AIDS - Fauci’s First Fraud

Video Transcript:

In 10 weeks, 40.7 million Americans who filed jobless claims, that's more claims filed in the previous 178 weeks combined. Think of it this way, if you took every man, woman, and child living in New York City, L.A. and Dallas, and multiplied them not by two, but by three. You'd have about the same number of people who have filed claims since the start of this. Ever since the days of World War II, US unemployment has risen and dropped slowly, gradually revealing recessions, periodic decents followed by assets, not one of which touched double digits, until April. When the US recorded the largest one-month percentage increase in our history, a shock to the American economic system. They knew they had to get here early because last week the pantry ran out of food. That line stretched, as you say, at one point four half a mile. It stretches still right now, hundreds at least, still in line, immigrants mostly, who will not get money from the government, their restaurant, and their construction and cleaning jobs have all shut down if they can't get food for their families here. They may not have food for their families. Bay Area Medical teams say hospitals have not been overwhelmed by COVID-19 cases, but they have been surprised by something else, a sharp rise in suicides. The numbers that we've seen are sort of unprecedented. We've never seen numbers like this in such a short period of time. I mean, we've seen a year's worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks. It has shocked even long time employees. T.C. Hansen has worked as a trauma nurse at John Mir Medical Center in Walnut Creek for almost 33 years. What I've seen recently, I've never seen before, I've never seen so much in an injury. The trauma team here says they are mostly seeing young adults die by suicide. They are worried about the mounting effects of loneliness and job loss as this quarantine continues. The social isolation has a price. Dr. Fauci, America has changed so rapidly in the last week. When is life going to get back to normal? How long is this going to last? You know, Nora, we don't know how long it lasts. If you look at what's happened in China, they went way up and they're starting to come right down now. The Korea curve is peaking. It's soling to kind of flatten out. So you usually measure in a matter of several weeks for a couple of months. Don't go to crowded places. France is trying to close down restaurants and cafes and bars. Should that happen here in the United States? You know, every single day we meet with the task force and we take a look at what's going on. And you don't want to make a pronouncement that no one should ever go into a restaurant. I mean, I think that might be overkill right now. But everything is on the table. You have faced with a real challenge. You can't stay shut down forever. So it's going to have to be a balance between containing the potential resurgence, which we will hopefully have the capability of doing at the same time as we march forward to some sort of normalization and reopening not only our country, but the rest of the world. Because if you look at what's going on, so many other countries are trying to do the same thing we're trying to do. The question is needed to do it prudently and safely in the context of our ability to respond when you do see these bit of resurgence. And a final question. Are you breathing a sigh of relief yet? A sigh of relief. No. I never get ahead of myself. I'll breathe every sigh, you know, as Yogi varies to say, it ain't over till it's over. You know, and that's when I'll read a breather sigh of relief. And we're really completely at this, right? Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Thank you so much for joining me today. It was a pleasure. Good to be with you. Our next expert is Dr. Anthony Fauci. Tony knows what to do. Dr. Anthony S. Fauci. Tony, I'll return now to Dr. Anthony Fauci. Dr. Anthony Fauci. Dr. Anthony Fauci. Thank you so much, Dr. Fauci. Thank you. My name is Dr. Tony Fauci. I'm the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at NIH. Even celebrities like NVA superstar Steph Curry. Dr. Fauci. Steph. See Dr. Fauci as the crisis's MVP. Thank you again for you and your entire team protecting all of us. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And I perimeter rebar analysis, and marks about 150,000 people who died of crime and the wealth of The president announced the initiative in Washington and raised the hope that earlier treatment and prevention would soon lead to the beginning of the end of AIDS. If you could have imagined that we'd be talking about the real possibility of an AIDS-free generation. But that's what we're talking about. That's why we're here. The ultimate tool will be a vaccine and scientists are making great progress. Well, I am here today to make it absolutely clear. The United States is committed and will remain committed to achieving an AIDS-free generation. We will not back off. We will not back down. We will fight for the resources necessary to achieve this historic milestone. Finally, as you have read in the papers, given the fact that we now have the virus in our hands, it is quite possible in fact it's invariable that we will develop a vaccine for AIDS. Why do you believe that HIV does cause AIDS? Is that some of the information that I've been given? Because they never been told and it's different. We have no... We didn't heard it. Because that's what the scientific community has told us. Scientists are supposed to observe, experiment and reason from what they observe. They're not supposed to grab hold of an idea and cling to it and adjust everything else in their perceptions to fit that idea. I happen to be one now of a few people who was there literally from the very first week that this was recognized as a new disease. Let's talk about HIV. One of the people first realized that people were getting HIV and then AIDS, that was in the early 80s I suppose, but why did it take scientists so long to figure out what was causing HIV and then how to prevent HIV from becoming AIDS? Why did that take place? I'll answer your first question. We first became aware of it in a report of the MMWR from the CDC on June 4th of 1981, similar by one in July 5th, 1981, of the first cases from Los Angeles and then from New York San Francisco, Los Angeles. I don't think at all that it was a long time before we found out what it was. The first cases were recognized, even though it was around probably 10 years before. In the summer of 1981, the virus was discovered in the spring of 1983 and proven to be the cause discovered by whom? Yes, yes. It was discovered by one group in France, but proven definitively to be the cause of AIDS by Bob Gallo here when he was at the end of the year. They both went to Nobel. Francois Barra, and Luke Montagnier won the Nobel Prize. Bob Gallo did not. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. First, the probable cause of AIDS has been found, a variant of a known human cancer virus. Second, not only has the agent been identified, but a new process has been developed to mass-produce this virus. Thirdly, with discovery above the virus in this new process, we now have a blood test for AIDS. With the blood test, we can identify AIDS victims with essentially 100% certainty. It was a political proclamation of scientific truth. Robert Gallo successfully lobbied Margaret Heckler, who was then the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to proclaim his view of what caused AIDS to be absolute scientific truth. She went on with him in tow and announced that the conference was held before any of Robert Gallo's papers were published. Therefore, before any other scientist had a chance to review them and look at the evidence and see if he got it right or wrong. It was also done right when Gallo had patented the HIV antibody test. They made sure that his patent rights were protected first. Then they did the press conference. Then, before Gallo's papers appeared in print, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services decided from now on, we are only going to fund AIDS research that assumes that Robert Gallo's virus is the cause. We are not going to fund research into any other possibilities. Therefore, the scientists who might have wanted to critique Gallo's papers would not be able to do so, at least not with anything supported by the federal government, which is just virtually all science in this country today. When Bob Gallo proved that it was the etiologic agent in 1984, we had a diagnostic test approved by the FDA in 1985. The test was developed. It was gone through the appropriate validation and approved by the FDA. That was really quick, from literally less than a year from the time that it was shown to be the virus that causes this disease. Just because Bob Gallo gets up and takes us up, several lessons up, he says, gentlemen, we discovered the cause of the AIDS. That's all we had. New York Times article, CDC report. That's all we had. That's not enough. That's not enough to, you know, that is not sufficient to, like, publish even a meager little scientific paper somewhere. That isn't enough for scientists to believe some inconsequential fact about some star 50 light years away. It's certainly not enough to treat at the cost of millions, billions of dollars a year and at the cost of a lot of lives and anguish and just destroyed, you know, lives that has been totally ruined by this thing. On the basis of some flimsy little statement made by a guy who's known to be a crook in lots of other ways. He lied about all that stuff. Why are we trusting that? He was a witness in a courtroom. They wouldn't trust his testimony. We've caught him in too many lives. You don't trust him anymore. At the University of California in Berkeley, Duseberg became a world renowned retroviralogist in the cancer program and the first man to map the genetic structure of retroviruses like HIV back in 1970. His honors include membership in the National Academy of Sciences due to his discovery of cancer-causing genes. Having researched retroviruses for over 30 years, some have called him the world's foremost expert in retroviralogy. Dr. Duseberg was somewhat skeptical of Gallows AIDS virus announcement. I wasn't madly impressed by it because what else would you expect from a person by Gallo who had studied retrovirus all his life that he would say retrovirus is causing AIDS? That seemed to be the first coincidence that made me wonder whether that was an authentic claim or going to be an authentic claim. You would say it was not a surprise that he would say that. He said it before that it would cause leukemia or things like Alzheimer's disease, no illogical diseases. And it failed so it was not too impressed that this was going to be a winner now. And it would have been for the first time that retrovirus would have been pinned down as a cause of a human disease or even a disease in wild animals. For 18 months Peter Duseberg studied every scientific publication on HIV and AIDS he could get a hold of. When he finally published his observations and cancer research in 1987, he stood alone against the tide of popular opinion and the government-funded AIDS industry. His position has become well known. He argues that HIV is not causing AIDS, it's a harmless passenger virus that has lived in humans for centuries without causing diseases. He believes AIDS is the result of other non-infectious factors like drug use and ironically enough, AZT, the highly toxic medication prescribed to treat AIDS patients actually does what the virus cannot, that is, causes AIDS itself. The Dr. Duseberg's arguments were ridiculed by many and ignored by most. Many of his colleagues studied his research and came to the same conclusion. Something is terribly wrong with the war on AIDS. Dr. Richard Stroman recalls the impact of Duseberg's arguments in cancer research. It was a remarkable review and it raised the fundamental issues about virus viruses as a cause of both cancer and immunosuppression. Basic questions that haven't been really responded to in any meaningful way in the almost 10 years since that paper was published. Soon other top scientists joined Duseberg and Stroman in questioning the HIV hypothesis also. Nobel Prize winners Dr. Walter Gilbert of Harvard and Carrie Mullis who invented the PCR. Dr. Charles Thomas, a former Harvard professor, organized a consortium of 12 signatories to address the issue. They would in time become the group for scientific reappraisal of the HIV AIDS hypothesis. We started out by writing a letter to nature calling for a reappraisal of the evidence for and against the hypothesis that HIV did in fact do all these things. And there were about 10 or 12 signatories to this letter. And it was rejected. Even though many of the signers of the letter were certainly reputable people, we tried in nature magazine and it was ignored. Then we tried the New England Journal, JMA and so forth and Lancet. In each case we were rejected. They would not publish this letter. It was only four sign says long. It read it is widely believed by the general public that a reprovirus called HIV causes a group of diseases called AIDS. Many biomedical signers now question this hypothesis. We propose a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken. Not necessarily a hardly a bomb throwing letter, but nonetheless they would have none of it. And being rejected made us angry. So we decided to extend the list of signatories. So it jumped to 30, then to 50, then to 100. And then by 1994 up to 600, 188 of whom have advanced degrees. We publish a newsletter, we have a website. So it's a fairly large organization now. Though the scientific establishment has continually ignored Duzberg and the group for reappraisal, some individuals are having second thoughts. At the San Francisco International AIDS Conference in 1990, Dr. Luke Montenier, who discovered the virus originally six months before Gallows claim, made a startling statement. HIV might be harmless. Against his own interest, Montenier's statement should have been earth shaking, but the conventioneers paid it little attention and went right on talking about new and a viral drug treatments. Why is the scientific community ignoring the dangerous ramifications of this essential question about the cause of AIDS? Do we have an answer? Yes. In retrospect, we certainly do. Too many people are making too much money out of it. And money is much stronger than truth. When I was working at this data with our team the other night, it was reminiscent of thirty four years ago in 1986 when we were struggling for drugs for HIV. And we had nothing. And there was a lot of panic over reports about things that maybe they were, maybe not people taking different kinds of drugs. And we did the first randomized placebo-coutral trial with AZT, which turned out to get an effect that was modest. In 1987, the war on AIDS took another drastic turn for the worse. AZT, a toxic chemotherapy deemed two poisonous for cancer treatment, was approved to treat symptomatic and asymptomatic HIV patients in attempt to kill the virus that causes AIDS. AZT is a DNA chain terminator, a poison designed to randomly destroy the DNA synthesis of reproducing cells. It was initially developed to treat leukemia victims, but after anal testing, the FDA determined that it was too toxic for use in human beings and banned it. But in 1987, when the AIDS scare hit its height, the FDA was pressured into approving the drug for use for the first time in human beings, even for people who were healthy and showed no sign of AIDS. AZT is highly mutagenic, meaning that it destroys the genes and cells, and has been shown to cause cancer in rodents. It targets the bone marrow, where B lymphocyte blood cells are being