1



 Is HIV to AIDS what SARS-
CoV-2 is to COVID?

by Torsten Engelbrecht, Kelly Brogan MD,

Andrew Kaufman MD, Magdalene Taylor

Copyright © 2021

2





Is HIV to AIDS what SARS-
CoV-2 is to COVID?

Ads;fasdf;ljasd;fkj
asd;lfjasd;lfjasd;lf
kjasd;lfjasd;lfjasd;

"The idea that certain microbes - above all fungi, bacteria and viruses -
are our great opponents in battle, causing certain diseases that must be
fought with special chemical bombs, has buried itself deep into the
collective conscience. But a dig through history reveals that the Western
world has only been dominated by the medial dogma of 'one disease, one
cause, one miracle pill' since the end of the 19th century with the
emergence of the pharmaceutical industry. Prior to that, we had a very
different mindset, and even today, there are still traces everywhere of this
different consciousness.”
– excerpt from the book “Virus Mania” by Engelbrecht et al

 I MAGINE AN ENEMY THAT IS INVISIBLE, like a ghost or demon, except to

those who have special visionary powers. It lurks in unsuspecting places,
turning every person and every place into a potential threat. Once it takes hold,
there's no stopping it without the help of an arsenal of powerful poisons
provided by the trusted protectors who are practiced at such exorcisms and
know that their work inevitably results in some collateral damage. It's a
necessary sacrifice to exterminate the enemy. All bow to those who might
protect us from this demonic takeover. There is no sacrifice too great if it
promises to save us from such possession.

What if we told you that there is as much evidence for germs causing (or being the
primary cause of) illness as there is for demonic possession with invisible entities
that make us cough, purge, and waste away? And what if our collective belief in
contagion, infection, and associated precautions, preventatives, and treatments is
actually a belief system that has been leveraged for a century in service of
population control and even depopulation?

We assert that the notion of the SARS-CoV-2 virus causing “COVID” is a

recapitulation of the international infectious disease coup that took hold in
the 1980s, namely, that HIV causes AIDS. The aim here is to present our
ndings to propose that AIDS was a dress rehearsal for the present
entrapment of citizens worldwide using the dominant COVID narrative.

But let's back up to con rm that our de nitions are well-clari ed.

What exactly is the consensus theory of infection and contagion, otherwise known
as germ theory?

Germ theory posits that microbes - including unmoving fragments of enveloped

genetic material referred to as viruses - cause illness through exposure, bodily
invasion, and replication, ultimately leading to disease, disability and death. Seems
obvious, right? This theory also happens to be foundational to the Western
allopathic medical system and the justi cation for public health measures imposed

4
fi

fi
fi
fi

fi

 in violation of bodily sovereignty (for example, mandated vaccination in exchange

for “privileges” which may actually be inalienable rights). But what if germ theory
and associated premises represent an incomplete (or complete mis!)
understanding? What if the establishment's foundational validation of germ theory,
called Koch’s postulates, have never actually been ful lled by a single, so-called
infectious agent? Koch’s postulates essentially state that a microbe must be isolated
and puri ed from a sick person and then used to cause the same symptoms when
introduced to another host. Furthermore, this microbe must be found in
symptomatic people and not found in people without sickness symptoms. Given
the lack of validation of Koch’s postulates, germ theory demands further inquiry.

Ads;fasdf;ljasd;fkj
asd;lfjasd;lfjasd;lf
kjasd;lfjasd;lfjasd;
But inquiry of this kind is not permitted because we have not yet acknowledged
that medicine, itself, is a belief system. Many have believed, for example, that there
is such a thing as a chemical imbalance that causes mental illness and that this
imbalance must be managed with medications for life. These beliefs put the
believer in a position of helplessness relative to a bigger force that they cannot
match but can only mitigate. These beliefs keep us dependent victims, helpless in
the face of our problems. They keep us ghting a war that can never actually be
won because we are empowering the seeming enemy through our belief that this

5
fi
fi
fi

 enemy has power over us! Belief in germs spreading and causing disease is
what allows us, as a collective, to remain in the child psychology of ghting
the bad enemy we seek to one day beat with the help of the parent we always
hoped would protect us. It is black-and-white survivalist thinking that keeps us
stuck, afraid, and dependent on a system that tells us which people are safe and
which are unsafe, and even invites us to police ourselves and others in the name of
safety. It is also what leads us to dehumanize and objectify one another, wrapped
up in the illusion that we are somehow made up of entirely di erent goodness than
those whom we judge. It may feel to you like these are facts, not beliefs, but that’s
how all beliefs feel until we recognize that we have a choice to live by them…or to
think di erently.

6
ff
ff
fi
 The scientism alphabet
It is perfectly okay to be wrong and change your views; in fact, that is what science
is fundamentally about: a continual reckoning with inconsistencies and
contradictions that reveal the tortuous path to truth. If we had all the answers,
there would be no need for scientific experiments. What has happened to science,
however, is that it has become scientism, an ideological system of assumptions that
render it dogma, complete with taboos that are never to be spoken of, addressed, or
researched. Just think about the so-called “central dogma of biology,” the idea that
specific sequences of DNA become RNA and then build the proteins that comprise
your cells. In contrast to the idyllic view of scientists performing discovery-oriented
experiments to illuminate the fundamental nature of biology, the minds on the
frontlines of research are strangled by government funding sources that prize
profitable outcomes, by journals bought by industry, and by the reflexive moralistic
condemnation of anyone seeking to make inquiries into the status quo.

This medical-scienti c-industrial marriage has brought us many a meme that we

hold onto, societally, as unquestioned truths:

✦ That depression is a chemical imbalance

✦ That cholesterol causes heart disease
✦ That exposure to germs equals deadly infection, and vaccines protect
✦ That cancer is a genetic time bomb and caused above all by mutated genes
✦ That HIV causes AIDS, the equivalent of certain death
✦ That inherited genes cause illness

Assumptions: Accepted practice of medicine and science rests on

uninterrogated assumptions
One of the most compelling studies to interrogate the assumptions around
contagion and germ theory was conducted by the Public Health Service and the US
Navy under the supervision of Dr. Milton Rosenau in 1918 in healthy volunteers at
multiple locations.

7



fi

 His volunteers rst received one strain and then several strains of a bacterium
called Pfei er’s bacillus by spray and swab into their noses and throats and then into
their eyes. When that procedure failed to produce disease, other people were
inoculated with mixtures of other organisms isolated from the throats and noses of
in uenza patients. Next, some volunteers received injections of blood from
in uenza patients. Finally, 13 of the volunteers were taken into an in uenza ward
and exposed to 10 in uenza patients each. Each volunteer was to shake hands with
each patient, to talk with them at close range, and to permit them to cough directly
into their face. None of the volunteers in these experiments developed in uenza.
Rosenau was clearly puzzled, and he cautioned against drawing conclusions from
negative results. He ended his article in JAMA with a telling acknowledgement:

“We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the
disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to
person. Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure
what we know about the disease.”1

We have made such assumptions with infections like measles (and induced mass
hysteria), even though the foundational aspects of the assumption have been called
into question. Did you know that Dr. Stefan Lanka, himself a virologist, won a case
in a high German court in 2016 when he challenged the evidence for the existence of
the measles virus? He stated, “In the course of my studies, I and others have not
been able to nd proof of the existence of disease-causing viruses anywhere.”

Meanwhile, the greatest honor of having given space to the topic of "missing virus
detection" in the scienti c discussion goes to the Australian Eleni Papadopulos-
Eleopulos with her fundamental criticism of HIV being a potentially deadly virus.2

The challenge that assumptions present is that of petitio principia, or an e ort to

prove a claim through the declaration that the claim is already true. For example, a
person claims that the virus caused the symptoms and then calibrates the
diagnostic tests based on patients with symptoms.

8
fl
fl
ff
fi
fi
fl
fi

fl
ff
fl

 Belief: Accepted practice of conventional medicine and science is a belief-

based approach to understanding the human body and experience

“The fact that the RNA sequences that the scientists extracted from the
tissue samples and which the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests were nally
‘calibrated’ belong to a new pathogenic virus called SARS-CoV-2 is therefore
based on faith alone, not on sound research.”
– excerpt from Virus Mania by Engelbrecht et al

In medicine, the role of belief is referred to as the placebo e ect and e ectively
dismissed as a statistical nuisance. The truth is that the entire fabric of
conventional medicine rests on belief in the system itself. The role of belief in
scientism is cloaked in the purported objectivism of science and standardization of
medicine, and we are led to perceive “alternative medicine” is based on belief while
conventional medicine is based on “facts.” Importantly, nocebo research has
demonstrated that a loss of faith or belief in the intervention (typically
pharmaceutical) results in a loss of e ect. 

Probably the most powerful demonstration of this was a study entitled The Role of
Patient Expectancy in Placebo and Nocebo E ects in Antidepressant Trials . In
this study, 673 people who had been diagnosed with depression were given
uoxetine (generic Prozac) for 12 weeks. At the 12 week point, all patients were
informed that they would be randomized to placebo or continued on uoxetine.
Notably, BOTH the participants who continued on uoxetine and those who were
switched to placebo developed worsening depressive symptoms, suggesting two
noncompeting interpretations:

1. The initial e ect was attributable to placebo since all patients knew they were
receiving treatment (the study was open label)

2. The loss of benefit with the introduction of the possibility of being randomized
to placebo is the undoing of the placebo effect, or the nocebo effect.

9
fl
ff

ff

ff

fl
fi
ff

fl
ff

 This trial is one of many that demonstrate the most important factor in medical
outcomes is belief and associated mindset.

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that
is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or
authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion,
which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of
the New England Journal of Medicine.”
– Marcia Angell

Consensus: Accepted practice of medicine and science rests on commonly

adopted interventions rather than proven approaches

Back before the Cochrane Database was co-opted, they wrote about something
called “consensus medicine,” which is, as it sounds, the practice of medicine that is
based not on evidence, but on what is most commonly being done. 

A provocative and important piece in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings posed the question:

"How many contemporary medical practices are not any better than or
are worse than doing nothing or doing something else that is simpler or
less expensive? This is an important question, given the negative
repercussions for patients and the health care system of continuing to
endorse futile, inefficient, expensive, or harmful interventions, tests, or
management strategies."

