DEATH CAMP : 22

Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), Prison Notebooks

The 'HIV' Regime, as a political movement, is what Antonio Gramsci would have termed 'expansive hegemony'. Hegemony is the ability of one group to articulate the interests of other social groups for its own ends. For Gramsci science is both politics and a "praxis" ; that is, a set of material practices and conditions (infused with the political ideologies) that "transforms" people. The 'HIV' Paradigm maintains its grip to power through the 'hegemonic principle' Gramsci argued that a hegemonic principal does not prevail by virtue of its 'intrinsic logical character' but rather when it manages to become a 'popular religion', (or in the context of the 'HIV' Cult, a 'group fantasy'). The 'HIV' Regime, as a 'hegemonic class', creates an 'hiv-ideological consensus' through an alliance of 'macro' and 'micro' groups: the pharmaceutical multinationals, government health bodies, the 'scientific community', the 'hiv/aids community' : which includes the mythic 'haemophiliac community', the 'homofascist' community', the 'IV drug community', etc. The hegemonizing of the 'HIV' Paradigm (as the dominant 'common world view') operates through this stabilisation of alliances and networks that 'circulates' and 'reproduces' the dominant 'HIV' Ideological World-View. The 'HIV' Paradigm (as 'ideological cement') has maintained its hegemonic hold because this multiplicity of networks have largely 'consented' to its 'power'. 'HIV' Ideology is propagated through the 'hegemonic apparatuses' such as global media, science journals, universities, medical centres, etc. Gramsci stresses the importance of these institutional structures that forge and disseminate ideology or what Loius Althusser calls Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs). The HIV Paradigm is the ruling ideology in so-called 'aids' research; indeed, the term 'aids research' is a euphemism for 'hiv research' (which intern has never had anything to do with 'aids research'). Students/academics/doctors are trained within the confines of 'HIV' ideological-imprinting; they are literally 'cemented' to this 'paradigm-monism'(Kuhn).

Thus, 'HIV' Ideology, as a politically expedient paradigm, maintains its hegemony through the 'manufacturing' of (misinformed) 'consent' via educational institutions, mainstream science journals and mass media. As Duesberg observed:"The AIDS virus proved to be the politically correct cause of AIDS. No AIDS risk group could be blamed for being infected by a Go-given egalitarian virus...Once accepted as the politically correct explanation of AIDS, the HIV hypothesis has become the central investment for a whole generation of AIDS scientists, AIDS companies, AIDS journalists, AIDS politicians and gay activists...(Infectious AIDS: Have we been misled?, North Atlantic, 582pp).

"The entire Gallo affair provides evidence of the way the scientific community is unable to police itself....Scientists should be subject to the same laws as other citizens so far as criminal behaviour is concerned." The Gallo Case, Challenges, Serge Lang

