War and Disease

by Gene Franks

There is no such thing as a germ that would prefer Rock Hudson over Cheryl Tiegs.–Dr. Peter Duesberg.

The establishment is the enemy of the enterprise.–Dr. Irwin Bross, in Scientific Fraud vs. Scientific Truth.

Official medicine, I read recently, now holds that there are more than 20,000 known diseases, each with its own cause. Most of these diseases are viewed as calamities that happen to the body as a result of attack from outside forces. That’s why reading medical literature is so much like reading a war novel.

It is easy to see that there is much to gain monetarily from a system that views the body as a castle under siege that must be defended by a host of  high-dollar mercenaries. And for the protectors to flourish, there must be a never-ending supply of attackers.

 In 1961, more than three decades ago, Dr. Walter Modell of the Columbia University Medical College lamented in an article inClinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics that there was an over-supply of defenders and an under-supply of attackers. “When will they realize,” he asked, “that there are too many drugs? No fewer than 150,000 preparations are now in use. About 15,000 new mixtures and dosages hit the market each year, while about 12,000 die off…. We simply don’t have enough diseases to go around. At the moment the most helpful is the new drug to counteract the untoward effects of other new drugs.”

Since we know that the pharmaceutical industry has not dwindled into bankruptcy during the decades since Dr. Modell’s article, we can assume that some profitable new foes have surfaced to alleviate the shortage that he complained of. In fact, there must be lots of new diseases, since medical authorities keep assuring us that drugs and vaccines are wiping out the old ones at record speed. Where do these diseases come from?

Most of us believe that our millions in taxes and the checks we send to weepy-eyed Jerry Lewises go to fund the efforts of self-sacrificing professionals who work around the clock without so much as a coffee break so Gretchen, the poster girl, can be home with her family by Christmas. In a word, we believe that research is about finding cures for diseases. 

It would be nearer the truth, however, to say that research is most often about finding diseases for unsold medical products to cure. Otherwise stated, although we are educated to believe that disease precedes treatment, the truth very often is that treatment precedes disease.

In spite of the widely-promoted notion that AZT, for some time the one and only official “AIDS drug,” was hurriedly developed under the Gretchen-saving scenario alluded to, the truth is that AZT’s essential ingredient was isolated from herring sperm by cancer researchers in 1961, the year of Dr. Modell’s article. The drug was promoted as a cancer treatment during the 1970s, the War on Cancer years, rejected as too toxic for cancer treatment, and assigned to the large pool of ” drugs in search of a disease.”

In the early 1980s, after the disappointing performance of Herpes, which scared far too few people into the clinics, a vague collection of remotely related existing maladies–malnutrition, chemical poisoning, Kaposi’s sarcoma, pneumocystis, syphilis, lymphoma, leukemia, et al–were ceremoniously lumped under a catchy new acronym and promoted to the maximum as a world-threatening viral epidemic by the same people who brought us the War on Cancer and the Swine Flu crisis. That AZT should come to the fore as the “drug of choice,” in fact, the single FDA-approved AIDS weapon, was only natural, since AZT’s side effects, so severe that it could not be used as a cancer drug, were identical to the symptoms of the newly created disease it was touted to defend against. These include severe suppression of bone marrow and white blood cells with resulting anemia severe enough to require transfusions. To be blunt, this means on the one hand that the drug’s destructive effects are conveniently masked as results of the disease; on the other hand, it means that symptom-free people who take the drug will soon manifest symptoms and thereby justify the need for treatment. AZT thus neatly solved Dr. Modell’s dilemma by providing its own disease to treat.

For those who reject the notion that the medical/ pharmaceutical industry would knowingly and willingly cause the suffering and demise of thousands upon thousands of people simply to make money, it is helpful to distinguish between the two basic parts of any large undertaking, whether it is the army, the medical system, the food industry, the parks and recreation department, or the city government. These are establishment and enterprise. Establishment is a term we use frequently to refer to the “powers that be,” the faceless, nameless beings who run things from behind the scenes. The enterprise consists of the doers, the “hands-on” people who do the work and deliver the product to the public.

Much of the failure to comprehend our medical system comes from the misconception that medical doctors are the establishment. They are actually at the mid-to-upper level of the enterprise. In a previous Gazette article I referred to medical doctors as ” the grunts of the medical system.” By that I meant they are the foot-soldiers of the profession, the guys who do the dirty work and get blood and excrement on their hands.