In this investigation, Prasad and colleagues analyzed 2,044 articles that were
originally published in the New England Journal of Medicine from 2001 to 2010 and
classi ed the articles based on whether they tested a new or existing treatment and
whether the results challenged or supported the treatment’s e cacy. They found
that 40.2% of the articles argued for "medical reversal,” recommending to
stop a treatment because it was not actually evidenced-based. Over 10 years, a
total of 128 medical practices were brought into the harsh light of evidence,
meaning that a major memo should have been disseminated and doctors around

10
fi

ffi

the country made aware of the need to change what they were doing. Further,
these studies should have alerted us to the evidence calling the practice into
question.  To the contrary, Prasad et al discuss:

"Although there is a weak evidence base for some practice, it gains

acceptance largely through vocal support from prominent advocates and
faith that the mechanism of action is sound. Later, future trials
undermine the therapy, but removing the contradicted practice often
proves challenging."

They reference a related review in the British Medical Journal that evaluated
3,000 medical practices and found that more than one third are effective or
likely to be, 15% are harmful, and 50% are unknown. It’s important to note
that many of these short-term trials do not pick up treatment harms that take
months or years to emerge and that establishing risk is much more complex
than demonstrating efficacy.

A common practice of the pharmaceutical industry is to create and widely share

“studies” intended to assure the public of safety and to erase any concerns about
risk for various treatments. Only after decades of accumulated damage is the
unavoidable population-based data able to overturn the pharmaceutical agenda.
We’ve seen this over and over again; a few examples include cigarettes,
diethylstilboestrol (DES), thalidomide, COX inhibitors, BPA, and the relationship
between neurological damage and vaccination.

Dogma: Accepted practice of medicine and science rests on dogmatic

defense of assumptions, belief, and consensus with dismissal,
marginalization, and silencing of dissent

Germ theory has been placed in a position of supremacy without adequate

evidence. This monolithic belief system is upheld and defended as the only
legitimate and unquestionable worldview for infectious disease by the demand

11

 for conformity and compliance through coercion, shaming, and bullying by the
medical establishment.

You might notice that debating “science” is ineffective. You might also notice that
dissenters such as the authors of this paper are typically character-assassinated
through controlled media outlets rather than invited to reasonable debate. These are
not the tools of sincere scientific inquiry in service of human wellbeing, but instead
the tools that a brotherhood-led cult would employ to silence any rogue voices.

What can we learn from the AIDS epidemic?

Similar to mental illnesses, AIDS is a syndrome of more than 25 diseases and not a
de ned disease entity in itself. AIDS even has di erent diagnostic criteria in
di erent parts of the world. Notably, part of the de nition of AIDS is the presence of
antibodies speci c for the so-called Human Immunode ciency Virus (HIV), though a
person with circulating “HIV” antibodies is not necessarily sick, nor do we know that
they will become so (since natural history studies that controlled for lifestyle factors
have not been done). Ultimately, because the diagnosis of AIDS has been de ned by
the detection of HIV antibodies, we have not needed to scienti cally establish
causality. In fact, to date, no one - Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo included - has
been able to present to nd a mechanistic study showing how the HIV virus
translates into AIDS symptoms.3

Because of this lack of causality, two people presenting with symptoms of a given
disease in the long list of AIDS-de ning illnesses may be given totally di erent
diagnoses. For instance, if one person tests as so-called HIV-positive, they are
labeled with AIDS, and the other, with a negative HIV test, is simply diagnosed with
the presenting diseases themselves, such as Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP)
or Kaposi’s sarcoma. The hexing power of the AIDS diagnosis is, of course, not to be
lightly dismissed as we learn more about the power of the nocebo e ect to
negatively in uence the immune system. And we cannot dismiss the myriad of
other factors, including the use of recreational and prescribed pharmaceutical
drugs, that contribute to severe immunosuppression.

12
ff
fi
fl
fi

fi

fi
ff
fi

fi
fi
ff
ff
fi
People referred to as AIDS patients may be a ected by immunosuppression that
leads to opportunistic infections, but this phenomenon has been observed prior to
AIDS and is associated with many other conditions. These conditions include severe
combined immuno-de ciency (SCID), agammaglobulinemia, blood cancers, aplastic
anemia, transplant surgery, intravenous drug use, and chemotherapy.

What HIV/AIDS and SARS-CoV-2/COVID have in common

Ads;fasdf;ljasd;fkj
asd;lfjasd;lfjasd;lf
kjasd;lfjasd;lfjasd;
"I'm not going to change the facts around because I believe in something
and feel like manipulating somebody's behavior by stretching what I really
know. I think it's always the right thing and the safe thing for a scientist to
speak one's mind from the facts. If you can't gure out why you believe
something, then you'd better make it clear that you're speaking as a
religious person."
– Kary Mullis, Nobel-prize winning inventor of PCR

13

fi
fi
ff

 1. There is a claim of a new virus, but the virus was never conclusively
demonstrated to exist nor cause a novel disease.

HIV is said to belong to a class of viruses called retroviruses. In order to prove this
claim, HIV must be isolated as a pure virus so that it can be imaged with an electron
microscope. However, all electron micrographs of so-called HIV taken in the
mid-1980s did not come from a patient’s blood, but instead from lab-made cell
culture soup. In some cases, the cells had been cooked up for a week in a Petri dish.

Moreover, it was presumed that the (indirectly detected) presence of an enzyme

called reverse transcriptase was su cient to prove the existence of a retrovirus and
even a viral infection of the tested cells in culture. In 1983, Luc Montagnier of the
Institut Pasteur in Paris published an article in Science asserting that his research
team had found a new retrovirus, which would later be named HIV. This claim was
made after only reverse transcriptase activity had been observed in cell culture

But there was no scienti c proof for this conclusion. Eleven years before, in 1972,
Temin and Baltimore had stated that “reverse transcriptase is a property that is
innate to all cells and is not restricted to retroviruses.” And even Françoise Barré-
Sinoussi and Jean Claude Chermann, the most important co-authors of
Montagnier’s 1983 Science paper, concluded in 1973 that reverse transcriptase is
not speci c to retroviruses, but rather exists in all cells. In other words, if the
enzyme reverse transcriptase is found in a laboratory culture, one cannot conclude,
as Montagnier did, that a retrovirus, let alone a speci c strain of retrovirus, has
been found.4

Viral characterization was essentially on hold until 1997, when Hans Gelderblom of
the Robert Koch-Institute in Berlin rekindled efforts to visualize the HIV virus. But
Gelderblom’s article, published in the journal Virology, leaves out the purification and
characterization of the virus and merely states that the protein p24 was found, not
providing proof that the particles are HIV. The second image of an AIDS patient’s
blood came from the American National Cancer Institute. In this case, the protein and
RNA particles that were made visible did not have morphology typical of retroviruses.

14
fi

fi
ffi

fi

 Additionally, mainstream AIDS researchers claim that proteins like p24 and p18 are
speci c to HIV, and they use them as surrogate HIV markers, but in fact these
markers are also found in a number of so-called “uninfected” human tissue
samples. Even Luc Montagnier later admitted in an interview with the journal
Continuum in 1997 that even after “Roman e ort” with electron micrographs of the
cell culture that detected alleged HIV, no particles were visible with “morphology
typical of retroviruses.”

The fact that a clear image of HIV particles with retrovirus morphology has not been
produced, despite an enormous amount of nancial resources and public interest,
is suspicious at best and malicious at worst.

“‘This patient has tuberculosis, that one chronic diarrhea, this one malaria
and that one leprosy’ - all diseases that have been known in Africa for ages.
But then everything was rediagnosed as AIDS - out of fear of AIDS.’”
– Neville Hodgkinson quoted in Virus Mania5

In the case of SARS-CoV-2, in a request for a study which shows complete isolation
and puri cation of the particles claimed to be SARS-CoV-2, Michael Laue from one
of the world’s most important representatives of the COVID-19 “pandemic,” the
German Robert Koch Institute (RKI), answered that: "I am not aware of a paper
which puri ed isolated SARS-CoV-2." This is a remarkable admission of failure and
in line with the statements that Torsten Engelbrecht et al. presented in the article
“COVID-19 PCR Tests Are Scienti cally Meaningless,” which O Guardian published
on June 27th, 2020. This was the rst worldwide article outlining in detail why SARS-
CoV-2 PCR tests are worthless for the diagnosis of a viral infection.

One of the crucial points in this analysis was the claim by ‘science’ of a new and
potentially deadly virus SARS-CoV-2, given that the studies claiming “isolation” failed
to isolate the particles said to be the new virus.

This is con rmed by the answers of the respective studies’ scientists to our inquiry,
which are shown in a table in our piece — among them the world’s most important

15
fi
fi
fi
fi

fi
fi

fi

ff

ff

paper when it comes to the claim of having detected SARS-CoV-2 (by Zhu et al.),
published in the New England Journal of Medicine on February 20, 2020, and now
even the RKI.

Additionally, Christine Massey, a Canadian former biostatistician in the eld of

cancer research, and a colleague of hers in New Zealand, Michael Speth, as well as
several individuals around the world (most of whom prefer to remain anonymous)
have submitted Freedom of Information requests to dozens of health and science
institutions and a handful of political o ces around the world.

They are seeking any records that describe the isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus from
any unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient.

As of the date of this writing, all 68 responding institutions/o ces failed to provide
or cite any record describing “SARS-COV-2” isolation, and Germany’s Ministry of
Health ignored their FOI request altogether.

The German entrepreneur Samuel Eckert asked health authorities from various
cities, such as Munich, Dusseldorf, and Zurich, for a study proving complete

16

ffi

ffi

fi

isolation and puri cation of so-called SARS-CoV-2. He has not obtained any answer.
Eckert even o ered €230,000 to Christian Drosten if he can provide any published
evidence that scienti cally prove the process of isolation of SARS-CoV-2 and its
genetic substance. The deadline (December 31, 2020) has passed without Drosten
responding to Eckert. In another attempt, the German journalist Hans Tolzin o ered
a reward of €100,000 for a scienti c publication outlining a successful infection
attempt with the speci c SARS-CoV-2 reliably resulting in respiratory illness in the
test subjects. No responses had been submitted.

Moreover, the electron micrographs printed in the relevant studies, which show
particles that are supposed to represent SARS-CoV-2, reveal that these particles
show extreme variations in size. In fact, the diameters range from 60 to 140
nanometers (nm). A virus that has such extreme size variation cannot actually exist.

According to virology principles, each virus has a fairly stable structure. Recently,
the Wikipedia entry on coronavirus was changed to now report that “Each SARS-
CoV-2 virion has a diameter of about 50 to 200 nm.” That would be like saying that a
person varies his height from 1 to 4 meters according to circumstances!6

2. There is the declaration of a new disease that is caused by said theoretical

virus based on very few case observations while the media reports multitudes
of new cases.

