The Myth of Sexual 'AIDS'

Propaganda is to democracies what violence is to dictatorships.
The duty of intellectuals is to tell the truth and expose lie.

Noam Chomsky
[Go to header] Sex has nothing to do with 'AIDS'
[Go to header] CDC, UNAIDS and WHO positions
[Go to header] 'AIDS' Pseudo science
[Go to header] What about Africa? Sex has nothing to do with it
[Go to header] Political Disease
[Go to header] Poisoning Babies is one Result of that Deception


Virus Myth Bookshelf
Positively False
Joan Shenton, Positively False; Exposing the myths around HIV and AIDS, 1998, 310 pages.


Impure Science
Steven Epstein, Impure Science; AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge, University of California Press, USA 1996, 466 pages.


How a Virus that never Was deceived the World
Neville Hodgkinson, AIDS; The Failure of Contemporary Science, How a Virus that Never Was Deceived the World, 1996, 420 pages.


What if everything you thought you knew about AIDS was wrong?
Christine Maggiore, What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong? 4th edition, USA, 125 pages.


Gravest Show on Earth
Elinor Burkett, The gravest Show on Earth : America in the age of AIDS, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1995, 398 pages.


Science Fictions
John Crewdson, Science Fictions: A Scientific Mystery, A Massive Cover-Up, and the Dark Legacy of Robert Gallo, Little Brown & Company, 2002, 672 pages.


AIDS War
John Lauritsen, THE AIDS WAR: Propaganda, Profiteering and Genocide from the Medical-Industrial Complex. Asklepios, 1993, 480 pages.


Deadly Deception
Robert E. Willner, Deadly Deception; The Proof that Sex and HIV absolutely do not cause AIDS, 1994, 266 pages.


Good Intentions; How big business and the medical establishment are corrupting the fight against AIDS
Bruce Nussbaum, Good Intentions; How big business and the medical establishment are corrupting the fight against AIDS, Atlantic Monthly Press, USA 1990, 352 pages.


AIDS Inc
Jon Rappoport, AIDS Inc.; Scandal of the century, Human Energy Press, USA 1988, 1993.


Inventing the AIDS Virus
Peter H. Duesberg, Inventing the AIDS Virus, Regnery, USA 1996, 720 pages.


Infectious AIDS: Have we been misled?
Peter H. Duesberg, Infectious AIDS: Have We Been Misled? North Atlantic Books USA 1995, 582 pages.


AIDS; Virus or drug induced?
Peter H. Duesberg (editor), AIDS; Virus or Drug Induced? Contemporary Issues in Genetics and Evolution vol. 5, Monograph, Kluwer Academics Publishers 1996, 365 pages.


Rethinking AIDS
Robert Root-Bernstein, Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus, Free Press, 1993, 512 pages.
There is No reliable evidence of Sexual Transmission
Sex has nothing to do with 'AIDS'
Result of the largest and longest study of the heterosexual transmission of 'HIV' in the United States:

We followed 175 HIV-discordant couples over time, for a total of approximately 282 couple-years of follow up [, ]

We observed no seroconversion after entry into the study.

Padian NS et al. Heterosexual transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in Northern California: Results from a ten-year study. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1997;146(4):350-7.

David W. Rasnick, PhD, member of the Scientific Group for the Reappraisal of AIDS, also present this study in Sex has nothing to do with AIDS, a letter published by the British Medical Journal.

*****
The 'Prostitute' Paradox

If 'AIDS' ('HIV') was sexually transmitted, we should find it in sex-trade workers. The following references, including five studies published in prestigious scientific journals, demonstrate no sexual transmission.

In this study, the authors estimated overall and cause-specific mortality among prostitute women. They recorded information on prostitute women identified by police and health department surveillance in Colorado Springs, Colorado, from 1967 to 1999. The authors assessed cause-specific mortality in this open cohort of 1,969 women [, ]

Violence and drug use were the predominant causes of death, both during periods of prostitution and during the whole observation period. [, ] Deaths from acquired immunodeficiency syndrome occurred exclusively among prostitutes who admitted to injecting drug use or were inferred to have a history of it.

Potterat J J et al. Mortality in a Long-term Open Cohort of Prostitute Women. Am J Epidemiol 2004;159:778-785.

During a 36-month period, a multidisciplinary team manned a van that visited the major location of open prostitution in the Tel Aviv area [, ]

All 128 females who did not admit to drug abuse were seronegative.

A thorough search of recent literature fail to demonstrate unequivocal seropositivity among British, French, German, Italian, or Dutch prostitutes without drug histories.

Modan, B et al. Prevalence of HIV antibodies in transsexual and female prostitutes, American Journal of Public Health. 1992;82(4):590-592.

Michael Wright also report this study in A Former AIDS Researcher Has Second Thoughts, part one: Manufacturing the AIDS Scare.


In order to determine whether prostitutes operating outside of areas of high drug abuse have equally elevated rates of infection, 354 prostitutes were surveyed in Tijuana, Mexico [, ]

None of the 354 [blood] samples [, ] was positive for HIV-1 or HIV-2

Condoms were used [, ] for less than half of their sexual contacts.

Only 4 female prostitutes (1%) admitted to ever having abused intravenous drugs.

Infection with HIV was not found in this prostitute population despite the close proximity to neighboring San Diego, CA, which has a high incidence of diagnosed cases of AIDS, and to Los Angeles, which has a reported 4% prevalence of HIV infection in prostitutes.

Hyams KC et al. HIV infection in a non-drug abusing prostitute population. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases. 1989;21(3):353-4.

David Crowe also report this study in Referenced Quotes about Transmission of HIV and AIDS.


In order to evaluate the frequency of sexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) among promiscuous heterosexuals, we studied the prevalence of HIV infection among a group of predominantly Caucasian call girls and women working for escort services and massage parlors in New York City. In the 78 subjects studied, the mean age was 31.6 years and the mean duration of prostitution was 5.1 years. Study participants each had a median of 200 different sexual partners in the preceding year. [, ]

none of the 72 non-drug-abusers were seropositive for HIV. This study indicates that despite their promiscuity, HIV infection is still uncommon in call girls in New York City

Seidlin M et al. Prevalence of HIV infection in New York call girls. Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes. JAIDS, 1988;1(2):150-4


448 licensed female prostitutes in Nuremburg, West Germany, were studied in March and April 1986.

No prostitute tested was anti-HIV positive [, ] they had been prostitutes for 77 months on average [, ] The mean number of clients was 13 per week [, ]

This heterosexually very active group of women has remained free from HIV infection.

Smith GL, Smith KF. Lack of HIV infection and condom use in licensed prostitutes. Lancet. 1986;1392.

In September, 1985, we collected 56 samples of blood in the rue Saint-Denis, the most notorious street in Paris for prostitution. [, ]

No prostitute was seropositive.

These women, aged 18-60 have sexual intercourse 15-25 times daily and do not routinely use protection. Although contracting AIDS is greatly feared by these women, only 15 used condoms with all their customers.

[, ] none of the Paris prostitute was a drug addict.

Brenky-Faudeux D, Fribourg-Blanc A. HTLV-III antibody in prostitutes. Lancet. 1985;2:1424.

The same results were reported from Amsterdam, one of the world's centers of legalized prostitution. When several hundred non-drug using prostitutes were studied, investigators found no HIV-positive women even though they averaged more than 200 clients per year

Coutinho RA, van der Helm TH. [No indications for LAV/HTLV-III in non-drug-using prostitutes in Amsterdam]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd, 1986;130(11):508. As presented by David W. Rasnick, PhD, in a letter published by the British Medical Journal Sex has nothing to do with AIDS.

We saw that sexual transmission has not been demonstrated in sex-trade workers. Of course, those who take hard drugs are more likely to become sick, it has nothing to do with 'HIV' or 'AIDS'. Strong drugs have a proven immune suppressive effect, and intravenous drugs injections often carry some foreign proteins, adding an extra burden on the immune system.

*****
No evidence of 'HIV' transmission
[Google Answer] has a politically correct answer, to the question of sexual 'HIV' Transmission, with the authoritative 'AIDS science' pseudo-scientific finish; here is the [edited] comment from Peaceandlove.ca. Of course, do not miss the CDC official answer.

No reliable evidence has ever been presented, for the Sexual Transmission of 'HIV/AIDS'.

Note that all the references presented [, ] in the answer, are related to the US Department of Health and Human Services. No objective source.

They have been shaping 'AIDS science' ever since the official 'HIV/AIDS' proclamation, during the Reagan administration, 1984 April 24th, presented by the US Secretary of Health and Human Services. An international press conference in the National Academy of Sciences auditorium packed with journalists and television crews.

"The journalists reporting this event didn't notice the telltale signs that there was something fishy about the occasion. An obvious anomaly was that the announcement was made prior to publication of the articles presenting the evidence. A firm rule of scientific publication bans this practice. [, ]"

The subject of Michael Crichton's latest book, In State of Fear, is the subversion of science in behalf of sociopolitical agendas. In a recent speech, he said that "the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda."

"some scientists (and increasing numbers, in some fields) have been seduced away from truth-telling into the exciting realms of policy-making and mass persuasion"

In State of Fear, one of the characters tells the hero that "the military-industrial complex is no longer the primary driver of society, For the last 15 years we have been under the control of an entirely new complex, far more powerful and far more pervasive. I call it the politico-legal-media complex , And it is dedicated to promoting fear in the population, under the guise of promoting safety."

How can a male human contract HIV from a female human, in a detail physiological explanation, during unprotected sexual vaginal intercourse? Google Answer, with a comment by Gilles St-Pierre for PeaceandLove.ca, January 2005.

there has been the assumption in both scientific and lay communities that vaginal HIV transmission does commonly exists, [, ] the basis for that assumption rests on data that are unacceptably weak or flawed. The need for sexual change that has been claimed by public health and other authorities is not supported by the scientific data

Brody S, Lack of Evidence for Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Through Vaginal Intercourse, Archives of Sexual Behavior 1995;24(4): 383-393.

Stuart Brody, Professor of Medical Psychology at the University of Tubingen, Germany, also wrote Sex at risk, Transaction Publishers, 1997, 222 pages. Sex at Risk is a review of the scientific literature dealing with the transmission of AIDS. Like Michael Fumento's The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, it exposes the mythology surrounding vaginal intercourse and AIDS transmission.

"Nobody wants to look at the facts about the disease. It's the most extraordinary thing I've ever seen. I've sent countless letters to medical journals pointing out the epidemiological discrepancies and they simply ignore them . . .
this whole heterosexual AIDS thing is a hoax."

Dr Gordon Stewart, emeritus professor of epidemiology, University of Glasgow, and former AIDS advisor to the World Health Organisation, as quoted by Professor Hiram Caton in AIDS Mania, a charisma of hoax,1995.

Epidemiological Evidence against Heterosexual Transmission of HIV, by Christian Fiala M.D. 2000.


Safe Sex Notice

Of course, people everywhere should be encouraged to behave more thoughtfully in their sexual lives. They should be provided with reliable counseling about condom use, contraception, family planning and venereal diseases. But whether in Cameroon or California, sex education must no longer be distorted by terrifying, dubious misinformation that equates sex with death.

Writing about the African AIDS hoax, this is the conclusion of the article Myths of AIDS and Sex, by Charles L. Geshekter, New African, October 1994.
Dr. Charles L. Geshekter is a professor of African history at the California State University, Chico.


What about Africa ? Sex has nothing to do with it.

Overall, 35% of Africa's children are at higher risk of death than they were 10 years ago. Every hour, more than 500 African mothers lose a small child. In 2002, more than four million African children died. [, ]

Mostly, death comes in familiar garb. The main causes among children are depressingly recognizable: the perinatal conditions closely associated with poverty; diarrhoeal diseases; pneumonia and other lower respiratory tract conditions; and malaria. [It has nothing to do with 'AIDS', these were also common 50 years ago.]

WHO, The World Health Report 2003.

Notes from the conference AIDS in Africa, December 8th 2003, in the European Parliament.

Nutritional AIDS dominates the scene in South Africa today as indeed it did during Apartheid. In the middle 50's and 60's, 50% of black children were dead before the age of 5. The causes of death were recorded as: PNEUMONIA, HIGH FEVER, DEHYDRATION and intractable DIARRHOEA due to protein deficiency.

Today, these clinical features are called AIDS. Today in South Africa, TB is the leading cause of death and morbidity amongst Africans, but this is called AIDS.

In conclusion, NUTRITIONAL AIDS is a direct result of Apartheid in association with capitalist iatrogenesis - hence the shacks (favelas), lack of sanitation, lack of clean drinking water, unemployment and destitution.

Prof. Sam Mhlongo, MD, Chief Specialist Family Physician & Head of The Department of Family Medicine at The Medical University of Southern Africa; Member of the South African Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel, South Africa.

In Tanzania, the population of the Kagera region, epicenter of AIDS 15 years ago, hasn't ceased growing since then, ie with a 53% increase between 1988 and 2002.

The demographic catastrophe expected as a result of the 'deadliest epidemic in history' did not materialize, on the contrary. Yet, no real, concrete anti-viral measures were applied in the region. The only explanations for this lie in the improvement in the economic conditions and in development aid. An example of a global approach to development is found in the NGO, Partage Tanzania.

While the experts, with their statistics, would have one believe that there exists an extremely serious HIV/AIDS epidemic, no trace of an epidemic is observable in the field. All that can be seen is a very poor, under-nourished population suffering from malaria, endemic immunodeficiency and common illnesses.

Tanzania, Kagera Region, epicentre of AIDS 15 years ago: Present situation, by Marc Deru, MD and Nutritionist, Member of the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of AIDS, Belgium.

----------

During the 1990s HIV propagated rapidly in Zimbabwe, increasing at an estimated rate of 12% annually. At the same time, the overall sexually transmitted infections (STI) burden declined an estimated 25% [, ] while there was a parallel increase in reported condom use by high-risk persons (prostitutes, lorry drivers, miners, and young people).

This example frames the problem: why would a relatively low efficiency sexually transmitted virus like HIV outrun more efficiently transmitted STI? In the notable four-cities study, many common sexual risk factors linked to HIV transmission (eg, high rate of partner change, sex with prostitutes, and low condom use) were not correlated with HIV prevalence

Brewer DD, Brody S, et al. Mounting anomalies in the epidemiology of HIV in Africa: cry the beloved paradigm, International Journal of STD & AIDS 2003; 14: 144 - 147
That is one of the David Gisselquist group papers alluded to later in this page.

----------

Abstract of a thorough review of the situation of "AIDS" in Africa:

AIDS in Africa: Distinguishing Fact and Fiction, E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos (1) Valendar F. Turner (2) John M. Papadimitriou (3) Harvey Bialy (4), World Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology, 1995;11:135-143

(1) Department of Medical Physics, The Royal Perth Hospital, Western Australia; (2) Department of Emergency Medicine, Royal Perth Hospital; (3) Department of Pathology, University of Western Australia; (4) Bio/Technology

The data widely purporting to show the existence and heterosexual transmission in Africa of a new syndrome caused by a retrovirus which induces immune deficiency is critically evaluated. It is concluded that both acquired immune deficiency (AID) and the symptoms and diseases which constitute the clinical syndrome S) are long standing in Africa, affect both sexes equally and are caused by factors other than HIV. The presence of positive HIV serology in Africans represents no more than cross-reactivity caused by an abundance of antibodies induced by the numerous infectious and parasitic diseases which are endemic in Africa, that is, a positive HIV antibody test does not prove HIV infection. Given the above, one would expect to find a high prevalence of "AIDS" and "HIV" antibodies in Africa. This is not proof of heterosexual transmission of either HIV or AIDS.

Here are the last sentences in the conclusion of this review:

More rationally, one might choose to agree with those African physicians and scientists including Richard and Rosalind Chirimuuta (Chirimuuta & Chirimuuta, 1987) who believe that immunosuppression and certain symptoms and diseases which constitute African AIDS have existed in Africa since time immemorial. According to Professor P.A.K. Addy, Head of Clinical Microbiology at the University of Science and Technology in Kumasi, Ghana "Europeans and Americans came to Africa with prejudiced minds, so they are seeing what they wanted to see, I've known for a long time that Aids is not a crisis in Africa as the world is being made to understand. But in Africa it is very difficult to stick your neck out and say certain things.

The West came out with those frightening statistics on Aids in Africa because it was unaware of certain social and clinical conditions. In most of Africa, infectious diseases, particularly parasitic infections, are common. And there are other conditions that can easily compromise or affect one's immune system" (Hodgkinson, 1994). In the words of Dr. Konotey-Ahulu from the Cromwell Hospital in London, "Today, because of AIDS, it seems that Africans are not allowed to die from these conditions [from which they used to die before the AIDS era] any longer. , Why do the world's media appear to have conspired with some scientists to become so gratuitously extravagant with the untruth?" (Konotey-Ahulu, 1987)



Articles about AIDS in Africa on the VirusMyth AIDS Web site.

The Truth about Aids in Africa, by Jeff Kaplan.


CDC, UNAIDS and WHO deceptive positions

How exactly *is* HIV transmitted? The Official answer:

From "HIV and Its Transmission", a CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an agency of the USA Department of Health and Human Services) fact sheet:
(Last Updated: September 22, 2003)

Research has revealed a great deal of valuable medical, scientific, and public health information about the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). The ways in which HIV can be transmitted have been clearly identified. Unfortunately, false information or statements that are not supported by scientific findings continue to be shared widely through the Internet or popular press. Therefore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has prepared this fact sheet to correct a few misperceptions about HIV.

How HIV is Transmitted

HIV is spread by sexual contact with an infected person, by sharing needles and/or syringes (primarily for drug injection) with someone who is infected, or, less commonly [, ]

CDC is committed to providing the scientific community and the public with accurate and objective information about HIV infection and AIDS. It is vital that clear information on HIV infection and AIDS be readily available to help prevent further transmission of the virus and to allay fears and prejudices caused by misinformation.

--------
Government-nurtured fear of AIDS, achieving pro-family goals

Though scientists and anti-AIDS activists knew that the government-nurtured fear of AIDS among upscale, non-drug-using heterosexuals was exaggerated, not everyone thought this was a bad thing. Indeed, many credited rampant fear with achieving pro-family goals that no amount of moralizing alone could have accomplished. [, ]

"I don't see that much downside in slightly exaggerating [AIDS risk]" says John Ward, chief of the CDC branch that keeps track of AIDS cases. "Maybe they'll wear a condom. Maybe they won't sleep with someone they don't know."

AIDS Fight is Skewed by Federal Campaign Exaggerating Risks, Wall Street Journal, May 1, 1996. Cover story, by Amanda Bennett and Anita Sharpe, staff reporters.

----------------

Notes from a discussion at the conference AIDS in Africa, December 8th 2003 in the European Parliament, with Stuart BRODY, PhD, Clinical Psychologist, University of Tubingen, Germany.

Dr. Brody is a member of the David Gisselquist group that has published several papers during the last year questioning sexual and vertical transmission of HIV/AIDS in Africa. The group has suggested that medical or iatrogenic transmission through unclean injections in Africa may be the explanation for "HIV infections" in the continent.

With the intent of censoring their views, UNAIDS and WHO held a meeting with these researchers in March, 2003, and released a declaration stating: "An expert group has reaffirmed that unsafe sexual practices are responsible for the vast majority of HIV infections in sub-Saharan Africa, and that safer sex promotion must remain the primary feature of prevention programs in the region."

The Official WHO and UNAIDS statement (where the experts remain anonymous):
Expert group stresses that unsafe sex is primary mode of transmission of HIV in Africa. WHO and UNAIDS Expert Group Statement, 14 March 2003. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2003

A reply from the David Gisselquist group has been published in the Science's AIDS Prevention and Vaccine Research Site, here is the introduction:

The belief that sex is the primary mode of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission in sub-Saharan Africa is an assertion so widely accepted and has remained unquestioned for so long that it has taken on the status of a received truth.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Joint U.N. Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) recently convened an expert consultation to review issues raised in a series of papers published in the International Journal of STD & AIDS (1 -4) that questioned the validity of that assertion. After examining the papers, WHO and UNAIDS issued a press release announcing that "the vast majority of evidence [supports the view] that unsafe sexual practices continue to be responsible for the overwhelming majority of infections" (5). As co-authors of the controversial articles (1 -4), and as participants in the Geneva meeting (three of us), we state that WHO's conclusion is premature. It is neither based on those discussions, nor on a more considered review of the relevant literature.

Gisselquist D, Potterat JJ, et al, Examining the hypothesis that sexual transmission drives Africa's HIV epidemic, AIDScience, 2003;3(10).


ABC approach to behaviour change

In 2001, the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) endorsed the ABC approach to preventing HIV infection. The ABC approach to behaviour change gives three clear messages for preventing the transmission of HIV.

ABC stands for: Abstain from having sexual relations or, for youth, delay having sex; Be faithful to one uninfected partner; and use Condoms consistently and correctly.

State of world population 2003 report, United Nations Population Fund.

Political Disease
We were moving toward a more feeling, freer society

I rank the publicizing of AIDS right up there with the atomic bomb as events that impacted our culture for the worse. We were moving toward a more feeling, freer society until AIDS

Jack Nicholson, actor in 58 movies, with 12 Oscar nominations and 3 statuettes, Playboy interview, January 2004, 50th anniversary issue.


AIDS is not just another disease. [, ]

It is the ultimate triumph of politics over science.

Michael Fumento, The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, 1990. Michael Fumento, author, journalist, and attorney specializing in science and health issues, is a former AIDS analyst for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.


AIDS is the most political disease of our age.

By 1987, media reporting on AIDS and safe sex education had penetrated the consciousness of most sexually active men and women. The US Surgeon General summed up the effects of the massive campaign by declaring that "AIDS has killed the sexual revolution"

Hiram Caton, The Aids Mirage. Professor Hiram Caton (1995) is Head of the School of Applied Ethics at Griffith University, Queensland, and a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Biology.


Everybody's not doing it. That's the word from Newsweek, The Atlantic, and other trend watchers: Couples are having less sex these days than even in the famously uptight '50s. Why? Busy, exhausting lives is the easy answer. But how Americans view eroticism in the wake of recent sexual and social revolutions may be an even bigger factor, according to a growing number of researchers and social observers.

Introduction to the cover story "In search of Erotic Intelligence", Utne Reader, September / October 2003.


*****
Has nothing to do with Science

"The HIV hypothesis ranks with the 'bad air' theory for malaria and the 'bacterial infection' theory of beriberi and pellagra [caused by nutritional deficiencies]. It is a hoax that became a scam." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)

Dr. Bernard Forscher, former editor of the U.S. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences


The first casualty of the 'war on AIDS' was the integrity of science. The exact moment of the crime can be pinpointed: it was the April 1984 press conference where the then Health Secretary Margaret Heckler declared that government scientist Robert C. Gallo had discovered the viral cause of AIDS. [, ] Heckler hailed the discovery as 'yet another miracle for American medicine and science' and a 'victory over a dreaded disease'. If smoke and mirror tricks are miracles, then miracle it was. [, ] Neither Gallo nor the [Pasteur] Institute proved that the virus was pathogenic. Indeed, they did not even isolate it, as the Pasteur Institute chief later admitted. But the spin-doctors at the National Institutes of Health had organized leading journals to endorse Secretary Heckler's 'miracle' with the seal of Science. From that moment, all AIDS research and policy were based on a speculation converted to dogma by bureaucratic power.

This initial public execution of scientific integrity unleashed a propaganda machine that expands Heckler's initial obvious whopper ('victory over a dreaded disease') into a never-ending sickness saga that extorts money and grinds millions into the muck of bad medicine.

Scientific integrity was murdered by a brutal health fascism. The next victim was the gold standard of clinical evaluation, the double blind trial. With a perversity that spin doctors must admire, the methodology was abandoned in the name of ethics! In reality, the double blind trial had to be murdered because it placed the treatment and causality dogmas of AIDS science at grave risk of falsification. The next victim was the integrity of independent clinical judgment. Any doctor who bucked the official line placed himself at risk of retaliation. And [, ] the fundamental right of informed consent and right to refuse treatment were also murdered.

[, ] 'AIDS science' is 90% mindless repetition and 10% deeply inconsistent findings of no clinical value.

Hiram Caton, Coming to Grips with Health Fascism, VirusMyth.net, April 1999
Hiram Caton, PhD, is a Fellow at the National Institute of Law, Ethics, and Public Affairs at Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.


With Robert Gallo at her side, Margaret Heckler stood behind a podium in the Hubert H. Humphrey Building in Washington, D.C. Lights flooded her face, Gravest Show on Earth Official Proclamation cameras rolled, reporters clutched their notebooks expectantly.

"Today we add another miracle to the long honor roll of American medicine and science" announce Heckler, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. "Today's discovery represents the triumph of science over a dreaded disease. Those who have disparaged this scientific search - those who have said we weren't doing enough - have not understood how sound, solid, significant medical research proceeds."

It was April 23, 1984.

Elinor Burkett, The gravest Show on Earth : America in the age of AIDS, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1995, 398 pages.


"I was very upset," Lange [Dr Michael Lange, infectious disease specialist at St Luke's Hospital in New York City] continues. "The cause of AIDS was discovered by government fiat. I had been working with the Pasteur Institute for six months, but then that announcement was made at the press conference. As far as I'm concerned, from that point on AIDS research turned into seedy, criminal politics, and it remained that way."

Dr. Kary Mullis [Nobel laureate], a biochemist and the inventor of PCR, shakes his head. "Why they did it," he says, "I cannot figure out. Nobody in their right mind would jump into this thing like they did. The secretary of health just announcing to the world like that that this man Robert Gallo, wearing those dark sunglasses, had found the cause of AIDS. It had nothing to do with any well-considered science."

Celia Farber, Fatal Distraction, Spin, June 1992.