made. These are the very cells and AIDS patient needs most for immunity. AZT destroys randomly bone marrow, kidneys, liver, intestines, muscle tissue, the brain, and central nervous system. The FDA introduced both claims AZT causes AIDS itself. AZT deaths directly causing AIDS and defining diseases. AIDS is a lot of the things, but it doesn't cause hyposis or coma, I think. But it does cause immunity deficiency. It was designed to do that. It was designed to kill human cells. In fact, the manufacturer says that specifically that it can cause AIDS-like diseases. The manufacturer that is births welcome says, it is often difficult to distinguish at worst events possibly associated with pseudo-woeding or pseudo-woeding administration, which is AZT, from underlying signs of HIV disease. In other words, even they acknowledge, not just this, but that CDV, that AZT causes AIDS or AIDS-defining diseases. And whenever you have clear cut evidence that a drug works, you have an ethical obligation to immediately let the people who are in the placebo group know that they could have access and all of the other trials that are taking place now have a new standard of care. So we would have normally waited several days until the date he gets further about the eye and cross the teeth, but the date of it not going to change. Some of the numbers may change a little, but the conclusion will not change. In his book Poison by Prescription, journalist John Lawrence and explains how AZT tests conducted by the FDA and Burles welcome the manufacturer, were scientifically sloppy and outright fraudulent. During the experiments patients taking AZT became anemic, suffered low white blood cell counts accompanied by vomiting. For half had to have blood transfusions, 20% were transfused several times. Despite a warning by FDA toxicology analyst Harvey Schernoff, that AZT not be approved, the FDA was pressured by AIDS activist organizations to lift the ban and hundreds of thousands of people began taking AZT, even though AZT can not cure AIDS and is only supposed to slow down the progression. The mortality rate trended towards being better in the sense of less deaths in the Remnest of the group. 8% versus 11% in the placebo group. It has not yet reached statistical significance, but the date it needs to be further analyzed. The logic behind AZT treatment is flawed, even if one believes HIV causes AIDS, because HIV only infects about 1 T cell in 1000, 999 healthy T cells must die to kill the one cell that is infected, and this can only happen early on before HIV becomes dormant and is still making DNA. Yet AIDS patients are given AZT for months on end of years, randomly destroying DNA in all parts of the body. AZT is expensive and costs between $8,000 and $12,000 a year, most of which is paid for directly or indirectly by the taxpayer. Burles welcome now, Glacso welcome, the manufacturer has generated sales over $1 billion a year with AZT. Because of rules allowed by the FDA, a bottle of AZT that costs about $5 to make can be sold for over $500 as a prescription, and much of this markup is being subsidized by the taxpayer. The treatment causes a very similar condition we would expect from an AIDS patient. That's why nobody noticed that there was something wrong with the treatment. I remember in 1992 after I first tested positive, I became involved in an organization called Women at Risk. There were 11 of us at the time on the board and involved in the group. All of us except three were on the medications. In a year and a half that I was involved with Women at Risk, every single woman in that organization on the drugs died, every single one except the three of us who weren't taken up. We weren't just given handfuls of AZT. We demanded it. I am the team of the greats, your humanity. We considered the FDA not giving us these things as being anti-get instead of being responsible. So we went and we lobbied and we pushed for all these things. We didn't think clearly about what it was we were asking for. It's like that same decaf, be careful what you ask for. It may come to pass. Whenever you have clear cut evidence that a drug works, you have an ethical obligation to immediately let the people who are in the placebo group know that they can have access and all of the other trials that are taking place now have a new standard of care. So we would have normally waited several days until the data gets further, the dark UI encores the team, but the data we're not going to change, some of the numbers may change a little, but the conclusion will not change. We got it! I kept wanting to speed up the approval process for new drugs. One of our greatest demonstrations in most famous roles at the FDA. We got it! We got it! We got it! We got it! We got it! And it was over a thousand demonstrators, almost all people with HIV demanding to be heard. I know that the drug's out there that can save my life, and I want to know why they're not being tested more quickly. We've been told! I began to get beyond the rhetoric and the theater of the demonstrations, and to really listen to what it is that they were saying. So I invited a group of them up to my conference room and we spent a couple of hours talking about their concerns. And again, it just confirmed in my own mind that most of their concerns were really quite valid. So explain this for people that might be new to this particular kind of fraud. Here's how it works. You create a fake activist group to push an agenda seemingly on behalf of society or an oppressed minority when in fact you're controlling that group for your own purposes. Now, does that mean that everybody who was ever a member of ACT UP or ever went to a demonstration was in on it? And on the game, and the answer is no, because part of the game of creating these fake groups is also to attract legitimate people, mislead them, and weaponize them. And that's exactly what the drug companies did with ACT UP. Now, the question is, were they playing Tony Fauci or was Tony Fauci playing along? Let's take a close look at an in-depth narrative he gave about his experience with ACT UP. Watch his body language, and you tell me. It's very early on in the course of this pandemic, the activists were making extremely good points about the uniqueness of this, the need to do more. The need to be less rigid in our regulatory approaches towards the approval and testing of new drugs, and the rigidity and lack of flexibility in how we design clinical trials, all of which were the classical way to approach drug development, therapeutic developments, clinical trials, and FDA approval. Now, they wanted to get our attention, so they would do it in a very theatrical way, and they scared a lot, because for the most part, the scientific community and the regulatory community are conservative, a nice, a conservative, I don't mean conservative, in an ideological, political way, but conservative in their approach towards science. It's nice that people are interested who are not scientists, but lead them out of it, and let's us scientists make the decision. So they didn't pay much attention to the activists. I, for one reason or other, began reading intensively what they were writing, and even though when they were demonstrating and closing down Wall Street and invading St. Patrick's Cathedral and doing things like that, looking very eccentric and scary to some people, I try to phase that out and just listen to what they said. And read what they wrote, and they were making perfect sense. So since I was always out there as a government official, they equated me, my face, my name, with the federal government, so they began to demonstrate against the NIH. And right here on our campus, they, you know, came in and invaded the campus, smoked bombs, you know, wanting to get arrested. And I made probably the best decision in my interaction with community is that I agreed with what they were saying. We weren't just given