Contrary to public pronouncements, neither AIDS nor COVID-19 are new diseases.
In late 1980 and early 1981, UCLA researcher Michael Gottlieb inexplicably initiated
a campaign to promote the belief that there was a "new" contagious disease
spreading among gay men—based on a mere 5 cases! Common "lifestyle" factors
were summarily dismissed, most notably the frequent use of nitrite inhalants
("poppers"), a recreational drug widely used by gay men, including all 5 of these rst
reported "AIDS" cases. Gottlieb's e orts to lobby the CDC and news media to
support his single-minded "viral causation" campaign proved highly successful, and
he helped launch the multi-trillion dollar "AIDS" industry. 

17
ff

fi
fi
fi
fi
ff

ff
fi

The afflicted patients suffered from the pulmonary disease pneumocystis carinii
pneumonia (PCP), which was highly unusual for young men in their prime. Older
adults, those on immunosuppressive medication, or babies born with an
immune deficiency are the usual victims. The AIDS medical researchers
apparently took no other factors into account concerning the cause of PCP, such
as the patients’ drug use.

Instead, the medical establishment and the CDC gave the impression that the cause
of PCP was completely mystifying, setting up the launch of a new disease. The CDC
eagerly embraced Gottlieb’s theses: “Hot stu , hot stu ,” cheered the CDC’s James
Curran. It was so “hot,” that, on June 5 1981, the CDC heralded it as a red-hot piece
of news in their weekly bulletin, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR),
which is also a preferred information source for the media.

In this MMWR, it was immediately conjectured that this mysterious new disease
could have been caused by sexual contact, and was thus infectious. In fact, there
was no evidence at all for such speculation, for the patients neither knew each
other, nor had common sexual contacts or acquaintances, nor had they
comparable histories of sexually transmitted diseases.

“Sex, being three billion years old, is not speci c to any one group—and thus
naturally does not come into question as a possible explanation for a new sort of
disease,“ pointed out microbiologist Peter Duesberg of the University of California,
Berkeley. “But buried in Gottlieb’s paper was another common risk factor [criminally
neglected by the CDC] that linked the ve patients much more speci cally than sex.”
These risk factors included a highly toxic lifestyle and use of recreational drugs that
were frequently consumed in the gay scene, primarily poppers.7

Similarly, there are also no specific symptoms related to so-called COVID-19. The
notion that “COVID-19” is not a new disease was confirmed by Thomas Löscher,
an infectious diseases physician, who stated in an email that “for most respiratory
diseases there are no unmistakable specific symptoms. Therefore, a
differentiation of the different pathogens is purely clinically impossible.”8 This was

18

fi
ff
fi
ff

fi
 confirmed by the journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt on January 11, 2021: “The findings
on computer tomograph are not specific to COVID-19, but may also be present in
other pneumonias.”9

This means that COVID-19 can only be diagnosed on the basis of a "positive" PCR
test. But these SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR tests are completely unsuitable for the
diagnosis of COVID-19; to understand why these tests are scienti cally meaningless,
please read the detailed description in the subchapter “Total Failure of the PCR Test:
No Gold Standard, No ‘Viral Load’ Measurement, Not for Diagnostic Purposes” of
the book “Virus Mania” by Torsten Engelbrecht et al.10

We posit that AIDS and COVID-19 are purely test pandemics. They are not "virus
pandemics," but instead an antibody test pandemic (AIDS) and a PCR test
pandemic (COVID-19).

While in the case of AIDS, it was falsely claimed that ve gay men were responsible
for the start of the epidemic, in the case of COVID-19, it was 41 people who were
claimed to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 at the Huanan Seafood Market,
Wuhan, without a shred of evidence to support this claim.11

3. Unvalidated and manipulated testing protocols are used to de ne cases of

the illness.

This seminal article lists 66 di erent factors known to trigger a "positive" HIV
antibody test, clearly showing that this diagnostic test is nonspeci c:

WHOSE ANTIBODIES ARE THEY ANYWAY?

Factors Known to Cause False Positive HIV Antibody Test Results 
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjtestfp.htm

19





ff



fi

fi
fi

fi


Dr. Roberto Giraldo, who worked in a Manhattan hospital laboratory performing
HIV diagnostic tests, revealed that blood serum was routinely diluted 1:400 before
performing the Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) HIV antibody test.
However, on a large group of undiluted specimens, all samples which previously
returned a "negative" result suddenly became "positive."

As Thomas Zuck of the FDA warned in 1986, ELISA antibody tests were not
designed specifically to detect HIV. The first HIV antibody test, which was
developed in 1985, was designed to screen blood products, not to diagnose AIDS;
this was also stated in the study “Human Immunodeficiency Virus Diagnostic
Testing: 30 Years of Evolution.”12 Furthermore, the German weekly newspaper Die
Woche wrote in 1993 that HIV tests “also reacted in people who had survived
tuberculosis;” additionally, dozens of other symptoms, including pregnancy or flu,
could cause a “positive” reaction).

In case of COVID-19, the linchpin was the PCR test. But the SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR
tests are unsuitable for the diagnosis of COVID-19, mainly because there is no proof
that the particles claimed to be SARS-CoV-2 are “evil” viruses and there is no solid
gold standard for the PCR tests. These tests cannot detect infections nor measure
the viral load of a patient (see the subchapter “Total Failure of the PCR Test: No Gold
Standard, No ‘Viral Load’ Measurement, Not for Diagnostic Purposes” of the book
“Virus Mania” by Torsten Engelbrecht et al.).13

4. Then (mid-1980s) as now (2020/2021), Anthony Fauci was one of the key
players in the global virus business.

Anthony Fauci is an American physician-scientist and immunologist who serves as

the director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
and the chief medical advisor to the president. As a physician with the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), Fauci has worked in the American public health sector in
various capacities for more than 50 years, and he has acted as an advisor to every
US president since Reagan.

20

 After completing his medical residency in 1968, Fauci joined the NIH as a clinical
associate in the NIAID Laboratory of Clinical Investigation (LCI). He became head of
the LCI's Clinical Physiology Section in 1974, and in 1980 was appointed chief of the
NIAID's Laboratory of Immunoregulation. In 1984, he became director of the NIAID,
a position he still holds. Fauci has been o ered the position of director of the NIH
several times, but he has declined each time. 

Fauci has been at the forefront of US e orts to contend with viral diseases like HIV/
AIDS, SARS, the Swine u, MERS, Ebola, and COVID-19. As the planet’s “Virus Tsar”
since 1984, Fauci has spread misinformation and ignored critical questions. Under
Fauci’s aegis, Robert Gallo was able to promote his unfounded HIV/AIDS thesis to
the world as the eternal truth. Fauci also succeeded in the mid-1980s in spreading
the alleged “HIV test” worldwide, and in 1987, he presided over the fraudulent
approval of zidovudine (AZT) for AIDS.

In the decades that followed, Fauci continued to spread one untruth after another.
With the bird u, he predicted “two to seven million deaths” worldwide, whereas in
reality, according to o cial gures, only 100 deaths were counted. With the swine
u vaccine, he claimed that it was only “very, very, very rarely” associated with
severe side e ects, although the data for such statements was not even available
and later it became apparent that there were many side e ects, including severe
neurological complications.

Fauci has recommended “pre-exposure prophylaxis” (PrEP) in the context of AIDS,

suggesting that even people who are “HIV-negative” take medication “just in case.”
But when Torsten Engelbrecht, one of the authors of this paper, asked Fauci to back
up his claims, he refused to comment on whether there was any solid scienti c
evidence for PrEP. Hillary Ho man from the communications department of NIAID
merely just let him know: “Dr. Fauci respectfully declines to respond to the
questions that you emailed.”

Fauci’s pattern of not wanting to answer critical questions pervades his entire
career. For example, in 1987, NBC News reporter Perri Peltz wanted to confront

21
fl
ff
fl
ffi
fl
fi

ff

ff
ff

ff
fi
 Fauci with criticisms about the AZT approval study, but he characteristically refused.
“Welcome to the club, Perri!” wrote John Lauritsen in his book “The AIDS War:
Propaganda, Pro teering and Genocide from the Medical-Industrial Complex.”
According to Lauritsen, Fauci also “refused to speak to the BBC, Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation Radio, Channel 4 (London) television, Italian television,
The New Scientist, and Jack Anderson” about the fraudulent 1987 AZT trial.

Two years before that, on October 2, 1985, Rock Hudson, who gave HIV/AIDS “a
face,” died during Fauci’s term in o ce. And just like Roy Horn in 2020, world-
famous stars in the early days of the “AIDS era” were experimented on with
potentially lethal drugs. The rst really famous victim was Hudson, who was treated
with agents such as HPA-23, a drug for which no scienti cally-controlled studies had
been carried out. Though there was no proof of e cacy with regards to Hudson’s
illness, the liver-damaging and potentially lethal e ects alone were su ciently
documented, and the highly toxic e ects were especially dangerous for patients
that already had underlying health problems.

Sounds a lot like COVID-19, except that there are 35 years in between14 15 (see also
point 8 below).

5. Hexing or the nocebo effect of a “positive” test drives illness and negative
outcomes secondary to media fearmongering.

The in uence of doom and gloom messaging from the authorities, the ‘experts,’ is an
aspect that is often overlooked or not even considered as a factor in the
deterioration of our health. The nocebo e ect occurs when a patient’s negative
expectations of a treatment cause the treatment to have an even more negative
e ect. Similarly, this nocebo e ect could also occur when the threat of a deadly
pandemic is thrust upon the many. Some will immediately start producing dis-ease
symptoms if they believe these pronouncements without question, especially if they
are found to be ‘positive’ after being tested.

22
ff
fl

fi
fi
ff
ffi
ff
ff

ffi
ff
fi
ffi

This is very likely what has happened since March 2020 when the COVID-19
pandemic was rst declared. There has clearly been a worldwide avalanche of
frightening rhetoric broadcasted via governments and mainstream media. The
threat of vast numbers of cases and deaths have been continually projected onto
the public, demanding they must strictly adhere to the government regulations.
This has put the believers instantly into a state of fear whereby they blindly accept
the frightening prophecies without question.

Whether or not the highly questionable disease diagnosis is considered either

symptomatic or asymptomatic, the psychological e ect of a negative prognosis on
an individual can be profound if they believe they are ‘infected’. Equally, this
manufactured fear coming from positive test result could evolve into the fear of
others ‘infecting’ you, or that you will ‘infect’ others, such as your grandmother.

A positive COVID-19 test result will create varying degrees of fear and anxiety
depending on the individual’s belief system. For some there will be many anxieties
emerging after a positive test result. For example, Will I survive? Will I be responsible
for transmitting disease and cause a fatality? And so on. It is hard to know how many
symptoms of disease are caused by these fears rather than any illness.

