3 March – Like medical boards across the US, the Texas Medical Board stated mission is to “protect and enhance the public’s health, safety and welfare by establishing and maintaining standards of excellence used in regulating the practice of medicine and ensuring quality health care for the citizens of Texas through licensure, discipline and education.” Continue reading ‘Former Texas Medical Board Member’s Lawsuit Dismissed’
Archive for the 'Author' Category
4 Jan – In the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, a peer review drama is unfolding. Petitioner R.V. Rao has taken on Washington Township Health Care District, Respondent, re its judicial review committee. Continue reading ‘Medical Peer Review Used to Silence MD’
25 Dec/AHRP – Between 1978 and 1999, 2.5 million American men, women and children died preventable deaths in US hospitals and 17 million suffered preventable injuries. Two recent reports confirm that American hospitals continue to cause serious preventable harm to patients. Continue reading ‘Why We Still Kill Patients: Invisibility, Inertia, and Income’
TUCSON, Ariz., Dec. 6 – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled against the Texas Medical Board (TMB), allowing landmark litigation by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeon to proceed to prove wrongdoing by the Board. Continue reading ‘U.S. Court of Appeals Rules Against Texas Medical Board’
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,
If the Founding Fathers of California and the United States of America who wrote the US Constitution could read AB 1235, they would jump out of their graves, because every single fundamental, sacrosanct right is blatantly violated by AB 1235.
California Medical Association’s original bill, AB 1235, morphed into a California Hospital Association, CHA, bill following all the devious amendments inserted by CHA’s attorneys.
It is impossible here to cover all the misrepresentations of that amended bill. So, I shall just cover the most offensive parts:
It violates the right to Due Process protected under the 14th Amendment.
This bill allows the hearing committee to recommend the denial the right of a physician to a hearing in certain circumstances that are left to the hospitals to determine individually through amendments of their own bylaws.
Why are America’s criminals entitled to due process, but physicians who face the capital punishment, i.e. the destruction of their medical career, not guaranteed their basic rights protected under our Constitution?
Even when an alleged criminal is a fugitive and escapes to Mexico in the middle of his trial, as did Andrew Luster, the grandson of Max Factor, he does not lose his right to a fair trial and his attorney continues to represent him in abstentia.
In absentia under United States law:
For more than 100 years, courts in the United States have held that, according to the United States Constitution, a criminal defendant’s right to appear in person at their trial, as a matter of due process is protected under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
However, the following exceptions are included in the Rule:
- the defendant waives his right to be present if he voluntarily leaves the trial after it has commenced,
- if he persists in disruptive conduct after being warned that such conduct will cause him to be removed from the courtroom,
- a corporation need not be present, but may be represented by counsel,
- in prosecutions for misdemeanors, the court may permit arraignment, plea, trial, and imposition of sentence in the defendant’s absence with his written consent, and
- the defendant need not be present at a conference or argument upon a question of law or at a reduction of sentence under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Indeed, several U.S. Supreme Court decisions have recognized that a defendant may forfeit the right to be present at trial through disruptive behavior or through his or her voluntary absence after trial has begun.
- AB 1235 violates Anti Discrimination laws.
AB 1235 creates a double standard by allowing physicians employees or contracted by the hospital to escape all scrutiny. De facto, it guarantees the protection of mediocrity and irresponsible conduct under the corporate umbrella.
- AB 1235 allows the hospital’s medical staff to be represented by an attorney even if the physician has no more legal representation, if, for instance, the physician cannot afford one. Sounds fair and reasonable, doesn’t it?
- There is no provision for the physician to exercise the equivalent of a demur, when the charges against the physician have no foundation.
- There is no provision that would mandate the exhaustion of the administrative proceeding in less than 14 days.
The mandatory deadline for the hospital to submit an 805 report to the Medical Board of California is 14 days. The deadline to submit a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank, NPDB, is 30 days from the suspension of the physician’s clinical privileges.
The above is of outmost importance as justice delayed is justice denied. The damage inflicted to the physician’s medical career is irreversible once these two reports are filed, see:
- Summarily suspend clinical privileges under false pretense of “imminent danger.
This triggers automatic reporting of physician to state medical boards, National Practitioner Data Bank, malpractice and medical insurance carriers
The association of a summary suspension with the required “exhaustion of administrative remedies,” protracted over many years, assures the demise of the physician’s career, without any possible court’s intervention. The hospital wins by attrition. (More here and here.)