handfuls of ACT. We demanded it. We didn't think clearly about what it was we were asking for. So if it's saying be careful what you ask for, it may come to pass. The Welcome Foundation, UK manufacturer of AZT, Sored shares spiral upwards. AZT was to be the new wonder drug. Then in 1989, after further trials were terminated early in the United States because results looked promising, it was announced that AZT could be used not only on people with AIDS diseases, but in a much larger group. With HIV and low immune cell counts, but no other symptoms. Welcome shares, Sored to new heights, adding 1.4 billion pounds to the company's UK stock market value in one day. Before a drug is licensed for use, it normally has to undergo animal toxicity studies and clinical trials in humans. No long term animal studies were completed when AZT was licensed. The clinical studies in humans called Phase 2, which led to the licensing of AZT, were financed by Welcome. They were presented as complying with the only reliable scientific test for a drug, double blind studies, and published in the New England Journal of Medicine in July 1987. The study fell apart and it had been bombed in so many ways. I showed the article that I read out that to my colleagues in survey research, and they were absolutely struck down. They could not believe the levels of incompetence that were there at all different levels, including things of appeal in the chemical, but like the ability to design an appropriate questionnaire form. The case, of course, a drug which is supposed to be given for the rest of somebody's life, if you have something tested for only a few weeks, so you have a very poor idea of what to expect from it. Especially the Boston study, they would claim someone was in much longer than was claimed on the case report forms. This meant that simply the doctors received a great deal more money. But far more important than this was the reporting of the adverse effects of toxicities. And this was the heart of what the study was to measure that it was safe. And there were many of their patients who would have died from the toxicities of ACT if they had not been given emergency blood transfusions. This is serious adverse effect. It means literally that they would have died from the poison. And yet the case report forms which showed up eventually as official data, they would report no adverse effects. I mean, this is a type of dishonest theory. It's hard to go any further than that. Well, the most outrageous case, I forget which one it was, but with someone who had already been taking ACT, which a few people could. You know, they wanted the new medical drug and they were able to get it before it was approved for marketing. And he was ended as a patient in the placebo group, even though he was still taking ACT. He dropped out almost immediately, but continued to take ACT and then he died. And he called him a death in the placebo group. I mean, it's hard to achieve any more than that. And those who were given ACT, the whole suffered really severe side effects, side effect is misleading toxicities. But I remember them, it would very definitely have died from anemia, which in the review of animal studies, ACT causes anemia in every species of animal that's ever been studied, including human beings. But they would have died if they had not been given emergency blood transfusions. And yet according to the official data, in the case report forms, these people had no adverse reactions. The one single and most unforgivable thing, I mean, there was cheating. There's no reason to believe that Boston, one of 12 cities, was the only one in which cheating took place. It's very likely that the same cheating made even worse took place in all 11 others. It's just that Boston happened to get an honest investigative team that did their work. Many of the others were going to be investigated early and then they said, oh, we just don't have time. So we don't know. But to be the single worst thing is that they deliberately use data that they do or false. That's the one single thing that can never be forgiven. And we've been the first randomized placebo controlled trial with easy team, which turned out to be an effect that was modest. From scientific meetings, from these conferences, from my personal contacts with people in the field, I can tell you that I've found no evidence anywhere that people live longer, better lives, who take these anti-HIV drugs, these protease inhibitors either alone or in cocktails, as compared to a similar group of HIV patients. So I do not know where the evidence is for the claims that you see in the New York Times or in CNN or wherever you see it, that people are living longer, better lives as a consequence of taking these drugs. There's two types of anti-viral drugs. One is the AZT-style drug, also known as nucleoside analogs. What these drugs do essentially is they just kill cells. The other type of anti-viral drug, these are the protease inhibitors. And what they do is they interfere with the activities of an enzyme called protease. Viruses, some viruses have proteases, but so do healthy human cells. Either style of drug, you give it to a human, and you either kill or harm healthy cells. The results of the early AZT trial on people with full-blown AIDS, appeared to be so convincing that the drug was given a new fast track approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration, before any long-term toxicity trials in animals had been completed. These new regulations specifically will have special criteria that would apply to immediately life-threatening conditions. Recognizing that such patients are willing to accept the greater risk than that which normally would be the case. The Welcome Foundation UK manufacturer of AZT saw its shares spiral upwards. AZT was to be the new wonder drug. Then in 1989, after further trials were terminated early in the United States because results look promising, it was announced that AZT could be used not only on people with AIDS diseases, but in a much larger group, with HIV and low immune cell counts, but no other symptoms. Welcome shares soared to new heights, adding 1.4 billion pounds to the company's UK stock market value in one day. Commercial interests are definitely part of the problem here, and it's also our collective inability or challenge to say all this time, all these years, all these lives, all these billions and billions of dollars. Can we just stop a second and go back to the very beginning and make sure we've got this right? I mean, that is so hard to do. It's not as bad as it is the lie. People don't even know what's a lie. I mean, you know, it's not so much a lie as business as usual. Having been in business for a long time, I was in advertising for a long time, and I had this very successful clothing company. The business of a business is to be in business. You need to find new markets. You need to find new customers. You need to increase your profit margins. That means going off shore, if that means taking over new territories. If it means coming up with new products that more people are want, and the ideal of every business is to have a government mandate for your product. The anti-vival talks are chemo therapies. They're all based on chemo therapies that have been developed 30 years ago, known before AIDS was known to kill human cells. Chemo therapies was strictly to a few months, and hope the cancer dies before you die. If you started taking any other chemo therapeutic agent for the rest of your life, it would be that agent probably to kill you. When you give chemo therapies to some of the cancer, you give them a round of it for maybe 14 days or a few days. Hopefully you're not going to kill the patient. You're going to kill the cancer. Patients are going to survive. If you don't keep giving it to him until he dies, he certainly will. We went from nothing, not even knowing what the virus was, to