The AIDS Pharmacy

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of the siren till she transforms us into beasts. For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and provide for it." Patrick Henry, on the brink of the American Revolution

An individual given an HIV positive diagnosis is generally recommended 'early intervention' treatment with the drug Azidothymidine (AZT) and/or other AIDS-related medications. The AIDS physician suggests this course of action because this is what he has been taught to do. The theory runs that 'early pharmaceutical intervention' reduces the rate at which HIV spreads, thus raising the levels of immune function T-cells, which then do battle with the supposed virus, and thus delay the onset of AIDS-related diseases in the patient.

Let us now trace what happens to that individual, who maybe feels a little run down, and who has decided to go to the doctor. We'll call him Chris. Perhaps Chris belongs to one of the AIDS risk groups popularised by an emotionally charged media (active multi-partner, fast-track hetero/homosexual and/or drug user). Perhaps his tiredness and flu-like symptoms have worryingly coincided with his having recently returned from a trip abroad. Perhaps his tiredness and flu-like symptoms are just that - flu. Either way, through previous conversations, Chris's doctor is aware of the AIDS-type risk categories being presented in this instance, and he advises Chris to get tested for HIV.

But Chris is not aware of the truth concerning AIDS or the HIV tests. He has only been told that HIV is an incredibly volatile viral agent capable of spreading easily through bodily fluids and through the transfer of blood products. So Chris takes the highly unspecific 'HIV test', and after two weeks of inner turmoil waiting for the result, he is told he has 'the virus.' As Joan Shenton says:
"The inexorable death sentence - 'you have ten years at most' pronounced by doctors on young men and women, has led to some of the most intense human suffering imaginable. It has broken up families, alienated individuals from their communities and led to psychological death and suicide."
Looking quite unwell through the stress of it all, Chris is now recommended one of two courses of action:

· Early intervention treatment with anti-viral therapy (AZT, ddI, ddC, d4T, etc.)… or
· Go home untreated and come back when AIDS symptoms start to manifest.

Chris decides on early intervention with AZT - after all, his doctor knows best and this is modern medicine. Had Chris elected not to have AZT to begin with, but to go home and wait for the AIDS symptoms to manifest, he would not have long to wait before starting to notice a number of physical symptoms. That is because Chris is already showing signs of illness through stress alone. He has been persuaded by his doctor and a relentless media into watching for the common symptoms of AIDS. These indicators are 'something like flu', diarrhoea and pronounced fatigue. Notice that these are also psychosomatic symptoms, each of which can be brought on simply by the worry of being HIV positive and thus 'prone to AIDS'.

Gary Null has studied in detail the correlation between receiving bad news (a 'positive' result) and the onset of ill-health. Says Null:
"I've looked at all the literature on psycho-neuro-immunology and I have seen an abundant series of articles that show that if you give a person some bad news, all the quantitative measurements of immune function - natural killer cells, T-cells, phagocytes etc - go down. In a matter of hours, the entire immune system can become depressed. Now give them bad news that is only going to get worse and you're putting that person's psycho-neurological immune system into a tailspin."

Chris has not opted to go home and wait. Having received the equivalent of a verbal death sentence and now not feeling well at all, Chris has decided on the doctor's suggestion of early intervention treatment with AZT.

So what is AZT? Dissident AIDS researcher and author Christine Maggiore introduces us to this widely prescribed AIDS drug.
"AZT is not a new drug. It was not created for the treatment of AIDS and is not an anti-viral. AZT is a chemical compound that was developed - and abandoned - over 30 years ago as a chemotherapy treatment for cancer. Many cancer patients do not survive chemotherapy due to its destructive effects on the immune system. Because of the damage it causes, chemotherapy is never used as a prevention and is only administered for very limited amounts of time.

Since cancer is made of persistently growing cells, AZT was designed to prevent formation of new cells…. In 1964, experiments with AZT on mice with cancer showed that AZT was so effective in destroying healthy growing cells that the mice died of extreme toxicity. As a result, AZT was shelved and no patent was ever filed."

It has been reported by Project AIDS International that Richard Beltz, the creator of AZT, called for the abandonment of this drug because 1) its extreme toxicity made it unsuitable for any chemotherapy - even short term, and 2) it was carcinogenic (cancer causing) at any dose.

Barrister Anthony Brink remarks:
"In truth, AZT makes you feel like you're dying. That's because on AZT you are. How can a deadly cell toxin conceivably make you feel better as it finishes you, by stopping your cells from dividing, by ending this vital process that distinguishes living things from dead things? Not for nothing does AZT come with a skull and cross-bones label when packaged for laboratory use."

