The ArgusOutrage sparked by Brighton University film showing (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Outrage sparked by Brighton University film showing

A university professor has been criticised for suggesting to his students that HIV does not cause Aids.

Activists are planning to protest against the screening of a controversial film at University of Brighton on Wednesday, December 12.

Hundreds of students were invited to the event by Dr Karl Cox, who invited them to “find out the truth about HIV”.

The film, House of Numbers, suggests the virus does not cause the killer disease Aids. It has been widely discredited by the scientific community.

Among a number of claims, it suggests blood tests are unreliable, HIV diagnoses are wrong and that the virus is a work of fiction created to sell more medicines.

In Dr Cox’s email invitation, he asked students: “How accurate are HIV tests? Is HIV fact or fiction?”

More than 100 people have signed an online petition calling for the film’s screening to be cancelled. On Facebook, students have organised a non-violent protest to take place during the showing.

'Dangerous'

Jesse Laffan, a 23-year-old student from Portslade, said the film was “completely misleading”.

He said: “I find this quite affronting, with World Aids Day having been so recent and living in a city where HIV transmission is a real issue.

“I think promoting this is dangerous, especially to young students.”

The film is being shown on University of Brighton premises in conjunction with a charity called the World Foundation for Natural Science.

On its website, the organisation describes its mission as, “healing this world in accord with Natural Law, thus restoring Divine Order on this precious Planet Earth. For only this way real solutions for the challenges man and nature are facing can be found”.

One Aids sufferer from Brighton said Brighton University’s decision to allow Dr Cox to screen the film was “unbelievable”.

'Gobsmacked'

Andy – not his real name – said: “Why would they want to teach their students dangerous nonsense which teaches them not to bother taking precautions?

“I’m gobsmacked, to be honest. It’s hard enough to get the message through to young people without them being exposed to stupid films like this.

“The university should cancel the showing immediately.”

A spokesperson for HIV and sexual health charity Terrence Higgins Trust, said: “We have always had serious concerns about this inaccurate, misleading and irresponsible film.

“That’s why, as the leading HIV and sexual health charity, staff from Terrence Higgins Trust will be on hand after any screening of this film at the university to ensure that the students have access to the facts about HIV.”

A University of Brighton spokesperson said: “Our position is absolutely clear. We regard HIV and Aids as extremely serious matters of concern and we provide our students with advice and we support research into these issues.”

The spokesperson said the university would be reviewing whether or not to allow the film to be shown on university premises.

See the latest news headlines from The Argus:

More news from The Argus

Follow @brightonargus

The Argus: Daily Echo on Facebook - facebook.com/southerndailyecho Like us on Facebook

The Argus: Google+ Add us to your circles on Google+

Comments (41)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:19pm Mon 10 Dec 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Cox by name.....
Cox by name..... Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Mon 10 Dec 12

Algeria Touchshriek says...

Blooming students. Anything for an argument. Why don't they just get on with their studies instead of being all militant and a general pain in the arris.

And get a wash.
Blooming students. Anything for an argument. Why don't they just get on with their studies instead of being all militant and a general pain in the arris. And get a wash. Algeria Touchshriek
  • Score: 0

7:36pm Mon 10 Dec 12

mimseycal says...

Are we saying that students should not be exposed to highly questionable, not to say utterly ludicrous, theories?

Are we that insecure in these products of our education system that we cannot trust them to evaluate what they are shown/told critically?

Debate the view proffered by the film by any and all means. Demanding it not be shown because it runs contrary to the accepted view is tantamount to burning books because you don't approve of the theories they contain.
Are we saying that students should not be exposed to highly questionable, not to say utterly ludicrous, theories? Are we that insecure in these products of our education system that we cannot trust them to evaluate what they are shown/told critically? Debate the view proffered by the film by any and all means. Demanding it not be shown because it runs contrary to the accepted view is tantamount to burning books because you don't approve of the theories they contain. mimseycal
  • Score: 0

8:28pm Mon 10 Dec 12

Algeria Touchshriek says...

I was taught about Islam in RE. I didn't believe a word of it. What would happen if I started a protest?

Ahhhhhhhhhh, that'll be illegal because..........jus
t because eh?
I was taught about Islam in RE. I didn't believe a word of it. What would happen if I started a protest? Ahhhhhhhhhh, that'll be illegal because..........jus t because eh? Algeria Touchshriek
  • Score: 0

8:32pm Mon 10 Dec 12

leobrighton says...

Any idiot can pass exams and still be a nutter
Any idiot can pass exams and still be a nutter leobrighton
  • Score: 0

8:52pm Mon 10 Dec 12

leobrighton says...

These students have paid a lot of money to be educated properly yet they get this trash. I'd be after a refund if I were you. No wonder this country is on such a steep decline even education is seen as an opportunity to muck about and have a bit of a laugh and thats just the so called educators
These students have paid a lot of money to be educated properly yet they get this trash. I'd be after a refund if I were you. No wonder this country is on such a steep decline even education is seen as an opportunity to muck about and have a bit of a laugh and thats just the so called educators leobrighton
  • Score: 0

8:53pm Mon 10 Dec 12

mimseycal says...

Algeria Touchshriek wrote:
I was taught about Islam in RE. I didn't believe a word of it. What would happen if I started a protest?

Ahhhhhhhhhh, that'll be illegal because..........jus

t because eh?
A lot of the stuff taught in RE was ludicrous. Rising from the dead (Christianity) or Mannah from heaven (Judaism) being but two instances.

Why fret about just one belief system you do not buy in to? And how relevant are your religious views to a film about HIV?
[quote][p][bold]Algeria Touchshriek[/bold] wrote: I was taught about Islam in RE. I didn't believe a word of it. What would happen if I started a protest? Ahhhhhhhhhh, that'll be illegal because..........jus t because eh?[/p][/quote]A lot of the stuff taught in RE was ludicrous. Rising from the dead (Christianity) or Mannah from heaven (Judaism) being but two instances. Why fret about just one belief system you do not buy in to? And how relevant are your religious views to a film about HIV? mimseycal
  • Score: 0

9:06pm Mon 10 Dec 12

Algeria Touchshriek says...

Sorry I was replying to mimseycal, but feel I can read a thread chronologically without this God-awful quoting.

