Kingdom themes run through Luke’s travel narrative. The miracles that Jesus performs, such as exorcisms and healings, are signs that God’s kingdom is breaking into this world. In fact, Jesus teaches that very truth: after casting out a demon from a mute man, Jesus teaches the crowds: “If it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you.” Some had said Jesus was casting out demons with Satan’s own power, but Jesus points out how ridiculous that is: Why would Satan drive out his own servants? Rather, the exorcisms were signs that Satan’s kingdom was crumbling before their eyes and God’s kingdom was taking its place. Again, Jesus later teaches the crowds: “The Kingdom of God is not coming with signs to observe, nor will they say, “Lo, here it is!” or “There it is!” for behold, the Kingdom of God is in the midst of you. Jesus says this about himself: he is the King and where the King is, there is the Kingdom. The Kingdom is already among the people, in Jesus’ own person, but they don’t recognize it.

Only Luke includes the parable of the rich fool who thought he had a future of pleasure. He had such big crops that he had to tear down his barns and build larger barns to hold his enormous crop yields. When that was finished he thought he had a long lifetime to enjoy the pleasures of life, and that he was in control of his life. He acted as if there were no God (The fool says in his heart/there is no God. Ps 14:1) But his life was demanded of him the very night he planned to party with his friends. The Greek word rendered “demanded” is used to call in a debt. The “life” that the man considered to be his own was really on loan from God.

12:21 The lesson of the parable is thus similar to what Jesus said earlier about persecution: keep God in the picture. One should view earthly things, whether negative or positive, from the perspective of eternity. This is precisely what the man did not do. He was too busy thinking about himself to think of God and to thank God for blessing him with a rich harvest. Thus he was also busy hoarding his wealth rather than sharing it with the poor. He stored up treasure for himself rather than “treasure in heaven,” and so was not rich toward God.

12:22-30 Jesus now speaks to those who lack material goods and so worry about what to eat and drink and wear. In all cases it is a matter of entrusting one’s life (psyche) to God. If God feeds the birds and clothes the flowers with splendor beyond that of Solomon, will He not much more provide for human beings, who are much more important. Yes, but…what about the 500+children detained at the border because their parents can’t be found? What about the starving children, even in the US? What about the people dying of this terrifying pandemic? But things are normalizing in the transition. Joe Biden is getting the funds he needs to set up a government; I’m sure he needs fund for many actions he’s planning. This country will never be the same, though. Trump radicalized Mitch McConnell to the point that he probably won’t work with Joe Biden. Going back to trusting God, God knows what people need, so disciples should trustingly pray to the Father for their “daily bread,” as Jesus taught them.

12:31-32 Rather than worry, disciples should seek God’s kingdom. Those who strive to live for the sake of the Kingdom of God will receive back an overabundant return in this present age, as these other things will be given them. By focusing on this kingdom perspective, disciples can learn not to be afraid, even if they remain little in the eyes of the world. Jesus here refers to the disciples as a flock, using the imagery of sheep and shepherd so beloved elsewhere in the Scriptures (Ps 23; John 10).

Almsgiving. Jesus’ teaching on almsgiving builds on Old Testament texts. He refers to the cleansing power of almsgiving and twice connects giving alms to the poor with storing up lasting treasure in heaven. Such teaching is often misunderstood as if self-interested people are presuming to tell God to save them for their good works. Rather, the reason that Scripture attaches a reward to charity is not simply to appeal to self-interest, but to make a statement about the nature of the world. To behave in this way is thus to act with faith. Charity is not just a good deed but a declaration of belief about the world and the God who created it. The economy of the Kingdom of Heaven, Jesus teaches, reflects the type of world God has created. Showing mercy to the poor taps into the larger font of mercy that governs God’s providential hand. It is for this reason and for this reason alone that funding such a treasury leads to unimagined compensation.

