Transcript
Early Hepatitis B Vaccines and the “Man-Made” Origin of HIV/AIDS by Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H.This article regards a matter of global urgency transcending better known AIDS threats. Itdescribes a universal challenge posed by ever increasing numbers of plagues predicted todepopulate at least half of the world’s current human inhabitants within two generations.This documented science virtually proves, through the process of elimination and a reviewof the most updated evidence, the srcin of HIV/AIDS as an iatrogenic (i.e., man-made)outcome of specific vaccination experiments.Considered reflection on this AIDS science, along with the sociopolitical correlates andantecedents of this current catastrophe, reveals the likelihood that myriad other immunedysfunctions, autoimmune diseases, and cancers, including leukemias, lymphomas,sarcomas, and other ailments linked to viral infections, have resulted from previouslyengineered microbes that have by accident or intent found their way from cancer viruslaboratories into humanity’s bloodstream by way of the most trusted public healthpreventative—vaccinations. If what you are about to read is true, and each point is precisely stated and meticulouslydocumented, beyond extensive depopulation, humanity’s very survival may hinge on thisrecognition, its implications, and our considered response. Especially relevant, whenreflecting on the following facts, is the wisdom addressed by the late World HealthOrganization (WHO) AIDS czar, Dr. Jonathan Mann, whose life ended tragically on Flight111 enroute to a European AIDS conference. “More than a medical scientific problem,” Dr.Mann said, “AIDS is a sociopolitical imposition.” Background AIDS is undoubtedly “man-made.” We can now assert this “very apparent iatrogenicsrcin,” versus the “theoretic iatrogenic srcin” of HIV/AIDS because of the rapidlyincreasing, now substantial, scientific support for this conclusion. Currently, internationalscientific consensus among leading investigators in this field, many of whose works andwords are excerpted below, holds that HIV/AIDS srcinated from one or more extraordinaryman-made, not natural, events dating back to the early to mid-1970s. Especially implicatedin initiating the AIDS pandemic, according to many scientists and scholars, was thehepatitis B vaccine as detailed in the following pages. This may come as a surprise, or even quite a shock, to most people since the mainstreammedia and most respected medical journals have yet to herald the following knowledge. Asa result most “authorities” still issue false and misleading claims such as: 1) “the HBvaccine theory of HIV/AIDS srcination has been discussed, debated, and dismissed by anoverwhelming majority of the HIV/AIDS research community;” 2) “People who claim thatAIDS was man-made provide false information and hearsay;” 3) “It is sad that publicattention and resources are diverted to attend to such unscientific dribble;” 4) “Man-madesrcin of AIDS vaccine proponents do severe damage to the public health community andvaccination efforts;” and 5) “Those that advance man-made theories of AIDS have financial motives,” as though there were no financial interests on the other side of the debate.As a pro bono consultant contacted recently by Amnesty International (AI) members whodesired to advance a resolution for the global organization to investigate this HB vaccinethesis, I was appalled by the amount of resistance and politicking performed by membersof AI’s so-called “HIV/AIDS Task Force” which sought $1 billion of relief for human rightsviolations associated with HIV/AIDS from the U.S. Government. These funds, the TaskForce reported, were urgently needed to buy drug–cocktails for persons with HIV/AIDS.Each of the five claims cited above were issued by members of this Task Force completelyignorant of the following science.With regard to the first offensive claim, as the sole author of “Polio, hepatitis B and AIDS:an integrative theory on a possible vaccine induced pandemic” published by HarcourtPublishers, Ltd. of London in the esteemed international journal of Medical Hypothesis,2 this well-focused thesis has never been “discussed, debated,” nor “dismissed” by anyconsensus in any official capacity. Although Black Americans have been polled regardingthe srcin of HIV/AIDS being man-made,3there has never been a published polling of thescientific community in this regard, and certainly not one regarding the HB hypothesisadvanced below. HIV/AIDS Origin Misconceptions Versus Science Opponents of iatrogenic (or “man-made”) theories of AIDS have routinely confusedhearsay and sporadic media propaganda with hard science, such as that “discussed,debated” and not “dismissed” recently at the Royal Society of London’s inquiry into thesrcin of this pandemic. They exclusively focused on the theory that contaminated poliovaccines triggered the HIV/AIDS pandemic.4These proceedings were published in 2001.Quotes relevant to reasoned consideration of this unique/yet-to-be-tested hepatitis Bvaccine theory of HIV/AIDS follow. These statements were made by featured presenters,all recognized leaders in this multidisciplinary field discussing the polio vaccine theory of AIDS srcination. The first of these quotes is especially relevant toproposed investigations: “There should be an investigation by an international committee mostly composed of non-medical people concerning how a rather obvious and plausible theory [of AIDS’s srcin fromcontaminated vaccines] came to be scorned and restricted from publication for so long,especially when important consequences regarding mankind’s worst epidemic, and evenmore important consequences for other possibly even worse that may be following, hang inthe balance. As a corollary it should be studied why the hypothesis had to be promotedmainly by outsiders to science and medicine. The ressures towards investigation (and non-investigation) that emanate from huge drug companies and their influence in slantingresearch in subtle ways should also be examined, as should the role of journals and peerreview in potentially obstructing publications of controversial kinds.” W.D. Hamilton,5 quoted by Julian Cribb in “The srcin of acquired immune deficiency syndrome: can scienceafford to ignore it?” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B (2001) 356:935-938. “Faced with the terrible burden of AIDS, stories that HIV was introduced into Africa fromthe West by an accident such as OPV [oral polio vaccine] or intentionally by the USACentral Intelligence Agency (CIA) have gained widespread credence. . . . Nevertheless,because natural transmission repeatedly occurs, albeit on rare occasions, does not meanthat contamination of a vaccine could not have been the route on another occasion. As with other infections, e.g., hepatitis B virus,natural and iatrogenic transmissions of retrovirusesare not mutually exclusive.” Weiss, RA6 Despite studies that have advanced evidence suggesting an earlier than 1970 srcin of HIV/AIDS,7-9“[t]he fact that there were ten or so synchronous but distinguishable African epidemics is a definitive feature of AIDS for which the natural transfer theory [e.g., the “cut hunter transfer”] gives no convincing account. . . . To summarize these findingsregarding the relatively large number of distinct group M subtypes: no set of likely naturalconditions . . . will adequately simulate so many as ten distinguishable subtypes in acomplex star-like configuration . . . . [T]he onus is upon the supporters of the natural [notiatrogenic] theory to account for the unexpectedly large number of HIV-1 subtypes.Exponential growth of the epidemic(s) is not by itself a satisfactory explanation (Hahn etal. 2000). . . . The likeliest source of the multiple subtypes and the synchronization of theirconspicuous diversification is a punctuated srcin [i.e., an iatrogenic event]. . . . [I]t is notfar-fetched to imagine the ten or so clades deriving from a single animal (perhapsimmunosuppressed and possessing a swarm of variants) [as might have been the casewith chimpanzees used in the process of vaccine manufacture] or from a few animals thatmight have belonged to a single troop or might have been gang-caged together. Thenumber of animals required is secondary to the extent of variation in the source at the timeof the zoonotic [i.e., transfer of the virus between species] or iatrogenic event. The[vaccine] hypothesis makes a case for such a punctuated srcin . . .” Myers G, et al.10 “We conclude that SIV cannot become a zoonosis, but requires adaptive mutations tobecome HIV. Some modern event must have aided in the transition of SIV to HIV. Ourresearch indicates that serial passage of partially adapted SIV between humans couldproduce the series of cumulative mutations sufficient for the emergence of epidemic HIVstrains . . . We conclude that increased unsterile injecting in Africa during the period 1950-1970 provided the agent for SIV human infections to emerge as epidemic HIV in themodern era.” Drucker E, et al.11 I might interject at this point that this conclusion by Drucker et al, although seriouslyundermining natural evolution theorists, reflects a myopic arrogance unbecoming to theirotherwise reasonable hypothesis. Their conclusion neglects the risks inherent in thehepatitis B vaccine manufacturing and testing process as detailed below consistent with theanalyses of Myers et al.10Obviously, all of the