Consider that a democratically elected President had to resign because of the Watrgate episode in which not a single life was lost, while Dr. Gallo was allowed to continue to dominate AIDS research with untold millions from U.S.A. taxpayers, many of whom have become infected by the virus due to Gallo's scientific incompetence and ruthlessness." The news media covered this story perfunctorily. It should have been a major national scandal, but very few reporters bothered to find out what was going on; it was too complex and unglamorous. There was no audience for it. Gallo got what amounted to a free pass from the press. The public remained blissfully ignorant. Even worse, the U.S. government backed Dr. Gallo all the way. But why? Because of the Machiavellian nature of AIDS politics. Ample evidence exists that Dr. Gallo's approach to AIDS treatment his socalled "cell blocker" theory is another one of those "dead ends" into which Gallo is leading researchers. The Walter Reed study, mentioned earlier, states flatly that there are no cells which cannot be infected by the HIV virus. That would make Dr. Gallo's "cell blocker" completely ineffective. But the truth is that the government ably represented by Dr. Gallo is not working to save humanity from AIDS; but rather to forward the interests of the giant pharmaceutical empires. And their first interest is selling drugs. It's another matter altogether whether those drugs actually help AIDS patients.

How far has the medical world really come toward a prevention or cure for AIDS? The answer is simple: No progress has been made at all. None. Billions of dollars have gone into the pockets of government scientists and bureaucrats and medical researchers and drug companies and their largest stockholders, including the Rockefellers and the public today has no greater protection against infection with AIDS than if no research had been done, and a person infected today will still die from the disease with onehundred percent certainty. The only progress which has come from those doctors courageous enough to remain in the front lines of this war, despite its futility is in treatment of many of the most common symptoms, such as pneumonia, that show themselves as the virus works its deadly path through the body. In other words, good doctors who care can now prolong life and diminish suffering. But that's all we have to show after more than a decade of fighting this epidemic. Intelligence reports on the work done at Fort Detrick indicate that it will not be possible to produce a vaccine against AIDS. A vaccine won't work, because what will work on one strain of HIV will not work on another. The virus can alter itself, simply by altering a single amino acid on its outer shell. The virologists at Fort Detrick have learned that there are almost 10,000 possible mutations of the AIDS virus.

As Dr. John Seale has reported: "The outlook for a successful vaccine is bleak. None is available for lentivirus diseases of animals. Search for a vaccine against infectious anemia of horses for eight years, and against maedi-visna in sheep for forty years has proved futile. Indeed when antibodies to a lentivirus are produced artificially by vaccination, animals die after subsequent infection more rapidly than those which are not. In spite of many successful vaccines, it should be realized that for the majority of viral and bacterial diseases, vaccines do not work. "No simple, effective, curative drug, like penicillin, will be available for AIDS in the foreseeable future, because once a person is infected, the viral genetic code is permanently inserted into the human genetic code of cells in the brain and other tissues. Any drug which blocks replication of the virus will have to be taken for life.

All drugs used so far are highly toxic and expensive. If a cheap, apparently effective drug becomes available, it will take several decades to be certain that it is both safe and effective. Nevertheless, many companies will announce 'promising' new drugs and a 'breakthrough' in the treatment for AIDS for simple commercial motives." The classic example is AZT. "AIDS victims are being deprived of the best possible treatment because drugs cost too much," according to an Associated Press story based on an important Congressional report. "The report, issued by the House Government Operations Committee, says it is 'appalling that despite the fact that AIDS must be considered the single most compelling challenge to public health in recent U.S. history, unfortunately neither the president nor the Secretary of Health and Human Services has articulated any national policy." The committee said AIDS victims are being exploited through 'the unnecessarily high cost' of drug treatment.'" Take AZT.

One drug company, Burroughs Wellcome, is making a huge fortune off AZT. The company admitted, in an article in the New York Times in the spring of 1994, that their profit was already in excess of $300 million. This is one of the cruelest hoaxes ever perpetrated on a desperately ill group of people who are paying large sums for a treatment that, far from curing or retarding AIDS, is actually helping to  (55 of ) kill them. AIDS patients are taking this costly drug in the tragically mistaken belief that its approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) means that it must serve a beneficial purpose. What AZT's victims are not aware of is that they are using the most toxic drug ever considered, let alone approved, by the government. So horrific is AZT's toxicity that only about half the AIDS patients can tolerate it. The other half must be taken off it or they die. Harvey Chernov, an FDA drug analyst, recommended that AZT's side effects including anemia were too severe to warrant approval. But he was overruled. AZT is one of the worst medical frauds of our time.