If you read my response in relation to theirs, I am sure it will make sense.
Sorry I was replying to mimseycal, but feel I can read a thread chronologically without this God-awful quoting. If you read my response in relation to theirs, I am sure it will make sense. Algeria Touchshriek
  • Score: 0

9:10pm Mon 10 Dec 12

mimseycal says...

leobrighton wrote:
These students have paid a lot of money to be educated properly yet they get this trash. I'd be after a refund if I were you. No wonder this country is on such a steep decline even education is seen as an opportunity to muck about and have a bit of a laugh and thats just the so called educators
Actually ... education is about learning to evaluate and separate the wheat from the chaff. How can they learn to do that if all they are ever presented with is self raising flour?

The world is full of some really weird ideas. This film is just one example.
[quote][p][bold]leobrighton[/bold] wrote: These students have paid a lot of money to be educated properly yet they get this trash. I'd be after a refund if I were you. No wonder this country is on such a steep decline even education is seen as an opportunity to muck about and have a bit of a laugh and thats just the so called educators[/p][/quote]Actually ... education is about learning to evaluate and separate the wheat from the chaff. How can they learn to do that if all they are ever presented with is self raising flour? The world is full of some really weird ideas. This film is just one example. mimseycal
  • Score: 0

9:29pm Mon 10 Dec 12

glklsm says...

AIDS is a tradegy BUT HIV is NOT the cause ...FACT!!!

this film does NOT undermine the message of safe sex , not at all. It only seeks to examine the science behind HIV.

unless you educate yourself you will always be a victim !

Learn to think for yourself
AIDS is a tradegy BUT HIV is NOT the cause ...FACT!!! this film does NOT undermine the message of safe sex , not at all. It only seeks to examine the science behind HIV. unless you educate yourself you will always be a victim ! Learn to think for yourself glklsm
  • Score: 0

9:36pm Mon 10 Dec 12

Alive & Kicking says...

Good to see the Argus engaging in a lively debate about HIV & Aids. Just a shame you played the pity card by quoting an "Aids sufferer", if I'd supplied a quote, you'd know that I and many others "live with HIV" and have done for many years! (Well at least long enough for the Argus to learn the difference).
Good to see the Argus engaging in a lively debate about HIV & Aids. Just a shame you played the pity card by quoting an "Aids sufferer", if I'd supplied a quote, you'd know that I and many others "live with HIV" and have done for many years! (Well at least long enough for the Argus to learn the difference). Alive & Kicking
  • Score: 0

9:50pm Mon 10 Dec 12

Lady Smith says...

glklsm wrote:
AIDS is a tradegy BUT HIV is NOT the cause ...FACT!!!

this film does NOT undermine the message of safe sex , not at all. It only seeks to examine the science behind HIV.

unless you educate yourself you will always be a victim !

Learn to think for yourself
Let's hope you get enough education to learn how to spell 'tradegy' correctly, then...
[quote][p][bold]glklsm[/bold] wrote: AIDS is a tradegy BUT HIV is NOT the cause ...FACT!!! this film does NOT undermine the message of safe sex , not at all. It only seeks to examine the science behind HIV. unless you educate yourself you will always be a victim ! Learn to think for yourself[/p][/quote]Let's hope you get enough education to learn how to spell 'tradegy' correctly, then... Lady Smith
  • Score: 0

9:51pm Mon 10 Dec 12

Alive & Kicking says...

glklsm wrote:
AIDS is a tradegy BUT HIV is NOT the cause ...FACT!!!

this film does NOT undermine the message of safe sex , not at all. It only seeks to examine the science behind HIV.

unless you educate yourself you will always be a victim !

Learn to think for yourself
Fact: Diagnosed with Aids 12 years ago
Fact: Prognosis 2 years to live
Fact: Drugs raised CD4 to five times the level they were at when diagnosed
Fact: I live with HIV and its effects
Fact: You pass me in the street, on the bus or train and see me at work
Fact: I am alive, but have watched many die.

Don't die of ignorance or complacency and don't allow this kind denial or dissidence to disrespect the memory of those who've died.

I will not respond to this comment or be drawn any further.
[quote][p][bold]glklsm[/bold] wrote: AIDS is a tradegy BUT HIV is NOT the cause ...FACT!!! this film does NOT undermine the message of safe sex , not at all. It only seeks to examine the science behind HIV. unless you educate yourself you will always be a victim ! Learn to think for yourself[/p][/quote]Fact: Diagnosed with Aids 12 years ago Fact: Prognosis 2 years to live Fact: Drugs raised CD4 to five times the level they were at when diagnosed Fact: I live with HIV and its effects Fact: You pass me in the street, on the bus or train and see me at work Fact: I am alive, but have watched many die. Don't die of ignorance or complacency and don't allow this kind denial or dissidence to disrespect the memory of those who've died. I will not respond to this comment or be drawn any further. Alive & Kicking
  • Score: 0

10:43pm Mon 10 Dec 12

mictrix says...

Alive & Kicking wrote:
glklsm wrote:
AIDS is a tradegy BUT HIV is NOT the cause ...FACT!!!

this film does NOT undermine the message of safe sex , not at all. It only seeks to examine the science behind HIV.

unless you educate yourself you will always be a victim !

Learn to think for yourself
Fact: Diagnosed with Aids 12 years ago
Fact: Prognosis 2 years to live
Fact: Drugs raised CD4 to five times the level they were at when diagnosed
Fact: I live with HIV and its effects
Fact: You pass me in the street, on the bus or train and see me at work
Fact: I am alive, but have watched many die.

Don't die of ignorance or complacency and don't allow this kind denial or dissidence to disrespect the memory of those who've died.

