs clinical trials and approves new treatments. Our interactions also proved that the constituency of a disease can have important input into the scientific and regulatory process. This has transformed medicine, and now we see activists for virtually every type of disease. That first meeting also led to a truce with Kramer, who has become one of my closest friends.

AIDS has proven that if you put a lot of money into solving a problem and plan carefully, you can produce almost unimaginable levels of scientific achievement. There are now more FDA-approved antiviral drugs for HIV/AIDS than for all other viral infections. We got this far by galvanizing the government and the scientific community to work on this challenge even before the rest of the world realized its importance.

The area of research I consider most exciting today is also the most sobering—coming up with a vaccine. HIV is unique in that the body cannot produce neutralizing antibodies against the virus. This has prevented us from creating a vaccine in the usual way—introducing something that closely mimics the virus in order to build up immunity. A vaccine against HIV will most likely look very different from what we’ve used against such viruses as smallpox and measles. I don’t know how long it will take, but I plan on staying involved until we get there."

Co-discovering AIDS virus and inventing a test for it were major firsts for virologist Robert Gallo, but he questions whether he and fellow scientists could have moved faster to save even more lives.

"In late 1981 and early 1982, I attended a series of lectures at the National Institutes of Health given by James Curran, the coordinator for the Centers for Disease Control’s task force on AIDS. All kinds of ideas were floating around about what was causing this new disease—including the use of nitrate inhalants by gay men—but Curran thought the cause was infectious and probably viral. At the second lecture, he looked right at me—or so it felt—and asked: “Where are the virologists?” On the walk back to my lab, I began thinking about the disease.

Although I was a cancer specialist, my research had long focused on retroviruses, which cause certain cancers. Our lab had just discovered the first human retrovirus, human T-cell lymphotropic virus (HTLV), and there were clear parallels with what we were seeing in AIDS. Like HTLV, the new disease seemed to target a part of the immune system known as CD4+ T-helper cells, and also like HTLV, risk factors were related to sex, blood and having an infected mother. Moreover, as Max Essex, a colleague at Harvard, reminded me in a telephone call, certain animal retroviruses can cause immune suppression. It began to seem as if AIDS might be caused by a retrovirus, which meant our lab was uniquely positioned to help.

These intellectual proddings led us to begin studying the disease, paving the way for several breakthroughs between 1982 and 1984: our discovery of the HIV virus with Luc Montagnier’s team at the Pasteur Institute in Paris; proving that HIV causes AIDS; and developing the HIV antibody blood test. I knew a test was vital not only for humanitarian reasons but to establish credibility for the link between HIV and AIDS. Not only did the test save countless lives, it also allowed the epidemic to be properly followed, cleared the way for education programs, and opened the door to early therapy because HIV-positive people could now be identified.

After the test hit the market, I became a target of activists. I didn't understand why until one of them told me, “You’ve created a test branding us as carriers of disease, without giving us any hope for treatment.” They did not understand the advances the blood test would soon allow, nor had I ever thought of their concerns. Soon I began to patch things up with the activist community and made many good friends. During the fierce political battles I fought in the late 1980s, their support was sometimes the only thing that kept me going.

The development of the HIV test by the spring of 1984 was a historic achievement for American science. The Department of Health and Human Services and the NIH deserve credit for protecting much of the world’s blood supply by virtue of the speed with which they licensed the test. The question that haunts me still, though, is: Could we have done even better, even faster? During the eight-to-nine-month window after the test was developed and before it was licensed, a limited number of blood samples could have been tested, possibly saving even more lives. But this in itself would have posed the dilemma of how to select a very few samples from the many that needed testing.

The lesson is that scientists can’t just leave it to others to find applications for their discoveries. We must ask, “How can we make these results more practical sooner rather than later?”

First the public ignored AIDS; then it responded with prejudice and irrational fear. Mathilde Krim, who grew up in Europe during the Holocaust, countered with the best tools she had: research and education.

"In early 1981, a friend confided: “I am losing my touch as a physician. I have these patients, all gay men, who have swollen lymph nodes, but I can’t help them.” It was a moment of premonition, followed weeks later by another.

I had been studying interferon as a possible antitumor agent, and was looking for cases of tumors visible on human skin. Our in-house dermatologist told me, “You’re very lucky. There’s a cancer called Kaposi’s sarcoma that produces very visible tumors. Until recently I’d seen only nine cases in 25 years, but I now have 12 on my ward.” Again, all were gay men.

I brought the doctors together, and hearing of similar cases elsewhere, we formed a study group. What began as a medical riddle soon turned tragic. Some of our patients were dying—and, because many of these men knew one another, they became terrified, as did their physicians.