And indeed that is the case. With a skull and cross-bones on the outer label (see photo section), and a reminder to wear suitable protective clothing when handling, the inner contents of the AZT packaging include the following side-effects advisory notice:

WHOLE BODY: abdominal pain, back pain, body odour, chest pain, chills, edema of the lip, fever, flu symptoms, hyperalgesia.
CARDIOVASCULAR: syncope, vasodilation.
GASTROINTESTINAL: bleeding gums, constipation, diarrhoea, dysphagia, edema of the tongue, eructation, flatulence, mouth ulcer, rectal haemorrhage.
HAEMIC AND LYMPHATIC: lymphadenopathy.
MUSCULOSKELETAL: arthralgia, muscle spasm, tremor, twitch.
NERVOUS: anxiety, confusion, depression, dizziness, emotional lability, loss of mental acuity, nervousness, paresthesia, somnolence, vertigo.
RESPIRATORY: cough, dyspnea, epistaxis, hoarseness, pharyngitis, rhinitis, sinusitis.
SKIN: rash, sweat, urticaria.
SPECIAL SENSES: amblyopia, hearing loss, photophobia, taste perversion.
UROGENITAL: dysuria, polyuria, urinary frequency, urinary hesitancy.

Dr Stefan Lanka has this to say:
"…The use of AZT and other 'anti-retrovirals', which are supposed to target HIV replication, but actually kill cells indiscriminately (and ultimately the whole body), must be stopped immediately. It is especially distressing to note that AZT and its analogues preferentially attack those cells which divide most rapidly, namely cells in the intestines causing diarrhoea and malabsorption of food, and in bone marrow, ironically, the primary production site for cells of the immune system."

The horrific toxicity of AZT brings on the symptoms of AIDS: diarrhoea, malabsorption of food, leading to rapid weight loss and immune deficiency disorders. This, of course, has led some doctors to maintain the dosage of AZT or even increase it in the patient, believing the medication 'isn't working' and more is required. This, in turn, accelerates the degradation of the patient. More AZT is given. The patient relapses further, and so on, down the slippery slope to death. More disturbingly, while most cancer chemotherapy agents are only administered to the patient for a strictly limited period of time in view of their toxicity, AZT is prescribed until the end.

Chris is now quite literally dying. In being prescribed AZT, Chris is receiving white capsules with a blue band. Chris hasn't been told about the protective clothing worn in the AZT labs. He's read the side-effects insert, but he's resolved to fight his dreadful 'illness' with the strongest medicine the doctors have got.

Chris will not live much longer. Now his doctor advises that his dosage be increased to attempt to combat the ravaging effects of the HIV, now apparently evidencing itself so markedly. Chris agrees to the increased dose. And when Chris eventually dies of liver and heart damage, malnutrition and dramatic weight loss through internal haemorrhaging and other complications, his family will mourn the passing of a dearly loved husband, father or son who was brave to the very end, but who had, to the uninitiated, finally succumbed to the deadly HIV.

But Chris did not die of HIV/AIDS. Chris's death was by prescription.

In exactly this manner, thousands upon thousands of men and women have been persuaded to take AZT, a drug believed by the more discerning in the scientific community to be the leading cause of AIDS in the Western world. Researcher Newly Abbott remonstrates:
"AIDS is truly an iatrogenic disaster of the primary magnitude. By 'iatrogenic', we mean that clinical AIDS is a syndrome that is primarily being caused in the Western world now by doctors and their medicine. I'm not sure what's more terrifying, that this state of affairs continues to exist at all in spite of all the obvious evidence, or that the English language actually has a word for it."

Despite this catastrophic history, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) rises defiantly in defence of the positive benefits of its most infamous product. In fact, AZT's information leaflet, incongruously titled Positive Benefits, states "… there are no life-threatening side-effects associated with zidovudine [AZT]." GSK further cites numerous studies to substantiate its claims that AZT both "prolongs life" and "enhances its quality". The problem is, the only studies that appear to demonstrate these "positive benefits" are the studies funded, either directly or indirectly, by the GSK's Wellcome Foundation. As we shall see, independent studies conducted on AZT paints an entirely different picture.

