Chapter 2

Report #03: How to Improve Your Information provides essential reading material on handling new information.

Sometimes there are people - like the manufacturers of AZT - who profit from bad information. Such people tend to go out of their way to prevent the communication of the useful information that exposes their bad information. They don't want people like Celia Farber to communicate information that would harm them.

During this report it will become clear that there is a huge "AIDS" industry that depends on bad information for its existence and its billions in income.

It is probably axiomatic that anyone who uses underhand or violent methods (including political or religious censorship) to prevent the communication of information, is dependent on the perpetuation of bad information.

Overcoming the Semmelweis-Reflex.
The Semmelweis-reflex is the automatic rejection of the obvious, without thought, inspection, or experiment - see Report #03: How to Improve Your Information.

You may think that in the enlightened age of 1993 humans no longer suffer from the Semmelweis-reflex. This could be a mistake. During the past seven years Dr. Duesberg has repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that the HIV-AIDS hypothesis produces no health benefits. He has proposed a plausible alternative hypothesis - that seems obvious to his supporters. He has written articles and scientific papers. He has received some media attention. Yet the "establishment" automatically rejects what he says, without thought, inspection, or experiment.

The Bicameral Mind Hypothesis
An understanding of the evolution of human consciousness will help us understand why so many AIDS researchers and physicians cling to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis despite the fact that it produces no health benefits.

Before continuing further into this report, read the article on: How To Increase Your Consciousness, then return here...

Are our 40,000 AIDS researchers and millions of health professionals around the world slavishly obedient to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis because it has been decreed by "authority?" Or are they true believers who dare not think differently, who must prove the hypothesis "right" at all cost? Who has the courage to ask, "In nine years this hypothesis has produced no results, maybe we should question it?" What would a conscious individual do?

Suppose there are two competing hypotheses to explain the cause of the "AIDS-defined diseases." The first hypothesis says that the diseases are caused by the individual's behavior: drugs, promiscuiry, diet, whatever. The second hypothesis says that the diseases are caused by something from outside the individual, a kind of "external authority" - for example, an invading virus. Given the bicameral model of the mind, which hypothesis would most people choose?

The "Free Compulsory State Education" Hoax
The details of this hoax are provided in the article: On Education.

It is because of the main result of state "education" - unthinking individuals - that the perpetrators of the AIDS hoax have been able to cash in to the tune of billions. Meanwhile the unthinking victims swallow hook, line, and sinker what they are fed by "authority" - and if they take AZT, they pay for their gullibility with their lives!

It is quite reasonable for the average person to accept the "HIV causes AIDS" story. With a few exceptions, we have consistently been fed the same story by the media, government officials, and health professionals. But what about scientists and physicians? They know the mechanism of vaccination. They know that the presence of antibodies invariably indicates immunity: the immune system has successfully neutralized the microbe and rendered it harmless. They know about Koch's postulates and that HIV doesn't satisfy any of the criteria for an infectious agent. They must realize that a hypothesis which in nine years has yielded no results might be suspect.

Why doesn't a significant portion of the 40,000 AIDS researchers and millions of health professionals around the world question the HIV-AIDS hypothesis? Could a major reason be that "compulsory education" has destroyed their ability for critical and independent thought?

Two Modes of Survival: Working and Stealing
As illustrated in How You Are Being Economically Raped: What You Can Do About It, the first imperative of human behavior is: Survival or self-preservation. The second imperative is: Obtain the means for survival through the least effort. There are two basic ways to obtain the methods of survival: Working and Stealing. Working is called the economic method. Stealing is the political method.

Consider the possibility that by accident or design the HIV-AIDS hypothesis has become a "formula to steal." Activists and the media pressure governments to provide taxpayer money to solve the "AIDS problem." Billions are provided every year. More than 40,000 AIDS researchers receive the means for their survival this way. The manufacturer of AZT rakes in $350 million a year from AZT sales. Biotechnology companies do a roaring business in selling "AIDS test" kits. And latex companies sell more rubber gloves and condoms. The "AIDS problem" continues year after year. For the most part, nothing of value is being produced. The phalanx of vested interests will do everything to maintain the status quo. They are basically a mass of professional parasites.

Dr. Duesberg's funding is being cut off because he challenges the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. In his book Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus, Robert Root-Bernstein writes that many of his colleagues privately agree with him that the hypothesis is wrong, but they refuse to say so in public because they fear losing their funding as well.

Contents -- Next Chapter


Downloaded from the Personal Empowerment Resources Web-Site: http://www.mind-trek.com/