discovering the virus, developing drugs, and then having a phenomenal response. The epidemic went from a few gay men to now today, 78 million people having been infected, 39 million deaths, 35 million people living with HIV, and the epidemic still rages with over 2 million new infections each year. They're taking the show to the third world, and they're not only giving AZT to what will probably be millions of women in the third world, whether they're HIV positive or not. But they're also insisting that they stop breastfeeding and start formula feeding. Mother's milk, which pediatricians around the world will tell you, is the healthiest food that a newborn can have because of the immunological properties in mother's milk that women should in fact cease breastfeeding their young. Now this to me seems something more than just a crime. This is absolutely diabolical. I can't imagine that it'll work out any other way than that you're going to see tens, maybe hundreds of thousands, maybe even more babies dying. And they'll probably say they died of AIDS no matter what happens. So nobody will even be held accountable. This time, oh, here's the one thing they're doing. So they can demonstrate that this has nothing to do with any particular formula company making money off of this situation. They're in the WHO or UNA's or whoever it is insisting that the formula gets shipped in bottles without labels. We haven't looked carefully at the facts. We've been told numbers ranging from 5 main to 25 main Africans have HIV and that there's going to be an enormous amount of death. But when you actually go to Africa and you interview the physicians working there, you find that these are presumptive diagnosis. One of the things that is important to emphasize from the outset is that the definition of an AIDS case when the African continent differs decisively from what constitutes an AIDS case say in North America or Western Europe. A definition was arrived at as a result of a World Health Organization sponsored conference in October of 1985. What resulted was what's known as the Bangui definition. The Bangui definition of an AIDS case in Africa is based on four clinical symptoms. The clinical symptoms are a high fever, a persistent cough, loose stools for 30 days, and a 10% loss of body weight over a two month period. By that definition, a Western researcher like myself has had AIDS. But having gotten on a plane and flown back to California, I'm not considered an AIDS case. So I think it's important to keep that in mind whenever one looks at the epidemiological data about what exactly we're counting when it comes to AIDS. The epidemic went from a few gay men to now today, 78 million people having been infected, 39 million deaths, 35 million people living with HIV and the epidemic still rages with over 2 million new infections each year. So this is a list of the drugs that have been developed for HIV and it's extraordinary that I went from 1981 through the middle of the 1990s, taking care of people without adequate therapy. And then as the years went by from 1987 through the mid-90s we developed these 30 drugs and this I consider one of the most important transformative discoveries in biological sciences. June 5, 1981, the CDC published a morbidity and mortality weekly report describing cases of a rare pneumonia in otherwise healthy young gay men in Los Angeles. But it was from those reports that the great epidemic of AIDS began to mushroom and we were in the midst of it before we knew it. It was the first MMWR from the CDC in the summer of 1981 reporting curiously five gay men from Los Angeles who are otherwise felt to be healthy, who developed newness system pneumonia which is only seen in profoundly immunodeficient patients. This is ground zero. This is the AIDS ward is closed now, but for all the progress Tony is still haunted by the ones he couldn't save. And as a physician that's the scorecard and the scorecard was really really bad for years. You paid a price. Yeah, person. Yeah. So I was heading towards a career in classic infectious disease and then this particular publication landed on my desk in June of 1981. And it was five young men or gay men from Los Angeles who presented with a strange infection that you don't see in people except those who have a very compromised immune system. I thought it was a fluke until a month later another publication came out now of 26 people again all gay men now from Los Angeles San Francisco and New York. This was the beginning of the AIDS pandemic and I decided at that point since I was an infectious disease person intensely interested in the humanities and this was an extraordinarily devastating disease with no known cause that I devoted my career from that time on to HIV AIDS. And this is a picture of me in the early 1980s at the bedside of an AIDS patient. Now I show it to you because at that time before we even knew what the virus was or even if it was a virus the median survival of my patients was six to eight months, which means that 50% of them would be dead in six to eight months. That is a very difficult thing to go through. I consider it the darkest period of my professional and personal life because I had a deal with every single day every one of my patients dying. The very first AIDS cases were five gay men diagnosed in Los Angeles in 1981 by a doctor named Michael Gottlieb. And what linked them was that they were all in what was called the fast lane gay lifestyle. They were doing a lot of recreational drugs. They were taking many different drugs at the same time combining drugs much more than was the pattern for straight drug users. They also partied a lot. They went to bars, they went to clubs, they went to bath houses. They met a lot of men. They had a lot of anonymous sexual contacts. And as a result they were exposed to a lot of the classic sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis and gonorrhea. And because they were getting those diseases they were also frequently going to doctors and getting antibiotic prescriptions to treat those. All of that created a situation where a handful of gay men were burning the candle at both ends and putting a blow torch to the middle. And it's no wonder that after a while their immune system started to collapse and they started getting sick in these unusual ways that previously had only been seen in older people whose immune systems had deteriorated from age. And I would watch my friends stay up all night at the baths doing speed and then take a downer and then in the middle of the day in the afternoon they'd be under the covers twitching. I consciously tried to deal with drugs in a in a saner way than most of my friends did. There was a ton of poppers they were everywhere you would walk into a gay bar and on the dance floor it was not unusual to see every probably third person holding a little bottle up to their nose and you could just smell it everywhere. There's a drug called amel nitro. It was developed in the 1850s and 60s. Came in ampules and they became known as poppers because you pop them when you open these ampules up the stiff them when you had coronary arteries. The first age cases for example that my godly reported were all five gay men they were young. They all used poppers, poppers. Some of you walk around huffing all night. I mean it's as flammable fatal as well as on the side of the bar and walking around huffing it all night long. Why gives you a great rush. Poppers was the sex drug. They were in every gay bathhouse, every bar, every porn notebook store, a costination. Poppers were visible on the dance floor in the disco. At the end of an evening the bartender would announce last call for alcohol, last call for poppers. It became a mainstay of the gay social scene in the late 1970s. We're commonly used by large numbers of people in gay clubs and in the bathhouses. And their risk is that they're actually chemically quite similar to drugs