I was put onto Hagelin and was impressed to see this clip. He was the leader of the Natural Law party (and presidential candidate) but I was told he was libertarian. I have always had sympathy for Libertarians, and this clip has just added to it. Why are these compassionate people right-wing BLOGLINK? But the answer with Libertarians is always the same for me, it is not the theory but the need for staged pragmatism especially in the time of such global bullies as the corporations that is so important. I don’t want regulations but the regulations that go first protect the people – the 1% will never allow their regulations to be quashed. What is the point of removing protectionism when the real control is with cartels. I love the idea of barter, am happy with farmers’ markets with healthy food and first-hand trading, but movements towards free trade globally only benefit the 1%. Follow the money. 1%-money never supports socialism but it does support libertarianism because it knows interim libertarian measures benefit the 1%.
Having said that I would love for socialism to discuss consciousness. To perceive religion as the opiate of the masses is true up to a functional point but it misses the most important thing, the insight and understanding that comes with deep religious understanding are revolutionary. What is worse (because it is not likely to happen sufficiently) this insight is needed for the survival of Gaia and humanity. How I would love for the left to embrace spirituality, and accept some sort of consciousness explanation of life. But the problem is that the left is dominated by left-wing intellectuals who have not experienced spiritual consciousness, insight or whatever is chosen to discuss this religious experience. But there are a few.
But there is something very important that Hagelin does, he brings discussion of consciousness and meditation into mainstream academia. Wherever this blog goes that is so important and mustn’t be forgotten.
Where quantum physics goes loses me, and that is the first half of his talk. But I do not ignore it, my science is just not up to it. When I was young I came across two books, The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav and The Tao of Physics by Fritjov Kapra. Basically these said to me that once you go subatomic it becomes impossible to be exact. You can measure as momentum or as particle but you cannot say that subatomically there are particles or there is momentum. In the Turning Point Kapra spoke of the Newtonian paradigm. Newton’s 3 laws talk about particles, and this works fine with “touchable” objects. But subatomically it is not certain there are particles. But because science’s axiomatic approach is a Newtonian paradigm, then it is assumed to be Newtonian subatomically.
At the same time that I was reading about this (mid-70s) I was becoming aware of the reality of chi (prana). It made perfect sense to me that subatomically there was energy, that we can measure the effects of this energy, but that this energy did not fit in with the Newtonian paradigm. Because I have experienced the chi this clearly meant to me that the Newtonian paradigm did not extend subatomically, so the investigation of quarks etc. subatomically with all the probabilities associated with it did not matter to me. As a way of measuring chi there might be mileage in this but I am not sure. In this same clip, Hagelin takes this subatomic “investigation” into unified field theory. It sounds to me that such strings are indistinguishable from energy; why not call it chi and investigate chi? One significant answer is BigPharma; there is no profit in a few needles and a trained acupuncturist, and BigPharma has significant academic control because of their amount of research funding.
Accepting subatomics as chi, it is a very small leap to accept that there is as Annie Besant describes consciousness in an atom – theosophy (here or Alice Bailey here. And this brings me to the second part of Hagelin’s talk – Maharishi’s consciousness. I use theosophy to illustrate this again because theosophy talks of a layer cake:-
When I first raised the issue of unity, I was meaning political unity that could be found by adopting approaches similar to the Unity Platform. But this political unity is very limited compared to the Unity that is put forward by many spiritual people – including Hagelin. The terminology I use for this Unity is “Gaia” or ONE Planet. It amounts to there being ONE life that is the planet, Gaia. This life force functions as a Unity but from inside we perceive separate individuals and forms of life. Science takes this separation as axiomatic, and misunderstands so much because of that – not least the misunderstanding concerning the sub-atomic realm. For me the sea is the best way to understand the Unity that is Gaia. What happens when you stand in the sea and a wave knocks you over? Are you knocked over by a particle, several particles, the momentum of the wave, the sea’s energy or even the sea’s consciousness (whatever that is)? It depends on how you setup your definitions (or axioms) as to what knocks you over.
In the second part of the talk, Hagelin links the unified field theory to consciousness. Whilst his conclusion is excellent his methodology left me numb; it was so academic. It reminded me of theosophy taken to extremes with diagrams, more layer cakes, parallel isomorphisms, and I have given all of these up. Buddhism talks of 5 skhandas one of which is sankhara – mental proliferations, and I see much of what Hagelin talks about as mental proliferations for academia. There are postulations of 10 dimensions or whatever, and the mathematical consistency supports his arguments, but show me the dimensions. But there is matter chi skhandas and pure being – simple. The real issue of understanding is whether we meditate – enough.
Is Unified Field theory consciousness? As far as I know, yes. The complicated intricacies are necessary for academia, and that is the medium Hagelin works in so I fully support him going for it. For me I see chi and consciousness, and meditation as the way of understanding. Hagelin, enjoy your mental proliferations; what you are doing is great.
But how can the pure being as compassion be found on the political right? In terms of Unity of Being and political unity in the Unity Platform LINK there is togetherness – great.
Archive for the ‘Big Pharma’ Category
Brexit and Trump have also brought home to me another important issue – what is truth? Speaking the truth is part of the 8-Fold Path, Magga (4 Noble Truths), and never has it been more important to recognise the truth when the representatives of the powerful are lying so much.
The first thing I learned about the truth as an adult was when I started on the Path and began to develop insight. At that time seeing people or knowing stuff was so important. Basically it was a reaction to all the lies that education and upbringing had given me. Developing insight is the most important tool for understanding the truth, and very few people discuss this. Insight is definitely not taught in schools!!! At the same time, in the search for truth recognising insight in others became an important aspect of discerning truth. It is not possible for one person to know the truth in all things. So a pre-requisite for truth is insight and the recognition of insight. One key aspect of recognising insight is that of sila – moral integrity. Recognising moral integrity is almost as difficult as recognising insight but there is an obvious corollary to this:-
If a person does not have moral integrity, then they certainly do not have insight and would not see truth as important.
Having moral integrity and talking about morals is definitely not the same thing. There are many people who use morality within religious institutions as a means of control, and yet they themselves do not have morality. In other words religion and morality are not the same although within the religious institutions there are people with insight and moral integrity.
Compassion is the most important fundamental concerning truth. Compassion means the freedom from suffering for all, and in this I include Gaia. So in seeking the truth the person must show compassion. Therefore a person speaking the truth will be working towards compassion, and therefore someone who is sexist, racist, or does not support LBGT rights is not compassionate, and is therefore not speaking the truth. So there are yardsticks, how compassionate is the person and how much insight do they have?