As the COVID ‘pandemic’ has been in progress for over fourteen months, some
people have unraveled into a chronic state of anxiety, particularly if they have
received one or more ‘positive’ test results. An excessive or persistent state of
anxiety can have a devastating e ect on your physical and mental health, resulting
in a variety of symptoms.16

Those who are more susceptible to psychosomatic illness are especially likely to
experience a deterioration of health and, given the ever-widening symptomology of
COVID-19, they may start producing some of these symptoms.

Parallels can be drawn to the time when AIDS was declared and terror spread
across the globe during the 1980s. This was followed by the growth in numbers of

23
fi

ff

ff

HIV positive test results. These questionable test results were like receiving a death
sentence for some.

Early on in the so-called AIDS epidemic, gay journalist and former statistician John
Lauritsen correctly identi ed the psychological dangers of informing people that
they were infected with an invariably fatal "virus." Out of fear, many of these
individuals succumbed to the media blitz promoting highly toxic "AIDS treatments"
which, combined with the extreme fear, led to a self-ful lling prophecy. Many other
people simply committed suicide after receiving their "test results." 

Has the suicide rate increased since the COVID pandemic emerged? At the time of
writing, “apparently not,” according to a recently published BMJ article.17 However,
the aftermath is uncertain. Unemployment, bankruptcy, loss of hopefulness and
fear of what the future may hold all have the potential to increase the suicide rate.
Only time will tell. Lauritsen pointed out in his 1991 article: ‘There can be no doubt
that extreme and chronic fear, depression, stress, and grief are capable of causing
illness and death.’18

Lauritsen referred to a 1984 published paper by Casper Schmidt in the Journal of

Psychohistory about the e ects of psychosomatic illness entitled: "The Group-
Fantasy Origins of AIDS". Schmidt proposed that ‘chronic and inescapable fear can
elicit a biochemical reaction in the body, which in time causes "psychogenically-
reduced cell-mediated immunity." He maintained that this hypothesis has ful lled
the animal model for "AIDS," inasmuch as laboratory animals subjected to
inescapable threats have developed immune de ciency.’

It almost goes without saying that Schmidt’s hypothesis was unwelcomed and
dismissed by mainstream medicine. As a consequence, the term denier or denialist
is attached to any individual proposing an alternative stance on a subject, eg AIDS
denier.19  This labelling is presently being used for any individual, especially any
academics, who question either the SARS-CoV-2 and/or COVID-19. They are
instantly placed into the realms of denialism.

24

fi
ff

fi
fi

fi
 Another paper Lauritsen cited in his article was the 1990 "Programmed to Die:
Cultural Hypnosis and AIDS" manuscript by Michael Ellner and Andrew Cort.
According to Lauritsen, the authors state: ‘Bone pointing, or voodoo death, is a well-
documented hypnotic phenomenon that clearly demonstrates the awesome power
of belief. There are people in Africa, Haiti and Australia with the belief that the
shaman (or witch doctor) has power over life and death. For them, being the target
of a bone pointed by such an authority can be fatal. The hex is harmless to a non-
believer; but to a believer it is deadly. After having a bone pointed at them, healthy
people go home and obediently die.’

Knowingly misusing inappropriate PCR testing and other similar methods will not
only lead to false results but may also be detrimental to those who believe their
diagnosis. Lauritsen refers to a phrase summed up by an East Berlin writer: “Nicht
das Virus, sondern die Diagnose totet”. (“The virus doesn’t kill, the diagnosis does.”)

6. Celebrities and horror images spread via TV channels and social media are
used to reinforce virus dogma.

In the case of HIV/AIDS, the horror images spread via TV channels came especially
from su ering and dying celebrities. A kind of “big bang” for the HIV=AIDS narrative
was when Hollywood actor Rock Hudson, a tall image of American masculinity, was
presented to the world as the rst megastar with AIDS in the mid-1980s. In July
1985, Hudson revealed to the public that he had AIDS (a year after his “positive”
test), and died only a few months later. Hudson’s death brought the AIDS
phenomenon out of the gay community and conveyed the message that a real
epidemic was underway.

People were told that if AIDS can a ect someone like Hudson, it can a ect anyone,
men and women alike. However, Rock Hudson had been drinking and chain-
smoking for decades, which is very damaging to the liver and the body as a whole,
and he had undergone heart surgery at the age of 56. In this unstable physical
state, Hudson received experimental drugs such as HPA-23 for at least twelve
months before his death. This highly toxic medication may have played a crucial

25
ff

fi

ff

ff

 part in Hudson’s death in October 1985. Remarkably, Hudson’s male partner had
tested “negative” and had no AIDS symptoms, something that clearly speaks against
AIDS being a viral disease as well.20 

Other celebrities whose deaths were used to set the HIV=AIDS dogma in stone were
Freddie Mercury, Rudolf Nureyev, and Arthur Ashe. Freddie Mercury, former
frontman of British rock band Queen and who was bisexual, was terri ed by the
“positive” test result and took his doctor’s advice to begin taking AZT. Mercury
belonged to the rst generation of patients who received the full AZT load. At the
end, he looked like a skeleton and died in November 1991 at the age of 45.

Rudolf Nureyev, held by many to be the greatest ballet dancer of all time, also
began taking AZT at the end of the 1980s. Nureyev was HIV “positive,” but otherwise
he was completely healthy. His personal physician, Michel Canesi, recognized the
deadly e ects of AZT and even warned him about the drug. But Nureyev
proclaimed, “I want that drug!” Ultimately, he died in Paris in 1993, the same year
that former Wimbledon champion Arthur Ashe met his maker at the age of 49 after
he had been declared HIV “positive“ in 1988 and his doctor prescribed an extremely
high AZT dose. Ashe wanted to stop taking AZT, but he didn’t dare: “What will I tell
my doctors?” he asked the New York Daily News.

What American tennis legend Ashe didn’t have the heart to do - resist the pressure
of prevailing AIDS medicine and decide against taking AZT - apparently saved the
life of basketball megastar Earvin “Magic” Johnson. At the end of 1991, Magic
shocked the world with the news he had tested HIV “positive.” “It can happen to
anybody, even Magic Johnson,” said Time magazine on 18 November 1991.

There was no evidence to support the claim that he had been infected with a virus
named HIV. Magic Johnson had just tested “positive,” but at the same time, he was
the picture of health, until Fauci and his personal doctor, the New York AIDS
researcher David Ho, insistently advised Johnson to take AZT. Johnson followed
their advice, and his health rapidly deteriorated. Unfortunately, virus mania was by

26
ff
fi

fi

 then so dominant that nobody thought that the extremely toxic medications could
have caused Magic’s serious health problems.

In the summer of 1992, after the media announced his retirement from basketball
in late 1991, he even led the US basketball team to the gold medal at the Olympic
Games in Barcelona. This was a grandiose achievement, and had he still been under
the in uence of AZT, there was no way he could have accomplished such a thing.21

In the case of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19, the death of magician Roy Horn as well as

countless horror scenes burned a groundless virus dogma into people’s minds.
Horn, the legendary magician of Siegfried & Roy, passed away on May 8, 2020 at the
age of 75 years in Las Vegas after being treated with the highly toxic drug
Remdesivir. He was the rst megastar worldwide who was said to have died from
COVID-19 and thus from the so-called coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. However, again
there is no evidence to support this story. In fact, Horn was in such poor health that
it seems downright absurd to ignore non-viral factors such as his cancer disease as
well as the administration of Remdesivir as the cause of his sad demise.22

By mid-March 2020, media coverage was practically dominated by only one topic:
that the corona-related death toll in Italy had skyrocketed. Of course, the reporting
was always based on the narrative “SARS-CoV-2 = death” and was accompanied by
dramatic pictures of co ns without end, queues of military vehicles, and
overburdened hospitals. The horri c pictures from Italy and other parts of the
world that were circulated around the globe via TV and social media, alongside
drastic warnings from virologists of a deadly virus, rmly established the scary virus
story in many people’s minds.

7. Financial incentives drive increased testing, diagnosis, and treatment.

Federal funding for HIV research has increased signi cantly over time, rising in the
US from a few hundred thousand dollars in 1982 to more than $34.8 billion in 2019.
Between 1981 and 2006, US taxpayers shelled out $190 billion for AIDS research
that was focused almost exclusively on the deadly virus hypothesis and the

27
fl
ffi
fi

fi

fi
fi

 development of treatments. The same amount of taxpayer money went to AIDS

research in America in the ve years between 2014 and 2019. The global HIV drug
market was valued at $30.8 billion in 2019, and it is expected to reach $36.5 million
by 2027.

We posit that HIV/AIDS served as the salvation for the medical industry. By the late
1970s, medical experts lobbed damning critiques against mainstream cancer
research, which was the part of the medical industry which devoured by far the
most money. Medical scientists “had credited the retroviruses with every nasty thing
—above all the triggering of cancer—and have to accept constant mockery and
countless defeats,” the German news magazine Der Spiegel pointed out in 1986.

In addition to cancer, the concept that viruses are key causal factors has not been
established for other diseases either. One notorious example is the swine u
disaster of 1976. David Lewis, a young American recruit, collapsed during a march,
and so-called epidemic experts swooped in claiming they had isolated a swine u
virus from his lung. 

At the behest of the medical establishment, and particularly the CDC, the US
President Gerald Ford appeared on TV urging all Americans to get vaccinated
against an imminent deadly swine u epidemic. Just like the COVID-19, SARS, and
the avian u fearmongers, Ford used the great Spanish u pandemic of 1918 to
scare the public into action.

Approximately 50 million US citizens rushed to local health centers for injections of a

substance that had been hastily thrown on the market. It produced strong side
effects in 20 to 40 percent of recipients, including paralysis and death. Consequent
damage claims climbed to $2.7 billion. In the end, CDC director David Spencer, who
had even set up a swine flu “war room” to bolster public and media support, lost his
job. The bitter irony was that there were no, or only very isolated, reports of swine flu.

Consequently, at the end of the 1970s, the US National Institute of Health (NIH)
came into unsettled political waters, similar to the CDC, which was extensively

28

fl

fi

fl
fl
fl
fl

restructured at the beginning of the 1980s. As a result, the CDC and NIH, both
powerful organizations of health politics and biomedical science, had to redeem
themselves. A new “war” would, of course, be the best thing. Despite perpetual
setbacks, an “infectious disease” remained the most e ective way to catch public
attention and open government pockets. 

In fact, Red Cross o cer Paul Cumming told the San Francisco Chronicle in 1994 that
“the CDC increasingly needed a major epidemic” at the beginning of the 80s “to
justify its existence.” And the HIV/AIDS theory was just that. 

“All the old virus hunters from the National Cancer Institute put new signs on their
doors and became AIDS researchers. Reagan sent up about a billion dollars just for
starters,” according to Kary Mullis, Nobel laureate for Chemistry in 1993. “And
suddenly everybody who could claim to be any kind of medical scientist and who
hadn’t had anything much to do lately was fully employed. They still are.”

