[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/121886541″ width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]
Videos By Rare
The new movie “Dallas Buyers Club,” starring Matthew McConaughey, deals with a real life story of Ron Woodroof who created what would become known as the Dallas Buyers Club in March 1988. Woodroof found that the AZT drug approved by the FDA was making him very sick and was ineffective. He begins going to Mexico to find better drugs to help himself and others with HIV and AIDS that the FDA said were illegal.
Robert Scott Bell discusses this movie and the government’s involvement in the HIV testing and drug business.
Kurt Wallace for Rare: The new movie “Dallas Buyers Club,” starring Matthew McConaughey, deals with a real life story of Ron Woodruff, who created what would become known as the Dallas Buyers Club in March of 1988. Woodruff found that drugs in the United States were ineffective and ended up going to Mexico to find drugs that would help provide people with AIDS like himself with some relief. But these drugs were illegal, according to the FDA and the United States government. Here to discuss is Robert Scott Bell of Natural News Radio and GCN.
Robert, good to have you with us.
Robert Scott Bell: Kurt, good to be with you. Thanks for having me on.
Kurt Wallace for Rare: The FDA and the government — keeping people — from being able to get the kind of medicine that they need to treat themselves with AIDS from this movie. This is a much bigger story than just dealing with a specific drug. There’s a whole backstory to this. You have some important information with the government paying for research using taxpayers’ funds on HIV tests.
Robert Scott Bell: Well, in fact, you know, the entire history of the so-called AIDS scenario, which originally was called GRID, or gay-related immune deficiency, before it became popularly known as AIDS in order to garner more taxpayer support for funding. You see this happen through things like the National Institutes of Health — the National Cancer Institute — not many of these fully or almost totally supported by taxpayer contributions, whether you like or not. And the FDA, in fact, the gatekeeper, not to protect us from dangerous food or dangerous drugs, but in fact, to protect the manufacturers of those substances — those drugs, for instance, from the people who are harmed by them. There’s a great deal of controversy of the origin of AIDS and what had happened, because the CDC in particular — the Centers for Disease Control — again, another taxpayer-supported executive branch unconstitutional group had needed some form of a boost because Reagan was looking to defund it because they just weren’t doing a whole lot. Now Nixon had declared War on Cancer in the early ‘70s, as you know. And the war was failing — more people were getting cancer. They had no new cures for cancer. And suddenly this disease or some manifestation of an immune collapse occurred in a small community. The gay population, particularly in cities like Los Angeles and New York, and of course, had the concern for that group from within it and those that were concerned about it was genuine. But the demand for a drug to treat it was so, let’s say, overwhelmingly allowed in certain arenas that the response was, okay let’s find it. Now those same researchers, taxpayer-funded researchers, like at the NIH — we talk about a Robert Gallo, Bob Gallo, they had been — including another doctor, Professor Peter Duesberg from UC Berkeley — were all looking at the potential of identifying viruses that cause cancer, and even studies into retro viruses — or retrovirology — they never found these things to cause cancer. So it was kind of a failed avenue of research. But this AIDS scenario, perhaps gave them an opportunity to look at hey, maybe there’s a virus that’s causing this problem. And it turns out that the researcher, Luc Montagnier, in France had actually found something or he thought he found something that was then taken by Bob Gallo in America at NIH and claimed to be a zone. There was a big diplomatic spat until — this was during the Reagan years — until the French government and the U.S. government agreed to share the so-called identification or discovery of HIV. But, it turns out, the patented test for HIV cannot detect HIV and cannot be used to determine whether it’s present or absent nor be used to definitively say whether someone has AIDS or does not have AIDS.
Kurt Wallace for Rare: Could you clarify — how does that make sense? How would someone know that they had AIDS then if these tests don’t determine that?
Robert Scott Bell: That’s a very good question. It’s a very difficult thing for people to comprehend because we have been basically propagandized to the belief that HIV causes AIDS, yet in the initial years they said, well, within six months you’ll be dead. Then they changed it with two-to-five years. Then they changed it until ten years. Now twenty, twenty-five/thirty years, people are still alive, supposedly having this HIV. Now, they claim it’s because of better treatment. And in that movie you referenced, it was all about, “Can we get a drug?” approved by the FDA fast enough to treat this thing — AZT — which was the failed chemotherapy drug that was too toxic for cancer patients was carded out again as the drug of choice, but it ended up killing, admittedly by these authorities, killing the hundreds of thousands of people that were treated by it. Just like the treatment for cancer is killing people faster than cancer: the so-called treatment for AIDS. Now this guy, and the Dallas Buyers Club, was looking to provide things that were not approved by FDA, which I support; however, you know the question of the origin point of what really causes AIDS has never been actually determined, because as you rightly ask, well, how is it possible, if on the answer of the HIV test it acknowledges that it can’t detect the absence or presence, and of course we know scientifically that it is, well, let’s say there’s no gold standard, because it’s cross reactive. It’s non-specific. It reacts to perhaps 120 different things, including if you’ve just had a flu-shot, or if you’re pregnant. And the definitive, let’s say, gold standard test that they like to claim it is, is so non-specific that you could cross the border from the U.S. to Canada or go to another country, you can be HIV positive in one country and not in another or vice versa. So it’s an absolute mess, and I recommend that your listeners look up a movie, a documentary film, by the name of “House of Numbers” — House of Numbers, and they’ll see the mess that is the scientific backstory to so-called HIV tests.