I will not respond to this comment or be drawn any further.
please refrain from making everyone vomit with this self pitying tripe,we're not INTERESTED.many thanks
[quote][p][bold]Alive & Kicking[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]glklsm[/bold] wrote: AIDS is a tradegy BUT HIV is NOT the cause ...FACT!!! this film does NOT undermine the message of safe sex , not at all. It only seeks to examine the science behind HIV. unless you educate yourself you will always be a victim ! Learn to think for yourself[/p][/quote]Fact: Diagnosed with Aids 12 years ago Fact: Prognosis 2 years to live Fact: Drugs raised CD4 to five times the level they were at when diagnosed Fact: I live with HIV and its effects Fact: You pass me in the street, on the bus or train and see me at work Fact: I am alive, but have watched many die. Don't die of ignorance or complacency and don't allow this kind denial or dissidence to disrespect the memory of those who've died. I will not respond to this comment or be drawn any further.[/p][/quote]please refrain from making everyone vomit with this self pitying tripe,we're not INTERESTED.many thanks mictrix
  • Score: 0

10:59pm Mon 10 Dec 12

mimseycal says...

glklsm wrote:
AIDS is a tradegy BUT HIV is NOT the cause ...FACT!!!

this film does NOT undermine the message of safe sex , not at all. It only seeks to examine the science behind HIV.

unless you educate yourself you will always be a victim !

Learn to think for yourself
HIV is a virus. AIDS is a medical condition.
[quote][p][bold]glklsm[/bold] wrote: AIDS is a tradegy BUT HIV is NOT the cause ...FACT!!! this film does NOT undermine the message of safe sex , not at all. It only seeks to examine the science behind HIV. unless you educate yourself you will always be a victim ! Learn to think for yourself[/p][/quote]HIV is a virus. AIDS is a medical condition. mimseycal
  • Score: 0

6:58am Tue 11 Dec 12

Angryoldman says...

glklsm wrote:
AIDS is a tradegy BUT HIV is NOT the cause ...FACT!!!

this film does NOT undermine the message of safe sex , not at all. It only seeks to examine the science behind HIV.

unless you educate yourself you will always be a victim !

Learn to think for yourself
Keep taking the tablets.
[quote][p][bold]glklsm[/bold] wrote: AIDS is a tradegy BUT HIV is NOT the cause ...FACT!!! this film does NOT undermine the message of safe sex , not at all. It only seeks to examine the science behind HIV. unless you educate yourself you will always be a victim ! Learn to think for yourself[/p][/quote]Keep taking the tablets. Angryoldman
  • Score: 0

8:07am Tue 11 Dec 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

As if anyone would believe or take anything this uni churns out seriously.
This is the college where its students cannot even remember which day to
put the rubbish out and why the council had to attach signs to lamposts to remind them and still they fail.
As if anyone would believe or take anything this uni churns out seriously. This is the college where its students cannot even remember which day to put the rubbish out and why the council had to attach signs to lamposts to remind them and still they fail. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

11:05am Tue 11 Dec 12

twosugars says...

While i dont agree on Dr Cox's theories on Hiv and aids, is questioning current thinking on a subject such a bad thing?
If early free thinkers had not questioned dogma, we would still be thinking that the earth is flat and the center of the universe, and anyone who said different would be burnt at the stake.
While i dont agree on Dr Cox's theories on Hiv and aids, is questioning current thinking on a subject such a bad thing? If early free thinkers had not questioned dogma, we would still be thinking that the earth is flat and the center of the universe, and anyone who said different would be burnt at the stake. twosugars
  • Score: 0

1:31pm Tue 11 Dec 12

sarcher says...

To learn more about HIV tests google omsj and its HIV innocence group.
To learn more about HIV tests google omsj and its HIV innocence group. sarcher
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Tue 11 Dec 12

StyleCop says...

twosugars wrote:
While i dont agree on Dr Cox's theories on Hiv and aids, is questioning current thinking on a subject such a bad thing? If early free thinkers had not questioned dogma, we would still be thinking that the earth is flat and the center of the universe, and anyone who said different would be burnt at the stake.
Here Here - well said.
[quote][p][bold]twosugars[/bold] wrote: While i dont agree on Dr Cox's theories on Hiv and aids, is questioning current thinking on a subject such a bad thing? If early free thinkers had not questioned dogma, we would still be thinking that the earth is flat and the center of the universe, and anyone who said different would be burnt at the stake.[/p][/quote]Here Here - well said. StyleCop
  • Score: 0

1:41pm Tue 11 Dec 12

sarcher says...

From the time of the ancient Romans, through the Middle Ages, and until the late nineteenth century, it was generally accepted that some life forms arose spontaneously from non-living matter. Such "spontaneous generation" appeared to occur primarily in decaying matter. For example, a seventeenth century recipe for the spontaneous production of mice required placing sweaty underwear and husks of wheat in an open-mouthed jar, then waiting for about 21 days, during which time it was alleged that the sweat from the underwear would penetrate the husks of wheat, changing them into mice. Although such a concept may seem laughable today, it is consistent with the other widely held cultural and religious beliefs of the time.
From the time of the ancient Romans, through the Middle Ages, and until the late nineteenth century, it was generally accepted that some life forms arose spontaneously from non-living matter. Such "spontaneous generation" appeared to occur primarily in decaying matter. For example, a seventeenth century recipe for the spontaneous production of mice required placing sweaty underwear and husks of wheat in an open-mouthed jar, then waiting for about 21 days, during which time it was alleged that the sweat from the underwear would penetrate the husks of wheat, changing them into mice. Although such a concept may seem laughable today, it is consistent with the other widely held cultural and religious beliefs of the time. sarcher
  • Score: 0

2:06pm Tue 11 Dec 12

sarcher says...

Anyone interested in seeing House of Numbers and its follow up film The Emperors New Virus By Brent Leung
you only have to go to youtube and search..
Anyone interested in seeing House of Numbers and its follow up film The Emperors New Virus By Brent Leung you only have to go to youtube and search.. sarcher
  • Score: 0

2:19pm Tue 11 Dec 12

RichardNY says...

Karl Cox's brother--"John MannaHealth Cox"--weighs in on the House of Numbers Facebook page:

http://www.facebook.
com/HouseOfNumbers/p
osts/530950683581636
?comment_id=6486717&
offset=0&total_comme
nts=8
Karl Cox's brother--"John MannaHealth Cox"--weighs in on the House of Numbers Facebook page: http://www.facebook. com/HouseOfNumbers/p osts/530950683581636 ?comment_id=6486717& offset=0&total_comme nts=8 RichardNY
  • Score: 0

2:36pm Tue 11 Dec 12

RichardNY says...

For anyone who doesn't appreciate the full extent of the fraud behind House of Numbers, most of the AIDS denialist interviewees belong to the same organization--"Rethi
nking AIDS"--that funded the film. Neither their shared membership of this organization or the organization's funding of the film is disclosed; instead the filmmakers lied, claiming it was an objective "documentary."

