I started out this inquiry noting that if GNM is true it would represent something like an h-bomb dropped on the city of conventional medicine. One of the dicta of GNM is that viruses are harmless, natural products of cells whose function is to actually aid the healing process. They accompany illnesses not as their cause, but as their cure. Nothing to be scared of. No cause for alarm.
Just one suburb of Medicine City is AIDSville, built up over 25 years in an exclusive part of town with an estimated budget of $190 billion. I am walking through the imaginary wreckage of AIDSville caused by Jan Roberts’ campaign in Fear of the Invisible. Quite independently of GNM (though she has crossed paths with Stefan Lanka as I note from her references), she provides evidence that the GNM dictum about viruses may actually be true of the most feared virus of all: HIV. Well, she hasn’t argued (yet) that HIV retroviruses are part of the body’s attempt to heal AIDS, but she has certainly argued strongly against HIV being its cause.
I had wondered at the outset of this investigation how so many smart people could have been and still be wrong, if GNM were right. Well, most of the world now believes that HIV causes AIDS, which is a helluva lot of smart people. It’s the establishment view. It’s the established consensus. It’s virtually a dogma, an incontrovertible, unquestionable tenet of modern medicine. So patently obvious that to question it would seem to be the height of madness. Not to mention irresponsibility. And yet, Roberts tosses a battery of grenades down every street and avenue of AIDSville, and while I’m some four chapters from the end, there ain’t too many buildings still standing. Curiously, one building that in spite of the massive expenditure was never erected in AIDSville was the one called The Cure Centre. Not only is there no cure, no vaccine, there is no understanding even of the mechanism by which the HIV retrovirus causes immune system deficiency (as of 2007; see p202).
Assumption: peer reviewed scientific publications that have stood the test of time can be regarded as having established their conclusions beyond reasonable doubt. (Robert Gallo’s original Science papers on the origin of AIDS are mentioned by Roberts as the most cited papers of all time; the whole of AIDSville is built upon them.) Well, peer review plus publication is clearly an insufficient guarantee of truth; the scientific methodology could be incorrect, the arguments could be flawed, and the reviewers could be mistaken. Or less innocently, the contents could themselves be fraudulent. Unfortunately for Medicine City, this is exactly what Roberts demonstrates; Gallo “systematically” rewrote the original paper composed by Popovic that recorded the experiments done in Gallo’s lab which had failed to support the conclusion that Gallo has already gone to Europe to brief scientists on, that they had discovered the HIV virus to cause AIDS. Popovic had actually written: “Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified.” After Gallo had rewritten Popovic’s report, it read as follows: “that a retrovirus of the HTLV family might be an etiological agent of AIDS was suggested by the findings”. (And this emendation did not result from further scientific research in the meantime!)
Roberts’ discovery that HIV had been declared by a Gallo fiat – and not by experimental demonstration – to be the probable cause of AIDS is the h-bomb on Medicine City.
Gallo’s fraud would explain why subsequently he insisted that only he could approve anyone else getting hold of a sample of his virus to research it. In fact he prevented others subjecting his research to the test of repeatability by imposing very strict conditions on what they could do with his sample.
Gallo’s fraud, which is much more extensive that just this one example, did not go unnoticed. He was investigated by the US Government in five separate inquiries. One conclusion about Gallo’s experiment stated: “The February 1984 experiment was so faulty and so many aspects of it so questionable, that little or no confidence can be placed in any of its claimed findings” (Roberts p125; John Crewdson’s 1995 Chicago Tribune report details other aspects of the fraud). These inquiries should have spelled a radical re-examination of so-called AIDS science, beginning with a retraction of those original papers. Instead these reports were buried “when chairmanship of the U.S. Congress House subcommittee that oversees the National Institute of Health (NIH) went from Democrat to Republican control in early 1995” (ref).
In other words, the fraudulent nature of the very foundations of AIDS science, specifically the theory that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, has been covered up by a scandalous politically motivated campaign to preserve extra-scientific agendas against the inconvenient and corrosive incursions of truth. The total picture is infinitely more complex; I can only refer you to Roberts’ meticulously researched book.