I’ve finished as much of McCumiskey’s book The Ultimate Conspiracy as I want to read. I skipped over the sections on his correspondence and those that followed it – it was embarrassing. He included very many emails he wrote to figures in the Irish medical establishment and in politics, but rather than discredit them for their unwillingness to engage with his concerns, he merely gives the reader a pretty clear picture of why they may not have taken him entirely seriously. There is an element of politics that necessarily comes into attempts to puncture the overblown confidence of those in authority, and that element requires a degree of artfulness. Respect also goes a long way.
All the chapters on particular illnesses, too, although interesting, do not convince me. The common cold is still a conundrum, along with seasonal flus. If even the common cold is caused by a biological shock, then it ought to be pretty easy to observe the connection. After all, biological shocks are meant to be hard to miss: they make you cold, you lose your appetite, you stay awake at night thinking about the issue or the circumstance that caused it. You are meant to feel isolated by the shock, unable to share with others what is occupying you. These are some of the criteria of a DHS, the official designation within GNM of such a shock or ‘conflict’.
Sometimes GNM is described as if these shocks could be quite brief, and resolved quickly, ie within hours or less, such that you hardly even notice that it’s happened. Sometimes the shocks are described as though you may hardly notice they’ve occurred and yet they linger unresolved in our subconscious.
Certainly it’s hard to see how a really big and obvious shock would cause a common cold, and hard to see how a really small and unobvious shock such as caused a cold could still be classified as such.
Then there’s the seasonal aspect of flus: we tend to become more vulnerable in winter. Why should that be? What kinds of shocks happen more frequently in winter that in other seasons? On the other hand, how does conventional medicine explain the sudden appearance of influenza viruses in winter? And assuming that flu viruses are around for the whole of a cold season, why is it that people don’t have flu the whole time, cycling through repeated flus over and over as they get another dose of it as soon as they return to work or school etc?
We watched Vincent Ward’s Rain of the Children on the weekend. The question of introduced diseases cropped up: how would GNM explain indigenous populations succumbing to imported diseases? Tuberculosis, for example? There should already have been plenty of tuberculosis in Aotearoa before the white man appeared, given that according to GNM it belongs to the reparation phase of cancer caused by an existence conflict. The indigenous people of this country were war-like, and probably inflicting such shocks on each other the whole time. No doubt some of the illness was due to poverty, malnutrition, and toxic water.
Yesterday I was watching Autism: Made in America which showed a baby who was born with eczema. GNM might put that down to the mother’s toxicity, I don’t know; it’s certainly hard to see how that particular skin condition could be explained by a ‘tearing away from my skin’ conflict.
One thing I have discovered in the last couple of days, though, is some support for GNM’s wholesale rejection of the notion that viruses cause human illnesses. On Dr Gary Null’s website (and yes, there are other websites expressing skepticism about his views), there is a ‘press conference’ with British journalist Janine Roberts who has exposed in a seemingly convincing fashion the fraudulent nature of the scientific paper which first announced the discovery of the HIV virus as the cause of AIDS. Her findings are published in her book, Fear of the Invisible (which my local library – amazingly – also has).
With documentary evidence, research into the history of science, examination of original publications, this represents something of the art of speaking truth to power.
This web page (http://www.garynull.com/home/is-hiv-really-the-cause-of-aids-are-there-really-only-a-few.html) contains innumerable quotations from scientists expressing disbelief in the whole HIV causes AIDS theory. Including a denial in 1997 by the co-discoverer of the HIV virus himself:
“There are too many shortcomings in the theory that HIV causes all signs of AIDS. We are seeing people HIV-infected for 9, 10, 12 years or more, and they are still in good shape, their immune system is still good. It is unlikely that these people will come down with AIDS later.”
“HIV is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause AIDS.”
VI Int’l AIDS Conference, Jun 24 1990
“AIDS does not inevitably lead to death, especially if you suppress the co-factors that support the disease. It is very important to tell this to people who are infected…. I think we should put the same weight now on the co-factors as we have on HIV.”
“Psychological factors are critical in supporting immune function. If you suppress this psychological support by telling someone he’s condemned to die, your words alone will have condemned him.”
“We did not purify [isolate] … We saw some particles but they did not have the morphology [shape] typical of retroviruses … They were very different … What we did not have, as I have always recognized it, is that it was truly the cause of AIDS.”
Interview with Djamel Tahi-1997
— Dr. Luc Montagnier, Virologist, co-discoverer of HIV, Pasteur Institute, Paris
You will also find a link to the press conference with Janine Roberts I mentioned. If the HIV virus has nothing to do with AIDS, and has never been adequately isolated, then that would suggest GNM is right about at least one thing! The tip of an iceberg?