Of course these yardsticks are absolutes, and applying these absolutes in everyday situations especially in something as criminal as politics is very difficult.
But trying to use these yardsticks let’s examine the political situation but not as yet in terms of party politics. What politically exhibits the least compassion? Quite obviously the first political yardstick is war. Who benefits from war? People don’t but corporations do, the global MIC, Military Industrial Complex does. So we have a political question to ask as a benchmark concerning support for the MIC and the corporations – I will use the vernacular the 1%. The most heinous weapon of war is the drone, these are hugely expensive to make and generate huge profits, a definite plus for the MIC. The immigration crisis is blowback, a huge consequence of interfering wars and the heinous use of drones.
These corporations work hand-in-hand with global finance institutions such as banking and insurance. So for me the 1% of MIC, banking and finance are those that control global politics, and politicians who stand against the 1% are those who I support. I have not mentioned BigFood and BigPharma but these corporations have similar interests as the other corporations of the 1%.
For me Occupy stood against the 1%, so I support the Occupy movement. It is my understanding that the Occupy movement stood behind Bernie in the US and Corbyn in the UK. Whether this is true or not what Bernie and Corbyn say stands against the 1%.
But is what they say what they mean, are they telling the truth? Or is it just rhetoric?
In Corbyn’s case I have sufficient personal knowledge of the man to know that he is genuine although I haven’t always agreed with his tactics. In the UK in London from 1985 through to 1992 I was a political activist, and this brought me into contact with Corbyn’s sphere of influence – he was an MP and community activist in North London then. For me there was no doubt about his moral integrity and compassion, but at the time I was active I felt his tactics were mistaken. Now I support him, times change.
I support Bernie. His rhetoric is good, and I have a general feeling that he is moving in the right direction. But because of the lack of personal connection I cannot be so definitive. My intuition makes me feel he merits support, but I would not go beyond that because of my lack of personal contact.
What is most interesting about these two political candidates is that they are both struggling with their party hierarchies. There is a movie I often recall called Lifting the Veil. Whilst the movie does attack both the Labour party and the Democrats, it is more concerned with attacking the system. It is my understanding that the movie claims that the electoral system has been manipulated by the 1% as a media circus, and that there is never any intention of genuine democracy – government by the people for the people. This is in line with the approach of neoliberalism as most notably discussed by Noam Chomsky (for me).
Given that I accept that the political system of neoliberalism is the problem, the question then is how it is to be defeated and what is it to be replaced with? For me compassion means that I am seeking a system that treats people as equals without regards to “race creed or colour”; I would also now add gender preference. This is fundamentally the rights of all people over the few, the 99% compared to the 1%. At present we have governments directed by the 1% against the interests of the 99% who they want to exploit as their workforce. So the question is how do we organise for a government by the 99% (or 100% where the government treats all people as equal)? In determining veracity I would be investigating whether the politician is genuinely interested in a government of and by 100% of the people.
So far I have avoided political terminology in describing truth. And this is because of problems with the media and education. It is my view that western societies (and probably global societies) are inundated with propaganda that is directed by the 1% for their benefit. The terms 1% and 99% are very similar to the Marxist terminology of bourgeois and proletariat, and there has been continued propaganda against Marxists, socialists or any who subscribe to Marx’s theories. There is much to be learnt from Marx’s dialectical approach. But the main point of Marxism is that all the people need to work together against the self-interests of the 1%. In my adult years I have never seen people more divided, and I think propaganda and obfuscation by the 1%-media are the main causes. Typically I have seen mainstream media organisations described as left-wing when I have always described them as right-wing. In terms of compassion this site might well have the same objectives – healthy people, but in terms of the media our descriptions could not be further apart. In this the 1% have been so successful in dividing us.
There is another reason I have not promoted myself as socialist, I believe that sticking to ideas or an ideology is a mistake. While ideas can guide, holding to an ideal restricts the mind. Adhering to dogma stagnates an institution whether it is religious or political, people also become restricting if others are expected to fit in with ideals. So another point of truth is enquiry. Does the truth hold up to inspection of the enquiring mind? For many years dogma has been thrown at me either from the left wing or in religious circles, but none of this dogma alone produces clarification. It is only with insight that dogma moves beyond the idea. Examining a situation in the light of compassion and through enquiry examining the dogma and situation is a process to determine the truth. Does what is said fit a set of rules is not truth-determining?
I often draw parallels between US and UK politics, typically Republicans vs Democrats and Conservatives vs Labour. In the UK historically the conservatives have supported the 1% with token liberal rhetoric for the welfare of the people and nationalist populism in the interests of the white population, and whilst historically Labour grew out of the working-class its representatives are now simply opportunists. In the UK a nationalist populist, Nigel Farage, has arrived on the scene promoting racism, and this populism has recently been accepted by many people – a significant factor in Brexit; his party UKIP primarily attracts disillusioned working-class Labour voters.
The I in UKIP stands for Independence, and I think this term independent is significant. In UKIP’s case it maybe means independent from the EU – Brexit. But in character UKIP supposedly represents an alternative to the conservatives and labour (the neoliberal system). At the same time it discusses the people’s interests over that of an elite – again appealing to an understanding of those against neoliberalism, but its appeal to the British electorate is because it is white nationalist. In my view UKIP is an appeal to white popular racism, and although sadly they are increasing in popularity their only impact so far has been their contribution to Brexit which also included majority conservative influence. In the UK this populism has divided the 99%, and in the UK I believe that is why UKIP has been funded and given more coverage in mainstream media than is warranted for a small party.
In the US the situation is slightly different but the impact of nationalist populism combined with the conservative interests has led to the election of Donald Trump. Because of my compassion I cannot support either UKIP or Trump because of their racism – and in Trump’s case overt sexism. (I suspect also LGBT issues but I am not certain of that). Initially I said that if a person does not have moral integrity I cannot believe that they will tell the truth, that applies particularly for Trump although I also distrust Farage.
In the US many people rue the election because Hillary was not elected. However in the neoliberal system Hillary represented the 1%-system elite of the Democrat party, and so she lost the populist vote. For the same reason support from Occupy was not strong because of the same neoliberalism, and because of the way the Democrat party cut out Bernie.