One of the best known people who jumped over from cancer research to AIDS
research is Robert Gallo. Along with Montagnier, Gallo was also considered to be
the discoverer of the “AIDS virus” and enjoys worldwide fame, reaching millionaire
status. On the other hand, he had almost lost his reputation as a cancer researcher
after his viral hypotheses on diseases like leukemia imploded. “HIV didn’t suddenly
pop out of the rain forest or Haiti,” writes Mullis. “It just popped into Bob Gallo’s
hands at a time when he needed a new career.”23

And the HIV/AIDS story started with big lies. The most important one was
announced in April 1984 by Gallo, working under Anthony Fauci, when he claimed
in a press conference that gained worldwide attention that “the probable cause of
AIDS has been found.”

Gallo’s papers were printed in the journal Science after his press conference and
also after he had led a patent application for an antibody test that was later
misleadingly named “HIV test.” Thus, nobody was able to review his work prior to
his spectacular TV appearance and for some time afterwards. This presented a

29
fi
ffi

ff

severe breach of professional scienti c etiquette. And as review later showed,

Gallo’s studies did not deliver any proof for the virus thesis.24 25

Additionally, the development of the tests was also primarily about license fees,
which lead to vast nancial gain.26 For instance, the global HIV diagnostics market
was valued at around $ 2.2 billion in 2014,27 and this market is projected to reach
$3.88 billion by 2021.

In 1995, Der Spiegel described the greed for money and fame associated with HIV/
AIDS as follows: “Even with the greats of the AIDS establishment, Gallo does not
hold back on psychiatric diagnoses. [According to Gallo,] one is a ‘control freak’, the
next is ‘uncreative’ and has a ‘complex’ because of it, a third is—‘can I be honest?’—
just plain ‘crazy.’ [Gallo’s] impetuous anger is real when he speaks of the ght for
power in the AIDS business, the ght for the money pot, the spiteful jealousy of
prestige. With AIDS a lot of money is at stake—and above all fame.”28

8. Toxic pharmaceutical interventions/“preventatives” and illicit drugs

result in adverse effects and death that is then attributed to the
purported “virus.”

There is solid reason to conclude that symptoms we associate with AIDS result from
the antiretroviral drugs and not from the so-called HIV virus. Indeed, published
studies suggest that the drug toxicity associated with AIDS treatment may very well
be the driver of most deaths.29 30 31. In the words of Matt Irwin, MD,32 “Many drugs
regularly used to treat people diagnosed as HIV-positive have severe
immunosuppressive e ects, as well as other serious adverse e ects. These include
corticosteroids, Zidovudine (AZT), other drugs in the same class as AZT, certain
antibiotics, and protease inhibitors…corticosteroids induce immunosuppression
that is claimed to be caused by HIV, with lowered CD4 counts and sparing of CD8
cells as well as sparing of antibody production.”

30
fi

ff
fi
fi

ff

fi
 Glaxo Wellcome puts the following warning in bold-faced caps at the start of the
section in the 1999 Physician’s Desk Reference that describes AZT (which is a
common antiretroviral drug originally developed for cancer).33

“RETROVIR (ZIDOVUDINE, AZT) MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH SEVERE

HEMATOLOGIC TOXICITY INCLUDING GRANULOCYTOPENIA AND SEVERE
ANEMIA PARTICULARLY IN PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED HIV DISEASE (SEE
WARNINGS). PROLONGED USE OF RETROVIR HAS ALSO BEEN
ASSOCIATED WITH SYMPTOMATIC MYOPATHY SIMILAR TO THAT
PRODUCED BY HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS.” (PDR 1999).

An earlier version of the PDR that was published in 1992 made the connection
even clearer:

It is often di cult to distinguish adverse events possibly associated with

Zidovudine (AZT) administration from underlying signs of HIV disease or
intercurrent illness. (PDR 1992)

Another recent study found that the antiretroviral drug Elvitegravir may severely
damage adaptive immune cells, namely B cells, likely contributing to chronic
immunosuppression.34

As mentioned earlier, the rst people to be diagnosed as AIDS patients in the US

were consumers of drugs like poppers, cocaine, LSD, heroin, ecstasy, and
amphetamines, all of which have devastating e ects on the immune system. The
destructive process of poppers converting into nitric oxide and damaging tissues is
particularly noticeable in the lungs, since poppers are inhaled and dead organic
material is produced, and fungi enter the area to ingest and metabolize this
damaged tissue “waste.” This explains why so many “AIDS patients” termed AIDS
cases, su er from pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), a lung disease typically
associated with strong fungal infestation and decay.

These patients’ immune systems are weakened, which “is the common denominator
for the development of PCP,” according to Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine.

31
ff
ffi

fi

ff

And the “disease [the immune deficiency upon which PCP develops] can be produced
in laboratory rats by starvation or by treatment with either corticosteroids [cortisone]
or cyclophosphamides”—i.e. with cell-inhibiting substances that are destructive to the
immune system, just like so-called AIDS therapeutics. 

Therefore, HIV is not needed to cause AIDS-associated symptoms. Studies show

that a stress factor, like the e ects of drugs, can trigger a new arrangement of
genetic sequences in cells, forming particles that are interpreted by the medical
industry as viruses invading from the outside (without any proof), instead of
vesicles produced endogenously.35

In relation to COVID-19, prophecies of doom, such as that of Germany's chief

virologist Drosten on March 6 that "278,000 corona fatalities are to be expected"
in Germany or that of British disease modeller Neil Ferguson, who predicted
about 510,000 corona deaths in mid-March 2020 for the UK and 2.2 million deaths
for the US if lockdown measures were not immediately implemented, gave
politicians the green light for a strict lockdown. But not only did such horror
scenarios lack any scientific basis even then, but also the hard data show that in
numerous countries, including Germany, there was no excess mortality at all in
the time period in question, and that even for increased mortalities seen in
countries such as Italy, Spain, France, England, or America, a virus cannot be
established as the definitive cause. Instead, the evidence suggests that it was
primarily the mass administration of preparations such as hydroxychloroquine,
Kaletra, or azithromycin that caused countless people to die prematurely and
create an excess mortality, but only within a very short period of time around
April 2020 (which also speaks against the virus hypothesis).36

9. There are no solid placebo-controlled trials for the drugs that are touted as
the one and only lifeline.

In July 1987, the New England Journal of Medicine published the results of the Phase
II clinical trials of the rst FDA-approved AIDS treatment, AZT. Although these
clinical trials by Fischl et al. were claimed to be "double-blind, placebo-controlled,"

32
fi

ff

 the study had become unblinded very early on, and an unknown number of
patients in the "placebo" arm were actually taking AZT. The study was characterized
by numerous protocol violations, poor record-keeping, and extreme sloppiness, as
exposed by journalist John Lauritsen, who discovered these serious problems after
obtaining multiple documents (which were heavily censored) through several FOI
requests. This Phase II study, intended to determine the safety and e cacy of AZT,
included a relatively small sample size of 282 patients, 95% of whom never
completed the full 24 weeks of the study. (The mean duration was 17.3 weeks.)  

Although FDA o cials were fully aware that the study had become unblinded and
that the data had become corrupted, they nonetheless decided to include ALL of the
bad data in their analysis, and the drug was approved. A Phase III clinical trial of
AZT, with a larger number of patients, was later conducted, although this study
experienced many of the same serious problems as the Phase II trials. This study
was prematurely terminated after it was declared that there was a signi cantly
improved outcome for the patients who were receiving the drug, and the FDA
announced that it would be "unethical" not to immediately unblind the study and
o er AZT to the patients who had been receiving the placebo.

The study was planned as a "double-blind" trial, which means that the drug was
supposed to be labelled and the study conducted in such a way that neither
doctors nor patients knew whether AZT or a placebo was being administered. In
practice, the AZT trial became unblinded rather quickly. An FDA medical o cer
wrote: "the fact that the treatment groups unblinded themselves early could have
resulted in bias in the workup of patients." 

The study became unblinded among the patients as a result of di erences in taste
between AZT and the placebo....  This di erence was corrected and the placebo
capsules replaced with new ones after early reports were received of patients
breaking the capsules and tasting the medication…

Other patients discovered what medication they were receiving by taking their
capsules to chemists for analysis. In some instances, patients pooled and shared

33
ff
ffi
ff

ff
ffi
fi
ffi

 their medication, thus ensuring that all of them could receive at least some
AZT. Other patients, who found out their medication was only a placebo, took
Ribavirin that had been smuggled in from Mexico. 

From the standpoint of the doctors, the study unblinded itself through the strikingly
di erent blood pro les of the two treatment groups. No attempt was made to blind
the blood results from any of the doctors in the medical centers at which the trials
were held. According to an FDA analyst: “The treatment groups may have unblinded
themselves to a large extent during the rst two months due to drug-induced
erythrocyte macrocytosis...” 

And since the AZT trial was not blinded, the entire study was invalid and
worthless. On this basis alone, FDA approval of the drug was neither proper nor legal.

In fact, Swiss newspaper Weltwoche termed the experiment a “gigantic botch-up” and
NBC News in New York branded the experiments, conducted across the US, as
“seriously flawed.” Mind you, the Fischl study was not the only one that was declared
to be placebo-controlled in the context of AIDS and AZT. Furthermore, the Concorde
study,37 published in the Lancet in 1994, and the Nature paper by Darby et al. both
showed that AZT shortens life.

The Concorde study, carried out between 1988 and 1991, showed that the group
receiving AZT experienced "more deaths and more frequent discontinuation of
therapy due to severe side e ects” than the placebo group.

The results were all the more remarkable when one considers that AZT was
administered to the test persons in a noticeably reduced dose (1,000 mg instead of
1,500 mg per day as was usual at the time and as was given also to the participants
of the Fischl study).

AZT also received a damning verdict from the Darby study, which appeared in
Nature in September 1995.38 In this work, the death rates of hemophiliacs in
England who had tested "HIV positive" were compared with those of the
"negatively" tested hemophiliacs for the period 1985 to 1992. The result was that

34
ff
fi

ff

fi

from 1985/1986 onwards, the death rate of hemophiliacs tested "positive" started
to increase, and from 1987 onwards, their death curve went up even more steeply.
In comparison, the death rate of hemophiliacs who tested negative for "HIV"
remained virtually unchanged.

