IMGAY

Consider the very esprit of this class act sentence: "Plus, he was an AIDS denialist."

Just as there is no such thing as a "nigger" there is no such thing as an "AIDS denialist" other than a measure of hate, fear, phobia, and primitivism in the heart of whoever used the word. If those who take the position that the HIV/AIDS theory is whistle-clean, functioning, consistent, and solid were so sure they were right, they’d obviously not have to descend to the use of a de-humanizing spray-button that does the work, through prejudice and fear, that they don’t want to burden their actual souls with.

If you go to www.aidsmythexposed.com, you can see for yourself hundreds of people around the world who write in discuss with one another the intense journey of being HIV positive, marked for death, and trying to find ways to strengthen the body, cast off the death sentence, transcend the stigma, survive the hate they encounter when friends and loved ones discover they don’t believe HIV necessarily will kill them, make the right choices about treatment vs. non treatment, and most importantly, how to become and remain human in the face of such overwhelming hatred–the kind that flashed in Scott’s comments.

In all diseases, people take different routes. In all diseases, people factor in the deeper reasons why they got sick, how the mind affects the illness, how to walk the line between toxic treatments that "work" and those that do not.

Nobody denies the existence of AIDS–a fairly crude word used to describe an array of problems that arise when the body becomes weakened and depleted, and immunity is lowered. Speaking for myself, after 22 years, I am still unclear what the definition IS.

When Christine’s daughter E.J. died, after a flu, with her eyes open, in cardiac arrest, after a short but healthy life, after taking an antibiotic, and with an immune system that was intact, as measured by her high level of total lymphocyte counts, (between 10,000 and 14,000) and no HIV positive test result (her blood was corrupted) and when her older brother tests negative to this day (would HIV skip one child and infect only the second one?) and when Christine dies in her sleep after a short battle with bronchial pneumonia and nothing at all is known about her immune system status, I simply have to say that I am very confused about what it means anymore to say that a person died of "AIDS."

AIDS, when I began writing about it, in 1986, was a slow, extreme, devastating disease, that did not strike people dead all of a sudden like this. It took time. It took time to develop opportunistic infections (Christine, in 16 years, never had one,) the collapse of the immune system was slow, and the illnesses that manifested were fairly consistent.

When detractors of AIDS skeptics shout "AIDS!" at every turn, they are just reinforcing their superstitious, sloppy, unscientific, and non-rational approach to a profoundly complex set of medical questions.

An honest person might say: If E.J. had an intact immune system, by WHO standards (total lymphocyte count) and never tested positive, then we can’t say she died of AIDS, even if we hate her mother.

About Christine, an honest person would say: "I will refrain from comment, no matter how much the urge to lord my superior morality and intellect overwhelms me, until I have some information about her immune system, lymphocyte counts, CD4 cells, exact cause of death, etc. " This would show the rest of us that the person does not wish to win dishonestly, but wishes for truth. It would also suggest an absence of malice.

Now, regarding the credibility of LA Country Coroner James Ribe, I am staggered by Scott’s comment. Scott, you must not have made yourself aware of the fact that Ribe is a widely discredited coroner against whom a massive, bulging dossier of complaints, lawsuits, etc, exists, and who has been shamed repeatedly in and out of court, including having to admit that he made egregious errors in autopsies that sent innocent parents to prison who were later released when the cases were re-examined. Christine used to call me and tell me about these shocking violations Ribe had committed, and being Christine, she never said anything without documenting it first.

Ribe was scheduled to be cross-examined within two days of Christine’s death, in a lawsuit the family had brought against the LA County Coroner’s office, for their gross mismanagement in the handling of E.J.’s autopsy. Two short facts: The first autopsy found no cause of death. When Ribe was brought in, it took him a few months to construct an "AIDS" death for Eliza Jane. That secondary interpretation, which drove Christine’s critics so wild with lust, was actually handed over to the L.A. Times before it was given to Christine and Robin. Yes I am serious. Christine got a call from an L.A. Times reporter who asked her to comment on her daughter’s death from AIDS. She said: "I don’t even know what you are talking about."

It would be days before the family got their own copy.

If that, to you, does not reek of foul play, if that is what respectability looks like, then I suggest you are overly devoted to your guiding ideologies and can’t think straight.

HEAD/LINES

take 2.0

Health Restoration

WARNING:

charity