Science Fictions cover" Science Fictions is bursting with allegations leveled at Dr. Gallo, his associates, rivals and enemies, that include deception, misconduct, incompetence, fraud, sabotage, back-stabbing, double-dealing, overstatements, half-truths, outright lies, a clandestine affair with a co-worker, a bribery attempt, denials, evasions, coverups and serial rewritings of history."
New York Times


"Scrupulously researched and sweeping, Science Fictions documents enough treachery, negligence and megalomania to make even the most trusting of readers skeptical of the scientific establishment."
Washington Post

John Crewdson, Science Fictions: A Scientific Mystery, A Massive Cover-Up, and the Dark Legacy of Robert Gallo, Little Brown & Company, 2002, 672 pages.


Positively FalseFrom the Virusmyth.net review:
In this book Shenton introduces scientists who maintain that HIV has never been isolated and that the HIV test is simply picking up proteins said to be specific to the virus, but which reside in all of us and happen to become raised when the body's immune system is compromised for other reasons. She has recorded an extra-ordinary account of the tyranny of orthodoxy imposed by some scientists and the pharmaceutical industry which, according to Shenton, has distorted and derailed the process of scientific inquiry, cost billions of misspent dollars for 'treatment' and mis-directed research funding, and condemned tens of thousands of individuals with the stigma and anxiety of an HlV-positive label.

In the Third World, according to Shenton, millions of unfortunates are being falsely classified as HIV and AIDS victims who, because they 'are going to die anyway', are being denied treatment for their true ills brought on by poverty, deprivation and malnutrition.

Joan Shenton's medical journalism has included the production of 49 documentaries on health issues for network television, 7 on the HIV / AIDS issue. Two of her films on AIDS have received the Royal Television Society Journalism Award and a British Medical Association award. Shenton's programmes have been made for the BBC, Channel 4, Thames TV and Central TV.

Joan Shenton, Positively False; Exposing the myths around HIV and AIDS, I.B. Tauris, London 1998, 310 pages.


As a scientist who has studied AIDS for 16 years, I have determined that AIDS has little to do with science and is not even primarily a medical issue. AIDS is a sociological phenomenon held together by fear, creating a kind of medical McCarthyism that has transgressed and collapsed all the rules of science, and imposed a brew of belief and pseudoscience on a vulnerable public.

David W Rasnick, Blinded by Science, Spin, June 1997

Uncovering Watergate now seems trivial compared to what it will take to expose the 16 years of fraud, incompetence, and flagrant lying that have been going on behind a veil of scientific and medical jargon, credentials, and expertise.
President Clinton did his bit to thicken the protective fog encasing the AIDS Blunder. Last summer he declared AIDS to be a risk to the national security of the United States. That action allowed at least three additional federal institutions to play a direct role in maintaining and protecting the fiction of a global AIDS pandemic. These institutions are the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the National Security Agency (NSA). The involvement of the FBI, CIA, and NSA in AIDS represents a far greater threat to our freedoms than to HIV.
The most astounding thing to me about all of this is that the greatest threat to our democracies has turned out not to be goose-stepping soldiers in camouflage but rather the chronic fear peddled by white-coated scientists and physicians squandering billions of taxpayers' dollars annually and their sycophants in the media.
Ultimately, the AIDS blunder is not really about AIDS, nor even about health and disease, nor even about science and medicine. The AIDS blunder is about the health of our democracies. [, ]
The AIDS blunder goes to the very core of our democracies. If we continue to be hoodwinked by techno-babble and institutional blather, and allow ourselves to be manipulated by cheap sentimentality and red ribbons then freedom and democracy will slip through our fingers.

David W Rasnick, 'Time to separate State and Science', Talk given at the International Conference on Science and Democracy, April 2001, in Napoli, Italy.
David W Rasnick, PhD, Biochemist, Protease Inhibitor Developer, University of California at Berkeley.


AIDS War book cover

From the introduction:

"The AIDS epidemic is an epidemic of lies, through which hundreds of thousands of people have died and are dying unnecessarily, billions of dollars have gone down the drain, the Public Health Service has disgraced itself, and Science has plunged into whoredom.
The official AIDS paradigm -- including the preposterous notion that a biochemically inactive microbe, the so-called "human immunodeficiency virus" (HIV-1), causes the 29 (at last count) AIDS-indicator diseases -- represents the most colossal blunder in medical history. But it is more than a blunder. In the course of this book it will become plain why I have employed the metaphor of war: the terrible suffering and loss of life, propaganda, censorship, rumors, hysteria, profiteering, espionage, and sabotage."

A Harvard-educated survey research analyst by profession, John Lauritsen began reviewing AIDS research in 1983. The AIDS War is a collection of his major writings on AIDS, going back to February 1985

John Lauritsen, THE AIDS WAR: Propaganda, Profiteering and Genocide from the Medical-Industrial Complex. Asklepios, 1993, 480 pages.


How a Virus that never was deceived the world "Neville Hodgkinson, a British journalist, has written a book in which he argues that AIDS is not caused by HIV alone, if at all. Hodgkinson further posits that AIDS has always been, and still is, a gay and heavy drug users' problem, and that no deadly epidemic of AIDS exists in Africa. Even the HIV serodiagnosis test is flawed. International clamor and intensive research efforts over the HIV/AIDS pandemic have just been part of a deadly deception. Hodgkinson has written and published a book in which his arguments are presented. Hodgkinson claims that this false paradigm of AIDS causation is harming patients, the public, and public resources, and that a new approach is urgently needed to establish the true causes of AIDS and how to prevent and treat them. However, researchers and health professionals worldwide refuse to reorient their research for fear of losing research funding and their livelihoods. No cure exists for AIDS only because researchers have been studying the wrong virus."

Ankomah B. AIDS -- the deadly deception exposed, PubMed abstract of a review published in New African, 1996 Sep;(344):10-6.

Neville Hodgkinson, AIDS; The Failure of Contemporary Science, How a Virus that Never Was Deceived the World, Fourth Estate, London UK 1996, 420 pages.


Rethinking AIDS Recent studies by Dr Thomas Chalmers of Harvard University and Marlys and Charles Witte and Ann Kirwan of the University of Arizona, among others, have demonstrated that physicians are perhaps the most authority oriented of all professionals. They are evaluated in medical school not on the basis of their critical thinking skills, their creativity, or their independence but their ability to learn quickly, to memorize well, to act prudently, and to be able to quote authority extensively. They want and are paid for answers, not questions.

Since the American Medical Association, following the lead of the NIH [National Institute of Health] and the National Academy of Sciences, officially espouses the dogma that HIV = AIDS, every medical school and every biology and medicine textbook follows suit and so do physicians. HIV is their answer no questions asked. It is no wonder that the vast majority of physicians are satisfied that if HIV infection is being treated, AIDS is being treated.

Robert Root-Bernstein, Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus, Free Press, 1993, 512 pages. p. 353-354.
Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein, who held a MacArthur Prize fellowship from 1981 to 1986, is associate professor of physiology at Michigan State University.


Deadly Deception Last Friday at an alternative medicine meeting in Greensboro, N.C., a Florida physician stood in the glare of television lights and held the hand of a young man infected with the human immunodeficiency virus. Squinting in the lights and a moment later from the pain, he stuck a 20-gauge hypodermic needle deep into the infected man's finger and quickly jabbed the bloody needle into his own hand. Twice.

The physician, Robert Willner, said he inoculated himself with the man's blood to draw attention to "the greatest scam ever perpetrated." Contrary to expert opinion, he declared that HIV does not cause AIDS. "This is an innocent virus," Willner said in an interview soon after inoculating himself. Indeed, he said, it is the AIDS drug AZT that is the leading cause of AIDS today.

[, ] He describes the AIDS epidemic as "an intricate maze of lies" and "an astounding fraud," the creation of a government-sponsored "brainwashing" campaign. AIDS is neither caused by HIV nor is it contagious, he says, but is caused by malnutrition, recreational drug abuse and modern medicines including AZT.

Excerpt from Rick Weiss, 'Florida physician throws a dramatic jab at the experts view of AIDS', The Washington Post, November 1, 1994.

Robert E. Willner, Deadly Deception, Peltec Publishing Co. USA 1994, 266 pages.


A Declaration has been signed this week by 5,000 HIV believers, a veritable Who's Who of HIV scientists from all over the word. It's position: HIV is the undisputed cause of AIDS. The document, the signpost of a bold new type of science that calls controversial issues to a vote, really tells it like it is. Finally. Okay?

This HIV believer document suggests no other form of scientific thinking on AIDS is or will be valid. Anyone disagreeing wholly or in part with the Declaration published this week in the journal, Nature, just days before the international AIDS conference in Durban, South Africa, is a lowly HIV dissident, denier, revisionist, or worse. Shame, shame on them.

Nicholas Regush, 'Declaration of Ignorance', Document States HIV Is the Cause of AIDS; Ends Debate, ABCNews.com, July 2000


The Ultimate Heresy - "Does it Exist?"

Religion is the worship of God. Seriously questioning the existence of God is the ultimate religious heresy. But, it's also a worldly heresy, because it threatens the organization built up around belief in that God. Questioning the existence of God in the middle ages would have been inconceivable. Even the most radical medieval heretics would never have suggested it.

Questioning the existence of HIV is today's ultimate heresy. Even asking the question is heretical. In fact, it is rare for anyone to question the existence of any virus.

But, if HIV exists, why has it never been purified, not even from artificial culture systems? [Bess, 1997; Gluschankof, 1997] How have its RNA and proteins been identified without purification? How can the accuracy of tests be known when they cannot be validated by virus purification? How can a virus that, if detected at all, can only be detected by the most sensitive techniques known to man, be biochemically active? These are reasonable questions. But, they threaten the whole multi-billion-dollar structure based on the acceptance of this virus. That structure cannot tolerate people asking them.

David Crowe, HIV/AIDS: Science or Religion ? RedFlagsWeekly.com, March 3, 2003


Poisoning Babies is one Result of that Belief.
Poisoning babies

This belief has far reaching consequences. We are not merely talking about the detrimental impact of the 'HIV' myth on our love life, millions of lives are at stake.

Poisoning babies and children, all over the world, is one of those consequences. For instance, The House That AIDS Built, by Liam Scheff, describes the situation in New York City's only residence exclusively for children with 'AIDS' (some with deformations resulting from the infamous "treatments", Incarnation Children's Center (I.C.C.).

The drugs being given to the children are toxic - they're known to cause genetic mutation (AZT), liver and kidney failure, bone marrow death, bodily deformations, brain damage and fatal skin disorders. If the children refuse the drugs, they're held down and have them force fed.

If the children continues to resist, they're taken to Columbia Presbyterian hospital where a surgeon puts a plastic tube through their abdominal wall into their stomachs. From then on, the drugs are injected directly into their intestines.

-----

Liver failure is the leading cause of death among individuals being treated with 'AIDS' drugs in the United States, although 'HIV' has never been claimed to damage the liver. That is, for those adults who choose to take the recommended medication; the aforementioned babies and children do not have that choice.
More info

Most recent news



Canadian content


French language

A 'must' small book




AIDS Myth Exposed forum
New AIDS Review
The Heal forum

Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society
HEAL Toronto

Rethinking AIDS in France

What if everything you thought you knew about AIDS was wrong?
by Christine Maggiore.
What if everything you thought you knew about AIDS was wrong? Book cover

On video


The Other Side of AIDS



About 'HIV' tests



Kim Bannon filed a lawsuit contesting the validity of the HIV/AIDS tests.
Ongoing in 2005, please sign the online petition to support her efforts to bring this vitally important issue to the forefront of public awareness.


Love Kills since 1984?

In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell


This original page: http://www.peaceandlove.ca/AIDSsexmyth.html Compiled by Gilles St-Pierre Send comments to: gstp@PeaceandLove.ca
This webpage translated in chinese is one of the first results suggested by China's biggest independent Internet search engine, Baidu.com, for the keywords: 'AIDS transmission'.
The homepage: Peace and Love .ca Cheer up, there is the HIV Bugablog!

HIV is Not the Cause of AIDS:
A Summary of Current Research Findings

by James DeMeo, Ph.D.
Director, Orgone Biophysical Research Lab
PO Box 1148, Ashland, Oregon 97520 USA
demeo@mind.net

Reprinted from On Wilhelm Reich and Orgonomy, Pulse of the Planet #4, 1993

Copyright © 1993, All Rights Reserved by James DeMeo

In the last issue of Pulse of the Planet (3:106-108, 1991) I reviewed a book by Michael Fumento, The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS. Fumento's book summarized evidence gathered by various scientists to the affect that there never was, nor is, a "Heterosexual AIDS Epidemic" taking place, either in the USA or overseas. Fumento documented how the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) had doctored the epidemiological data, unscientifically "adjusting" it here and there, in order to have it support a previously formulated and "politically correct" conclusion: that everyone, including relatively monogamous heterosexuals, and even non-drug-using heterosexual teenagers, were "at risk for AIDS". Fumento's criticism of this position was attacked even before the ink was dry, and his book was suppressed and sabotaged both by national book distributors, and by his publisher, who came under attack by homosexual activist groups. Fumento himself lost his job, and was subject to harassment and death threats by these same groups, who -- as demonstrated in his book -- have glaring sex-political agendas and economic motivations.

In this article, I wish to add reinforcing, additional evidence on this same issue by presenting findings developed by Dr. Peter Duesberg, a pioneer in retrovirus research and Professor of Cell Biology at the University of California, in Berkeley. Duesberg is a top-notch scientist who has brought forth important criticism of the HIV hypothesis of AIDS to the podium of science. His research findings came to my attention around 1990, demonstrating that AIDS cannot be caused by HIV (or any other virus) and therefore is, as the term "AIDS" originally implied, an acquired, non-infectious immune system deficiency. Duesberg's most recent 77-page paper on the subject appeared in a British research journal (Pharmac. Ther., 55:201-277, 1992), and contains 17 pages of citations to the published scientific and medical literature. This article will summarize some of that evidence, and provide additional historical notes. For detailed citations to the published scientific literature, I refer the reader to the original works of Duesberg and his supporters, listed at the end of this article. If the reader is skeptical of my statements here, they must "go to the source" and review those citations prior to dismissing this summary of criticisms of the official HIV = AIDS propaganda.

To begin, use of the term "AIDS virus" is completely suspended, as it presumes AIDS is an infectious disorder for which a viral causation has been identified. Neither supposition has been proven; both remain hypotheses. The diagnostic terminology "AIDS" does not by itself imply causation; it merely indicates severe immunological break-down and deficiency within an individual. We must also be clear about the differences between the virus HIV and the HIV antibody; these are not the same thing. This clarifying discipline in terminology is necessary, precisely because so many television and newspaper journalists, and many scientists and science editors as well, have abandoned rigor in their terminology, critical review, and research.

AIDS remains a problem mainly for individuals engaging in identifiable and preventable high-risk behaviors which, over time, deplete and destroy the immune system. These factors include: promiscuous and unsanitary anal intercourse and anal object-penetration and trauma in association with the party-Player, bath-house, anonymous-sex lifestyle; the associated or independent chronic use of aphrodisiac sexual stimulants, psychoactive drugs, amphetamines, alcohol, antibiotics and other immune-system depleting substances (legal and illegal); and malnutrition. To this list must be included also the taking of deadly, poisonous medications, such as AZT -- a DNA chain terminator -- which all by itself will produce the same "wasting" symptoms attributed to AIDS.

I. The Virus HIV

The claim that the virus HIV causes AIDS is an hypothesis which is not supported by facts or evidence, and which has demonstrated no usefulness for predicting or explaining the epidemiology of AIDS.

A) The advocates of the HIV hypothesis suggest HIV is significantly different from all other viruses in that the presence of antibody alone is sufficient to predict the future development of deadly AIDS symptoms. In all other diseases, however, the presence of antibody in the absence of active virus is a clear sign that the individual's immune system has been exposed to the virus, but successfully responded to it, and defeated it. One is considered "immune" for development of the disease, or from further exposure to that infectious agent. With HIV, however, we are asked to suspend this well-known immunological response, and believe that the presence of antibody alone is synonymous to a death sentence.

B) HIV=AIDS advocates counter that the virus goes into "hiding" within certain cells of the body, and remains dormant for many years until such time that something triggers them into activity, after which symptoms appear. However, they fail to demonstrate this part of their hypothesis; the "hiding places" have not been demonstrated to any degree of significance. In fact, this absence of demonstrated "hiding viruses" was a major stumbling-block to the general theory of viral causation of diseases. The viral hypothesis of AIDS likewise suffers from this difficulty.

C) The HIV hypothesis of AIDS does not satisfy Koch's postulates for the identification of a pathogen as the causative agent for a particular disease. These postulates have very successfully guided microbiological research for the last 100 years. They are:

1) The organism must occur in each case of a disease and in amounts sufficient to cause pathological effects; 2) The organism is not found in other diseases; and 3) After isolation and propagation in culture, the organism can induce the disease in an inoculated host. Failure to develop symptoms after inoculation is a sign the organism is not the active agent of the disease.

The HIV hypothesis fails on all the above counts. There are many examples of people suffering from AIDS symptoms, but who do not show traces of HIV. There are additionally a large number of people in whom traces of HIV have been identified (virus or antibody), but who remain symptom-free for years. This difficulty has prompted some "HIV Fundamentalists" to assert that HIV is unique in the world of viruses, that Koch's postulates don't apply to HIV. Every year, the group of people identified as "HIV antibody positive" gets larger, partly because of expanded HIV testing programs, but also because so many previously identified antibody-positive people remain alive and healthy. Many have lived over 10 years without developing the predicted AIDS symptoms, or other health problems. And so, the CDC is continually redefining and lengthening the "latency period" for development of AIDS symptoms. For each year that passes, the latency period is extended by around one additional year. Not only does HIV "hide" in the body, it "sleeps". This is, of course, an unscientific attempt to salvage an hypothesis which fails to accurately predict observed pathology or epidemiology.

D) HIV is a difficult and inefficient virus to transmit from one organism to another, either accidentally, by sexual means, or even through deliberate injection. Many attempts have been made to infect primates with AIDS diseases through direct injection of HIV -- when so exposed, primates may develop typical antibody responses, but do not sicken and die. Around 150 chimpanzees have been injected with HIV by the National Institute of Health, in a program which began ten years ago, and all are still healthy. Needle-stick injuries in hospitals, where hospital workers are accidentally exposed to HIV-infected blood, also fail to demonstrate any cases of AIDS. The virus simply does not "infect" so easily, and even when it does, produces only the well-known antibody response, but not the symptoms of AIDS.

E) HIV does not readily or quickly kill the t-helper blood cells, which act as its host. It appears to infect those cells only with great difficulty, and once having infected them, lives quietly and uneventfully within those cells for their normal lifetime, without proliferating significantly to other cells and tissues. As Duesberg points out, this is the precise nature of a retrovirus, which does not kill its host cell, and leads a rather quiet existence in the organism. By contrast, viruses which produce deadly symptoms proliferate rapidly, infecting many cell types, and they kill the infected cells, thereby producing acute symptoms. Active virus is spread widely in such a virus-sickened organism and is not difficult to identify or locate. HIV does none of this, and for this reason, Duesberg suggests it is probably a perinatally-transmitted retrovirus which has been within a small percentage of the human race for generations, but without any associated pathology. HIV was observed for the first time only in recent years, because the technology to identify and search for retroviruses was developed in recent years. In a few cases, evidence suggests HIV might produce mild flu-like symptoms within 24-48 hours after infection to a new organism, but after that it has no additional affect upon the individual.

F) Duesberg points to the fact that, before the retrovirus HIV was discovered, and before AIDS was identified and proclaimed as an infectious disorder, people in high risk groups were dying of the same disease symptoms and were diagnosed quite differently. Before AIDS, these same symptoms were diagnosed as candidiasis, tuberculosis, pneumonia, syphilis, anemia, dementia, sarcoma, and other diseases or infections well-known to attending physicians. Today, the diagnosis of "AIDS" is made whenever any of 25 different disease symptoms appear in the presence of active HIV or HIV antibody. If they display symptoms and have traces of HIV in their blood, the physicians says they have "AIDS"; if no traces of HIV are found, they are diagnosed as having one or more of those original 25 diseases. Duesberg points out the incredible potency attributed to this one virus, HIV, which is said to produce such widely varied symptoms -- and yet, as discussed above, laboratory studies of HIV suggest its hidden nature, its non-toxicity, and its difficulty of transmission.

G) The HIV hypothesis of AIDS is rooted in the general viral theory of diseases. However, historically, viral theories of disease have generally failed to bring forth either cures or advancements in treatments. This is particularly true for cancer and other degenerative, immunologically-related disorders. Funding for virus research had precipitously declined over the years. But AIDS changed all that. HIV was announced, not at a scientific meeting, but rather at a Washington D.C. press conference. In April 1984, Margaret Heckler, then Secretary of Health and Human Services, announced "The probable cause of AIDS has been found", and then introduced Dr. Robert Gallo, who presented his "discovery of the AIDS virus" to a story-hungry press. This political event was eventually overshadowed by the fact that Gallo had misrepresented "his" discovery of HIV -- in fact, he had acquired his samples of HIV on loan from the real discoverer, Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute in Paris. A prolonged legal battle ensued regarding who would retain lucrative international patent rights to HIV-antibody testing, the so-called "AIDS Tests" which cost from $15 to $50 each. Both the French and American governments got into the legal dispute, backing their respective scientists. Later, in an out-of-court settlement, both Gallo and Montagnier agreed to split the royalties, and a new "official history of the discovery of HIV" was written and distributed, expunged of all unpleasant references to the unethical stealing of ideas, or the legal dispute. Fortunately, Gallo was later exposed and no credible individuals in the scientific community supported the "official history". However, Gallo has never been censured for his unethical conduct; he collects new awards and medals nearly every month, and his laboratory is very-well funded by tax dollars. By contrast, Duesberg, the major vocal critic of the entire shabby affair, has been censored and isolated for his criticisms, his research funding terminated. As hundreds of millions of public dollars are being shoveled into the research laboratories of the HIV=AIDS researchers, and into generally ineffective and counter-productive "safe sex" educational programs, no advancements in the treatment or prevention of AIDS has taken place. The HIV Hypothesis of AIDS has produced no public health benefits, and is a total failure, but it is quite a gravy train for a lot of special interests!

II. Epidemiology of AIDS

As mentioned in my prior review of Fumento's book, there is no epidemiological evidence demonstrating an "AIDS epidemic" is taking place outside of recognized high-risk groups. The high risk groups are certainly suffering badly from very serious disease symptoms, but the questions remain: Are the disease symptoms displayed by these groups a product of exposure to HIV infection? Or are they the product of more commonly known infectious diseases, overlapping and opportunistically flourishing within individuals whose behavior, lifestyles, malnutrition and medications have badly weakened them, leaving them exceptionally vulnerable and wasted?

A) Homosexuals and bisexuals engaged in promiscuous "party-Player" lifestyles remain the largest at-risk group for the AIDS syndrome. Here, one can speak of a group with a collective pool of shared body fluids, suffering from chronic, multiple low-grade infections. Minor epidemics of sexually transmitted diseases (STD's), including syphilis, gonorrhea, and herpes, as well as hepatitis have occurred within the gay communities in the USA. Bowel, bladder and urinary infections related to contamination are common (eg, the "gay bowel syndrome", the "drips", etc.). Chronic exposures to both infectious materials and organisms, and correspondingly high rates of exposure to antibiotic medications, may become an integral part of the gay man's lifestyle, with a great toll upon health and immune system functioning. Even before the discovery of HIV and identification of "AIDS", the bath-house, anonymous-sex lifestyles of gay men, who were increasingly coming "out of the closet" in the larger cities, became a public-health nightmare. And this "lifestyle" includes the concurrent widespread and abundant use of various immune-depleting drugs, both legal and illegal. Interviews with gay men and symptomatic AIDS patients demonstrate the widespread use of cocaine, amphetamine, marijuana, alcohol, sexual stimulants, aphrodisiacs, and amyl or butyl nitrites ("poppers", often taken in various mixtures. From all of these factors combined, one can readily see how a severely damaged immune system could result. Again, it is an Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. In particular, Kaposi's sarcoma has been identified as a by-product of nitrite exposure, even before the era of AIDS, and has specifically been linked to the use of the over-the-counter "poppers" -- this particular drug is a sphincter dilator, allowing the individual to tolerate the insertion of a fully erect penis, or even another man's fist ("fisting" techniques) into the anus. These vigorous assaults to the passive-receptive homosexual are correlated with tearing of rectal tissue, or even fistulas, all of which further breaks down protective barriers to infection.

B) Illegal injection drug users whose social condition and lifestyle includes frequent bouts with addiction, malnutrition, and the introduction of foreign substances into the bloodstream, are also at risk for immune system depletion. Generally, the life experiences of such addicted people are those of poverty and neglect of personal health and hygiene, and the introduction of foreign substances into the blood stream by injection as a commonplace, every-day affair. Over the years, these groups also suffer and decline immunologically. Duesberg properly points out the incredible naivete of the so-called "clean needle" propaganda programs, which provide antiseptic needles by which unsanitary immune-depleting substances can be injected into the bloodstream. The cocaine, amphetamine or heroin which an addict injects might be harvested by hand in Asia or South America, be packaged and processed in dirt-shacks, thick with insects and soil, and likewise handled in unsanitary conditions by dozens of possibly sick people en-route to the USA, where it is purposefully cut with additional unsanitary materials of various sorts, in back-room or basement laboratories, etc. -- but for some reason, we are told that AIDS will be prevented if these people only inject such "junk" with a clean needle! Clearly, there is no science behind such politically-motivated assertions. There are good arguments for assisting drug addicts and decriminalizing illegal drugs, but "combatting HIV infection" is not one of them.