Indeed many of the denialist interviewees--includ
ing two HIV-positive individuals, Christine Maggiore and Kim Bannon, who have since died--were at the 2006 Rethinking AIDS board meeting where the decision to fund the film was made, the minutes are online: http://www.tig.org.z
a/Minutes_RA2006.htm


The funding is also listed in the Rethinking AIDS IRS 990 tax form for 2006, signed by Peter Duesberg's wife Siggi: http://www.guidestar
.org/FinDocuments//2
006/311/688/2006-311
688738-0314e401-F.pd
f

When the film came out, Rethinking AIDS issued a press release about it, full of their typical dishonesty:
http://www.rethinkin
gaids.com/Content/QA
/tabid/160/Default.a
spx

It says: "Leung, a Canadian film maker, created the film on his own and financed it from private sources"

Presumably they forgot that their IRS 990 forms are public information.
For anyone who doesn't appreciate the full extent of the fraud behind House of Numbers, most of the AIDS denialist interviewees belong to the same organization--"Rethi nking AIDS"--that funded the film. Neither their shared membership of this organization or the organization's funding of the film is disclosed; instead the filmmakers lied, claiming it was an objective "documentary." Indeed many of the denialist interviewees--includ ing two HIV-positive individuals, Christine Maggiore and Kim Bannon, who have since died--were at the 2006 Rethinking AIDS board meeting where the decision to fund the film was made, the minutes are online: http://www.tig.org.z a/Minutes_RA2006.htm The funding is also listed in the Rethinking AIDS IRS 990 tax form for 2006, signed by Peter Duesberg's wife Siggi: http://www.guidestar .org/FinDocuments//2 006/311/688/2006-311 688738-0314e401-F.pd f When the film came out, Rethinking AIDS issued a press release about it, full of their typical dishonesty: http://www.rethinkin gaids.com/Content/QA /tabid/160/Default.a spx It says: "Leung, a Canadian film maker, created the film on his own and financed it from private sources" Presumably they forgot that their IRS 990 forms are public information. RichardNY
  • Score: 0

3:46pm Tue 11 Dec 12

sussexram40 says...

I don't think its ever been proven that HIV causes AIDS. But it has been proven that all AIDS sufferers have HIV. You can't prove something until it happens so there's no way of knowing if its possible to get AIDS when you dont have HIV. The overwhelming likelihood is that HIV leads to AIDS related illness unless the HIV is treated.
People with HIV today wh take their pills should live a normal lifespan I have read. This is part of the problem - because HIV is now a chronic treatable condition, a lt of peopel don't fear it like they did in the 80s when it was a death sentence. In fact some guys are quite relieved when they catch it because they can then stop worrying about catching it and do whatever they want in their sexual lives.
I don't think its ever been proven that HIV causes AIDS. But it has been proven that all AIDS sufferers have HIV. You can't prove something until it happens so there's no way of knowing if its possible to get AIDS when you dont have HIV. The overwhelming likelihood is that HIV leads to AIDS related illness unless the HIV is treated. People with HIV today wh take their pills should live a normal lifespan I have read. This is part of the problem - because HIV is now a chronic treatable condition, a lt of peopel don't fear it like they did in the 80s when it was a death sentence. In fact some guys are quite relieved when they catch it because they can then stop worrying about catching it and do whatever they want in their sexual lives. sussexram40
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Tomás Brewster says...

Mictrix said:
Fact: Diagnosed with Aids 12 years ago

WRONG: There are currently over 13 diverse defintions for the CDC Syndrome "AID$". Look it up. There are no standard definitions globally. "AIDS"/"GRID" are phony medical cosntructs used to induce fear in human beings and sell toxic death pills.

Fact: Prognosis 2 years to live

WRONG: The typical prognosis in HIV/AIDS beliefism is patients have 5 to 8 years with or without toxic life-threatening drugs.

Fact: Drugs raised CD4 to five times the level they were at when diagnosed

WRONG: Antiretoviral drugs & AZT do not raise CD4 (T-Cells) they deplet them!

ARV's & AZT in the blood bring CD4's out of lymphoid tissues that were never counted and then flow cytometry is FDA approved bologna to begin with so CD4 counting is not a specific surrogate lab marker.


Fact: I live with HIV and its effects

WRONG: You live with the mindset or belief in what someone as verbally told you, since there are no defintiive tests that can tell if ANY human being is infected with the alleged retrovirus "HIV". No "HIV" test has ever been verified by means of direct HTLVIII/LAV isolation.

Fact: You pass me in the street, on the bus or train and see me at work

WRONG: Testimonials like yours contradict other's globally who have defied the most common assumptions about the alleged "HIV Theories of AIDS".

Fact: I am alive, but have watched many die.

PERHAPS: But so am I.

http://livingwithout
hivdrugs.com/tomasb.
htm

Don't die of ignorance or complacency and don't allow this kind denial or dissidence to disrespect the memory of those who've died.

WRONG: The infamous AID$ Quilt is the most iconic symbol of the global HIV/AID$ Holocaust.

I will not respond to this comment or be drawn any further.

Because The Church of HIV is full of denierists! and those who refuse to listen. Censorship equals murder.
Mictrix said: Fact: Diagnosed with Aids 12 years ago WRONG: There are currently over 13 diverse defintions for the CDC Syndrome "AID$". Look it up. There are no standard definitions globally. "AIDS"/"GRID" are phony medical cosntructs used to induce fear in human beings and sell toxic death pills. Fact: Prognosis 2 years to live WRONG: The typical prognosis in HIV/AIDS beliefism is patients have 5 to 8 years with or without toxic life-threatening drugs. Fact: Drugs raised CD4 to five times the level they were at when diagnosed WRONG: Antiretoviral drugs & AZT do not raise CD4 (T-Cells) they deplet them! ARV's & AZT in the blood bring CD4's out of lymphoid tissues that were never counted and then flow cytometry is FDA approved bologna to begin with so CD4 counting is not a specific surrogate lab marker. Fact: I live with HIV and its effects WRONG: You live with the mindset or belief in what someone as verbally told you, since there are no defintiive tests that can tell if ANY human being is infected with the alleged retrovirus "HIV". No "HIV" test has ever been verified by means of direct HTLVIII/LAV isolation. Fact: You pass me in the street, on the bus or train and see me at work WRONG: Testimonials like yours contradict other's globally who have defied the most common assumptions about the alleged "HIV Theories of AIDS". Fact: I am alive, but have watched many die. PERHAPS: But so am I. http://livingwithout hivdrugs.com/tomasb. htm Don't die of ignorance or complacency and don't allow this kind denial or dissidence to disrespect the memory of those who've died. WRONG: The infamous AID$ Quilt is the most iconic symbol of the global HIV/AID$ Holocaust. I will not respond to this comment or be drawn any further. Because The Church of HIV is full of denierists! and those who refuse to listen. Censorship equals murder. Tomás Brewster
  • Score: 0

4:30pm Tue 11 Dec 12

sarcher says...