This early involvement led me to found the AIDS Medical Foundation, the precursor to amfAR, in 1983 to stimulate and fund AIDS research. The public health system was very slow to respond to AIDS. Federal research funding didn’t become adequate until 1987, after it had become clear to legislators that many people other than gay men were getting the disease. If not for Gallo and Montagnier, who had worked with animal retroviruses, I hate to think how long it would have taken to discover HIV.

During the mid-1980s, much of society moved from indifference to irrational fear. I had grown up in Europe during the Holocaust, and when certain politicians in this country began suggesting mandatory testing and rounding up those “suspected of being at high risk,” namely gay men, I grew afraid. We avoided such horrors because some people spoke out using scientific evidence and common sense to combat panic and homophobia. No one played a more crucial role than then Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who sent a pamphlet to 100 million U.S. households explaining AIDS and its possible prevention.

To this day, AIDS remains a special threat not only to public health but also to the social order. The condition carries a unique stigma that has required, for individual protection, the institution of certain procedures previously unknown in public health, such as anonymous testing sites and informed-consent forms to be signed by every person tested.

It amazes me that easy, cheap HIV tests are not routinely used during doctor’s visits. When I asked mine why he didn’t offer to test me, he said, “The kind of women I see don’t get AIDS.” It is largely because of such ingrained, misguided ideas that so many people don’t know they are infected.

While the search for an HIV vaccine gets much attention, there are other frontiers to conquer. Antiretroviral drugs reduce the amount of virus in the blood, but only work against an actively multiplying virus. HIV also has a stealth form that hides in certain immune system cells. Under treatment, the virus may become undetectable, but if treatment is stopped, HIV can return within days to its previous high levels. Important research is taking place on how to trigger the virus out of its dormancy so that antiretroviral treatment can get completely rid of it. That would be tantamount to achieving a cure."

As an intern in 1981, Bruce Walker learned his first lessons about AIDS directly from patients, and it was a patient who led to the discovery of "elite controllers"—infected individuals who never get AIDS and could hold the key to better therapies.

"My first encounter with AIDS came in 1981. A patient arrived at the emergency room with three simultaneous life-threatening diseases, something none of us had ever seen. As an intern, this was an eerie, memorable moment, the first time the people I considered the smartest in the world—the physicians training us—were stumped too. Similar cases followed, and we realized we were seeing something entirely new. I wanted a career in which I could use my skills as both a researcher and a physician, so I chose infectious disease as my specialty and focused on AIDS.

Mass General was early to set up a dedicated clinic for AIDS, which made the hospital a very fertile place to study the disease. You could apply what you saw in patients to basic research in the lab. Our patients have taught us a great deal about how the body fights back against AIDS.

In 1994 a man came to the Mass General outpatient clinic. He told me he was a hemophiliac who had been infected with HIV more than a decade earlier. “But I’ve never had any symptoms, never been treated with AIDS medicines, and I feel great,” he said. “Am I still going to die?”

We could document that he had been infected but found no virus in his bloodstream. We began to try to understand how this man and a small number of others, now known as “elite controllers,” were achieving this remarkable outcome. They might hold the secret to how the body’s immune defenses keep HIV in check. That would be almost as good as a vaccine.

Part of the answer seems to be that elite controllers produce a very large number of cells—known as T-helper cells—that allow the body to recognize and attack HIV. We are now conducting clinical trials in which we try to boost this response in patients already infected with the virus. And we will soon begin seeking additional answers in elite controllers’ genetic makeup that allow such incredible success against the virus.

My experiences have convinced me that great advances in biomedicine come when you link research to clinical care. This is a lesson we’re taking to the heart of the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa, where almost no basic research has taken place. In 2003 we opened a research and care facility in Durban, South Africa, with the Nelson Mandela School of Medicine, where we are trying to understand the viruses fueling the African epidemic and helping to create improved treatment programs. In another program, residents can work at a hospital in rural South Africa. It is a global epidemic, and it is exciting to be involved where the need is so great. After 25 years, AIDS still takes a terrible toll, but I have to believe that this is a solvable problem."

http://protomag.com/articles/25-years-of-aids

Pierre Omidyar commits $250 million to new media venture with Glenn Greenwald

Omidyar says decision to set up news organisation fuelled by 'concern about press freedoms in the US and around the world'

Pierre Omidyar commits $250 million to new media venture with Glenn Greenwald

Dominic Rushe - The Guardian - October 16, 2013

Pierre Omidyar said he hoped the project would promote 'independent journalists with expertise, and a voice and a following'. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images

Pierre Omidyar, the founder of eBay, has revealed more details of the media organization he is creating with journalist Glenn Greenwald.