C) HIV-antibody positive individuals may also suffer a health risk from AIDS medications routinely administered by physicians uncritical of drug-company propaganda. There are, for example, large numbers of HIV-antibody positive individuals who have for years remained completely free of any symptoms for AIDS or any other significant disease. When treated with medications like AZT, however, these people are observed to sicken and die from "wasting disease" in short order. The question is, do they die from HIV-induced AIDS, or from toxic AZT? Regarding AZT, it was an experimental cancer chemotherapy drug, but was withdrawn from testing and never approved for public use because of toxic side effects. Indeed, AZT is a DNA-chain terminator which suppresses immune-system functions and produces many of the same symptoms attributed to HIV! According to Duesberg and his associates, healthy people who are treated with AZT start developing AIDS-like symptoms within one year, gradually to waste away with mortalitiy rates ranging from 1/3 to 3/4 of all who are treated. No truly controlled studies have ever been performed with AZT, and so nobody knows for certain if the thousands of symptom- free but HIV-antibody positives who took the drug and died, died because of "HIV-induced AIDS" or because of AZT- poisoning. Many of the young people, and various Hollywood celebrities who were paraded on television talk shows, who preached the "safe-sex" and "sex can kill" propaganda to audiences, and who themselves later died from "AIDS" were treated with AZT from the very beginning, even though they showed no signs, or few signs of ill-health at the start of their program of AZT ingestion. Some examples: Arthur Ashe, the heterosexual tennis professional, and Kimberly Bergalis, who supposedly "caught AIDS" from her Florida dentist -- Bergalis had only a minor yeast infection at the start of her AZT program. In typical fashion, the news media focused upon and widely broadcast the details of their gradual degeneration and painful deaths, which exhibited all the classic symptoms of AZT poisoning. Meanwhile, Duesberg and other critics of AZT were routinely censored from media exposure, insuring the public heard only good things about AZT and the "progress in treatment of AIDS".

D) Hemophiliacs and immune-suppressed infants are often identified as an "at risk" group for AIDS. But by definition, these are groups who already suffer from major health problems. Hemophiliacs receive multiple intravenous transfusions over the course of the years, repeatedly exposing them to foreign blood products, and other powerful medications may be given. Likewise with immune-suppressed infants, whose mothers were often drug-addicted and malnourished. Not all of these individuals, indeed only a small proportion, may be HIV infected -- indeed, the proportion of HIV infections among hemophiliacs or immune-suppressed infants has never been greater than what exists in the general population at large. Additionally, it has not been demonstrated that HIV infections occur more frequently among acutely ill hemophiliacs or immune-suppressed infants than among those not so acutely ill, and who recover to a reasonable state of health. Again, the health problems of such acutely ill hemophiliacs and infants has never been demonstrated to be caused by HIV.

E) Generally, heterosexual promiscuousness has no correlation to AIDS, and itself is not a risk factor. Studies of prostitutes in Nevada brothels, which forbid anal intercourse or the use of drugs, demonstrate the absence of HIV infection or AIDS-like symptoms. However, street prostitutes in large cities, such as New York, are often found to suffer immune system damage, not from sexual promiscuity, but rather from drug usage, malnutrition, and other factors related to life on the streets. Drug usage and associated malnutrition is also the mechanism for immune system depletion among groups whose "risk factor" is often, for lack of information, mis-identified as simply "heterosexual HIV transmission". These groups include lower-income inner city populations with higher levels of drug usage, malnutrition, and other immune-damaging correlations. It would be incorrect to say that race, ethnicity, and immigration status play a role in the risk for AIDS, and likewise incorrect that "heterosexual HIV transmission" is the mechanism by which their immune systems became depleted. The "risk factors" borne by some racial minorities and immigrant groups are the same as those identified above for the racial majority of non-immigrants: behavioral, lifestyle, dietary and environmental.

F) The "AIDS epidemic" in the USA and Europe is fundamentally different from that of Africa, giving the appearance of two completely unrelated epidemics. In the USA and Europe, it is primarily males who are affected, either as homosexuals or drug addicts; no other virus or sexually transmitted disease is so selective as this. In the USA and Europe, "AIDS" is identified through disease symptoms long known, observed and recognized by physicians in those nations (plus HIV traces, of course). By contrast, African AIDS is composed of disease symptoms different from those observed in the USA or Europe, but typical of those long observed by physicians in Africa. The African epidemic also afflicts roughly equal numbers of males and females. In the USA and Europe, the epidemic is not primarily affecting the weakest members of society, such as infants and the elderly, who usually are among the first to fall from infectious illness. Rather, HIV is touted as affecting mainly the biologically strongest, young adults in their 20s and 30s. Again, these sex-selective, age-selective, and geographically-skewed epidemiological differences are not characteristic of other microbe-borne diseases.

G) In Africa, there is little money for public health measures, and so the expensive HIV-antibody test, or "AIDS test" is infrequently administered. The diagnosis of "AIDS", as accepted today by the World Health Organization and other public health bodies, is often the mere presentation of symptoms of the various AIDS-correlated diseases. Through such creative book-keeping, vast numbers of people in Africa are said to be dying of unproven and undocumented AIDS. Traditional mortality factors at work in Africa, which have taken a terrible death toll over the centuries (famine, malnutrition, pestilent parasites, infectious organisms, and widespread African STD's,) are ignored in this rush to classify the problem as a malady caused by the single virus HIV. The epidemiology of AIDS in Africa certainly provides no supporting evidence for the HIV hypothesis, and in any case, cannot be used to make any meaningful predictions about the future health of Americans or Europeans.

H) In the USA, deceptive statistical manipulations have inflated the numbers of HIV infected individuals and AIDS deaths. Firstly, the CDC early got into the habit of classifying HIV-positive individuals according to political, and not scientific criteria. For example, immigrants testing positive for HIV often would not acknowledge their homosexuality or illegal drug use. Drug use is a deportable offense for immigrants, and many foreign nations have much stricter social taboos about homosexuality. Therefore, these groups routinely had fewer reported homosexuals and drug users, inflating the "unknown" category. When the general public began to associate this "unknown" factor to specific nationalities, prejudice developed, and for social reasons, entire groups were simply reclassified into the "heterosexual HIV transmission" category. Revised figures were then released by the CDC, showing an upward spurt in the numbers "infected with HIV through heterosexual contact." The newspapers would then routinely announce "a dramatic surge in the numbers people infected with AIDS by heterosexual transmission", with extrapolations out to the year 2000 suggesting the entire world would be infected: eg, "everyone is at risk". Only a few journalists, like Fumento, would report the real reasons for the "increase".

I) The definition of what constitutes AIDS has been constantly expanding, with more diseases being added to the list with each passing year. Today, not only are tuberculosis, pneumonia, syphilis, herpes, anemia, dementia, Kaposi's sarcoma, and other long-known diseases often lumped under the banner of AIDS, but problems such as chronic fatigue syndrome and yeast infections are being redefined as having a background in HIV infection. These latter two problems afflict women in high proportions, and their reclassification as "AIDS indicators" have unscientifically inflated the "heterosexual risk" category. When such new disease classifications occur, by magic the numbers of "infected AIDS victims" balloons, all without solid epidemiological evidence or proof. The news media, of course, reports these new figures with the usual drama and lack of critical scrutiny.

J) The correlations between active HIV, HIV antibody and the disease symptoms of the above individuals in the "high risk" groups have never been proven to be more than spurious correlations, lacking in attributable causal characteristics. This is true for all the various "AIDS diseases", wrongly attributed to HIV. These same diseases appear in the general population both with and without evidence of HIV exposure. Furthermore, HIV antibody is present among large segments of the overall background population, without evidence of any associated disease pathology -- excepting for when these a-symptomatic individuals are scared by the AIDS propaganda machine, into a program of AZT medication. To prove that HIV is the cause of AIDS, and make HIV=AIDS more than a speculative hypothesis, it would be necessary to show the presence of HIV among patients with AIDS diseases whose personal history did not include: 1) chronic male homosexual activity with associated chronic drug abuse and antibiotic dependency, 2) massive ingestion or injections of legal and illegal drugs, and 3) use of toxic medications, including AZT. Likewise one would have to show that HIV was absent among groups of healthy, a-symptomatic individuals. In spite of the millions which have been spent on AIDS research, such a study has never been undertaken. Duesberg's arguments have fallen on mostly deaf and stubbornly arrogant ears. And without funding, neither Duesberg nor his supporters could undertake such a controlled study themselves. Research funds today flow only in the direction of the HIV Fundamentalists.

III. The Politics of AIDS

A) The advocates of condom distribution programs have no credible scientific evidence to support the stated goals of their social engineering. Studies on the safety and efficacy of condoms firstly suggest the inability of condoms to prevent the passage of virus-sized particles. This is particularly true for the thinner-walled varieties. In addition, the failure rate of condoms is a major concern not addressed in these programs. Thick walled condoms are better in resisting breakage, but thin-walled varieties are more desired, given the more natural feeling during intercourse. However, thin condoms tend to break more readily, and all condoms tend to reduce sexual pleasure. The consequences of these facts are: there is a lot of compromising involved when condoms are used. They may de-excite a man, causing temporary loss of erection and slippage of the condom; or they may break. The effectiveness of condoms even for birth control is not so good -- next to the rhythm method and "withdrawl", condoms are a frequently-cited method of "birth control" employed by women visiting abortion clinics.

Given the absence of evidence to link HIV with AIDS, and the generally poor track record of condoms, a question is raised as to the motivations for the condom propaganda. Two elements come to mind. Firstly, condoms very definitely shift birth control practices away from methods which are under control of the female and therefore are more likely to be workable and successful, such as the pill or diaphragm -- therefore, to the extent they reduce reliance on better methods of birth control, they work to increase unwanted pregnancy. Condom propaganda and distribution also appear designed to increase sexual anxiety and displeasure. Condom activists rarely address the associated reduction of sexual pleasure, and generally distribute the devices as part of hysterical "safe sex" educational programs. The safe-sex activists I have come into contact with displayed an arrogant disinterest in any facts or evidence which would conflict with their eagerly-delivered "sex can kill" warnings to schoolchildren.

Fumento points to a growing suspicion among adolescents towards these "sex-educators" -- increasingly, schoolchildren simply don't believe them, concluding (properly so) that all the talk about AIDS in schools are big lies designed solely to frighten them out of having sex. A telling fact is that, before AIDS, most of the condom activists had little or no interest in matters of public health or sexual hygiene counseling. Likewise, the overwhelming majority are totally ignorant of, or blatantly hostile towards the findings of the AIDS critics, such as Peter Duesberg. In the San Francisco area, we routinely see more extreme examples of this "condomania": billboards simultaneously promoting condoms and homosexuality -- naked-to-the-waist homosexual men kissing or embracing, with a short sentence about "safe sex" below. These public "educational programs", well-funded with tax money or donations from pharmacy companies, studiously avoid any mention of risky immune-depleting behaviors or the effects of poppers or other drugs; they have done little or nothing to slow the incidence of immune-system damage among high-risk groups. AIDS is actually increasing today among younger gay men in large American cities. Concurrent to this increase, we also observe an increasing number of unwanted teenage pregnancies, as the basics of birth control and sexual hygiene education are being displaced by the distinctly sex-negative propaganda of the condom pushers.

B) In the early 1990s, Burroughs-Wellcome Pharmaceutical, the manufacturer of AZT, was shaken under growing criticism of the drug. New studies demonstrated no benefits to AZT users, but documented negative health effects. Burroughs-Wellcome therefore proposed to reduce the dosages -- Duesberg's critique of this proposal was, simply, with less poison, the patients would take a bit longer to die. The general response of the Official AIDS Establishment to Duesberg and other AIDS critics can be surmised from the following report, which is fairly typical of the way Big Science treats the voices of dissent:

Dissent at the Berlin AIDS Conference

Despite over 6,000 presentations, nothing useful came out of the IX International Conference on AIDS (Berlin 7-11 June 1993). The prevailing mood was one of despair and confusion.

Hopes placed in Jonas Salk's experimental vaccine, to be given to those already "infected" with HIV, were shattered when his presentation showed that the vaccine did nothing. [Newsday medical writer Laurie Garrett noted that of the 9000 people at the AIDS conference listening to Jonas Salk, some "had cellular telephones and were calling their stockbrokers on Wall Street straight from the hall"]

Some drama was provided by Wellcome Pharmaceutical's frenetic efforts at "damage control", in the wake of the Concorde Trial [showing AZT did not help patients]. Wellcome sponsored satellite symposia, gave free lunches, and published advertisements, but to no avail. The Concorde researchers stood by their findings -- that AZT had no benefits for asymptomatic, HIV-positive individuals -- and Wellcome shares continued to fall.

In one way Berlin was a breakthrough. For the first time at an international AIDS conference, there was a presence of AIDS dissidents, who came to Berlin from North and South America, Africa, India, and most European countries. During the week of the conference, the English-language version of Fritz Poppenberg's film, "The AIDS Rebels" was shown. AIDS critics stood outside the conference center (ICC), with signs and leaflets denouncing the "AIDS Lie" and the "rat poison, AZT". On Berlin's Open Channel TV, 9 hours of AIDS-critical programs were aired, produced by Peter Schmidt and Kawi Schneider. For one day, AIDS critics had a table inside the ICC itself.

At the first press conference (6 June), journalists asked conference organizers why no alternative voices were represented -- for example, Peter Duesberg. Habermehl said that Duesberg had not submitted an abstract, and that alternative voices were represented by ACT UP [a homosexual activist group]. Journalists were not satisfied, and pointed out that the conference had issued speaking invitations to members of ACT UP and Project Inform, and to the discredited AIDS expert, Robert Gallo.

Later on the 6th, ACT UP held a poorly attended press conference. Most of the 300 ACT UP members had the 950 DM [$600] entrance fee waived by the organizers. Many had travelled to Berlin, staying in hotels with swimming pools, with all expenses paid by Wellcome. An ACT UP representative from London admitted that his group had received L50,000 [$75,000] from Wellcome.

The same day, a television program attacked the "Duesbergians". A representative of the leading AIDS organization, Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe, said that nobody should listen to AIDS critics, and showed a slick new, 30-page pamphlet, "All a Lie? Arguments to AIDS Criticism". Finally, the woman narrator referred to AIDS critics as "rotten eggs" and the camera showed a close up of a splattering egg.

At a press conference on the 7th, representatives of the World Health Organization and the World Bank discussed vast amounts of money being allotted to "AIDS Prevention". For example, $250 million has been lent to Brazil, so that the population can be informed about condoms and "safe" needles.

At a press conference on the 8th, Joan Shenton of Meditel Productions of London, asked: Was it not time to re-appraise the basic AIDS orthodoxies, including alleged heterosexual spread? Martin Delaney of Project Inform, a California group that is funded by Wellcome and other pharmaceutical interests, angrily confronted Shenton and shook her by the wrist. Delaney, who is not a scientist, was a featured conference speaker. Robert Laarhoven, a representative of the Dutch Foundation for Alternative AIDS Research (S.A.A.O) and a journalist for the Dutch magazine CARE, asked Habermehl whether the invitation to Robert Gallo was issued before or after he had been found guilty of "scientific misconduct". Habermehl declined to answer; Gallo became angry, and yelled at a reporter, "Don't bother me!"

Beginning at noon on Wednesday the 9th, Robert Laarhoven set up a literature table, with reprints of Rethinking AIDS. All afternoon the table was a gathering point for AIDS critics. I had expected hostility, but it was just the opposite -- people were keenly interested in hearing our ideas.

On Thursday the 10th, the AIDS Empire struck back. Robert Laarhoven was approached by conference officials, police, and a member of the border control. His press pass was confiscated and he was threatened with deportation from Germany for having committed "criminal trespass" -- placing copies of Rethinking AIDS on an unauthorized table. Many other groups had put literature on tables in the same area, but the conference officials were not concerned about them. Earlier in the week, the S.A.A.O. had applied for permission to put copies of Rethinking AIDS in the press release area; their request was denied.

In front of the ICC, Christian Joswig and Peter Schmidt were attacked by several dozen members of ACT UP, who destroyed signs, burned leaflets and attempted to destroy camera equipment. Conference officials witnessed these acts, and then ordered the victims of the assault to stay at least 100 meters from the ICC. Officials took no action against the attackers from ACT UP.

Also on the 10th, 100 ACT UP members destroyed a booth belonging to AIDS-Information Switzerland. They chanted obscenities, smashed panels, destroyed displays and chairs, and tore up literature, before covering the remains of the booth with 30 rolls of toilet paper. The Swiss group's sin had been to criticize condoms.

At the final press conference on Friday the 11th, a dozen media people passed out a press release, "Offenses Against Free Speech". I asked Habermehl if he would apologize for those offenses against free speech for which he personally was responsible, and if he would rebuke ACT UP for their violent attacks on the rights of others. He said he would not. The moderator refused to allow other known AIDS critics, like Joan Shenton, to speak.

If future AIDS conferences want to call themselves "trade shows", let them. But if they claim any affinity with science, they had better show a lot more respect for free inquiry.

(John Lauritsen, Rethinking AIDS, 1(7):2, July 1993)

Duesberg and his supporters, who today number in the hundreds, have typically been banished from official conferences and symposia on the AIDS question, particularly in the USA. Major scientific journals, such as Science and Nature, have published seriously flawed studies purporting to demonstrate that illegal drugs are not the causative factor for AIDS, alongside of condemnations of Duesberg and other AIDS critics. The editors of these journals have often refused to print pointed criticisms of the studies which demonstrate where they are flawed, and likewise refused to allow letters of rebuttal against the personal attacks. (The 11 March 1993 Commentary in Nature, by Ascher, et al.,"Does Drug Use Cause AIDS?", and associated 16 April 1993 Editorial in Science are cases in point -- both were seriously flawed and attacked Duesberg by name, but no published critique or rebuttal was allowed.) It is Big Science at work, in an unholy collusion with Big Medicine, Big Government, and Big Media. Some HIV Fundamentalists have even called for the forced silencing of AIDS critics, on the grounds that they are "confusing the public" and "causing deaths" by getting in the way of the AZT medication, HIV vaccination, and safe-sex programs. While these same conference gatherings and research journals will invite comments from homosexual activist groups, and spotlight the discredited Gallo and other HIV/AZT millionaires, Duesberg and the AIDS critics are forbidden access to the podium, and threatened or physically attacked.

Fortunately, there is growing public knowledge of the circus atmosphere, pseudo-science and vested interests at work behind the HIV hypothesis of AIDS, and the public has generally become better educated and skeptical of the new poisons being peddled by doctors and pharmacy companies. A new AIDS criticism group, "Project AIDS International" has been formed, apparently for the main purpose to bring criminal charges and class-action lawsuits against officials of Burroughs-Wellcome Pharmaceutical. The allegation is made they knew AZT was both highly toxic and worthless against AIDS, and continued to promote it even after thousands of people began to sicken and die from the treatment.

The above facts are testimony to the general death of science and critical science journalism in the USA. Where is the independent news media? Where are the independent scientists and scientific scholarly societies? The answer is, they are all emotionally contracted and too intellectually incapacitated to effectively deal with this burning sexual issue, or they have been bought off, threatened into silence, or fired from positions of public influence. A deep culture-wide emotional anxiety and paralyzing anti-sexual hysteria has silenced most people on the AIDS issue -- they simply parrot what comes through the television or newspapers. A cadre of loud and vocal anti-sexual zealots now dominates the discussion. Their political agendas have been publicized, and sometimes written into law. Nearly everyone, from right-wing conservatives to left-wing radicals, has fallen lock-step into brainless nodding approval of the public anti-heterosexual brainwash. Also, there is a tight collusion of moneyed special interests controlling academe, medicine, politics, and the press. Dissenters to the "Official Truth" that "HIV causes AIDS" have been effectively silenced. This collusion of emotional and economic factors have dovetailed to barricade rational public discussion and debate on the issue.

The Big Lie of the "heterosexual AIDS epidemic" satisfies the most deep emotional fears and hatreds of gratified genitality in the average individual. The emotional component is the only factor which explains how and why this disastrous lie has become a new Official Truth, why to question it publicly is to risk social isolation or attack from "believers" -- and why the mythology has worked to reinforce the most pleasure-fearing and censorious aspects of human personal relationships and social contact. "AIDS" was the emotional plague's deceitful response to an un-focused and chaotic, but potentially healthy sexual revolution, and it has been a most effective deceit, of sweeping, global proportions.

There is no valid scientific proof or even suggestive evidence to support the huge public investment in the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS. As Duesberg says, the HIV hypothesis fails to explain or predict the epidemiology and pathology of AIDS. It is a failed hypothesis which has cost thousands of lives, and billions of wasted dollars. The HIV hypothesis of AIDS is not supported by science, but is rather maintained by big money pharmacy investments, by political hardball tactics from groups with clear political agendas, and by a lot of bad science, often undertaken by those who profited handsomely from the carnage. The campaign to inform the public that "HIV causes AIDS" and "everyone is at risk for AIDS" is, bluntly, a Big Lie, and should be openly exposed and corrected at every possible level.

Two years ago, the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis came into existence, as a result of an effort to get the following four-sentence letter published in a number of prominent scientific journals. The letter today has nearly 400 signatories, at least half of which hold advanced degrees (Ph.D., M.D., etc.). To date, the letter has still not been published in those journals:

"It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group of diseases called AIDS. Many biomedical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken."

Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis.
2040 Polk Street, #321 San Francisco, CA 94104 USA

REFERENCES

- Adams, Jad: AIDS, The HIV Myth, St. Martin's Press, NY, 1989.

- Bethel, Tom: "The Cure that Failed: Did the AIDS lobby know what it was doing when it pressed the government to approve AZT?" National Review, 10 May 1993, pp.33-35.

- Duesberg, Peter: "AIDS Acquired by Drug Consumption and Other Non-Contagious Risk Factors", Pharmac. Ther. 55:201-277, 1992. Also see: Duesberg, P.: Infectious AIDS: Have We Been Misled?, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, 1996; and AIDS; Virus or Drug Induced?; Contemporary Issues in Genetics and Evolution, Vol. 5, Edited by Peter H. Duesberg (Partly reprinted from Genetica Vol. 95, No. 1-3, 1995) Kluwer Academics Press Dordrecht, The Netherlands,1996.

- Fumento, Michael: The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS: How a Tragedy has been Distorted by Media and Partisan Politics, Basic Books, NY 1990.

- Fumento, M.: "Teenaids, the Latest HIV Fib", New Republic, 10 August 1992, pp.17-19.

- Rappoport, J.: AIDS, Inc.: Scandal of the Century, Human Energy Press, San Bruno, CA, 1988.

- Root-Bernstein, Robert: Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus, Free Press, NY, 1993.

- Harman, Robert: "The Emotional Plague and the AIDS Hysteria," Journal of Orgonomy, 22(2):173-195, Nov. 1988.

Postscript: Controlled scientific studies have recently been undertaken on the Western Blot and ELISA "AIDS tests", demonstrating a very high rate of false-positives among both sick and healthy people who have never been exposed to HIV, but who have, instead, previously experienced general immunological stress of various sorts. These "AIDS tests" often yield a "positive" result if the tested individual has previously been exposed to other viruses and microbes, foreign blood proteins (as from transfusions), and/or excessive toxic illegal or legal drugs, including excessive antibiotics. HIV has very little to do with the "positivity" of the so-called "AIDS tests". These new studies further prove that AIDS is not an infectious disorder and has little or no relationship to the virus HIV. See:

Eleini Papadopulos-Eleopulos, et al: "Is a Postive Western Blot Proof of HIV Infection?", Biotechnology, Vol.11, June 1993, p.696-707.

Oscar Kashala, et al: "Infection with Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1) and Human T Cell Lymphotropic Viruses among Leprosy Patients and Contacts: Correlation Between HIV-1 Cross-Reactivity and Antibodies to Lipoarabinomannan", J. Infectious Diseases, 1994:169:296-304.

If you enjoyed and benefited from reading this article, please consider to
purchase our publications on similar topics, or to
make a donation to the OBRL research fund.
Thank you!

Click here for AIDS Criticism Resource Guide

Click here to review and/or purchase books and videos
presenting scientific criticism of the "infectious HIV" theory of AIDS

Return to Articles Page

Return to Home Page

Orgone Biophysical Research Laboratory, Inc.
A Non-Profit Science Research and Educational Foundation, Since 1978
Greensprings Center, PO Box 1148
Ashland, Oregon 97520 USA
E-mail to: demeo@mind.net

This page, and all contents, Copyright (C) 1996
by the Orgone Biophysical Research Laboratory, Inc.

MR REAL COMFUSED AND OTHERS PONDER ON THESE:


Jihad (Fighting for the Cause of GOD Almighty) started with the Bible!

The sections of this article are:

1- Jihad in the Bible.
2- Inhumane slavery as a direct result of the Bible's Jihad.
3- Conclusion.


1- Jihad in the Bible:

Christians often refer to Islam as a terrorist religion, and they abuse the Arabic word "Jihad" and portray it as a reference to terrorism. We must not forget that JIHAD began in the Bible, where GOD Almighty Commanded His followers to fight for His Holy Cause. Let us look at what the Bible says about Jihad:


GOD Almighty Chose the land of Palestine to be the Jews' "Promise Land", and thus, ordered them to go into it and fight the pagans there so they can have possession over it:

Numbers 13:26-28
26 They came back to Moses and Aaron and the whole Israelite community at Kadesh in the Desert of Paran. There they reported to them and to the whole assembly and showed them the fruit of the land.
27 They gave Moses this account: "We went into the land to which you sent us, and it does flow with milk and honey! Here is its fruit.
28 But the people who live there are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large. We even saw descendants of Anak there.