given when doctors want to suppress the immune system. I eat a transplant patient's, the chemistry is rather similar. So it's not at all surprising that people who took these drugs quite often would develop immune suppression. The scene is shown in a bathhouse in San Francisco, but it's actually based on a visit that Bill Dero, our research sociologist and I made to the club baths here in Atlanta. And we were particularly interested in learning more about poppers, nitrite and halens. So we showed up wearing our government blue blazers. We were the only ones wearing clothes so we were fairly obvious. And we sat at a little car table and said, excuse me. I talked to you. And the men were actually incredibly cooperative. They were happy to talk about what they were doing and particularly about these inhalants. These inhalants actually could be bought in the bathhouse and these bottles with names on them like locker room, which is very appropriate because these things smell like sweats socks. But they could also be bought in these more mysterious looking ground bottles and gave bookstores and bars. And they were being used to enhance gay sex. So we thought, well, what's in this stuff? Is it possible? Is it contaminant that's causing immunodeficiency? So we bought some. I don't know how we put it on our government credit cards. We brought them back to CDC, the environmental health laboratories, analyzed them and just found what we thought they had in them which were beautiful, isobutal and amel nitrite. In the 1970s, I remember reading articles in the San Francisco Chronicle, particularly warning gay people about the dangers of poppers. I was quite young. I wasn't out yet. This was the first time I ever heard of poppers being used sexually. In fact, I think it was the first time I heard of them at all that there were major front page articles in the San Francisco Chronicle serving a city famous for having a large gay community saying, wait a minute, these things are highly dangerous. They had certain medical uses. They were an emergency drug. They weren't designed to be used every night and they could do serious damage to your body. Though there are no government-funded studies that examine the long-term effects of drug use in this war on AIDS, the medical literature is full of cases of AIDS-like symptoms among drug addicts. Since 1909, we've observed the horrendous effects of heroin, morphine, speed, cocaine and other injected drugs on the immune system. Today, thousands of American junkies who are not infected with HIV are losing the same CD4 T cells and getting the same diseases as AIDS patients. How is the war on AIDS address this issue? We've passed out clean needles and told addicts to avoid getting HIV. But one drug that was available legally, nitride inhalants, commonly known as poppers, are used extensively. Poppers are believed to be the direct cause of Kaposi Sarcoma, a rare form of skin cancer that afflicts the nose, throat, lungs and skin. Kaposi Sarcoma has been an indicator disease of AIDS, but it is often found in gay men who are not infected with HIV. In the study published by Toby Eisenstein, Rodins showed an immediate dose response in immune suppression after being exposed to nitrites found in poppers. I think that's very revealing. It showed that NO, nitric oxide radical, is terribly immunosuppressive. But interestingly enough, all of the literature on NO and I follow follow it rather carefully by computer, never mentions a more beautiful nitrite, never mentions the word poppers. It's almost these two worlds are living side by side, but they are not talking to each other. There have been a number of theories as to what the origin of HIV AIDS is. One of them was a theory that certainly turned out to be completely incorrect, and it's a lifestyle phenomenon. For a while in the 1970s, the main financial supports of the gay press were bar add-outs and popper adds that if you were a gay publisher in the 70s and you got a contract from enough of the national poppers makers, you could keep your paper in business. In that era, what the 976 phone sex lines were in the 1980s and what AIDS drugs had been in the 1990s, the big national account that you wanted for your gay paper in order to have a stable revenue stream in staying business. The popper manufacturers had become such an enormous economic powerhouse in the gay community that they were making enormous amounts of money themselves, manufacturing and selling poppers, and they were spending a lot of advertising money in the gay press and keeping the gay media in business. Obviously, the poppers manufacturers had invested interest in making sure their product was not blamed for AIDS. The gay media had invested interest in making sure that poppers were not blamed for AIDS, and therefore the coverage in the gay media skewed away from poppers and other similar risk factors and towards the viral hypothesis. The popper manufacturers had invested interest in making sure that poppers were not blamed for AIDS, and they were spending a lot of money on the viral hypothesis. An industry developed around them which actually made it $50 billion a year or more. I discovered there was a very extensive medical literature on the volatile nitrites. They are very, very bad indeed for the health. In fact, I should probably describe what they do, the toxicities. The simplest thing is that they're very powerful oxidizing agents, which is bad. Poppers cause severe indemia, in fact several types of indemia. Secondly, poppers are powerfully mutagenic, meaning that they cause cellular changes. This is bad news because substances that are mutagenic are almost also carcinogenic. At any rate, Hank Wilson and I tried to get the word out to gay men. We had a hard time because gay publications were all running every issue, a dozen ads for poppers. This was a large part of their revenue. There were only a few gay publications that would even print a letter from Hank or me, let alone an article. There were none of the early AIDS cases who had not used poppers. I've done my own independent research, which I described in the AIDS War. One of my informants, Arty Felson, who was very, very active in outgoing in the people with AIDS coalition, claimed that he had interviewed several hundred gay men with AIDS. He said that virtually all of them had been heavy users of drugs. He said, without a single exception, they had all been poppers users. More fraudulent in the conception, in the execution. But they again assumed that poppers were used as room motorizers. When you have such a totally dishonest assumption to begin with, everything else at false will be fraudulent. The doses of the mice were exposed to might not have been one thousandth of what gay men would get in the course of a single evening. Just simply being infected with HIV is not going to do it. You need certain co-factors. Co-factors are not necessary. Dr. Fancy with HIV could have said about the need for anything else. That's kind of ridiculous. The data that indicate that any different type of infection like microplasma or something like that is a necessary co-factor. I believe those theories have been the bone. What the parties seem to do? What's it in them? I'm sorry, it's the kind of thing. What does seem to mean that they're not co-factors on? Where's he coming from? This co-factors say everything. I understand there are a lot of people, if you ask them about HIV causing AIDS as being a fact they'll say, of course, it's indisputable. And the very fact that they will say it's indisputable might lead you to question their ability to understand scientific method. People that think any scientific fact is indisputable don't understand about scientific fact. It has become a very emotional kind of thing because people actually get personally committed to what really is a body of evidence that can be analyzed by lots of people. At this point, there's so