In terms of truth it is worth examining how events have panned out in terms of the way they have benefitted the 1%. Particularly in the US nationalist populism has benefitted the 1% by splitting the 99%. The populists have however elected a member of the 1% to deliver an anti-1% platform, can that ever happen? We will have to wait and see. Is Trump a political “whistleblower”?
In terms of truth this splitting is very important because it explains much that goes on with populism. Within the framework of blaming the elite the primary purpose of the populism is division. When you examine much of the analysis in both camps it places the source of the problem with the 1%. Two important platforms of US populism were “draining the swamp” and “against Wall Street”, both of which any left-winger would be happy to support. But then comes the division because the most important attack politically is to blame the left. And here is the inconsistency, the swamp and Wall Street are not the Left.
When considering the populism we have to examine emphasis. The 1% have no problem with being blamed if their strategy of dividing the 99% works so the rise of this nationalist populism just benefits them. For me the main political truth is that the 1% cause our problems, and that we should all fight against the influence of the 1%. In blaming the 1% I seek unity against the 1%, and seek strategies that negate their financial power and influence. This strategy unites all working people, it unites small business owners who are trying to balance their books, but it works against people who manipulate financial laws for their own profit. Such small business owners do not go bankrupt and start up again. Such people pay taxes however unfair the tax system might be because those taxes provide education and infrastructure for ordinary working people. The 99% have all this in common, and if we all worked together then the 1% cannot exploit us.
However divided we become manipulable so it is in the interest of the 99% to divide the left and right. The internet has succeeded in doing this. By investing in the internet the 1% have developed websites that present their divisive populism.
At the same time populism has inconsistencies because the strategy is division and not the interests of the people themselves. The government is described as left-wing and yet a major popular platform is the swamp – the revolving door of the 1% that controls the government. How can the government be left-wing and 1%-controlled? And Trump himself is a major inconsistency, how can a member of the 1% be interested in fighting 1%-control? However these inconsistencies don’t matter if the purpose is division, that division is a consistent purpose:-
Consistency – division
Such inconsistency is for me a good measure of the truth.
Where next do I go in terms of the truth? Over the years I have developed mechanisms for determining the truth. These are based primarily on the arena of politics that I know – what has been called the “left”. I know these people, and have developed some insight into their degree of truth-telling. Over the years I have seen how important the truth is to the left wing, if there are any doubts in the veracity of a left-wing statement there is a huge mainstream backlash. More responsible left-wing people are very careful with the truth, but that is not all left-wingers for sure with some of the more vociferous getting carried away with rhetoric; so there has to be truth-discernment from within. Based on my experience and insight I would use certain left-wing evidence and avoid the rhetoric. This can only be a personal approach to truth.
Political correctness is also worth discussing when examining the truth. PC developed throughout my lifetime, and in my view it developed because language was a significant part of racism and sexism. Demanding that people were not racist or sexist in the language they used was a good position when trying to remove the embedded racism and sexism in society. As a result racists and sexists were expected to improve their use of language. This gave an illusion that people were less racist or sexist but in the UK Brexit showed that people had not truly changed. At the same time there has been a backlash against the “PC police”, people who have too vehemently reinforced the change of language without helping people change their attitudes. With UKIP and Trump those people who have been straitjacketed by the PC police have been allowed to express their racism and sexism. Because there was a repression there has been a backlash against PC in general, and as a result truth has suffered because much truth came out of the research those people did.
At the same time it is populist to reject what PC people have said because populism attacks the left wing. As I have said, this is a change that I find hard to understand as the government has always been a puppet of the 1% so for populism to claim government is left wing is difficult for me to grasp. Again this is an indication as to the ability of the 1% to influence. Look at what has happened. The 1% continue to dominate and their profits continue to increase despite the crash of 2008. Governments have applied austerity measures as a consequence, awarded bankers bonuses, and yet populism has divided the 99% so that there is an obfuscation concerning the left wing. The power of money is amazing.
So to conclude how I determine truth:-
1) Overlying everything else is compassion
Finally since this has been mainly concerning truth in politics, I ask that we recognise a political delusion that has been perpetrated. Most people vote for economic reasons ie vote in a way that they think will give them most money. Vote for greed. When greed is voted for we get manipulated by the greedy. Why not change the way we vote to that of compassion, vote for people who genuinely talk about caring for others and the environment. This would change the political arena.
I am not a believer in the condition ADD or ADHD – I must state that before I write anything. At one stage in the Democracy Now talks below, Gabor Mate talks of students with concentration problems previously being described as “bad”, one of my standard report comments would have been “needs to learn to concentrate more” – not that they were “bad”. But if they were not concentrating on their work, what were they going to do? Meditate in silence? Concentration is a huge issue, I spend a lot of time trying to come to terms with concentration in meditation and otherwise, it is difficult. BUT I am not ill because I cannot concentrate at the drop of a hat, that is just a human inability – an inability to concentrate.
So Democracy Now discussed “the selling of ADD”:-
We have an increase in concentration problems because we have a decrease in classroom discipline. We have a decrease in classroom discipline because corporal punishment has not been replaced. Because it was not replaced teachers are blamed for the decreasing discipline, when institutional rules prevent punitive measures that can lead to discipline; this is not an advocation of corporal punishment it’s an advocation of discipline – discipline as a priority, not liberalism. With the increase in discipline issues we have an increase in concentration problems, and this has allowed BigPharma to peddle pills.
Alan Schwartz has written a number of New York Times articles on ADD -the “Selling of Attention Deficit Disorder”, his most recent, I found here – this is the one depicted in the Democracy Now interview. His focus was on BigPharma and inappropriate diagnoses by the medical profession, he often states that some pills might be helpful. In most cases I do not accept this position, if you become dependent on drugs to study when do you learn to concentrate?
Both Democracy Now talks discuss the attitude of BigPharma, and as such is worth knowing. Gabor Mate spoke a number of times about the limitation of the medical establishment to causality through brain biology and the need for this establishment to consider the environmental impact – very Bruce Lipton (discussed at Mandtao – see footers). Such an impact does not provide BigPharma with profits.
It is worth continuing to note BigPharma’s tricks.
This is very long so you can jump to the conclusion
I touched on the issue of vaccines when I was considering a flu jab – and rejected it out of hand. My flu problem was dragging on – it turned out to be a glandular issue (click tag cloud glands), so my mind turned again to vaccines. In this blog I analysed further the use of vaccines. I accepted the homeopathic principle (discussed here) that says that a small amount of the “virus” will help produce antibodies. However I concluded that:-
“Basically they didn’t make vaccines until they could be sure that nothing would happen to the companies if there were side effects. I don’t trust the companies anyway, and if they are given carte blanche – no way.”