- AB 1235 assumes that the physician is always the cause of protracted hearings that can last as long as 7 years or more.
This bill is not balanced at all, as it assumes that it is always the physician that is alleged to obstruct the discovery process, when in fact it is more often the hospital that obstructs and procrastinate since they often use the administrative proceedings as part of their war of attrition, particularly if the physician’s clinical privileges were summarily suspended. Very few physicians can sustain such an ordeal for over 10 years and survive, let alone prevail.
- There is no provision in this bill, in case a hospital withholds exculpatory evidence that would exonerate the physician.
- There is absolutely NO reason to require that the hearing officer in a medical peer review hearing should be an expert in healthcare law.
At the present time, in CA, there are a very limited number of attorneys that qualify. So, attorneys representing hospitals’ medical staff also serve as hearing officers at other hospitals where they do not represent their medical staff.
Some hearing officers are exclusively chosen by the same attorneys representing hospitals’ medical staffs, wherever they represent their hospitals.
A number of attorneys representing physicians also represent hospitals and receive referrals from attorneys representing hospitals.
Last but not least, some law firms representing physicians also represent attorneys of hospitals when they are sued !
Basically, we have in CA what attorney Roger Diamond characterizes as an incestuous relationship between many hospital attorneys, hearing officers and some attorneys representing physicians, who refer clients to each other.
As long as we allow this small group of attorneys to benefit financially from this most lucrative activity and act as a ” Star Chamber “, no law will ever provide us a good faith medical peer review.
The alleged requirement for a certain expertise and knowledge in healthcare law is commonly used by hospital attorneys all over the country.
In fact, this is nothing but a deception designed to assure the control of the outcome of medical peer review administrative hearings.
That argument was categorically rejected by the Supreme Court of Michigan in the case of Bruce B. Feyz, M.D. v. Mercy Memorial Hospital:
“We are not persuaded by the argument that courts are incompetent to review hospital staffing decisions as a basis for adopting the judicial nonintervention doctrine.
This claim overlooks the reality that courts routinely review complex claims of all kinds. Forgoing review of valid legal claims, simply because those claims arise from hospital staffing decisions, amounts to a grant of unfettered discretion to private hospitals to disregard the legal rights of those who are the subject of a staffing decision, even when such decisions are precluded by statute.”
In 2002, the CA Supreme Court published its opinion in Haas v. San Bernardino County:
“The ad hoc procedures used by some counties in selecting temporary administrative hearing officers violates due process by giving some officers a financial interest in the outcome of cases they are to decide; appointments must be made in a manner that does not create the risk that favorable decisions will be rewarded with future work.”
Accordingly, in 2006, CMA’s HOD approved Resolution 605-06:
“That the presiding officer may serve a peer review hearing only once in a lifetime “
That way, there is very little risk that the hearing officer shall have a financial conflict of interest based on an expectation of future work by that hospital, law firm,…
To the best of my knowledge, there are today over 10.000 unemployed attorneys in the state of CA, so we should have no difficulty finding an attorney to serve as a hearing officer in a medical peer review proceeding. See, LA Times article, March 27, 2010:
In view of all the above, you MUST VETO AB 1235, forthwith.
Respectfully submitted,Gil Mileikowsky MD President and Founder Alliance for Patient Safety
In December 2007, Merkuri Stanback entered the Park Community Federal Credit Union in Macon, Georgia brandishing a firearm. Stanback and his cohorts restrained employees and ransacked the teller area before making off with almost $200K. When Stanback was arrested, a prosecutor declared that “bank robbers should be put on notice that they will serve the full term of years imposed because there is no parole in the federal system.” Continue reading ‘Carrots, Sticks & Useful Idiots’
When outspoken AIDS activists Martin Delany, Hank Wilson, Ferd Eggan, Belynda Dunn, Joe Carroccio, George Sanderson and Howard Jacobs died, their cohorts hardly mentioned that they all succumbed to drug-caused liver cancers. But when outspoken HIV skeptic Christine Maggiore passed away in December 2008, Seth Kalichman, John Moore, Jeanne Bergman and other PharmaSluts falsely marketed her death as AIDS-related.