much of it out there, nobody can really analyze it all of it. But nobody can write a review of it that says HIV causing AIDS because of this. If a postdoc were to write a review of the literature that showed without much doubt that HIV was a cause of AIDS, that guy would be famous. Now there's a hundred thousand guys out there who have the opportunity. It's ten years past we've been waiting for this postdoc to follow to distinguish himself forever and get a lifelong grant from something that he hasn't shown up. No one has bothered to write a definitive review any journal would take it. That's right there proves that HIV does not cause AIDS. Let's just talk for a moment about testing. What are your thoughts on someone going out and getting a quote-unquote AIDS test? Really when we say it's an AIDS test, that's a misnomer. It's not a test for AIDS at all. And surprisingly something that it took me a long time to figure out. It's not even a test for HIV. The test is for antibodies that are supposed to be antibodies to HIV, but they're not. It's a test for non-specific antibodies that may or may not have anything to do with HIV. A very heavily referenced review article on the validity of the HIV tests had more or less concluded that they had never been validated. At the time I didn't quite realize that one of the implications in this article was that HIV itself had never properly been isolated. It was so difficult to isolate and obtain that that was the reason why the HIV tests had never been validated because to validate a diagnostic test according to the classical decent standards you need to show that patients who test positive with your antibody kit have got the virus in them and patients who don't test positive are free of the virus. And that's broadly that would be how you would establish its validity. And that had never been done because you can't find this virus in AIDS patients or in HIV positive patients. HIV, first of all, nobody's ever found it in human being. Think of it. The so-called HIV test do not detect HIV in a person. They detect your antibodies that react to some proteins that are produced at a laboratory. They do not find HIV in the person they find a person's functioning immune system that could react against HIV if it were there. Millions of people take tests that are referred to as HIV tests. However, the idea that there is a laboratory test that can determine whether or not a person is infected with the virus is simply an illusion. The FDA has never approved a test kit that claims to be used for the purpose of diagnosing HIV infection. The ultimate test that the establishment offers is what's called a co-culture technique where you take a sample of the individual's blood cells, white blood cells. You cannot find HIV now in this sample. All you have are these blood cells. But then you culture these cells with some special cells that Robert Gallo generated some years ago. You have to throw in some powerful chemicals, vital hemagglutinin, IL-2, for example, to force these cells to do anything. The idea is to wake up the patient's cells to start producing RNA. And then this RNA will be coated in a protein. And possibly then there will be viral particles produced in the medium. These viral particles now will go in fact the other cells that you added and then you will amplify by a period of time the replication of these viral particles in the laboratory, what we call in vitro. Now these particles did not exist in the patient and the human being, the person that you got the sample from. You created them in the laboratory. And by creating these virus particles in the laboratory people say they have isolated HIV from a human being. They have not done any such thing. Nobody was looking at the blood of an AIDS patient and finding it crawling with some new organism and said, hey, this is this virus that we call HIV now. Is there a test that can definitively tell you if you're infected with violence? What's the virus? Sure. What is that test? Well, even the test is to do the ELISA test which really demonstrates an essence of this surgery. It also represents antibody production to the virus. But they have demonstrated the virus. They have crystalline models of the virus. HIV exists. HIV is a very important thing. HIV is a very important thing. HIV is a very important thing. HIV is a very important thing. HIV is a very important thing. HIV is a very important thing. HIV is a very important thing. HIV is a very important thing. HIV is a very important thing. HIV is a very important thing. HIV is a very important thing. HIV is a very important thing. HIV is a very important thing. HIV is a very important thing. HIV is a very important thing. HIV is a very important thing. HIV is a very important thing. HIV is a very important thing. HIV is a very important thing. HIV is a very important thing. I don't recommend people ever getting tested. The reason is, I don't know what the test means. I've never seen any evidence that what these tests report to show, they're actually showing. Namely, the presence of a virus. The presence of an exogenous virus. I really would like to see the electron microscopic data of this. Isolation protocol. The test is for antibodies that are supposed to be antibodies to HIV, but they're not. It's a test for non-specific antibodies that may or may not have anything to do with HIV. So it's not at all like we're being told. And it's really, when you think about it, if you're told that testing is responsible, it's a pretty irresponsible test to be taking. In the gay community, everybody tests all the time. Everybody around me was taking HIV tests. It's a responsible thing to do. It's sort of a gay right of passage to regularly get tested. And consequently, many people around me tested positive. In essence, AIDS is advanced HIV infection, as opposed to early HIV infection. AIDS is when you're ill, and HIV infection without AIDS is when you're heading towards being ill but you're not ill. I always assumed that if you had AIDS, as opposed to being just HIV positive, that you were very sick. You had pneumonia, or KS, or chronic diarrhea, or something. That changed for me when I, myself, was diagnosed with AIDS. And I was diagnosed not because of an illness, not because I was sick, or that my immune system didn't seem to be working. But because my CD4 count had dropped below 200, which according to the CDC definition, is what defines AIDS, an HIV positive test, and a CD4 count of less than 200. In 1993, in this country, we adopted a definition that caused the number of AIDS cases to double overnight. And part of that reason was, for the first time, we began counting people as AIDS victims who were not ill and who did not have any symptoms. They had a low T cell count. And that's only one low T cell count. And T cells are something that can fluctuate 100% in a given day. So based on a low T cell count, that year, the number of AIDS cases doubled overnight. And with that definition, there have been 182,000 Americans who are not ill, diagnosed with AIDS, who would not have AIDS if they moved to Canada. Because in Canada, they don't recognize that T cell definition as a criteria for having an AIDS diagnosis. Most people consider blasphemous when you point out that AIDS is not a disease. It's a syndrome. It's a collection of diseases. And those diseases get called AIDS if they occur in a patient that the doctor somehow concludes is HIV positive. All of the diseases in the category called AIDS occur to people who are HIV negative. None of them are exclusive to people who test HIV positive. And all of them have causes and treatments that are known well known. They're completely unrelated to HIV. So any of these diseases, when they happen to somebody who test HIV negative, are called by their old name. But when they occur in someone who test HIV positive, then they're called AIDS. All kinds of diseases started coming into the