How is it that such a drug can ever be prescribed today? Serendipity. Twenty years after AZT was shelved as an unusable poison, HIV was the talk of the medical establishment after Gallo's press conference. The emergence of the phenomenon of immune suppression known as AIDS presented an incredible opportunity for someone to come up with a lucrative, new drug to combat the supposed guilty virus.

David Barry, GSK's (Wellcome's) erstwhile chief researcher in the United States, was a man who knew a golden opportunity when he saw one. Barry had a number of advantages working for him. He knew US FDA drug approval procedures after having worked at the federal agency during the 1970s as a virologist. Barry's main advantage, however, was that he worked for the Wellcome Foundation, whose unusual non-profit charity status enabled the corporation to donate large sums of tax-free grant money to strategic institutions throughout government, universities and the corporate world. Wellcome thus had many grateful and influential friends.

David Barry turned his attention to the company archives in the early 1980s in search of previously rejected compounds. The race was on for an AIDS drug, there was no time to research a new substance from scratch, endure the interminable FDA approval procedures and expect to be first into the new and wide-open AIDS market. Barry knew if he succeeded in locating a suitable existing substance, Wellcome would save millions in research and development money in addition to being perfectly positioned to corner sales.

Barry selected a group of drugs and forwarded them to his friend, Dani Bolognesi, a professor at North Carolina's Duke University and a former colleague. Bolognesi tested the substances in his lab to see if any proved to demonstrate an ability to halt viral cell multiplication. One drug, codenamed Compound S, was wildly successful. Bolognesi wasted no time in sending his approval back to Barry for Compound S, or, as the archive tag in Barry's office would later identify it, AZT.

Bolognesi subsequently referred David Barry to Sam Broder, the man in charge of Robert Gallo's laboratory at the National Cancer Institute. Barry and Wellcome needed the clout the new 'Pope of AIDS', Robert Gallo, was able to bring to bear to get AZT through the FDA approval procedure. Barry duly sent Sam Broder a sample of Compound S in late 1984. The drug's ability to interrupt cell multiplication impressed Broder right away. Broder was later to become known in research circles as 'Mr AZT', such was his new-found fervour for the drug.

Barry and Broder were the right men at the right time for AZT, Bruce Nussbaum recalls:
"David Barry was the puppet master, and his favourite marionette was Sam Broder. While Broder was charging around promoting AZT at the National Institutes of Health, Barry was working quietly behind the scenes, orchestrating a whole panoply of actors who would ensure the drug's ultimate, commercial success."

Broder hurried AZT through its Phase 1 trials. Unprecedented FDA co-operation was extended because of the extreme pressure being brought to bear on the US government by pro-medication AIDS activist groups determined to see a drug onto the market as quickly as possible. Duesberg records what was happening in these hurriedly approved AZT trials:
"Sixty-six AZT recipients suffered 'severe' nausea… as compared to twenty-five in the placebo group. All AZT users saw their muscles waste away, while only three placebo recipients suffered this symptom. And a full thirty in the AZT group survived only with multiple blood transfusions to replace their poisoned blood cells, compared to five similar cases among the placebo users."

A follow-up study shattered anyone's illusions that AZT was in any way beneficial when all the patients were put on the drug. An unacceptable rate of fatalities prompted urgent calls for the trials to be stopped. Bruce Nussbaum again:
"A move to stop the trial began immediately. The toxicity of AZT was proving to be extremely high, much higher than indicated by Sam Broder's safety trials. PIs [Principal Investigators] began to worry that AZT was killing bone marrow cells so fast that patients would quickly come down with aplastic anemia, a murderous disease. This was terrifying to many PIs. "There was enormous pressure to stop," recalls Broder. "People said, 'My God, what's going on? We're getting these anemias. What's going on?' We never saw this level of anemia before."

Unknown to Broder however, another disastrously unscientific situation was developing. Some of the patients, completely sold on media rumours of AZT's miracle healing powers with AIDS, were determined to get their hands on the drug and forget the placebo. Discussions among the patients began, with some tasting another's medication. Some of the placebo group, unknown to the investigators, began taking AZT, further corrupting any blinding value the trials would have had in determining the effectiveness of the drug. Also, some of the AZT recipients simply were not able to complete their courses of AZT due to the drug's extreme side-effects. Margaret Fischl, who headed up the study, admitted:
"Drug therapy was temporarily discontinued or the frequency of doses decreased… if severe adverse reactions were noted. The study medication was withdrawn if unacceptable toxic effects or a [cancer] requiring therapy developed."

