Nexus - 0504 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

Fig. 3c: Photo taken six days after vaccine treatment shows fewer viral particles per cell. Fig. 3d: Photograph taken nine days after therapy shows no intracellular viral particles and the now-visible cell nucleus. INDUCED REMISSION THERAPY: 1998 UPDATE fter years of lectures, presentations to peers and public Avr as well as numerous radio, television, news- paper and magazine appearances, I find that conventional medicine still has little awareness of the efficacy of my thera- pies—as evidenced, for example, in the advances achieved using IRT in AIDS remission (see table 1). Any doctor can make amazing claims, but independent, unbi- ased testing is a credible way to determine the efficacy of a treat- ment. It would not only document the effectiveness of my vac- cines but would also stir interest in any promising new therapy. So I brought case studies of AIDS patients I'd treated to Cedar Sinai Medical Center for evaluation. Dr Shlomo Melmed was impressed with the results, and at his suggestion I sent samples of my vaccine to the AIDS and Immune Disorders Center's Division of Infectious Diseases for in vitro analysis. The clinical analysis performed by Dr Eric Daar indicated that out of the 22 samples tested, 20 of them showed 99% efficacy in neutralising HIV-1. This analysis was followed up with an independent evaluation by University of Southern California clinical laboratories. This involved the electron microscopy of blood samples taken by a control group infected with HIV. This group yielded over 100 photos that demonstrate the attack, death, disintegration and purge of the HIV virus. The PhD who conducted this test remarked that "the number of intact viral particles has declined for each patient following vaccine administration at a level approximating 50%". Examples of this progression from attack to purge are shown in figures 3a to 3d. The first electron microscope photograph (fig. 3a) shows the fragmenting cell full of HIV particles. The next photo (fig. 3b) shows the cell three days later, with improved sta- bility and decreased viral particle count. The third photo (fig. 3c) was taken six days after vaccine treatment and shows fewer viral particles per cell. The final photo (fig. 3d), taken nine days after therapy, shows no intracellular viral particles and the now-visible cell nucleus. This evidence from the cellular level demonstrates that AIDS and cancer can be attacked genetically without causing significant damage to the healthy, fast-multiplying cells needed to maintain a healthy life. ers would be alerted to the fantastic results of this treat- ment. It's hard to imagine that institutes entrusted with the public faith and public funds to discover and research new therapies would delay the application of life-saving technology and treatments. It was my hope that knowledge of IRT would be disseminated and the FDA would allow the practice of this therapy upon the count- less AIDS and cancer victims who had little hope otherwise. But these doctors and medical institutes denied having any affiliation with me. They denied the impressive test data and even denied knowing me—until forced to declare otherwise before a judge in a civil legal action in San Diego, CA (case no. 700406). It was their incomprehensible behaviour that led me to bring a lawsuit, if for no other reason than to make these test results a record of the court, but I had to pursue these medical organisations so as to have access to further laboratory evidence. We tend to worship our doctors as gods who will save us from diseases. If these false gods let us down, is it not time to take back responsibility for our lives and well-being? As the public begins to learn of this promising healing technology, IRT, they demand to know why it is being withheld. Y= think that the media, the medical community and oth- 40 - NEXUS JUNE - JULY 1998 Continued on page 87