One former government intelligence agent who used his connections to dig deeply into the secret story of the AIDS epidemic told me: "The AZT fraud is the greatest swindle since old John D. Rockefeller sold raw crude oil as a cure for cancer and made about as much profit per pint bottle as Burroughs Wellcome makes on one AZT pill." The fervent manner in which the medical profession and the media defend and promote the use of AZT could lead one to believe that innocently or intentionally they are serving a policy designed to murder people. No less than the Journal of the American Medical Association which receives substantial advertising revenues from Burroughs Wellcome and the pharmaceutical industry has backed the use of AZT. Thanks to this concerted support, the number of AZT users now stands at more than 25,000 and is climbing steadily, primarily among homosexuals. Even more obscene is the program pushed by one of the chief promoters of AZT, William Haseltine of Harvard's School for Public Health, who advocates that healthy gays be given the drug as a preventive measure. For whatever reasons, Haseltine seems to have taken leave of his Hippocratic oath (first, do no harm), not to mention his senses. AZT is highly toxic, severely damaging kidneys and liver, killing bone marrow, causing muscle-wasting, dreadful nausea and violent bouts of vomiting as the body tries to rid itself of the poison. It destroys the immune system, leads to leukemia through the destruction of cells and causes cancer.

Even the FDA issued a bulletin admitting that AZT is "a potential carcinogen." The fact is that AZT will hasten the onset of AIDS, not delay it, because of the drug's depressive effect on the human immune system. Burroughs Wellcome cannot supply data on the cumulative, long-term effects of AZT and no wonder. Where would they find enough long-term survivors to tell the tale? The U.S. Army has conducted tests that concluded that AZT is largely ineffective as a treatment for blacks; it only aggravates symptoms in the majority of black patients. Dr. Michael S. Gottlieb says that individuals exposed to HIV "may be subjected to the adverse effects of AZT without proof that it is effective in these circumstances." Dr. Peter Duesberg of the University of California at Berkeley puts it more bluntly: "AZT is incompatible with life." Here's the simplest and most honest way to put it: AZT is a killer drug. Why, in God's name, would anyone who was healthy ever consider using AZT? Certainly nobody would, unless it was advocated by a medical "authority" who presumably knew what was best for them. How the FDA could have passed AZT is a mystery, unless, of course, as several researchers have concluded, the fix was in. For AZT is as expensive as it is deadly. The cost for one year's dosage is about  (56 of ) $10,000 if the patient lives that long. (That cost, incidentally, is about half borne by the U.S. taxpayer.) The FDA didn't even try to protect people. AZT received a virtual free pass through the FDA testing process and was approved faster than any other drug in the history of the FDA. Given the labyrinthine difficulties of winning approval for even the most beneficial drugs, what happened with AZT could be described as nothing short of miraculous.

The mystery of why is deepened by the fact that Burroughs Wellcome, which hadn't participated in the drug's development, was awarded sole and exclusive rights to AZT. There's a scandal of monumental proportions waiting for the first enterprising reporter or Congressman with the tenacity to bring forth the whole truth. Beginning in April, 19, AZT tests were launched by the FDA in 12 medical facilities across the U.S. Under the code name "Phase 11," the tests were supposed to be "double blind, placebo controlled," but turned out to be an almost worthless mess of uncorrelated data signifying, at best, utter incompetence at worst, complicity. Placebo testing was invalidated because of AZT's horrible side effects. The patients knew what they were getting; AZT is so toxic there is no way to conceal the horrible taste. And no one could have failed to know which patients had the placebos they were the ones who weren't vomiting. Even more glaring, doctors administering the tests soon discovered that there were substantial blood-profile differences between AZT users and those who received placebos; AZT showed up as the cause of a depression of some blood elements. The two doctors, Dr. Reichman and Dr. Fischl, most responsible for the tests did not inform the medical profession or the public that the tests were totally unblinded. One of the 12 centers was in Boston. An FDA inspector was shocked by what she found in the tests. There were, she reported, "multiple deviations from standard protocol procedures." So bad were these "deviations" that she recommended the Boston test data simply not be used in the study. She was overruled. On the administrative side, the forms provided to record symptoms were so badly designed that data could not be properly analyzed and had to be discarded. An FDA inspector noted that in several instances, reports were altered without explanation as to why. (Critics charged that this data was falsified after the number of deaths and serious adverse side effects became apparent.)