above authoritative statements contradict “common knowledge.” The consensus of scientists at this historic British AIDS srcinconference favored additional investigations into possible iatrogenic sources of the HIVs. The 1959 HIV Sequence Discovery In the interest of facilitating progress on this issue, much publicity has been given to thenotion that HIV was discovered in a 1959 blood sample from Leopoldville, Zaire;9and thatscientific consensus holds 1931 as the approximate date of HIV srcination.7Thesesuperstitions have led to common, yet false, declarations that HIV/AIDS srcinated wellbefore the polio vaccination era and the Special Virus Cancer Program (SVCP) that muchevidence below links to the “punctuated srcin” of AIDS.For the record, according to the authors of the 1959 discovery, they never found, noralleged to have found, HIV, or anything like a full virus. According to these authors, even “attempts to amplify HIV-1 fragments of >300 base pairs (bp) were unsuccessful, . . .However, after numerous attempts, four shorter sequences were obtained” that only represented small portions of two of the six genes of the complete AIDS virus.9 This is why Gao et al, referred to the 1959 sequences as “the oldest trace of the AIDSpandemic . . . although the precise timing and circumstance of early events in theSIVcpz/HIV-1 zoonosis remain obscure.”22[Editor’s note for the lay reader, “SIVcpz” isshort for “simian immunodeficiency virus from the chimpanzee.” This is know to be theclosest viral relative to the human AIDS virus, HIV-1.] Unfortunately, regarding the 1959 sequences, Zhu et al., left much room formisinterpretation if not wild speculation by stating that given the “‘starburst phylogeny,’HIV-1 was probably introduced into humans shortly before that time frame, about a decadeor two earlier than previously estimated. . . .”10(Emphasis added.) They speculated thezoonosis might have occurred “considerably earlier than the late 1940s.” Obviously, thisaccount is irrelevant to “the extraordinary synchrony in the 1970s of ten or moredistinguishable epidemics” discovered by Myers et al.10Therefore, this later group of researchers concluded that, with the exception of the 1959 sequences suggesting viralancestry, “Clinical, serological and molecular retrospective studies have all failed toproduce any evidence of AIDS or HIV prior to the 1970s.”10(Emphasis added.) As Myerset al., had initially advanced, the early to mid-1970s “Big Bang” srcin of HIV/AIDS isfurther supported by most recent scientific evidence.10 As if repeating false assumptions would alter historic and scientific facts, manycontemporary investigators, like those representing AI’s HIV/AIDS Task Force, continue toimply the SIV to HIV zoonosis occurred on or before 1959. Many natural evolution theoryevangelists continue to cite the now disproven “cut hunter” theory to explain the srcin of the pandemic.8,22Reflecting on Zhu et al’s position, however, they simply concluded that the major-group viruses that dominate the global AIDS pandemic at present shared acommon ancestor in the 1940s or the early 1950s. However, given confounding factors,including the likelihood of viral gene recombination during the manufacture and testing of the HB vaccine, like Korber et al.’s speculation discussed in the next section, the 1959 “isolate” may hold little, if any, relevance in determining the srcin of HIV/AIDS.10 Suffice it to say, no one has ever found a virus predating the SVCP and the late 1970s.11 At best they found fragments of what may have been the complete virus, but more likelypieces of a progenitor virus they called “a common ancestor” that dated back to “the 1940sor the early 1950s.” These and other portions of this “common ancestor” may have existedfor centuries if not millennia. Again, this evidence is rrelevant when considering the 1970s “punctuated [iatrogenic] event” recently determined to be undisputable scientific fact. More importantly, as Zhu and Ho et al., concluded, “the role of large-scale vaccinationcampaigns, perhaps with multiple uses of non-sterilized needles, should be carefullyexamined, . . .” as contributing to the sudden emergence of HIV/AIDS in North Americaand Africa simultaneously during the late 1970s.9,11 The 1931 AIDS Origin Assumption and Viral Recombination Regarding the 1931 estimated date of HIV’s srcin advanced by Korber et al.7(i.e., “somewhere between 1910 and 1950”), a critical examination of these authors’ methodsreveals problems. Largely speculative due to their use of a confounding-factor-liablecomputer model, Korber and colleagues noted their limitations. They stated their finding(s)regarding the 1931 genetic projection, that precludes various vaccine-induced pandemic