Robert Scott Bell is going to discuss this today on his show: 12-2PM EST
http://www.robertsco
ttbell.com/blog/ques
tioning-hiv-jon-rapp
oport-gmo-strategies
-monsanto-occupies-n
said-g-i-liver-dange
rs-preventing-cancer
-metastatis-greenhou
se-gas-drugs-more/
Robert Scott Bell is going to discuss this today on his show: 12-2PM EST http://www.robertsco ttbell.com/blog/ques tioning-hiv-jon-rapp oport-gmo-strategies -monsanto-occupies-n said-g-i-liver-dange rs-preventing-cancer -metastatis-greenhou se-gas-drugs-more/ sarcher
  • Score: 0

4:41pm Tue 11 Dec 12

sarcher says...

Robert Scott Bell is going to discuss this today on his show:

http://tinyurl.com/b
alckh2
this link should work 12-2pm EST
Robert Scott Bell is going to discuss this today on his show: http://tinyurl.com/b alckh2 this link should work 12-2pm EST sarcher
  • Score: 0

11:44pm Tue 11 Dec 12

OMSJ_CEO says...

Since 2009, the pharmaceutical industry has paid $10 billion to settle thousands of criminal and civil complaints related to the illegal marketing of drugs that kill or injure millions of Americans and Brits annually.

Since Brighton's HIV researchers and activists are funded by the manufacturers of drugs and devices that are exposed in this documentary, it's not hard to understand why they are outraged by the video. If activists don't protest, they don't get candy from their pharmaceutical sugar daddies... Their outrage is a good reason why this award-winning documentary should be watched by the taxpayers who fund this scam.
Since 2009, the pharmaceutical industry has paid $10 billion to settle thousands of criminal and civil complaints related to the illegal marketing of drugs that kill or injure millions of Americans and Brits annually. Since Brighton's HIV researchers and activists are funded by the manufacturers of drugs and devices that are exposed in this documentary, it's not hard to understand why they are outraged by the video. If activists don't protest, they don't get candy from their pharmaceutical sugar daddies... Their outrage is a good reason why this award-winning documentary should be watched by the taxpayers who fund this scam. OMSJ_CEO
  • Score: 0

12:07am Wed 12 Dec 12

PederKristiansen says...

sussexram40,

all AIDS-defining diseases can occur in HIV-negative people. They did so before the AIDS-era and continue to do so. They are simply called their old less dramatic names and have their own causes and treatments. So yes, it is also possible for people without "HIV" to develope what would otherwise be called AIDS in combination with a highly questionable "HIV-diagnosis."

In Africa the clinical definition model refered to as "The Bangui Clinical Definition of AIDS" has enabled physicians and healthcare workers to give people an AIDS-diagnosis without performing HIV-antibody tests but simply based on combinations of unspecific symptoms like weightlos, fever, diarrhoea etc.

In the United States HIV-positive people can be given an AIDS-diagnosis without the presence of any illness but based on a CD4 count under 200, which isn't a disease. In other words, it's possible to have AIDS without disease!
sussexram40, all AIDS-defining diseases can occur in HIV-negative people. They did so before the AIDS-era and continue to do so. They are simply called their old less dramatic names and have their own causes and treatments. So yes, it is also possible for people without "HIV" to develope what would otherwise be called AIDS in combination with a highly questionable "HIV-diagnosis." In Africa the clinical definition model refered to as "The Bangui Clinical Definition of AIDS" has enabled physicians and healthcare workers to give people an AIDS-diagnosis without performing HIV-antibody tests but simply based on combinations of unspecific symptoms like weightlos, fever, diarrhoea etc. In the United States HIV-positive people can be given an AIDS-diagnosis without the presence of any illness but based on a CD4 count under 200, which isn't a disease. In other words, it's possible to have AIDS without disease! PederKristiansen
  • Score: 0

11:46am Wed 12 Dec 12

Vacunas Autismo says...

There are no clinical differences between someone who has Malaria, and someone who has "AIDS-related Malaria".

Winnie Mwebe http://breakfornews.
com/aidsmyth/report/
articles/010520winni
emwebe.htm

In over 60% of cases of people in Africa who die of AIDS, Malaria is their AIDS-defining illness, because "AIDS" is a marketing tool not a disease or syndrome.
There are no clinical differences between someone who has Malaria, and someone who has "AIDS-related Malaria". Winnie Mwebe http://breakfornews. com/aidsmyth/report/ articles/010520winni emwebe.htm In over 60% of cases of people in Africa who die of AIDS, Malaria is their AIDS-defining illness, because "AIDS" is a marketing tool not a disease or syndrome. Vacunas Autismo
  • Score: 0

11:48am Wed 12 Dec 12

Vacunas Autismo says...

In practice, the only way to establish infection are the HIV tests.

The whole house of cards of HIV/AIDS theory has been built upon the outcomes of these dubious tests. If they fail the whole edifices crumbles... and they suck!

Clinicians grossly mistake consistency for accuracy. Having twenty tests give similar results doesn't imply accuracy at all, only consistency - which is a completely different animal.

Accuracy can only established by comparison against the actual demonstration of the viral particle in subjects with a positive test outcome and its absence in subjects with a negative outcome.

But this is not the way HIV tests are calibrated. Not by far!

From the disclosures of the CE approval requirements (see http://eur-lex.europ
a.eu/LexUriServ/LexU
riServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2
009:039:0034:0049:EN
:PDF pages L 39/40 to L 39/42) the positive and negative references used for hiv test calibration and licensing are based on assumptions and mutual comparisons. The calibration references used are these:

- Positive referents: Clinical AIDS patients. Negative outcomes in these referents are considered "false negative" and affect the specificity of the test.