For orthodox medicine, this was proof that HIV was responsible for the increase in
death rates among "HIV-positive" hemophiliacs. But this conclusion is not tenable.
Rather, the emergence of total AIDS hysteria and the accompanying mass
administration of highly toxic drugs was the cause of the sudden rise in the death rate
among "positive" hemophiliacs. Thus, the "HIV tests" came into mass use shortly after
their introduction in 1984/1985. At the same time, almost everyone in the world at that
time already had the formula "positive test = HIV infection = AIDS = death sentence"
firmly stored in their minds. This makes the increase in the death rate among
hemophiliacs from 1985 onwards easy to explain as all those who had received a
"positive" test result were put into a kind of shock, whereupon many of them
committed suicide. Moreover, with a "positive" test result (no matter how healthy or
sick), they were automatically treated with all kinds of substances, no matter how toxic,
and administered as permanent medication, including anti-fungal preparations or the
antibiotic Eusaprim, which inhibits cell division, as well as highly toxic antiviral drugs.

Der Spiegel, for example, noted in August 1985: "More than a dozen di erent drugs
are undergoing clinical trials in the U.S. alone—all of them so far not very successful
and burdened with the most serious side e ects. The substance 'HPA 23,’
developed at the Louis Pasteur Institute…also has its pitfalls. In Paris a clinical study
on 33 test persons with 'HPA 23' is running, but in quite a few patients the drug had
to be discontinued again because blood and liver were extremely damaged."

In the context of COVID-19, the parallel to the Fischl study was, in a sense, the
pivotal study of Gilead Sciences’ drug Remdesivir, which had been fast-tracked in
the US and approved for emergency use only on May 2, 2020. This study was also
essentially fraudulent, and yet it led to the approval of the rst drug intended for
the treatment of COVID-19 patients; and, just like AZT, this compound was touted as
the great hope.

35

ff
fi
ff

Remdesivir inhibits cell reproduction and can lead to premature death, especially in
the elderly with comorbidities, and its most serious side e ects include multi-organ
dysfunction, septic shock, and respiratory failure. Additionally, in experiments with
so-called Ebola patients, it was found that the drug elevates liver enzyme values,
which can be a sign of liver damage.

The fact that Remdesivir was presented as the savior for COVID-19 patients can only
be described as scandalous. In late April 2020, Anthony Fauci claimed that a study
had found that Remdesivir would reduce recovery time and reduce mortality.

But an article from the Alliance for Human Research and Protection (AHRP) entitled
“Fauci’s Promotional Hype Catapults Gilead’s Remdesivir” brought up a sensitive
subject: Fauci had a vested interest in this drug. He sponsored the clinical trial
whose detailed results have not been peer-reviewed. Additionally, he declared the
tenuous results to be ‘highly signi cant,’ and pronounced Remdesivir to be the new
‘standard of care.’ Fauci made the promotional pronouncement while sitting on a
couch in the White House, without providing a detailed news release or a brie ng at
a medical meeting or in a scienti c journal, as is the norm to allow scientists and
researchers to review the data. 

When he was asked about a Chinese study published in The Lancet on April 29th,
2020, a trial that was stopped because of serious adverse events in 16 (12%) of the
patients compared to 4 (5%) of patients in the placebo group, Fauci dismissed the
study as ‘not adequate.’

But whereas the Chinese study that Fauci denigrated was a randomized, double-
blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center study that was peer-reviewed and published
in The Lancet, with all data available, the NIAID-Gilead study results have not been
published in peer-reviewed literature, nor have details of the ndings been
disclosed. “However, they were publicly promoted by the head of the federal agency
that conducted the study, from the White House,” as the AHRP underlined. “What
better free advertisement?”39

36

fi
fi

ff
fi

fi
 10. The concept of 'asymptomatic carriers' and associated testing and
precautions recommended to healthy people is manufactured and leveraged.

In 1993, the CDC redefined the official meaning of an "AIDS case," causing many
"asymptomatic" people with an "HIV positive" diagnosis to immediately qualify as an
"AIDS case" in the absence of any true health symptoms. The definition of an AIDS
case in the USA was broadened to include people who had a count of CD4+
lymphocytes below 200 cells per microliter.  The old definition required that an "AIDS
case" represented someone who was actually ill with at least one "AIDS-defining
opportunistic infection." This change more than doubled the number of "AIDS cases"
overnight, giving the false impression of an increase in cases over time. 

Furthermore, a look at the CDC statistics before 1993 (and 2003 statistics from the
Robert Koch-Institute) shows that the number of AIDS deaths in the USA and in
Germany had already peaked in 1991, and then decreased in the years following.
Thus, the multiple combination therapy (HAART) and protease inhibitors that were
introduced in 1995/1996 cannot be responsible for this decrease. Newer CDC
statistics, however, do show that the mortality peak lies approximately in
1995/1996. How can this be?

According to statistician Vladimir Koliadin, who analyzed the mortality data, this is
due to the signi cant rede ning of what counts as an AIDS case that occurred in
1993, ensuring that the peak and decline of AIDS cases centered on the
introduction of treatments in the mid-1990s. “If public and policy makers would
have realized that the epidemic of AIDS was declining, this might have resulted in
reduction of budgets for AIDS research and prevention programs, including the
budget of the CDC themselves,” said Koliadin. “Expansion of the de nition of AIDS
in 1993 helped to disguise the downward trend in epidemic of AIDS. It is reasonable
to suppose that an essential motive behind the implementation of the new
de nition of AIDS just in 1993 was strong unwillingness of the CDC to reveal the
declining trend of AIDS epidemic.”

37
fi
fi
fi

fi

 Additionally, a meta-analysis of data from Europe, Australia, and Canada shows that
in 1995, patients used combination therapy only 0.5 percent of their treatment
time. In 1996, the value increased to 4.7 percent, which is still extremely low.
Former CDC director James Curran told CNN that, at the time, “less than 10 percent
of infected Americans had access to these new therapies, or were taking them.”

Ten years later, while the media celebrated HAART’s 10th birthday, the Lancet
published a study that challenged the propaganda about HAART, showing that
decreases in so-called viral load did not “translate into a decrease in mortality” for
people taking these highly toxic AIDS drug combinations. The multi-center study—
the largest and longest of its kind—tracked the e ects of HAART on 22,000
previously treatment-naïve HIV “positives“ between 1995 and 2003 at 12 locations in
Europe and the USA. The study’s results refute popular claims that the newer
HAART meds extend life and improve Health.

Commenting on the article, Felix de Fries of Study Group AIDS-Therapy in Zurich,

Switzerland had this to say: “The Lancet study shows that after a short period of
time, HAART treatment led to increases in precisely those opportunistic diseases
that de ne AIDS from fungal infections of the lungs, skin, and intestines to various
mycobacterial infections.” De Fries also notes that HAART has led to no sustained
increases in CD4 cell counts, no reduction in AIDS-de ning illness, and no decrease
in mortality rates; its use is also associated with a list of serious adverse events such
as cardiovascular disease, lipodystrophy, lactic acidosis, liver and kidney failure,
osteoporosis, thyroid dysfunction, neuropathy, and cancers among users.

We must also recognize that there are so-called long-term AIDS survivors or “non-
progressors”. Common to these “positive” people is the fact that they have rejected
AIDS medications from the start or only took them for a short time. Many of them
are or were still alive 20 years after they tested “positive.” 

The AIDS establishment calls these HIV “positive“ individuals who reject AIDS
medications “elite controllers,” as if they are somehow super-human. The
establishment now claims that 2 percent of AIDS patients may t this category, but

38
fi

ff
fi

fi

 only a large controlled global study (which has not been done) would be able to
determine the exact number of HIV “positive“ individuals who remain healthy
without taking AIDS drugs. However, the number of “elite controllers” is probably
much higher, yet the “vast majority of [so-called] HIV-“positives“ are long-term
survivors!” as Berkeley microbiologist Peter Duesberg states. “Worldwide they
number many, many millions.” And indeed, in industrialized countries, the majority
of those testing "positive" for "HIV" are asymptomatic.40

The same holds for COVID-19: Here, too, the majority of those testing "positive" are
symptom-free. Here, the topic of "infection by the symptomless" was taken to the
extreme of absurdity.

The false claim that a human being can pass on a virus without symptoms is
particularly perfidious since it corrodes society; everyone sees in his fellow human
being only a highly dangerous virus slinger and reacts to this with disgust, aggression,
or fear and panic. Since even school children are indoctrinated by parents and
teachers in this sense, massive behavioral and developmental disorders are already
foreseeable. Unfortunately, the media manipulation unleashed with COVID-19 has
managed to spread such levels of terror that the idea that the other is a danger to be
avoided becomes normal and too widely accepted. The World Health Organization,
that today is increasingly in the hands of Bill Gates (as before, historically, it had been
in the hands of the Rockefellers, of whom Gates is in many ways an emanation),
prefers to use the term "physical distancing,” perhaps so as not to make it too clear
that the distancing measures adopted affect and tend to destroy sociality.

Behind this approach is the idea that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is transmitted by air or
through the nebulized droplets from those who cough, sneeze, or speak. We have
heard di erent contradictory theories because all these theories about viral
transmission are only hypotheses that have never been proven; even the WHO
acknowledges that "the evidence is not convincing.” The only studies in which the
transmission of a coronavirus (not SARS-CoV-2) by air has been preliminarily
"proven" have been carried out in hospitals and nursing homes, places that are
known to produce all types of infections due to poor hygienic conditions.41 

39
ff

No study has ever shown transmission of viruses in open environments or in closed

but well-ventilated environments. Even assuming that there is this transmission by
air, it has been stressed that, for the "contagion" to occur, it is necessary that the
people between whom the alleged transmission occurs are in close contact for at
least 45 minutes.42

The assumption of a pre-symptomatic infection has been massively attacked in the

technical literature.43 The immunologist Beda Stadler, professor emeritus at the
University of Bern, has pointed out in a highly regarded article in the Swiss Weltwoche
that the idea that viruses could multiply uncontrollably in the human body without us
noticing is immunologically unthinkable. However, it is precisely this uncontrolled
multiplication that could theoretically generate the risk of infection in the first place.44
It can hardly come as a surprise that not a single asymptomatic transmission of SARS
CoV-2 could be detected for the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan.45

Incidentally, this false factual claim began with a case report in the March 5, 2020,
edition of the New England Journal of Medicine.46 This article claimed that a
symptomless Chinese businesswoman had met four employees of a local company
in Munich, all of whom subsequently contracted COVID-19. Then in Wuhan, this
woman tested “positive” for SARS-CoV-2. This was taken as the ultimate proof that
symptomless people could also be contagious. 

This case report had already been published as a preprint on January 30, 2020. On
February 3, however, a commentary appeared that noted that the woman from
China did indeed have symptoms and was merely suppressing them with the help
of medication.47 This had resulted in conversations with this woman, which were
omitted in the case report.