Scientific totalitarianism is the background music of Anthony Fauci’s brilliant and long-lasting Ponzi scheme. A so-called liberal democracy like America demands a covert form of scientific totalitarianism that does not scare the horses of oversight and public opinion. Fauci knew how to manipulate the levers of institutional power and image-making in ways that Bernie Madoff would envy. For a scientific Ponzi scheme to prevail in America, nobody must recognize they have acquiesced to a major scientific and medical fraud. Doctors must follow protocols established by the HIV/AIDS Ponzi scheme and patients must not question them. Sanctions must stand at the ready if they do. Nobody must see tell-tale sighs of fraud, deceit and censorship. Fauci knew the tricks required to turn ivy-league-educated elite journalists into servile puppets and perky stenographers. An intimidating voice, a good haircut, and clothes that fit well go a long way in science, especially if you are as skilled in the art of veiled and not-so-veiled threats as Fauci is.

Laziness is not a Fauci flaw. It took a great deal of energy to keep the entire NIH establishment from dealing with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and its relationship to AIDS for four decades. And Fauci is not stupid. There was tons of research showing that AIDS and CFS were similar; the recognition that he got AIDS wrong because he got Chronic Fatigue Syndrome wrong and vice versa would have turned him into an instant disgrace in the eyes of his family and friends.

The author has listed the elements necessary for a successful public health Ponzi scheme: 1. epidemiological fraud 2. virological fraud 3. treatment fraud 4. public health policy fraud 5. concealment of negative scientific data and paradigm challenging anomalies 6. use of a network of “old boys” to censor critics and whistle blowers 7 . obscurantism 8. witch hunts of anyone challenging the system 9. a subservient scientific press that acts as a conveyor belt for the Ponzi scheme’s propaganda 10. Nosological fraud this is the branch of medicine that deals with the classification of disease. It is ground zero for public health fraud.

The CFS research community was especially fascinated by the fact that the Gupta HIV-negative AIDS-like cases were Chronic Fatigue Syndrome sufferers. Gupta, who had a cohort of CFS patients in his clinical practice and who had presented a paper on the immunology of CFS at medical conference on the disease, had discussed the possibility that CFS and non-HIV positive AIDS were the same disease. In the world of normal science, this would be the “smoking gun.” The AIDS conference in 1992 should have been one of those great moments in normal science as described by Thomas Kuhn. It could have been a moment when disturbing “anomalies” attracted the “attention of a scientific community.” But this would not be one of those eureka moments in science “that would lead to a new set of commitments, a new basis for the practice of science “(Kuhn). After the revelations of HIV negative AIDS cases, the researchers would STILL not give up their “shared paradigm.” No new AIDS or (CFS=AIDS) paradigm was allowed to reveal itself in Amsterdam and subsequently be fairly examined and debated. This sounds like fascism. And consequently, immune system destroying HHV-6 would remain locked in the basement of “science.”

Had the science at Amsterdam been normal, both the AIDS research and the CFS research might have morphed into one unified system. The dismantling of the “Chronic Fatigue Syndrome isn’t AIDS” paradigm should have begun in earnest. HHV-6 might have emerged quickly as the unifying viral agent of those two epidemics which should have been considered one in the first place. And those two epidemics were just the tip of the HHV-6 iceberg. What happened in Amsterdam was a virtual nosological and epidemiological crime. It was a deliberate attempt to use sheer political force to make a legitimate scientific crisis disappear. There would be no turn to what Kuhn describes as a “philosophical analysis as a device for unlocking the riddles of their field.” There would be no Kuhnian “transition from normal to extraordinary research.” Kuhm asserted that the “price of significant scientific advance is a commitment that runs the risk of being wrong.” Those who controlled the HIV/AIDS paradigm would not do any science that proved them wrong. They had bet their white, heterosexist male professional reputations on the HIV/AIDS and CFS is not AIDS paradigms.

The person most responsible for this suppression of research was the de facto AIDS Czar, the tantrum prone Anthony Fauci. This may have been the last chance for Fauci and the HIV/AIDS establishment to turn back from the precipice of the HHV-6 spectrum catastrophe. But even his sister couldn’t save him from his dark path. Top administrators gathered in Atlanta to question researchers who were dealing with non-HIV positive AIDS, calling it a threat. So far they had found 50 patients, but there were sure to be more. But the carved-in-stone paradigm of HIV/AIDS and CFS is not AIDS was 8 years old at the time so nothing much was gained at that meeting. The nation’s heterosexist and racist AIDS propaganda and public health policies had been built on its assumptions. The solution to the all the problems put to Fauci was 1. CFS people shouldn’t be ashamed for being told their problems were all in their head. 2. He put out a call for all HIV negative cases-the author said there were 13 million. That’s an estimate of the number of the cases of CFS, a condition which research suggests is HIV negative AIDS. So I’ve had that all my life.