Checkout this animate from the Health Ranger, I now consider him extreme but this is worth watching for details about the legal shenaningans in the US that support BigPharma.
I have seen further stuff on vaccines, and downloaded this film – The Greater Good. My first reaction was that I don’t feel it is hard-hitting enough. However it does raise questions, and that is what I want to do here – raise more detailed questions and look for answers.
There was one thing I didn’t factor into my consideration of vaccines because of my distrust of BigPharma, and that is how successful they have been in eradicating some diseases. So what do I replace this with if I make a blanket refusal to vaccinate? A much better question. Not only have these diseases been eradicated vaccines have been used over time successfully. So the real question is not just about vaccinating, but what has changed and when did it change? In the movie it says that children in the US are expected to have 69 doses for 16 vaccines in 2010s as opposed to when they had 23 doses for 7 vaccines in 1980s:-
This is a big change. Remember a vaccine contains a disease or virus, and the purpose of them is to build up antibodies. Are we giving our children too much to fight causing them illness?
But what put me off the flu vaccine was the chemicals that help the vaccine:-
Chemicals commonly used in the production of vaccines include a suspending fluid (sterile water, saline, or fluids containing protein); preservatives and stabilizers (for example, albumin, phenols, and glycine); and adjuvants or enhancers that help improve the vaccine’s effectiveness. Vaccines also may contain very small amounts of the culture material used to grow the virus or bacteria used in the vaccine, such as chicken egg protein.
This is from the CDC, so there is no dispute that there are chemical additives, the dispute is concerning the dangers of the additives. Mercury is recognised as a poison yet it is contained in many vaccines disguised as thimerasol; there is also formaldehyde and aluminium, all are discussed in the movie The Greater Good and also discussed here. What the movie points out is that there has not been sufficient testing of the vaccines long-term? I would also suggest that there has not been enough testing on the volume of vaccines. In the 80s when the vaccines eradicated diseases without the problems being reported now, they were only treating 7 diseases, now it is 16. Perhaps the immune system (that is producing the antibodies) has too much to cope with, and perhaps that is why we are having conditions such as autism arising from the vaccinations.
What horrified me was the boy in the movie whose mercury levels were so high:-
In the movie (43m 50s) one system doctor cited studies that the level of mercury in vaccines was acceptable, maybe it isn’t in an accumulation of vaccines. Either way for me taking any mercury is a huge risk, and each person has to balance this out with the risks of the disease itself. Another doctor (44m 50s) said that in 1999 the level had to be reduced, but that still leaves open the question why were vaccines not a problem in the 80s. What was also raised is that mercury tolerance is different for different people, and perhaps this boy was particularly vulnerable. Why isn’t that tolerance tested? Surely that can’t be difficult?
A fascinating point arose around 58m. As in my above conclusion it was pointed out that BigPharma is not liable. Initially they were, and paid out huge money. So the revolving door led to BigPharma becoming immune to prosecution. The lawyer effectively said the government made this for the “greater good”, there must be vaccination. Why doesn’t the government take control? Why doesn’t the government produce and test the vaccines for themselves? And have a procedure for accountability? Rather than leaving it in the hands of companies who put profits before people?
Here is another question, and it scuppers my original statement that immunisation has worked. This particular doctor suggested that improved hygiene awareness contributed to the reduction in disease:-
According to this doctor vaccines were introduced after the reduction in deaths. Is this true? Check this timeline.
This doctor is questioning the effectiveness of vaccines, but after reflection I tend to think this is a red herring; but I am not sure. The principle of vaccinating in my opinion is sound. It is the chemicals and volume of disease I have issues with.
The movie concluded with a very sound position. The science is not there to prove that vaccines are safe nor is it there to prove they are not safe. The problem is that BigPharma has control of the government (in the US the FDA and CDC), and vaccines are recommended or mandated. How can the vaccine be safe with mercury in it? That doesn’t make sense to me. What about other chemicals, that also doesn’t make sense to me.
The debate is polarised, this is the problem. When science is questioned scientists can get defensive. This page tells us which chemicals are in vaccines, it reads like a list of don’ts on my diet; it is produced by the CDC. There are strong detractors of vaccines such as the health ranger, holistic health 1 and 2 (disgusting does not make it bad for you?) , and here. Here is a UK detractor describing the cover-up of vaccine hazards, and here is the UK schedule – not legally mandated apparently.
The hazards are real. The benefits of sound vaccination are real. The vaccines the doctors give are unnecessarily hazardous because of the toxins they contain. Can we produce vaccines without these toxic chemicals? Here is a description, and here is a description of how UK vaccines can be hazardous. What struck me when reading this was that the science process was fine, and that the problems come from mass production – the need to mass produce requires preservation; and mass production is Big Pharma’s profits. So the way forward for vaccinating is clear – small is beautiful BigPharma can kill. The problem is – does small exist?
So I investigated the claims for homeopathic vaccines. I found some places on the net talking of homeopathic vaccines and nosodes, but it wasn’t clear. Then
“The Faculty of Homeopathy represents hundreds of professionally qualified clinicians such as doctors, nurses, vets and dentists who are statutorily regulated and safely use homeopathy on a regular basis to the benefit of their patients, many of whom have found little or no relief from their symptoms using conventional medicine. Members of the Faculty of Homeopathy would never recommend homeopathic medicine instead of conventional immunisation. It is the poor advice given by some lay practitioners as highlighted in the Newsnight programme that undermines homeopathy as an effective medicine and results in the hostile media stories.” Case closed on homeppathy as an alternative for the moment.
Some vaccines are a necessity. It would be socially irresponsible to contract diseases that spread and cause deaths to others. But what is definitely clear is the role of the 1% in this. BigPharma use the puppet government agencies of the FDA and CDC in the US and their equivalents in other countries to mandate, or otherwise, the taking of their vaccines; but neither the FDA nor the CDC have properly monitored the quality of these vaccines. To increase their profits Big Pharma have used chemical processes that preserve the vaccines but in doing so have used chemicals that are toxic and some carcinogenic. The impact of these drugs is not consistent as some children have immune systems that can fight them. Whereas in some cases there are strong indications that in some children the vaccines have caused autism and other neural conditions.
Homeopathy sadly does not offer alternatives authoritatively.