Because there's no clinical differential diagnosis of AIDS without an HIV test, these referents are simply assumed to be infected. Alternatively, they have been diagnosed using a different HIV test which suffers from exactly the same lack of calibration against the actual virus as the test being licensed.

- Negative referents: Blood donors, pregnant women and other "low risk" persons. Positive outcomes in these are considered "false positives" and affect the sensitivity of the test.

These referents aren't controlled for the actual absence of HIV either, just assumed uninfected for being "low risk" (another axiom). This causes gross contradictions, such as a "positive" pregnant woman considered "false positive" in a panel setting, but the very same woman being "true positive" if tested in a clinical setting.

As a consequence, these tests might be detecting "feature X" with good consistency (they are panel-beaten agsinst each other), but still we have no clue on how close "feature X" is to "HIV". We can never know the accuracy because HIV is left out of the calibration process.

Too gross for words!
In practice, the only way to establish infection are the HIV tests. The whole house of cards of HIV/AIDS theory has been built upon the outcomes of these dubious tests. If they fail the whole edifices crumbles... and they suck! Clinicians grossly mistake consistency for accuracy. Having twenty tests give similar results doesn't imply accuracy at all, only consistency - which is a completely different animal. Accuracy can only established by comparison against the actual demonstration of the viral particle in subjects with a positive test outcome and its absence in subjects with a negative outcome. But this is not the way HIV tests are calibrated. Not by far! From the disclosures of the CE approval requirements (see http://eur-lex.europ a.eu/LexUriServ/LexU riServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2 009:039:0034:0049:EN :PDF pages L 39/40 to L 39/42) the positive and negative references used for hiv test calibration and licensing are based on assumptions and mutual comparisons. The calibration references used are these: - Positive referents: Clinical AIDS patients. Negative outcomes in these referents are considered "false negative" and affect the specificity of the test. Because there's no clinical differential diagnosis of AIDS without an HIV test, these referents are simply assumed to be infected. Alternatively, they have been diagnosed using a different HIV test which suffers from exactly the same lack of calibration against the actual virus as the test being licensed. - Negative referents: Blood donors, pregnant women and other "low risk" persons. Positive outcomes in these are considered "false positives" and affect the sensitivity of the test. These referents aren't controlled for the actual absence of HIV either, just assumed uninfected for being "low risk" (another axiom). This causes gross contradictions, such as a "positive" pregnant woman considered "false positive" in a panel setting, but the very same woman being "true positive" if tested in a clinical setting. As a consequence, these tests might be detecting "feature X" with good consistency (they are panel-beaten agsinst each other), but still we have no clue on how close "feature X" is to "HIV". We can never know the accuracy because HIV is left out of the calibration process. Too gross for words! Vacunas Autismo
  • Score: 0

11:52am Wed 12 Dec 12

Vacunas Autismo says...

1. HIV antibodies.

These are produced by the patient, therefore strictly related to the patient, not to the virus.

The claim "related to HIV" is based on observing reactions between the suspected "HIV" antibody and proteins believed to characteristic of HIV. Such reactions obviously occur.

Now the claim "HIV antibodies" assumes specificity of the reaction. Specific? Excuse me, but there are at least 60 documented conditions, as common as the flu, pregnancy, herpes, carbohydrate antibodies etc. proven to induce antibodies reactive against "HIV antigens". There's a comprehensive referenced list here: http://www.ummafrapp
.de/skandal/felix/mi
tochond/Att.5.pdf

These antibodies are so abundant, that up to 35% of the "low risk" population carry at least one "specific HIV antibody" reactive to "HIV antigens". See http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed/22302
70 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed/75869
84

There's a reason for this: Antibodies and antigens have multiple epitopes, which provide for non-specific reactions (Example: http://www.cap.org/a
pps/docs/newspath/10
08/heterophilic_anti
body_interference.pd
f ). An antibody induced by antigen A can react with antigens B, C, D...N if there's any pair of matching epitopes. Therefore, claiming an antigen-antibody reaction as "strictly related" requires proof hat no other matching epitope exists in patients labelled as HIV-positive. Such proof-of-negative requires an impossible exhaustive search, so you'd be in the same position as a creationist asking for proof that god doesn't exist.

It's now apparent that the claim of "HIV antibodies" being a good surrogate of actual demonstration of the viral particle severely clashes with reality.
1. HIV antibodies. These are produced by the patient, therefore strictly related to the patient, not to the virus. The claim "related to HIV" is based on observing reactions between the suspected "HIV" antibody and proteins believed to characteristic of HIV. Such reactions obviously occur. Now the claim "HIV antibodies" assumes specificity of the reaction. Specific? Excuse me, but there are at least 60 documented conditions, as common as the flu, pregnancy, herpes, carbohydrate antibodies etc. proven to induce antibodies reactive against "HIV antigens". There's a comprehensive referenced list here: http://www.ummafrapp .de/skandal/felix/mi tochond/Att.5.pdf These antibodies are so abundant, that up to 35% of the "low risk" population carry at least one "specific HIV antibody" reactive to "HIV antigens". See http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/22302 70 and http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/75869 84 There's a reason for this: Antibodies and antigens have multiple epitopes, which provide for non-specific reactions (Example: http://www.cap.org/a pps/docs/newspath/10 08/heterophilic_anti body_interference.pd f ). An antibody induced by antigen A can react with antigens B, C, D...N if there's any pair of matching epitopes. Therefore, claiming an antigen-antibody reaction as "strictly related" requires proof hat no other matching epitope exists in patients labelled as HIV-positive. Such proof-of-negative requires an impossible exhaustive search, so you'd be in the same position as a creationist asking for proof that god doesn't exist. It's now apparent that the claim of "HIV antibodies" being a good surrogate of actual demonstration of the viral particle severely clashes with reality. Vacunas Autismo
  • Score: 0

11:54am Wed 12 Dec 12

Vacunas Autismo says...