The queen of Sheba came to Jerusalem to hear the wisdom of Solomon. Jesus is the one now whose wisdom people need to hear, as he is the personification of wisdom, a wisdom that goes beyond the “wise” of this world. Paul puts it this way: “Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ….. the Wisdom of God.” With these comparisons to a prophet, Jonah, and a king, Solomon, readers are reminded that Jesus is both prophet and king. Indeed, he is greater than these forerunners, and the prophets and kings who went before him would have wanted to see and hear him.

The emphasis on hearing the Word of God continues with Jesus’ sayings about a lamp and light. The connection between God’s Word and light, seen earlier in Jesus’ teaching, is rooted in Scripture: “Your word is a lamp for my feet,/ a light for my path.” Jesus, who is light, is the one who communicates the word of God that must be heard. The light imagery shifts to one’s ability to see through one’s eye, which is the lamp of the body. When the light is sound, healthy, there is no difficulty, and a person becomes full of light, but when it is bad, then that person remains in darkness. Judging by Jesus’ comments, many of his listeners have eyes of evil, or are not making sound or sincere judgments about him. They have the evil eye, such that the light in them has become darkness. Having a good or bountiful eye is a biblical idiom for a person who is generous, one who shares bread with the poor. On the other hand, one whose eye is “evil” gives nothing to a neighbor in need. Jesus cites the Good Samaritan as one who knew how to help a person in need.

Jesus is invited to dinner at the home of a Pharisee, where he emphasizes important matters of the law and reprimands both law scholars and Pharisees. The Pharisee criticizes Jesus for not washing his hands before eating and gets a lecture in return. Jesus told him the real filth was inside not outside the body (what about viruses that are both inside and outside, Jesus? Show us some mercy, already!) His teaching now takes the form of denunciation. He calls the Pharisees “fools,” a term usually kept for the wicked. He criticizes the ritual observances of the Pharisees, saying that they are just empty shows. An external washing is useless if inside they are filled with plunder and evil. Jesus instructs them to give alms in order to cleanse themselves.

Like an Old Testament prophet Jesus now pronounces a series of woes or warnings of impending judgment, three directed against the law scholars and three directed against the Pharisees. The first woe denounces the Pharisees for focusing on the tithes on each herb, but neglecting important matters like justice and love of God. In the second woe, Jesus warns them about pride, like seeking the seat of honor in synagogues. Another woe chastises them for the heavy burden they impose on people—for instance their detailed interpretations of the requirements of the Torah. Jesus is reminding those who teach the Gospel to help new Christians understand the faith. The last woe is ironic. The scholars, who should not only hear and keep God’s word, but also teach it to others, have actually taken away the key to knowledge—that is, about God’s word and hence, about the Kingdom. They refused to enter the kingdom and stopped those wanting to enter.

Osler’s Web: Inside the Labyrinth of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Epidemic. This the an epic work of journalism detailing the CDC’s failure to acknowledge the true nature of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome epidemic. It is now all too painfully obvious that the DuBois cases—-with the tell-tale signs of hypergammagobulinemia, t-cell perturbations and persistent reactivated EBV and CMV infections—were the real beginning of the AIDS/CFS/HHV-6 disaster. Doctors began seeing endless cases of “mono” and an article was written about it in “The Southern Medical Journal” in 1984. That year, by the way, was the year the government made the consequential mistake of certifying HIV as the cause of AIDS. The mono patients “morphed” into the millions of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and HHV-6 patients that Fauci and his organization were willfully ignoring (and were supposedly tasked with researching) while building their Potemkin HIV/AIDS empire,

Fauci next warns journalists that those who report negatively about any scientific work they don’t agree with may find themselves out of the loop and unable to find scientists to interview. They might cut off Peter Duesberg because he asked questions about what the government, Fauci. thought was good work, as did the rest of the HIV/AIDS establishment. Fauci was saying that he and his cronies would only be accountable to themselves, which is the hermetically sealed, closed community essence of what should be called totalitarian, abnormal, and ultimately sociopathic science.