One simple Question: Did the disbelievers in the land of Palestine during the times of Moses start any war with the Hebrews who ORIGINALLY came from Egypt?? Absolutely Not!


Later on, the Hebrews or the "Israelites" or the "Jews" (call them as you wish) have committed Pedophilia, Murders and Terrorism against those disbelievers:

"Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. (Numbers 31:17-18)"

Now what crime did the innocent children and non-virgin women commit in order for them to get killed?



It's odd how one of the 10 Commandments says "Thou shalt not kill (or murder). (Exodus 20:13)", and yet, the bible ordered the killing of innocent children and non-virgin girls by the mass!




Also, according to the Talmud's historical elaborations on Numbers 31:17-18 above, Moses gave direct orders for his men to have SEXUAL INTERCOURSE with every VIRGIN GIRLS who was AT LEAST 3 YEARS OLD:



", The Tannaïtic Midrash Sifre to Numbers in §157 comments on the above quoted commandment of MOSES to kill the Midianite women as well as the male children, "

", According to the Tannaïte Rabbis, MOSES therefore had ordered the Israelites to kill all women older than three years and a day, because they were "suitable for having sexual relations." [138], "

"Said Rabbi Joseph, "Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse, "

"A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. "A girl three years old may be betrothed through an act of sexual intercourse," the words of R. Meir. And sages say, "Three years and one day old.", "


The detailed quotes, elaborations and bibliography are all listed at:

3-year old girls were forced into sex in the Bible!



Terrorism in Islam?!
Let's look at the real terrorism in the Bible:

Pedophilia with 3-year old slave girls in the Bible!
Forcing 3-year old slave girls into sex during the Mosaic Law in the Bible! (click here)

Terror in the Bible by a number of Prophets! (click here)

Pregnant women will be ripped open! (click here)

The NT punishes children with death! (click here)

Terrorism: "kill all the boys and non-virgin women"!
Also under the Mosaic Law!

Another killing all men, women, children and animals by Moses!

Another taking all women and children as spoils of war by Moses!

Moses was a murderer before he became a Prophet!

Killing all of the "suckling infants" by the thousands by Saul!

Dashing little children against rocks in the book of Psalm!
Praising the dashing of little children against rocks as a form of revenge!

42 innocent children were killed using Wild Bears by Prophet Elisha!
Prophet Muhammad on the other hand loved children even those who threw stones at him in the city of Al-Ta'if.

Both equal: "Kill Righteous and the wicked"!

Maiming of the enemies' bodies under Moses' and David's Laws:
Cutting the hands and feet of the enemies in the Bible, and hanging their alive bodies on trees until they DIE.

David's Selective Murders!
David so carelessly killed an innocent man for only telling him news.

X-Rated Pornography in the Bible, by King Solomon!
Literally, women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine", and brothers can "suck" their sisters' and lovers' privates!

Fathers' fingers into their daughters' vaginas!
Under the Mosaic Law, fathers were allowed to do "Digital Defloration" to their daughters.

Shutting the loud mouths of those who unjustly attack Islam, with Truth. Aisha in Islam:

Let's discuss the age of Aisha being 9 when she married our Prophet

1- See proofs, in the "Aisha being 9" article, from the Bible about little girls as young as 9 were married off and even sold off by their fathers as slave girls to men who were even older than their fathers.

2- See also irrefutable proofs that pedophilia and terrorism exist in the Bible. During the Mosaic times in the Bible's Old Testament, 3-year old slave girls were literally forced into sex under Moses' Orders and Command. You sometimes have to read things twice to believe them!

See also: Maiming of the enemies' bodies in the Bible. Cutting the hands and feet of the enemies in the Bible, and hanging their live bodies on trees until they DIE.

*** Killing of innocent children in the Bible.

*** X-Rated Pornography in the Bible.

*** Fathers sticking their fingers into their daughters' vaginas before marriage in the Bible.


3- See also proofs how Aisha's parents were the ones who married her to our Prophet, and that no Muslim or even pagan objected to the marriage because it was widely practiced. The reason no one objected was:

People used to have very short life-spans in Arabia. They used to live between 40 to 60 years maximum. So it was only normal and natural for girls to be married off at ages 9 or 10 or similar.


Marriage for young girls was widely practiced among Arabs back then, and even today in many third-world non-Muslim and Muslim countries.
Please visit: The age of Aisha, girls similar to her in the Bible, and unbelievable pedophilia against 3-year old slave babies in the pedophilic Bible.

2- Inhumane slavery as a direct result of the Bible's Jihad:


After the pagans had been defeated and taken as slaves, the Jews had all of them under their possessions:
Leviticus 25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy
slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

What kind of a human value does the Bible give to slaves? If slaves and their children must be inherited and passed down to newer generations as slaves, then how in the world will they ever gain their freedom? Does the Bible believe in Freedom? Does the Bible believe in liberating human beings from slavery? Apparently it does not.


Let's compare this with the Noble Quran:

Noble Verse 24:33 "Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),"

In this Noble Verse, we see that if a slave requests his freedom from his Muslim master, then his master not only must help him earn his freedom if there is good in the slave, but also pay him money so the slave can have a good start in his free life. We also see in this Noble Verse that slaves are not to be forced into prostitution in anyway.

Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran Commands the Muslims to free their slaves if the slaves want to be free, and to pay them money too so they can have a good jump start in life. In the Bible on the other hand, we see slaves not being allowed to be freed at all, and on the contrary, they and their children must be inherited forever.


3- Conclusion:

Due to the ridiculous and constant attacks that the Christian and Western media bring on Islam, it is time to shed the Light of Truth! Jihad is a Biblical practice before it is Islamic. In Islam, we are Commanded to fight evil where ever it is and by all means! It doesn't always have to be through swords and blood shed. GOD Almighty Commanded the Muslims to fight hard using the Divine Truth of the Noble Quran:

"Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Quran). (The Noble Quran, 25:52)"

"Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: For thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance. (The Noble Quran, 16:125)"

The Bible as shown above is responsible for so much blood shed, pedophilia, murders and terrorism. Yet, we don't see any Christian minister (who is very knowledgeable about the book) say anything about it. But when Muslims do commit killing, such as what happened in Northern Nigeria, then Hell breaks loose and everyone becomes peaceful and a preacher, and Islam is the only evil thing out there, even though Islam is truly the BEST Peaceful and Just Divine Religion out there if it's practiced right. Such hypocrisy, lies and deceptions by the ministers and other Islamphobics only survives with the "dumb, deaf and blind (2:18)" as Allah Almighty called them in the Noble Quran. But to the reasonable and just people, the Truth is always realized, whether it is sooner or later.

REAL TRUTH OR REAL COMFUSED , Please read this : What is Jihad and laws of war in Islam?

The sections of this article are:

1- What is Jihad?
2- The laws of war in Islam.
3- The treatment of prisoners of war in Islam.
4- Did Islam spread by the sword? If so, was that Jihad?







1- What is Jihad?

Jihad means struggling in the name of Allah Almighty. Jihad doesn't always mean a war or battle. Any mean for spreading Islam and the Truth, or to fight for what is right and condemn what is wrong (such as fighting the bad and helping the oppressed even if they were not Muslims) are considered Jihad.

I am doing Jihad right now by Educating you, because it is a tool that can be used for spreading Islam and the Truth. And because it is also a Media tool, it could be used for fighting for what is right and condemning what is wrong.

Islam is not a religion of arms and swords! When Allah Almighty revealed the Noble Quran to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, and Muhammad became the Messenger of GOD Almighty, Muhammad had to spread Islam to 365 Pagan Arab Tribes. These tribes showed so much hostility toward the Muslims and Islam, and have imposed so many battles against the Muslims.

Later, when Islam was the religion of what we call today Saudi Arabia, and the 365 Pagan Arab tribes mostly converted to Islam, the Muslims had to yet face another type of challenge.

The Nuclear Soviet Union and the United States of America of our days were the Great Empires of the Christian Romans and the Pagan Persians. If you know geography and history well enough, then you would see that the Muslims were trapped between those two big Super Powers.

Hostility and Battles from those two Empires were imposed upon the Muslims. For instance, when our Prophet peace be upon him sent his messenger to "Kisrah", the Emperor of Persia, introducing Islam to him, Kisrah ordered for the Muslims' Messenger to be executed!

Back then, like today, this was considered a coward act. It was the Persians who showed the hostility toward the Muslims and declared the many battles against Islam.

The Christian Romans weren't any better. For instance, in one of their many battles against the Muslims is when they saw the threat to their religion in the Middle East, the King "Herucl", sent out an army of 100,000 men and ordered them to go to "Madina" in what we call today Saudi Arabia to destroy Islam once and for all.

The Muslims were not stable yet at that time, and they only sent out an army of 3,000 men at that time to drive the Christian Romans away from Madina. The battle was named "The battle of Mo'ta" and it took place in Mo'ta, Jordan today.

The Muslims' plan was to meet the Christian Romans far away from Madina, and to have them stray away from Madina. The army of 3,000 men was successful enough to fight the Christian Romans for few days and then to pull away from the battle and headed South of Jordan. The Romans strayed away from Madina and the small army of the Muslims was able to run away through the mountains. More than half of the 3,000 Muslims however were killed in this operation.

The point is that Islam didn't spread by sword with much choice. The wars were imposed upon the Muslims. The Muslims didn't ask for those wars.

Islam is a Religion of Love and Peace and Forgiveness [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].

Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him never took any personal revenge from anyone.

What does the Qu'ran say about violence? Why does the Noble Quran contain Verses that command the Muslims to fight? See the justified and good reasons behind it.



In regards to Jihad and fighting the hostile enemy, Allah Almighty Made it crystal clear in the Noble Quran about being peaceful to ordinary and peaceful non-Muslims, and being very hostile to the hostile enemy:

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. (The Noble Quran, 2:190)"

"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. (The Noble Quran, 5:32)"

"Those who invoke not, with God, any other god, nor slay such life as God has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; - and any that does this (not only) meets punishment. (But) the Penalty on the Day Of Judgement will be doubled To him, and he will dwell Therein in ignominy. (The Noble Quran, 25:68-69)"

"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (The Noble Quran, 8:61)"

"If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear God, the cherisher of the worlds. (The Noble Quran, 5:28)"

"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (The Noble Quran, 8:61)"

"If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear God, the cherisher of the worlds. (The Noble Quran, 5:28)"

"God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers. (The Noble Quran, 60:"

"And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers. (The Noble Quran 2:193)"

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (The Noble Quran, 2:256)"

"Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God's will) in Islam. Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them). (The Noble Quran, 15:2-3)"

"Say, 'The truth is from your Lord': Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it):, (The Noble Quran, 18:29)"

"If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then COMPEL mankind, against their will, to believe! (The Noble Quran, 10:99)"

"Say: 'Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message). (The Noble Quran, 24:54)"

"Say : O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine. (The Noble Quran, 109:1-6)"




The reason for "Jihad" Noble Verses:


The so-called "Jihad" Noble Verses came for specific times and places. They don't apply for all times and everybody! I can't slay you, a non-Muslim, just because you're not a Muslim. The pagan Arabs were very hostile people and only knew the sword as an answer. Many wars were imposed upon the Muslims, and thus, it is only normal and natural to find Noble Verses that deal with these specific hostile situations. But the Message of the Noble Quran is PEACE, as clearly proven in Noble Verses 2:190, 8:61 and 5:28 above.





2- The laws of war in Islam:

Muslims are forbidden from attacking others who do not attack them:

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. (The Noble Quran, 2:190)"

Fighting in the cause of GOD Almighty those who fight us is what "Jihad" is all about. I can't go and kill a non-Muslim just because he is a non-Muslim. That is absolutely forbidden in Islam:

"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. (Noble Quran 5:32)"

"Those who invoke not, with God, any other god, nor slay such life as God has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; - and any that does this (not only) meets punishment. (But) the Penalty on the Day Of Judgement will be doubled To him, and he will dwell Therein in ignominy. (The Noble Quran, 25:68-69)"

Jihad can only be declared when the Muslims are attacked. Muslims are not allowed to attach those who do not attack them. And even when war breaks out, if the enemy offers an honest peace, then we should accept it and end the blood shed:

"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (The Noble Quran, 8:61)"

And if a treaty of peace was made, then we must honor that treaty to the end:

"Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If God had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then God Hath opened no way for you (to war against them). (The Noble Quran, 4:90)"

"How can there be a league, before God and His Apostle, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for God doth love the righteous. (The Noble Quran, 9:7)"











4- Did Islam spread by the sword? If so, was that Jihad?

Please visit Why did Muhammad take up arms and Christ didn't? Why did Islam spread by the sword if it were indeed a Religion of Truth, and Christianity didn't? Jesus killed his enemies.

The Muslims did not start any battle with anyone. It was the infidels from the 365 Arab Pagan tribes, and later the Persian and Roman Empires who waged wars against the Muslims. So, yes, since the Muslims were not the aggressors, then this was Jihad; "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. (The Noble Quran, 2:190)"

More for you to ponder on:
See how the Noble Quran addressed all of them (the trinities).





Introduction:

Both the Noble Quran and the Bible claim that GOD Almighty is an Absolute One and only One:

"Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him. (The Noble Quran, 112:1-4)"

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 6:4)"

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. (From the NIV Bible, Mark 12:29)"

Notice also how Jesus said "our God", which included him to be under GOD Almighty's creation and Divine Authority, and not someone or an entity that is equal to GOD Almighty.



The Bible's New Testament also records Jesus saying: ""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone." (From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)"



If Jesus doesn't consider himself as "good", then how can any sane person put him on the same level as GOD Almighty?

I have yet to see a good answer to this one by any polytheist trinitarian.



Also, another important point to notice in Mark 10:18 is the word "alone": ""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone." (From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)"

Jesus in this verse is clearly giving exclusivity to GOD Almighty when he said "alone". If Jesus was truly part of GOD Almighty and/or the trinity lie was true, then Jesus, to say the least, would not have said that.



My rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's absurdities regarding Mark 10:18 where Jesus said he was not "good".







1- Answering Trinity:

*** Trinitarian Christians often refer to trinity as the "Holy Trinity". A very powerful statement indeed for a satanic word that doesn't even exist, not even once, in the Bible!!



(a) The Absolute Oneness of GOD Almighty in the Bible:

The early Christians rejected Trinity. Early Christians had major problems and disagreements about who truly Jesus was and whether or not he got crucified or not.

Early Christians' Doctrines confirm Jesus DID NOT GET crucified. See proofs that the early Christians' scriptures during the 1st and 2nd centuries claimed that GOD Almighty Saved Jesus from crucifixion.

The New Testament confirms the Apocalypse (Revelation in Greek) of Peter which claims that Jesus never died on the cross!

The "God" title in the Bible was given to others in the Old and New Testaments. Answering Isaiah 9:6. The "El" (God) title that was given to Jesus in the Old Testament, and the "HOTHEOS" (God) title in the New Testament, were given to others before and after Jesus in the Bible. The only UNIQUE title that exists in the Bible is "Yahweh", which means "The Eternal".

Emanuel, Emmanuel, Yahshua, Yeshua, Yashua, Immanuel and Imanuel. These were all "Godly" names given to others before and after Jesus in the Bible. None of them is unique. Only "Yahweh" was GOD Almighty's Unique Name.


My rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's "How can Jesus be God when the Hebrew Bible says God is not a man?" article.




Jesus had no Divine Will according to the New Testament. How could he be our Creator?
Ten detailed sub sections in this article:
1- Jesus said he had no Divine Will.
2- Jesus' repetitive Prayers contradicted his very own teachings.
3- Jesus begged GOD Almighty for Mercy.
4- Jesus prostrated to GOD Almighty only once during his most desperate times! This is hypocrisy by the way.
5- GOD Almighty Created pain and death, and yet, Jesus feared them.
6- The GOD of the O.T. Punishes to death those who cursed HIS HOLY NAME. How could Jesus escape to Egypt from King Herod and still be this Mighty and Arrogant GOD?
7- In original Hebrew, "son of GOD" literally means "SERVANT OF GOD". See proofs.
8- What about the authority in Heaven and Earth that was given to Jesus?
9- None of Jesus' Miracles were unique in the Bible.
10- Conclusion.



History of the Bible's Corruption! None of Jesus' disciples witnessed the crucifixion. They "all fled" and "deserted" Jesus. This further proves Islam's claims!
No one knows who wrote the Bible's books and gospels. None of Jesus' disciples wrote any of the gospels! See comments from the NIV Bible's theologians, and historical and archeological proofs that clearly prove this.

Are these Paul's words or GOD Almighty's Divine and UNCOMPROMISED Revelations??!!


For a lot more details and proofs, please visit: Contradictions and Detailed History of the Bible's Corruption.





Anyway, continuing on,

Obvious mistranslations of the Hebrew Manuscripts. See proofs of alterations and deceptions done by the Jews and Christians to disprove Islam in the Bible.

Answering Trinity- A full proof from the Bible that Jesus is not GOD.

The Hidden Truth: Trinity.

The absolute Oneness of GOD Almighty in the Bible's Old Testament.

Texts referring to GOD as "One, Alone, None Other, None Else".

Principles of Bible Interpretation about GOD Almighty.

The word "LORD" in the Bible referring to the Almighty GOD alone.

The word "Elohim" proves Trinity?

More on absolute Oneness of GOD Almighty in the Bible's Old Testament.

****** The "God" title in the Bible was given to others in the OT and NT. Answering Isaiah 9:6. The "El" (God) title that was given to Jesus in the Old Testament, and the "HOTHEOS" (God) title in the New Testament, were given to others before and after Jesus in the Bible. The only UNIQUE title that exists in the Bible is "Yahweh", which means "The Eternal".


Emanuel, Emmanuel, Yahshua, Yeshua, Yashua, Immanuel and Imanuel. These were all "Godly" names given to others before and after Jesus in the Bible. None of them is unique. Only "Yahweh" was GOD Almighty's Unique Name.



My rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's "How can Jesus be God when the Hebrew Bible says God is not a man?" article.

Answering Jeremiah 23:5-6: A big blow to Sam Shamoun's trinity nonsense existing in the Old Testament.

My rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's "Refuting Osama Abdallah on Jeremiah 23:5-6" article.

The Bible directly claims that ANY "Son of GOD" is a "God"! (Refutation to Jesus' being God meaning that he is GOD Almighty).


"Let us create" in Genesis 1:26-27 doesn't prove trinity. See how the Bible clearly defines "our likeness" and "our image" as having the knowledge of Good and evil, and not physically looking like GOD Almighty, which soundly refutes the lie of trinity.

Genesis 1:26 Re-interpreted.


Does GOD's spirit in Jesus prove that Jesus is GOD? Others had it too. GOD's Spirit came upon many others beside Jesus.

Jesus being at GOD Almighty's "Right Hand" is only SYMBOLIC and not literal in the Bible.

"Jesus is my lord and savior" actually CONTRADICTS the Old Testament. The Old Testament clearly talks about Believing in One GOD Almighty and doing Righteousness saving you. No need for mediators (Jesus or idols) between you and GOD Almighty, your Creator.

Did GOD Almighty really appear in A FORM OF A MAN to Abraham in Genesis 17 and 18 (specifically in Genesis 18:2)?

The figurative speech in the Bible proves that Jesus must not be MAGNIFIED to the level of the Creator!

Evolution of the Deity Of Christ Throughout the Gospels.

Rebuttal to Answering Islam's Article "Why Did God Become Human?"

Rebuttal to Answering Islam's Article "On The Philosophical Necessity of the Trinity Based On The Attributes Of God".

Trinitarians do Worship Three God's.

Trinity is false according to many Biblical verses in both the Old and New Testaments. By Pierre Leverette.

Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's "The Incomprehensible Nature of God and his Son" article. Thoroughly refuting and exposing Sam Shamoun's trinity-lies and absurdities in Proverbs 30:4 where he tried to falsely prove trinity through it.







(b) Jesus and his personal claims:


A serious forgery in Luke 24:44-48 about Jesus' "resurrection on the third day" claiming that it was foretold in the OT when it wasn't!

Forgery of Matthew 23.

Psalm 22 and 88 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus never got crucified.

What does "Jesus is the heir" really mean? Does it mean he is the heir of GOD Almighty, or is this just another trinitarian lie?

Was Jesus really sinless? AUDIO session.

Jesus is a hypocrite for bowing down to GOD only during his desperate times. See another proof in the Bible that Jesus can not be the Creator of the Universe.

Jesus using the word "Muslim" in Luke 6:40.

Jesus said: I do not know, only GOD Almighty Knows, when he was asked about the Hour.

10 Reasons why Jesus is not God!

Did Jesus really forgive sins? Or is this another trinity lie?

Jesus had no Divine Will according to the New Testament. How could he be our Creator?
Ten detailed sub sections in this article:
1- Jesus said he had no Divine Will.
2- Jesus' repetitive Prayers contradicted his very own teachings.
3- Jesus begged GOD Almighty for Mercy.
4- Jesus prostrated to GOD Almighty only once during his most desperate times! This is hypocrisy by the way.
5- GOD Almighty Created pain and death, and yet, Jesus feared them.
6- The GOD of the O.T. Punishes to death those who cursed HIS HOLY NAME. How could Jesus escape to Egypt from King Herod and still be this Mighty and Arrogant GOD?
7- In original Hebrew, "son of GOD" literally means "SERVANT OF GOD". See proofs.
8- What about the authority in Heaven and Earth that was given to Jesus?
9- None of Jesus' Miracles were unique in the Bible.
10- Conclusion.



Is Jesus God in the Quran?

Is Jesus God Because Satan Called Him "The Holy One Of God"?

Would you take this man as God?

God has God?

Dead men walking.

Satan's temptations for 40 days to Jesus and his cause of SUFFERING to him prove that Jesus is not and can not be GOD.

"Brother MENJ's paper on Jesus obeying satan. How can Jesus be the Creator of the Universe when he was tempted by satan and obeyed him for a little while? This clearly takes away Jesus' perfection and the false claim about him being the Creator of the Universe.

How could satan offer Jesus the earth if he knew that Jesus was his and the earth's Creator?

Jesus in the Bible GUARANTEED Paradise to non-Trinitarians and even non-Christians who are Monotheists. I further proved that the Bible's interpretation by trinitarian Christians is bogus. According to the verses mentioned in the article, Jesus in the NT is clearly not the only salvation to GOD Almighty. Otherwise, we are left with a major CONTRADICTION in the Bible between Jesus being the only salvation to GOD Almighty, and Jesus not being the only one. At any rate, the most ironic thing of all is that trinity is all based on man's interpretation. The word itself, "trinity", does not even exist in the Bible. Not even once! Yet, it is the central faith to most Christians today.

"Jesus is my lord and savior" actually CONTRADICTS the Old Testament. The Old Testament clearly talks about Believing in One GOD Almighty and doing Righteousness saving you. No need for mediators (Jesus or idols) between you and GOD Almighty, your Creator.

Questions about Jesus and Trinity that Trinitarian Christians don't have logical answers for.

Jesus is the "Word" in both the Bible and the Noble Quran.

The Sahih Muslim Hadiths say that Jesus is GOD Almighty's Word and Spirit - Does this mean that Jesus is Allah Almighty?

Jesus' Miracles were not unique in the Bible.

The Bible directly claims that ANY "Son of GOD" is a "God"! (Refutation to Jesus' being God meaning that he is GOD Almighty).

The definition of "Son of God" in Islam.

Son of GOD: Some Muslims' Misconception.

"Son of Man" does not mean "GOD" or "Son of GOD"

Can we trust the Son of Man?


"Son of God" literally means "Servant of God" in Hebrew. Bible agrees with Islam, not with pagan trinity and today's wrong and twisted translations of "Son of God".

Obvious mistranslations of the Hebrew Manuscripts. See proofs of alterations and deceptions done by the Jews and Christians to disprove Islam in the Bible.


How can Jesus be GOD Almighty when he asked for GOD's Forgiveness?

Jesus the "Alpha and Omega". Not only this quote doesn't prove Jesus as GOD, but it was also written in a book that is unreliable in later bibles. In the original Bibles, the quote doesn't even exist!!

Arche of the Creation of God as Alpha and Omega. The "Alpha and Omega" doesn't even exist in the original Bibles! It's a lie that was later inserted by trinitarians. See the historical proofs in the article. If their site is down, then you can read the article at this link ON MY SITE.

Does Jesus saying "I am" prove that he is GOD? See how the Hebrew "I am" that Jesus said is different than the Hebrew "I am" that GOD Almighty said in the OT.

Jesus Said He Was God?

Do People and Angels bowing down to Jesus in Worship really prove that he is the Creator of the Universe? See how the word "Worship" used for Jesus doesn't even exist in the original Greek Bibles. The Trinitarian English translations are nothing but hoaxes and deceptions. The article responds to Matthew 15:9 and other English mistranslated verses in the Bible. Also, what about when David "prostrated" with his face down to the ground to Saul? Was David worshiping Saul?

Is the Prophet Daniel God?

Answering John 1:1.

Examining John 1:1 - Part I.
- Part II.

Doesn’t John 1:1 prove that Jesus is God?

Hebrews 5:7-8 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus never got crucified and contradicts the Bible! According to the documentary film, "Banned from the Bible", which I watched on the History Channel, some of Saint Peter's apocalypse were banned from the current Bible, and these Epistles contain what Islam claims - that Jesus didn't get crucified on the cross and it only appeared that he was. This banned part also says that Jesus was standing next to the cross laughing. These are the parts of the Bible that only few people in the world know about.