On April 23, 1984 Margaret Heckler, with a concrete coiffure and severe laryngitis, croaked to a packed press conference in Washington DC that: "the probable cause of aids had been found". This ill-looking US Secretary for Health and Human Services was flanked by gangster, Robert Gallo, somewhat apprehensive and creepy in tainted glasses, a Mafioso fearing being fingered and bumped-off.. Perhaps even then he was anticipating the inevitable ten years of sleaze and stinky revelations of scientific skulduggery that would entertain the cognoscenti. Heckler did not read her prepared statement in its entirety omitting a backhanded acknowledgement that Pasteur scientists had "previously identified a virus which they had linked to AIDS patients," as well as the prediction that the alleged 'French' virus "will prove to be the same" as Gallo's 'HTLV-IIIB'. David Rasnick stated: "With that announcement, Gallo had publicly leapfrogged straight across the scientific process - across peer-review and analysis, across the very checks and balances of sciences. He made no attempt to demonstrate his claim but fed it straight to the global media, which broadcast it without hesitation" (Spin magazine, June, 1997). Serge Lang was alarmed: "I was very upset. The cause of AIDS was discovered by government fiat...then that announcement was made at the press conference. As far as I'm concerned, from that point on AIDS research turned into seedy, criminal politics, and it remained that way."(Spin, June, 1992) In a calculated pre-emptive strike, Gallo seized the initiative in establishing his discovery 'HTLV-III' as the cause of 'AIDS'. It was pre-emptive because the scientific papers concerning its discovery had not yet been published and indeed, the necessary peer review process had not been completed and none of Gallo's colleagues had a chance to assess the work or duplicate his results prior to the all important announcement. The US Government gave official backing to what would turn out to be deeply flawed, if not down right fraudulent research. The 'HTLV-III' ('HIV') hypothesis of 'AIDS' causation was engraved in stone and the qualifying word 'probable' might never have been croaked. So the premature consensus of the press-conference (23 April, 1984) pre-empted the publication of the Gallo-Popovic four Science (4 May, 1984) papers! Had the four 'seminal' Gallo-Popovic Science papers been subjected to rigorous and unbiased peer review they would never have been published and the press conference postponed. Regarding the four fake Science papers, The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) Reports, supported by HIH scientific advisers, found that Gallo and his lab engaged in a number of mal-practices: "lack of laboratory records...lack of attention to details which resulted in false representation...lack of scientific rigor...breached overall responsibility...to ensure the accuracy of the paper...created and fostered conditions that give rise to falsified/fabricated data and falsified scientific reports..." While in spring 1992, the press reported the OSI investigation had cleared Gallo of 'misconduct', criticism of the report soon surfaced and a special panel of consultants nominated by the NAS, at the request of HHS and HIH to oversee the investigation, actually charged Gallo with: "a pattern of behavior...that repeatedly misrepresents, suppresses, and distorts data and their interpretation...intellectual recklessness of a high degree - in essence intellectual appropriation of the French viral isolate..." In a written submission to the investigators, Popovic stated:"I did not agree with Dr. Gallo that the references to the work we did with the French virus should be omitted or even significantly minimized. I thought it was wrong not to credit Dr. Montagnier's group's contribution more clearly." The [NIH] Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) "Final Report" concerning Gallo's research was revealed in Science & Government Report (June 1, 1992) to be: "a deeply flawed document reflecting an incomplete investigation. The report has been substantially 'watered down' from the hard-hitting draft report. Material apparently damaging to Gallo, including some of his own testimony, has been deleted..." Dr. Sonnabend was sickened by Gallo's dishonesty: "Gallo was certainly committing open fraud. But the point is not to focus on Gallo. It's us - all of us in the scientific community, we let him get away with it. None of this was hidden..." (Spin, June, 1992)

The following statement concerning the 1984 Science papers by Gallo et al. is blatantly false: "The results presented in our four papers provided clear-cut evidence that the aetiology of AIDS and ARC was the new lymphotropic retrovirus, HTLV-III." (Nature, 8 May, 1986). In these 1984 papers, Gallo and his colleagues claimed to isolate 'HTLV-III' only from cultures, and only after stimulation with agents that cause inactive viral DNA (provirus) to produce pseudo-viruses that may not be present in vivo. Gallo did not provide proof of isolation of 'HTLV-III' directly from fresh donor plasma. Thus tragically, the fraudulent 'seminal' Science papers became the major authorisation of the 'HTLV-III/HIV' hypothesis as the dominant paradigm for 'AIDS' causation, research-funding and profiteering and the 'HIV' Paradigm: "quickly became entrenched as a result of a monolithic government-controlled peer-review grant system that does not tolerate changes". (Moran,1998).

"To an extent which undermines classical standards of science, the scientific establishment has handled purported scientific results concerning AIDS by press releases rather than by scientific exchanges, thereby manipulating the media at large." Serge Lang to the Council, National Academy of Sciences, USA.

A 'Commentary' in Nature (11, March,'93), "Does drug use cause AIDS?" by M.S. Ascher et al., was strategically 'advertised' a week before publication in a Nature press release headlined without qualification: "Drug use does not cause AIDS." The press release announced the publication of that piece,and concluded: "These findings seriously undermine the argument [sic] put forward by Dr Peter Duesberg that drug consumption causes AIDS..." The press started calling Duesberg to get his comments on the forthcoming article in Nature, but the article has not been made available to him. Duesberg told the journalists that he could not comment on an article he had not seen. Lang concluded: "Thus does Nature and the authors of the article use the media to manipulate public opinion before their article had been submitted to the scientific scrutiny of other scientists, especially Duesberg who is principally concerned...Incidentally, when Duesberg submitted a reply to the Ascher et al., 'Commentary", he was at first told by Nature to limit his reply to at most 500 words. This is less than one-fourth the space (two full pages) allotted to Ascher et al...I wish to warn you here against Maddox's unscientific, irresponsible and manipulative journalism."(Lang's Letter to Nat. Ac. Sci.)

"If a person makes improper use of information in a manuscript, the first person to know will be the competitor." John Maddox (Peer Review: Written and Unwritten Rules, Science, 22 November 1995).