The Eighth International Conference on AIDS in Amsterdam in July of 1992, according to the author, was a point of no turning back. A fateful line was crossed, a life of virtual pseudo scientific crime against humanity was virtually signed onto and those responsible for Holocaust II lost all forms of “plausible deniability.” AIDS almost overnight became AIDSgate and a very unique Nazi-like biomedical and epidemiological assault against humanity. And who was in the leadership of this crime against humanity? He wasn’t exactly Bernie Madoff of the biomedical Ponzi scheme that maintained AIDS, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and HHV-6 spectrum catastrophe. But not after Amsterdam.

Next there were some shocking developments in the University of California and even more astounding revelations from the scientists at Amsterdam. Subhir Gupta, an immunologist at the University of California found a retrovirus in a woman who did not have AIDS and 7 other patients, too. The virus was completely unknown. Those gathered at Amsterdam were riveted by the news because they were seeing the same thing in their practices. They were especially interested in the fact that the woman had an AIDS-like condition wherein a subset of T-cells were severely depleted. Also, she had suffered pneumonia, which afflicts many AIDS patients whose CD4 cells are depleted. The author said that there was an international near panic set off by the possibility that there was a second previously unrecognized AIDS epidemic on the horizon that was caused by a non-HIV agent. It turned out that the CDC was already aware of this possibility and the patients with the anomaly. The CDC concluded that HIV may not be the only infectious cause of immune deficiency. The author’s comment was “Two AIDS viruses-a gay one and a straight one. OMG!”

From early on in Christian history, Martha and Mary have been understood as signifying the active life and the contemplative life. For contemporary Christians, it is helpful to to emphasize the unity of these two dimensions of their lives; union with God in prayer overflows into all one’s activities, so that they bear fruit. Lydia in Acts makes the right combination, responding like both Mary and Martha. First, she listened to the gospel message preached by Paul and then offered hospitality to Paul and his companions.

Prayer and Almsgiving. Luke 11: 11-13. Jesus taught his disciples how to pray The Lord’s Prayer. What makes such bold and unrelenting prayer possible is an attitude of filial trust in the Father. Jesus illustrates this truth with a comparison: a father, whose son needs food and asks for a fish or an egg, will not give him something harmful. Both the parable and the sayings teach about prayer using a ‘how much more’ argument that goes from lesser to greater. If parents, despite their faults, give good gifts to their children, how much more will the Father in heaven give better gifts, even the gift of the Holy Spirit to those who ask him! Jesus himself prays in the Spirit to the Father so his disciples, who imitate him in prayer, can similarly share in the life of God.

God’s Kingdom Overcomes Satan’s Kingdom. Jesus expels a demon, healing a mute person. The word Luke uses, “kophos.” can also refer to a deaf person, or to one who is both deaf and mute. There are few miracles in this time; instead there is more attention to the ensuing dispute and the increasing rejection of Jesus as he approaches Jerusalem. Some say that Jesus drives out demons with the help of Beelzebul, the prince of demons. It originally meant “master of the exalted house.” The name was mocked as Baalzebub, “lord of the flies,” in the passage where Elijah called down fire from heaven. Pagan gods were considered to be demons, so Beelzebul refers to chief demon or Satan himself. Jesus points out their faulty reasoning when he asks who drives out demons among their exorcists. Jesus drives out spirits by the finger of God. Pharaoh’s magicians, after the third plague could no longer imitate the signs and wonders of Moses, and said they recognized the power at work was “the finger of God.” Now, too, the kingdom of God has come upon them, and the kingdom of Satan is in retreat.

Jesus sets a choice before his listeners. A person can’t remain neutral but must stand for him or against him. He has come to re-gather the people, but whoever rejects him scatters. Jesus delivers a warning about an unclean spirit. When it is cast out, it wanders around looking for a home. It comes back to its previous home and, find it swept and clean, enters it and brings seven more demons worse than itself. This story recalls the Legion of demons who begged not to be sent into the abyss and were sent into the swine instead. The meaning again is that one cannot remain neutral–as a home cannot remain unoccupied for long. One should pray to the Father to give the Holy Spirit, so that filled with the Holy Spirit like Jesus, one can resist the devil. If the Spirit of God dwells in a person, there will be no room for evil spirits to dwell there.