Greenwald announced on Tuesday that he was leaving the Guardian, where he has broken a series of stories on the National Security Agency, based on documents from whistleblower Edward Snowden.

In an interview with Jay Rosen, media critic and NYU professor of journalism, Omidyar said he was committing an initial $250m to the as-yet-unnamed venture. Omidyar told Rosen the decision was fuelled by his “rising concern about press freedoms in the United States and around the world”.

Omidyar said he hopes the project will promote “independent journalists with expertise, and a voice and a following” while using Silicon Valley knowhow to build an audience. “Companies in Silicon Valley invest a lot in understanding their users and what drives user engagement,” Omidyar said. The company will be online only and all proceeds will be reinvested in journalism.

In a blogpost, the eBay billionaire revealed that he had been exploring a purchase of the Washington Post, which was ultimately bought by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

“That process got me thinking about what kind of social impact could be created if a similar investment was made in something entirely new, built from the ground up. Something that I would be personally and directly involved in outside of my other efforts as a philanthropist,” wrote Omidyar.

“I developed an interest in supporting independent journalists in a way that leverages their work to the greatest extent possible, all in support of the public interest. And, I want to find ways to convert mainstream readers into engaged citizens. I think there’s more that can be done in this space, and I’m eager to explore the possibilities,” he wrote.

Omidyar said he was in the “very early stages of creating a new mass media organization. I don’t yet know how or when it will be rolled out, or what it will look like.” He said the organization would cover general news as well as investigative journalism.

“As part of my learning process, I recently reached out to Glenn Greenwald to find out what journalists like him need to do their jobs well. As it turns out, he and his colleagues Laura Poitras [video documentarian] and Jeremy Scahill [author and national security expert], were already on a path to create an online space to support independent journalists. We had a lot of overlap in terms of our ideas, and decided to join forces,” wrote Omidyar.

“I have always been of the opinion that the right kind of journalism is a critical part of our democracy,” he told Rosen.

Snowden Journalist’s New Venture to Be Bankrolled by eBay Founder: Pierre M. Omidyar

Snowden Journalist’s New Venture to Be Bankrolled by eBay Founder: Pierre M. Omidyar

- By NOAM COHEN and QUENTIN HARDY - October 16, 2013 - The New York Times

For years, the tech billionaire Pierre M. Omidyar has been experimenting with ways to promote serious journalism, searching for the proper media platform to support with the fortune he earned as the founder of eBay. He has made grants to independent media outlets in Africa and government watchdog groups in the United States. In a more direct effort, he created a news Web site in Hawaii, his home state.

Then last summer, The Washington Post came calling in its pursuit of a buyer. The Graham family ended up selling The Post to a different tech billionaire, Jeffrey P. Bezos of Amazon. But the experience, Mr. Omidyar wrote on his blog on Wednesday, “got me thinking about what kind of social impact could be created if a similar investment was made in something entirely new, built from the ground up.”

Mr. Omidyar also confirmed that he would be personally financing just such a new “mass media” venture, where he will be joined by the journalist Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian, the British daily. Mr. Greenwald gained notoriety this summer when he reported on the revelations about National Security Agency surveillance contained in papers leaked by Edward J. Snowden.

The details of the project are vague. “I don’t yet know how or when it will be rolled out, or what it will look like,” Mr. Omidyar wrote.

What is clear is that Mr. Greenwald will be there, and he is expected to be joined by Laura Poitras, the documentary filmmaker who was the crucial conduit between Mr. Snowden and Mr. Greenwald.

Together, Mr. Greenwald and Ms. Poitras possess a vast trove of documents from Mr. Snowden related to government surveillance and other secret matters. Mr. Greenwald has made it clear that he has much more material from Mr. Snowden to go through and many articles yet to write.

That means that Mr. Omidyar and his media site could well be in the middle of the tussle between the government and news groups over how to balance a free press against concerns about national security, perhaps making him a new adversary for agencies trying to prevent the disclosure of secret information.

Mr. Greenwald stressed in an interview Tuesday night that he would not be the editor or manager of the site, saying, “I will be doing the journalism.”

Mr. Omidyar wrote on Wednesday that the project was something he “would be personally and directly involved in outside of my other efforts as a philanthropist.”

Mr. Omidyar and Mr. Greenwald came together after developing a growing respect that was built around shared causes like protection for journalists and a revulsion at government surveillance tactics.

Mr. Omidyar — who declined an interview request but released a statement and spoke to the New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen — describes a happy coincidence: just as he was looking to start his project, Mr. Greenwald and Ms. Poitras, along with the reporter and author Jeremy Scahill, “were already on a path to create an online space to support independent journalists.”