For nearly a year, they parroted the false claims on thousands of heterophobic blogs – most of which are directly or indirectly funded by the pharmaceutical industry. For example, a visit to The Body will cram your browser with drug advertising and gay activism.
For an industry that routinely spends billions settling criminal complaints and pushing deadly drugs to children and minorities, disinformation is a vital component of their marketing plans. Without this propaganda and the complicit media, Americans would know that infectious diseases (including HIV) are statistically irrelevant in the US, Europe, Australia and South Africa.
We would also know that millions of Americans are injured or killed each year by untested drugs, preventable medical errors, adverse drug reactions by the pharmaceutical industry’s ongoing criminal behavior and systemic incompetence.
If the Media regularly reported these facts, taxpayers would not waste billions of dollars on the CDC, NIH, research centers and universities that market unproven cures for mythical dangers like H1N1, HIV, HPV and CO2.
Christine suffered fatal renal failure caused by antibiotics, antiviral, and calcium received during the 9 days prior to her death.
So it’s no surprise that, despite his considerable qualifications, the PharmaSluts have attacked Dr. Al-Bayati as unqualified, although few (if any) of his accusers have ever qualified in a real court to render evidence-based opinions. Not only does Dr. Al-Bayati routinely qualify as an expert in criminal matters throughout the US, but he routinely exposes flaws in medical evidence that would otherwise be used to convict innocent people.
As did Ms. Maggiore before her unexpected death, Dr. Al-Bayati represents a significant threat to the makers of HIV tests and drugs. When HIV is put on trial in criminal matters, prosecutors will require the PharmaSluts to prove that their tests are reliable and explain exactly when, where, how and who proved that HIV attacks cells and causes AIDS. Without this evidence, the expert will not qualify and the prosecution’s case will collapse.
Florida vs. Eneydi Torres
Although the PharmaSluts routinely cite the Australian case against Andre Parenzee (2006) as a criminal victory, the lesser-known case of Eneydi Torres, 42 – who faced up to fifteen years in prison this year for allegedly exposing four men to HIV – has left them silent.
Like Willie Campbell and Philippe Padeau, Torres faced up to fifteen years for allegedly exposing several men to HIV. The prosecution’s case would have been winnable except that, unlike the Parenzee, Campbell and Padeau cases, Torres was complicated by a competent defense attorney and a recent US Supreme Court ruling that requires prosecutors to prove that HIV tests are reliable and that defendants are actually infected with an infectious disease.
Not only did attorney Baron Coleman require prosecutors to connect the double- and triple-hearsay reports of HIV positivity to the defendant years before the alleged crimes, but he also planned to call the scientifically-confused cast members from House of Numbers to explain themselves under oath. For example:
- Nancy Padian, MD – on why female-to-male HIV transmission is almost impossible
- John P. Moore, PhD – on how his alleged pandemic has never been statistically relevant in the US (and Europe, Australia and South Africa)
- Robert Gallo, MD – on exactly how he proved that HIV attacks cells and causes AIDS
Even if Ms. Torres believed that she was infected with HIV AND knowingly or deliberately exposed her unsuspecting victims, Mr. Coleman refused to allow his client to plead to much more than a dismissal.
Once they realized that they had no case, prosecutors reduced their initial offer of fifteen years in state prison to what amounted to five days of unsupervised probation. Although prepared for an acquittal, Ms. Torres agreed to pay a small fine and attended a short class that featured an hour of HIV propaganda.
Although the outcome wasn’t perfect, Torres illustrates how easily criminal HIV cases can be won when defense counsel doesn’t stipulate to propaganda. By forcing prosecutors to prove that HIV attacks cells and causes an infectious disease that someone could actually spread, Torres proved that prosecutors never had a case to begin with.
Despite this win, factually innocent men like Campbell and Padeau will likely spend the rest of their lives in prison for nothing more than accepting an unproven scientific theory.
Although others continue to be charged in various states for spreading this fake disease, Torres shows that – when questioned by competent counsel in uncorruptible courts – the PharmaSluts will prove to be the same clowns that House of Numbers proves them to be.
The autopsy, pathology, and the clinical data and observation… show clearly that Christine did not suffer from any AIDS indicator illness during the two years prior to her death or at the time of her death. The gross and microscopic examination of Christine lymphoid organs and bone marrow appeared normal. The growth of P. jiroveci observed in Christine’s lungs and other tissues resulted from her treatment with corticosteroids during the 9 days prior to her death…
Citing this LA Times report, gay activists and corrupt doctors claimed that Maggiore got what she deserved. What kind of money motivates for-rent professors like John Moore to write something like this on Seth Kalichman’s unscientific blog about a dead mother?