One group of twenty-three AIDS patients were treated for less than four weeks, rather than the required twenty-four weeks. For the remaining twenty weeks of their uncompleted test period, statistical projections about this group were no more valid than guesses. The discrepancies discovered at the twelve centers were so outrageous that the "Phase 11" tests were summarily halted before completion. And on and on and on. An emergency FDA meeting was held to discuss these anomalies and, incredibly enough, a decision was made to retain the false data. Why? A secret intelligence report on the FDA's machinations states that they decided that "retaining the (false) data didn't really change the results very much." But how would the FDA know this? The answer is: It wouldn't. In other words, they would treat this as if they were the Queen in Alice in Wonderland. The results would mean whatever the FDA wanted them to mean.  (57 of ) The media, of course, hyped by government officials, defended the FDA with the seemingly humane rationale that it would have been "unethical" to withhold AZT from dying patients while the normal testing procedure for approval was carried out. The media had no way of knowing the real facts: Between eight and twelve percent of the 4,805 AIDS patients treated with AZT died during the first seventeen weeks of the trials. Faulty data-keeping made it impossible to determine whether that was better or worse than a similar group of patients who were not treated with AZT. Yet, for some reason, none of the patients who died during the test were given autopsies. This would surely amount to criminal negligence if it were a case involving an individual doctor or the county medical examiner. What possible legitimate reason could there have been for consistent failure to conduct standard autopsies?

The FDA refuses to answer all inquiries. Not even the the intelligence agents who tried to answer that question were able to discover much. That is a secret the FDA has successfully kept to itself so far even stonewalling the question of where and when the patients on AZT died. After Phase 11 tests, the FDA completely lost contact with 1,120 patients in the program didn't even know where they lived, or whether they were still alive. To solve this glaring deficiency, the FDA announced they would rely on "statistical projections" about the status of those 1,120 patients. In other words, the FDA would simply guess what happened to them. And that would serve as reality. Generously, the FDA accorded the 1,120 missing patients a survival rate of seventy-three percent and the Journal of The American Medical Association duly reported this "fact," whereupon it became conventional wisdom for most of the medical profession. Even researchers who have supported AZT have been forced to make damning admissions. In their article, AIDS: The Deadly Threat Revised and Expanded, which was partly based on the fraudulent report put out by Burroughs Wellcome, Alvin and Virginia Silverstein stated: "AZT and other drugs that have been found to be effective against the AIDS virus generally work at the stage when the virus is reproducing actively and bursting out of infected cells. The virus lurking in bone marrow, brain, or skin cells, however, may be more resistant to the action of the drug. That is why AZT can slow or halt the progress of the disease, but is not a cure. It leaves a reservoir of dormant virus that can break out later if the drug is stopped." Not to mention the risk of cancer. An early FDA bulletin, before Burroughs Wellcome exerted its full influence: "AZT induces a positive response in cell transformation assay, and is therefore presumed to be a potential carcinogen." Subsequent studies confirmed that AZT did indeed cause cancer in animals. In their favorable report, even the Silversteins were obliged to acknowledge this deadly detail. "The side effects of AZT, too, are worrisome," they wrote. "A new dimension was added to these worries by two reports suggesting that AZT might cause cancer.… Then in mid 1990, doctors at major AIDS treatment centers reported a steep rise in cases of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (an aggressive cancer of the lymph nodes) among AIDS patients taking AZT." The Silversteins put a charitable spin on that bad news:

"There is no evidence that AZT is causing lymphoma. Instead, doctors believe that AZT is allowing people with weakened immune systems to live  (58 of ) longer, thus increasing their chances of developing opportunistic cancer." So there you are. AZT offers AIDS patients the chance to pay $8,000 to $10,000 a year for a drug that will make them horribly ill, damage their immune system, cause kidney, liver and neurological damage not to mention the risk of cancer while leaving them with a "reservoir" of AIDS virus ready to burst out at any moment to overwhelm a considerably weakened body. Despite its negative impact, AZT has now been joined by a newcomer, DDI. DDI is even less effective in stemming AIDS than AZT. DDI is another cruel hoax. So far there is absolutely no evidence that DDI is effective against AIDS. What the evidence does show is that DDI is even more toxic than AZT! Sixtythree percent of those on DDI, according to the American College of Gastroenterology, were suffering severe pancreatitis. The side effects of DDI will far outweigh any supposed benefits to AIDS patients. But the drug scam continues. With science now poised to enter realms of genetic engineering never before imagined, there is astonishing hope for the fortunate, but greater danger than ever for the unwanted. The future will be a very treacherous place, indeed.