According to the documentary film, the apocalypse was very popular among Christians during the 2nd century. They believed "it was spiritually inspired" by GOD Almighty to Saint Peter. They actually had doubts about "John's apocalypse", which is known today as "the Book of Revelation". Interestingly also, this apocalypse says that after GOD Almighty fills both Heaven and Hell with inhabitants from Mankind, and the people of Hell get tortured for a long period of time, the People of Heaven will ask and Pray to GOD Almighty to Forgive the people of Hell. GOD Almighty will then eventually listen to their Prayers, and will order the "Gates and the Steel Bars of Hell" to be opened and allow the people of Hell to enter Heaven for Good. This apocalypse of Peter seems to also perfectly fit Noble Verse 7:40 in the Noble Quran where Allah Almighty Promised that He will eventually open the Gates of Heaven to all disbelievers and empty Hell. Please visit: Hell will eventually be empty according to Islam.

Chapter Psalm 91 clearly and indisputably confirms that Jesus never got crucified!


Did Isaiah 53 really prophesies about the crucifixion of Jesus?
It supports Islam's claims about Jesus peace be upon him never died on the cross. I also addressed John 19:36-37 from the Bible and proved that Jesus never got crucified, since GOD Almighty promised that he will protect Jesus' body and not let even a single bone be broken. My question to all Christians is: How in the world is it possible for the feet to get nailed on the cross without any penetration to the bones by the nails, hence breaking part of the feet's bones?! I also added refutations to Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, Zechariah 12:10 and Psalm 34:20, which supposedly prove the Christians' belief about Jesus crucifixion. I proved that this dogma has no truth what so ever and exposed the wrong Trinitarian English translation of Zechariah 12:10. I also showed in Isaiah 52:13 ", he will be raised and lifted up, ", which clearly and perfectly agrees with Islam about Jesus never died on the cross. "Raised and lifted" suggests that Jesus will be picked up right from the cross, or saved right from the cross by Allah Almighty. It suggests that Jesus will not die, nor get crucified, but rather be raised and lifted by GOD Almighty to Heavens.


Brother Abdullah Smith wrote an excellent on Isaiah 53 article at:

The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53.
- Part II.
- Part III.


None of Jesus' disciples witnessed the crucifixion. They "all fled" and "deserted" Jesus. This further confirms Islam's claims.

Jesus was never "disfigured beyond human recognition" in the New Testament as the Old Testament predicted!

Did Jews continually try to stone Jesus prove that he claimed to be GOD?

Is Jesus God because some of the Jews accused him of making himself as God?

Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Does that make him GOD?

Did Jesus ever claim to be "Mighty God" or "God"? Responding to the "I and the Father are one. (John 10:30)" claim.

John 10:30, I and My Father are One.

Jesus claimed that whoever saw him saw the Father. Wouldn't that prove that Jesus is GOD Himself (i.e., the Creator of the Universe)?

Thomas is misunderstood in verse John 20:28.

Do chapter Psalm 110 and Matthew 22:41-46 ("The LORD said to my Lord" prove that Jesus is the Creator of the Universe?

My rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's "Examining Psalm 110:1" article.

Is Jesus Yahweh?

Jesus' crucifixion and the end of the World.

Christians Use of Jesus Being Called The Lamb Of God And Him Taking Away The Sins Of The World.

Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's article on Jesus admitting that only the Father is the only true GOD.

The Evolution on the character of Jesus in the New Testament Gospels.

Is Jesus God Because He Said That His Words Will Never Pass Away?

Why Didn't Jesus Plainly Say He Was God?

Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's Article "Thomas's Confession 'My Lord and my God!'"

Who is Jesus?

Is Jesus God because He said Honor him as you Honor the Father?

Is Jesus God because He Forgave Sins?

Paul the Prisoner of Jesus Christ.







(c) Other "Trinity?" Verses:

Pat Robertson is a perfect example of how trinity causes brain damage to its deceived followers!

The Beliefs of Christians is Similar to that of the Pagans according to Saint Justin Martyr.

Does calling Jesus "Son of God" prove that he is GOD?

Does Psalm 16:8-11 refer to Jesus' resurrection as the book of Acts suggest?

Does Psalm 2:7 refer to Jesus or King David?

"Son of Man" does not mean "GOD" or "Son of GOD"

Can we trust the Son of Man?

Does Genesis 1:1-3 really refer to Trinity?

Does Genesis 19:24 really prove Trinity?

Philippians 2 is not a Trinity "Proof Text".

Proverbs 8 contains no proof of Trinity!

Does Baptizing prove Trinity?

"Jesus" does not mean "God saves".

Does the word "Messiah" really mean GOD?

Rebuttal to the lie about the Arabic name "Eesa (Jesus)" originating from Hindu and Pagan gods.

Jesus' original name is Eesa. See detailed proofs from Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic.

Jacob does not mean "fought with GOD" as many Christians believe.





(d) Other verses on paganism in Christianity:

Persecution of Early Unitarian Churches in Malabar, Abyssinia and Ireland.

The pagan Christianity's Trinity is the same as the Hindu's Trinity.

Chapter 3: The Christian Holidays and the Christian Calendar.

Who are we to please?

Some Christians do worship Mary!

Is the Noble Quran wrong regarding Mary?

Contradictions in Trinity.

The Nature of Jesus in the Bible refutes Trinity.

The Trinity belief fails the exam.

Historical background of the Trinity.

The Creed of St. Athanasius.

The Doctrine of the TRINITY, Mystery or Confusion?

Jewish and Muslim sites that disprove Trinity.

Contradictions In the Resurrection Story.

What language did Jesus really speak during his ministry?

Funny Trinity. Some humor about Trinity that is true.

Jesus was never crucified according to the Gospel of Barnabas.





2- History of Man's Corruption in the Bible:

* Christians believe that the Gospels of John, Matthew, Luke and Mark are GOD Almighty's Revelations/Inspirations. Where does it say so in their Gospels? And where do we see anyone claiming ownership of those Gospels?

History of Man's Corruption in the Bible. The Bible was not even written by the Prophets of GOD and the Disciples of Jesus.

Is the entire Bible truly the Word of GOD?

The lie of 1 John 5:7.

The lie of 1 John 5:7 and Timothy 3:16.

Contradicting translations on 1 John 5:7.

The invalidity of the Trinity belief from the Theologians' views.

Christian Scholars refuting the status of the NT as an inspired scripture. (19 detailed sections filled with many quotes).

Who were the real authors of the Bible?

The original Bible was lost! See comments from the NIV Bible itself. No one ever claimed ownership of the current Gospels. The owners/writers are unknown.

Books mentioned in the Bible that are not part of the "Today's Bible".

Contradictions in 2 Timothy 3:16.

Is the Bible 100% faultless and unhampered with by the Church?

Where did our modern Bibles come from? Grave defects in the Bible.

Where did the discarded verses come from in the first place?

How many books of the Bible are 'truly inspired'?

How did the Church handle the "differences in the Bibles" problem?

Where did the King James Bible come from?

How did the Church explain all these centuries of tampering?

82% of the words of Jesus are not his.

Did mankind tamper with the Old Testament?

When is a book an 'inspired' book?

Ancient paganism and the dangers of compromise.

Pagans influence in the Christians' methods of worship today.

Famous Theologians and Historians believe that Paul was not truthful.

The authors of the New Testament have conflicts with each others. How about for Paul to punch Peter on the face?? That would've been "inspired", wouldn't it?

The Gospel of John: Gospel or Gossip?

Why do Muslims only believe in Jesus' personal quotes from the Bible?

A dangerous forgery was inserted at the end of the so-called "Gospel of Mark"

"Son of GOD" conflict between the Bible and the Noble Quran.

Are most Christians of today idol worshipers?

The Bible says: The earth is flat!

Textual Variants of the Bible.







_____________________________________________________________________









Copyright © Answering-Christianity.Com. All rights reserved.

Jesus cannot be God. You comfutionist. It seems you dont know much or anything about the religion you follow. Kindly see how you are deceived .Copyright © By Dr. Adel Elsaie, Book Title: "History of Truth, The Truth about God and Religions"


6.9 The Ecumenical Councils of Church

Translate this page

The First Council in Nicaea I - 325

The Second Council in Constantinople I - 381

The Third Council in Ephesus - 431

The Fourth Council in Chalcedon - 451

The Fifth Council in Constantinople II - 553

The Sixth Council of Constantinople III - 680-81

The Seventh Council of Nicaea II - 787

The word Ecumenical means the whole Catholic Church. The arguments of Fathers of the Church lead to confusing the average Christians about the relationship of the Father with the Son. A fierce theological passion occurred in the Churches of Egypt, Syria and Asia Minor. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa complained that he could not obtain a straight answer to a simple question "If you ask someone to give you change, he philosophizes about the begotten and the unbegotten. If you say to an attendant: Is my bath ready, he will tell you that the Son was made out of nothing." Buying bread from a bakery turns to a heated argument about whether or not the Father is greater than the Son. These kinds of Byzantine arguments were heating up everywhere and on all levels of intellect. Is the Son of the same substance as the Father, or is it a similar substance? Does Jesus have one or two natures? Is the Son co-eternal with God or not? What is the relation of Christ to God the father? In what sense can God be the father, son, and the holy spirit, and yet still be one? How can there be a God with true unity combined with true diversity? During that time, no one can possibly prove anything definitively one way or another. The whole Byzantine Empire transformed into scholarly theologians! It is interesting to note that in the present day Egypt, the expression Byzantine argument means a useless argument in which each opposing party could never prove their point of views!

At the middle of the third century, political crises, inflation, civil war, drastic trade recession, and barbarian invasions almost brought the collapse of the Roman Empire. In 284, the emperor Diocletian took power with the army’s support. For the first nineteen years of his reign, persecution of the Church was not supported and the Church prospered in numbers. But the infiltration of Christianity in high places was strong, mainly through the governor’s wives. Diocletian died in 306, and the army chose his son Constantine as his successor. Constantine’s mother may have had Christian sympathies.

The average Christian may not know that councils of senior pastors established the Christian doctrine. Those pastors were arguing about theological subjects that Jesus himself did not introduce. A prerequisite for the appointment of an official in the councils was to have "charisma" which means that he was filled with the Holy Ghost. So when councils with famous members met, the Holy Ghost was among them, omnipotent and active!

The assembly of the first seven Ecumenical Councils of the early Christian world would establish the standards of the doctrine and hierarchy of the new religion. Usually pastors that represented the opposition to the final agreement of the council were fired or transferred to smaller churches. It is worthwhile to pause and take a look at how the Councils came into being and what decisions were made by them - presumably for all eternity. It is also important to examine the political background that surrounded the decision making process that changed Christianity forever.


The First Council in Nicaea I - 325

The first Ecumenical Council took place in Nicaea. Constantine sought to exploit the rapidly expanding religion, with its great potential, to strengthen the Roman Empire. Constantine was persuaded that the disunity of the church was destabilizing the empire. In 324 he felt sure that soon he would go to the Holy Land to see the sacred sites, and to be baptized in Jordan. But his plan was abruptly aborted. He found the Greek churches in Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Asia Minor boiling with controversy about the nature of Jesus. The intense theological emotion started in Alexandria by the charismatic presbyter Arius, who had a soft and impressive voice. He issued a challenge to his bishop Alexander, that the latter found impossible to ignore and even more difficult to argue: how could Jesus have been God of the same substance like God the father? Arius argued that it was blasphemous to think that Jesus was divine by nature. Jesus had specifically said that the father was greater than he. Alexander and his assistant Athanasius immediately realized the theological problem. Arius was asking vital questions about the nature of Jesus and his relationship to God. Arius followed the concept of the divine trinity as Origen had taught. It was not easy to endorse that the son and the father as being identical or of one substance without fairly complicated clarifications. Origen had felt the difficulty himself. He avoided the problem by saying that Jesus’ relation to God is a characteristic of divine life. Arius reasoned that Jesus, who was physically born of Mary, grew in wisdom "Logos", suffered failure and death must be less than the unbegotten, deathless, and eternal father. He believed that God is beyond Jesus, and that Jesus coming on Earth was by the will of God, and not by the will of Jesus. Arius therefore clashed with a principle strongly stated by Irenaeus: "Through God alone can God be known."

Arius was not an idiot; he received the support from scholarly and politically powerful bishops. He knew the scriptures well and produced many texts to support his claim that Jesus, the Word, could only be a creature like us. The Logos had been the instrument used by God to bring all creatures into existence. The Word or the Logos had to be entirely different from God. He believed that Jesus had lived a perfect life; he had obeyed God even unto his death on the cross, notwithstanding the last words of Jesus on the cross according to Matthew. He contended that humans by imitating Jesus, the perfect creature, they too would be perfect creatures of God. Alexander and Athanasius harassed Arius. They had a different view regarding the weakness of humanity. Athanasius saw the need for God Himself to descent on earth and be crucified to save humanity because God alone is the Perfect Being. So a domestic dispute in Alexandria became a wide crisis in the Byzantine Empire!

When Constantine selected and brought together 318 bishops for the Council, it was a military and political decision. He needed the support of the new religion in his battles. He claimed that he saw a vision of the Cross in the middle of the sun, his god before converting to Christianity in his last day. Even the bishops had no illusion about that, for not only did the Emperor preside over the Council, he also proclaimed that his will was a divine law. The senior pastors accepted him as a "Universal Bishop" even though he was not baptized, and they let him take part in votes on church doctrine. Constantine was completely ignorant of Jesus’ teachings. He was a follower of the solar monotheism of Mithras (the ancient Iranian god of light), who was portrayed on coins as the "invincible sun". When Constantine gave his name to the old Greek commercial city of Byzantium and made Constantinople in 330, five years after the Council, the capital of the Roman Empire, he had a mighty column erected for the ceremonial opening with the Emperor and the "invincible sun god" on the top of it.

When the bishops gathered to resolve the crisis, very few bishops shared Athanasius’ view of Christ. Most held position between Arius and Athanasius. Nevertheless, Athanasius used his powerful skills of argument to impose his theology on the bishops with the support of the atheist emperor. Only Arius and two companions refused to sign this creed. The creed stated, "the Creator, God the father, and the Redeemer, Son of God, were of the same nature, and that Jesus is the only begotten of the father." This absolutely vital Christian law became the church’s canon by imperial decree. That is how Jesus became identical with God. With this as a foundation, the bishops took Pauline Christianity to another level.

After the council, the bishops went on teaching the new creed, and the Arian crisis continued for another sixty years. Arius and his followers fought back and managed to regain imperial favor. Athanasius was exiled about five times. It was still very difficult to explain this creed because it was not in the scriptures and had pagan association. To an outsider or to an average Christian, these theological arguments seemed a waste of time: no one can possibly prove anything definitively one way or another, and the dispute simply proved to be divisive. No one disagreed about the special place that Christ holds, but the question remained in very many minds: What is Jesus Christ? Pauline Christianity had always been an inconsistent faith. Now at the first council, the church had added another paradox of incarnation, despite its apparent incompatibility with monotheism.

The atheist Constantine did the church another enormous favor. He was led by "divine inspiration" to discover the grave of Jesus, who had just become of the same substance of God. However, in spite of his spiritual inspiration and moral Christian values, Constantine did not stop murdering his close relatives during the same year: his son, his wife whom he had plunged into boiling water, and his father in law whom he forced to commit suicide. This is the image of the emperor and the Universal Bishop who managed the Nicene Creed, and who, when the council was over, told the Christians that the agreement was "the decision of God."

The Second Council in Constantinople I - 381

The first council provided the duality of God, while the second Ecumenical council extended the duality to the trinity. The emperor Theodosius I (347-395), who was appreciated when he made the Christian doctrine as the state religion, convened the second council at Constantinople. The church gave him the name "the Great". This Roman emperor was an oppressor of the poor. He overwhelmed the people with intolerable taxes. With his full imperial power, he prevented anyone to give refuge to his oppressed people. If they did so, he had all the inhabitants of the offending village slaughtered. In the year 390, he had seven thousand rebellious citizens murdered in a frightful blood bath; at the same time the "Halleluiah" came to be used in the Christian churches.

In this council, the dogma of the trinity of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost was introduced and agreed upon as the church doctrine. Theodosius instructed the recognition of the "Nicene Creed," and the Council extended the worshipping to the Holy Ghost beside the Father and the Son. Also, the council declared the Holy Ghost to be made of the same substance of God. Today the church still feeds on this dogma of trinity that was added under Theodosius the Great.

The Third Council in Ephesus - 431

During this second phase of the next four councils, the center of interest shifted from the trinity to the identity of Christ. If Christ is truly God, then in what sense is he also human? And if at the same time God and man are the same, how can he be one? To answer these difficult questions, the Virgin Mary had to be brought in the picture. Notice the step by step formulation of the Christian doctrine that was never mentioned in the scriptures, even though their authenticity is highly questionable.

The East Roman emperor Theodosius II (408-450) and the West Roman emperor Valentianus III (425-455) convened this third Ecumenical Council. These two emperors were not really interested in religion or complicated theology. They were young and fun loving. Theodosius II devoted himself wholly to his hobbies, and tyrannically levied taxes on his subjects to pay for his extravagant way of life. It is no wonder that Theodosius was completely under the influence of his power hungry elder sister Pulcheria (399-453). For some time she acted as a regent for her brother and publicized herself as a virgin. After her brother’s death, she had his rival murdered. As for the West Roman Empire, Valentianus was controlled by his mother, and ultimately was assassinated.

This council declared that the Virgin Mary is "God’s bearer" or "Mother of God." The council stated that what Mary bore, was not a human closely united with God, but a single and undivided entity who is God and man at the same time. One attendant who expressed reservation on the title "God’s bearer" was condemned for making a big deal of contrast between Jesus the God and Jesus the man. The council of Ephesus led to a lasting division between the East and the West. The Christians in east Syria and Mesopotamia, living mainly in the Persian Empire and outside the Byzantine borders, felt unable to accept that definition of Mary. While in the West, it was believed that the Church of the East divided Christ into two different entities.


The Fourth Council in Chalcedon - 451

Unable to obtain a fair hearing at the third council, the Christians from Antioch were, to some extent, reinstated at the fourth ecumenical council at Chalcedon. This council was formally convened by the Byzantine emperor Marcianus (396-457), but in reality it was run by the virgin Pulcheria, who had married Marcianus after the death of her brother Theodosius. She knew far better than the bishops what she wanted. She convened the council against the will of the various churches, and she held the deliberations firmly in her hand.

Pope Leo I initiated the dogmatic formula that Jesus had two natures. The council proclaimed the doctrine that divine and human nature are inseparably united in the person Jesus. This was an attempt to compromise and strike a balance between the Alexandrine and Antiochene approaches, allowing for both the diversity and the unity within the incarnate Christ. However, in Alexandria they felt that Antioch had imposed their approach on them, and this further increased the division between the churches. They were willing to say that Christ is "from two natures" but not that he is "in two natures." This double nature still persists as the Chalcedon creed. The council also entrusted the preservation of the unity of the doctrine to the Pope, who would intervene when he saw fit. This is how the religious dominance of Rome started. Today the Vatican people must still be grateful to Pulcheria for pushing through the council of Chalcedon.

The Fifth Council in Constantinople II - 553

The East Roman emperor Justinian I (483-565) staged this council. The bishops of this council had virtually nothing major to do. Anything that Justinian had in mind had been achieved long before by imperial decrees and laws. It is not without irony that this assembly is described in the theological literature as the "council of acclamation." Justinian summoned Pope Vigilius (537-555) who was later quoted by opponents of Papal infallibility to prove their case. Vigilius and the bishops submitted themselves to the powerful political interest of the emperor, who found his place in history books because of his savage laws against heretics. Therefore, a heretic was defined as anyone who denied the Christian doctrine, and was subject to savage punishment, or death. An army of Roman officials tracked down dissenters, rounding them up in droves and forcing them to accept the Christian baptism on Justinian’s orders. The third council proclaimed that "God was born", and this council stated that "God died", and the lord was "crucified in flesh." This council also condemned the critical examination of the Bible by Origen for his deviations as unorthodox. When the council took this decision, persecution was not confined to Origen’s numerous followers; it also included many others who were not following all the decrees of the councils.


The Sixth Council of Constantinople III - 680-81

The saga of the dual nature of Jesus continued in this council. The council researched the question that if Jesus had two natures; did he have one or two wills? If Jesus was genuinely human, then he must have possessed authentic human freedom. The fourth council gave Jesus two natures, and the sixth council gave him two wills; a divine will as well as a human will. This was a compromise between two opposing parties. Both parties agreed that Christ was truly divine as well as truly human. It was ironic that in the two centuries following the fourth council a lasting agreement between the two sides proved impossible.


The Seventh Council of Nicaea II - 787


The next stage of the Christian era of the seventh council was another controversy about icons. By icons is meant an image, visual representation, or a statue of Christ, the Virgin Mary, the Angels, and saints. It may take the form of a painted panel of wood, but could be a mosaic on the church’s wall, a portrait in metal, or a statue, although statues were extremely rare in the East Christian art. The first attack on the use of icons lasted from 726 until 780. This conflict, as usual, needed imperial politics, and the Empress Irene brought it to an end. Therefore the council convened by the Empress, and stated that it was theologically correct to depict Jesus, Mary, and the saints as icons. In 843, Empress Theodora ordered the restoration of the holy icons. It is interesting that the imperial champions of icon adoration should both have been women, who happened to like art. This seventh council finally transformed the monotheistic religion of Jesus Christ to a polytheistic and pagan religion.

It is important to know the history of the evolution of Christian doctrines that was developed by humans and not by Jesus. Humans developed serious and complex fundamental Christian concepts. If these concepts were true, they should have been spelled out plainly by Jesus in the clearest way. They should not have been left to human interpretations of the Fathers of the Church or the Ecumenical Councils of Church. The job of the messenger of God is to deliver clearly the message of God and live as a role model of the teachings of the religion. This is what Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad did. The messages of Moses and Jesus were blurred and smeared by tribal feud and outrageous incorrect interpretations. On the other hand, Muhammad kept the message of God faithfully and steadfastly.


Consequently, it is important to remember the story of the people of Noah, and how the devil convinced them to commemorate the righteous people by making pictures of them. The next step was to persuade the people to make statues for those righteous people. The last step was to worship the statues, and that was when God sent Noah to them. These stories of the past, we see in churches today. And there is no difference between a Christian church, and a Buddhist or Hindu temple; they all have statues that people worship. Christians, in churches, are presented by the pure moral teachings of Jesus Christ, Peace and Blessing of Allah be upon him, mixed with polytheism and paganism. The memories of moral values affect anyone and make them feel good, while the Emperors and Empresses smile from beyond!

[Next] [Table of Contents] [Home]

eceived.

Introduction: We must first of all know that the entire Bible is corrupted and unreliable and is mostly filled with man-made laws and corruption! "`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:"

The Revised Standard Version makes it even clearer: "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it (i.e., the bible) into a LIE. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:"

In either translation, we clearly see that the Jews had so much corrupted the Bible with their man-made cultural laws, that they had turned the Bible into a lie!

See Also Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death.

The Book of Moses predicted that the Law (Bible) will get corrupted. The Book of Jeremiah which came approximately 826 years after did indeed confirm this corruption.



Also visit:

The bible is a book that contains countless contradictions and corruptions as ironically the bible's own theologians openly admit! They even claim that it contains fables and fairy tales:

The Christian and Bible theologians call them "fictions that exist in the Bible"!

The Christian and Bible theologians say "The original manuscripts had been lost"!

The Christian and Bible theologians call them "fairy tales and fables in the Bible"!

Countless contradictions and corruption.

The original authors are "unknown" of almost all of the bible's books and gospels.


101 Contradictions in the Bible!





1- Just who were the real authors of the Bible?

The sections of this article are:

1- Just who were the real authors of the Bible?
2- So who wrote the Bible then? Were they really the original Prophets and Disciples?
3- The New Testament was written in the 4th century by Constantine and his council by their own words.
4- The Roman Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the Bible had been "altered".
5- Contradictions in historical claims and accounts.
6- Conclusion.




Note: Please also visit my My response to Quennel Gale's rebuttal to this article.

The quotes in green below are from the NIV Bible's commentary. Before each Book/Gospel, there are few pages explaining the history of it. I was shocked to see that most of today's Bible's Books and Gospels are doubtful and unreliable. I will start with the New Testament first, and then the Old Testament second. The bibliography of the NIV Bible that I used is listed at the end of this article.

After thoroughly reading this article, I would like you to answer the following questions:

1- Is all of the Bible GOD's Divine Revelations?
2- Did the Prophets of GOD really write the Bible of today?
3- Is the Bible perfect?
4- Did man indeed corrupt the Bible?
5- Is the Bible of today reliable?

If your answer is no to most of or all of the above questions except for #4, then allow me to say that your faith has serious problems!

You be the Judge: After all of the evidence provided in the article, should I as a non-Christian take the Bible as the word of GOD Almighty?



Exposing the New Testament's historical corruptions

The Gospel of Mark:

Note: This gospel is the oldest and supposedly the most original one in the New Testament!


"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1488)"

So, in reality, we don't really know whether Mark was the sole author of this Gospel or not. And since The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus, then how are we to know for sure that the current "Gospel of Mark" wasn't written by some pro of Mark?


A new captured image of this book's corruption:





(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:9-20;&version=31


The above text reads: "The most reliable early manuscript and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."

Now my concern to this corruption and 'answer-the-problem-away' statement is that what are those so-called "reliable early manuscript(s)" and who are the "ancient witnesses"?

According to the early Christians' manuscripts, Jesus never got crucified, and trinity is a lie. The so-called "gospel of Mark", along with all of the "gospels" of the NT, were written by third-party narration, as clearly demonstrated and shown in the sections below. People wrote on the tongue of Jesus' Disciples those books. They are neither original nor are the Pure Word of GOD Almighty.



If the "gospel of Mark" was indeed Divine and from GOD Almighty, then we wouldn't have this corruption, that they're admitting above, in it.




I hope you see the real danger in making these assumptions when you are willing to DIE for the fact that such Gospel is the actual True Word of GOD Almighty!

Further regarding this Gospel, we read the following commentary about Mark 16:9-20:

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes, page 1528)"

This quote raises a very serious issue here. First of all, as we've seen above in the first quote, we have no evidence that proves that John Mark was the sole author of this so called "Gospel". Second of all, we see that this Gospel has some serious problems/suspicions in it. The issue of Mark 16:9-20 is a scary one, because many Christian cults today use poisonous snakes in their worship and end up dying.

Removing Mark 16:9-20 is quite appreciated by me personally (to be quite honest with you), because it prevents people from dying from snake bites. But however, the serious issue of man's corruption of the Bible remains.

We can be absolutely certain now that the above quotes prove without a doubt that the Bible is doubtful. The quote "or its original ending has been lost" proves that what we call today "Gospels" were not written by their original authors such as Mark, John, Matthew, etc, It proves that the Gospel had been tampered with by man. Let alone considering it as the True Living Words of GOD Almighty.

If John Mark wasn't the one who wrote Mark 16:9-20, then who did? And how can you prove the ownership of the other person? Let alone proving that it was GOD Almighty's Revelation. And as we saw in the first quote above, we don't even know that John Mark was indeed the one who wrote the so called "Gospel of Mark".

To say the least in our case here, we now have enough evidence to discard the entire Gospel of Mark from the Bible, because you can't take bits and pieces of it and say some of it belongs to him and some of it doesn't! Let alone considering the entire corrupted Gospel as the True Living Word of GOD Almighty, which is a complete blasphemy.

Please visit A dangerous forgery was inserted at the end of the so-called "Gospel of Mark".



Here is an email that I received from a Christian regarding Mark 16:17-18:

From: R. Mercer
To: truthspeaks@answering-christianity.com
Subject: I Totally Agree
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 13:41:57 -0700

"What credibility does Christianity have when it scriptures are littered
with such dangerous and obvious forgeries?"

You summed it up very well on your web page. That is my question
entirely. Just what are we to believe? If forgeries have been proven to
exist in the Bible, then how many more must there be? What about the
chapters and verses we all guide our whole life/styles by? Are they
forgeries, too?

This verse in Mark 16:17-18, has always bothered me. I have, and
still do believe the rest of that passage (laying on of hands, healing
the sick,, ), so how can that part of the passage be true when the
serpent part is forged?

I know the part on drinking any poison says "IF", but the part on
taking up serpents says "SHALL", which has always been a problem for me
to believe. Imagine us all being forced to take up serpents in order to
serve God.

On the other hand, if this was forged, then that creates an even
bigger concern for me. Not knowing what text in our Bible is authentic
and what is not.

Thanks for letting me take up so much of your time. Like I said
before, this passage always bothered me, probably more so than any other.

Thanks, once again. Good Day.



The Book of Acts:

"Although the author does not name himself, evidence outside the Scriptures and inferences from the book itself lead to the conclusion that the author was Luke. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1643)"

So based on some conclusion, you're willing to die for defending the idea that the Book of Acts was the True Word of GOD Almighty? If the book was inspired by GOD Almighty, then how come it wasn't mentioned in the book itself to help us filter it out from the many other "Satanic false books"? Are we sure that this book too is not a man-made Satanic book?

After all, its just a conclusion, isn't it?

Beside, what evidence are they talking about?! The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus. So unless the Book/Gospel was signed by its author, there is no way we would know for sure that it was indeed his book from the first place, let alone considering it as the True Living Word of GOD.

Please visit: Was Jesus crucified on a tree (according to Peter), cross (according to others), or never got crucified (according to Islam)?

None of Jesus' disciples witnessed the crucifixion. They "all fled" and "deserted" Jesus. This further confirms Islam's claims.

Hebrews 5:7-8 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus never got crucified and contradicts the Bible! According to the documentary film, "Banned from the Bible", which I watched on the History Channel, some of Saint Peter's apocalypse were banned from the current Bible, and these Epistles contain what Islam claims - that Jesus didn't get crucified on the cross and it only appeared that he was. This banned part also says that Jesus was standing next to the cross laughing. These are the parts of the Bible that only few people in the world know about.

According to the documentary film, the apocalypse was very popular among Christians during the 2nd century. They believed "it was spiritually inspired" by GOD Almighty to Saint Peter. They actually had doubts about "John's apocalypse", which is known today as "the Book of Revelation". Interestingly also, this apocalypse says that after GOD Almighty fills both Heaven and Hell with inhabitants from Mankind, and the people of Hell get tortured for a long period of time, the People of Heaven will ask and Pray to GOD Almighty to Forgive the people of Hell. GOD Almighty will then eventually listen to their Prayers, and will order the "Gates and the Steel Bars of Hell" to be opened and allow the people of Hell to enter Heaven for Good. This apocalypse of Peter seems to also perfectly fit Noble Verse 7:40 in the Noble Quran where Allah Almighty Promised that He will eventually open the Gates of Heaven to all disbelievers and empty Hell. Please visit: Hell will eventually be empty according to Islam.

Jesus is a hypocrite for bowing down to GOD only during his desperate times. See another proof in the Bible that Jesus can not be the Creator of the Universe.



The Gospel of Luke:

There is a serious forgery about Jesus' "resurrection on the third day" claiming that it was foretold in the OT when it wasn't! Let us look at Luke 24:44-48 from the NIV Bible:

Luke 24

44 He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
46 He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,
47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 You are witnesses of these things.

Luke 24:44-48 says that it is written in the Law of Moses (i.e., the Torah) that Jesus will die and resurrect on the third day. Where in the entire Old Testament (not just in the 5 books of Moses that make up the Law of Moses or the Torah) do you have that?! Show me one Old Testament verse that prophesized about Jesus' third day resurrection?

In fact, in my article Answering Isaiah 53, I clearly proved that the Old Testament actually confirms the Noble Quran's claims about Jesus never got crucified! Let alone dying and resurrecting on the third day!

Anyway, Let us see what the NIV Bible's theologians said about this book:

"The author's name does not appear in the book, but much unmistakable evidence points to Luke. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1529)"

Again, we don't know for sure whether it was Luke or not who wrote the "Gospel of Luke" since his name doesn't appear in the Book. The Gospel itself seems to be a compromising one to the Word of GOD. Let us look at the following:

"Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, (Luke 1:3)"

Few problems with this Gospel from the quote above:

1- The author was not inspired, and knew for sure that he was not inspired by GOD Almighty to write the Book since he didn't mention about any divine inspiration, and he said ", since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, " Where do we see GOD's inspiration in this?

2- The author wrote it for the purpose of "his most excellent Theophilus." Since when we compromise GOD Almighty and document His Holy Words for the purpose of other higher (in rank) human beings?

I say it again, I hope you see the real danger in making these assumptions when you are willing to DIE for the fact that such Gospel is the actual True Word of GOD Almighty!

Also, beside, what evidence are they talking about?! The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus. So unless the Book/Gospel was signed by its author, there is no way we would know for sure that it was indeed his book from the first place, let alone considering as the True Living Word of GOD.



Further from brother Vipor Poison; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him:

Luke 1:3

Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,

The following is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://newadvent.org/cathen/14625b.htm

http://newadvent.org/cathen/14625a.htm

If Theophilus existed in either the 2nd or the 4th centuries then how could the writer of this gospel be the same Luke who is supposed to be with Jesus in the 1st century.

Maybe he lived to about 200 years,


From brother Amir AbdulRahim; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him:

The subject of Mankind's Corruption of the Bible has interested me greatly, and I have taken a closer look at this subject. Its seems it's not only your site that brings this subject up, but a couple of Christian sites too.

For example, an article in the Catholic Encyclopaedia that you mentioned in regard to the 'Theophilus' mentioned in Luke's Gospel (from your Just Who Are The Real Authors Of The Bible? article) testifies to this fact (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm):

"IV. TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT

No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author-- all have been in some way altered. The material conditions under which a book was spread before the invention of printing (1440), the little care of the copyists, correctors, and glossators for the text, so different from the desire of accuracy exhibited to-day, explain sufficiently the divergences we find between various manuscripts of the same work. To these causes may be added, in regard to the Scriptures, exegetical difficulties and dogmatical controversies. To exempt the sacred writings from ordinary conditions a very special providence would have been necessary, and it has not been the will of God to exercise this providence."

Lets just go through that again - "No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author--all have been in some way altered." All have been in some way altered! In view of this blatant admission, how can anyone expect me, or any muslim, to follow an impure book?

When you compare this to the great lengths taken to preserve the original Qur'an, there's no contest!



The Book of Hebrews:

"The writer of this letter does not identify himself, but he was obviously well known to the original recipients. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1856)"

So because the guy was supposedly "well known (which we don't really know that for sure anyway)", then would that give us the right to consider his words as the Words of GOD Almighty?! I am sorry, but I don't really see the logic behind this! The Book of Hebrews is one of the highly used Books among Christians. I hear references from it a lot when listening to Christians preaching. Yet, no one really knows who wrote it!. This is quite ironic, because Christians use such highly doubtful books in their teachings as if they were the True Living Words of GOD Almighty. I don't care what you call this, but I call it blasphemy, because it is the most ridiculous insult to GOD Almighty and His Holy Words that I have ever seen.

I just hope you see the real cheap quality in the religion of Christianity, with all my respect due to every Christian reader.

Please visit: Was Jesus crucified on a tree (according to Peter), cross (according to others), or never got crucified (according to Islam)?

None of Jesus' disciples witnessed the crucifixion. They "all fled" and "deserted" Jesus. This further confirms Islam's claims.

Hebrews 5:7-8 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus never got crucified and contradicts the Bible! According to the documentary film, "Banned from the Bible", which I watched on the History Channel, some of Saint Peter's apocalypse were banned from the current Bible, and these Epistles contain what Islam claims - that Jesus didn't get crucified on the cross and it only appeared that he was. This banned part also says that Jesus was standing next to the cross laughing. These are the parts of the Bible that only few people in the world know about.

According to the documentary film, the apocalypse was very popular among Christians during the 2nd century. They believed "it was spiritually inspired" by GOD Almighty to Saint Peter. They actually had doubts about "John's apocalypse", which is known today as "the Book of Revelation". Interestingly also, this apocalypse says that after GOD Almighty fills both Heaven and Hell with inhabitants from Mankind, and the people of Hell get tortured for a long period of time, the People of Heaven will ask and Pray to GOD Almighty to Forgive the people of Hell. GOD Almighty will then eventually listen to their Prayers, and will order the "Gates and the Steel Bars of Hell" to be opened and allow the people of Hell to enter Heaven for Good. This apocalypse of Peter seems to also perfectly fit Noble Verse 7:40 in the Noble Quran where Allah Almighty Promised that He will eventually open the Gates of Heaven to all disbelievers and empty Hell. Please visit: Hell will eventually be empty according to Islam.

Jesus is a hypocrite for bowing down to GOD only during his desperate times. See another proof in the Bible that Jesus can not be the Creator of the Universe.



The Gospel of John:

"The author is the apostle John, 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20,24). He was prominent in the early church but is not mentioned by name in this Gospel--which would be natural if he wrote it, but hard to explain otherwise. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1588)"

They claimed that it was John who wrote the Gospel, but yet, his name was not signed on his Gospel! How is it possible for us to be absolutely sure that it was indeed John who wrote the so called "Gospel of John" when "his name is not mentioned in this Gospel" so we can then take it as a 100% True Error-free Word of GOD Almighty?

When one reads this gospel, he would immediately notice that it was not written by John himself. Let us look at the following verses from the gospel:

"And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? (From the King James Version Bible, John 1:19)"

"John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; (From the King James Version Bible, John 1:26)"

"For John was not yet cast into prison. (From the King James Version Bible, John 3:24)"

etc,

Whoever wrote the gospel, was he appointed or inspired by GOD Almighty? If yes, then who is that man? It can't be John for it is quite obvious from the above verses and many more throughout the gospel that John wasn't the original author. One has to be ridiculously biased and blind in faith to deny that.

So now, what about these most popular verses:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (From the King James Version Bible, John 1:1)"

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (From the King James Version Bible, John 3:16)"

These verses were obviously written by mysterious men and not by any of Jesus' original disciples. Therefore, it is blasphemy to consider such verses as Divine and to try to prove Jesus is the Creator of the Universe through them. The lie of trinity was born between the years of 150 to 300. It is quite possible and highly probable that some church wrote the so-called "Gospel of John" from excerpts that they found. Notice that there are 24,000 "letters" or papers found that were not included in today's New Testament, which means that the excerpts that were used for writing the "Gospel of John" and all of the other books and gospels of the NT are highly doubtful and contain no proof what so ever that they were written by any of Jesus' original disciples. The Gospel of John was written about John but not by the original "Saint John". Big difference and big corruption! You can't consider such rubbish as GOD Almighty's Divine Holy Words.

Again, please visit: The Gospel of John, Gospel or gossip? to see proof about early Christians rejecting the so-called Gospel of John. They believed it was all man-made.

Was Jesus crucified on a tree (according to Peter), cross (according to others), or never got crucified (according to Islam)?

None of Jesus' disciples witnessed the crucifixion. They "all fled" and "deserted" Jesus. This further confirms Islam's claims.

Hebrews 5:7-8 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus never got crucified and contradicts the Bible! According to the documentary film, "Banned from the Bible", which I watched on the History Channel, some of Saint Peter's apocalypse were banned from the current Bible, and these Epistles contain what Islam claims - that Jesus didn't get crucified on the cross and it only appeared that he was. This banned part also says that Jesus was standing next to the cross laughing. These are the parts of the Bible that only few people in the world know about.

According to the documentary film, the apocalypse was very popular among Christians during the 2nd century. They believed "it was spiritually inspired" by GOD Almighty to Saint Peter. They actually had doubts about "John's apocalypse", which is known today as "the Book of Revelation". Interestingly also, this apocalypse says that after GOD Almighty fills both Heaven and Hell with inhabitants from Mankind, and the people of Hell get tortured for a long period of time, the People of Heaven will ask and Pray to GOD Almighty to Forgive the people of Hell. GOD Almighty will then eventually listen to their Prayers, and will order the "Gates and the Steel Bars of Hell" to be opened and allow the people of Hell to enter Heaven for Good. This apocalypse of Peter seems to also perfectly fit Noble Verse 7:40 in the Noble Quran where Allah Almighty Promised that He will eventually open the Gates of Heaven to all disbelievers and empty Hell. Please visit: Hell will eventually be empty according to Islam.

Jesus is a hypocrite for bowing down to GOD only during his desperate times. See another proof in the Bible that Jesus can not be the Creator of the Universe.



The Gospel of 1 John:

", Unlike most NT letters, 1 John does not tell us who its author is. The earliest identification of him comes from the church fathers, (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1904)"

"The letter is difficult to date with precision, (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1905)"

This is really ironic! with all respect due to Christians. If the Book's author is not for sure known, then why assume that it was Saint John who wrote it?

Please visit The lie of 1 John 5:7. This verse was later discovered to be a Satanic lie. The Roman Catholic Theologians don't believe in it, and it doesn't exist in their Bibles.

The same case where no author is really known exists in the Gospels of 2 and 3 John.



The Book of Revelation:

"Four times the author identifies himself as John (1:1,4,9; 22:, In the third century, however, an African bishop named Dionysius compared the language, style and thought of the Apocalypse (Revelation) with that of the other writings of John and decided that the book could not been written by the apostle of John. He suggested that the author was a certain John the Presbyter, whose name appears elsewhere in ancient writings. Although many today follow Dionysius in his view of authorship, the external evidence seems overwhelmingly supportive of the traditional view. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1922)"

Again, we don't know who wrote the Book of Revelation. It is certainly highly doubtful that it was written by Apostle John. The Theologians and Historians of the NIV Bible seem to agree with the invalidity of this book from the above quote. So are you now going to consider the other John's words as the Words and Inspirations of GOD Almighty?

As we see, the style of writing in the book of Revelation is different from the books that are believed to be from John which are the Gospel of John, 1 John, 2 John and 3 John. The book of Revelation's style seems to be closer to John the Presbyter's writings. This man is known in ancient writings. There are also many Christian theologians today that hold the same view about the falsety of the book of Revelation.

Isn't this sufficient enough to prove that the book is doubtful?

Notice that in the sections of "Gospel of John" and "Gospels of 1, 2 & 3 John" above, the author did not identify himself and it was ASSUMED without actual proofs that it was Saint John who wrote them. Notice how they said that if he were to identify himself, then it would be hard for them to explain it.

Now, notice the author in the Book of Revelation does identify himself as John, but he has a complete different language and style of writing from the other books, which created much uncertainty about its validity in the Church.

My questions here are: Who wrote the Books? And is or is not Saint John supposed to identify himself in his books? And where are his books that have his name on them?

Again, keep in mind that the NT was not even documented on paper until 150 to 300 years after Jesus (depending on what Christian you talk to). So the dating is way too long for us to be assuming books to belong to certain people. Let alone considering their nonsense (contents) as the True Living Words of GOD Almighty.


Please visit: Jesus the "Alpha and Omega". Not only this quote doesn't prove Jesus as GOD, but it was also written in a book that is unreliable in later bibles. In the original Bibles, the quote doesn't even exist!!

False and failed Prophecies about the Hour put in the mouth of Jesus in the books of Mark, Luke and Revelation in the New Testament.

Arche of the Creation of God as Alpha and Omega. The "Alpha and Omega" doesn't even exist in the original Bibles! It's a lie that was later inserted by trinitarians. See the historical proofs in the article. If their site is down, then you can read the article at this link ON MY SITE.

Hebrews 5:7-8 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus never got crucified and contradicts the Bible! According to the documentary film, "Banned from the Bible", which I watched on the History Channel, some of Saint Peter's apocalypse were banned from the current Bible, and these Epistles contain what Islam claims - that Jesus didn't get crucified on the cross and it only appeared that he was. This banned part also says that Jesus was standing next to the cross laughing. These are the parts of the Bible that only few people in the world know about.

According to the documentary film, the apocalypse was very popular among Christians during the 2nd century. They believed "it was spiritually inspired" by GOD Almighty to Saint Peter. They actually had doubts about "John's apocalypse", which is known today as "the Book of Revelation". Interestingly also, this apocalypse says that after GOD Almighty fills both Heaven and Hell with inhabitants from Mankind, and the people of Hell get tortured for a long period of time, the People of Heaven will ask and Pray to GOD Almighty to Forgive the people of Hell. GOD Almighty will then eventually listen to their Prayers, and will order the "Gates and the Steel Bars of Hell" to be opened and allow the people of Hell to enter Heaven for Good. This apocalypse of Peter seems to also perfectly fit Noble Verse 7:40 in the Noble Quran where Allah Almighty Promised that He will eventually open the Gates of Heaven to all disbelievers and empty Hell. Please visit: Hell will eventually be empty according to Islam.


The Book of Revelation is a very important, probably the most important Book in the Bible today, because it has prophecies in it of what Christians believe is for our future today, even though it has nothing to do with our current world. It talks about Jesus soon (1800 to 2000 years ago) will return (Revelation 22:7). I don't know how soon is 2000 years to the Bible. All the people that this book was told to had died.

It also talks about the great battle of Gog and Magog fighting the righteous; "and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth [The earth DOES NOT have four corners and no the earth is not a square or rectangle. It is round almost like an egg!!]--Gog and Magog--to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. (From the NIV Bible, Revelation 20:"

The thing that we need to notice here beside the grave error about the shape of the earth in this false book (sorry to say that), is that the Gog and Magog existed before. Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal (Ezekiel 39:1), is the name of the leader and Magog is the name of his nation (Ezekiel 38 and 39). The Gog and Magog army had already been defeated and the Noble Quran confirms their story. There had been historical discoveries that perfectly match the Noble Quran's claims regarding the Gog and Magog, such as the discovery of the "Iron Gates", and other literature that mentions the Gog and Magog army and location. There is even historical documentation about them which matches the Noble Quran in London, England.

Please visit The story of Gog and Magog and the Iron Gates in the Noble Quran and the Bible to see the references and proofs of these historical discoveries and several more.

The Bible says: The earth is flat! See all the verses in the Bible that claim the earth is flat.

It is a common Christian answer to say "We support Israel because it is God's promised land to the Jews, and He will prevail them against the army of Gog and Magog who seems to be mainly an Islamic army today." They mostly rely on the Book of Revelation from the Bible to support this claim.

The story of the Gog and Magog army attacking the Jews exists in both the Book of Ezekiel and the Book of Revelation in the Bible. The Book of Ezekiel which came literally thousands of years before the Book of Revelation predicted the attack and defeat of the army of Gog and Magog.

The Noble Quran (The Muslims' Holy Scripture) talks about the army of Gog and Magog in details and explains the events that ALREADY took place. As I mentioned above, there had been historical discoveries that perfectly match the Noble Quran's claims regarding the Gog and Magog, such as the discovery of the "Iron Gates", and other literature that mentions the Gog and Magog army and location.

Please visit The army of Gog and Magog and the Iron Gates in the Noble Quran and the Bible.

The lie (sorry to say that) of the Book of Revelation, however, also predicts the coming of the army of Gog and Magog. But as I said, the army of Gog and Magog were ALREADY predicted in the Bible thousands of years before the Book of Revelation.

So, the prediction in the Book of Revelation proves that the writer of the book, lacked a great deal of knowledge about history, because as I said, the event of the Gog and Magog battle (i.e., the battle of Armageddon) already happened!

The point is that the Book of Revelation, however, like most of the Bible today seems to be nothing but a big hoax (sorry to say that). It is very doubtful, but yet ironically, very important to the Christians of today.

Would you honestly deep inside yourself call nonsense of this kind the True Living Words of GOD Almighty, especially after knowing that very important early Christian resources thought "the book could not been written by the apostle of John"?

Please visit What parts of the Bible do Muslims believe in?



The Books of Paul:

Before we start on the analysis of Paul's Books, we must first know that Paul who's Books are believed to be inspired by GOD Almighty Himself and who is a disciple of Jesus peace be upon him never actually met Jesus in person. Jesus had 12 disciples when he was on earth. Paul was not one of them!. Paul much later after the disappearance of Jesus came and claimed that Jesus came to him and ordered him to be his disciple. Paul is really taken on faith only and not on proofs. He could be well be another smart deceiver who made his way into the world of the current corrupted Bible (sorry if I offended you).





Exposing Paul's Lies The Noble Quran on Paul and his likes:
"Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. (The Noble Quran, 2:79)"

"Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against God, or saith, "I have received inspiration," when he hath received none, or (again) who saith, "I can reveal the like of what God hath revealed"? If thou couldst but see how the wicked (do fare) in the flood of confusion at death! - the angels stretch forth their hands, (saying),"Yield up your souls: this day shall ye receive your reward,- a penalty of shame, for that ye used to tell lies against God, and scornfully to reject of His signs!" (The Noble Quran, 6:93)"



GOD's stupidity is smarter than all of us

Simple yet devastating proof about Paul was NEVER inspired by the Holy Spirit! - Contradiction in divorce!

Paul literally allowed lying! The end literally justifies the means to him!

How can you say that the Bible has corruption in it when Saint Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16 clearly said that "All Scripture is God-breathed"?

Paul nullified and contradicted the point of Baptism. Him calling the disbelievers, who are supposed to be doomed to Hell, as "sanctified" and "holy" is clear nonsense and stupidity, and further proves with CLEAR-CUT proofs that his words were not Revelations from GOD Almighty. It also contradicts GOD Almighty's verdict about them in the Old Testament.

My rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's "Demonstrating how Paul's writings nullify Osama's desperate attempts to finding Bible Contradictions" article.

The Anti-Christ Paul. (By Abdullah Smith)
- Part II.

Paul the Corrupter. (By Abdullah Smith)

The Romantic Origins of Christianity. (By Abdullah Smith)

Paul Versus the Disciples.

Paul Contradicts himself.

The Problem with Paul.

Paul's Strange Law.

Paul’s idea of marriage.

The Jews did kill Jesus according to Paul.


PAUL, the self-appointed Prophet, was proven to be a deceiver who contradicted the teachings of Jesus and mocked the Law of Moses.

Are these Paul's words or GOD Almighty's Divine Revelations?

Paul of Tarsus: The Clear-Cut Hypocrite

The Problem of Paul Regarding Esau

The Problem of Paul

Paul of Tarsus: The False Apostle According to Islam

'The Apocryphal Books of Elijah' & Paul

Epimenides Paradox: Was Paul "Inspired"?

Paul's Dependency on Talmudic Writings: Evidence of New Testament Borrowing

Paul and The 'Inspiration' of Scripture

The Influence of the Pauline Epistles Upon The Gospels of The New Testament: Study and Criticism


Famous Theologians and Historians believe that Paul was not truthful.

Is circumcision allowed or not allowed in the Bible? See the clear contradiction between Jesus and Paul.

Paul contradicted himself regarding the women's head covering.

Paul, Peter and John are in clear contradiction with each others regarding the disbelieving husbands to believing wives!

My response to Sam Shamoun's rebuttal to my article "Paul, Peter and John are in clear contradiction with each others regarding the disbelieving husbands to believing wives!".

The authors of the New Testament have conflicts (hostility) with each others. How about for Paul to punch Peter on the face?? That would've been "inspired", wouldn't it?

Jesus (peace be upon him), Paul and the Christian Church.

What Did Paul Want To Know About Jesus?

Paul Broke The Covenant Of God.

Who's Gospel Is Paul Preaching?

Was Paul A Deceiver?

Rebuttal To Sam Shamoun’s Article “To Deceive Or Not To Deceive”.

Where Is This Promise Paul Is Referring To?

Why was Paul prosecuted?

Why is Paul still giving offerings?

Paul's View of Genealogies.

Does The Quran Affirm The Teachings Of Paul: Christian Missionary's Use Of Surah 61:14.