So the vaccines taken need to be kept to a minimum because of the potential risks caused by the chemical additives. Vaccines that were given to me in the
Vaccines are necessary but are not being investigated. BigPharma is given carte-blanche to make vast vaccine profits with medicine that is now unproven. Parents must vaccinate but be prepared there are significant and regular side effects.
Tags: alienation, compassion, Compromise, division
I woke up this morning with some vague recollection of a dream concerning food and animal rights and the division on the left. I decided to go through a pointless exercise, and it is pointless for two reasons. Much that is animal rights is driven by idealism, and idealism is a regular bete noire of mine because it creates division. And the second reason is something that I always put forward as a priority, and that can never be a priority for these idealists and intellectuals – the need for unity.
To start discussing what we eat there is a principle that politically needs accepting – “you are what you eat”; so first and foremost the position we need to take is that we eat healthily. This is what Nature intended and we are part of Nature. Nature also tells us that it is natural to eat some meat or fish. Why? The scientific indicator for this is B12. Humans need B12 and this can only be obtained from animals or fish. There are some that argue B12 can be obtained from synthetic vitamins, I doubt that, but what does need to be accepted is that because B12 is needed some animals or fish need to be eaten. I would also claim that Nature has animals to provide us with food, but that need not be a political position.
This next part is not tactful but there needs to be some acceptance of the principle it presents. Animal rights positions have to some extent lost a grip. There are people within the animal rights movements who humanise animals to such an extent that they want to save the animals because of their “human” characteristics – or even “more than human” characteristics. Humans need to be caring, that is first and foremost, and so saving animals per se is not a principle; being humane is.
In general I see no need for animal testing. In many cases the animals are being tested with drugs, and synthetic drugs are not a medical means of success. This fits in with the Natural practice that we are what we eat. In other words being healthy is about ensuring our diet is good, and not whether some pills work on animals. As for cosmetic testing that is completely unacceptable, being inhumane to animals in order to be vain is not an acceptable principle of unity.
So having alienated most of the left and animal rights’ people, I now intend alienating the working-class. The typical British working-class diet is absolutely crass, and has no element of intelligence applied to it. There are working-class activists who eat foods that can only be designed to cause illness. When these people have the intelligence to recognise the power and practice of the corporatocracy and yet don’t question their diet it is foolish. However it is claimed by some nutritionists that there are people who need more meat than others, that has to be allowed for because peoples health through healthy eating needs to be a guide for a united position.
But whatever meat we eat we cannot accept inhumane practices with regards to meat. There can only be one acceptable approach to meat-eating and that is that the meat is free range. Nature I’m sure originally provided a balance between free range and the need to eat meat, this paleo balance I have discussed here. What was discussed here as a scientific rationale can also be the basis of a position of unity for the left concerning foods and animal rights. Eggs equally should be free range. How can eggs that are not naturally created – between cocks and hens – possibly be healthy? As well this is inhumane, and the conditions they are kept in to produce these unnatural eggs is also inhumane. Free range is needed.
And the biggest rallying cry for unity ought to be the recognition that in our foods there are toxins, toxins that are placed in our foods for BigFood to make a profit. We have accepted additives for convenience, and have not considered the aims of the corporatocracy. The corporatocracy exploits our labour in factories, why are they not going to exploit us elsewhere – in what we consume.
In the end Unity comes from understanding who we are. As human beings we need to be guided by compassion, and treating animals the way we do is inhumane. At the same time we need to consider that our political position needs to be guided by what is healthy for us. We are what we eat, if we eat toxins then we are going to be ill. BigFood and BigPharma work together in this. BigFood encourages us, often forces us, to eat unhealthy food. When we become ill BigPharma has pills to cure. Pills are not necessary with a healthy diet, so how we eat is a unified strategy for getting rod of pills – and the need for animal testing. Being humane to ourselves – stopping the inhumanity of the corporatocracy – is also the way to be humane with animals.
Do not place the ideas first, this is a tremendous failing of the left. Human compassion comes first, not the ideas of animal rights. Such rights are ideas that create prisons and division.
There has to be a position that unifies left-thinking people. The working-class needs their health, and this health does not come from the diet that exploits animals. Health is a platform of unity, not ideals. Let’s work together.
There are too many ideas and intellectuals involved in this area of discussion, the corporatocracy has its job done for them already. But this is a workable position of unity if people were prepared to compromise in their work against the corporatocracy, unfortunately where they compromise is usually working for the corporatocracy when compassion and not compromise need to be the byword.
Tags: Corporatocracy, enquiry
This is a response to Dottie again:- “I wish more people would document their journeys, as writing allows us to be “specific” about our problems, which can sometimes help us connect the dots… And of course, details might help others delve into similar problems of their own.”
Obviously I agree with you about documentation – keeping a record. Well there are a number of reasons why people do not keep a record of their healing. With blogging people have begun to write more but I suspect they are for people who like writing – like me. But in this world of money, money, money, I think bloggers often seek recompense, and this alters the tone of their blogs. But even with this free access to having blogs read (if only by a limited number of people), people are unwilling to explore their experience. Firstly I think this is fear but secondly I feel that they are not taught to value their own experience. In the case of people who go on a healing or spiritual journey, this experience is extremely valuable.
As we know medicine sees healing as a pill or a slash – although in the case of trauma slashing is valid. But we are all different. Whilst our bodies are fundamentally the same and react the same way to nutrition through food – fundamentally, there are also many things that are different. How much those people do meditation and energy work for one. And then of course there is the universal difference that affects health – lifestyle.
In science there is an interesting word to describe the validity of this personal experience, and that is case study. The method of quantitative analysis can present data that would validate the use of a pill by describing success or failure, but as human beings we are far too complex for that. Science has moved far more to qualitative analysis and the use of case studies especially in the social sciences – case studies were a requirement of an education masters I did in the 90s. So a question might be asked of medicine which is more appropriate – quantitative or qualitative? For people who understand the holistic nature of healing, the answer has to be qualitative. Of course in medicine BigPharma would not encourage a wholesale change to the recognition of the importance of case studies, because they are seeking validation of their cure by pill approach. At the same time when one looks at medicine from a more holistic viewpoint such as case studies, the major issue of side effects would be seen. As usual this is an example where finance has controlled science and prevented science from examining the relevant information that would emerge from case studies – qualitative analysis.