Kurt Wallace for Rare: House of Numbers. Tell us a little bit more about this.
Robert Scott Bell: Yeah. Brett Leon — a young guy who just wanted to ask the question, you know, because he was younger than the time — the era — Kurt, you and I know, we are about similar age — grew up in a time, the ‘80s, where suddenly this became a part of the culture, it was very frightening, it wasn’t just a venereal disease that you get an antibiotic and you move on your merry way. Now, it was a new disease that could kill you. Sex could now kill you. And it didn’t matter. They claimed. It didn’t matter — homosexual/heterosexual. You could get everybody. Of course, it didn’t turn out that way. But this young guy, not a researcher but a filmmaker, decided to go to the heads of these places, including the Bob Gallows of the world, Luke Montaigne, and ask them the questions that hadn’t been asked. And what is revealed in this documentary film is shocking. When you think all you’ve thought about and what we were told about HIV being real and the test being valid, you begin to see, in fact, as I said, the science behind this is an absolute mess — I also recommend a book by my good friend, Liem Schieff, an investigative researcher, as well — journalist — who’s written a book called “Official Stories.” And he’s got a whole chapter on this that condenses it very quickly and briefly in a way that no one else had written about it.
Kurt Wallace for Rare: The other issue of government regulations and government power. You have a few things to say about the FDA’s reasons for doing the things that they do that are counterintuitive to health.
Robert Scott Bell: Sure. Yeah, if you think of the origin of what is the modern-day FDA, you go back to the food, drug and cosmetic deck — or even preceded it — you actually go back to the Pure Food Act, going back to Harvey Wiley, who would be the Father of what would become the Father of the FDA. Now, he would be rolling over in his grave if he saw what the FDA allows. Because rather than protecting the public from dangerous food or corrupted food or adulterated food and drugs, they’ve actually become the de-facto, defense mechanism for the drug industry to bring out dangerous substances that do nothing to remediate disease but perhaps cause 10, 20 or 30 more.
Kurt Wallace for Rare: Such as AZT.
Robert Scott Bell: Such as, of course, AZT, which was pulled from the market, because it was so dangerous that it was killing cancer patients. They couldn’t tolerate it. So for it to be brought back out in the era of AIDS — those with genuine immune collapsed. And I want to be clear here. I am not disputing the reality of immune collapse and the AIDS scenario. But the cause is definitely in dispute, and I dispute that and many others do as well, being this so-called retrovirus that can’t be tested for based on the inserts on the drugs, or let’s say, the test kits themselves. So, again, it’s an absolute conundrum and a mess when you step back from it, and you begin to look at things without the glasses or sunglasses of HIV — you begin to see the immune collapse for what it really is, not what they have pretended it to be, so that they could sell patented drugs and pharmaceuticals that wouldn’t have no competition, which is the controversy here in this book, that was turned into the movie “The Dallas Buyers Club ” with Matthew McCounaghey about a guy who’s saying, “Well, I’m not away, people need help, let’s bring this in, even if it’s not approved by the government.” What role, constitutionally, does the government have to limit your access to a treatment that you believe is right for you?
Kurt Wallace for Rare: That’s a true libertarian hero story. He fights with the FDA, the IRS comes in and attacks him — great article on Rare by Jack Hunter. He actually reviewed the movie, and it’s called a movie about “Early Aids Epidemic” gives us a new libertarian hero. I encourage folks to go read that. And to go to your show, Robert Scott Bell Show, you’ve been doing this for, what, twelve years?
Robert Scott Bell: Yeah, since 1999, we’ve been broadcasting weekly – a few years ago…
Kurt Wallace for Rare: Oh, even longer, yeah? 14 years?
Robert Scott Bell: Yeah, we teamed up with Mike Adams at Naturalnews.com and launched the daily version of the show — now we’ve expanded to GCN and radio syndication as well. It’s also heard around the world on Ukhelp radio and Digital Radio 103 on Australia. So, we’ve grown and this message of health, freedom and healing liberty is definitely resonating across all countries of the world. We have listeners everywhere. It’s a good sign that liberty is still, let’s say desired in places, even though many in America have lost sight of it.
Kurt Wallace for Rare: Robert Scott Bell, thanks for being with us today on Rare.
Robert Scott Bell: Thanks, Kurt.
Editor’s note: Robert Scott Bell has made a name for himself fueling skepticism around AIDS and HIV. His opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of Rare’s editors or, quite frankly, the world scientific community. Find out more about the subject here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvMPU0WaPcc
Related articles
- A movie about the early AIDS epidemic gives us a new libertarian hero (rare.go-vip.net)
- You are no longer free to clog your arteries with trans fats, thanks to the FDA (rare.go-vip.net)