Examining Paul's Divorcement Law on Christian Women.






The Book of Romans:

"The writer of this letter was the apostle Paul (see 1:1). No voice from the early church was ever raised against his authorship. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1705)"

Ok, but notice how in this Book, we see the actual author himself, and in the ones above, we see nothing but conclusions. If GOD was the actual inspirer of all of these Books, then He wouldn't put us in the agony of making some conclusions to figure out His Words. Is GOD the author of confusion? Paul is also clear about his ownership of the Books of 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians.

But why must we take every single word that Paul spoke especially during his conversations with others as Words of GOD Almighty?!

Is Paul GOD Himself? No Christian believes in that. Paul fought with Saint Peter and accused him of being "clearly in the wrong" (Galatians: 2:11-12), and had a huge argument with Saint Barnabas (Acts 15:36-39).

Did GOD favor Paul over Barnabas and Peter and inspired him the words while he was fighting with them? I don't think so!.

Paul himself admitted before that he wasn't always inspired by GOD Almighty himself (1 Corinthians 7:25-30).

And since Paul never met Jesus in person, and only claimed that Jesus came to him in person then there is always the possibility of him being untruthful. Since Paul never performed any miracles to help us believe his claim of Prophet hood, then his claim about him being GOD's apostle is just as good as me for instance claiming to be GOD's apostle.

Benny Hyne, one of today's famous Christian missionaries who have millions of fans world wide, claims and shows on TV how he could cure the paralyzed and makes him walk again. He claims that Jesus is inside him when he performs his so-called miracles. Why can't it be a bunch of liars that he paid and brought on TV, pretend to act paralyzed and pretend to act healed?

Paul could just as well be another Benny Hyne, except that Benny Hyne performed miracles (that are fake of course), but Paul never performed anything.

I hope you see how confusing the Bible really is. Its books are believed today from conclusions only as you've seen above, and it is only to be believed by blind faith. Blind faith is not the way to believe in GOD Almighty's Words, because GOD is not the author of confusion.

Please visit: Famous Theologians and Historians believe that Paul was not truthful.

Christian Scholars refuting the status of the NT as an inspired scripture.

Paul, Peter and John are in clear contradiction with each others regarding the disbelieving husbands to believing wives!

What parts of the Bible do Muslims believe in?



The Book of Philippians:

"The early church was unanimous in its testimony that Philippians was written by the apostle Paul (see 1:1). Internally the letter reveals the stamp of genuineness. The many personal references of the author fit what we know of Paul from other NT books. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1803)"

Again, it was assumed that this book was written by Paul himself. No one knows for sure whether it was Paul or somebody else. The New Testament wasn't even documented until 150-300 years after the disappearance of Jesus peace be upon him. If we're going to assume that Books that look appealing to us as the True Word of GOD Almighty, then we are committing a great crime against GOD Almighty and His Holy Words. No where in this Book we see a statement saying that it was inspired by GOD Almighty Himself.



The Book of Colossians:

"That Colossians is a genuine letter Paul is not usually disputed. In the early church, all who speak on the subject of authorship ascribe it to Paul. In the 19th century, however, some thought that the heresy refuted in ch. 2 was second-century Gnosticism. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1813)"

Again, it was assumed that Paul was the one who wrote the Book. But again, who's to say that it was inspired by GOD Almighty Himself?



The Books of 1 and 2 Thessalonians:

"Paul's authorship of 2 Thessalonians has been questioned more often than that of 1 Thessalonians, in spite of the fact that it has more support from early Christian writers. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1829)"

So basically we're not certain whether or not Paul wrote the Book. And even if Paul was the one who wrote it, we still don't know whether it was the True Words of GOD Almighty or not, because no where in the Book we see any indication that it was inspired by the Almighty GOD.





Exposing the Old Testament's historical corruptions

As we see in the introduction above in Jeremiah 8:8, the entire Bible is doubtful and full of man-made lies that were inserted into it through the scribes and other means of alterations. The Bible is obviously a corrupted book!

The Book of Genesis:

"Historically, Jews and Christians alike have held that Moses was the author/compiler of the first five books of the OT. These books, known also as the Pentateuch (meaning "five-volumed book", were referred to in Jewish tradition as the five fifths of the law (of Moses). The Bible itself suggests Mosaic authorship of Genesis, since Ac 15:1 refers to circumcision as "the custom taught by Moses," an allusion of Ge 17. However, a certain amount of later editorial updating does appear to be indicated (see, e.g., notes on 14:14; 36:31; 47:11). (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 2)"

So in reality, the book of Genesis had been tampered with by man. It had been corrupted. It is dangerous to consider all of it as the True Living Words of GOD Almighty, because by doing so, we are running into the risk of committing a crime against Him since we are claiming that He spoke words that He never spoke.



The Book of Numbers:

"It is not necessary, however, to claim that Numbers came from Moses' hand complete and in final form. Portions of the book were probably added by scribes or editors from later periods of Israel's history. For example, the protestation of the humility of Moses (12:3) would hardly be convincing if it came from his own mouth. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 183)"

So in reality, we don't know who were all the authors who wrote the book of Numbers. How is it possible then to call the book of Numbers the True Living Revelations of GOD Almighty if the book had been tampered with by the man-made laws of the scribes?

As you clearly saw in Jeremiah 8:8 in the introduction above, GOD Almighty condemned the laws of the scribes and accused them for turning the Bible into a lie.



The book of Deuteronomy:

"The book itself testifies that, for the most part, Moses wrote it (1:5; 31:9,22,24), and other OT books agree (1Ki 2:3, 8:53; 2ki 14:6; 18:12)--though the preamble (1:1-5) may have been written by someone else, and the report of Moses' death (ch.34) was almost certainly written by someone else. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 240)"

As we clearly see, there is ample evidence that proves beyond the shadow of the doubt that Moses was not the sole author of the book. He couldn't have possibly have written about his own death. Again, another corrupted book by man in the Bible. How can you claim that the book of Deuteronomy was indeed all revealed by GOD Almighty? If you're not sure, and you still insist on your claim, then you are committing a crime against GOD Almighty's Revelations.



The book of Joshua:

"It seems safe to conclude that the book, at least in its early form, dates from the beginning of the monarchy. Some think that Samuel may have had a hand in shaping or compiling the materials of the book, but in fact we are unsure who the final author or editor was. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 286)"

Again, another book whom we don't know who in the world wrote it. Yet, Jews and Christians consider this nonsense as a Revelation from GOD Almighty.



The book of Judges:

"Although, according to tradition, Samuel wrote the book, authorship is actually uncertain."

"The date of the composition is also unknown, but it was undoubtedly during the monarchy."

(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 322).

Another book with many doubts had been inserted into the Bible. How much more evidence do you need to be convinced that the Bible is corrupted, or to say the least, not a perfect book?



The book of Ruth:

"The author is unknown. Jewish tradition points to Samuel, but it is unlikely that he is the author because the mention of David (4:17,22) implies a later date. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 360)"

Same as above.



The books of 1 and 2 Samuel:

"Many questions have arisen pertaining to the literary character, authorship and date of 1,2 Samuel."

"Who the author was cannot be known with certainty since the book itself gives no indication of his identity."

(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 368).

Again, unknown books with unknown authors had been inserted into the Bible and are now considered GOD's Revelations. What a joke! Since when do we consider man-made stories and narrations as GOD's Revelations?



The books of 1 and 2 Kings:

"There is little conclusive evidence as to the identity of the author of 1,2 Kings."

"Whoever the author was, it is clear that he was familiar with the book of Deuteronomy."

(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 459).

Again, another unknown books with unknown authors had corrupted the Bible.



The books of 1 and 2 Chronicles:

"According to ancient Jewish tradition, Ezra wrote Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (see Introduction to Ezra: Literary Form and Authorship), but this cannot be established with certainty. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 569)"

Again, another doubtful nonsense had been considered to be GOD's Revelations.



The book of Esther:

"Although we do not know who wrote the book of Esther, from internal evidence it is possible to make some inferences about the author and the date of composition. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 707)"

Same as above.



The book of Job:

"Although most of the book consists of the words of Job and his counselors, Job himself was not the author."

"The unknown author probably had access to oral and/or written sources, "

(From the NIV Bible commentary, page 722).

Ironically, the book is named as "The book of Job", but yet, Job was not the author, and no one in this world knows who wrote the book. Today, it is considered GOD's Revelations.

It's quite pathetic to consider unknown people as GOD's Messengers and attribute their work to GOD's real Messengers.

It's obvious that like most of the Bible's book and gospels, the Book of Job had been lost.



The books of Psalm:

"Regarding authorship, opinions are even more divided. The notations themselves are ambiguous since the Hebrew phraseology used, meaning in general "belonging to", an also be taken in the sense of "concerning" or "for the use of" or "dedicated to". The name may refer to the title of a collection of Psalms that had been gathered under a certain name. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 773)"

"The Psalms consist of one hundred fifty poems of Israel written at different times by different authors, though mainly by David, around 1000 B.C.
,
Because of the vast range of human feelings expressed in the Psalms, this book remains one of the best loved and most used books of the Bible. (From the King James Version Bible Commentary, page 801)"

As we clearly see above from the NIV and KJV Bibles' commentaries, this book can not be considered as the True Words of GOD Almighty, because it was written by many unknown authors! There is no proof that these authors were True Messengers of GOD Almighty. Another corruption and man-made alterations had invaded the Bible and corrupted it.

This corrupted book claims that the Earth is flat and never moves:

"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)"

Since when the Earth is flat and can never move?! We all know that the Earth and the other planets rotate and move in space around the Sun.

For those Jews and Christians who would like to see where in the Noble Quran does Allah Almighty say that the planets in space rotate and move, read the following Noble Verse:

"It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its orbit with its own motion. (The Noble Quran, 21:33)"

For more information and other Noble Verses, please visit:

Science in the Noble Quran and Islam.

The Earth is round according to Islam.

Also visit The Earth is flat according to the Bible.



The book of Proverbs:

"Although the book begins with a title ascribing the proverbs to Solomon, it is clear from later chapters that he was not the only author of the book. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 935)"

Can anyone please tell me who that other author was? And did GOD Almighty speak those words through his tongue?

These are fair questions, aren't they?



The book of Ecclesiastes:

"No time period or writer's name is mentioned in the book, but several passages strongly suggest that King Solomon is the authors. On the other hand, the writer's title, his unique style of Hebrew and his attitude toward rulers may point to another person and a later period. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 988)"

Was it or was it not Solomon who wrote this book? If you say it was Solomon, then how can you prove it?

And by the way, was this book a revelation to Solomon, or just Solomon's own personal writings, if it were Solomon's book from the first place?

This corrupted book claims that the Sun hurries back to where it rises:

"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. (From the NIV Bible, Ecclesiastes 1:5)"

Since when the Sun hurries back to where it rises, like if there is some hole it rises from and another hole it sets through on Earth?!

For those Jews and Christians who would like to see where in the Noble Quran does Allah Almighty say that the planets in space rotate and move, read the following Noble Verse:

"It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its orbit with its own motion. (The Noble Quran, 21:33)"

For more information and other Noble Verses, please visit:

Science in the Noble Quran and Islam.

The Earth is round according to Islam.

Also visit The Earth is flat according to the Bible.



The Book of Ecclesiasticus:

This book does not even exist in the NIV Bible! It however exists in the Roman Catholics "The New Jerusalem Bible" [3]. This book consists of 51 chapters that apparently the NIV Bible Historians and Theologians don't believe that they are the True Words of GOD Almighty.

Talk about major and serious differences and corruptions in the Bibles today.

Let us look at this verse from this book: ", and the birth of ANY daughter is a loss. (From the New Jerusalem Bible, Ecclesiasticus 22:3)" Since when does GOD give stupid generalizing statements for ALL the members of a certain group of His creation?



The Book of Wisdom:

Again, this book does not even exist in the NIV Bible! It however exists in the Roman Catholics "The New Jerusalem Bible" [3]. This book consists of 19 chapters that apparently the NIV Bible Historians and Theologians don't believe that they are the True Words of GOD Almighty.

Again, talk about major and serious differences and corruptions in the Bibles today.



The book of Song of Songs:

"Verse 1 appears to ascribe authorship to Solomon. Solomon is referred to seven times, and several verses speak of the 'king', but whether he was the author remains an open question. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 997)"

"Two lovers, Solomon and a Shulamite girl, express their feelings for one another, with occasional comments made by friends. (From the King James Version Commentary, page 945)"

Again, we don't know who wrote the book. Please visit X-Rated Pornography in the Bible regarding this pornful and sick book; the book of:

1- She wished if her lover was her brother nursed at her "mother's breasts" so she wouldn't have to take him home in secret.

2- Her breasts and vagina taste like wine for him.

The KJV Bible's Theologians and Historians say that the porn-full book talks about Solomon and his lover. But we don't know whether it was Solomon who wrote this book or not, nor do we know whether this is some ridiculous poem and a lie written after he died or not.

One must ask a simple question here: Why should there be "lovers" in the Bible? Why should there be illegal sex and disgusting pornography in the Bible?



The book of Lamentations:

"Although Lamentations is anonymous and we cannot be certain who wrote it, ancient Jewish and Christian tradition ascribes it to Jeremiah. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1207)"

What a joke! Christians and Jews point the book to Jeremiah without any certainty to who wrote the book. How is it possible for us to consider this book as the True Living Words of GOD Almighty?

Christians and Jews have yet to find and prove the original author of the book and all of the books mentioned above, and then prove that they were indeed Revelations from GOD Almighty.

Failure to accomplish the two tasks and inserting this type of nonsense into the Bible and claiming that it was the Words of GOD Almighty is A CRIME AGAINST GOD!

Embrace Islam, the religion of The One True Living Undivided GOD Almighty, and you will be saved! Please visit What is the Wisdom of Islam?







2- So who wrote the Bible then? Were they really the original Prophets and Disciples?

This section is an article and a small chapter of a book that was forwarded to me. I thought it would be very good to add it to this article.

So, who then are the authors of the books of the Bible? Obviously the Church must know them very well since they are popularly believed to have received divine inspiration from God Himself. Right? Actually, they don't. For example, we will note that every Gospel begins with the introduction "According to, " such as "The Gospel according to Saint Matthew," "The Gospel according to Saint Luke," "The Gospel according to Saint Mark," "The Gospel according to Saint John." The obvious conclusion for the average man on the street is that these people are known to be the authors of the books attributed to them. This, however is not the case. Why? Because not one of the vaunted four thousand copies existent carries its author's signature. It has just been assumed that certain people were the authors. Recent discoveries, however, refute this belief. Even the internal evidence suggests that, for instance, Matthew did not wr

Further Topic Research: Select a Search: --------------------------- Site Titles Noble Quran Hadiths
Syntax help






Also, Man's lie in John 19:36:


John 19:36 falsely referenced Psalm 34:20 about the unbroken bones of Jesus, when Psalm 34:19-20 were talking about any righteous man:

"These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken, (From the NIV Bible, John 19:36)"

Here are the Old Testament's verses:

"A righteous man may have many troubles, but the LORD delivers him from them all; he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 34:19-20)"

Not only that, but notice also how Psalm 34:19 says that the LORD delivers him from "ALL OF THE troubles, which clearly goes against the crucifixion lie. But anyway despite the John 19:36 verse, I still proved, by Allah Almighty's Mercy, Grace and Will, that the Psalm verses actually further proved the Noble Quran's claims along with Isaiah 52:13, and Jesus' Disciples' and the Early Christians original writings that were found in Palestine and Egypt about Jesus never got crucified! See below,


Also visit: Chapter Psalm 91 clearly and indisputably confirms that Jesus never got crucified!

Psalm 22 and 88 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus never got crucified.

A serious forgery in Luke 24:44-48 about Jesus' "resurrection on the third day" claiming that it was foretold in the OT when it wasn't!

Forgery of Matthew 23.







Christianity's biggest lies, the Crucifixion and Resurrection, were never prophesied in the Bible's Old Testament!

You would expect that such major events, that make up the entire case for Christianity, to be at least prophesied in the Bible's Old Testament. But the Truth and the sad reality for the polytheist trinitarian pagans and infidels is that neither one of these major events was ever mentioned in the OT, especially the resurrection! There is some twisting and perverting of text by the infidels, which is thoroughly exposed and destroyed below, on the Messiah's facing of death (which both the OT and the Noble Quran refute), but NOTHING was mentioned about the Messiah's resurrection!

1- Below we'll see how Isaiah 53, not only refutes the crucifixion lie, but it also supports Islam's Claims about Jesus never got crucified, which is also the same claim of Jesus' own disciples' early and original writings that were found in Palestine and Egypt!

2- The following links contain indesputable and clear-cut evidence proving that the resurrection is a lie, and that it was never mentioned in the OT:

A serious forgery in Luke 24:44-48 about Jesus' "resurrection on the third day" claiming that it was foretold in the OT when it wasn't!
The Resurrection Hoax. By Abdullah Smith.

Also, please visit brother Abdullah Smith's excellent articles:

The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53.
- Part II.
- Part III.



Now to the article,



Did Isaiah 53 really prophesies about the crucifixion of Jesus?



There are two possible answers for this chapter:

1- (Taking the christians' lies) The Old Testament did indeed claim that the Messiah will die, and then GOD Almighty cancelled this prediction as He has COUNTLESSLY done in the Bible's OT and NT.

2- The Old Testament never claimed that the Messiah will die as I clearly proved below.





Possibility #1:

(The Old Testament did indeed claim that the Messiah will die and then GOD Almighty cancelled this prediction)


First of all, it is important to know that GOD Almighty in the Old Testament did "repent" or change His Mind about executing certain decisions. GOD Almighty is not stuck with anything. He created us as humans and He created the ability in us to make wills and choices. Sometimes based on the decisions that humans make, GOD Almighty then takes a certain route or Decision that best fits the situation according to His Sight. Let us look at few examples of GOD Almighty Changing His Mind in the Bible:





GOD Almighty Changing His Emotions:

Ample verses from the book of Isaiah. The article and the verses are too long to post here.



GOD Almighty Changing His Mind:

"How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I treat you like Admah? How can I make you like Zeboiim? My heart is changed within me; all my compassion is aroused."
(Hosea 11:

"So the LORD relented. "This will not happen," the LORD said."
(Amos 7:3)

"and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned."
(Jeremiah 18:



Who knows, GOD Almighty does repent:

"Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened."
(Exodus 32:14)

"Who can tell, God may turn and revoke His sentence against us, and turn away from His fierce anger so that we perish not. And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God revoked His evil that He had said that He would do to them and He did not do it."
(Jonah 3:9-10)
(I removed their brackets and commentaries for easy read)


"Rend your hearts and not your garments and return to the Lord, your God, for He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in loving-kindness; and He revokes His sentence of evil. Who knows but what He will turn, revoke your sentence, and leave a blessing behind Him, even a cereal or meal offering and a drink offering for the Lord, your God?"
(Joel 2:13-14)
(I removed their brackets and commentaries for easy read)


"And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But as the angel was doing so, the LORD saw it and was grieved because of the calamity and said to the angel who was destroying the people, "Enough! Withdraw your hand." The angel of the LORD was then standing at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite."
(1 Chronicles 21:15)


"and Jehovah repenteth of the evil which He hath spoken of doing to His people."
(Exodus 32:14)


"and Jehovah repenteth that He hath made man in the earth, and He grieveth Himself -- unto His heart."
(Genesis 6:6)


"And when Jehovah raised up to them judges -- then was Jehovah with the judge, and saved them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for it repenteth Jehovah, because of their groaning from the presence of their oppressors, and of those thrusting them away."
(Judges 2:18)


"and the messenger putteth forth his hand to Jerusalem to destroy it, and Jehovah repenteth concerning the evil, and saith to the messenger who is destroying among the people, `Enough, now, cease thy hand;' and the messenger of Jehovah was near the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite."
(2 Samuel 24:16)


"Put him at all to death did Hezekiah king of Judah, and all Judah? Did he not fear Jehovah? yea, he appeaseth the face of Jehovah, and Jehovah repenteth concerning the evil that He spake against them; and we are doing great evil against our souls."
(Jeremiah 26:19)

(www.answering-christianity.com/abrogation_in_bible.htm)




Many more examples that I do not wish to crowd this article with of GOD Almighty Changing his Mind in the Bible are available at: Abrogation in the Bible. But these simple examples in the verses above should be, by themselves, more than enough to prove my point.

As we clearly see, GOD Almighty did take a decision and then reverted from executing it. So it is quite possible that GOD Almighty did decide to not crucify Jesus, the Messiah, on the cross because of all of the evil that was done to him by the people of Israel. Certainly,



The Disciples' early writings clearly claimed that Jesus never got crucified!

(Peter even said that the crucifixion is a lie!)



Not only that, but their manuscripts and canons were "widely accepted" among early Christians during the first 3 centuries of Christianity. Visit the link and see the ample proofs for yourself. This clearly means that the early Christians DID NOT believe:

1- In the lie of Jesus got crucified.

2- In the lie that Jesus' disciples died for the belief that he got crucified.





My Challenge to Christians:

Since the early Christians' and the Disciples' original writings all claim that Jesus never got crucified, then why couldn't Jehovah Almighty have said something similar to this:

", And Jehovah repented from the evil of crucifying the Messiah, "

Why couldn't this be possible when GOD Almighty saw that the Jews were total losers and that no Prophet was ever fruitful with them! They were even notorious in slaying Prophets:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (From the KJV Bible, Matthew 23:37)"

"We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of apostles; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you an apostle with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?- Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay! (The Noble Quran, 2:87)"

"And remember ye said: "O Moses! we cannot endure one kind of food (always); so beseech thy Lord for us to produce for us of what the earth groweth, -its pot-herbs, and cucumbers, Its garlic, lentils, and onions." He said: "Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town, and ye shall find what ye want!" They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of God. This because they went on rejecting the Signs of God and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing. (The Noble Quran, 2:61)"

"As to those who deny the Signs of God and in defiance of right, slay the prophets, and slay those who teach just dealing with mankind, announce to them a grievous penalty. (The Noble Quran, 3:21)"

"God hath heard the taunt of those who say: "Truly, God is indigent and we are rich!"- We shall certainly record their word and (their act) of slaying the prophets in defiance of right, and We shall say: "Taste ye the penalty of the Scorching Fire! (The Noble Quran, 3:181)"


Show one logical reason that would disprove my challenge here! Didn't Jehovah Almighty already "repent" many times in the past from Divine Decisions that He has already taken as we clearly saw above?







Possibility #2:

(The Old Testament never claimed that the Messiah will die as I clearly proved below)

Trinitarian Christians claim that Chapter Isaiah 53 in the Bible confirms crucifixion. This article proves that Chapter Isaiah 53 along with Isaiah 52:13-14, John 19:36-37, Psalm 34:20 and Hebrews 5:7-8 (these verses explicitly say that GOD Almighty heard Jesus' cries about not getting crucified on the cross) prove without a doubt that Islam's claim about Jesus peace be upon him never died on the cross and was raised to Allah Almighty is indeed the Truth. Let us look at the Chapter of Isaiah 53 in the Bible:


1
Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2
He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3
He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4
Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.
5
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
6
We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
8
By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.
9
He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death [Here is how the literal translation says: "And it appointeth with the wicked his grave, And with the rich [are] his high places", This is verified at this link: (Young's Literal Translation)], though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

"in his death" is also a false translation to the Hebrew Mawth. At the worst, it should be translated as "in death", making the word a symbolic one as further confirmed in the Hebrew lexicon:
"in his death
maveth (maw'-veth)
death (natural or violent); concretely, the dead, their place or state (hades); figuratively, pestilence, ruin -- (be) dead(-ly), death, die(-d)."

(http://scripturetext.com/isaiah/53-9.htm)


10
Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
According to Christianity, Jesus Christ was single and never married nor did he have children. This verse clearly refutes Christianity, because the Servant here will live to see his biological children ("his offspring" along with his days being prolonged (made longer). Christ died at the young age of 33 according to Christianity, which is also against this verse. Christs' years are short in Christianity, while in Isaiah 53:10, the servant's years are very long and extended along with him living them with his biological children.

11
After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.
12
Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death [This is clarified in details down in this article. It doesn't at all mean that he will die. The literal translation says: "Because that he exposed to death his soul", This is verified again at this link: (Young's Literal Translation), Both Islam and Isaiah 52:13 claim that Jesus never got crucified. See below.], and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.




Isaiah 53 perfectly agrees with Islam:

Let us look at this Verse: "After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light and be satisfied; (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 53:11)" The idea of this servant who will get pierced is NOT that he will DIE for people's sins. Notice that in Isaiah 53:9 it clearly says "He was assigned a grave with the wicked", which means that he will have a grave assigned to his name, but it doesn't necessarily mean that his dead body will be in it.





1- The Bible's New Testament refutes the "piercing" story:

If we were to take the Bible literally, then we will see clear contradictions in the crucifixion story. Let us look at what the Bible says about piercing Jesus:

John 19:30-40:

30
When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
31
Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down.
32
The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other.
33
But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.
34
Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.
35
The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.
36
These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken," (see how the OT in this one indisputably confirms the Noble Quran's claims, below)


The Verses that reference the Bones:
"A righteous man may have many troubles, but the LORD delivers him from them all; he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 34:19-20)"

As these verses don't even seem to be talking about the Messiah or any crucifixion, but assuming that they did, notice how Psalm 34:20 says that GOD Almighty will protect "all his bones". So, not even an inch from his bones will be damaged according to the Scriptures - again assuming that the verses are even talking about the Messiah!! This is exactly what the Noble Quran and Isaiah 52:13 say!