Here Fischl blatantly admits that doctors knew all along who was using AZT. So much for the double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Christine Maggiore records other trials, not funded by Wellcome, which were producing a similar worrying picture:
"A multitude of independent studies, including the Concorde study - the largest (1,749 subjects) and longest (three years in duration) - concluded that AZT increases T-cell counts only moderately and briefly without improving health (clinical status), and that it does not delay the onset of AIDS indicator diseases.

Following recommendations for 'early intervention', one third to one half of those who take AZT begin treatment before manifesting any symptoms of AIDS, although independent studies have shown that AZT actually accelerates clinical decline and decreases quality of life, at times even causing death before any AIDS defining illnesses appear - an occurrence officially described as 'death without any preceding AIDS-defining event.'"

British and French scientists organised what became known as the Concorde study in 1991. The purpose of the three-year study was to test whether AZT prevented the onset of AIDS indicator diseases in HIV positive but otherwise symptomless individuals, as compared with those who were already demonstrating the onset of AIDS. Evidently as the study progressed, arguments between the scientists erupted over whether to continue the trials in view of the appalling toxic attrition they were witnessing. They nervously agreed to continue.

After three years, the researchers published their results. Their indictment of AZT was total. The death rate in the AZT group who were taking the drug to avoid developing AIDS was 25% higher than the control group. Then again, some of those who survived could no longer stand the nausea, vomiting and anemia, so they flushed their AZT capsules down the toilet. The day before this news was reported in England, Professor Tony Pinching, director of immunology at St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, went on record in the Daily Telegraph, warning HIV positive, symptomless individuals that they would be better off without drug therapy. Not surprisingly, the Concorde report also clearly showed that AZT did not halt the development of AIDS.

Even Jerome Groopman, one of the participating scientists, had serious doubts about the humanitarian nature and efficacy of AZT. He gave it to 14 patients in his Boston hospital on a compassionate basis. Three months later, only three were still able to take AZT. "We found it nearly impossible to keep patients on the drug," Groopman admitted.

Gay historian and AIDS dissident John Lauritsen was incensed:
"The multi-center clinical trials of AZT are perhaps the sloppiest and most poorly controlled trials ever to serve as the basis for an FDA licensing approval.… Because mortality was not an intended endpoint, causes of death were never verified. Despite this, and a frightening record of toxicity, the FDA approved AZT in record time, granting a treatment IND [investigational new drug] in less than five days and full pharmaceutical licensing in less than six months."

Dr Joseph Sonnabend, an American AIDS researcher, had this to say about AZT:
"It is beyond belief. I don't know what to do. I'm ashamed of my colleagues. I'm embarrassed. This is such shoddy science. It's hard to believe nobody's protesting. Damned cowards! The name of the game is to protect your grants. Don't open your mouth. It's all about money. It's grounds for just following the party line and not being critical when there are obvious financial and political forces that are driving this."

And Dr Harvey Bialy, molecular biologist and science editor of Bio/Technology, states:
"I'm stunned by the low quality of science surrounding AIDS research. I'm horrified by the widespread use of AZT, not just because it is toxic, but because the claims of efficacy are false. I can't see how this drug can be doing anything other than making people extremely sick."

Another alarming trend noticed was that longer-term treatment with AZT brought on lymphoma (a type of cancer) in around half of the patients. Incredibly, even then, the virus-hunting lobby rushed to defend the drug, declaring that patients were living longer on AZT and therefore merely stood a higher, statistical risk of developing cancer! Dr Sonnabend filed a report with the Food & Drug Administration questioning the criteria and basis for the licensing of AZT. He never received a reply either from the FDA or from Burroughs-Wellcome.

In spite of these and other drug trial fiascos, the Food & Drug Administration approved AZT as an anti-retroviral treatment for AIDS. Once approval was granted, AZT became THE AIDS drug, and demand for the expensive and exclusive substance grew so fierce, Wellcome was hard pressed to supply the quota.

Despite the widely reported failures, Wellcome's income from AZT very quickly became the envy of its counterparts. Soon, other drug giants began vying for a piece of Wellcome's AIDS pie. Hoffman La-Roche produced dideoxycytidine (ddC) and Bristol-Myers Squibb marketed its version, known as ddI. During testing, ddI was found capable of destroying nerves throughout the body and causing fatal damage to the pancreas, something not even AZT was reported to do. Doctors began experimenting with ddI, giving it to patients who were unable to tolerate AZT. Many patients inexplicably died during these unofficial trials, but once again, the FDA was able to staunch the inevitable flood of complaints.