Contrary to popular opinion, doctors get a relatively tiny share of the massive medical monetary intake, and although they are imbued with a mythical god-like aura by the press and the schools, doctors have virtually no authority or freedom to innovate. They prescribe treatment within very rigid limits passed down from on high;  and crossing accepted lines puts them in danger of malpractice litigation, professional disgrace, and license removal. For a medical doctor to decide on his own, for example, that HIV does not cause the condition known as AIDS would be like a foot soldier deciding on his own that the enemy is someone other than the enemy the rest of the army is fighting. Likewise, a doctor’s decision to treat immune-system failure with nutritional therapy rather than AZT would be like an army private’s refusing to use Pentagon- furnished weapons. Only one doctor in thousands has that kind of courage, and he or she is quickly silenced, shamed, and shouted down.

This is not to say that doctors, as the grunts of the system, are totally blameless for the excesses and pillaging of the medical army. The question is: Does kindly old Doc Smith, the family physician, knowingly harm his patients for mere money? The answer is a complicated Yes and No with lots of gray area between.

Consider first that Doc Smith probably knows less about AIDS or hepatitis than anyone who has sampled a variety of the existing literature on either. He has never done first-hand research on anything. As a grunt, he works a long, hard day then goes home to get his opinions from the TV screen.

The professional information he depends on comes mainly from establishment “experts,” for whom medicine is strictly business, by way of product advertising and smooth-talking “detail men” (drug salesmen). And, again being blunt, consider too that Doc Smith doesn’t necessarily have a lot of salt in his shaker. If you can get him to step off his pedestal and drop the slogans they’ve taught him to repeat, you’ll quickly discover he really doesn’t know much at all about health. Doctors get ahead by cooperating and following orders, not by being bright. Like the army, medical schools quickly weed out people who think for themselves. Clearly we aren’t going to hang Doc Smith for pretending to be smarter and better informed than he is, but the tough moral issue begins when he accidentally learns through a Canadian magazine article sent to him by his Aunt Phoebe that the half million dollar X-Ray machine they sold him to help him better wage war on cancer and enrich himself in the process is causing far more deaths from breast cancer than early detection from mammography exams could possibly prevent. It’s at that point that Doc Smith has to decide which side he is on, and the lure of profit, coupled with his natural inclination to be a grunt rather than a rebel, makes it very convenient for him to keep on believing the establishment’s “early detection” slogans. Thus, the familiar war dilemma: At what point do soldiers become guilty for merely following orders?

People have always died. The names we give the “diseases” that kill us vary from age to age and even from season to season. Disease is largely a definition. Today many are suffering and dying from immune system failure. Although people have always died from immune-system failure, we have now focused our attention on immunodeficiency and given it a name. AIDS is a concept invented by people to whose advantage it is for us to believe that immune-system failure is a viral disease. Like Santa Claus, it exists only to the extent that you choose to believe in it.

The next time you hear news of the AIDS epidemic that is ravaging Africa, keep in mind the following simple fact about immune-system failure contained in this quote from Drs. Maxime Seligmann et al in the Nov. 15, 1984 New England Journal of Medicine:

The commonest cause of T-cell immunodeficiency worldwide is protein-calorie malnutrition. Malnourished children have defects in macrophage and T-cell function accompanied by…an increased susceptibility to infections…. Bacterial superinfection in these children is a major cause of serious disease and death.

Clearly T-cell immunodeficiency, said to be the “hallmark of AIDS,” defects in macrophage function, and the susceptibility to infection form the core of the AIDS definition. Why is malnutrition called AIDS? Investigative reporter Jon Rappoport writes:

With AIDS, an attempt is being made to reduce varieties of suffering and political conflict and starvation and chemical abuse to a single entity. Since that viral entity HIV is sensational and frightening, it satisfies the desire not to think, not to learn, not to find out what is happening in a world of troubles.

 

Editor’s Note: This article appeared first in Pure Water Gazette # 40 (Winter 1992). Since that time, the dumbing down of America on the subject of AIDS has continued full speed and AIDS has become probably the most lucrative, and ludicrous, disease promotion of all time. Please take the time to look at some of the other AIDS articles on our website and to visit the websites listed in our Links and Resources section.