2. HIV proteins

It's claim they've been "isolated and sequenced from the virus". There are two inaccuracies in that claim:

a) In retrovirology "virus" is short for "virus isolate", which is what virologists work with.

b) "Sequenced from the virus" isn't correct either. Aminoacids are sequenced from the protein and then compared to a deduced amino acid sequence believed to be viral. See http://www.sciencema
g.org/content/229/47
20/1402.long

For lack of time I will just address the consequences of (a) in this reply.

== HIV isolates.==

A PUBMED search reveals they're grossly contaminated by human cell debris. This includes the ones in Gallo's seminal papers, on which he characterised proteins, genome subsequencies and patented his HIV test. The contamination problem is widely acknowledged, and the contamination is gross. For example:

Microvesicles are a source of contaminating cellular proteins found in purified HIV-1 preparations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed/91262
69

Notice the oxymoron: Contaminated "purified" HIV-1 preparations. This is rich!

Cell membrane vesicles are a major contaminant of gradient-enriched human immunodeficiency virus type-1 preparations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed/91262
68

Both papers concede that particles said to be HIV represent only a very small fraction of the total "HIV isolate" material. in plain English: Contamination is gross. The second paper states HIV-isolates contain "an excess of vesicles with a size range 50-500nm, as opposed to a minor population of virus particles...cellular vesicles appear...to be a major contaminant of HIV preparations enriched by sucrose gradient centrifugation".

Therefore, since the majority of the "HIV isolate" consists of cellular debris, proteins assumed to be "HIV" are most probability of human origin.

There's evidence of "HIV proteins" being actually human. They've been documented in human tissues of persons who are not infected by "HIV". For example, three of the main "HIV proteins" used extensively in HIV tests (p24, gp120 and p17) have been documented in healthy human placentas:

Expression of endogenous HIV-1 crossreactive antigens within normal human extravillous trophoblast cells.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed/74734
33

"...we report that extravillous trophoblast (EVT) from second- and third-trimester tissue are also cross-reactive with anti-HIV-1 gp120/160 and p17/18 antibodies. We document a differential expression of such cross-reactive epitopes between mononuclear EVT and placental bed giant cells..."

HIV proteins in normal human placentae.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed/19306
45

"...Cryostat sections of human normal term placentae were studied for evidence of immunopathology by using antibodies to lymphocytes, macrophages, platelets, and coagulation factors. ... Antigens gp120 and p17 were identified in normal chorionic villi in vimentin-positive fibroblast-like cells and in endothelium, respectively. Antigen p24 was localized to HLA-DR positive cells that morphologically resembled macrophages in areas of villitis..."

Notice that HIV/AIDS theory believes p24 and p17 to come from HIV's GAG gene, and gp120 from HIV's ENV gene. If your claim "proved to be virally encoded" were true, then how can human placentas possibly encode the same proteins? The non-human origin of HIV's genome is challenged by these findings.

Also, the lack of consensus regarding the molecular weight of "HIV proteins" falsifies your claim that they're well determined:

CAMBRIDGE BIOTECH HIV-1 WESTERN BLOT KIT

http://www.omsj.org/
tests/Cambridge%20Bi
otech%20HIV-1%20WB.p
df

"...Slight ambiguities exist in the designation of the molecular weights of the HIV-1 antigens..."

The disclaimer above gives 10 different references.

It is now apparent that so-called "HIV proteins", because they're ambiguous and found in non-infected persons cannot properly substitute actual demonstration of the viral particle. As a consequence, the calibration of HIV tests based on this surrogate can't possibly achieve sensitivity and or specificity.
2. HIV proteins It's claim they've been "isolated and sequenced from the virus". There are two inaccuracies in that claim: a) In retrovirology "virus" is short for "virus isolate", which is what virologists work with. b) "Sequenced from the virus" isn't correct either. Aminoacids are sequenced from the protein and then compared to a deduced amino acid sequence believed to be viral. See http://www.sciencema g.org/content/229/47 20/1402.long For lack of time I will just address the consequences of (a) in this reply. == HIV isolates.== A PUBMED search reveals they're grossly contaminated by human cell debris. This includes the ones in Gallo's seminal papers, on which he characterised proteins, genome subsequencies and patented his HIV test. The contamination problem is widely acknowledged, and the contamination is gross. For example: Microvesicles are a source of contaminating cellular proteins found in purified HIV-1 preparations. http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/91262 69 Notice the oxymoron: Contaminated "purified" HIV-1 preparations. This is rich! Cell membrane vesicles are a major contaminant of gradient-enriched human immunodeficiency virus type-1 preparations. http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/91262 68 Both papers concede that particles said to be HIV represent only a very small fraction of the total "HIV isolate" material. in plain English: Contamination is gross. The second paper states HIV-isolates contain "an excess of [cellular] vesicles with a size range 50-500nm, as opposed to a minor population of virus particles...cellular vesicles appear...to be a major contaminant of HIV preparations enriched by sucrose gradient centrifugation". Therefore, since the majority of the "HIV isolate" consists of cellular debris, proteins assumed to be "HIV" are most probability of human origin. There's evidence of "HIV proteins" being actually human. They've been documented in human tissues of persons who are not infected by "HIV". For example, three of the main "HIV proteins" used extensively in HIV tests (p24, gp120 and p17) have been documented in healthy human placentas: Expression of endogenous HIV-1 crossreactive antigens within normal human extravillous trophoblast cells. http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/74734 33 "...we report that extravillous trophoblast (EVT) from second- and third-trimester tissue are also cross-reactive with anti-HIV-1 gp120/160 and p17/18 antibodies. We document a differential expression of such cross-reactive epitopes between mononuclear EVT and placental bed giant cells..." HIV proteins in normal human placentae. http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/19306 45 "...Cryostat sections of human normal term placentae were studied for evidence of immunopathology by using antibodies to lymphocytes, macrophages, platelets, and coagulation factors. ... Antigens gp120 and p17 were identified in normal chorionic villi in vimentin-positive fibroblast-like cells and in endothelium, respectively. Antigen p24 was localized to HLA-DR positive cells that morphologically resembled macrophages in areas of villitis..." Notice that HIV/AIDS theory believes p24 and p17 to come from HIV's GAG gene, and gp120 from HIV's ENV gene. If your claim "proved to be virally encoded" were true, then how can human placentas possibly encode the same proteins? The non-human origin of HIV's genome is challenged by these findings. Also, the lack of consensus regarding the molecular weight of "HIV proteins" falsifies your claim that they're well determined: CAMBRIDGE BIOTECH HIV-1 WESTERN BLOT KIT http://www.omsj.org/ tests/Cambridge%20Bi otech%20HIV-1%20WB.p df "...Slight ambiguities exist in the designation of the molecular weights of the HIV-1 antigens..." The disclaimer above gives 10 different references. It is now apparent that so-called "HIV proteins", because they're ambiguous and found in non-infected persons cannot properly substitute actual demonstration of the viral particle. As a consequence, the calibration of HIV tests based on this surrogate can't possibly achieve sensitivity and or specificity. Vacunas Autismo
  • Score: 0

2:41pm Wed 12 Dec 12

Tomás Brewster says...