AZT (Retrovir) and its derivatives are still prescribed with reckless abandon. But, just as the turbulent history surrounding the UK's Windscale nuclear power plant necessitated a politically expedient name-change to Sellafield, Wellcome and other manufacturers are now giving their window display a fresh new look. At the 1996 Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, a new generation of AIDS drugs known as 'protease inhibitors' was launched. Protease inhibitors, or 'combo cocktails', are said to enhance dramatically the effects of AZT and ddI. Since then, drug companies have been pushing the 'latest, great news' on AIDS, stridently insisting that their cocktails be taken, like margaritas, in large doses for life, yet in the small print stating "…the long-term effects of protease inhibitors are unknown." Christine Maggiore explains the drug companies' continued psychological conditioning of their vulnerable patients:
"The absolute compliance required for protease treatment is a popular subject of news reports and AIDS organization seminars. Patients are required to pop 30 to 50 pills a day on a 24-hour-a-day schedule - some taken with food, some on an empty stomach. Patients are warned that if they do not rigorously adhere to the strict protocol schedule, their virus will mutate into new, drug resistant strains."

Drug company Merck muscled to the front in getting FDA approval for its protease inhibitor cocktail drug, Crixivan. Such was the hype surrounding the AIDS scare, the drug received FDA approval in just 42 days. Christine Maggiore again:
"Crixivan's FDA approval broke a 72-day record for the fastest approval in FDA history, previously set by the protease inhibitor Ritonavir. Newsday articles noting the toxic effects of these drugs - diarrhea, nausea, fungal infections, bloody urine, kidney stones, weakness, headaches and liver inflammation requiring "doctor visits and additional medicines" - were ignored by AIDS organizations, who pressured the FDA for fast-track approval. Recently reported side-effects include CMV retinitis, diabetes, liver failure, 'buffalo humps' (large fat deposits at the base of the neck), acute kidney failure, acute pancreatitis, grade four diarrhea and sudden death."

Protease inhibitors have been wildly successful in one area however - breathing new life into the AIDS industry and increasing the cash-flow further. The US has traditionally dominated the HIV market in terms of sales and as of October 2004, is the largest market in terms of antiretroviral sales, accounting for 62% ($6.7 billion). Now that is a lot of money. Drug companies are promoting their protease inhibitors in an orgy of marketing excess. Billboards and magazines advise 'AIDS-infected positives' to "be smart about HIV" by "hitting early and hard" with the new generation of AIDS wonder cocktails.

Straight Up is a glossy African AIDS community magazine promoting the latest 'breakthroughs' in the war against AIDS. Featured in one section is a double-spread on alternative treatments for HIV positive sufferers, including the highly favoured homoeopathy. The basis of homoeopathy's alleged curative powers is to administer to the patient minute doses of the main aggravating agent, thus conforming to the principle of 'like cures like'. Where, one might legitimately ask, does the homoeopath obtain his minute quantities of HIV? Alongside other questionable, alternative treatments, the magazine also included several full-page adverts from the pharmaceutical industry:

"Stay Strong… HIV Care" - Glaxo Wellcome
"Celebration of Life…" and
"Investing in Your Future" - Pharmacia & Upjohn
"The Tide is Turning in HIV Therapy" - Boehringer Ingelheim
"In HIV Therapy, There is Hope… We're Working on It"…Merck, Sharp & Dohme

The fresh and healthy promises, a central feature of these multi-million-pound PR campaigns, mask the ugly, clinical reality concerning these drugs. And what is the ugly, clinical reality? It is that protease inhibitors have been a dismal failure from the very start. Merck actually delayed marketing their own protease inhibitors for four years because the drugs were killing their laboratory animals. This ethically controversial data was not made known to those people taking part in the protease inhibitor trials. Little wonder the New York Times reported that "…unexpected deaths amongst human protease inhibitor consumers are rising." Even Dr Michael Saag, a paid consultant for AZT's manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline and other pharmaceutical corporations, confesses that the cocktail dam holding back AIDS is already springing serious leaks:
"Failures [with Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy (HAART)] are occurring right and left," Saag confides. "[Doctors] should expect failure with whatever [HAART cocktail they] first use. We should plan on it. We should prepare for it. Clinicians should expect failure."

Fellow protease expert Dr David Rasnick is equally dismissive. For Rasnick, the press ecstasy and back-slapping over the release of protease inhibitors recalled the previous euphoria over AZT.
"Once again, all we have are researchers talking to reporters about incomplete studies that haven't been scrutinized by the scientific review process. And the researchers involved are funded by the companies that make the drugs in question. There is no justification for the claims coming from these sources, particularly when we have seen it all before [with AZT]."

