Introduction to book - Virology - the misnamed Science
The word ‘virus' comes from the Latin for a poisonous liquid, and before that from the Sanskrit for the same. The hunt for them started when, towards the end of the 19th century, it was suggested that invisible living particles much smaller than bacteria might cause the epidemic illnesses for which no bacterial cause could be found. When the electron microscope found tiny particles in the blood serum of patients entering and leaving human cells, this was a Eureka Moment. The prediction was surely about to be proved true. These particles were assumed to be invading and hijacking our cells in order to reproduce. They were thus all condemned as poisons, as ‘viruses.'
As more of these were searched for and found in sick people, many illnesses became blamed on them. They became the invisible enemy, the nano-terrorist we must fear. We were instructed that one of our first duties for our newborn children is to vaccinate them against this dreaded foe. Thus was created an ever-growing multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical industry.
But, as I have travelled through the science that underlies this industry, I have gradually learnt to ask questions. I now realise that there is another way to see this story that fits all the data. I have learnt from biologists that our cells naturally produce viral-like particles without being invaded or infected, both when healthy and sick. Currently such particles are named by asking what illnesses they cause as if this is their raison d'être, their only importance, the sole reason for cells making them. They would be named far more positively and comprehensively by asking what cells produce them and for what purpose.
Scientists like Barbara McClintock, who won a Nobel Prize for finding that cells operate with intelligence and seek to repair themselves, have given us a very different understanding of the particles they make. We now know that our cells create multitudes of tiny transport particles (vesicles) to carry the proteins and genetic codes needed within and between cells. The ones that travel between cells, those our cells use to communicate with each other - are puzzlingly just like those that we have long blamed for illnesses.
It now seems that we may have broadly misconceived the virus; that they may be simply inert messages in envelopes carried from cell to cell. In the last ten years scientists have begun to call them instead ‘exosomes', ‘particles that leave the body' of the cell, thus removing the inference that they are all poisons. Distinguishing the healthy particle from the pathogenic is now an enormous problem for the virologist, for it has been discovered that our cells make them all in the same way, in the very same place. It also seems we cannot stop this process without risking severely damaging our cells.
So, perhaps we need to halt the juggernaut of virology with its virus hunt, and look to see if there is another way of helping us keep healthy. We need to know how we can strengthen the malnourished cell, rather than use the many medicines that try to prevent it from making particles by interfering with its essential processes. We need to know if a poisoned cell may produce unhealthy messengers or viruses. We need to learn far more about cells - for only now are we starting to understand how they communicate and the very important role played in this by the particles we had totally demonised as viruses.
I spent over 4 years in the 1990s researching why the vaccines made to protect our children from viruses sometimes instead did them grievous damage. It then took me over 8 years to travel from accepting without question that a virus causes polio and another causes AIDS to discover that most people, including myself, have been vastly misled.
I now realize that science today is so specialized, that every new generation of scientists has had to trust that those who laid the foundations got things right, for they cannot repeat this earlier work except at great cost. If this trust ever proves to be misplaced, it is absolutely vital to correct this with all speed and courage.
I have been horrified to learn from the highest scientific authorities that this trust has sometimes been very grievously misplaced. For example, high-level US governmental inquiries in the 1990s, guided by eminent scientists, explicitly reported the key foundation HIV research papers were riddled with grave errors and deceptively "fixed." They documented these findings with great care - and I likewise do so here. But when the Republican Party gained control over the US House of Representatives at the end of 1994, it ended this most important investigation, buried its reports and left the scientific papers it found to be erroneous uncorrected. These same papers are thus still frequently used by unsuspecting scientists worldwide, who cite them as proof that HIV causes AIDS. I present clear evidence here that these papers were fixed at the last moment before publication. I also reproduce the original documents so you can judge for yourselves.
When I dug back further, to the origins of virology and the great hunt for the poliovirus, I found the story was scandalously much the same. Powerful evidence was presented to Congress linking the summer polio epidemics to summer-used heavy metal pesticides. These scientists suggested remedies, reported curing polio - and were ignored. Instead parents were told to be scared of a yet undiscovered virus. Today thousands of children are still being identically paralysed in regions where such pesticides are heavily used - but all the World Health Organisation (WHO) says is: ‘Don't worry; we have nearly exterminated the dreaded poliovirus. We have checked. The paralysed children were not infected by it.'