“Maggiore had the blood of thousands of South African kids on her hands after helping persuade Mbeki not to allow the use of Nevirapine to prevent HIV transmission from pregnant women to their children. She is also responsible for the premature death of her own daughter from AIDS. Allowing herself to die of AIDS-related pneumonia was unnecessary, but her culpability in the death of others is what she will be remembered for. Perhaps some of her friends will finally learn a lesson from what happened to her and cease their efforts to harm other people. But I doubt it, considering how crazy her fellow AIDS denialists are.“
Unfortunately, no autopsy was performed on Maggiore’s body, and she was cremated. Presumably, her family made these decisions. AIDS denialists often claim that they are victims of conspiracies and cover-ups. But they have been anything but transparent in the way they have handled the horrible and unnecessary death from HIV/AIDS of Christine Maggiore.
Unfortunately for these rent-a-PhD propagandists and fake journalists like Anna Gorman, Alexandra Zavis and Adam Feuerstein, an autopsy was done. But unlike the politically rushed job by Los Angeles County Deputy Coroner James Ribe, pathologists David M. Posey, MD and Mohammad Ali Al-Bayati, PhD, DABT, DABVT have completed their eleven-month investigation into Christine Maggiore’s death and found that, like most allegedly HIV+ patients and millions of other Americans, died from complications related to preventable adverse drug reactions (ADR).
I kept Maggiore’s autopsy confidential so that the pathologists would not be influenced or pressured by someone from within the LA County Department of Health like Walt Senterfitt. While I have nothing against gay atheist anti-capitalist social revolutionaries per se, I’d rather not have them dictating healthcare to LA County’s 11 million residents or risk having them pressure doctors into faking evidence that John Moore and Daniel Kuritzkes MD can use for propaganda the way Moore and Kuritzkes did in 2006:
Christine Maggiore is a person who’s proselytized against the use of antiretrovirals to prevent HIV/AIDS. She’s a classic AIDS denialist, and she gave birth to a child who died at age three late last year of an AIDS-related infection. The coroner’s report clearly reports that the child died of AIDS.
Had Dr. Ribe reported the obvious signs of anaphylactic shock in 2006, Moore and Kuritzkes could not have exploited the death as AIDS-related the way they exploited Christine’s death this past year. After Christine’s death, Dr. Ribe settled her family’s claims against him.
Christine was a well developed and well-nourished Caucasian woman who appeared younger than her age of 52 years. She measured 66 inches in length and weighed 145 pounds…
Christine did not have interstitial pneumonia and the edema observed in her lungs resulted from her heart and renal failure induced by medications.
The autopsy, pathology, and the clinical data and observation described in this report show clearly that Christine did not suffer from any AIDS indicator illness during the 2 years prior to her death or at the time of her death. It has been reported that Christine’s serum was tested positive for HIV with subsequent testing indeterminate in the 1990s. The clinical findings in Christine’s case clearly challenge the clinical and scientific validity of the HIV test, if it is intended as a certain marker of gradual immune demise, which she did not manifest.(full report here)
Celia Farber comments as well.
BREAKING NEWS – The drug industry pushes ineffective drugs and vaccines because they cannot profit from good nutrition or clean water – so says Nobel Laureate (2008) and HIV Discoverer Luc Montagnier, MD in this just-released video.
As I explained last Saturday, if the world learned today that HIV is no longer a threat, the financial and political beneficiaries of HIV and AIDS would no longer be needed and the CDC and NIAID have no rational reason to exist.
House of Numbers shows audiences around the world that, without the hysterical fear of infectious disease, PharmaSluts on the government dole would have to find real jobs – which is why the documentary now poses an existential threat to these overpaid slugs.
At the start of the movie, Donald Francis MD claims that HIV “kills everything” and, at the documentary’s conclusionthe discoverer of HIV and Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier MD concludes:
Montagnier: We can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected… our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks if you have a good immune system.
Brent Leung: If you have a good immune system then your body can naturally get rid of HIV?
Brent Leung: If you take a poor African who’s been infected and you build up her immune system is it also possible for them to also naturally get rid of it?