Nevertheless, the case report was printed and represents an outright scienti c
fraud in that this case report was not immediately retracted after the error became
known. A follow-up study, which appeared on May 15, 2020 in The Lancet, traced the
"outbreak cluster" in the Munich company and suddenly brought to light that the
woman from China had still had contact with her COVID-19-sick parents shortly

40

fi
 before her trip to Munich - a nding that had still been suppressed in the case
report of March 5, 2020.48 The study in The Lancet contains numerous
inconsistencies both in itself and in relation to the case report of February 3, 2020,
which have already been reviewed elsewhere.49

In short, all the radical distancing measures imposed by the various governments
that are aimed at preventing viral transmission are based on a hypothesis that has
never been proven and without convincing evidence to support it.

11. Epidemiology renders the virus hypothesis ad absurdum for both AIDS
and COVID-19.

In the context of HIV/AIDS, the simple and yet “politically incorrect truth is rarely
spoken out loud: the dreaded heterosexual epidemic never happened,“ reported
Kevin Gray of US magazine Details in early 2004. The “degree of epidemic” in the
population of developed nations has remained practically unchanged. In the US, for
example, the number of those termed HIV-infected has remained stable at one
million people since 1985 (which corresponds to a fraction of one percent of the
population). But if HIV were actually a new sexually-transmitted virus, there should
have been an exponential rise (and fall) in case numbers.

Additionally, in wealthy countries like the US and Germany, according to official

statistics, homosexuals have always made up around 50 percent of all AIDS
patients, and intravenous drug users about 30 percent, and seven percent are
both. With this, almost all AIDS patients are men who lead a self-destructive
lifestyle with toxic drugs, medications, and such. In contrast, the official statistics
say that in poor countries:

✦ A much larger proportion of the population has AIDS.

✦ Men and women are equally a ected.
✦ Primarily, malnourished people su er from AIDS.

41



fi
ff
ff

 These di erences in statistics suggest that AIDS symptoms are triggered by

environmental factors like drugs, medications, and insu cient nutrition. And it
clearly speaks against the presumption that a virus “that moves like a phenomenon
of globalization—just like data streams, nancial rivers, migration waves, jet planes
—fast, borderless, and incalculable,” is at work here, as the German weekly
newspaper Die Zeit urgently warned on its front page in 2004.

Such a pathogen would inevitably have to attack all people in all countries of the
world equally: men and women, straight and gay, African and European; not, as
statistics reveal, in a racial and gender-biased way, attacking certain populations
at different rates. Or as Der Spiegel put it in 1983 in its article “Eine Epidemie, die
erst beginnt” (“An epidemic that is just beginning”): “Microorganisms do not
normally distinguish between child and old person, man and woman, homosexual
and heterosexual.” 

Similarly with COVID-19, the epidemiology shows that no virus can be at work in the
way we are told it is. For example, in Switzerland, empirical evidence raised
suspicions that a major cause of excess mortality was also due to drugs after 16
hospitals joined the SOLIDARITY study. Data from the Federal Statistical O ce show
that signi cant excess mortality was only evident in the Italian-speaking canton of
Ticino and the French-speaking part of the country, but not in the German-speaking
region of Zurich. Zurich, with its 1,521,000 inhabitants, had about the same number
of deaths as Ticino, despite the latter’s much smaller population of 353,000
inhabitants. The idea that a respiratory virus would attack Switzerland’s cantons in
such di erent ways is completely irrational. 

Another factor for excess mortality was the widespread use of intubation and
subsequent ventilation of COVID-19 patients. In fact, intubation and ventilation are
extremely intrusive and harsh measures, usually done with people at risk of
imminent death and generally already in a comatose state. In December 2020,
German news site focus.de published the article “Too high mortality due to
intubation—pulmonologist: ‘Early ventilation is biggest mistake in the ght against
corona,’ in which pulmonologist Thomas Voshaar states that intubation causes the

42
ff
ff
fi

fi

ffi

fi
ffi
 mortality of those labelled as COVID-19 victims to rise extremely. “Fifty percent of
invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients die. This is a clear sign that we need to take
a di erent approach in medicine,” Voshaar appeals to colleagues. Unfortunately,
this appeal also went unheard.”50

12. Persecution, censorship, and condemnation comes to all who demand

evidence of the existence of a novel disease-causing pathogen.

We are not witnessing viral epidemics; we are witnessing epidemics of fear and
tests. And both the media and Big Pharma carry most of the responsibility for
amplifying fears: the fears that happen, incidentally, to always ignite fantastically
profitable business. Research hypotheses covering these areas of virus research
are essentially never scientifically verified with appropriate controls. Instead, they
are established by “consensus.” This is then rapidly reshaped into a dogma,
efficiently perpetuated in a quasi-religious manner by the media, including
ensuring that research funding is restricted to projects supporting the dogma,
excluding research into alternative hypotheses. A key tool to keep dissenting
voices out of the debate is censorship at various levels, ranging from the popular
media to scientific publications.

The story of geneticist Barbara McClintock is a prime example of censorship and

condemnation. In her Nobel Prize paper from 1983, she reports that the genetic
material of living beings can alter by being hit by “shocks.” These shocks can be
toxins, but can also be from other materials that produced stress in the test-tube.
This in turn can lead to the formation of new genetic sequences, which were
unveri able before.

Long ago, scientists observed that toxins in the body could produce these
physiological reactions, yet current medicine sees this only from the perspective of
exogenous viruses. In 1954, scientist Ralph Scobey reported in the journal Archives of
Pediatrics that herpes simplex had developed after the injection of vaccines, the
drinking of milk or the ingestion of certain foodstuffs; while herpes zoster (shingles)
arose after ingestion or injection of heavy metals like arsenic and bismuth or alcohol.

43
ff
fi

 It is also conceivable that toxic drugs like poppers or immunosuppressive

medications like antibiotics and antivirals could trigger oxidative stress and damage
cells. As a result, antibody production is “stirred up,” creating “positive” antibody
tests. Additionally, new genetic sequences are expressed through this process,
which are then picked up by the PCR tests—all this, mind you, without a pathogenic
virus that attacks from outside.

But prevailing medicine condemns such thoughts as heresy. The orthodoxy fought
against McClintock’s concept of “jumping genes” for decades to protect their model
of a completely stable genetic framework. Here, they had not merely ignored
McClintock, but even became downright “hostile,” according to McClintock. “Looking
back, it is painful to see how extremely xated many scientists are on the dominant
assumptions, on which they have tacitly agreed,” McClintock wrote in 1973, shortly
after the medical establishment admitted, nally, that she had been right. “One
simply has to wait for the right time for a change in conception.”

However, McClintock had no time to brace herself against the prevailing HIV = AIDS
dogma. She did voice criticism that it had never been proven to cause AIDS, but the
Nobel Prize winner died in 1992, shortly after increased numbers of critics of the
HIV = AIDS dogma emerged on to the scene.

One of the most prominent among them was/is Peter Duesberg, member of the
National Academy of Sciences, the USA’s highest scienti c committee, and one of
the best-known cancer researchers in the world. He was one of the rst critics to
dispute the cause of AIDS, but his rst major critique did not appear until 1987, in
the journal Cancer Research—in other words, at a time when virus panic had already
bombarded the public conscience for many years.

And, as those days and years ticked by, it became less and less likely that advocates
of the “AIDS virus” theory would back-pedal, since they had already heavily invested
nancially, personally, and professionally in HIV. Be it in the Spiegel, Die Zeit, The New
York Times, Time, or Newsweek—the AIDS orthodoxy’s theory had been championed
everywhere. Researchers such as Gallo found themselves simply unable to retreat

44
fi

fi
fi
fi

fi

fi
 from their original claims because “stakes are too high now,” noted American
journalist Celia Farber. “Gallo stands to make a lot of money from patent rights on
this virus. His entire reputation depends on the virus. If HIV is not the cause of AIDS,
there’s nothing left for Gallo. If it’s not a retrovirus, Gallo would become irrelevant.”

In the end, all those who criticized the HIV = AIDS dogma completely lost their
reputation. Not only Duesberg, but also many, many others such as Harvard
microbiologist Charles Thomas, who founded the organization “Rethinking AIDS” at
the beginning of the 1990s (renamed “Reappraising AIDS” in 1994—and renamed
later again “Rethinking AIDS”) as well as the Australian Perth Group with its “head”
Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, who pioneered the absolutely well-founded idea that
HIV has never been proven to be a "bad" virus.51

The absolutely same phenomenon can be observed with COVID-19. Whoever dares
to fundamentally question the o cial COVID-19 narrative is dismissed by the
mainstream media and politics as irresponsible, or even extreme right-wing or Nazi.

Media e orts to malign, deplatform, censor, and even bring criminal charges to
any of those who might question the mainstream narrative are now coming to full
manifestation in the era of the current psychological operation. The collusion of
social media, prominent services such as YouTube, “for the people” publishers such
as NPR, and even digital newsletter providers have streamlined the available
information so as to be consistent with the orthodox programming on the virus, its
lethality, its prominence, and the e cacy and necessity of associated testing and
interventions. The orchestration of this response to “dissenters” is so extreme that it
is, itself, giving rise to the birth of uncontrolled and decentralized communications
and media platforms.

So what might actually "cause" what we call infection?

Fundamentally, because we have been under the spell of germ theory for over
a century, we don’t know what the causes of “infection” are. Here we offer
some possibilities.

45
ff

ffi
ffi

 Ads;fasdf;ljasd;fkj
asd;lfjasd;lfjasd;lf
kjasd;lfjasd;lfjasd;
1. Fear: the role of psychology in biology 

We are seeing rst-hand that fear itself can spread, just like a classical contagion
model, with no veri ed germ required. Perhaps it’s time to interrogate our
assumptions when it comes to antiquated biological tenets that speak to spread as
solely infectious.

Even in the primary published literature, there are researchers questioning models
of in uenza spread based on the observation that symptoms arise, simultaneously,
around the world, at a rate that can’t be explained by person-to-person
transmission.2 I have also came across interesting studies like one that found cold
symptoms were only expressed in individuals who self-rated their health as poor,
even though all the volunteers were inoculated with virus.3

2. Co-exposure

There are also models that explore seeming infection spread as the excretion of
bodily toxicant burden from sources such as non-native radiation, processed food,
industrial chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and vaccines, which would impact those who

46
fl
fi

fi

are co-located and exposed to similar environmental assaults in ways that could
appear like pathogen-based spread.

Examining the case of polio, we see that polio-associated symptoms were actually
induced by widespread Lead Arsenate and, later, DDT exposure, and symptoms
suddenly declined with the introduction of the vaccine. At that point, polio
symptoms were conveniently renamed ‘acute acid paralysis’ as an epidemiologic
sleight of hand. Here we can see that the infectious meme can obscure very real
environmental causes of illness.