Hearing God’s Word through Jesus’ Preaching and Wisdom 11:27-36. A woman interrupts Jesus with a beatitude intending to praise him by honoring his mother: Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed. In a sense, she is fulfilling Mary’s own prophecy that “all ages” will call her “blessed.” However, the fundamental reason that she is blessed is Mary’s belief in the Lord’s message through the angel. Jesus replies to the woman with a more basic reason for blessedness: Blessed are those who hear the Word of God and observe it. That’s why Mary is the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The crowd is seeking a sign, meaning they want Jesus to work a miracle like bring someone back from the dead. Jesus refuses because its an evil generation and he tells them in no uncertain term that they are evil. He compares them to the evil generation that wandered in the wilderness and couldn’t enter the promised land. He frequently warns this generation about the coming judgment when others will come together and condemn it for failing to hear and repent.

At the amfAR forum. Maybe someone should have asked if there was something funky about a group of hostile, arrogant, white heterosexual mostly male scientists performing their jerry-built kind of seat-of-the-pants epidemiological science on gays. Wasn’t that a formula for all kinds of prurient heterosexist pseudoscientific mischief if there ever was one? In terms of majorities doing their science on minorities, hasn’t anyone ever heard of Nazi science or the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment? Why didn’t anyone other than Lauritsen noticed the peculiar, unscientific, defensiveness of the whole affair i.e. that the ladies had protested too much? And most importantly, why was HHV-6, which had been discovered in AIDS patients two years before the forum, not put on the table for discussion?

In September of 1989 Dr. Fauci wrote a brief article in the AAAS Observer.

He pontificated that “the media are no place for amateurs, particularly when talking about a public health problem of the magnitude of AIDS.” The author whips out his Glock and says: “Especially when one considers the magnitude of the HHV-6 public health problem that this self-reverential scientist himself helped create for the whole human race. Fauci’s real problem was journalists who listened carefully to him and knew enough to ask the right (inconvenient) questions. Then, says the author, came one of the biggest fibs in the history of science. Fauci reveals his real agenda in the last part of the article: “One striking example is Peter Duesberg’s theory that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. I laughed at that for a while, but it led to a lot of public concern that HIV was a hoax. The idea had a great deal of credibility just on the basis of news coverage.” Say What!? Duesberg never said it was a hoax; he said it was a mistake. Duesberg wasn’t in the category of those who say the moon landings were staged on a desert somewhere. He was a Nobel-caliber expert on retroviruses, and his opinion should have been valued. According to Ortleb, Fauci was a Trumpian in that he was essentially accusing those who spotted his fake science as being purveyors of fake news.

The fact that Fauci took this soooo personally spoke volumes about the petulant chip-on the shoulder attitude problems of those involved with AIDS. Fauci put it all on the line. Questioning his so-called science was a threat to his very being. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that he was ready to viciously fight for so long during Holocaust II to keep everyone from seeing what a house of cards he had helped build. This refusal to consider any other cause of AIDS did suggest he had serious problems in the ‘integrity’ department. Fauci, like most of the crowd that gave us Holocaust II, knew only too well what normal, non-totalitarian science is supposed to look like: “People are especially confused when they see divergent viewpoints about the same thing. They do not understand that the beauty of science is that it is self-corroborating and self-correcting, that it is important for scientists to be wrong.” That whole process was being short-circuited by the totalitarian hijinks of the touchy HIV/AIDS establishment that was growing more dominant by the day. The very tone of Fauci’s piece, its extraordinary imperiousness and presumptuousness about the stupidity of the public points to the fundamental problem for a society in which arrogant and dishonest elite scientific communities have more and more power. The only way to show that HIV wasn’t the cause of AIDS was to do clinical trials with patients. It would just take a few AIDS patients with no evidence of HIV. In fact those patients were the very immune compromised Chronic Fatigue Syndrome patients a doctor named Richard DuBois had seen in his Atlantic practice before the socio-epidemiological construction of the heterosexist and racist HIV/AIDS paradigm. I have Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, but I don’t have AIDS. What does that mean?