“We had a lot of overlap in terms of our ideas, and decided to join forces,” he wrote.

Mr. Rosen, on his blog, outlined some of Mr. Omidyar’s thinking: while Mr. Greenwald, Ms. Poitras and Mr. Scahill have focused on national security and United States foreign policy, the new project will be of more general interest. Mr. Rosen, paraphrasing Mr. Omidyar, writes that the project would not be a niche product, and that it would cover sports, business, entertainment and technology.

When asked how large his financial commitment would be, Mr. Rosen writes, Mr. Omidyar referred to the $250 million it would have taken to buy The Post as a starting point.

Mr. Omidyar was born in Paris to Iranians, and was raised mostly around Washington. He created the original software for eBay’s online sales system in 1995. The company became a runaway success that changed Mr. Omidyar’s life beyond the billions he eventually made in eBay stock. Creating a mostly unregulated commerce system where strangers could successfully transact with others taught him that “at the end of the day people are trying to do the right thing,” as he said to a gathering of nonprofit groups in Hawaii in 2011.

Mr. Omidyar, 45, is chairman of eBay, but for more than a decade has not been active in the day-to-day running of the organization.

He decided to devote some of his fortune to philanthropy, but has said he was discouraged by traditional models, which he says can often reward bad outcomes. He named his major philanthropic organization the Omidyar Network to avoid connotations of being a charity, and has made many donations aimed at creating self-sustaining businesses.

He has also sought to have an impact commensurate with what he feels his wealth can accomplish, one that his local news site, Honolulu Civil Beat, couldn’t satisfy. The new venture apparently is the latest manifestation of his ambition to create a big, important media property.

The Twitter streams of Mr. Omidyar and Mr. Greenwald show that they had been moving toward each other over the last year. Mr. Omidyar frequently reposts Twitter messages from Mr. Greenwald about concerns like protecting journalists from government prosecution. One Twitter conversation about the Snowden documents culminated with Mr. Omidyar writing to Mr. Greenwald, “you’ve been the most consistent and knowledgeable reporter on illegal (and now supposed legal) wiretapping since Bush disclosure.”

David Carr contributed reporting.

Greenwald threatens to publish more revelations, claims threats from US and UK

Greenwald threatens to publish more revelations, claims threats from US and UK

October 15, 2013

“The more the US and UK threaten, the more I will publish,” Glenn Greenwald has told French radio. The Guardian journalist revealed the scope of US spying on France was “enormous,” but the French government is also complicit in US espionage.

In an interview with Radio France Internationale (RFI), Greenwald spoke candidly about the threats he had received from the US and UK and his intention to publish all the documents handed to him by former CIA worker Edward Snowden.

“I intend to publish all the documents I have. The more threats I get from the US and UK, the harder I will work to publish this information,” said Greenwald, adding that the previous revelations on the NSA’s spying activities had fed the debate on internet privacy.

He told French radio that he was aware he is under constant surveillance and has taken measures to protect himself.

“I don’t use my phone to talk about important things. I know that my emails are being spied on so I use encrypted messages to communicate with my sources, colleagues and even my friends,” he said.

In addition, Greenwald revealed that the NSA had spied extensively on France and the French government also collaborates with Washington in its espionage programs.

“The scope of US spying on the French is enormous,” said Greenwald. “But the NSA also spies with the cooperation with the French government.”

Hinting at the subject matter of possible future revelations, Greenwald stressed “the American government spies indiscriminately on Africa” and that many of the continent’s governments collaborate with the US.

Following the first revelations regarding the US’ global spy network, Glenn Greenwald’s partner, David Miranda, was detained under the terrorist act at a London airport for nine hours. The UK authorities confiscated his phone, laptop and memory storage devices and threatened him with imprisonment.

Greenwald decried Miranda’s detention as an act of “intimidation” by the UK government and an “abuse of power.” His arrest also drew the ire of the Brazilian government, which claimed the UK had acted outside their jurisdiction, detaining a Brazilian national with no charges against him.

Moreover, Brazil has demanded the US and Canada account for their spying activities in the Latin American country. Greenwald divulged documents handed to him by Edward Snowden revealing how the NSA had penetrated the highest levels of the Brazilian government and state oil company Petrobras with its covert surveillance programs. Furthermore, Canada was found to have carried out spying on the Brazilian Ministry of Energy.

In response, Washington has said it has launched a probe into spying activities, but warned it will take several months. While the Obama Administration denies it engages in “economic espionage,” it maintains that its spying activities are in the interests of American national security.