As for childhood vaccinations, surely they have proved a great benefit? I long thought so, but I have found the government scientists we entrust with our children's lives have admitted, at official vaccine safety meetings reported here for the first time, that they cannot clean these vaccines; that they allowed their use despite knowing that they are scandalously polluted with numerous viruses, viral and genetic code fragments, possibly toxins, prions and oncogenes. The World Health Organisation has also disclosed at these meetings that it has long known that the MMR vaccine to be contaminated with avian leucosis virus. This is a bird virus linked to leukaemia, but the public have not been told about this. Why most children are not falling ill from this dangerous contamination is, it seems, because most are thankfully gifted by nature with very effective immune systems - and because these viruses are generally not as dangerous as these scientists believe.
As for the great flu' epidemic of 1918, it is used today to spread fear of viruses. Yet, shortly after it occurred, an eminent Yale University professor reported that bacteria primarily caused it, and the flu viruses present were virtually harmless. As far as I can discover, his work remains unquestioned but not mentioned. I thus report it in this book. As for the recent scare over bird flu - any self-respecting bird would fall ill and create new viruses if subjected to the amounts of pollution now emitted in China. What we need to focus on is the pollution - not to waste a fortune on chasing genetic code fragments in birds healthily migrating thousands of miles.
What also of the many eminent scientists who have concluded publicly that the HIV theory of AIDS must be scientifically flawed because their research indicates that it has other causes and is curable? Is it right that their research is being suppressed, ridiculed and not funded - simply because they have not confirmed the establishment's theory for this dreaded epidemic? At the end of this book I list some of their names and positions.
Among these dissenters are at least one Nobel Laureate and many senior professors at major universities. But it seems, no matter how important the academic chairs they hold, they are all mocked for so concluding and are scarcely ever interviewed. Instead they are scandalously called ‘Denialists,' as if they had denied the Nazi Holocaust, on the basis that their work dissuades people from taking antiretroviral chemotherapy drugs - which logically cannot be lifesaving, despite all claims, if a retrovirus is not to be blamed.
I have to ask what are the consequences of this uncritical adherence to the theory of HIV? So far this theory has produced no cure and no vaccine despite the spending of some $200 billion on research. So, what if unacknowledged fraud is a major reason for this continual frustration? Is HIV science built upon flawed and fraudulent research? As for Robert Gallo, the first scientist awarded the credit for discovering HIV; it seems he may have only escaped criminal prosecution for fraud in developing the HIV test on a technicality; because it was found by a State Attorney General that too much time had elapsed for his prosecution to be undertaken.
As for AIDS in Africa, journalists rarely check how AIDS is diagnosed in that continent. Most logically presume it is diagnosed the same as in the West. But, if they had checked, they would have learnt that World Health Organisation has set very different criteria for an AIDS diagnosis in Africa - explicitly stating that AIDS can be diagnosed solely on the basis of symptoms common to other major diseases! Thus many diseases can be and are diagnosed as AIDS in Africa. I cite these remarkable diagnostic rules in full in this book so you can judge this for yourselves.
If the dissenting scientists were right, if we wrongly fear a sexually transmitted virus, this discovery would have an enormous impact around the world and especially in Africa. It would cause a vast uplifting of the spirits of its people, far greater than anything achieved by "Alive-AID" concerts. We all know how devastating it is for an individual to be told that they are HIV positive and will inevitably die of AIDS. What then does it do to the morale of the people of a continent to be told that they are not only desperately poor but incurably blighted - due to sex?"
We have been taught to greatly fear viruses - and yet scientists have long known that these are fundamental parts of life, made by the millions by all healthy cells. I hope this book will help by combating this fear, this damning of the invisible because we do not understand it. Without this fear, hopefully the focus in medical research will shift to the environmental toxins that really do put us, and our world, gravely at risk.
As for myself, my work as an investigative journalist previously was on relatively safer subjects for one's reputation in the liberal press, such as arms for Iran, Aboriginal land rights, blood diamonds. I do not expect such a relatively easy ride this time, given the emotion connected to this issue. Indeed, attempts have already been made to prevent this work appearing, by the same academics who have tried to prevent publicity for the works of the ‘dissident' scientists, I suppose I should be honoured to be seen so early as a danger by them, even before this book appeared! You can read here verbatim their attacks on my work and judge their validity for yourselves.
But the truth needs to be out. I hope my account will help to lift the fear with which these natural and fascinating tiny particles have been enshrouded for far too long. They are the products of our cells - and they helped make us.
When I began some twelve years ago my journey into medical research, it took me into the grim world of the virus hunters - but then, utterly unexpectedly, it led to me being utterly enthralled by the marvels of miniscule world of the cell and of its messenger particles or viruses, a world that may well extend across galaxies. I invite you to join me on this journey to meet with our oldest, smallest ancestors, ones whom we are only just now starting to know.
For an example of ‘infection' used as a criteria, see Retroelement and Retrovirus Universal Classification
- Pat Heslop-Harrison. http://www.le.ac.uk/bl/phh4/retrocla.htm