Jesus the Good Samaritan. Ever since the second century, the obvious ethical meaning of the parable as an injunction to love one’s neighbor has been complemented by an allegorical interpretation in which the Good Samaritan represents Jesus. For example, Irenaeus writes that “human nature had fallen in with robbers, but he had pity on it and bound its wounds.” Origen adds, “The man who was going down is Adam….The Samaritan is Christ….He carries the half-dead man and brings him….to the Church.” Origen does not ignore the ethical lesson: “It is possible for us to imitate Christ…He is speaking not so much to the teacher of the law as to us when he says, ‘Go and do likewise.'” Augustine also uses the allegorical interpretation: “The whole human race, you see, is that man who was lying in the road, left there by bandits half-dead, who was ignored by the passing priest and Levite, while the passing Samaritan stopped by him to take care of him and help him….In this Samaritan Jesus wanted us to understand himself.” And again: “Robbers have left you half-dead on the road; but you’ve been found lying there by the passing and kindly Samaritan. Wine and oil have been poured into you, you have received the sacrament of the Only- begotten Son; you have been lifted upon his mule, you have believed that Christ has become flesh; you have been brought to the inn, you have been cured in the Church.”

Prayer and Almsgiving. The topic of the earlier conversation with the scholar of the law—loving God and neighbor—is further explained in Luke 11. At the beginning of the chapter, Jesus teaches his disciples about prayer. including The Lord’s Prayer, so that they can grow in love of God, sharing in Jesus’ own intimate relationship with the Father. At the end of the chapter, Jesus strongly corrects the Pharisees and scholars of the law for their preoccupation with ritual washings, urging that they love their neighbor by giving alms.

Jesus Teaches the Disciples to Pray. In this passage Jesus promises that people can have what they want just by asking: “And I tell you, ask and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For anyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and the one who knocks, the door will be opened” (11:9-10). The disciples find Jesus as he is praying and they are motivated to deepen their prayer relationship with the Father. So Jesus teaches them The Lord’s Prayer. It is lacking in two elements: “on earth as it is in heaven” and “your will be done,” but that is Luke’s version. Mathew’s version adds the two elements that are lacking in Luke and it also adds “but deliver us from the evil one. The church went with Matthew’s version and its obvious why. Matthew’s version is from the Catholic Study Bible. Both versions contain “do not subject us to the final test,” which must have been dropped somewhere during the history of the Church. Jesus is teaching his disciples a more intimate form of prayer and relationship to the Father, who he tells them is “Abba,” Daddy. It expresses a family bond, indicating that “we may be called the children of God” (1 John 3:1). It is with such child-like trust and simplicity that we dare bring the petitions before the Father.

Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread. The petition “Give us each day our daily bead” was interpreted in various ways by the church fathers, thus shedding light on the meanings it can have for contemporary Christians. St. Cyprian (3rd C), following Tertullian, explains that the petition may be understood both spiritually and literally. By the spiritual meaning, he refers to Christ as “the bread of life” and to the practice of receiving “his Eucharist daily as the food of salvation.” St. Augustine gives the literal meaning and two spiritual meanings. “Daily bread” represents all that is necessary to sustain us in this life…It may also represent the sacrament of the Body of Christ, which we receive daily.

The petition for bread functions on several levels. 1. It’s a prayer made in confidence in God that one’s needs will be met. 2. loaves of bread illustrate Jesus’ teaching on prayer 3. the bread points to gifts from God of a higher order–the Holy Spirit, for example 4. The first temptation of Jesus is a reminder that one does not live by bread alone-one also needs “the word of God.” 5. Jesus feeding the multitudes recalled manna in the wilderness, but also looked forward to the Eucharist 6. ” Give us this day our daily bread” has become a request for the Eucharist. The petition for bread thus fittingly follows the petition for the coming of the kingdom.

Prayer and Almsgiving.