Montagnier: I would think so…
While the lamestream media slept through Montagnier’s simple CURE FOR AIDS, the usual suspects accused the filmmaker of tricking (sucker-punching) the world-acclaimed scientists who appeared in the film. In response, Leung posted this additional clip, which added:
Montagnier: I would think so… It’s important knowledge, which is completely neglected. People always think of drugs and vaccine.
Brent Leung: There’s no money in nutrition, right?
Montagnier: There’s no profit, yes.
Still, this wasn’t enough for the pharmaceutical lawyers who ghostwrote Jeanne Bergman’s revised arguments. Although they acknowledge that the “discoverer of HIV” is “clearly not a denialist,” the lawyers that defend drugs like Benoxaprofen and Vioxx used Bergman’s rent-a-PhD to claim Leung “sucker-punched” Montagnier with “leading questions.”
To satisfy the PharmaSluts, Brent Leung has now released this never before seen exclusive video of his interview with Dr. Montagnier.
As you watch it, ask yourself these questions:
- Did the filmmaker fool him? Did Montagnier look “sucker-punched?
- Did Montagnier have a good command of the English language?
- Why does Montagnier smile at the end of the interview?
Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230
Over time, investigators learn how to identify common characteristics of criminal behavior. Whether the suspect is a lawyer, longshoreman or pharmaceutical company, the cues are often the same. Though some are as subtle as a heartbeat, one does not need a phlebotomist to hear them.
Despite the preventable deaths and injuries to thousands of trusting patients each year, billion-dollar drug companies routinely pay off prosecutors with profits bled from their victims. In 2009 alone, Eli Lilly and Pfizer paid billions to settle criminal charges and, despite the death and injuries, not a single executive went to jail.
Like common crack and heroin dealers, drug companies are friendlier to customers than to those who ask tough questions. If drugs like Sustiva and Nevirapine offered something more than a addiction and death, drug makers wouldn’t have to pay the activists at TAG, TAC and AIDSTruth to attack those who question their schemes with tactics taught by Marxist radicals.
Conceived in 1981 by shady scientists (who faced unemployment) and gay men (who refused to accept blame for their self-destructive behavior), AIDS was marketed as an existential threat to humanity. This 1983 report alleged that the number of AIDS victims was doubling every six months which, if accurate, would have claimed the lives of 100 billion people a decade ago.
Though my original investigation presents a synopsis of what has always been a political disease, no one has captured the high priests of HIV in flagrante as well as the documentary House of Numbers. In some ways, filmmaker Brent Leung has exposed them much the same way that Hamlet identified his father’s murderer.
As Shakespeare explained, Hamlet was suspicious. Weeks after the king’s sudden death, his mother (Queen Gertrude) married Claudius, Hamlet’s uncle. Hamlet suspects that Claudius murdered the king to marry his mother and ascend to the throne.
While suspecting is one thing, proving it is quite another. To expose the crime, Hamlet commissions a play to reenact the king’s death in hopes of pressuring Claudius to admit his crime. If Claudius and Gertrude are innocent, the play will have no effect. But if they are guilty, their responses will corroborate it.
As expected, Claudius is furious and plots numerous schemes that, in the end, expose the crime and leads to the demise of Claudius and his morally-confused queen.
Like Hamlet’s invention, House of Numbers exposes HIV causation and policy as something akin to Queen Gertrude’s illicit marriage.
Whereas most of the other important men… are preoccupied with ideas of justice, revenge, and moral balance, Claudius is bent upon maintaining his own power… Claudius is a corrupt politician whose main weapon is his ability to manipulate others through his skillful use of language. Claudius’s speech is compared to poison being poured in the ear—the method he used to murder
… defined by (their) desire for station and affection, as well as by (their) tendency to use men to fulfill (their) instinct for self-preservation — which, of course, makes (them) extremely dependent upon the men in (their) life…
After initial refusals, the soft-spoken film student convinced one of the lab rats to agree to an interview, which resulted in a procession of lab rats who couldn’t resist the opportunity of having their egos stroked on the big screen with other scientific frauds. Unfortunately for them, no one memorized their alibis and the interviews of the planet’s most incandescent AIDS scientists and researchers quickly devolved into a food fight of he-said-she-said conflicts that culminated in Jay Levy’s impassioned five minute argument with himself. If not for the part they continue to play in the preventable deaths of thousands of people like Joyce Hafford, the ensuing hijinks would have been comical.