Brighton University House of Numbers Censorship - Robert Scott Bell Show

http://youtu.be/paqG
YSSwCug
Brighton University House of Numbers Censorship - Robert Scott Bell Show http://youtu.be/paqG YSSwCug Tomás Brewster
  • Score: 0

2:44pm Wed 12 Dec 12

Tomás Brewster says...

Brighton University House of Numbers Censorship - Robert Scott Bell Show

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=paqGYSSwC
ug&feature=youtu.be
Brighton University House of Numbers Censorship - Robert Scott Bell Show http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=paqGYSSwC ug&feature=youtu.be Tomás Brewster
  • Score: 0

11:50am Thu 13 Dec 12

bruce_ says...

This film sounds bizarre -- but surely it's wrong to ban it?! Let it be shown in all its apparent foolishness and inaccuracy, and let people see this. No doubt a few potential/actual AIDS sufferers will believe its arguments; but mainly because they are looking for a reason to deny the facts, and would seize on anything.
This film sounds bizarre -- but surely it's wrong to ban it?! Let it be shown in all its apparent foolishness and inaccuracy, and let people see this. No doubt a few potential/actual AIDS sufferers will believe its arguments; but mainly because they are looking for a reason to deny the facts, and would seize on anything. bruce_
  • Score: 0

10:58am Fri 14 Dec 12

sarcher says...

bruce_ wrote:
This film sounds bizarre -- but surely it's wrong to ban it?! Let it be shown in all its apparent foolishness and inaccuracy, and let people see this. No doubt a few potential/actual AIDS sufferers will believe its arguments; but mainly because they are looking for a reason to deny the facts, and would seize on anything.
Bruce, why don't you watch the film rather then just say it sounds bizarre.
[quote][p][bold]bruce_[/bold] wrote: This film sounds bizarre -- but surely it's wrong to ban it?! Let it be shown in all its apparent foolishness and inaccuracy, and let people see this. No doubt a few potential/actual AIDS sufferers will believe its arguments; but mainly because they are looking for a reason to deny the facts, and would seize on anything.[/p][/quote]Bruce, why don't you watch the film rather then just say it sounds bizarre. sarcher
  • Score: 0

3:28pm Fri 14 Dec 12

RichardNY says...

The screening sponsor, the World Foundation for Natural Science ("the New World Franciscan Scientific Endeavor of the New World Church"), believes they know the "true cause of AIDS." This is a quote from an interview with their European head:

"If they discover that HIV positive people have certain viruses, this still does not mean that they have discovered the true cause of AIDS, which is caused by a completely unhealthy and unnatural way of life."

http://www.naturalsc
ience.org/fileadmin/
portabledocuments/is
sueformer_interview_
en.pdf

You can see the affinity with Peter Duesberg, whose Rethinking AIDS organization funded House of Numbers: in the 80s Duesberg said AIDS is "caused by a lifestyle that was criminal twenty years ago."
The screening sponsor, the World Foundation for Natural Science ("the New World Franciscan Scientific Endeavor of the New World Church"), believes they know the "true cause of AIDS." This is a quote from an interview with their European head: "If they discover that HIV positive people have certain viruses, this still does not mean that they have discovered the true cause of AIDS, which is caused by a completely unhealthy and unnatural way of life." http://www.naturalsc ience.org/fileadmin/ portabledocuments/is sueformer_interview_ en.pdf You can see the affinity with Peter Duesberg, whose Rethinking AIDS organization funded House of Numbers: in the 80s Duesberg said AIDS is "caused by a lifestyle that was criminal twenty years ago." RichardNY
  • Score: 0

7:20am Sun 16 Dec 12

NON HIV AIDS? says...

Chapter 33 of Hillary Johnson's: Osler's Web: Inside the Labyrinth of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) Epidemic is entitled "HIV-NEGATIVE AIDS."

Neenyah Ostrom's book "America's Biggest Cover-up: 50 More Things...CFS and Its Link To AIDS" cites as its # 1 thing: "Some CFS Patients May Be Non-HIV AIDS Cases."

NON HIV AIDS cases are cited in medical journals since 1992.

The reason we have no cure for AIDS is because HIV is NOT the cause.

My life w/ NON HIV AIDS: w ww.cfsstraighttalk.b
logspot.c om

or just google "NON HIV AIDS"
Chapter 33 of Hillary Johnson's: Osler's Web: Inside the Labyrinth of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) Epidemic is entitled "HIV-NEGATIVE AIDS." Neenyah Ostrom's book "America's Biggest Cover-up: 50 More Things...CFS and Its Link To AIDS" cites as its # 1 thing: "Some CFS Patients May Be Non-HIV AIDS Cases." NON HIV AIDS cases are cited in medical journals since 1992. The reason we have no cure for AIDS is because HIV is NOT the cause. My life w/ NON HIV AIDS: w ww.cfsstraighttalk.b logspot.c om or just google "NON HIV AIDS" NON HIV AIDS?
  • Score: 0

7:26am Sun 16 Dec 12

NON HIV AIDS? says...

UK Progressive just published a story about my life with NON HIV AIDS.

This marked it's 9 publication on 4 continents.

w w w.ukprogressive. c o .uk/the-aids-like-di
sease-seldom-mention
ed/article20891.h t m l

I recently testified on a federal level in Washington, DC too.
UK Progressive just published a story about my life with NON HIV AIDS. This marked it's 9 publication on 4 continents. w w w.ukprogressive. c o .uk/the-aids-like-di sease-seldom-mention ed/article20891.h t m l I recently testified on a federal level in Washington, DC too. NON HIV AIDS?
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree