Block of Reviews | Reviews by Subject:   Audio-visual Media | 'Holocaust' | Jews, Christians, Moslems | Race | Revisionism | Women
Reviews of Authors:   H Belloc | P Bustion | C Caskie | N Chomsky | R Dawkins | M Gardner | D Irving | K MacDonald | M Mathis | B Russell | H G Wells

---

Health, Medicine, Risks.       Links to reviews, below, in this same page

*Deformed History is commonplace. Some Jewish material:–
Roy Porter (editor): Cambridge History of Medicine   My review looks at the sociology here, of the Jewish concealed victory of the Second World War. Porter was born just after the war and was presumably given a typical crypto-Jew upbringing, pretending to be English while being groomed as a propagandist. Well worth understanding the psychology.
Steven Rose The Chemistry of Life. First published in 1966, I think. Summary of errors, used as a promotional and then controlling device. The cover design may be of the earliest paperback. Penguin/Pelican has always been a high-output Jewish propaganda publisher.
Humphrey Pledge Science Since 1500. Maths, physics, chemistry, biology. Interesting example of the way old books (Pledge was first published in 1939) are free of the errors which were invented later (but watch for 'revisions' in later editions). This can be enormously important, as Jews, once having invented a fraud, tend to repeat it forever. Think for example of the 'Holocaust' fraud and the suppression of Jews in Russia, as non-science examples. Medical examples include whole networks, often traceable to a misused or misunderstood technique.
      Discoveries and inventions made later will be missing. Sometimes a whole set of volumes of different publication dates may be useful.

*When synthesising chemicals, including drugs, became easier, problems arose–
Alan Norton: Drugs, Science, and Society   c. 1975. On vaccination, he was well aware that previously common diseases had dropped enormously before 'vaccination', and provides detailed graphs.

*Investigating deaths. Dishonest inquests–
Zakaria Erzinçlioglu: The Illustrated Guide to Forensics: True Crime Scene Investigations.  
Shepherd, Unnatural Causes. Many of his examples have been revealed by Miles W Mathis to be fraudulent. 2018 book.

*You may find examples of undeclared Jewish influences–
R D Laing's Divided Self   Jewish stuff. 1960s book

*Jewish versions of historical events are often wrong–
John Kelly Great Mortality   'Black Death'.   My review includes information from a Polish site: Why did the Black Death Spare Poland?
Jaime Breitnauer. Spanish Flu   Recent book (2019) that just repeats an official view that the 'Great War' was followed by millions of deaths. From flu—not wounds, not damage to buildings, not food shortage, not disrupions.
Bryan Ellison: Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS   hard-to-find book. Includes Ellison in an audio talk.
Neville Hodgkinson. AIDS: How a Virus that Never Was Deceived the World   This piece is a transcription of a talk with Neville Hodgkinson, who was a journalist with the Sunday Times under Andrew Neill. He was sacked and replaced by a silly woman, not I think his decision.

*Single examples of typical issues:–
Richard Milton. Shattering the Myths of Evolution   (1992) Flypaper collection of arguments. (Steven and H Rose weighed in with genetic crits, basically to show that Jews can convert people; as convincing as it sounds. Worth knowing of Alfred Russel Wallace's My Life
Fraser Brockington on World Health   Soon after WW2 nominally ended. Possibly a crypto-Jews. Part of the Jewish victory was the use of tax money, borrowing, and printed money to extend Jewish empires
Prof Derek Bryce-Smith. The zinc solution   In nutrition, elements were under-rated; vitamins were looked for. Here a Professor of Chemistry (not biochemistry) tried his hand
Theodore Dalrymple (real name Daniels) Junk Medicine   crypto_Jews looks at the 'addiction bureaucracy'. May have held warnings
Betty MacQuitty's view on the Discovery of Anaesthetics
Wendy Moore Biography of John Hunter   Biographies may give valuable hints, as they are often closer to discoverers and inventors
Petr Skrabanek Follies and Fallacies in Medicine   Good example of the genre of medical mistakes, blunders, and long-term inflictions of danger

---

Entire page on Harold Hillman and his books.   Hillman was an original researcher; perhaps he tool on more erroneous ideas than he could deal with. Too long for inclusion here, but highly recommended

HIV-AIDS Fraud.   Long, detailed, much information on the issues, combining Jews, homosexuals, dangerous drugs, USA-style money-grabbing, reputation fights, deaths of famous people, and near-moronic ignorant members of the public. I think it still limps on../

COVID. 100% Conspirationist article by hexzane (2019) including speculation on 'World War 3'. This sort of thing is what 'elites' do in macroeconomics and why it's important for normal people to try to understand it.
      COVID articles with other articles. Worldwide fraud, which still seems to limp on. It is never, and probably never will be, investigated

Salt in Food.   The low-salt danger issue dates back to 2014 here(!). Low chloride causes digestive problems with low stomach hydrochloric acid. Low sodium reduces sodium sequestrated in bones, presumably making them less soapy and more subject to hip problems. There's a fluoride link, as low chloride leads to higher uptake of dangerous fluoride

This website has more material, for example on lymph circulation, blood pressure, diet, blood, carbon dioxide...

Raeto West   9 August 2024

How a Virus That Never Was Deceived the World is the subtitle of Neville Hodgkinson's book AIDS The Failure of Contemporary Science published late in 1996 by Fourth Estate. This piece is a transcription of a (not-fully-prepared) interview with Neville by Rae West, carried out in 1997. I've added a few notes in square brackets. It begins though with Neville arranging a talk. ... —RW Click here to e-mail Neville Back to AIDS piece on this site           Home Page of Entire Site

“There’s a wider issue. We’ve been led to believe the scientific method, in a pure sense, is the best way of getting information. I believed in that in a fairly simplistic way myself for many decades. But this particular issue shows how inner agendas, unacknowledged agendas, of scientists as human beings, interfere with their ability to assess the facts in an objective way. It’s a sort of mass pathology. That’s the conclusion I’ve come to now.       It’s a very interesting issue. The way the scientific community has treated these dissidents within their ranks really has been quite extraordinary. I hadn’t realised that they could behave in such a sort of narrow way. I hadn’t seen it at first hand in this way. I’d heard stories, you know. But people that I know well, and have a lot of respect for, have been extruded from communicating with the mainstream. It’s been remarkable.       In fact at one time Nature magazine, which is a sort of Bible of science, announced a campaign to try to stop me from reporting on these lines in the Sunday Times. They ran an editorial contemplating sending pickets to our offices, decided that was impractical, and decided instead to create a sort of campaign of ridicule. It created quite a stink, actually.       This book was vetted by a top virologist in this country and I received training from virologists in basic molecular biology. I wouldn’t have been able to carry the critique without that.       They might well find some holes in what I’m saying. That’s OK. But I hope there’ll be something there for them to find of interest and challenge. The only things that I’ve found frustrating have been when people just blast you with statements. Some TV or radio programmes have been like this, where one says something and they just say, ‘well, that’s rubbish, because x, y, and z’. And you know all the assertions they’re making are wrong. When that happens, and in the context of TV and radio, there’s no opportunity for dialogue. What I would hope would be that this would be an opportunity for dialogue, rather than people just stating contrary opinions. I don’t mind a person expressing that view, and saying why, providing one has an opportunity to say something in response. But in these TV and radio things, especially ten-minute interviews, if they have other people there for so-called balance, it means you just don’t get anything across at all. I did do the Target programme; that was good. That was a half-hour programme. They have someone who’s a target, you know. I don’t mind that, because there was an opportunity to reply.       I’ve been studying this for about four years now, almost full-time. It’s the only way to do it. I couldn’t hope to persuade anyone! All I could do is give some pointers to those who were interested that there was more to it than they’d been allowed to understand from what most media had reported.       A gentle title—AIDS, an alternative view, something like that. A controversial point of view, something like that. Neville Hodgkinson, former medical and science correspondent on the Sunday Times. Author of the book, AIDS—the Failure of Contemporary Science. You could say that I’m going to tell my experiences in reporting on this very, er, emotional? Controversial? Emotive. Subject, from a controversial point of view. Something like that. Reporting on a challenge to mainstream scientific opinion. Challenges to mainstream scientific opinion. Mention that Nature one time tried to silence me. .. All right, fine..”

West: Can I do a bit of scene-setting. I’m now sitting in Ivor Catt’s palatial residence with Ivor, and the famous Neville Hodgkinson. And in case posterity’s interested, he’s wearing a thick creamy crew-neck pullover, brown cords, and what used to be called brothel creepers—desert boots. And he has matching light brown hair and glasses, but not eyes, which are blue. So there we are. OK. Now.
      The first thing is I think you’re probably right. Not that I’m a great expert on biology—I got deviated into this stuff by Ivor, who’s collected a huge list of people, some good, some not so good. I mentioned Harold Hillman, who’s going to be at the lecture this evening
Hodgkinson: Great
West: His experience matches, or maps as Ivor would say, yours. His approach is kind of analytical and scientific—he looked into the assumptions being made in various techniques like electron microscopy, and analysed six of them, and found essentially what you have—that there’s a whole lot of essentially fraudulent experimentation going on, which assumes results which are not properly validated and checked. And it permeates the whole of biology. That was his explanation of why there’s been so little progress in cancer research, and why things like epilepsy are not understood. And also things which I found absolutely incredible—for example, no-one has any idea how anaesthetics work. It’s all empirical. So that’s our starting point. Harold is not an expert in virology, unfortunately. He’s very careful to compartmentalise things so that he doesn’t make statements he can get shot down about. He’s had that experience—he’s written about six books. One of them on research into the brain. He thinks the conventional models of the brain are wrong; his work is based on microscopy—he goes and looks. I think he’s probably right about that. He’s published on something like ten subjects. So from my point of view your work is a something of a supplement to that. He’s going to be at the lecture this evening. (He often rejects people if they’re not scientific enough. But if you use the word ‘hypothesis’ at one point he’ll probably like you, because it shows you can distinguish between theoretical constructions and what’s actually observed. That’s if you want to talk to him—it could be very fruitful.) He’s had exactly the same experiences as you—addressing meetings, well, having difficulty in getting meetings arranged in the first place, and when he addressed them, of their being very hostile. Unfortunately it has to be said he puts his book in the mould of scientific papers; they aren’t very readable. I got into AIDS via Ivor, and borrowed your book from the library—
Hodgkinson: It’s a bit expensive, actually. I was a bit surprised myself
West: Wasn’t that arranged with you?
Hodgkinson: No, they didn’t tell me what it was going to be. I think the publishers were a bit uncertain about whether they would be able to cover their costs. I remember them saying—I went to a sales meeting some months before publication—that they had absolutely no idea what would happen to it. It was quite courageous of them to do it, actually.
West: Is it published just in Britain or in the US?
Hodgkinson: No. Only in Britain
West: It’s a shame
Hodgkinson: Yes, it is
West: Is it going to be a paperback, or does that depend on sales?
Hodgkinson: It would do. I think there probably will be. I don’t think they feel the debate has got going enough yet
West: The reason I ask is that Jad Adams’s book only sold 2,000 copies
Hodgkinson: Did it?
West: Well, I mean that was the print run. There was no paperback issued. And yet I get the impression that’s a popular book. I ordered it from the library and it took about four or five months—
Hodgkinson: It’s some years ago that it came out—
West: Oh yes! It’s eight or nine years old now. Even so—you have these sheets of paper with the dates stamped in, so you can assess how popular they were. It was an awful lot. In spite of that he never got a paperback—perhaps because of pressure being put on them. So that might be your fate as well
Hodgkinson: Yes. It might well be that it will just work away quietly as probably Jad’s has done. But publishers, you know, in order to invest in a print-run, they want to know that there’s a demand out there. Anyway, I remember them telling me there were three categories of outcome. One was that it’d be completely ignored. One was that there would be a certain amount of discussion. And one would be that it would be at the centre of a big stink—that there would be lots of interest. And it’s really fallen into the middle category. It’s been quite widely ignored—I was surprised. I thought there would be more interest in a serious work that actually reports quite a lot of new material. It moves the story on from what had been previously reported, too. [The book, I presume, is out of print; BOL reports it as 'not available', Amazon doesn't even list it.] But I think maybe one reason is that it became very associated with the Sunday Times and indeed with Andrew Neil. And with Andrew Neil going and the Sunday Times changing tack on the issue—in fact hiring as my successor the number one critic in the journalistic field on what I’d done previously—
West: Who was that?
Hodgkinson: Steve Connor. Who, when he was science correspondent at the Independent papers, was doing enormous articles saying it’s disgraceful that the Sunday Times should say this, that HIV is set to decimate Africa, it’s—
West: Thailand now. Tomorrow’s World had a programme..
Hodgkinson: Thailand? They’ve been rumbled in Africa. The HIV industry has actually shot its bolt there, in a way,. Now Asia—
West: Are you saying that for example people in Zimbabwe are kicking these people out?
Hodgkinson: Yes, because they know—many of the Sunday Times articles that I filed from Africa were reprinted in the African countries. And also virologists and others that I met out there, including virologists and health ministers, they already suspected that it was very flawed, the model that they’d been given by the HIV marketeers, and just drawing their attention to some of the studies that challenged the HIV thinking was enough for them really to see through it quite quickly.
West: That’s good news. In a way I’m surprised though—I remember a South Place lecture by a chap I think from the WHO and he was going on in great distress about how AZT is too expensive for these people to afford!
Hodgkinson: Oh, yes, absolutely. I mean the New African magazine has taken up this issue very well. That circulates across Africa. They ran several pages on this. I remember—I think it was in the second issue—when they printed a very pained response from an AIDS worker in South Africa challenging the report, but they also ran a reply by me. But in the same issue, they ran an article about how the World Bank was offering loans to third world countries to allow them to buy AZT. You know, it’s unbelievable really, the topsy turvy nature of what was happening. And this ins in countries where, you know, babies are being thrown out of hospital and mothers thrown out of their homes because they tested positive with a test that’s never been validated. I mean it’s really quite horrifying what’s happened.
      [Chapter 10, The Plague That Never Was, looks in particular at the work and findings of the couple Philippe and Evelyne Krynen in Africa. And the statistics—for example, the prediction of mass deaths based on just five deaths. And the way in which deaths were ascribed to AIDS because of the links with aid money.]
West: OK. I’m afraid I had a rather bad day and didn’t prepare properly—I like to prepare a script with a lot of questions. I got the impression a lot of your work is based on Eleopulos [Eleni Papadopulos Eleopulos]
Hodgkinson: Most recently, yes
West: Was that through Caton?
Hodgkinson: No. I think he wrote after we first started reporting the challenge that Peter Duesberg had put forward in the States. No. I know who it was through. It was through Harvey Bialy, who was scientific editor of Bio/Technology at the time. He’s a doctorate—I forget in what.
West: He’s keen on the free radical idea is he? My evidence suggests that’s a dubious idea. It’s hard to check—
Hodgkinson: He was interested initially because he studied what Duesberg was saying about how hard to find HIV was even in AIDS patients. He studied the literature from that perspective, and had done one or two things that were open-minded towards Duesberg. But then he published a paper by the Eleopulos Group, which was the first one where they really set out the fact, as I see it, that the HIV test had never been validated, that it had never been tested against virus isolation, the gold standard for establishing the diagnostic base.
West: Would you say that was their starting point, or was it because they’d developed their own theory and felt inclined to debunk it?
Hodgkinson: No, no. I mean—yes, in a sense Eleopulos had a particular theory in the area of cell function. She published something in Cell, or the Journal of Biology, I forget which. One of the very key, major papers. A hypothesis about cell function which, when AIDS came on the scene, it suggested to her that it was a phenomenon associated with this mechanism she’d written about. And so she did have that predisposition to questioning the viral theory—
West: That’s fair enough, isn’t it
Hodgkinson: It is. But she then became interested in the field, and it was really the evidence she presented on the inadequacies of the HIV test were really quite devastating. But there was no discussion of them.
West: These were the Elisa and the Western Blot?
Hodgkinson: Yes, that’s right
West: Have you ever seen these done, as a matter of interest? It’s very difficult to actually penetrate the inner sancta, isn’t it. Or even the outer sancta!
Hodgkinson: Yes, it is. I’ve seen the kits, and I’ve seen the slides that are made up for the western blot, but I’ve never followed the procedure right through.
West: You now, as part of my—I’ve got a whole collection of old books, because you can often trace the roots of these things going back donkeys years, in some cases centuries. I looked up this book on viruses written in the 60s (because electron microscopy is a key part in the drama, invented say about the mid-1940s, there was a huge explosion so to speak—the application was never validated. If you’ve got living things and in order to look at them it’s like putting them inside a giant TV—they have to be dehydrated, and there has to be a vacuum, and they have to be chopped finely and have metal deposited on them—by the time you’ve done all this the original structure is deformed…) Anyway. The point is viruses are too small to be seen by optical microscopes so you have this incredible possibility. In the first place, you can’t be sure what you’re looking at. Do you see what I mean?
Hodgkinson: Yes
West: Suppose somebody’s got a cold and you want to establish it’s a viral disease, you get a drop of blood or something and put it under the electron microscope and you get a lot of speckles that weren’t there before. They’ve got several standard ways of preparing these things—e.g. Tobacco mosaic virus gives a silky preparation. But much of it is impossible to check. So what you say certainly sounds right
Hodgkinson: This problem is central to the challenge that the Eleopulos group have mounted, where they’re claiming, astoundingly, that HIV has never been isolated, and in their view, doesn’t even exist.
West: It’s difficult to know isn’t it. I went to a talk aimed at schoolkids to get them to go into science. One was by a Professor Crawford at the School of Tropical Diseases. She gave a standard trot-through which could have been done thirty years ago—on papilloma viruses and things, Epstein-Barr. And there was a picture saying, this is an AIDS virus. I don’t know what she thought that was or where it came from. Of course they all look the same—octagon or dodecahedron. You’ve got the same problem with these protein tests..
Hodgkinson: For some decades it’s been accepted that retroviruses, of which HIV is supposed to be one, will band at certain density gradient in that centrifugation process—
West: They use sucrose, don’t they
Hodgkinson: They do, yes. And there’s a particular band which they spin the material out to that, and select the material banded at that point, and then look under the electron microscope at what they’ve got there. And although there are photographs of what are purported to be AIDS virus particles in the blood and from your stimulated materials before you’ve done that process, there are no photographs of AIDS virus particles isolated at that band after the centrifugation.
West: Despite the fact that they believe it’s there?
Hodgkinson: They believe it’s there, but there are no photographs of it. None.
West: Why do they believe it’s there? Any rational reason?
Hodgkinson: Because the theory says that HIV is a retrovirus
West: Yes, I see
Hodgkinson: And that’s where retroviruses are supposed to be. And you can find some genetic sequences there, but you find a whole pool of genetic sequences there, form short to long. What they’ve done is they’ve pulled out of some of this centrifuged material genetic sequences which match the purported length of a retrovirus. You know, there’s a kind of convention about this. They said, OK, well we’ve got some sequences of this length, therefore they must be HIV. But the problem with that is you have a mass of other material there as well, and you don’t actually find photographs of whole virus particles.
West: That sounds absolutely right. One of Hillman’s critiques was of subcellular fractionation And of course what they do is grind the stuff up, in a sort of Magimix, and assume stuff doesn’t interact. But if you mix up all kinds of enzymes in an animal and chop the cells up so the cell walls are breached there’s no end of possibilities..
Hodgkinson: Exactly. In fact this is another extraordinary thing—even the mainstream acknowledges they’ve never been able to find HIV particles in ordinary body samples. They always have to be treated. They sort of kick start the genes inside the immune cells into expressing&'151;
West: You get the same thing with this business of them mutating all the time. If you can’t find what you’re looking for, you say it must have mutated!
Hodgkinson: That’s right, yes. It’s stated in the orthodoxy on HIV that there are no two HIVs the same. And yet this is said to be a unique molecular entity! It’s quite extraordinary!
West: How do you—when I’ve been trying to establish these things, for example that anaesthetics;’ method of operation isn’t known, I found it so incredible I repeat the question several times just to check. You must do this, I presume? Some of these things, when you first become aware of them, seem incredible; so you must ask people several times? I imagine people like Gallo would not reply to you
Hodgkinson: No. That’s right. I’ve talked to—fortunately in science there’s a lot of source material, you can study the latest books and so on. Unfortunately the downside of it is that you find that what they say on HIV and AIDS changes every few months. It’s like a moving target. There are lots of different theories, and again this is further evidence—and actually this is widely accepted within the scientific community—that really, although everyone will say, yes, we have established that HIV is the cause of AIDS—the vast majority of scientists have bought into that statement—but people working in the field will say, there are huge uncertainties, we really don’t know quite what we’re dealing with, we definitely think there’s an entity there, we definitely think it’s the cause of AIDS, we’ve enough pointers to it from the fact that we seem to see HIV positivity, antibodies to HIV in so many of the people in risk groups, in so many of those who go on to get AIDS, we feel that the case has been made. But they’ll admit, and they’re right about the fact that they don’t know, they’ve no idea how HIV could cause the destruction of the immune cells. There’s no mechanism by, the viruses zapping off the cells. There’s hardly any of it there anyway.
West: The immune system itself is not understood anyway, is it. That’s another problem.
Hodgkinson: That’s another problem. And as a matter of fact one of the really fascinating things for me in this whole affair is that if only we were to apply a different template to the information that all these billions of dollars have given us to what is called HIV, with a different framework I think there could be some very interesting discoveries from it. One of which is the mobility of the genes inside the immune system. It’s another—
West: When you say genes in the immune system, what do you mean by that?
Hodgkinson: The immune system cells, the T cells, the lymphocytes. In order to program themselves to the infinite range of antigens that come into the body—
West: The antigen’s the reply isn’t it?
Hodgkinson: No, the antigen is what stimulates the response by the immune cells.
West: What’s the response called?
Hodgkinson: The antibody. The antigen generates the antibody production
West: Right
Hodgkinson: And the genes in the immune cells are involved in this process—the genetic machinery of the immune cells actually looks at the target and produces something appropriate, and multiplies it up. It’s one of the fascinating things of the story that genes are not the fixed machinery that we might learn in O level biology. They multiply up, they leave cells, they can even move as particles to other cells. There’s really quite strong evidence—also regarded as heretical by people like John Maddox of Nature—that some of these adaptive responses by the genes can actually travel to the germ line. They can travel to the sperm and the egg, and be passed on that way.
West: Um, that would be Lamarckian—
Hodgkinson: Yes, it is Lamarckian.
West: It’s very difficult to say, isn’t it. The whole basis of this stuff is so corroded with rubbish—
Hodgkinson: Well, you know, there’s some good work! There’s a chap called Ted Steele who’s been working away at this for years at the University of Wollongong—
West: Wollongong! You must know Brian Martin then.
Hodgkinson: No
West: He’s an activist chap who’s published onCATT: Fraud
West: Well, yes. And for example. anti-fluoridation. He was opposed to nuclear weapons, nuclear power. Interesting chap...
Hodgkinson: There’s a story there, too. The concept of jumping genes, which is basically where genetic sequences can multiply themselves up within a cell and move from one chromosome to another. That’s within the cell. That concept was vigorously resisted for decades by the scientific community
West: It was a woman who thought of it, wasn’t it?
Hodgkinson: Margaret McClintock. She got the Nobel Prize for it just before she died.
West: Nobel Prizes! I think—well, this is another of Hillman’s things. He thinks they get awarded for all sorts of rubbish. And of course once they’re awarded, that sort of validates it—
Hodgkinson: That’s right.
West: I really don’t understand why, unless it’s just money, why a bunch of Swedes should dominate—
Hodgkinson: I know. It’s simplicity. You know—it takes so much work to get into these refined areas of science to the point where you can begin to understand something, that you can’t hope to understand the whole field—so we just say, oh well, they won the Nobel Prize, I suppose it must be all right
West: It’s analogous for example to things like film. One gathers in America if you go to a film party, they get the papers first thing in the morning, if the critics don’t like it they just melt away. You know, because they don’t have any judgement of their own. They take what’s given
Hodgkinson: It must be even more so in these basic areas of molecular science.
West: Mind you, of course, there’s the money making thing; and also the banding-together business-I keep finding these things. You know the well-established fact that prostitutes have more cervical cancer than virgins. Everybody knows that! There’s a chap in Dublin five or ten years ago who looked up the papers, some going back to 1850 or something, and he found there was no evidence for it at all. It was unsubstantiated!
Hodgkinson: Skrabanek
West: Skrabanek! You know him!
Hodgkinson: I’ve met him!
West: Really? He’s dead now, isn’t he, unfortunately. The only reason I’ve heard of him is because Hillman mentioned him in one of his papers. He has a book now jointly-authored by McCormick.
Hodgkinson: Yes. I did some reports in the Sunday Times on his thinking on breast cancer.
West: That must have made you unpopular!
Hodgkinson: Oh, very! He demonstrated very satisfactorily that there’s no evidence whatever of benefit of screening for breast cancer. It was unanswerable. Absolutely unanswerable. And remains so to this day. In fact, rather like self examination, there’s a definite increase in risk on behalf of the people who do self-examine (it may not be directly causal. It may be that the people who do self-examine are more vulnerable) but I actually believe that there’s probably a risk, there’s evidence there is some risk, from the mammography process. The people who have this exposure to X rays, get it regularly they’re more at risk from breast cancer..
West: Did you speak to Alice Stewart?
Hodgkinson: Yes. Wonderful lady. She was at Cambridge. That’s all I can remember. It was years back. I think I was talking to her about, it might have been her, the damaging effect on medical students of the heartless things they were asked to do. She felt it blunted their emotional intelligence, as we should call it.
West: Are you talking about things like dissection?
Hodgkinson: Yes. And vivisection.
West: She was credited—I remember when I was young that you could go into shoe shops and they had X ray machines; you could see your toes twiddle around. She was the first on to that, or at least she got the credit in Britain—in each country you get your own localised variants. The Americans credit other people. How did you get onto Skrabanek? Perhaps he wrote to you; he was quite an active letter-writer?
Hodgkinson: I can’t remember now. But I had quite a bit of dealing with him over a long period because I was interested in his challenge to a lot of the stuff on cholesterol and heart disease, too.
West: Do you have a natural tendency to find these critics? Is it a good story? Or is it because it’s true?
Hodgkinson: Yeh. I mean there were so many things that I looked at, there wasn’t a good enough case, so I wouldn’t report it. But definitely the Sunday Times under Andrew Neil, and myself in that area, did sort of click. Andrew Neil liked stories that challenged conventional thinking, and he was very pleased to receive stories of that kind. I did a lot
West: From your point of view he was a good editor?
Hodgkinson: I thought he was an excellent editor. From my point of view the—
West: You had a free rein, presumably?
Hodgkinson: Increasingly. And especially on this AIDS issue, yes. I mean, my earlier years as medical correspondent, that’s when I did these quite a lot of things challenging the cholesterol theory. We did a wonderful thing tweaking the tail of Flora and about polyunsaturates and all that craze.
West: Did you speak to [D. F.] Horrobin at all?
Hodgkinson: Yes. Yes.
West: You did? Quite an impressive character..
Hodgkinson: Yes, he is. In fact he’s got some trials under way—I don’t know he’s getting on—with the use of antioxidants in AIDS patients. You know, that’s his whole evening primrose oil..
West: I think he faced some competition in the shape of borage oil or something. [In fact, starflower.] Someone found another plant which was found to contain even more gamma linoleic acid or whatever it is. I went to a lecture by him, a very good one—
Hodgkinson: He still edits Medical Hypotheses.
West: Well, he founded it, didn’t he. It was his. Do you read that? I’ve only seen isolated bits—
Hodgkinson: No.
West: It might make very good reading. That’s where Eleopulos was published first, wasn’t it?
Hodgkinson: Yes, she’s had one paper published there.
West: And of course that would irk the establishment wouldn’t it. I don’t know if you know the story—Horrobin got started on that when he was a researcher, I think into Valium. I think it was Roche
Hodgkinson: As I remember it, what upset him was the way they went about answering his criticisms. By trying to get him removed from his faculty in Canada. I think he was working in Canada at the time.
      [He found that diazepam (valium) activates, not causes, cancer.—see Martindale's Pharmacopoeia]
West: I was very impressed by him. He’s improved his image too—
Hodgkinson: He’s worked very solidly over the years to authenticate some of that thinking, especially on the fatty acid pathways—
West: Harold was very impressed that he published someone with the contrary view. I think it was on topical eczema, it’s supposed to be beneficially affected by this gamma linoleic acid, because there’s some kind of metabolic pathway they can’t use; but he published an article saying that wasn’t true. Harold was bowled over by that. So he’s an impressive character. What about Bryan Ellison? Do you know him? Have you met him?
Hodgkinson: A little bit. I haven’t really got to know him. I think I spoke briefly on the phone—
West: He’s a bit uncontactable, isn’t he. He doesn’t even have an email number.
Hodgkinson: I don’t know. I felt a little bit uncomfortable on reading his book, in the sense that his anger is so great. He sees things in terms of deliberate plots more than I do. That for me makes him a little hard to accept everything as it comes, but I think he did some marvellous work. He worked very hard with Peter Duesberg. He studied very intently, and I think one of his conclusions, one of the things I took from his book which I didn’t find in Peter’s book, was his challenge t the whole concept of retroviruses as pathogenic agents. And this- (I was telling Ivor earlier- I think this goes too far for Duesberg. Because his place in society, even though a lot of it’s been ripped away, he still has his history as California scientist of the year, outstanding investigator for the NIH et cetera, and that was based on playing the game with this retrovirus concept.
West: I think Ellison, according to something I downloaded six months ago, regards Duesberg as being—not a pawn of the establishment, exactly; but having re-entered the establishment
Hodgkinson: Yes.
West: In fact, he thinks the main credit to all this anti-AIDS stuff is to
Hodgkinson: Lauritsen? John Lauritsen
West: Yes, Lauritsen.
Hodgkinson: I’ve met him, too.
West: Oh have you?
Catt: He’s been everywhere hasn’t he!
Hodgkinson: Oh yes! On this AIDS issue!
Catt: That’s because of Andrew Neil. I mean, you might be good, but you’re also lucky, aren’t you!
Hodgkinson: Yes, I am! Very lucky.
West: Lauritsen was a market researcher, basically, wasn’t he? He maintained that market research is better than science, because there’s money in it!
Hodgkinson: Yes! There’s a chapter on him in the book, actually. I liked him. He’s got, I give quite a good description of him as he came across to me.
West: Didn’t he write Death Rush?
Hodgkinson: Yes. He co-authored it with Hank someone or other [Wilson]..
West: Isn’t he a homosexual himself?
Hodgkinson: Yes.
West: So he’s got an emotional thing—
Hodgkinson: Sort of, yes. He’s a very cool character.
Catt: Is he in New York?
Hodgkinson: When I met him he was in New York. He had a most disgusting flat. I mean disgusting in one sense: it didn’t look as if it had ever been cleaned and it smelled somewhat. It was totally books and papers. You know, you just had to fight your way through—
West: I think we know the kind of thing—
Catt: We’ve got two of them!
Hodgkinson: Absolutely fascinating. You came in. There was a tiny little pathway between these acres of books and files. There was a piano hidden behind all of these things just on the far wall. And then you came across the wall here, which was filthy. It looked out on Greenwich Village. There was a computer with papers all around it. Just a tiny little space and his whole life was in this computer, grabbing the papers that he needed. He was completely oblivious to anything else. Anything but the HIV story, the scandal of what was happening in this area of science. The scandal—I mean, he’s come to terms with his own anger on this quite well. I’ve seen him over the years. I first met him in 1992 at the Amsterdam AIDS Conference. He was in a state—you know, you could see his blood pressure—
West: Was that an official one, or oppositional?
Hodgkinson: That was the first alternative AIDS conference. Montagnier and Duesberg both spoke at that. It was a very interesting event. But poor old Lauritsen was there, and he was just apoplectic. It made it very difficult to listen to him. Because, you know, when people are saying they’re murderers, there should be a Nuremberg trial to hang them
Catt: Hang whom? Which side?
Hodgkinson: The AZT scientists. The people who were peddling these drugs. He was so enraged. He was so absolutely distressed that this junk science was killing thousands of people from within the community that he had some identification with, too. But, you know, it made it very hard to listen to him or take him seriously. You could see that he was a person with integrity, but you didn’t know quite how much his rage was getting in the way—
West: Am I right in saying he was the first one to expose the inadequacies of this AZT thing? A-Zee-T I suppose they’d say.
Hodgkinson: Yes.
West: Just on commonsense grounds, I mean
Hodgkinson: Yes. He was writing on this issue right from 1984 in the New York Native
Catt: He was the first to say AZT is toxic?
Hodgkinson: Yes.
West: And he got this from the original papers? [Of the 'Concorde Trial' of AZT]
Hodgkinson: Yes. He used the Freedom of Information Act to get papers from the original researchers that demonstrated that it was fraudulent science that lay behind the claims to AZT. He demonstrated it very satisfactorily.
Catt: He was the first to say it was what you might call iatrogenic?
Hodgkinson: Yes. His expression was ‘iatrogenic genocide’.
West: So it wasn’t just the published papers. He had to burrow as well..
Hodgkinson: Yes.
West: Do you think he deserves the credit? Is that a fair estimate?
Hodgkinson: Oh yes, very much so. I think he’s a hero of this whole thing. Definitely. Very much so.
West: That was certainly what Ellison implied.
Hodgkinson: Oh yes. Definitely. He was—right from the start, he was challenging devastatingly the claims being made by the Centers for Disease Control, about AIDS being caused by a virus even before the HIV theory was up and running, he was presenting some very good questioning reports. I remember one of the things he did—I’ve written about this but I don’t know if I can get it verbally quite right, it’s some time since I did it. He showed how the way they tabulated the early AIDS cases biased everything towards a viral theory. It was like, they would say, let’s say 70% of the cases were gay, 20% of the cases were drug users, and 10% were transfusion patients. He pointed out that by tabulating them in that way they were excluding the fact that about 99% of the 77% who were gay were also drug users. So the way they were presenting the data from the beginning was biasing it against drug use as a primary cause, which was his belief, that what was really new in the AIDs epidemic, in his community, and in New York City and elsewhere generally, was this epidemic of drug use. His conviction was that was the cause of AIDS
West: He invented the popper theory, didn’t he, or promoted it?
Hodgkinson: Yes, he co-authored that book—
West: -the connection with Kaposi’s—
Hodgkinson: Yes. I think it’s pretty widely accepted now. And it’s accepted that there’s no trace of HIV in Kaposi’s cells. There’s various other theories put forward about Kaposi’s and other viruses. But that was one of two AIDS-defining illnesses. But now the mainstream has accepted—they’ve been forced to accept—that HIV isn’t causing Kaposi’s. Although there are all sorts of other argument—playing some part in making you more vulnerable.
West: The other argument [in addition to drug causation argument] was that there was just a huge amount more of sexual activity. I don’t know if that’s true, but you certainly get the impression that homosexuals became a lot more promiscuous at that time.
Hodgkinson: Well, the drug use was almost inextricable from the promiscuity. The poppers were used as an aphrodisiac. They were used to relax the anal sphincter. They were also used as a high, you know, a rush of blood and prolonged erections and so forth.
West: There was a very good passage in Ellison’s book about gay discos with flashing lights telling you when they were going to distribute the stuff. And a paragraph with a huge list of drugs.
      [Ellison's list I find was taken from Larry Kramer (p 179 of Ellison's 1994 book; following is verbatim): 'MDA, MDM, THC, PCP, STP, DMT, LDK, WDW, Coke, Window Pane, Blotter, Orange Sunshine, Sweet Pea, Sky Blue, Christmas Tree, Mescalin, Dust, Benzedrine, Dexedrine, Dexamyl, Desoxyn, Strychnine, Ionamin, Ritalin, Desbutal, Opitol, Glue, Ethyl Chloride, Nitrous Oxide, Crystel Methedrine, Clogidal, Nesperan, Tytch, Nestex, Black Beauty, Certyn, Preludin with B-12, Zayl, Qaalude, Tuinal, Nembutal, Seconal, Amytal, Phenobarb, Elavit, Valium, Librium, Darvon, Mandrax, Opium, Stodyl, Halidax, Calcifyn, Optimil, Drayl.']
Hodgkinson: Yes. With gay lib in the 70s particularly, one of the really promiscuous gay men, who’s dead now, I interviewed him in London—
West: Did he write a play?
Hodgkinson: Michael Callen. No, Larry Kramer you’re thinking of. Michael Callen campaigned for many years after his AIDS diagnosis. He was diagnosed in 1983 or 4, and he only died a couple of years back. He wrote an article in the New York Native back in 83, before the HIV theory. It was headlined ‘We know who we are.’ It was him and Richard Berkowitz. Two gay men say why they felt that they had got AIDS, because both of them had an AIDS diagnosis. Basically they were saying back in the 70s with gay lib every sexual partner you had was like striking a blow for your freedom. It was like a political statement.
West: I wouldn’t be surprised if the same thing happened with heterosexuals, with the pill. Although it wasn’t my personal experience—
Hodgkinson: I mean, it was phenomenal. There was a 10,000 club! The mean number of partners—
West: Who kept count? Was there an official census—
Hodgkinson: I know. It’s a bit hard to take, isn’t it. But Michael Callen did do an assessment. He showed us how, by the age of 26, he reckoned he’d had more than 3,000 sex partners. He totted it up and showed how he arrived at that. I remember saying to him—this was when I was still investigating—and I asked him if HIV wasn’t the cause of AIDS, what was? And he said, you try having 3,000 men up your butt by the time you’re 26 and not get sick.
West: What do you think of the syphilis theory? That was quite widely promoted by people like Caton. [Sonnabend was first I think.] Apparently syphilis is hard to diagnose, or at least it shows itself in protean ways which you can easily overlook. I don’t know if that figures in your approach—
Hodgkinson: Yes. I’ve mentioned it. It’s possible.
West: I mean, I had great doubts whether AIDS exists at all in any serious sense. But then I met a chap at a microscopical club who was a homosexual. He was a lecturer in biochemistry, actually. And his partner—he’d retired, he was 65-ish, a big beefy bloke. He had a picture of his dead partner who looked a timid young type. I inferred he was the ‘receptive’ one. Presumably you agree there’s some kind of—semen or something—
Hodgkinson: Plays a part, yes, definitely. There’s definitely evidence that receptive partners are much, much more at risk of AIDS than exclusively dominant partners.
West: And that what AIDS is, presumably. From our point of view, its something that receptive partners get. I presume females could get it too if they did a lot of buggery. That’s what it is; that’s AIDS.
Hodgkinson: Well. Where it exists, it’s a new syndrome. I think that’s so. Plus this heavy drug use. You see, there weren’t—I don’t think you’d get Kaposi’s from anal sex, even pigging out on anal sex.
West: Sure
Hodgkinson: I that the drugs were playing a very important part, the nitrite inhalants especially.
West: It’s supposed to be concentrated on their throat area, isn’t it. I mean that’s not exactly proof, but—
Hodgkinson: They were, yes. The first lesions were on the tongue, and the throat. Lesions in the mouth. And also, I reported in the book, evidence from Professor Dennis Parke, who was on a committee for toxicology for many years—
West: Which one?
Hodgkinson: A British government one. Back in the 1970s, in St Mary’s, he saw cases of what later came to be called AIDS. And their conclusion at the time was that the nitrite inhalants were causing this. And he said the nitrites strip the lungs of glutathione, which is the lung cells prime protection against oxidation, against oxidants. The glutathione is the protective substance. The nitrites leave the lungs vulnerable to the microbes that are around—
West: Did they get their supplies from the stuff that was given out to—
Hodgkinson: People with heart problems? No. It was growing in the late 70s, the popper craze
West: Like purple hearts and things?
Hodgkinson: It was specifically the gay community poppers were a very specifically gay thing originally.
West: My brother told me he knew someone who tried one as a sort of experiment, and what happened was his heart beat very fast. I don’t know about the anal thing—perhaps he didn’t choose to mention that. I think they’ve worked out how it operates—I think nitric oxide has had some role worked out, perhaps reliably, though I forget the details. That’s related to nitrites of course. As you say, this kind of stuff has infiltrated into conventional science, hasn’t it. When people see Kaposi’s, they think poppers.
Hodgkinson: Well, I don’t know. But at last—you know, one of the awful things about an area of science like the HIV story is because the basic foundations of this story were shaky, and yet the scientific community went for it, in a big way, and so did politicians and government health advisers and so on, when you have what is really an emperor’s new clothes state of affairs, anything that threatens the status of that theory, is automatically extruded. People just don’t want to know, no mater how important it might be. I remember writing about—one of the last stories I did at the Sunday Times was about some of really profound efforts that some gay activist groups were making, trying to draw the attention of the authorities, including the pharmaceutical society, to the documented ill-effects of the nitrite inhalants.
West: They were writing to them?
Hodgkinson: They were writing to them, they were asking to see them, they were presenting the studies, they were giving the references, to people like the health ministry, the royal pharmaceutical society, the British Medical Association, anyone they could get to listen. They were really trying to campaign on this issue. There was such defensiveness about the HIV theory, that because this presented an alternative scenario for AIDS, it was like, no-one would listen to them.
West: Have they got replies—do you have documents, replies, thank you for your interest, we don’t wish to comment?
Hodgkinson: Yes, they’ve got tapes of conversations that they had with the Terrence Higgins Trust and other AIDS organisations, and they were very dismissive. They said ‘we can’t deprive AIDS patients of their harmless bit of fun’ and that sort of thing. And John Lauritsen describes how, during a visit to London, he went to see an AIDS ward, and he noticed bottles of poppers on the bedside. And he said, he asked the nurse about them, and the nurse said the doctors had given instructions that you shouldn’t interfere with their pleasure. You know, they were dying, and they were being encouraged to use poppers! It’s absolutely astounding. When I wrote an article about these concerns, a level-headed piece, the Department of Health spokespeople were very dismissive of the ill-effects of poppers.
West: Sometimes you get experiments done which are deliberately designed to discredit things.
Hodgkinson: Oh, there was a lot of that.
West: There was one with poppers, wasn’t there, where they deliberately exposed mice to a very low level, which was similar to what you get in a poppers factory—
Hodgkinson: Yes, I’ve reported that.
West: And they found no ill-effects—oh, perhaps I’m quoting you.
Hodgkinson: Yes, you may be. Yes, that’s right. Yes, there was.
West: And presumably that was done deliberately not to examine the evidence?
Hodgkinson: Yes, that’s right. There’s been a lot of that.
West: Can you give any other examples of that sort of thing? Since you say—
Hodgkinson: I give them in the book. I think in John Lauritsen’s chapter, called Drugged, that really sets out the case for drugs being a factor—
      [Hodgkinson's chapter has the following examples, and no doubt others: [1] Biased statistical presentation, without accurate presentation of drugs and gays; [2] Evidence published in journals, but overridden by advertising money by popper manufactures (and the FDA and others which had 'looked the other way'); [3] Fake controls in tests, e.g. gay controls selected only from VD clinics; [4] The mouse study is alluded to; [5] Forms doctors filled out had no questions on non-injected drugs; [6] irrelevance of the 'shared needles' idea, when habitual drug addicts knew of the dangers perfectly well—combined with the implication that injected drugs were harmless; [7] studies classified under hard-to-find or stereotyped headings—for example, under 'amyl nitrite', not under 'AIDS' or 'nitrites'; [8] failure to collect simple facts on 'people with AIDS'—VD, drug use, terror, grief]
West: I apologise for not preparing better.
Hodgkinson: No, that’s OK!
West: When you talk, like Ivor does, of the amount of money involved, how do you find out, how do you check up on these figures? Ivor says $7 billion a year. How do you check? Is that a difficult thing to do? You have all these foundations all over the place—
Hodgkinson: Yes, you do get different figures. Well. Multi-billion dollar is probably accurate. Because certainly the American government’s HIV research funding is about one and a half billion a year. And that’s just for research. And then adding on to that treatment, preventive campaigns, that sort of thing, it is several billion.
West: One and a half billion was for the CDC wasn’t it, or the NIH?
Hodgkinson: It’s NIH, yes, National Institutes of Health. No, it’s not all through the NIH. That’s federal funding of AIDS research, which is virtually all HIV.
West: As a matter of interest, do you know how Jad Adams got into all this? I think I asked him over the phone, but I’ve forgotten what he said. He was a historian originally, wasn’t he. And got involved with Meditel.
Hodgkinson: Yes. That’s in the book too! He worked with Meditel on some other medical documentaries, including one I think challenging the cholesterol theory, and Michael Verney-Elliott, who was a gay man, who had come across (in the New York Native I think) that there were different ways of thinking about AIDS, walked into Meditel’s offices and said, you really ought to take a look at this.
West: And they did.
Hodgkinson: And they did. Meditel were the pioneers of the television reporting on this.
West: Well, it was also Channel 4, wasn’t it. I think if Channel 4 hadn’t existed, I doubt whether the Beeb [BBC] would have published a thing like that.
Hodgkinson: The Beeb have been appalling. They really were, they’ve just been, quite mindless on this issue all the way through. They’ve not wanted to lift a word of criticism of the HIV theory at any point. And in fact, worse than that, they’ve also deliberately tried to sabotage and dismiss some of the efforts to shed more light on this issue from different points of view.
West: You mean, not just by not publishing them, but by publishing counter-stuff?
Hodgkinson: Yes.
West: They also have plays and things. I remember one with Jane Asher, a typical example. All this stuff about people being infected. Another very striking thing is that people go and have ‘tests’. They never say what the tests are. Deus ex Machina going on there.
      I was surprised that Adams was a historian. I found he’d written books on Tony Benn and on life insurance murders, to make money. So he’s a bit of a multiple chappie.
      Did you look into cancer research? There’s a chap he mentioned I went to see, along with Hillman, called [Harold] Hewitt. Who’s now retired. I think a lot of this went on in cancer research. An awful lot of fake, duff work, loose ends which were never tied up.
Hodgkinson: I remember I did quite a few challenging stories in that area from time to time, like the challenge to breast cancer screening was one.
West: What about cancer immunity? Does that ring a bell—that was another of these spurious ideas. The point about cancer cells is that something goes wrong with DNA, presumably, so they split up, but they’re not recognised by the immune system as dangerous. In my view, how the immune system works is not really known. But at any rate cancer cells are almost by definition must be something that’s not recognised. If it mutated in such a way that it was recognised, it’d just be wiped out. And there’s been no end of attempts to make the immune system do things with them—years and years of essentially fraudulent work on that.
      And the HeLa cells! The Henrietta Lacks business—
Hodgkinson: Oh, Hela! Yes! An amazing story! I wonder sometimes whether HeLa might not turn up in AIDS.
West: It’s entirely possible, isn’t it. You’ve got all these vaccines—
Hodgkinson: Yes—
West: Do you ever look into—I wasn’t aware of this until recently. There’s a lot of opposition to vaccines, in some groups, particularly in America. Which I think goes back to—the earliest example I found in Britain was with smallpox. And Lewis Carroll got involved, and he came up with the classic useless reply: somebody said in a newspaper that 90% of the people who got smallpox, in the epidemic, in 1880 or something, 90% who got the disease had been vaccinated. And Lewis Carroll wrote back and said you have to know all the percentages. Classic useless reply. But that figure keeps coming up. I hadn’t realised there’s such a feeling against immunisation, or what’s called immunisation, in some parts of America. I don’t know if you’ve reported that—
Hodgkinson: I have to some degree. Not as much as I would have liked to have done, because it’s so complex to challenge it authoritatively. You have to read a lot of papers. What I did do, I did one on flu vaccine. I went right into the research there and demonstrated that it had never been shown to be effective. In fact—
West: Sorry to interrupt. You mean the whole lot of it, from beginning to end?
Hodgkinson: Yes. In fact there’s quite good evidence that people who receive flu vaccine are more at risk of a variety of ailments-not necessarily flu-in the period a few months following vaccination than those not vaccinated.
West: And if they die of it, you say it was there all the time? You invent..? I admire your guts.
Hodgkinson: Oh there are some good things on this. You always have to rely on what doctors or scientists themselves have done. Some GPs did one of the best studies, where they just kept records, they looked at the health records, of the cohorts who had the vaccine and matched them against the cohorts who hadn’t, and looked at what happened. And this was where they found there was a big increase in a variety of ailments—including death was also up—not from flu, but from a variety of things, in the vaccinated group.
West: This was fairly shortly after being vaccinated? Not their whole lives?
Hodgkinson: It was over a period of about a year after the vaccination. There were other very good studies where some boarding schools. They vaccinated half the pupils, and didn’t vaccinate the other half.
West: How did that happen? Did they run out of vaccine?
Hodgkinson: No, no. It was deliberate trial.
West: It was deliberate policy?
Hodgkinson: Yes. I spoke to the school medical officer. He said, ‘I’ve been a bit suspicious. We didn’t really feel we saw much benefit from this, so I thought I’d just test it out for myself. What he found was that there was less flu in the vaccinated group in the first year, but more illness in the second year in the vaccinated group.
West: Was that a properly controlled blind experiment?
Hodgkinson: There were two of these studies done.
West: Did they inject some of them with a placebo?
Hodgkinson: Oh, I see what you mean. I don’t know.
West: They might have been criticised on the ground it wasn’t properly controlled. There is some sense in having properly controlled experiments, though it makes it very difficult.
Hodgkinson: Yes. It was a pretty good control in the sense that normally you’d expect the inoculated group would be having a better health record, whereas in fact he found that looking at it over the two year period—there were two school studies that pointed in the same direction, and the supposition was that there was some sort of limited protection given by the vaccination, but that the ones that were exposed to whatever was around without that limited protection obtained full protection. So in the subsequent year the vaccinated group, even though they were vaccinated again, became more vulnerable to flu than the unvaccinated group. So on that basis, these schools stopped using the vaccine.
West: What about things like tetanus, which are almost universal?
Hodgkinson: Never looked into it.
West: It’s difficult to judge, isn’t it. Some vaccines may be admirably wonderful; you just can’t tell
Hodgkinson: There’s so much nonsense in the medical field. There are enormous numbers of examples of this kind of thing, where we believe that things have been validated, and they haven’t! There’s just a kind of consensus that has been reached that it’ll be a good idea to reassure people, and make a nice new market, to stick jabs in people. I mean water fluoridation is an absolute classic. There’s very very clear evidence that fluoride taken systemically—that is, where you swallow it—weakens tooth enamel. It’s very very clear! It’s absolutely been demonstrated. But fluoride topically does strengthen tooth enamel. Actually it promotes uptakes of minerals on the surface. But taken systemically it weakens. So fluoride in water is an absolute disaster. It’s absolutely ridiculous!
West: Did you ever publish on this as well?
Hodgkinson: I could never get the news desk to take it. They said they were so sick of fluoride—
West: Is fluoridation—I don’t know if it’s practised in Britain.
Hodgkinson: About 10% of the country still gets it. The Department of Health knows it’s rubbish now, but it’s too much egg on face of all the people that promoted it all those years to do anything about it. So they’ve just left it on hold. They’ve stopped promoting it, but it’s difficult for them to pull back.
West: I’m impressed by the way, you’ve been very thorough.
      Can I just summarise this virus information. They’ve just got two tests, the elisa and the western blot. Is that right, or have they got others now?
Hodgkinson: They do use other methods. The main other method that they use to claim that they do see lots of virus now—where earlier Duesberg’s case was that you can’t find this virus, basically he said it’s so difficult to find it can’t possibly cause the damage attributed to it. With something like Hepatitis B, as I said earlier,—if you take a drop of blood there are millions of virus particles to be seen. No such phenomenon with HIV at all. He said it was nothing different from other retroviruses—in fact, Duesberg himself says retroviruses just don’t do any harm. That was his original Cancer Research paper’s argument. There was nothing different about this retrovirus. Nothing to make it any different from any other retrovirus.
West: But from the point of view of the retrovirus community, that wasn’t a very welcome message.
Hodgkinson: No. It was very interesting. The editor of Cancer Research said, despite this paper being in this very leading journal, and despite that being published there, there wasn’t a single response to it. No-one replied to it. They just tried to pretend it didn’t happen. What was your question, again?
West: Oh, Elisa and the Western Blot—
Hodgkinson: Oh, yes. That’s an important point, this. A lot of recent papers claim there’s a lot of virus, even though we’ve had a decade where everyone agreed there was hardly any. All of a sudden there’s lots of it. On the basis of the use of PCR, the polymerase chain reaction, which Kary Mullis discovered. Got the Nobel Prize for that, for what that’s worth, I think it’s worth a lot. In his instance, he’s a very brilliant chap. This is a means whereby you can find a needle in a haystack.
West: You multiply it, don’t you.
Hodgkinson: Yes. It might just be the needle in the haystack, but you can turn it into a haystack of that particular genetic sequence.
West: The principle so far as I understand it is similar to the way DNA is believed to reproduce anyway. You use the thing as its own template—
Hodgkinson: Yes, that’s right. And using this method, what they—without any validation of the claims based on the basis of this—they are now claiming they can see lots of HIV in the bodies of people who are sick with AIDS. Or who are sometimes HIV positive.
West: OK. So they claim they have a test.
Hodgkinson: They claim this is a test—
West: Is that valid?
Hodgkinson: No, it’s not valid.
West: I mean if they check it against a normal person; do you get false positives?
Hodgkinson: You get to the heart of the issue. This is actually a very important point. You could do controls; you could take people with comparable conditions, conditions of immune system activation, but not AIDS, or not HIV positive, whatever you like. You could do that. But nobody’s ever done that! What they will do, is they’ll say that in an ordinary healthy patient you won’t find these genetic signals; in an AIDS patient you do. In a healthy person, you won’t find the evidence—
West: I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying they actually try that to see, or they’re just asserting it?
Hodgkinson: Well, you see, the actual method they use is called quantitative PCR, which means that they’re making estimates of the amount of HIV which they claim is present. They’re using the method in such a way that with ordinary people you don’t see these signals; with AIDS patients, you do see the signals.
West: OK
Hodgkinson: Firstly, the quantitative idea has not been validated. And that’s pretty well accepted—not by the people using it, but it hasn’t been validated—
West: You mean the ratio could be anything between ten to the 1, and say ten to the 10—
Hodgkinson: Exactly. It’s a very, very uncertain method. But secondly, the fact that you can’t find virus with this method. PCR can only look for one gene at most There are several genes said to be in HIV. They’re just looking at a genetic sequence that’s been attributed to HIV. And that is not the virus. But the people making claims for this method say this is the virus, this is virus isolation. But it’s not. It’s just a genetic sequence- that’s all they’re looking for. And what I’d love to see done is studies to check whether these sequences—OK, it’s accepted that in AIDS and HIV positive patients these sequences are more in evidence—but that is entirely in keeping with Eleopulos’s theory that the immune system cells have been overactivated and that they are producing these genetic sequences.
West: You might find it in ill people generally—
Hodgkinson: Well, you do! That’s the interesting thing. In Africa, you find it in a lot of people with chronic illness, and especially with auto-immune illness—conditions which have gone on for a long time. Immune cells seem to be sending out these distress signals, and it would be very easy to check whether these sequences are actually in everybody’s cells. But no-one will do that! That’s what needs to be done.
West: Yes. There’s a problem here I’ve seen elsewhere. You’re asserting this [nobody will carry out a test], but it’s very difficult to prove it. For example, Harold Hillman says controlled experiments have never been carried out to validate subcellular fractionation. It sounds as though you’ve read the whole literature. His evidence for that is, that whenever he challenges them to produce evidence of controlled experiments, they won’t do it.
Hodgkinson: Yes.
West: He’s certainly never found any papers. So when *you say that, how do you prove it?
Hodgkinson: Well, Eleopulos has been working on this since 1983, that’s twelve or thirteen years, she knows the literature backwards. She’s put the challenge out repeatedly: Where is the literature that shows us this? It’s just not there. Furthermore, a very very good study that was reported in her latest paper, not in the book, really very supportive of this theory, it’s devastating actually. Max Planck Institute in Germany; I’ve forgotten the name of the researcher there. He’s supposed to be a top retrovirologist. He’d done some paper about another so-called human retrovirus—HT something, I can’t remember. And he showed that 70% of HIV-positive people tested positive for this, using some fairly straightforward test, PCR or whatever, and only about 3% of ordinary healthy blood donors tested positive for it. But, it’s in all of us! He knows it is, because he’s shown that it’s part of the human genome. It’s present within immune cells, particularly. Therefore, it’s like a very clear model of what may be happening here. When the immuneCells are stimulated by some chronic stimulus, these genes are activated, and they give off the signals that are picked up as antibodies, HIV antibodies, and they give signals that PCR detects, but it’s an endogenous process. It’s nothing to do with the invasion of a deadly new virus!
West: It does sound possible.
Hodgkinson: It’s amazing, isn’t it!
West: Of course, whenever anyone invents a technique, it can get commercialised, can’t it. When did Kary Mullis get his Nobel Prize?
Hodgkinson: ’93.
West: As recently as that?
Hodgkinson: Yes
West: So it’s a brand new—
Hodgkinson: Well, the technique’s been around for a few years. But what put him onto the HIV critique was that in the early years of his invention, there were companies wanting to validate testing methods using PCR for HIV detection, so they called him in as a consultant. And he said he would write up his reports and so forth, and then he wanted to say in some point in all this, you know, HIV has been shown to be the cause of AIDS. And he said he would ask the scientists, within the company that he was working for, what the references were for that. And they weren’t able to give him any! And that’s what put him on to it.
West: I presume they said they could? They didn’t explicitly say we couldn’t give any?
Hodgkinson: They did more or less, yes! I mean, they said, well, everyone knows HIV is the cause of AIDS! It’s been demonstrated! I mean, they would refer to government publications or whatever, but he’d say, well, yes, where is the actual body of scientific evidence which demonstrates this? And he couldn’t be given the references!
West: So he’s—let me just ask you about the Elisa and Western Blot. Have you worked out how they operate, these two? The western blot we discussed before a bit—
Hodgkinson: Well, all I can tell you in general terms is that Elisa takes a mixture of biological materials and gives off a signal on the basis of looking for the antibodies that are said to be specific to HIV within that mixture. And Western Blot actually has some—
West: It’s an antigen test, is it? You mix something with it, and it goes milky or something?
Hodgkinson: Yes, they both work rather like that.
West: I thought the Western Blot split it up into proteins; you end up with these bands—
Hodgkinson: There are bands. But in both of the tests you’re looking for a reaction between proteins produced by the body with proteins which are said to be specific to those proteins, and that are in your test. So that you’re looking for that reaction. In the case of the Western Blot, the reaction is on these bands with individual proteins that have been attributed to HIV. In the case of Elisa, it’s more of a mish-mash, and you look for the intensity of reaction within that. In both instances the same principle’s at work: you’re looking for an antibody-antigen reaction, and then that produces your band or your colour-change, whatever it is.
West: Did you speak to Kary Mullis?
Hodgkinson: Yes.
West: What was his attitude to all this?
Hodgkinson: Absolute despair. Again, you’ll see an interview towards the end of the book. Actually, it was Celia Farber who’s an American journalist who’s written on this subject for years now. She called him at his home. He lives in California. You know, he, he’s quite a socialite in a sense. I don’t know, he’s probably an ex-hippy or something like that. Brilliant in his field. And very challenging to the mainstream, very ready to be challenging. Anyway, he’d been entertaining one evening when she rang him, and he said he didn’t want to talk to her. And after a bit of talking, and she was asking him about what was going on—this was quite recently, three or four years after he’d first learned of Duesberg’s critique—and she said that suddenly she realised he was crying. This Nobel Laureate was in tears on the end of the phone! And the reason was, he was saying, I just don’t know what to do! What more can I do? To tell these people that they’re killing thousands of people with their junk science. And they’re misusing my test, they’ve never demonstrated HIV to be the cause, and they’re giving drugs which have been untested, clearly lethal because of the nature of their action.

[END OF TAPE]

Back to AIDS piece on this site
Home Page of Entire Site
E-mail Neville Hodgkinson

---

Tapes, transcription, HTML © Rae West 1999. First uploaded 29th December 1999. Neville Hodgkinson's email added 9 Jan 2000. There may be a few transcription errors; feel free to email this site

---

Keywords, key phrases: Africa Aids AIDS angina antibody AZT Bio/Technology Burroughs-Wellcome Cancer Research CDC Concorde Trial controls DNA Elisa flu fluoride HeLa HIV HIV positive immune system Kaposi's sarcoma Meditel Nature NIH nitrite inhalants Nobel Prize PCR placebo polymerase chain reaction poppers positive prostitute drug user proteins science scientific method smallpox Spin Sunday Times syphilis toxicology trials vaccine validation western blot
People: Jad Adams,Harvey Bialy,Michael Callen,Peter Duesberg,Eleni Eleopulos,Celia Farber,Robert Gallo,Harold Hewitt,Harold Hillman,Neville Hodgkinson,David Horrobin,Henrietta Lacks,John Lauritsen,John Maddox,Kary Mullis,Andrew Neil,Joan Shenton,Michael Verney-Elliot,Hank Wilson

Review of   Colin Fraser Brockington   World Health   (Pelican, UK, about 400 pages. 1958)

---

I've owned this old Pelican book for years. It suddenly attracted my attention because of its title:

NOT World Health Organization, but simply World Health.

This looks to me to be an English or British edition; it doesn't seem American or continental. And 1958 seems puzzlingly old.

The back cover blurb (Brockington 1903-2004; yes, he lived to 101) lists many qualifications, but he seems to have been under-rated; my bet guess is that subjects such as 'sanitation' began to sound obsolescent and Victorian. I wondered if he had Jewish roots, and tried to cover them with flamboyancy, like 'Theodore Dalrymple' now and Ashley Montagu (born Israel Ehrenberg) back than, at the start of the Jewish UN in New York. On balance, I'd say not, as he seems entirely sincere in stating that everyone is entitles to true health and mental stability—not of course traditional Jewish views. (Pp 15-21 attempt to define 'health' an its grades; Brockington aims very high).

What sets this book far apart from the now-established Jewish-based view of health is the 'Chosen People' aspect. Bill and Maleinda (surely a male?) Gates and people such a Fauci illustrate the types perfectly: liars and schemers, interested in Jewish money, unknown to straight answers, and clearly plotting, if possible, to exterminate non-Jews. As I type this, the period 2020-2022 has emerged as a long slow slog, a fake 'pandemic', sometimes called a 'plandemic', an unforgettable interval in which serious testing has been abandoned and fake 'vaccinations' have been forced on people if they weren't able to resist. It's not possible to say whether this will stop; clearly the perpetrators want to continue. It's a conclusion which is completely omitted from Brockington.

I'll try to skip through the book, commenting on some of the passages.

'The Charter of the United Nations, signed at San Francisco in 1945, had inserted the word 'health'... on the proposal of Brazil ..' is the agonisingly brief account. 'The first WHO Assembly, ... in Geneva in June and July 1948 ... absorbed the UNRRA ...' (The UN Refugee Relief outfit was of course for Jewish refugees only!)
    A severe blow ... was the virtual withdrawal in 1949 of Russia, and during the next eighteen months, ... all the other eight Cominform countries...' 'Dr Krothov remained in office only two days.' ['Russia' of course means the Jewish Soviet Union. The were of course many such incidents; the 'Cuba missile crisis' being still used as propaganda to this day, with fake nuclear missiles.]

An interesting chapter on Industrialization is the final part of Geography, Beliefs and Customs, Family Life, ... and Food. I *think* it is cautious and slow, because Jews regarded hardware and factories as being their own—a similar attitude to the Kahal jews-versus-the-rest instinct, with the workers an inferior caste. The whole vocabulary around industrialism, from 'the Industrial Revolution', shows that attitude, similar to the folk-song "Stalin was mighty man, and a mighty man was he" and the whole Second World War export of the USA's gold to conquer the USSR and China. Miles Mathis has good accounts of all this.
    Anyway, it helps explain why industry is rarely treated as something that might be useful or wholesome. Whether this will ever change I can't tell. But it does explain the lack of enthusiasm for modern farming and food, experimental ways to grow food, denser and more intricate towns and suburbs and close-packing.

Obviously Brockington, writing 70 years ago, inevitably seems outdated in parts. He was before the huge growth in organic chemistry, with (or example) pills doing odd things with heart failure. He was before X-rays and their modern variations. The sinister aspects of modern 'medicine' did not exist yet. Some discoveries had not been made: allergy to wheat, inability to digest milk, problems with alcohol. Some old practices were part of some memories: the 'Appleby Knotter (1878) probably influenced man's diet than any improvement since ... the horse.'

Brockington was a practical chap, and we have many pages on simply recording data. (This period was mostly before punched cards and electronic data processing). He has four chapters on Inadequate Health Statistics, Standardization of Recording, The Measurement of Morbidity (lots of detail), and The Use of Sampling and Surveys. The references include statistical papers (and these endnotes are quite difficult to find, not unlike Kevin MacDonald's). Pp 332-3, Writing the Report, includes praise for pioneer surveyors and their skill. And their great minds. Comparing these with the typically Jewish advertising and childish money-making style, one has to fear for what has been lost.

A fascinating fact is the isolation of medical deaths and morbidity from military deaths and morbidity. In my view, this is mostly explained by Jewish attitudes. I hope this will not continue, but it would be ahistoric to expect much else.

---

Sunday Times "The world of science this week faces the biggest challenge yet to one of its basic beliefs". – Remember the Sunday Times is firmly under the thumb of Jews, and has publicised many fake stories, for example on 'atom spies' and 'AIDS/HIV.'.

Mensa magazine August 1992: "Richard Milton challenges the arguments for Darwinism"; book promo. Arguments seem to be 1. Radiation dating of the earth and its strata, which he says is the only dating method, is fallible 2. A missing link has never been found 3. Coal measures have upright trees in them - showing that they can be laid down in a short space of time 4. 'The extent of genetic change by selection has been found experimentally to be finite' 5. Archaeopteryx has 1st, 2nd, 3rd fingers modified, while birds have 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, so it may be a feathered reptile and not related to birds. 1991 discovery of 'Protoavis texensis, creature capable of flapping flight in beds 75 million years older than archaeopteryx's. – Just another light thing by Mensa.

---

The Spanish Flu Epidemic and its influence on history
by Jaime Breitnauer

Review by Raeto West

---

Remaindered book by lightweight Jewish sociology type, ignorant of medicine and concerned only to prolong Jewish continuing frauds throughout history.

Published by pen-and-sword.co.uk, in 2019, paperback 2020. Seems to have been taken over by a US publisher in Havertown, PA.

Worthless for facts, slightly interesting as just another portion of continual sewage outfall.

Sidenote: 'Jaime' seems to be pronounced as 'Hymie' in English; maybe shows awareness of Marrano (Spanish/Portuguese) Jews

---

14 February 2024

The Spanish Flu Epidemic

is subtitled 'Stories from the 1918-1920 global flu pandemic' Back to top and indeed there are stories, written in the rather childish style of supposed eye-witnesses. There's nothing to suggest any weeding out of journalistic shrieking and lies.
      However, these are interspersed with completely unintelligent opinions on the Great War, starting with the assassination of an Archduke.

The production values of this book are unimpressive, suggesting to me conflict among the production teams. There's no serious index, the short index being mostly place-names. There's a bibliography of ordinary medical history things, and another bibliography of ordinary history books. There's a slight sprinkling of ANZ influence, which I suppose marks a bit of a change.
      I need to comment on remaindered books at this point: comments online suggest many people don't understand that books go through a sort of circuit, starting at full price hardbacks, and declining through cheap outlets as remainders, finally being thrown out or pulped.
      I probably don't need to bother to say there are no references to Jews or Freemasons, though I think the Federal Reserve gets an unintelligent mention. Austria—notorious for its saturation with Freemasonry—has no note for that.

Highly relevant to Warwick University are some notes on the cover:–

WHAT WAS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE PANDEMIC WITH WAR?

WE LOOK AT HOW SPANISH FLU CHANGED THE FOCUS OF SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT FROM EUGENICS TO THE CREATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH

WE SEE HOW THE PANDEMIC UNFOLDED ON EACH CONTINENT

Let me comment on these three claims, in the light of 'the pandemic' of 2020-2022 with more probably to come.

WHAT WAS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE PANDEMIC WITH WAR?   This book dates the 'global flu pandemic' from 1918-1920, after the Great War was deemed to be over in western Europe and the USA. Sovietised Jew-controlled Russia was ignored. But, just as with 'COVID', death certificates (or diktats from Soviets) were not checked and could say anything. The deaths presumably would not have occurred without war and the resulting impoverishment of the victims. The relationship of deaths is pretty certain. The author knows and cares nothing about this.

WE LOOK AT HOW SPANISH FLU CHANGED THE FOCUS OF SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT FROM EUGENICS TO THE CREATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH   Here we have two other perennial Jewish fanaticisms. Jews dislike eugenics, partly because their own inbreeding produces many defective people, and Jewish attitudes want the costs offloaded onto their 'hosts'. And partly because they don't want competitors to be improved and flourish; their whole Rabbinical framework is to harm non-Jews as much as possible.
      Public health was of course a concern of medical men, certainly since the 'Great Stink' of Thames sewage in about 1850. But Jews, who had poured into Europe and the USA since around 1890, had no interest in other people's health, but only wanted medical care for themselves. In fact, it's arguable that the NHS of 1948 wasn't aimed at the British, but was just one of a parcel of changes aimed at Jews. Certainly the NHS has been kept in permanent stress.

WE SEE HOW THE PANDEMIC UNFOLDED ON EACH CONTINENT   is a fascinating implied claim, presumably intended to mimic the modern-day world-wide Jewish control of information. Four of her chapters glance at the 'Allies', the neutrals, Germany et al, and the Americas. (All these supposedly were influenza deaths).
      Another four glance at north Africa & the Middle East, India—with a famine not unlike the one in the Second World War—the Pacific, and south-east Asia. 'Colonial' has a special meaning to Jews and the people they try to convert into new elites in these unfortunate countries.

---

This sad book tries to continue and project Jewish attitudes and lies backwards (to some extent; not to lead acetate in wine in Rome, not to the Black Death/Plague) and forward to the present day, encompassing the Holocaust fraud and Cold War fantasy when Jews ran both Russia and the USA and other places; and it includes escape clauses on immunity, reduced immunity, compromised immune systems, and all the rest of it. Including the Jewish HIV/AIDS fraud and fluoride fraud.
      The author has no serious knowledge of disease, epidemiology, or of course viruses. It's a crummy and worthless book offering no credit to its possibly Yorkshire begetters.

---

Pen and Sword Books seems based in 47 Church Street Barnsley in Yorkshire, apparently a small building where the Barnsley Chronicle was established in 1858. Their publisher's logo of a sword crossed with a quill suggests greater antiquity than their usual titles possess.
      (It occurs to me that Napoleon's “The pen is mightier than the sword” may have been a statement, not a complaint.)
      I have at least one more of their books, The Starvation Blockades: Naval Blockades of WW1 by Nigel Hawkins, published 2002 by Leo Cooper, 'an imprint of Pen and Sword'. It's a well-produced, illustrated, and indexed hardback. Of course it doesn't pass my serious book test: it has no mention of Jews or Freemasons in its index.

Pen & Sword imprints include Archaeology, Atlas, Aviation, Battleground, Discovery, Family History, History, Maritime, and quite a few others, so perhaps there have been furious takeovers and board battles.

Review of Junk-style unoriginal pseudo-history   John Kelly - The Great Mortality .. BLACK DEATH

Trivial book which is little more than a series of copied anecdotes 11 Sept 2013

---

2005 book by Kelly which has almost nothing to recommend it. There are trots through accounts of various towns and cities and people, but of course records are sparse and there's no evidence Kelly made any attempt to identify sources or point out where information comes from, or how detail might be filled in deductively. I don't think he even refers to the problems of the calendar.

The medical stuff is inconsistent: sometimes victims have 'buboes' in glands in their neck, groin, whatever; sometimes they're covered with infections. Sometimes they die, sometimes they (for example, people digging graves and hefting corpses around) unaccountably live. Ships full of dead sailors manage to sail into ports. There seem to be no accounts of people bitten by fleas, despite this being the supposed transmission method. Some apparently serious research which puts the death rate much lower than (perhaps) alarmist accounts is simply swept aside.


Picturesque or sensational detail rules, with no attempt at assessment. How important, for example, were 'the flagellants'? It's a sort of National Enquirer view of history. Conversely, the possibilities of food contamination, or some novel poison conveyed deliberately or otherwise along trade routes, or what have you, are underplayed—surely a bit unreasonably in a book of its title.

It's typical of the oddity and/or overwhelming Jewish propaganda of our times that Jews are focussed on: maybe half Europe died, but Kelly comments on Jews. Interestingly, it seems highly possible that Jews were responsible perhaps for poisoning people, or poisoning wells, or otherwise spreading disease; Kelly's map at the beginning shows almost no deaths in the eastern European area, for example. Such material, for example of a Jew asked to distribute poison, must have been censored by Kelly. And it's well known now, when Jewish junk US academics state openly how desirable white extermination would be, that Jews largely have that outlook, and in the superstitious days of the Middle Ages would presumably have held it more strongly.

I'd like to suggest a project: look at the evidence for outbreaks; correlate them with other historical events, for example in Rome when Jewish writings were being forced into Rome; or about 1666, when Jews were forcing Cromwell and the (((Bank of England))) into London. If plague, or plagues, was something to do with the lymphatic system, some method(s) for spreading plague might be identifiable. As a relatively easy introduction, I'd suggest Encyclopaedia Britannica volumes, which were first published in 1768-1771, and European medical publications, and (if you read German) Eisenmenger. These perhaps may have been free from Jewish editorial control. Articles in any case list books in Italian, German, Greek and so on, many of which are claimed to be detailed surveys and/or eye-witness summaries. In view of 20th century Jewish viciousness I'd expect serious evidence to be discoverable or rediscoverable. [Note added 1 March 2018]

Amusingly, Kelly takes 'the AIDS virus' seriously, and, also amusingly, compares the deaths with the 'flu epidemic' after the First World War (when huge numbers of deaths due to weakness, starvation, lack of care, lack of medical materials and cleanliness, were routinely ascribed to influenza). Connoisseurs of crap will be amused also that he compares parts of Black Death Europe to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Kelly has endnotes, but no bibliography, and judging by the acknowledgements, must have been pretty much instructed what to read, or more likely what passages to quote from. He seems to have had no special methodology, to e.g. trace the way the accounts of the 'Black Death' (and its relatively late name). I doubt if the books listed (incidentally one is by Norman Cohn) form a useful guide.

I would guess this book was an attempt at a routine update, maybe of once-famous books, popular in their time; perhaps Zinsser's Rats, Lice and History (1935) and maybe Ziegler's Black Death (first published 1969, I think). The time separation seems about right. It occurs to me that Zinnser and Ziegler may have intentionally distracted from biological warfare implications in Europe in the past.

---

This is from Andrew Joyce in the Occidental Observer June 21 2020-
Most interesting among the self-sacrificial acts of the past are, in my opinion, that of the flagellants of the Black Death, derisively and scathingly labelled “the gashers” by the Jewish historian Ben-Zion Dinur. The masochistic flagellants, officially known as “Brethren of the Cross,” or “Brotherhood of the Flagellants,” were radical lay Catholics of both sexes (segregated in processions) who first made a major impact in thirteenth-century Germany during the Black Death. Travelling from town to town, they would hold prayers meetings and processions that would culminate in a massive spectacle where they would whip their flesh until the blood flowed, seeking, through this form of self-sacrifice, to avert a broader national calamity.

Although initially supported by the Church, it soon became clear the flagellants were anti-establishment dissidents in every respect. They rejected the authority of priests and clerics, who were regarded by the flagellants as sunk in sin and therefore intrinsic to the problem. The flagellants rejected the Eucharist, asserting that their blood sacrifice was a more authentic communion with Christ. Finally, they revealed their role as populist social revolutionaries by turning against all established elites, including the very wealthy, the nobility, the city leaders and, most interesting of all, the Jews. In fact, everywhere the flagellants went a violent reaction against the Jews followed. In Frankfurt, in July 1349, the flagellants stormed the Jewish neighborhood themselves, and set it on fire. Occasionally, such as in Mainz, when the Jews heard the flagellants were nearing a town or city, the Jews would launch a pre-emptive assault on Christians, with one chronicler reporting the Jews of Mainz slaughtered 200 Christians before the flagellants finally entered and eliminated the Jewish population. Unsurprisingly, the flagellants were quickly denounced as heretics by the existing elite power structure, and were ruthlessly suppressed to extinction throughout Europe.

Note: 'Andrew Joyce' doesn't seem to consider that the flagellants may have been a psy-op, funded by Jews, to blackwash the belief that Jews took part in spreading disease. Set them up, then abandon the once they'd been useful.

---

Why Did the Black Death Miss Poland?

by Jorma Jormakka, February 15, 2018 In Messianic plan

This is taken verbatim from
http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/02/15/why-the-black-death-omitted-poland/

This is the website of Jorma Jormakka in Finland (Docent of Aalto University, Department of Communications and Networks).

His short CV is here: http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/short_cv_jj.pdf

pieni salaliitto tutkimus translates roughly as the small conspiracy trial

Let’s go to the Black Death. It spread to almost whole of Europe. Everybody knows from the school that the Black Death was spread by black rats. Rats have fleas and fleas spread the disease. We also know that in the Middle Ages people blamed the Jews for spreading the disease, but that was wrong since the disease was spread by rats.

How did the teacher know all this?

It is an explanation, which came to be accepted as a fact, but it may not be a fact. The explanation was developed from observations how the plague spread in our time. The third plague pandemic started in the 19th century and it still continues. In this pandemic plague is spread by fleas of black rats. The disease spread word wide from Hong Kong by rats. The actual mechanism was carefully studied: not all fleas spread the plague. The black rats have fleas which react to the plague bacteria Yersinia pestis in a special way. When a flea drinks blood from an infected rat, the bacteria creates a blockade in the guts of the flea. Then the flea vomits infected blood to the next victim that it sucks. Other flea species do not have this reaction and therefore fleas of gray rats do not spread the plague. When the gray rat largely replaced the black rat in Europe, plague epidemics disappeared.

This was a good and reasonable explanation, but starting around 2000 some researchers started questioning it. At that time it was already possible to get DNA snippets from remains of people, who died of the plague in the past. The problem with the above given explanation is that it takes 30 days from the time that the flea drinks infected blood to the formation of the blockade when the flea starts to infect others. Comparison of the speed how fast the third pandemic spreads and how fast the Black Death, the second pandemic, spread, shows clearly that the Black Death spread very fast and much faster that what the formation of the blockade required.

Later it has been found that fleas may also infect directly before the blockade forms, but this alternative method of infection does not change the conclusion that the Black Death probably did not spread because of rats. This is so since the alternative way of infection is as possible today as it was in the Middle Ages. Today rats spread the disease slowly and mainly by the blockade method if infection. The same must have been true in the 14th century, unless the method of transmission of the disease was different or the disease was different. There were proposals that the disease causing the Black Death was not plague, but since 2010 it is known for sure that it was Yersinia pestis and there were two different clones of the bacteria [1]. Additionally, it is known that the Justinian plague was also Yersinia pestis and the different clones. A clone tree has been constructed in [1]. The two clones that caused the Black Death were ancestors of modern strains of plague. They are on the paths to the two main strains of modern plague. Neither one of the two main strains of plague differs in the way rats and fleas spread the disease, thus the transmission mechanism via rats and fleas was the same for the plague clones of the Black Death as they are today. This implies that if the Black Death was caused by rats and fleas, it would have spread with the same speed as the third pandemic spreads today. The conclusion is that it was not spread by rats and fleas.

The plague can spread by air, but medieval descriptions of the symptoms do not support this possibility. Symptoms fit to plague carried by fleas. The fleas had to be fleas of rats since human fleas do not develop the blockade. Now comes the puzzle: how can humans get rat fleas without being close to infected rats? It is not a very difficult puzzle. One documented way is that a merchant sends a pile of textile to a town and in the pile are live fleas, which infect the town. Fleas stay alive in textile for a long time. They get very hungry and jump on people, who touch the textile. This case happened in England in the time of the Black Death. Practically all town people died. The pile of textile was sent from Continental Europe. Clearly, in this case the plague was not carried by rats.

Another way to get these fleas is that people put on clothes of those, who had died in plague. This is also based on a document, but the event happened somewhere around 1750, it still belonged to the second pandemic of plague. This is told in the Words of the Lord by Jacob Frank [2]. It is a collection of saying and stories of the Jewish messiah Jacob Frank.

“47. Traveling with Jakubowski from Salonika to Poland, there prevailed at that time a pestilence in Podolia. We came to one township where the plague was felling the people, and we lacked food, wine, bread, cheese etc. Then remembering that from those contaminated with plague one does not take money, I told him the opposite, You go there, purchase everything but don’t give them money. He did just that. He came to the baker, bargained for bread, put it in his sack, but when he had to pay the baker fell down and died. He went to the shopkeeper where he bargained for cheese. He put the cheese away and the shopkeeper died. He went on to the store to buy vodka. The same happened with the owner. In a word, just wherever he went he bought everything without money, because the plague was sweeping the sellers away. Coming [back] then to me, where I was waiting for him, a rider on horseback knocked him down with his horse. What are you doing? shouted Jakubowski? Are you going to ride right over me! He didn’t even finish saying it when the rider toppled over and fell to the ground. This is how it is. I did all this because it was promised to me that no plague, nothing at all, could get at me. Therefore all my orders were carried out successfully by the hand of the one whom I assigned, and so should you be.”

This is quite clear. Frank told his men to rob everything from people, who have plague, and to sell it further consciously spreading the plague. This way of transmission would have spread the Black Death as fast as is documented. Of course now you present objections. Maybe Frank was just inventing a story. Why would Frank not have done what he tells? He was a Jewish king messiah and the task of the king messiah is to lead the people to the homeland and to kill and enslave their enemies, meaning Christians for cabbalists such as Frank. To propose that Frank would not have intentionally spread the plague is the same as to propose that guerillas are not intentionally killing people and destroying bridges. That is exactly what they try to do. In his youth Jacob Frank was the leader of a band of robbers. Then he invented that he is the messiah. His sect was excommunicated from Judaism because of rumors that Frankists practiced the night of turned of lights rite, where you change wives and have sex. It is extremely likely that they did so. Frankists converted to the Catholic fait but were found insincere and plotting.

The case of the first division of Poland is interesting and I suspect Frank had a role in it. Frank predicts the division in [2]. One of the three planners of this division was Frederic the Great of Prussia. He was the head of German Freemasonry. Frankists had close connections to Freemasons. When Jacob Frank and a large number of Frankists converted to Christianity, they got noble ranks and the right to vote because of a Lithuanian rule that if a Jew converts to Christianity he immediately gets a noble rank (because they were treated as rich half-nobles even before conversion). In the Polish voting system no decision could be made without a unanimous support from nobles. This means that Jacob Frank could disable Polish military decisions if he so desired. The term Baalakaben in [2] apparently means Freemasons. According to [2], Frank got orders from Baalakaben and did nothing without their order. Frederic the Great could have ordered Frank to disable Poland. Maybe he did not do so, but why not?

Jacob Frank thought he was the biblical Jacob. It is fitting, since Jacob is the crook and so was Frank. In the same way Jesus was Messiah ben Joseph. That means, he was like Joseph, who is thrown to a well and thought to have died, but raises to be the second man next to the living god, the Pharaoh. Any person thinking he is Messiah ben David, the king messiah, is also like Moses. That means that he should cast ten curses against the enemies. Practical cabbalists, like Jacob Frank, were no Talmud scholars. They knew biblical stories of patriarchs and exodus and applied these stories to themselves. Frank lived much after the Black Death, but there were earlier practical cabbalists who had messiah aspirations. Could any one of them had done the same as Frank, consciously spreading plague? Of course they could have, but are there proofs of it?

So far I have mentioned only one proof: the speed of the spreading of the Black Death implies that it was not spread by rats. I gave a very possible explanation how it could have been spread.

The second proof is that according to [1] there were two different clones of plague in the Black Death. One of them can be tracked from Crimea through Italy to France and to England. This clone derives from the bodies that Turks threw over city walls in Crimea. Notice, the disease transmission was by catapults and not by rats. Rats are not always guilty. The second clone is mysterious. It appears in the Netherlands. It might have got there from Norway or from Hansa towns, only how did it get to Norway or to Hansa towns? Plague is not endemic in higher latitudes. Even if the second clone did come from Norway or Hansa towns, how did it happen to come at the same time as the other unrelated plague clone? In reality, what [1] is saying is that there were two pandemics of plague at the same time. That stretches imagination: two unrelated rare events happened at the same time. The natural conclusion is that one or both of the clones were introduced to Europe on purpose by humans.

The third proof has finally something to do with the topic of this post. Why the Black Death did not spread to Poland? There were three areas where the disease did not spread: one was in the Basque land in the Pyrenees between Spain and France, the second one was around Milan in Italy, and the third one was almost whole of Poland.

Milan was protected by strict guarantee rules: people with symptoms were not allowed to enter the city gates and infected people, who were found from the city, were immured in their homes. Plague devastated Milan just ten years later, so the city did not have any natural protection and guarantee rules do not help very long.

The Basque country actually has protection from the mountains and from population, which may be quite hostile to outsiders. This area even managed to keep the old language. If any area in Europe avoided the Black Death, it is not strange that it would be this area.

Then there is Poland. The plague went around Poland and affected Russia. There are no natural barriers that can stop the plague from spreading to Poland and later epidemics reached Poland. The king of Poland imposed rules on the borders, but if the plague was spread by rate it could not be stopped by rules: rats ignore the rules. If the plague was not spread by rats, then we have to ask how it was spread and why it did not spread to Poland. When the Black Death started in 1346 Jews had been expelled from Wales (1290), England (1290). In France Jews were expelled in 1306 and 1321 but they returned and only 1396 they were completely expelled. The expulsion affected Jews of northern and central France. Jews of Provence were expelled later, in 1430. In Germany Jews were accused of spreading the Black Death, there were local persecutions and expulsion in 1348. Expelled German Ashkenazi Jews resettled to Poland. Hungarian Jews were expelled in 1349 and they also resettled in Poland. Crimean Jews were expelled in 1350. They resettled to Lithuania. The Sephardic Jewish communities in Spain, Portugal, Provence, Sardinia and Sicily were expelled only in the end of the next century. Italian Jews were expelled in the 16th century

Jews were accused of spreading the Black Death first in Toulon, France (1348), then in Barcelona (1348), then in Erfurt, Germany (1349), Basel, Switzerland (1349), Freiburg, Aragon, Flanders and Strasbourg. The reasons for these persecutions seem to have been that Jews were less affected by the plague.

One explanation given for lower Jewish infection rate is that Jews were cleaner. They were obliged to wash hands and many washed their body weekly. The Black Death was bubonic plague and spread by fleas. Fleas are not so removed by washing hands or body weekly. The best protection at that time was from flea saunas, but plague spread even to areas where people went to saunas. The Jewish custom of washing a dead body before burial would have exposed them to fleas. These kinds of explanations are not correct. The different infection ratio of Jews and non-Jews must reflect different exposure to the bacteria. Jews and Christians had different wells. A natural conclusion at that time was that Christians got the plague from their wells. Consequently, Jews were accused of having poisoned the wells. Now we know that cholera is spread by water but plague is spread by fleas. Wells were not the source of plague. As the source of fleas was not rats, it must have been goods, like clothes, that were obtained from people, who had plague. What Jacob Frank tells in his sayings sounds very probable.

Jews of Toulon in Provence and Barcelona in Aragon would usually have been Sephardic, while in German speaking areas (Erfurt, Basel, Freiburg, Strasbourg) and in Dutch speaking Belgium (Flanders) the Jewish communities would have been Ashkenazi. The distinction between Sephardic and Ashkenazi does not seem important. What seems more relevant is that all these areas there were cabbalistic Jews. Early cabbalism has two roots: German practical cabbalism and Spanish theoretical cabbalism, meaning roughly curses and spells versus Zohar. This division is not of the type that is would separate cabbalists to two groups. There was only one group: Messianic cabbalism. Jacob Frank was a perfect representative of this group. Jews, who moved from Germany to Poland, included cabbalists. In the later centuries these German Jews expanded to the large Eastern European Ashkenazi community, and among them the cabbalistic tradition continued, and it still continues in Hasidism.

Jews in the above mentioned towns were accused of spreading the Black Death. Were they accused as believers in the established religion of Judaism, which at that time was based on the teachings in the Torah, the Prophets, the Talmud and the Tosafot, or were they accused as members of a new sect: cabbalists or zoharists, Zohar not being older than 62 years when the Black Death started. A new Messianic and occult sect is not above suspicions.

So, what is the answer to the question in the topic? King of Poland welcomed Jews when they were expelled in many countries. The Black Death omitted Poland. There may not be any connection between these two facts. As always, there is no way to prove anything in history in the same sense as what is understood as a proof in exact fields. History is a story and it is propaganda. Somebody decides that let us blame the Black Death on rats. And so it will be and questioning it is forbidden.

References:

[1] S. Haensh et al., Distinct Clones of Yersinia pestis Caused the Black Death, 2010, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951374/

[2] Full text of Collection of the Words of the Lord by Jacob Frank.
https://archive.org/stream/TheCollectionOfTheWordsOfTheLordJacobFrank/TheCollectionOfTheWordsOfTheLordJacobFrank_djvu.txt

-Added by Rae West   11 Feb 2021 from an archive copy I think Sept 2020.

Review of Alan Norton: Drugs, Science, and Society (1973 revision)

MISLEADING TITLE!   Much more wide-ranging than the title suggests. Author was DM, FRC Psych and his book might be entitled '20th century medicine and Society'. He presumably preferred medicine to psychiatry

---

Snapshot of Medical Practices around 1975 Britain
I'm putting up this review because Norton gives a snapshot, which may be helpful in dispassionate assessment.
      There's far too much to explain in detail; I hope these notes and the index entries might prove helpful for general concerned people.

• Norton must have been somewhat aware of the limitations in biological research, which Harold Hillman did his best to highlight. The bottom line was/is that empirical research went ahead, but degenerative diseases remained untreatable.
• Biochemistry and trace elements were not well researched then, and, while better now, remain uncertain because of the enormous experimental difficulties.
• Norton was unaware of race issues, for example problems with mixed races, and the injection of sickle cell anaemia. And he had no idea about selective rates of reproduction, in effect pushed by Jew lobbyists.
• Norton was aware of the health effects of clean water, good food. He didn't appreciate salt, however. On vaccination, he was well aware that previously common diseases had dropped enormously, and provides detailed graphs. His results are useful in countering the huge, Jewish-based push for vaccinations.
• The dangerous addictive drugs, familiar in the USA, were not common in Britain at the time.
• The anti-fluoride 'lobby' used arguments such as 'it's unethical to force it on people; children's teeth improve if people discuss it; sells illusion that sweets can be eaten with impunity between meals'. Science education was a feeble force against pressure groups, BBC and TV lies.
• It's important to try to be objective: a note says 'Polly Toynbee [journalist, probably undeclared Jew] Dec 1993 on medical treatment earlier this century: describes diphtheria, pneumonia, tuberculosis, scarlet fever, polio etc in horrific but probably exaggerated terms.
• Norton assumes wars are acts of god. Nothing much on effects. For example, at the time he wrote, medical records of women infected by US troops in Britain were being burnt.

CONTENTS:
PREFACES
1 THE CHANGING WORLD OF MEDICINE
2 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE
3 DRUGS
4 PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
5 POPULATION PROBLEMS I: GROWTH
6 POPULATION PROBLEMS II: AGEING
7 THE RISE OF PSYCHIATRY
8 GENERAL THEORIES OF DISEASE
9 FRONTIER MEDICINE
10 NEW DISEASES
11 THE NEED FOR A CHANGE IN MEDICAL EDUCATION
12 THE FRAMEWORK FOR PRACTICE
EPILOGUE, NOTES, REFERENCES
INDEX


CONTENTS IN MORE DETAIL:
PREFACES
1 THE CHANGING WORLD OF MEDICINE [13/ 16: THE PLAN OF THE BOOK]

2 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE [17: THE INVASION BY SCIENCE/ 27: THE ASCENDANCY OF THE LABORATORY/ 27: AUTOMATION AND COMPUTERS/ 29: INTENSIVE CARE/ 30: HAEMODIALYSIS AN KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION/ 34: HEART TRANSPLANTATION/ 35: EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE/ 39: PLACEBOS, DOUBLE-BLIND TRIALS AND ETHICS]

3 DRUGS [44; 45: THE CREDIT SIDE/ 51 WHERE DRUGS COME FROM/ 56: CRITICISMS OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY/ 61: CONTROL OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY/ 64: SIDE-EFFECTS AND TOXICITY/ 71: THE EFFECT ON MEDICINE]

4 PREVENTIVE MEDICINE [76/ 78: INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS/ 83: MIGRATION/ 85: SCREENING (PRESYMPTOMATIC DIAGNOSIS)/ 92: PRESENT PROBLEMS]

5 POPULATION PROBLEMS I: GROWTH [97: EXPLODING POPULATIONS/ 99: BIRTH CONTROL/ 101: ABORTION/ 105: STERILISATION/ 106: CONTRACEPTION/ 111: POPULATION QUALITY/ 112: EUGENICS, POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE/ 115: REMEDIES/ 116: BIOLOGICAL DISCOVERY]

6 POPULATION PROBLEMS II: AGEING [119: FALL OF MORTALITY OF THE YOUNG/ 123: AN AGEING POPULATION/ 124: GERIATRIC MEDICINE/ 128: GERONTOLOGY/ 128: EUTHANASIA]

7 THE RISE OF PSYCHIATRY [132; 134: THE INFLUENCE OF TWO WARS/ 139: US Army 'always rejected a far higher proportion of recruits..'/ 140: THE STUDY OF SOCIAL SETTING/ 145: THE INFLUENCE OF FREUD/ 147: THE SUCCESS OF PHYSICAL TREATMENT AND DRUGS. 147: Eysenck says about two thirds spontaneously recover/ 151: THE TREND TO COMMUNITY CARE/ 154: A CURE FOR ALL ILLS/ 158: THE LIMITS]

8 GENERAL THEORIES OF DISEASE [7: Omits oncology. 163: DIVISION AND UNITY IN MEDICINE/ 165: THE PSYCHOSOMATIC HYPOTHESIS/ 168: THE STRESS HYPOTHESIS 168: Hans Selye, 169 Selye's hormone theories/ 171: THE HYPOTHESIS OF AUTO-IMMUNE DISEASE i.e. fault in immune system/ 175: AETIOLOGICAL THEORY 175: rheumatoid arthritis most baffling 177: 'two hypotheses and rheumatoid arthritis, corticosteroids, ulcerative colitis, hyperthyroidism, and the vast kidney-hypertension-arterial degeneration complex. ... the two theories seem to be so irreconcilable that their adherents.. ignore each other..']

9 FRONTIER MEDICINE [179; 180: HEAT/ 182: COLD/ 184 COMPRESSION AND DECOMPRESSION/ ACCELERATION AND DECELERATION/ 191: WEIGHTLESSNESS/ 193: THE VERTICAL FRONTIER/ 195: SENSORY DEPRIVATION/ 201: CONCENTRATION CAMPS 206: Long-term psychiatric effects]

10 NEW DISEASES [208: FROM DEARTH TO PLENTY/ 209: Personality development cliches/ 209: Lady Wootton's 12 causes of delinquency which she dissected/ 210: ARTERIAL DISEASE 213: Morris' Blood pressure and cholesterol indicators/ 214: CANCER OF THE LUNG 215: tuberculosis/ 216: DENTAL CARIES/ 217: ADDICTION 217: Drinking control 219: 1964 use of 'dependence' 225: hallucinogenic drugs all Mexican? 225: LSD/ ATTEMPTED SUICIDE/ 230: ACCIDENTS now the commonest cause of death below 40; 231 table of causes of death [up to 34]; 232 deaths from motor vehicle accidents [by 1969, all between 14 - 30 deaths per 100,000] 234: motorcycle deaths in young people in Britain]

11 THE NEED FOR A CHANGE IN MEDICAL EDUCATION [236: 'no country.. wiser reports.. no country has done less..'/ ; 238 SEVEN QUESTIONS. 1 Has medical education adapted itself to the vast increase in scientific knowledge? 2 Has medical education kept pace with the scientific techniques of clinical medicine and with the drug revolution? 3. Has medical education come to terms with specialisation and the centrifugal forces in medicine? 4. Has.. taken accounts of developments in preventive and social medicine? 5. What response.. to the growth of psychiatry? 6. Have teaching hospitals adapted themselves to an ageing population?/ 7 Is the need for postgraduate pre-registration medical education being satisfied?/ 243: British-trained doctors to Canada and USA]

12 THE FRAMEWORK FOR PRACTICE [245: a mobile of five pieces - disease, patient, doctor, relationship, context in which medicine is practised 246: THE EFFECT OF THE ENGLISH POOR LAW; 246: 1845, 1911 Acts; Clough: 'Thou shalt not kill..'; 247: 1867 investigations into the condition of the sick in workhouses.. 248: Boer War and condition of army recruits; 249: old age pensions 1908/ 250: THE LLOYD GEORGE SCHEME 251: [NOTE: CONFLICT] 'Put simply, he had a battle to fight on three fronts and he chose his tactics accordingly.. 1 friendly societies.. 2 industrial insurance companies.. 3 the medical profession; 251: AMA opposition to the 'general good'/ 253: MEDICAL PLANNING BETWEEN THE WARS 253: Dawson Report (also 271); 254: 1926 Royal Commission; 255: 1936 Cathcart Committee/ 258: FROM BEVERIDGE TO BEVAN 1942 Beveridge Report; 1937: 'means tests have become odious'/ 263: ADVANTAGES OF BRITAIN'S HEALTH SERVICE Ministry of Health in 1939; 266: Nye Bevan and National Health Service Act of 1946/ 267: DISADVANTAGES OF BRITAIN'S HEALTH SERVICE 'the provision of any form of medical care always makes the situation more overt'; 268: table of % of GNP on health compiled by WHO/ 273: EXPERIENCE OF OTHER COUNTRIES 273: 'USSR.. integrated service.. fully specialised hospitals at the centre, with polyclinics.., and in rural areas, clinics and heath centres at the periphery..; 274: Treaty of Rome (EEC); 274-6: Medicare legislation in USA; 276: NOTE: CONFLICT: '.. from c mid 19th century British GPs battled with the staffs of the voluntary hospitals, especially.. specialising in particular diseases, whom they accused of treating, free, patients rich enough to pay GPs. From this struggle was evolved, around the turn of the century, the referral system, by which specialists agreed not normally to see patients unless they were referred by a GP...'; 278: [More on American medicine] '.. not enough doctors to meet demand.. suggests virtually no limit to the number of doctors wanted. .. Medicine as an international currency is hoarded in America like gold in Fort Knox. ..'; 279: 'clash between medicine as luxury and necessity best seen in mental illness.. profitable psychoanalysis.. [but] state mental hospitals.. in 1964 29 of 279 had no psychiatrists on their staff at all. ..']

EPILOGUE [282: Quotes Tertius Lydgate, Dr in George Eliot's Middlemarch]/ 283: THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF SCIENTIFIC MEDICINE: 283-4: Polio, diabetes, schizophrenia, clinics, obesity, alcoholism, renal dialysis, transplantation, intensive and coronary care.. science-based medicine 285: Tom Paine, Rights of Man etc/ 287: New Ethical Problems: abortion; advertisement; contraception; euthanasia; experimental medicine; dialysis; transplants 289: THE FUTURE]

NOTES, REFERENCES [Numbered notes to the chapters; might as well have been footnotes]

INDEX [GOOD; ABOUT 18 COLUMNS: Inc: abortion, accidents, Afghanistan, aggression, AMA, amphetamines, anaesthetics, anti-depressants, arterial disease, Australia, auto-immunity, Baird, Banting, Bateson, barbiturates, BCG, Belgium, Bettelheim, Bevan, Beveridge, brainwashing, BMA, Canada, cancer, Ceylon, chloramphenicol, chronic bronchitis, Churchill, community care, concentration camps and survivors, congenital malformation, contraception, cost of medicine, Cousteau, criminal responsibility, Czechoslovakia, death rates, dental caries, diabetes, diphtheria, DNA, doctor-patient, Doll, double-blind trials, drugs, Dunlop Committee, eczema, education, ECT, ECG, EEG, EMG, ethics, Eysenck, Finland, Fisher R A, Fleming, FDA, France, Freud, fringe medicine, Galton, gas gangrene, GMC, general practitioner, geriatrics, Germany, germ theory, Ghana, Grafenberg ring, Greece, haemodialysis, health insurance, heat, hospitals, Human Tissue Act, Huxley Aldous, hypertension, iatrogenic disease, immunisation/ ology, India, industrial health, influenza, insecticides, intelligence, IUD = IUCD, Israel, Italy, Japan, Java, Jung, Kennedy J F, Keynes J M, Kraepelin, Laing R D, League of Nations, leprosy, Lloyd George David, Local authority, Lubeck disaster, LSD, malaria, manic-depressive psychosis, Margulies spiral, marijuana, Marx, mass media, mass radiography, Mauritius, Dr Thomas McKeown [who seems to have been the first to state that hygiene etc had more effect that medicine; see SPES tapes], Medawar, Medicare, Metropolitan Asylums Board 1867, molluscicides, monoamine oxidase inhibitors, mongolism, Moran, morphine-like dependence, motorcycle accidents, NHS, National Insurance Act, Netherlands, neuroses, Norway, obesity, orthopaedics, overeating, oxygen, paediatrics, Pakistan, Pavlov, patent law, patent medicines, penicillin, Penrose Lionel, peptic ulcer, personality disorders, Peru, pharmaceutical industry, phenothiazine drugs, phenylketonuria, Pickering George, 'Pill', Pincus, pink disease, placebos, plastics and polymers, Poland, poliomyelitis, Political and Economic Planning [PEP], population, Poor Law (English), postgraduates, preventive medicine, prisons, prostaglandins, psychiatry, psychoanalysis, quarantine, quinine, rabies, radiation, Red Army, religion, Rhesus incompatibility, rheumatoid arthritis, Road Safety Act, Roman Catholic Church, Rowntree, rubella, Russia, Sabin A, Samaritans, schizophrenia, scientific revolution, screening, scurvy, Selye Hans, sensory deprivation, Shaw G B, Shell shock, Sickle-cell, Simon Sir John, social change, statistical methods, Stopes Marie, subnormality, suicide, Sweden, Switzerland, syphilis, Tavistock clinic, Taylor Rattray, tetanus, tetracyclines, transplantation, tuberculosis, typhoid fever, ulcer, U.N., U.S, vaccination, Van Allen belts, Vietnam, war, Watson-Crick, Webbs, W.H.O., yellow fever, Yugoslavia

The Divided Self   by   Ronald D Laing

Another Example of Crypto-Judaism

Raeto West   21 July 2024

---

I'm looking back here mostly to the 1960s. Laing (born in Scotland, 1927; died 1989, somewhere) has flickered on in death; he reminds me of D H Lawrence in that respect.
      I'd thought there was a connection with Gregory Bateson (1904-1980), who seems to have developed the 'double bind' theory, but I couldn't find a link.
      There was some talk of 'nuclear weapons', and of the Vietnam War—an anecdote I recall had Laing in discussion with a Vietnamese man explaining how he kept calm while his wife and children were being murdered by Americans.
      Laing took his philosophy fairly seriously, but was of course handicapped by (I think) knowing nothing about Jews. I couldn't relocate a film, in black and white, of Laing speaking to the camera on such things as Galileo and also Sartre, though Laing didn't seem to know Sartre was a Jew.
      If people are still talking of Laing and others, take it from me that if Jews aren't mentioned, their output will be a waste of time.

It's impossible to tell how articulate Laing was; it's not known how heavily edited he was. For example, the famous passage about his child delivery experience of an anencephalous child (or 'child') can hardly have been accurate; it must have been known the child was malformed.
      Many of his stories were shaped and edited. For example a boy slowly revealed to have a polio-deformed leg must have been obvious from the start of the interview.
      Laing had an isolated upbringing; but went to Glasgow Medical School; pretty much up the road. I can't tell if he liked it or was just sent there as a career move. The biogs I've seen are evasive.

A film by Peter Robinson (Asylum, 1972) was notorious for being unavailable for years. However, it's online now. It is a 'documentary' (without documents) on 'Kingsley Hall', a fancy name for a grotty (the 'mot juste', I think) house, I think in London. It captures the slow-moving mental inertia, probably successfully, of such places. I wondered if Jews like mentally-enfeebled people.

The Jewish point here is that Laing's mum may have been a Jew, and he may have been kept away from other children. A great deal of material suggests this, including the Jewish accents of people in his circuit (see the videos, if they remain), including Szasz from the USA. All these are missing from K MacDonald. The whole substructure, including the split between Jews among themselves and vs the 'goyim' which often lasts for lifetimes, is reminiscent of Jews and Freud and assorted Jewish frauds, of which the 'Holocaust' is big, but not as big as the entire 'Chosen people' racket and the 'only we talk to God' idea.

At that time, I was in Hampstead in north London. £1,000 was a salary; George Melly with his flugelhorn accompaniment sang; 'A Woman Needs a Man Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle' posed as a slogan; house prices had been planned to rise; a shop called 'Golden Tassel'; politics was a Jew-unaware conspiracy; expansions of what was called 'further education' were fueled by contracts up to retirement age; Jews planned their schemes, such as 'racism'.
      And Laing was adopted by some middle-class types, who had secret money and did things like Poetry and Yoga teaching. I remember an unexpected wife of a man who sounded aristocratic; I never found out what was happening, and I never met him and, lacking the bunch of Jewish keys, would only have been puzzled.

-Raeto West   21 July 2024

Unnatural Causes

by  Dr Richard Shepherd  

first published 2018

Review by Raeto West   27 March 2024

---

The scalpel of truth missing its target

---

I hadn't heard of Richard Shepherd until I found a 'pre-used' copy of this paperback. A quick look aroused my interest; the opening pages looked at the Hungerford Massacre, which Miles Mathis's site had cast doubts onto.
      This was first published by Michael Joseph, which seems to specialise as a taster for giant Jewish media conglomerations. In 2019 it was published by Penguin Random House. As my more aware readers will know, Penguin has been part of Jewish propaganda since its foundation, and has been enormously and depressingly successful.
      Forensic medicine has had occasional non-professional writers, such as Zakaria Erzinçlioglu: The Illustrated Guide to Forensics—this review is in a long file.   Better known (I think) are a few forensic practitioners such as Keith Simpson (Forty Years of Murder, 1978) though, perhaps because of differences in national law, pre-eminent people seem only known in their own countries. True Crime seems a phrase mostly from the U.S.A.
      Shepherd's book (I suspect it was co-written or ghosted) has references suggesting he felt underpaid and underpromoted; something like the negative of the US system of Jewish domination of medical practice under which there is vast medical indebtedness and vast fraud and deception.
      Interestingly, Shepherd says little about DNA. What this discovery will introduce—and there are uncertainties—Jews have control over the consumer aspects and probably the more industrial and biomedical complexes. With the usual dishonesties and exploitative viciousness of Jews. I've looked into DNA a bit; here's an article largely on Jeffreys.

Unnatural Causes has the usual fingerprints of intensive book promotion: a Sunday Time bestseller, with twin promises of possible fraud with companionship of many other 'bestsellers'. It has loud praise from the Jewish media and occasional selected oddity—Jeremy Vine saying it's brilliant and I really recommend it and it's fascinating. It is unindexed; there must be some trade truisms here - maybe indexes look too serious, maybe people aren't expected to get to the end; no doubt the market researchers decided on balance not to include one. The Turkish book I mentioned has a long list, including Chechen hostages, Dunblane, ethnic groups, Hitler diaries, J F Kennedy, 9/11, Waco—I selected controversial subjects—and we have some common ground with Dr Shepherd.
      Unnatural Causes starts with Hungerford in 1987 and proceeds to other likely frauds: Bali bombs, 7/7 London bombing, Clapham rail disaster, sinking of the Marchioness, 9/11 in New York, Whitehaven massacre—page 22 (the book is unindexed, and these are hard to find). Section 18 has a long list of 'disasters', including Lockerbie. When I say 'likely frauds', I'm assuming some familiarity with the work of writers of the Miles Mathis school. Section 24 includes Stephen Lawrence, 'a bright, ambitious eighteen-year-old' who was used by a G.P. called Stone as part of the Jewish move against whites. (Shepherd doesn't say that). This became part of a huge invention. The sort of thing is now better understood—George Floyd in the USA is a more recent case. Another case is of Joy Gardner.
      At the very start of Unnatural Causes, Shepherd says that his head of department, Iain West (1944-2001; no relation!)—'it was quite clear that he was top dog'—was on holiday, mid-August 1987. This suggests to the trained mind that, whoever planned the project, arranged for Shepherd to be there.

---

Intermission from America: I was unable to find any reference to Dr Shepherd in Miles Mathis's work. He has had plenty of experience in identifying likely irregularities in work in legal, pathologist, and coroners' work. These include:
Thomas Noguchi Coroner for e.g. Sharon Tate, John Belushi, William Holden, Marilyn Monroe, and Robert F. Kennedy.
Dr. Robert Sybert who did forensic pathology work on diplomats and American military for those who died in an unusual way. Sybert was the coroner who examined the bodies of the alleged dead at Kent State
Other names include Dr. Patrick Allen, coroner and medical examiner from Larimer Co., CO.; Coroner John Meyer; Katherine Ramsland who also worked with Dennis Rader, the fake BTK killer. She is the famous forensic pathologist who co-wrote The Confessions of a Serial Killer. I found (but I tired of searches) a Dr. Hiss, who 'got rid of the truthful conclusions of Drs. Gutman, Sneh and Barabash.

---

He's written another Penguin, The Seven Ages of Death, and appears to be considering offers of further books. Judging by the dates and times, my guess is that he's been asked to write on COVID, and asked to write a whitewashing book. Just a guess. He may be involved in negotiations involving his approach to truth. And he may be worrying over it. Good luck to him with that.

Below is a screenshot of Wikipedia on him; I couldn't help noticing its thinness, and the absence of family information. This of course is often a marker of Jews. His website DrRichardSheppard.com seems to be the work of Lydia Teebay, a 'creative'.

I want to mention Lestrade on the 'Hungerford Massacre' Dated 11/01/2019, i.e. after Unnatural Causes).   Please read the pdf file, which is mirrored from Miles Mathis's site. For my taste it's slightly flippant. To be helpful, here are the four videos Lestrade (also known as unpopular opinion) mentions:

BBC 6 O'Clock Report (Page 19. c 10 mins)

News at 10 clip (Page 20. 1 min 45)

The Morning After (Page 21. c 2 mins)

BBC 2005 'Documentary' (Page 21. c. 61 mins)

The Cambridge HISTORY OF MEDICINE

Edited by Roy Porter

---

Object lesson in how not to do history, especially of fairly technical subjects.   Full of errors, mostly caused by funding-dependency

---

Roy Sydney Porter MBA (1946-2002)   Not to be confused with other Porters..
This book was published a few years after Porter's (youngish) death. Has Porter's own intro.

My copy is dated 2006, reprinted 2009.
Cambridge has a large Department of History and Philosophy of Science. It says it has 'an outstanding international reputation for teaching and research.'

It has 10 chapters, 4 of them written by Porter, the other 6 (about 30 pages) by different authors. Chapter 10 was Looking to the Future 1996, followed by a 10-year update by Watts, which is cautious—he limits himself to ten years or so. .
      It has endnotes, an alphabetic list of 'personalities', an index, and further reading lists. and index. Some maps. Porter's 9-page intro reads like an AI-written assemblage of clichés.
      And it has a chronology c9000 BC to 1995. The world events are chosen on strictly conventional lines. Including 'Global Warming', and war 'breaking out'. It did not include 9/11. It includes (in bold) 1922 USSR established; 1962 Cuban missile crisis; 1966 Cultural Revolution begins in China; 1969 Neil Armstrong lands on the moon. Earlier events include 1611 Authorised 'King James' version of the Bible; 1616 Death of Shakespeare.
      The book (it's about 400 pages) has a list of 'Major Human Diseases', the very first being 'acquired human immunodeficiency disease, AIDS. A mute testimony to tangles in research into immunity.
      Chapter 8, by Porter, in Mental Illness a wonderfully unsignposted topic which is just right for cut-and-paste, AI, assembly. Porter treat the Jewish basis of Christianity with naive innocence: '...the warfare waged between God and Satan for the soul' illustrates the type of thing. Views of madness in ancient times are described through mists of vagueness; after all, that's just history.

Some issues I noticed were 'AIDS' and 'HIV'—the latter supposedly going down in an encouraging way. There's some mention of the 'Wellcome Trust', one of the huge beneficiaries of that fraud. In only a few years the Coronavirus and COVID frauds would begin their reign of error, as would the Sacklers' Oxycontin and other heroin-based horrors.
      I wonder what the point was of this and the related books and supposed research. The obvious guess is that it supplements people like Fauci and the immense network of world-wide Jews controlling medicine and controlling Jewish frauds.
      Other things: Fluoride in water attributed to the USA. Lead poisoning, though the Rome link seemed omitted. Scurvy and Vitamin C, and the B vitamins were listed by discovery date, which could save effort in looking up—if they are correct. (Jews like to claim priority, patent rights, copyrights etc etc!)
      Polio and leprosy get their mentions. Polio may well have been caused by DDT in rivers flowing from farms; at any rate, it seems to have gone. Leprosy seems to have been related to severe malnutrition; maybe it's gone or reduced.
      Plague and/or Black Death have hidden significance since they may have been Jew-generated, though the evidence, if it survives, will be well-concealed. John Kelly's book is an example of the 'continuism' which is endemic to unserious 'researchers'.
      Pneumonia after the First World War is just one example of a supposed epidemic, when famine and bad water were not investigated as causes. This sort of thing has happened often enough—the Peloponnesian War, for instance.
      There's plenty more material, but perhaps not a lot of point in detailing it, since the rate of generation of new frauds is now so very high and seems unstoppable.

I'll list the non-Porter chapters' authors: 1 The History of Disease, Kenneth F Kiple; 2 The Rise of Medicine, Vivian Nutton; 4 Primary Care, Edward Shorter; 7 Drug Treatment and ... Pharmacology, Miles Weatherall; 9 Medicine, Society, and the State, John Pickstone; and Geoff Watts, mentioned before.
      Perhaps the interval after about 2000 will become recognised as a transitional period to full 'artificial intelligence', as anonymous as the BBC, and as reliable.

---

A close reading of Wikipedia gives away quite a lot: born in 1946, he seems to have been Jewish East End, probably earmarked for a life of lies. He 'attended Wilson's School in Camberwell' and 'won a scholarship to Christ's College, Cambridge, where he studied under J. H. Plumb.' His contemporaries included Simon Schama and Andrew Wheatcroft. He achieved a double starred first and became a junior Fellow in 1968, studying under Robert M. Young and lecturing on the British Enlightenment. In 1972, he moved to Churchill College as the Director of Studies in History, later becoming Dean in 1977. He received his doctorate in 1974, publishing a thesis on the history of geology as a scientific discipline.
      He was then appointed to the post of Assistant Lecturer in European History at Cambridge University and promoted to Lecturer in European History in 1977.
      In 1979 he joined the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine (part of the University College, London) as a lecturer. In 1993 he became Professor of Social History at the Institute. And so on. DNA questions

Just another supposed scholar: in fact he writes with disjointed bits and no detectable original work. He was a typical BBC presenter type like Attenborough, Bronowski, Burke, Patrick Moore, Jonathan Miller, Nurse, Steven Rose, Richard Dawkins, Brian Cox, Royal Institution Lectures ...

Here's a short video of Lorraine Day, US doctor, (R.I.P.) on Jews running medicine.   5-min video inc Fauci