AIDS family. Faster than anyone should have been comfortable with, really. To go from two or three to go to 30. You know, a few years was like somebody should have said, hey, there's something wrong here. And it's got to be financial. Things don't happen that fast in science. You don't suddenly notice that one new organism is causing every problem. And it was a bizarre thing that happened. It really was. It didn't really have any precedence in terms of medicine before that. Unless perhaps you could think of the possession by the devil stuff. You say, once you're possessed by the devil, anything that happens to you or anything you do is got to do with that. So it makes it easier for you to get tuberculosis. And it makes it easier for you to get uterine cancer. It makes it easier for you to get Candida, Albacans. And so all those things can now be called AIDS. Now, why would anybody do that? Now, why would any reasonable doctors start lumping together various symptoms into one pile? I think all this is caused by HIV. We have a test, but it's not a test for AIDS. And it's called an HIV test, but it's not a test for HIV. And we have a series of problems that we are calling AIDS, but that doesn't elevate AIDS into a disease. I don't know if you read magazines lately. There's a lot of ads for pharmaceutical drugs lately. These pharmaceutical companies are marketing more and more direct to consumers and encouraging you to ask your doctor for the remedy of the day. And I notice that there's a lot of these syndromes popping up like a social anxiety disorder or sad. I mean, you can make a syndrome out of anything you want, basically, and then find medicines to sell to make people better from it. And AIDS is not that ludicrously simple, but it is, in a sense, just as constructed. It's a construct. It's a category of other problems, some of which were occurring in greater numbers in a very small subset of people here in the US and other parts of the world, that became due to the social political climate with regard to sex, death, homosexuality, and drug use. It became elevated into this medical phenomenon that has become untouchable and sacred almost. There's the saying that if you knew how sausages, what sausages are made up, most people would hesitate to sort of beat them because they didn't like what's in it. And if you knew how HIV AIDS numbers are cut or made up, you would use them with extreme caution. In late December of 2007, I read about new legislation passed in New Jersey calling for the mandatory testing of pregnant women or newborn infants. Should the mother's status be unknown? HIV mandatory testing, the me is a no-brainer. I'm very much opposed to the concept of mandatory testing of any population because the tests are scientifically shown to be unreliable and inaccurate. You have no reason to fear this bill. And my hope is that eventually this will become a federal law so that every woman in this country would be tested. But HIV testing isn't an absolute precise science. When I confronted my doctor about that, she said, we're way past Western blood now. We have the viral load test. That when you get the package insert for the viral load test, it says... If you test positive, you are considered confirmed and infected with HIV. But at the bottom of the page, in fine print, it states a person should have additional testing. It does not allow you to tell a single person on this planet that they are HIV positive. And it's a scandal that this test continues to be used. So again, I'm asking, where's the test? Where's the test that can confirm a diagnosis of HIV infection? And I can't find one. In light of all this scientific uncertainty, I asked Dr. Fauci for evidence linking HIV to immune deficiency disease. When you put the combined findings of the initial characterization as a distinct retro virus isolated by Montenegro in his group, together with Gallo linking the virus to being the cause of AIDS, and he put those things together. And that's how we have a confirmation of the causative agent of AIDS, namely HIV. Still unclear about the evidence for HIV's existence, I decided the best way to verify it would be to actually see it. I asked Dr. Hans Gelderblum, a world-renowned electron microscopist, if he thought there was any reason to question Dr. Montenegro's published images. So I've seen these publications stamp-sized images. It's a newslet. It's a newslet. You do not really see much. And we saw that photo. We said, suggestive, but not convincing. Dr. Gallo, one year later published photographs, he claimed to be of HIV. Were his any better? These pictures were not so impressive. They were not much better than Montenegro's images. It's one thing to look like, and another thing is to be a lot of. In 2002, I stumbled across an article by a valender-turner and Andrew McIntyre of the Perth group in Australia. And a question whether there's ever even been found a virus. I became consumed with researching this. I could read from morning till night, morning till night every day, and every link can let her link. And I would email to these people and say, where's the test? I want to know. Am I dying? Am I contagious? And they weren't even very kind. They were just like, read our articles again. How are you trying to be able to tell you? So where does all this lead? Well, to recap, what we've seen is that back in the 80s and 90s, and even through the present day, this idea of testing people for AIDS was a fraud. What it really was was an HIV test, and that turned out to be a fraud too, because you really can't test reliably for HIV. So what does that mean? Does that matter? Does that affect anybody? Well, it sure does. Millions of people were given positive HIV tests, and were told that they were going to die from AIDS. And then they were terrorized into taking first AZT, which is a very toxic drug. It is a mutagen. It is a carcinogen. It kills cells, and it killed a lot of people. And then Fauci and friends got more sophisticated, and they lowered the AZT dose, and they mixed it with a whole bunch of other toxic drugs, and they called it a cocktail. And then they went out and decided, hey, we're going to test the world. We're going to test pregnant women to make sure they're not carrying the virus. Not that they were sick, not that they had any symptoms, but they wanted to see, are they carrying the virus? And they did the same thing in Africa. And then after they increased the number of diseases from 2 to nearly 30, that could be classified as AIDS, and after they started a global testing program of, quote, vulnerable populations, which just coincidentally happened to be people not in a position to defend themselves. They started to find AIDS everywhere, including in Africa, but including in the United States. And wouldn't you know one of the communities they found a lot of AIDS was the African American community. And they tested a lot of women, and they found a lot of HIV positive women. And they decided, well, let's go forward and see what Dr. Fauci decided to do. We're at NIH today to talk to Dr. Tony Fauci about the Mississippi baby. Doctor, can you tell us about the announcement that was made this week? Well, the Mississippi baby, as many people know now because it got considerable publicity, was a child that was born of a mother who was HIV infected, but who unfortunately had no prenatal care and was not receiving any retroviral drugs. Did you get that? This is a woman who had a positive HIV test, which he calls HIV infected. Not the same thing, not accurate, not scientifically sound, as we've seen before, but he makes that leap. And he says, unfortunately, the mother was not getting drugs. So in Tony Fauci's world, if you are a poor African American woman or a African woman, and you come up positive on one of these unreliable tests in his world, the best thing that could possibly happened to you is that you would be given a lot of carc