What’s a Black Box drug? One that has caused permanent or fatal injury in patients at normal prescribed doses. Why would a healthy person take such a drug?

Well, they’ve done it before, and even though it was a disaster, they’ll do it again.

Why? Because you’re not stopping them.

Because the AIDS establishment preys on Black women, and homosexual men through targeted testing with poly-reactive HIV tests that are used to convince young, un-informed testees that their lives and futures are now over, and that their only option is to submit to the control of a pharmaceutical mafia of “never wrong” experts.

Sound like a conspiracy theory? Too bad to be true? Look up Nevirapine, look up AZT, look up Crixivan, and then look up HIV Testing. What do they add up to?

Remember, the number of AIDS deaths in the United States was declining before the CDC approved its first AIDS wonder-drug, AZT in 1987. Within three years of that drug’s delivery to “positives” at high dose, deaths attributed to “AIDS” tripled, per year, and kept rising, until AZT doses were lowered in the extreme, and the drug was discontinued as a ‘monotherapy.’

When asked about AZT now, the “never wrong experts,” like to say that “it is true that AZT monotherapy was not well tolerated.” Some will go so far as to say that it did more harm than good. But they’re still never wrong.

Important Update – Thursday 18 March:

The study (HPTN065) has been re-named “Test, Link to Care, Plus Treat” or TLC-Plus –”Tender loving care” from the AIDS Industry— from what they called it in their January press release from NIH Director Anthony Fauci, “Piloting Test-and-Treat.” LINK (Feb 25 2010 NIAID FAQ)

Read it and weep, boys. When will you break free from this monster?

From tomorrow’s Washington Times, by investigator Terry Michael:

A pharmaceutical experiment on hundreds of mostly black homosexual men and heterosexual women in Washington is about to be undertaken by U.S. AIDS czar Dr. Anthony S. Fauci with the enthusiastic backing of the District’s black mayor, Adrian M. Fenty, voiced in a January announcement. The experiment radically departs from medical “best practices” of offering antiretroviral chemotherapy for life to HIV-positive persons only after they exhibit depressed levels of CD4 T-cells and are judged to be at significant risk of contracting opportunistic illnesses associated with AIDS.

The new effort, “test and treat,” as it is called, will promote universal voluntary antibody testing of adults accompanied by immediate administration of the drugs despite a wealth of evidence that the chemicals often cause serious adverse side effects – potentially life-threatening effects. However, the experiment isn’t focused on individual impact. Instead, it suggests that the goal is a benefit that might accrue to society if the chemicals decrease sexual retrovirus transmission.

“One of the world’s leading HIV-AIDS experts, Dr. Jay A. Levy of the University of California at San Francisco, responded, “No, I wouldn’t,” when asked for this article if he would take the drugs if he were a homosexual black man in Washington with a positive antibody test but with normal T-cell counts and no illness.

A conservative voice for years in the drug-intervention debate, Dr. Levy wrote in an article for the San Francisco Chronicle on Feb. 23, 2001:

“The persistence of HIV in cells argues for a delay in initiating antiviral treatments. Unless the infected person is sick, the very real problems of long-term treatment must be considered: toxicity which may lead to damage of the pancreas, heart, kidney or brain, emergence of resistant viruses and suppression of the body’s natural anti-HIV immune responses.”

With words presaging the suggestion that immediate drug intervention could have societal benefits with regard to transmission, Dr. Levy wrote, “The increased prevalence of resistant viruses in newly infected people reflects the widespread use of HAART [highly active antiretroviral therapy] and the misconception that this treatment will prevent HIV transmission.”

[…]

Not only are there relatively few deaths from AIDS in the District, the number of new AIDS (not HIV) cases reported in 2007 was 648 in a jurisdiction with a total population of slightly more than a half-million. That contrasts with a total of 238 new cases of AIDS reported by Canada in 2007 for its entire population of 34 million. Somehow, there were about 128 new AIDS cases per 100,000 residents in the District, compared with 1.4 per 100,000 in all of Canada – a 9,000 percent difference.

Either Canada is really bad at collecting numbers for an apparently sexually transmitted disease, District residents are hypersexually active, or the District’s HIV-AIDS “epidemic” is grossly overstated by an agency charged with ineptness for years and always interested in sustaining its mission and budget.”

Read the Rest at Washington Times.com