Another way that describes the importance of these case studies is the nature of the empirical data. All data is valid, and the observation of all that happens adds to understanding. But typically scientific method tries to control what we observe ostensibly to remove “other factors” but in practice as a reinforcement of the very method itself. This control is carried out through what is termed “Design of Experiments” – or it was when I learned about it. This design is effectively a limiting process in order to focus on the particular detail that the hypothesis wishes to examine. Is this method valid? Or perhaps a better question would be, should the experiment not involve case studies and afterwards find a valid method for focussing on the detail? To me the control in experiments that occurs in the design ignores so much valid information, information that is intentionally eschewed by the design because the scientist through the hypothesis does not want to see this information as a contributory factor; in my view this eschewing should occur after the data – case study – has been gathered.
Some might say that scientific investigation ought to examine all and discard what is not relevant – with appropriate reasoning. This would not suit BigPharma with its focus on the pill, nor BigFood with its need to avoid the effects of the toxins. This method works fine with weapons – they kill or not. So blogging inordinately is a negative salute to prevailing scientific method, and that is a justification for my going on so much. 🙂
Tags: Cancer, energy, Flu, glands, mb, meditation, treatise
Over the last couple of years I have been increasingly susceptible to flus. Nothing too bad – five times, but what hit home was that I had a flu at the end of July and three weeks later I had the flu again. I recognised that my susceptibility to these flus revolved around a cold chest – a seriously cold chest. Wow look what I found when searching for a link – a blog “Exercise Cold and Damp” on 12/10/08 – fascinating. I have tried to resolve this cold chest issue before. I have made amendments to my diet – increasing warm foods, cayenne pepper etc. – discussed here. But the chest was still cold. My “guru”, Paul Pitchford “Healing through Whole Foods”, says these chest things take time but with herbal treatments it was not happening. I needed a practitioner intervention – acupuncture treatment. The issue has not been resolved yet but I think it is on the way.
So why am I writing this now and not waiting? Quite simple. Meditation. Meditation told me I needed to revise my approach. I have previously said that if I had cancer I would go Gerson, but meditation told me that was not enough. The approach to cancer you want is a “Zandtao in your terms”. I am not saying everyone should follow Zandtao but my approach to the whole person is the three tenets as discussed in the Zandtao Treatise; that is what I am proposing for life, so it should be the same for healing from cancer. Cancer could be termed a holistic disease. I have previously called it a lifestyle disease, and yet although a cure is lifestyle I have often said Gerson. But Gerson is not enough. Using the description “Zandtao in your terms” I mean a lifestyle approach that incorporates meditation (mind), chi and healing the body.
Let’s examine the three tenets:-
Improving the mind
Harmonising our energy
Taking care of our bodies
Let’s start with our bodies, here is where Gerson comes in. I believe the Gerson therapy is the best way of cleaning the toxins, and therefore tumours, from the body. But that is not enough for our bodies, our bodies need rehabilitating. In the cropped clip Charlotte Gerson talks of rehabilitation in general, and I don’t doubt their competence. But because of the Zandtao approach being committed to energy, in this programme a significant part of that rehabilitation needs to be acupuncture. Now acupuncture helps clear the channels but what if your energy intake is not peak, then you need energy techniques such as Chi Gung to “gather energy”. And none of this works if your mind is in a mess, maybe still dealing with the doctor’s cancer death sentence? So you need meditation – the 3 tenets.
For a healing routine a clinical schedule could be
I stress I am not an expert so to apply this sort of routine requires a team of committed experts, people who understand such a holistic approach. These would include Gerson therapists, acupuncturists, Chi Gung teachers and meditation teachers.
My food diet is primarily macrobiotic, and it is interestng to note that macrobiotics once offered itself as a cure for cancer. I believe some doubt has been cast on its ability to cure cancer, but Denny Waxman worked with patients and their cancer was cured – see Denny Waxman. It appears that he worked on a combination of food and energy. What is practised now as macrobiotics has beceome much more of a food diet; but in its esoteric depths macrobiotics speaks of meditation, energy and food – Denny Waxman is such an example.
A friend advised me to watch this film, “Cancer is curable now”. I was a bit dismissive – I wrote something like I have looked at a number of cancer movies over my retirement years. But I began watching it, and then stopped because the movie was moving to where my meditation had taken me. So that is where I am now; I stopped the movie and wrote this blog ….
…. in light of what I have just written I am going to continue watching the movie.
My concerns that this blog might be viewed as plagiarism based on the movie were unfounded. I completely agreed with the first half of the movie that can be found at this torrent.
However the remainder of the movie I am unwilling to comment on as it involved techniques that I am unsure of. You can view the whole movie “Cancer is curable now” via this torrent..
The movie led to three amendments to the above programme. Firstly exercise needs to be included, the minimum of a 20-minute walk daily – as discussed in the Zandtao Treatise. Sunshine is essential as is evident in the Natural emphasis of the Treatise, but I forgot to write it. I am not a Gerson expert although I recommend their therapy for the body. I have replaced the word juice by Gerson, it is their therapy that should be their decision as part of the “Zandtao programme team” (grandiose eh?).
This programme need not be limited to cancer. In the movie-crop Charlotte Gerson talks of all degenerative diseases, the approach of this programme is the same. It follows from a deep respect of Nature, that we are ONE, and that in our bodies Nature provides the healing.
Corollary:- This programme is unlikely to happen as I have no resources, but if I am going to discuss cancer (degenerative diseases) I ought to offer an approach – not just being critical of “death by chemo”.
I woke up this morning tempted to get a flu vaccine, so I decided I had to come to terms with what the dangers are; the basic it is not natural doesn’t seem good enough.
There was no internet so that means turning inside first, perhaps that is better. I can’t get out of my head the story of “murder by vaccine”; this committed teacher had pumped herself so full of drugs she fell asleep at the wheel careered across the road and died – unfortunately the oncoming driver was also injured in hospital, I don’t know how serious.
What is the psychology of vaccines? In my own case at the moment there is a sense of embarrassment. I have the flu and I am supposed to be on a healthy diet, my diet should have provided the immunity for flu. This brings into question all the assumptions I have made, that diet can cope with cancer etc. I am also embarrassed because I am too ill to teach and have to call in sick. At one school on a Friday they make me a special cheewajit menu, that makes even more of a mockery of the diet that such efforts are gone to – and yet I have the flu. This is just a particular but standard flu guilt reaction. Throughout my teaching when I was ill there was always intense pressure to go into work, especially in the UK. Why? Quite simple, the conditions of service are so appalling teachers are always ill. The stress is phenomenal, stress weakens the immune system and in each class there are always students who are carrying virus etc. The response from management, to increase the pressure on teachers to attend school. They then return to work whilst still ill spreading the viruses increasing the ill health of the school population. It is no wonder that actuarial statistics for teachers is so shocking, and no wonder I heard of dedicated colleagues who died within a year of retirement.