Fauci and others played dirty with Duesberg, who they accused of using outdated research, even though is was up to current standards. When Duesberg asked Fauci and the others for actual references to support their statements he was rudely rebuffed, and, according to Lauritsen, a journalist, they tried to shore up their viewpoint with unpublished data or their own private facts. Said Gotleb: “Unfortunately, their own private facts about AIDS were also connected to each other by a private scientific logic. That’s a sure sign that AIDS was a manifestation of the opposite world of abnormal, totalitarian and sociopathic science.”

The 800-pound gorilla at the amfAR forum was the fact that evidence of HIV could not be found in all AIDS patients, which should have been strong–damning even—evidence that HIV couldn’t possibly be the cause of AIDS, that is, if normal Kuhnian science was being practiced (Kuhnian refers to Thomas Kuhn, who wrote “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” which means that a new paradigm will emerge if the scientific revolution is pervasive enough. For example, there was a change in paradigm when Einstein replaced Newton. Back to the forum. Scientist Marcel Beluda pointed out that “sometimes even a single exception is sufficient to disprove a theory…this is the crux of the matter…the virus cannot be found in all cases of AIDS.” Delusion and denial were running the show. Fauci insisted that ‘good labs’ were able to isolate the virus 90% or 100% of the time, ‘no question about it.’ But he didn’t provide a reference to published data, nor did he indicate what “good” labs were and how they differed from not so good labs.

Duesberg, based on his years as one of the celebrated deans of retroviral research, presented arguments for why HIV could not possibly be the cause of AIDS. Lauritsen wrote later that Fauci’s presentation was an attempt to rebut each of Duesberg’s arguments, but it was just a series of disjointed, disconnected assertions, and he didn’t seem to understand any of Duesberg’s arguments. The author characterizes the resulting epidemiology as political and heterosexist. A slide was brought to the forum with a graph on it that had no units on the vertical axis. Dr. Redfield, who brought the slide to the meeting, admitted that the graph had been prepared to illustrate a theoretical possibility, and the vertical axis had no unit for the simple reason that it was not based on any data at all! “In other words, the slide was a fake” (Ortleb). This ideology-based data was used to support the HIV theory of AIDS, which changed the course of millions of lives and fostered the HHV-6 catastrophe.

Ortleb says the most disturbing talk at the forum was given by Warren Winklestein, a Professor of Biomedical and Environmental Health Sciences at Berkley, who suggested that AIDS would require a “new kind of science.” And there should be a new standard for establishing the causal relationship between microbes and diseases, based upon ‘epidemiology’ or correlations of different kinds. Sounds reasonable, right? Not to Ortleb. He says: “If this crowd had superseded traditional science any more than they did, we all would probably be dead. (But wait. There is still time.)” The author calls political epidemiology—“homo-demiology—and from there we are a shot step to “homo-demon-ology.” The mood of the forum was “petulant indignation.” Fauci’s personality dominated the air waves. There were 16 journalists brought in by Lauritsen and there was a cozy relationship between them and the abnormal, totalitarian, and sociopathic scientists of Holocaust II. The author describes most media those three decades as inattentive, intellectually slothful and self-satisfied. Lauritsen wrote an eyewitness report for the “Native,” Ortleb’s newspaper, which Ortleb said was an important contribution to the history of the beginnings of the science and totalitarian politics of AIDS. Lauritsen said in the article: “I do not accept the proposition that Kock’s postulates should be abandoned in favor of epidemiological correlations.” Epidemiological correlations means that epidemiological evidence can only show that a risk factor is associated (correlated) with a higher incidence of disease in the population exposed to that risk factor, but it cannot prove causation. This means in so many words that the gay lifestyle is correlated with AIDS, but it can’t be proven as the cause of AIDS. This science is very mushy compared to finding the cause in a lab. If they champion this position, like Fauci did, they’ll never find a cure. (Kock’s postulates say that the bacteria must be present in EVERY case of the disease). HIV was not present in every case of AIDS so the totalitarian scientists went off the reservation and refused to find a real cause of AIDS. It was a big step backward and an abandonment of millions of lives. Lauritsen, at the end of his article, said: If the HIV advocates were sure of their hypothesis, they would want to enlighten Duesberg and the rest of us; they would want to publish their arguments in a proper scientific journal, complete with references. They would not need to resort to stonewalling, deception and personal abuse.” “Science had been supplanted by totalitarian petulance.”