According to Mark Craddock, (School of Mathematics, University of New South Wales, Sydney), the Nature papers (12 January, 1995) by Wei et al (Viral dynamics in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection )and Ho et al (Rapid turnover of plasma virions and CD4 lymphocytes in HIV-1 infection) should have failed peer review for the following reasons alone:1) Obvious mathematical errors, 2) Unjustified assumptions unrelated to the empirical data, 3) Lack of control groups: (a) "Neither group compared the rate of T4 cells generated in the HIV positive patients with HIV negative controls", (b) "It must surely be admitted that the system they are trying to study, namely the interaction of HIV with T4 cells, might behave substantially differently in people who are not being pumped full of new drugs, in addition to 'antiretrovirals' like Zidovudine?" Yet these flawed papers got past the peer reviewers and instigated the fatal consequences of 'early intervention' ('hit early, hit fast') which translated is a cynical marketing strategy for retroviral drug-pushers. Craddock on the Ho and Shaw Nature papers stated: "Does what Shaw and Ho say actually make sense?... Is their mathematical analysis sound?...As a mathematician, I was intrigued by the claim of John Maddox, editor of Nature, that the new results provide a new mathematical understanding of the immune system. Unfortunately, my confidence in this claim was badly shaken when it turned out that on the very first page of the Shaw paper (Wei et al., p 117) they make an appalling mathematical error. And in the same paragraph make an assumption which turns out, by their own admission to have no basis in observation, and which they give no justification for...They are trying to estimate viral production rates by measuring viral loads at different times and trying to fit the numbers to their formula for free virus. But if their formula is wrong, then their estimates for viral production will be wrong too. ..Yet 'HIV' science has declined so far that these elementary questions are addressed neither by the research groups themselves, nor the referees at Nature whose job it is to critique the papers before publication. Is nobody at Nature bothered by the fact that neither paper contain any hard data which can be independently analysed?..." ('HIV: Science by Press Conference', AIDS - Virus or Drug Induced?', Kluwer Academy, 1996). In a letter published in Nature ('HIV an illusion' ,18 May,1995), Duesberg and Bialy debunked the Ho and Wei papers following Nature's rejection of their substantial rebuttal (which finally appeared in Genitica): "Sir - In an editorial in the 19 January issue of Nature, John Maddox invited 'Duesberg and his associates' to comment on the 'HIV-1 dynamics' papers published the previous week, indicating that these new results should prove an embarrassment to us. Although we do not think that a scientist should be embarrassed for pointing out inconsistencies and paradoxes in a hypothesis that have only been reportedly resolved 10 years later, we nonetheless prepared a fully referenced, approximately 2,000-word critique of the Ho et al and the Wei et al papers that we believed met the criteria of 'not being longer than it needs to be, and pertaining to the papers at hand' that Maddox set out in his widely read challenge. Unfortunately, he did not share our view and agreed to publish only a radically shortened version, and only after he had personally 'gone over it with a fine-tooth comb' to remove our perceived misrepresentations of the issues. We found these new conditions so totally at variance with the spirit of free and fair scientific debate that we could not agree to them..." This letter is followed by a statement from the editor: "Peter Duesberg was offered space in Scientific Correspondence for 500 words of his choice, but declined". Serge Lang comments: "The editor's statement is false. Duesberg did not decline. The "words of his choice" constituted the letter printed above this statement, which therefore gives one more prima facie example of Nature editor's inability to report facts correctly...I have documented the way Nature's editor Maddox has censored information, and proudly advertised this censorship. Nature has been in a class of its own in its aggressivity against the dissenters in general and Duesberg in particular..."

"The peer review system at present is being abused to obstruct or prevent scientific discussion, by Scientific American-Pour la Science, in addition to the major international magazines such as Nature and Science, and the funding agencies in the United States."

Serge Lang: To the cc list for the HIV-Pour la Science file.

The peer review system emerged in the 1800s and became more widespread in the middle of this century. The peer review system is a kind of consensus-policing instrument that 'legitimates' what constitutes 'scientific knowledge'. The peer reviewers we are assured are 'unbiased', 'fair', 'neutral', 'honest', and 'disinterested' referees. What naive nonsense. Peer reviewers are not neutral or apolitical but deeply inscribed in particular 'paradigms' which they often have vested interests in promoting. As former editor of Science, Daniel Koshland , stated:"Almost all commissions, judges, peer review panels are chosen from within the discipline that is to be regulated...The procedures devised by insiders should always be subjected to the scrutiny of outsiders..."(Science, 13 July, 1990). I.Catt stated that referees are censors who operate within "a system of censorship, the censor having no training in how to differentiate between 'wrong' and 'heretical'...What is not permissible is to write or say something which contradicts the shared paradigm, and expect it to be tolerated by the accepted journals..." (Moran, 1998).