This description of teachers is just a particular example of how illness is seen in society. Primarily illness is viewed as a loss of working hours and hence a loss of productivity and therefore profit. So business puts pressure to increase the profits and therefore minimise the amount of time people have off work. There are many stoics who boast that they have never missed a day of work as if that is a personal achievement. What is their achievement? They have worked all their lives as slaves and are proud of it. Here in Thailand it is much worse a problem, as a teacher if I was ill I was paid, what do people do if they are not able to work? Starve? This is why flu vaccines are so prevalent here, people can at least get to work irrespective of the harm that working does to them.
To begin examining that harm it is necessary to consider what is the function of disease. Something is imbalanced in the human body, maybe you have been working too hard, maybe there is something amiss in your diet; the body flags it. You need rest, you need to pay attention to the deficiency countering it. Do vaccines fit in with this? Far from it. Somehow they mask the symptoms – I don’t know how but this is what they do. Once masked people are able to attend work even if they get home and flake out during the period of illness. If this is not a clear example of slavery I don’t know what is. You take the vaccine not to heal yourself but simply to enable you to go to work; it makes me ashamed to be a part of a society that does this.
I am going to mention how I felt as I got older in work. My diet was not good so more and more my health was dominating my life. I would go to work, go home and sleep, waking up to eat and mark books. My life was only my holidays. I was an automaton, yet in my later teaching years I was in much easier work environments because I was not working in the UK. When I retired early I soon developed GERD; at last my body was in a position to show the illness in such a way that I could cure it – I had the time and inclination to accept the doctor’s advice to diet. Whilst teaching I would never have had the energy to do the cooking I now do as I was too tired from work and my body was on its downward cycle of ill health because of that. Early retirement followed by following the diet has rejuvenated me – except of course I now have the flu!!
So what do the flu vaccines actually do? I need to look at the internet to find out. Because the English internet is US-control flu vaccination is dominated by the CDC advice to have a flu jab every year (I do not support what the CDC stands for). The basis of the vaccine is that you introduce the virus into the system, the system builds up antibodies and you don’t get the flu. Annually CDC “experts” decide what starins of flu people are likely to get and these become the annual flu shot. Do they use the same flu shot in Thailand?
Homepathy, a traditional medicine, believes in a similar approach, they call it the “Law of Similars”. From here “The Law of Similars is, interestingly, the principle behind vaccinations. However, the dose and method of delivery commonly used by doctors poses a significant risk of harm to those being vaccinated. Conventional vaccinations involve crude doses of the microbe linked to the disease being vaccinated against, and the dose is injected directly into the blood stream, bypassing all of the natural defense mechanisms of the body. Thus, the body receives too strong a dose and too suddenly, creating a shock to the organism that can lead to reactions, from mild to severe, including death in some cases. The use of actual viral material also sets the body up for auto-immune disorders, a fact well documented in the research literature.”
On top of the risk of disorders from the vaccine there are other dangers that go against my anti-toxic (natural) approach. Same page
There is one final note I want to make concerning the safety of flu vaccines from the this page:-
Pharmaceutical companies were initially reluctant to pursue such a challenge because of lawsuits. In the 1970s, Gerald Ford launched a government effort to inject people with Swine Flu Vaccine on the concept that the human race periodically experiences a devastating influenza epidemic like the 1918 Influenza Pandemic; his belief was that we were due.
Based on homeopathic principles, I warned my patients not to take that vaccine for fear of neurological disease. In fact, Swine Flu itself never developed, but drug companies were sued massively over Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a chronic paralytic condition.
Drug companies stayed out of the field of vaccines until Congress provided vaccine makers with lawsuit protection. Since then they have sponsored media campaigns for flu vaccine claiming 80% protection except in the elderly — who were a major justification in the first place.”
Basically they didn’t make vaccines until they could be sure that nothing would happen to the companies if there were side effects. I don’t trust the companies anyway, and if they are given carte blanche – no way.
In the last decade or so (starting with the “Swine flu” in the 70s) there have been major scares, bird flu, Asian flu, SARS etc. In recent years these scares have been hyped up in my view influenced by BigPharma trying to drum up business. I am unable to comment on the legitimacy of the threats because I am not knowledgeable enough to differentiate the hype from the facts. I have no doubts however that the recent increase in vaccinations has made the flu strains more virulent. With the dependency on drugs to cope immune systems have become much weaker leaving the gates open to attack.
Having made the decision not to take the flu jabs I have to examine my own health regime more carefully. I am prone to flu – always have been – teacher’s flu – chest and throat and coughs, thanksfully the headaches have almost completely gone. I have been too blase about the seasonal change, the rainy season is devestating here – healthwise. With the prevalence of flu jabs here my immune system has to be stronger. next rainy season I have to be far more proactive to deal with the flu. Strategy:-
1) I have just taken kombucha tea, and my body seemed to want it. The rainy season has to mean an emphasis on probiotics.
2) Cayenne pepper is a way of keeping the temperature up, and garlic is a universal healer so these need to be added to my daily routine in the rainy season.
3) Buy colloidal silver
4) Maybe my enquiry into the homeopathic flu jab will produce results.
5) Keep warm. It seems a stupid thing to say in Thailand but I need to recognise that during the rainy season the weather gets cold, the sea gets cold, I get cold.
Writing:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.
I realised part way through the first blog that I had come across something that was taking on too much. In the first blog there is the movie “The Other Side of AIDS”, and it is directed by Robin Scovill. A leading protagonist in Aids Denialism was Christine Maggiore, Robin’s wife – featured in the film, she died of a disease that fits into the AIDS category, they lost a 3-year-old to a disease that also fits into the same category. The establishment HIV-protagonists associate both deaths as an indeminification that HIV causes AIDS – of the kind they died of AIDS because they did not take HIV treatment. Logically this does not follow but it clearly is a powerful argument.
One of the leading AIDS denialists is Duesberg “he also questions the proposition that the cause of AIDS is the retrovirus HIV. He has referred to the AIDS virus as a harmless “passenger” virus, just another virus among many living parasitically in the human body, and he claims that a positive HIV test is merely a viral marker (and not indicative of the cause) indicating immune system damage. In his opinion, based upon exhaustive research, AIDS is an immune deficiency disorder caused by overuse of recreational drugs and a lifestyle that burns the candle at both ends, including promiscuous sex. Eventually, the immune system collapses.”