Like Claudius, the lab rats were so enraged that they drafted and signed this letter weeks before the film was released. Their queens joined them and issued thousands of libelous emails and letters to pressure film festival managers to censor the film.
Despite the pressure, House of Numbers has won ten awards at festivals around the world despite a few predictably ghostwritten attacks in the lame-stream media. After rave reviews at London’s Raindance Film Festival, The Spectator (UK) published Neville Hodgkinson’s expose, while political editor Fraser Nelson asked about the legitimacy of questions related to the link between HIV and AIDS. The ensuing comments (171 now) not only captured the rational comments of skeptics, but also the rage of apoplectic lab rats and the queens who defend them.
In this comment, Cornell’s John Moore argues:
I’m one of the scientists (the legitimate ones) that Leung deceived into appearing in this shoddy film. He used Sasha Baron Cohen-style tactics to sit in our offices and disguise his true agenda…
Whether questions were asked by Cohen or Leung, what possible impact would their questions have on the truthfulness of Moore’s responses? Although Leung did not pose as Kazak or a hooker, he elicited Moore’s honest answers the same way that Hannah Giles exposed ACORN. While Moore might’ve been friendlier to a man in heels, he fails to explain how Leung’s straightforward questions deceived him. Moore continues:
- an “honest investigation”? Yeah, right….. Leung is an AIDS denialist, pure and unadulterated.
Using Rule 13 of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, Moore 1) Picks his target and attempts to 2) Freeze It, 3) Personalize It and 4) Polarize It.” Like Galileo, Leung is a heretic – a non-believer of Moore’s deadly theology. Moore continues:
And his multi-million dollar and its promotional budget was paid for by a few wealthy AIDS denialist backers that Leung consistently refuses to identify…
This from the militant bagman whose servile complicity with the makers of HIV drugs and tests has resulted in illness, death and millions of dollars in pharmaceutical grants to his employer. Moore wants them identified so that fellow lab rats like Daniel Kuritzkes MD, who coaches journalists in the fine art of character assassination, can apply Rule 13 to them as well. In one speech, Kuritzkes complained that denialists like Peter Duesberg “still work in universities” and urged that they be “denied access to students and reported to authorities whenever possible.” Said Kuritzkes, “If this happens in your neighborhood ask the university authorities why they allow this and then write about it.”
The film itself is deliberately edited to make AIDS scientists look bad, and to create controversy where none lies.
Although Moore’s lab rats issued the same allegations weeks before the film debuted, none have offered a single example – terrified of the filmmaker’s repeated offer to post uncut interviews so that viewers can decide for themselves. Like their political complaints of Prof. Duesberg’s scientific report, the lab rats can only blog their contempt. After 20 years, Duesberg’s paper remains unanswered.
Moore’s whining continues:
And of course Leung’s friends are made to look wise and thoughtful, honest questioners of the truth, when the reality is very, very different.
Wiser and more thoughtful than Moore?
Like I say, it’s Sasha Baron Cohen in action…… But of course this film is no comedy intended to entertain; its effect will be to cause yet more people to become infected with HIV and die of AIDS.
Moore’s arguments fail. Despite the unsupported numbers produced by profiteers, HIV is hardly noticed in the US or Africa (chart). Compared to a century ago, infectious disease is statistically nonexistent. But if we consider that AIDS consumes three-quarters of all US medical research funding despite its statistical non-existence, we can understand why the lab rats and queens believe that the political disease that funds America’s gay movement is more important than fighting real diseases like diabetes and heart disease. (chart). Moore concludes:
There’s much material on the AIDS denialists, who they are and what they do, posted on the AIDS Truth website. Read it and weep that such crazy and evil people can still influence others to make poor choices with their lives. And pay particular attention to the pages on “The denialists who died of AIDS”.
If we consider why HIV is so important to corrupt African regimes we will understand why HIV is so important to the Marxist South African propagandists at AIDSTruth.
As a career criminal investigator with nearly 30 years of experience, House of Numbers may be the most important documentary of the 21st century. Although I’m not a virologist, criminal behavior is less mysterious.
While Claudius, assorted lab rats and queens like Moore assume that ordinary people are too stupid to figure it out, the documentary and a review of the The Spectator comments will allow readers to decide for themselves.