Gallo too, in a break from his usual upbeat tradition, stated that "… these drugs are toxic… The longer you take the drugs, the greater the toxicity."

One would imagine that an organisation such as The AIDS Treatment Project would take the comments of Saag, Rasnick and Gallo into consideration before dispensing their advice to the HIV- positive community. Sadly, this is not the case. In their leaflets entitled An Introduction to Combination Therapy and Changing Treatment, there are numerous warnings to adhere strictly to the regime and not miss medication times:
"Use a pill beeper or alarm watch to set dose times…. If you are going away for a few days, take extra drugs…. If you have been taking all your drugs at the right time, but you have not had a very good response, you may need a drug concentration test. The £25.00 test will check to see if you are absorbing enough of the drugs.… The chance to return to the luxury of a drug-free period can help improve adherence to the regimen…. It is always safer to use a stronger combination than a weak one…." [emphasis ours]

Stephen Rogers recounts his nightmare encounter with protease inhibitors. Heralded as the Wonder Drug and possible cure for AIDS, Stephen was recommended to take part in a clinical trial for one of the new protease inhibitor products, Saquinavir. Stephen's account has been necessarily condensed, but the thrust of his story is self-evident:

"My trial consisted of AZT, ddl, and Saquinavir. During the first year, I needed a blood transfusion. During the second year I developed a mild attack of shingles and I became affected by the condition Lypodistrophy, with changes in my body shape and veins of the lower limb beginning to protrude and the skin on my thighs becoming more transluscent. My medication was changed to Ritonavir. My doctor brushed aside my concerns that some people had died of liver failure through this drug.

The first two weeks brought no side-effects and then… the onslaught. Numbing and tingling in the lips, lethargy, insomnia, crippling stomach cramps and chronic diarrhoea. My doctor then reintroduced Saquinavir, alongside the Ritonavir. I developed a skin abscess, which swelled to the size of a golf ball. My doctor tried to blame it on my sexual pursuits…. My clinic appointments were now a torture, occurring every two to four weeks. I began to feel more like a lab rat than a person. The mountain of pills and capsules I had in my hand now filled me with dread. Each time before taking them I would pause and think: 'These drugs are killing me.' I felt confused and frightened. The organisations set up to help people like me had become no more than shadow puppets, projecting the image of living longer and better on combination therapy, but with no actual substance to their claim.

And so, instead of accepting the situation as many do, I began a relentless quest for the truth and began asking lots of questions. When I learned the Viral Load Test is highly inaccurate, my fear turned to anger at being duped. I made a decision to stop taking the drugs."

Amazingly, Saquinavir was declared a 'Millennium Product' by the Millennium Design Council. Exhibited in the failed, now-dismantled Millennium Dome at Greenwich, London, and included in exhibitions in schools and colleges across the UK, a jubilant spokesperson for Roche, the manufacturers of Saquinavir, said, "We are proud that Saquinavir's contribution to anti-HIV therapy has been recognised and delighted that it has received this award."

Stephen believes he is alive today largely as a result of ceasing his 'award-winning' medication. AIDS establishment critic Dr Jens Jerndal notes:
"If statistics show that AIDS sufferers live longer now than they used to, do not let yourself be lulled into believing that this is due to scientific advances in treating AIDS. There are two reasons: One is that when AZT [and its derivatives] was first introduced, very high doses were prescribed, which finished off the patients quite fast, usually in 1 - 3 years. Eventually it was decided to reduce the recommended doses given, with the result that the patients now stay alive longer. So they do not live longer because they get better medicines. They live longer because they get less of the medicines. The other reason is simply that many AIDS patients secretly go for alternative and holistic treatments instead of drugs, or combine the two, and thus manage to escape or postpone their death sentences."

There are now too many medical case histories which bear out the fact that the body (as in Stephen's case) demonstrates a remarkable ability to recover from many of the illnesses we are witnessing today when one exchanges toxic medicines for a sensible lifestyle and sound nutritional regime. More information on this subject can be found in later chapters.

For fully annotated version of this article with references Click Here

Further Resources
The Truth about HIV by Steven Ransom and Phillip Day

Click here to purchase or review any of the above.
Click here for telephone sales around the world.
Click here if you wish to contact Credence for information on treatment options or resources.