The peer review system needs to be radically peer reviewed in the context of pseudo 'hiv' science. We need to have real 'unbiased' and 'outsider' reviewers not those with vested interests in maintaining the 'hiv junta' status-quo. Why not have cultural theorists, social anthropologists, psychoanalysts, philosophers, toxicologists and mathematicians peer-reviewing 'HIV' Paradigm papers - rather than 'insider traders' with vested-interests (aka:'retrovirologists')? Non- 'experts', as unbiased 'outsiders', are not framed 'within' the monolithic hermetically sealed 'hiv' episteme.

Duesberg states that a truly autonomous peer review panel would be a threat to the 'HIV' Junta: "Nonconformists are eliminated by the outwardly democratic 'peer review system' advertised by the orthodoxy as an independent jury system that provides checks and balances. However, a truly independent jury would be fatal for the establishment. Indeed, a grant awarded to test an unorthodox theory of AIDS that proved to be successful would be an end to the orthodoxy itself. Therefore, orthodox scientists (with NIH grants) are carefully selected as the 'peers' to review 'investigator-initiated' grant applications. The system works because the peers serve the orthodoxy by serving their own vested interests. Under this review system, a scientist's access to funding, promotions, publication in journals, ability to win prizes, and invitations to conferences are entirely controlled by his peers." (Inventing the AIDS Virus,1996)

Stuart W. G. Derbyshire wrote in Nature, 'Duesberg and AIDS', : "Duesberg and his colleagues (the 'dissenters') have faced peculiar multilayered review boards when submitting their papers to scientific journals - producing far greater delays and higher rejection rates than normal - while articles that refuted Duesberg's claims have been 'fast-tracked' , by-passing the normal peer review process..."(Correspondence, Nature, 26 Oct., 1995). Clearly the peer review system is there to protect and promote the 'hiv' paradigm. Peer review bodies are deeply conservative and reactionary, a threat to free scientific debate and innovation, as Jacques Benveniste wrote to Nature, 'Put a match to pyre review', : "Isn't it time to open the door to genuine scientific debate? Based on my own ten-year experience, we may as well start by throwing out the peer- (or is it pyre?) review system, which has become, behind a facade of excellence, the main antibody blocking the nearly decreased corpus called scientific free exchange, which was once the cornerstone of progress..."(10 December, 1998). A Nature Biotechnology editorial (16th May, 1998) 'NIH peer review: Time for some changes' suggests a future strategy for reconstituting the rigidity of the per-review process: "It is no secret that NIH grant applicants who offer a maximum of data and a minimum of controversy get the highest scores - hardly a system designed to encourage maximally innovative science. To simultaneously guard against their rejection of proposals because they threaten vested academic interests, and to enliven them intellectually, NIH study sections should be reconstituted to include non-expert peers. These would be distinguished scientists, although in fields unrelated to the study section, who would participate as unbiased ombudsmen." If one had outsiders critiquing so-called 'hiv' papers they would never pass the peer review procedures as it would not be possible to prove the existence of 'hiv'. Peer reviewers would automatically deconstruct the nomenclature 'hiv' and clearly see that such a nomination is absurd; there is no proof of a 'retrovirus' and no proof of 'it' causing 'immunodeficiency'. So the acronym 'hiv' is totally meaningless and has no existence in the 'real' (bio)logical world. Therefore, all the 200,000 papers-plus that have been written on the non-existent 'hiv' are totally meaningless. Publications such as Nature, Nature Medicine, Science, The Lancet, JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, New Scientist, Scientific American, Poz, Positive Nation, , New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, The Independent, Gay Times, The Pink Paper have acted in an unscientific and irresponsible way by propagating the 'hiv' fraud; they will eventually be discredited for their criminal behaviour. Philip Campbell, Richard Horton, Phyllida Brown, Steve Connor, Floyd Bloom, Jon Cohen, Rudy Baum, Madeleine Jacobs, Nicholas Wade, Lawrence Altman, Laurie Garrett, et al are accountable to the scientific and 'aids' communities for their tendentious selectivity in presenting 'hiv/aids' issues; they have behaved like bought politicians propagating 'hiv' propaganda. Their 'hiv' coverage is a sweet-smelly mixture of saccharine and kak. They must be made to eat crow (including feathers) for writing 'hiv'-related bullshit. At this late stage, they dare not admit that they made a colossal blunder in pushing the 'hiv' lie; yet they continue to do so. They are digging their own (albeit shallow) graves.