The US COVID vaccine data, for example, also clearly shows that illness and death is
associated with a toxin, in this case a vaccine that is actually not a classical vaccine,
but a gene therapy.

Source: https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality

47

fl



 3. Detox

Illness may be a form of cellular discharge, and microbes may be considered

saprophytes, which help process dead or decaying matter, that colonize parts of the
body to clear away cellular waste.

Acute detox episodes may be triggered by environmental changes, such as the drop
in temperature and humidity in the winter. There may be other means of
exchanging information among people, such as exosomes, pheromones, and
acoustic or electromagnetic resonance, as messenger warnings to unload cellular
debris. This invisible crosstalk will be an exciting area for future research.

4. Nutrition

Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez, a pioneer in the role of personalized nutrition for the
autonomic nervous system, shared about a case of Keshan’s disease in China where
a fatal cardiomyopathy was thought to be caused by coxsackie virus, and with a
vaccine poised for distribution, it was discovered that selenium-depleted soil was
actually the reversible driver of these seemingly contagious symptoms. Nutritional
imbalances and de ciencies are a major driver of what can otherwise appear to be
infectious illness. Blood sugar dysregulation, food antigenicity, micronutrient
de ciency, and even mismatch of dietary type can drive the expression of
symptoms that are ultimately there to alert us to the importance of proper diet.

5. GNM

Some of us have found German New Medicine to be an intriguing framework that

turns presumed causality on its head and helps us to see that symptoms are a wise
response on the part of the body, rather than a problem, and that there’s no war
going on inside or out. In this model, microbes assist in restructuring and repairing
tissue adaptations to biological threats or shocks and the expression of symptoms
typically occurs in the resolution phase of these disturbances. Learn more here.

All of these suggested models of infectious illness are intercompatible and centered
in the concept that nature is a self-healing system. There are no invisible invaders

48
fi

fi

beyond our control and no need to take synthetic potions categorized as “against
life" (antibiotics). We are at war, but not with viruses. The war is a con ict of
information and spiritual enlightenment. The enemy is pushing us further from
nature and our true spirit of self-empowerment, cooperation, and love. We must
now realize the trick and free ourselves. Our health and life is in the balance. 

Fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice… 

The infectious disease scare playbook has been exposed to the extent that we can
command our fear responses and reject the latest, greatest media-making virus. We
can choose to remember that we are each personally responsible for our own health
and no one else can “protect us,” including a private-government apparatus that has
never shown any interest in the welfare, health, and vitality of the populace.

Pattern recognition has the capacity to elucidate what might otherwise appear
frighteningly arbitrary so that we can choose from a place of empowerment. We
want to be empowered when we navigate sociologic experiments like testing, mask
wearing, and vaccination, and as we retain our trust in the body in the face of
symptoms, should they arise. If you access the knowing that the body does not
make mistakes and is always you showing you about you, then there is far less
room for the government in the journey of self-discovery that is health.

49

fl



 About the Authors

Torsten Engelbrecht is an investigative journalist from Hamburg, Germany. Since

February 2021, there is a signi cantly expanded new edition of his book “Virus
Mania” available (co-authored with Dr Claus Köhnlein MD, Dr Samantha Bailey MD
and Dr Stefano Scolgio BSc PhD). In 2009 he won the German Alternate Media
Award. He was a member of the Financial Times Deutschland sta and has also
written for O Guardian, The Ecologist, Rubikon, Süddeutsche Zeitung, and many
others. TorstenEngelbrecht.com.

•••
Kelly Brogan, MD is a holistic psychiatrist, author of the New York Times
Bestselling book, A Mind of Your Own, Own Your Self, the children’s book, A Time
For Rain, and co-editor of the landmark textbook, Integrative Therapies for
Depression. She is the founder of the online healing program Vital Mind Reset,
and the membership community, Vital Life Project. She completed her psychiatric
training and fellowship at NYU Medical Center after graduating from Cornell
University Medical College, and has a B.S. from M.I.T. in Systems Neuroscience.
She is specialized in a root-cause resolution approach to psychiatric syndromes
and symptoms. KellyBroganMD.com.

•••
Andrew Kaufman, MD is a natural healing consultant, inventor, public speaker,
forensic psychiatrist, and expert witness. He completed his psychiatric training
at Duke University Medical Center after graduating from the Medical University
of South Carolina, and has a B.S. from M.I.T. in Molecular Biology. He has
conducted and published original research and lectured, supervised, and
mentored medical students, residents, and fellows in all psychiatric specialties.
He has been qualified as an expert witness in local, state, and federal courts. He
has held leadership positions in academic medicine and professional
organizations. He ran a start-up company to develop a medical device he
invented and patented. AndrewKaufmanMD.com.

•••

50

ff
fi

ff
 Magdalene Taylor, director & editor of The Informed Parent (TiP). Magdalene,
one of the founders of TiP which emerged in September 1992, started to investigate
vaccination in 1991 from a position of believing in the procedure. This belief was
based on trust of the medical authority, however the more research she came
across the more her concerns grew that the public were only being presented a
very bias angle on the subject. Since 1994, Magdalene single-handedly continues
running TiP, producing a regular newsletter, which has now been in publication for
nearly 29 years. InformedParent.co.uk.

51



1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862332/
2 Papadopulos-Eleopulos E et al. A critique of the Montagnier evidence fort he HIV/AIDS hypothesis, Medical Hypotheses, 4/2004, pp. 597-601 https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15325002/
3 Torsten Engelbrecht, Claus Köhnlein, Samantha Bailey, Stefano Scoglio. Virus Mania: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Avian Flu, Cervical Cancer, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C,

AIDS, Polio, Spanish Flu. How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits at Our Expense, Books on Demand, 2021, pp. 106-107
4 Engelbrecht T et al, Virus Mania, (2021) p. 96-97

5 Engelbrecht T et al, Virus Mania, (2021) p. 167

6 Engelbrecht T et al, Virus Mania, (2021) pp. 387-392

7 Engelbrecht T et al, Virus Mania, (2021) pp. 113-123

8 E-mail from Thomas Löscher to Torsten Engelbrecht from March 6, 2020

9 Engelbrecht T et al, Virus Mania, (2021) p. 384

10 Engelbrecht T et al, Virus Mania, (2021) pp. 392-396

11 Engelbrecht T et al, Virus Mania, (2021) pp. 381-383

12 Engelbrecht T et al, Virus Mania, (2021) pp. 108, 109, 449

13 Engelbrecht T et al, Virus Mania, (2021) pp. 392-396

14 Engelbrecht T et al, Virus Mania, (2021) pp. 441-447

15 Torsten Engelbrecht, Konstantin Demeter. Anthony Fauci: 40 Years of Lies From AZT to Remdesivir, OffGuardian; October 27, 2020 https://off-guardian.org/

2020/10/27/anthony-fauci-40-years-of-lies-from-azt-to-remdesivir/
16 https://www.healthline.com/health/anxiety/effects-on-body#Respiratory-system

17 What has been the effect of covid-19 on suicide rates? Appleby L. BMJ 2021;372:n834 https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n834

18 HIV Voodoo From Burroughs-Wellcome  By John Lauritsen New York Native, 7 Jan. 1991 [revised 16 Jan. 1991] https://duesberg.com/articles/jlvoodoo.html

19 https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/the-man-who-thought-aids-was-all-in-the-mind

20 Engelbrecht T et al, Virus Mania, (2021) pp. 450-457

21 Engelbrecht T et al, Virus Mania, (2021) pp. 158-161

22 Engelbrecht T et al, Virus Mania, (2021) pp. 441-447

23 Engelbrecht T et al, Virus Mania, (2021) pp. 31, 97-100

24 Torsten Engelbrecht, Konstantin Demeter. Anthony Fauci: 40 Years of Lies From AZT to Remdesivir, OffGuardian, October 27, 2020 https://off-guardian.org/

2020/10/27/anthony-fauci-40-years-of-lies-from-azt-to-remdesivir/
25 Engelbrecht T et al, Virus Mania, (2021) pp. 132-135

26 Tara Patel, Susan Katz Miller. France wins fight for HIV royalties, NewScientist.com, July 23, 1994, see https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14319351-100-

france-wins-fight-for-hiv-royalties/
27 https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/hiv-diagnostics-market

28 Engelbrecht T et al, Virus Mania, (2021) p. 101

29 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01695694

30 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7908356/

31 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2320079/

32 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/

265187234_Low_CD4_T_lymphocyte_counts_A_variety_of_causes_and_their_implications_to_a_multifactorial_model_of_AIDS
33 https://time.com/4705809/first-aids-drug-azt/

34 https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/iisc-hiv-drug-elvitegravir-lowers-the-efficiency-of-immune-system/article21822514.ece

35 Engelbrecht T et al, Virus Mania, (2021) pp. 111-112

36 Engelbrecht T et al, Virus Mania, (2021) pp. 406-427

37 Concorde Coordinating Committee. Concorde: MRCC/ANRS randomised double-blind controlled trial of immediate and deferred zidovudine in symptom-free

HIV-infection, Lancet, April 9, 1994, pp. 871-881 http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(94)90006-X/abstract

38 Darby, Sarah et al. Mortality before and after HIV infection in the complete UK population of haemophiliacs, Nature, September 7, 1995, pp. 79-82 https://

www.nature.com/articles/377079a0
39 Engelbrecht T et al, Virus Mania, (2021) pp. 441-447

40 Engelbrecht T et al, Virus Mania, (2021) pp. 142-146

41 L. Morawska, C. Junji. Airborne transmission of SARS-Cov2, Environ Int 2020, Jun; 139: 105730 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32294574/

42 D. Lewis, Is the Coronavirus airborne? Experts can’t agree, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00974-w, p. 3

43 Mark Slifka, Lina Gao. Is presymptomatic spread a major contributor to COVID-19 transmission?, Nature Medicine, August 17, 2020 https://www.nature.com/

articles/s41591-020-1046-6
44 https://www.achgut.com/artikel/corona_aufarbeitung_warum_alle_falsch_lagen

45 Shiyi Gao et al. Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China, Nature Communications, November 20, 2020

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19802-w
46 Christian Drosten et al. Transmission of 2019-nCoV Infection from an Asymptomatic Contact in Germany, New England Journal of Medicine, March 5, 2020 https://

www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMc2001468?articleTools=true
47 Kai Kupferschmidt on February 3, 2020 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non-symptomatic-patient-transmitting-coronavirus-wrong

48 https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099(20)30314-5.pdf

49 https://www.corodok.de/die-legende-uebertragung/

50 Engelbrecht T et al, Virus Mania, (2021) pp. 406-427

51 Engelbrecht T et al, Virus Mania, (2021) pp. 137-139

52