Now in my first blog I spoke of my experiences in Africa. Botswana did not have a drug culture as we have in the West, there is however some marijuana. But a typical bash lasts through the night and drunkenness (alcoholicism) was highly prevalent. It would definitely qualify as “candle at both ends, including promiscuous sex”.
What still rankles with me is the way AIDS strikes people, there was a pattern to its progression. You would hear of people “getting AIDS”, they would lose the ability to retain nutrition, get thinner and die from an umbrella of diseases that an immune system would normally cope with. It seemed that it progressed like a disease although AIDS, “Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome”, is by definition not one. Can this apparent disease progression be accepted as immune system failure caused by burning “candle at both ends, including promiscuous sex” and drugs? This feeling that it was a disease then made me think there was a medical cure ie usually pharmaceuticals, and then along comes the HIV connection. It is so convenient and eminently profitable, yet the HIV connection has never been proved. I can remember in Africa having the notion that “50% of people with HIV developed AIDS”, and I accepted this as sufficiently causative. Now I don’t. But even with my clear distrust of BigPharma I find it hard to accept such a scam as inventing the connection between HIV and AIDS for profit. However such a scam is consistent with other establishment medical practices (see my many blogs on cancer or my health page).
On Africa Duesberg says this “In Africa 23 million HIV-positives generate per year 75,000 AIDS patients, ie. 1 AIDS case per 300 HIV-positives.” This does not ring true to me. I find it hard to believe that there were only 75000 AIDS deaths in Botswana alone during the 90s when I was there. Maybe his figures were masked by the shame factor because people never admitted they had AIDS – whatever that means.
Here is a podcast interview with Peter Duesberg – scroll down to 6 November 09 part one “What killed Christine Maggiore?” Duesberg comes across as aggressive. Part two with David Crowe could also be interesting – 20 November 09.
But after all this deliberation how can I say there is a conclusion?
This movie is worth watching as it makes everything very clear:-
What AIDS is?
And they give you drugs, AZT and others, that can kill you. I used to deride the superstitions of the Africans including my friend’s girlfriend, but they were nearer the truth. Mbeki was nearer the truth, yet now it appears that in SA they are spending a huge amount of money on the unproven HIV hypothesis.
When I was critical of the promiscuity I was correct but for the wrong reasons. The little voice inside me that said that I wouldn’t catch AIDS because I was healthy was right. But I was a fool. I didn’t burn the candle at both ends, but I didn’t know. I didn’t live healthily. My diet was crap, and I was at risk. So when I breathed a sigh of relief when I left Botswana because I had escaped without AIDS, it was a correct sigh but based on ignorance. I was just lucky.
All about AIDS is a scandal, THEY JUST DON’T KNOW. Eat healthily.
I lived in Botswana in the 90’s and at the time Botswana was the Aids capital of the world according to the WHO. Everyone who lived in Botswana came into contact with people dieing of AIDS-related illnesses. I want to describe what happened to my friend’s partner. They started their relationship, and they were both tested for HIV. She was found to be HIV +ve. They lived together for a number of years, and she then developed full-blown AIDS. At this point she was not able to retain food, and eventually died. I know of other cases. At a staff meeting it was announced that a member of staff had developed AIDS, because of taboos her family would not look after, and she was living alone. Would we contribute? The collections lasted two months. I was intimate (unprotected) with someone who died of AIDS-related illness. She was a travelling worker and when she visited where I lived she stayed with me. then she stopped visiting, and I was told she in a hospice in Zambia. Then I heard nothing.
These stories were commonplace. Now Botswana did not have a drug-prevalence, AIDS was not spread by a gay population. However the culture was very promiscuous. At the time I accepted the explanation that HIV was passed through sexual contact without any doubts because of the promiscuity, and that this could then develop into full-blown AIDS. But even when I accepted this there were inconsistencies, especially the inconsistencies that I personally experienced. I believed at the time that if your health was strong you had a good chance of not contracting AIDS.
In this talk, Dr Robert Willner denies the connection between HIV and AIDS, and to prove it he injects himself with HIV. A bit gimmicky, but he does raise the issues. He speaks of AIDS as having 4 causes:-
I first came across people questioning the HIV description of the development of AIDS when I heard about Thabo Mbeki. I am not sure what he actually said, but I picked up that they were saying that AIDS was related to the general health of the victim, and that the problem was caused by hunger and therefore malnutrition. I believed there was a connection, but I also believed that as a politician he was avoiding the criticisms of his people that they were promiscuous – the same peoples as the Tswana of Botswana who were promiscuous by experience and observation. In this 2007 Guardian article his biographer, “Mr Gevisser recounts how Mr Mbeki phoned him late on a Saturday evening in June to discuss Aids. The president asked the respected Johannesburg author whether he had seen a 100-page paper secretly authored by Mr Mbeki and distributed anonymously among the ANC leadership six years ago. It compared Aids scientists to latter-day Nazi concentration camp doctors and portrayed black people who accepted orthodox Aids science as “self-repressed” victims of a slave mentality. It describes the “HIV/Aids thesis” as entrenched in “centuries-old white racist beliefs and concepts about Africans”.”
I’ve now realised this topic is too big for me. Willner talks about the dangers of the drug AZT, that like all chemotherapy it is more toxic than what it cures. I certainly believe that chemotherapy does more harm than good, as a layperson I would not take chemo if I was diagnosed with cancer – I would head for the nearest Gerson clinic. I don’t know about AZT, here is a page of discussion papers on AZT, and some discussion here.
Thabo Mbeki, as described in the same 2007 Guardian article, was warned off politically from pursuing his view of AIDS although he still appears to believe it. Here is a speech given by Thabo Mbeki to the 13th AIDS conference in Durban, and here is a paper given by a presidential panel on AIDS.
Elsewhere, apparently there is an increasing group of people called AIDS denialists (or go to wiki and enter AIDS denialism). This group of people have been given a voice through the movie “The Other Side of AIDS“:-
I am not happy about promoting something I am unsure of, in truth I am not sure about what Robert Willner has to say. This could be another conspiracy theory, but what makes me convinced that there is some substance is my recent studies of BigPharma. Based on those studies I have no doubts that BigPharma could promote the genesis of Aids by HIV in order to sell chemicals such as AZT. Yet to be fair I am not completely happy that it explains the deaths of friends and colleagues in Botswana.