Also, notice how Psalm 34:19 says that the LORD delivers him from "ALL OF THE troubles, which clearly goes against the crucifixion lie. But anyway despite the John 19:36 verse, I still proved, by Allah Almighty's Mercy, Grace and Will, that the Psalm verses actually further proved the Noble Quran's claims along with Isaiah 52:13, and Jesus' Disciples' and the Early Christians original writings that were found in Palestine and Egypt about Jesus never got crucified! See below,


Also, please visit: Chapter Psalm 91 clearly and indisputably confirms that Jesus never got crucified!

Psalm 22 and 88 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus never got crucified.

A serious forgery in Luke 24:44-48 about Jesus' "resurrection on the third day" claiming that it was foretold in the OT when it wasn't!

Forgery of Matthew 23.





37
and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced."
38
Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body away.
39
He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.
40
Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.
First of all, notice the man-made third party narration in the book of John. The NIV Bible's Historians and Theologians are not even sure who wrote the books of John, 1 John, 2 John and 3 John. The original author(s) is mysterious.

In the above verses, the mysterious author suggests that Jesus' bones were reserved because the soldiers did not break his knees, hence this fulfills the Scriptures' prophecy that GOD will protect his body that not even a single bone would break.

Also see detailed refutations to Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, Zechariah 12:10 and Psalm 34:20 that supposedly suggest that GOD Almighty was going to get pierced on the cross.




Hebrews 5:7-8 clearly and irrefutably claim that Jesus was saved from the cross; confirming Islam's claims.



None of Jesus' disciples witnessed the crucifixion. They "all fled" and "deserted" Jesus. This further confirms Islam's claims.



Chapter Psalm 91 clearly and indisputably confirms that Jesus never got crucified!

Psalm 22 and 88 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus never got crucified.

A serious forgery in Luke 24:44-48 about Jesus' "resurrection on the third day" claiming that it was foretold in the OT when it wasn't!

Forgery of Matthew 23.





Let us look at the obvious contradiction in the above verses:

Taken from the above verses: "These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: 'Not one of his bones will be broken,' and, as another scripture says, 'They will look on the one they have pierced.' (From the NIV Bible, John 19:36-37)"

"A righteous man may have many troubles, but the LORD delivers him from them all; he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 34:19-20)"

Again, as these verses don't even seem to be talking about the Messiah or any crucifixion, but assuming that it did, notice how Psalm 34:20 says that GOD Almighty will protect "all his bones". So, not even an inch from his bones will be damaged according to the Scriptures - again assuming that the verses are even talking about the Messiah!!

As you might know, the crucifixion back then was done by nailing to the cross the hands and the ankles or the feet. If GOD Almighty was going to protect Jesus' body that not even a single bone will be broken, then how would the crucifixion and the death of Jesus be possible then?!

My question to all Christians is: How in the world is it possible for the feet to get nailed on the cross without any penetration to the bones by the nails, hence breaking part of the feet's bones?!

And for the parts of the Bible that suggest that Jesus actually died (which clearly contradict the Verses that I presented above), please visit What parts of the Bible do Muslims believe are closest to the Truth?



I clearly see the Noble Quran's Claim about Jesus being saved from crucifixion being confirmed in Psalm 34:20!



See the Noble Quran's Verses sub-section #3 below,




2- Proving that at least one bone was broken:

From http://yucky.kids.discovery.com/noflash/body/pg000124.html

What would happen if humans didn't have bones?
You'd be floppy like a beanbag. Could you stand up? Forget it. Could you walk? No way. Without bones you'd be just a puddle of skin and guts on the floor.

Bones have two purposes. Some, like your backbone, provide the structure which enables you to stand erect instead of lying like a puddle on the floor. Other bones protect the delicate, and sometimes soft, insides of your body. Your skull, a series of fused bones, acts like a hard protective helmet for your brain. The bones, or vertebrae, of your spinal column surround your spinal cord, a complex bundle of nerves. Imagine what could happen to your heart and lungs without the protective armor of your rib cage!

How many bones do humans have?
When you were born you had over 300 bones. As you grew, some of these bones began to fuse together. The result? An adult has only 206 bones!

How do my bones move?
With a lot of help. You need muscles to pull on bones so that you can move. Along with muscles and joints, bones are responsible for you being able to move. Your muscles are attached to bones. When muscles contract, the bones to which they are attached act as levers and cause various body parts to move.

You also need joints which provide flexible connections between these bones. Your body has different kinds of joints. Some, such as those in your knees, work like door hinges, enabling you to move back and forth. Those in your neck enable bones to pivot so you can turn your head. Still other joints like the shoulder enable you to move your arms 360 degrees like a shower head.

Are your bones alive?
Absolutely. Bones are made of a mix of hard stuff that gives them strength and tons of living cells which help them grow and repair themselves. Like other cells in your body, the bone cells rely on blood to keep them alive. Blood brings them food and oxygen and takes away waste.

If bones weren't made of living cells, things like broken toes or arms would never mend. But don't worry, they do. That's because your bone cells are busy growing and multiplying to repair the break! How? When you break your toe, blood clots form to close up the space between the broken segments. Then your body mobilizes bone cells to deposit more of the hard stuff to bridge the break.

What's bone marrow?
Many bones are hollow. Their hollowness makes bones strong and light. It's in the center of many bones that bone marrow makes new red and white blood cells. Red blood cells ensure that oxygen is distributed to all parts of your body and white blood cells ensure you are able to fight germs and disease. Who would have thought that bones make blood!?!

,

Factoids
The human hand has 27 bones; your face has 14!
The longest bone in your body? Your thigh bone, the femur -- it's about 1/4 of your height. The smallest is the stirrup bone in the ear which can measure 1/10 of an inch.
Did you know that humans and giraffes have the same number of bones in their necks? Giraffe neck vertebrae are just much, much longer!
You have over 230 moveable and semi-moveable joints in your body.

Given the facts above about the large amount of bones the human body has (27 in the hand alone), it is virtually impossible to drive nails in the hands and feet and not break a single bone from the 300+ bones the body has!

Also, it is vitually impossible for Jesus to have his arms spread out on the cross, and later have his dead body's weight being pulled by gravity and not break a single bone from the upper part of the body!







3- The Noble Quran's and Isaiah 52:13's claims:

Important Note: Both Muslims and Christians believe that the grave of Jesus today is empty. It doesn't have his body in it, because both believe that he was raised to Heaven. The difference between Muslims and Christians in this issue is that Muslims believe that Jesus never died on the cross but was raised to GOD Almighty. Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross and was RESURRECTED to GOD Almighty. This is, however, not supported at all and was never foretold in the Old Testament. I elaborated more and provided more evidence from both the Bible and the Noble Quran that support Islam's claim regarding this issue down in this article.

Please visit the article Contradictions in the resurrection story in the Bible.

In Isaiah 53, all it says is that he will get pierced which again it never mentioned the cross nor did it ever mention any sort of resurrection, not just in this chapter, but also throughout the Old Testament. If this servant is indeed Jesus peace be upon him, then him being pierced and never dying seems to perfectly support the Islamic teaching about Prophet Jesus peace be upon him NEVER died on the cross for anyone's sins.

Also notice that Isaiah 53:11 clearly states that "he will see the light". What is that light? Could it be the light of Heaven? Probably be raised to Heaven? Christians do believe that Jesus peace be upon him was indeed raised to Heaven, and so do Muslims too. However, we see no mention throughout the ENTIRE Old Testament including obviously Isaiah 53 any mention of resurrection, nor any mention for resurrection on the 3rd day or any day. So does this mean that the servant will get pierced (by being put on the cross perhaps) and then get raised without dying?

Let us look at the following Noble Verse from the Noble Quran (The Muslims Holy Scripture): "That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge; That they said (in boast): 'We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.' But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power, Wise. And there is none of the people of the book (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (Jesus) Before his death; And on the Day of Judgment He (Jesus) will be a witness Against them. (The Noble Quran, 4:156-159)"

Now compare the Noble Verses to Isaiah 52:13 ", he will be raised and lifted up, ". Notice that Isaiah 52:13 did not say ", he will be RESURRECTED and lifted up, " Not even once, did the Old Testament predict for the foretold Servant (Jesus) to be raised to GOD Almighty after death. There absolutely no mention of any sort of resurrection in the Bible's Old Testament what so ever.

Here are few more translations of Isaiah 52:13:

"Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. (From the King James Version Bible, Isaiah 52:13)"

"Lo, My servant doth act wisely, He is high, and hath been lifted up, And hath been very high. (From Young's Literal Translation Bible, Isaiah 52:13)"

"Behold, my servant shall act wisely; he shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted. (From the English Standard Version Bible, Isaiah 52:13)"

"Behold, my servant shall deal prudently; he shall be exalted and be lifted up, and be very high. (From Darby Translation Bible, Isaiah 52:13)"

The text in all of the translations above clearly suggests that Jesus will be honored and lifted up from crucifixion. He will not be humiliated and crucified.

Also, ", he will be raised and lifted up, " seems to suggest that Jesus will be picked up right from the cross, or saved right from the cross by Allah Almighty. "raised and lifted" clearly suggests that Jesus will not die, nor get crucified, but rather be raised and lifted by GOD Almighty to Heavens.



It just seems odd to see both words "raised" and "lifted", and not just one of them, in Isaiah 52:13, and yet think that they agree with the fabricated crucifixion story about Jesus in the NT.

Why did GOD Almighty choose to say "raised" and "lifted" in Isaiah 52:13?





And what about the bones?



The Verses that reference the Bones:
"A righteous man may have many troubles, but the LORD delivers him from them all; he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 34:19-20)"

As these verses don't even seem to be talking about the Messiah or any crucifixion, but assuming that they did, notice how Psalm 34:20 says that GOD Almighty will protect "all his bones". So, not even an inch from his bones will be damaged according to the Scriptures - again assuming that the verses are even talking about the Messiah!! This is exactly what the Noble Quran and Isaiah 52:13 say!

Also, notice how Psalm 34:19 says that the LORD delivers him from "ALL OF THE troubles, which clearly goes against the crucifixion lie. But anyway despite the John 19:36 verse, I still proved, by Allah Almighty's Mercy, Grace and Will, that the Psalm verses actually further proved the Noble Quran's claims along with Isaiah 52:13, and Jesus' Disciples' and the Early Christians original writings that were found in Palestine and Egypt about Jesus never got crucified!


Also, please visit: Chapter Psalm 91 clearly and indisputably confirms that Jesus never got crucified!

Psalm 22 and 88 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus never got crucified.

A serious forgery in Luke 24:44-48 about Jesus' "resurrection on the third day" claiming that it was foretold in the OT when it wasn't!

Forgery of Matthew 23.





Again, I clearly see the Noble Quran's Claim about Jesus being saved from crucifixion being confirmed in Psalm 34:20!







4- Jesus was never "disfigured" to a point "beyond human likeness"!

The very next verse also refutes the current New Testament:

It appears that Isaiah 52:14 "Just as there were many who were appalled at him - his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness-" further proves Islam's claims about Jesus peace be upon him never got crucified on the cross, because according to today's corrupt NT or NTs, Jesus never got disfigured to a point where no one could recognize his face; not from crucifixion, nor from the beating that he supposedly received before the crucifixion.

To see the several "canons" or NTs of the "Bible", please visit:





The different "Canons" of the Bible!

Different and conflicting variations of "gospels" and "books" that are disagreed upon by the Churches today.





The point is that Chapter Isaiah 53 agrees a lot more with Islam's claims than with the current Christianity's claims, and it is confirmed in Isaiah 52:13.

There are several other Noble Verses in the Noble Quran that talk about Jesus such as the following:

"So peace is upon me [Jesus] the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life. (The Noble Quran, 19:33)"

To see detailed explanation of this Noble Verse and about Jesus peace be upon him in Islam, please visit the following links:

Does the Noble Quran in Verse 19:33 confirm Jesus' crucifixion?

Ask me any question section. See responses to many questions about Jesus in Islam.





So what about Isaiah 53:12? Doesn't it suggest that Jesus will actually die?

Let us look at Isaiah 5:12 ", because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors, " This verse doesn't clearly state that the predicted servant will ACTUALLY DIE. When we study carefully the poetical literature of Isaiah 53, and study carefully the claims made above, we see that "him pouring his life unto death" means that the goodness that he will bring from GOD Almighty, will be the light that will bring his people from darkness (death) into light (goodness). He will defeat death (darkness). Isaiah 5:12 does not state that he will die. It clearly states that he will cover shadow or overwhelm death by his life.

If I pour my cup of cranberry juice on the white carpet, then I would create a big red spot on the carpet. I wouldn't be changing the juice into carpet, or the carpet into juice. No, I would simply defeat the whiteness of the carpet by the color of the juice. That's what pouring the juice on the carpet means.

Same thing applies with the servant pouring his life unto death. GOD Almighty considers evil doing and not believing in Him as equal to death.

Important Note: In many Verses in the Bible, we see that GOD Almighty used in Hebrew , Sheol, the word for "hell" as the same Hebrew word for "death". That is why the Christian Jehovah Witnesses don't believe in "Hell Fire" as punishment for the unbelievers. They believe that "Hell" is actual "Death". So to put it in other words, Isaiah 53:12 could also mean that the Servant (Jesus) will over shadow or cover "hell (death)" with "life (good)". So whoever believes in that Servant from the People of Israel will be saved from hell or death.

Have Isaiah 53:12 clearly said "and he will die for people's sins and resurrect after 3 days", then we would have nothing to argue about!

So Jesus pouring his life (good) unto death (bad), means that whomever believes in his message from the People of Israel will defeat bad (darkness) and will be saved, and will have Jesus' life (goodness). This perfectly matches what Islam claims about our beloved Prophet Jesus peace be upon him.

Please visit The blessed Jesus in Islam.





Questions to Christians:

If indeed Isaiah 53 is another proof that Jesus peace be upon him is the Creator of this Universe, then explain to me why Isaiah 53 and the entire Old Testament failed to prophesies about Jesus' 3rd day resurrection?

If Islam is such a false religion, then why is Isaiah 53 so obviously agreeing with Islam? See Muhammad was prophesized in the Bible.





About Jesus peace be upon him:

Most Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of GOD and GOD Himself, came to earth, died for our sins and resurrected after 3 days. If Isaiah 53 was indeed a Revelation from GOD Almighty, and Jesus peace be upon him was indeed GOD Himself, then this means that GOD Almighty predicted that He will get "pierced" for people's sins in Isaiah 53.

There are however problems with this Christian theory:

1- Jesus never by his own will died for anyone's sins. In fact, Jesus himself refused the idea of getting crucified and begged his GOD to take his soul before Jesus experiences the painful death of the cross. "Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, 'My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.' (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 26:39)" This contradicts the Christian theory that GOD will be pierced for the sin of others because if Jesus had it his way, he wouldn't get killed nor even get hurt on the cross.

2- No where in the Old Testament do we see a Prophecy about Jesus' resurrection, let alone his resurrection on the 3rd day. If GOD indeed predicted that He would get crucified in the Old Testament, then how come He only predicted the first half of the event and not the second half? The resurrection on the 3rd day is a very important event in the Christian Theology, and is one of the main points that Jews and Christians debate about.





Jesus' Crucifixion and Resurrection:

As I mentioned above, most Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of GOD and GOD Himself, came to earth, died for our sins and resurrected after 3 days. Isaiah 53's failure to predict the resurrection of the pierced person left behind it a great deal of controversy!

If GOD Almighty were to get crucified for people's sins, then Isaiah 53 should've mentioned it, because after Jesus' crucifiction in the Bible, his body disappeared.

The Jews believe that Jesus' disciples and/or mother stole the body fearing that his body will be further humiliated (since he was nailed on the cross). So to protect the dignity of Jesus and his body, they "stole" his body.

The Christians believe that Jesus the "GOD Almighty" resurrected to Heaven!

Have Isaiah 53 mentioned that he will resurrect after 3 days to Heaven, then the issue would be resolved. But as I said above, Isaiah 53 doesn't talk at all about any form of resurrection of the person who is going to die for people's sins, nor any Verse in the entire Old Testament either. Isaiah 53 does not Prophecies about the coming of Jesus peace be upon him.

This is very important, because only GOD Almighty could resurrect people. The reason why the Old Testament never prophesied about any resurrection is because GOD Almighty never intended to send anyone to die for anyone's sins, nor did GOD Almighty promise that He will die and resurrect!

Important Note: Since the Bible was not documented until 150 to 300 years after Jesus peace be upon him, and during his ministry, nothing was ever documented on paper regarding his deity, we Muslims believe that a great deal of corruption had entered the Bible. The following reasons will clarify the Muslims' position:

1- As I mentioned above, the Old Testament doesn't in predict the resurrection of Jesus, nor it ever considered him as GOD. Please read The "God" title in Isaiah 9:6 was given to others before and after Jesus.

2- The early Christians rejected Trinity and never believed in it.

3- The disciples of Jesus (John, Mark, Luke, etc, ) didn't write the Gospels that were named after them in the New Testament. I quoted from the NIV Bible the Christian Theologians themselves regarding the history of the NT.

4- We believe that few centuries after Jesus peace be upon him the Church tampered with the Bible and invented the Trinity belief.

5- We only believe in Jesus' personal quotes as closest to the truth.

6- Jesus himself in the New Testament taught what Islam teaches; the Oneness of GOD Almighty and doing Righteousness.

7- Jesus according to Islam never got killed on the cross. Allah Almighty saved him. As I mentioned in point #5, we only believe in Jesus' quotes as closest to the Truth in the New Testament. Islam's claims regarding Allah Almighty saving Jesus seem to fit with Jesus peace be upon him asking Allah Almighty to save him from crucifiction (Matthew 26:39).





Question to the Jews: If the person in Isaiah 53 wasn't Jesus peace be upon him, then who is that person then?

Before I give you the answer from the Jewish perspective, please be advised that the entire Bible again is not reliable and can't be trusted; "`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:" The Jews had corrupted the Bible's Old Testament to make it fit their many desires, one of them is to make them "the best nation on earth" for ALL TIMES. The reason why I presented this Verse is to show the reader that any interpretation/explanation that you hear from either Christians or Jews is doubtful. Don't forget to visit The Corruptions in the New Testament. I quoted the commentary of the NIV Bible itself; one of the most used Bible in the World.

In order to answer this question from the Jewish perspective, we have to look at Isaiah 52 and 54. Pay close attention to the C. ISAIAH 53 section below.

The following is from www.jewsforjudaism.org

Christian missionaries claim that it is only with the commentary of Rashi (1040-1105), seeking to refute the Christian interpretation, that the Jews began to refer Isaiah 52:13-53:12 to the entire nation of Israel. This misconception perhaps owes its origin to Edward Pusey, who wrote in his 1876 introduction to The "Suffering Servant" of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpretations (trans. Driver and Neubauer, [reprinted] New York: Hermon Press, 1969) that "The new interpretation began with Rashi" (p. XLIV).

The interpretation was neither new, nor began with Rashi. This missionary allegation is refuted even by a Christian source. In Contra Celsum, written in 248 C.E. (some 800 years before Rashi), the Church Father Origen records that Jews contemporary with him interpreted this passage as referring to the entire nation of Israel. He wrote:

I remember that once in a discussion with some whom the Jews regard as learned I used these prophecies [Isaiah 52:13-53:8]. At this the Jew said that these prophecies referred to the whole people as though of a single individual, since they were scattered in the dispersion and smitten, that as a result of the scattering of the Jews among the other nations many might become proselytes. In this way he explained the text:

"Thy form shall be inglorious among men"; and "those to whom he was not proclaimed shall see him"; "being a man in calamity." (Origen, Contra Celsum, trans. Henry Chadwick, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Book 1.55, 1965, p. 50)

This shows that Jewish biblical exegesis subscribing to the belief that the people of Israel was the suffering servant spoken of throughout the entire passage pre-dates Rashi by many centuries.



The following is from www.jewsforjudaism.org

Question: In Isaiah 53. Wasn't the Prophet, in fact, referring to Jesus in this chapter? And didn't all Jews before the Middle Ages recognize this chapter as "messianic"? We hope to assist you in interpreting a chapter which has become a cornerstone of Christian evangelism to Jews.

Answer: Our Jewish sages teach that "whoever saves a single Jewish soul is considered as if he had saved an entire world." How precious is the Jewish soul! Though the Bible study which follows is a lengthy one, we have prepared it in the belief that - as a Jewish soul - you are worthy of any method which may be required. We hope that you too will value your soul highly enough to prayerfully ponder that which follows. G-D's truth is not always easy to discern, but we are possessors of a Divine promise; "you will find Him if you search after Him with all your heart and all your soul" (Deut. 4:29). As faithful Jews have attested for over 3500 years, it's worth the effort. And now - on with the search!

A. PRELIMINARY ISSUES

Before engaging in an examination of Isaiah 53 itself, some preliminary issues must be considered. First is the issue of circular reasoning. Even if we interpret the chapter as the Christians do (forgetting for a minute the mistranslations and distortions of context which will be noted below), the most that could be said is this: Isaiah 53 is about someone who dies for the sins of others. People may have seen Jesus die, but did anyone see him die as an atonement for the sins of others? Of course not; this is simply the meaning which the New Testament gives to his death. Only if you already accept the New Testament teaching that his death had a non-visible, spiritual significance can you than go back to Isaiah and say, "see - the Prophet predicted what I already believe." Isaiah 53, then, is in reality no "proof" at all, but rather a contrived confirmation for someone who has already chosen Christianity.

Second (and consistent with all Jewish teaching at the time), Jesus' own disciples didn't view Isaiah 53 as a messianic prophecy. For example, after Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:16), he is informed that Jesus will be killed (Matt. 16:21). His response: "G-D forbid it, lord! This shall never happen to you" (Matt. 16:22). See, also, Mk. 9:31-32; Mk. 16:10-11; Jn. 20:9. Even Jesus didn't see Isaiah 53 as crucial to his messianic claims - why else did he call the Jews children of the devil for not believing in him before the alleged resurrection (Jn. 8:39-47)? And why did he later request that G-D "remove this cup from me" (Mk.14:36) - didn't he know that a "removal of the cup" would violate the gentile understanding of Isaiah 53?

And third, even if we accept the gentile Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53, where is it indicated (either in Isaiah 53 or anywhere else in our Jewish Scriptures) that you must believe in this "Messiah" to get the benefits?

B. CONTEXT

Since any portion of Scripture is only understood properly when viewed in the context of G-D's revelation as a whole, some additional study will be helpful before you "tackle" Isaiah 53.

Look at the setting in which Isaiah 53 occurs. Earlier on in Isaiah, G-D had predicted exile and calamity for the Jewish people. Chapter 53, however, occurs in the midst of Isaiah's "Messages of Consolation", which tell of the restoration of Israel to a position of prominence and a vindication of their status as G-D's chosen people. In chapter 52, for example, Israel is described as "oppressed without cause" (v.4) and "taken away" (v.5), yet G-D promises a brighter future ahead, one in which Israel will again prosper and be redeemed in the sight of all the nations (v.1-3, 8-12).

Chapter 54 further elaborates upon the redemption which awaits the nation of Israel. Following immediately after chapter 53's promise of a reward for G-D's servant in return for all of its suffering (53:10-12), chapter 54 describes an unequivocally joyous fate for the Jewish people.

Speaking clearly of the Jewish people and their exalted status (even according to all Christian commentaries), chapter 54 ends as follows: "`This is the heritage of the servants of the L-rd and their vindication is from Me,' declares the L-rd."

C. ISAIAH 53

In the original Hebrew texts, there are no chapter divisions, and Jew and Christian alike agree that chapter 53 is actually a continuation of the prophecy which begins at 52:13. Accordingly, our analysis must begin at that verse.

52:13 "Behold, My servant will prosper." Israel in the singular is called G-D's servant throughout Isaiah, both explicitly (Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) and implicitly (Isa. 42:19-20; 43:10) - the Messiah is not. Other references to Israel as G-D's servant include Jer. 30:10 (note that in Jer. 30:17, the servant Israel is regarded by the nations as an outcast, forsaken by G-D, as in Isa. 53:4); Jer. 46:27-28; Ps. 136:22; Lk. 1:54. ALSO: Given the Christian view that Jesus is G-D, is G-D His own servant?

52:15 - 53:1 "So shall he (the servant) startle many nations, the kings will stand speechless; For that which had not been told them they shall see and that which they had not heard shall they ponder. Who would believe what we have heard?" Quite clearly, the nations and their kings will be amazed at what happens to the "servant of the L-rd," and they will say "who would believe what we have heard?". 52:15 tells us explicitly that it is the nations of the world, the gentiles, who are doing the talking in Isaiah 53. See, also, Micah 7:12-17, which speaks of the nations' astonishment when the Jewish people again blossom in the Messianic age.

53:1 "And to whom has the arm of the L-rd been revealed?" In Isaiah, and throughout our Scriptures, G-D's "arm" refers to the physical redemption of the Jewish people from the oppression of other nations (see, e.g., Isa. 52:8-12; Isa. 63:12; Deut. 4:34; Deut. 7:19; Ps. 44:3). 53:3 "Despised and rejected of men." While this is clearly applicable to Israel (see Isa. 60:15; Ps. 44:13-14), it cannot be reconciled with the New Testament account of Jesus, a man who was supposedly "praised by all" (Lk. 4:14-15) and followed by multitudes (Matt. 4:25), who would later acclaim him as a prophet upon his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:9-11). Even as he was taken to be crucified, a multitude bemoaned his fate (Lk. 23:27). Jesus had to be taken by stealth, as the rulers feared "a riot of the people" (Mk. 14:1-2).

53:3 "A man of pains and acquainted with disease." Israel's adversities are frequently likened to sickness - see, e.g., Isa. 1:5-6; Jer. 10:19; Jer 30:12.

53:4 "Surely our diseases he carried and our pains he bore." In Matt. 8:17, this is correctly translated, and said to be literally (not spiritually) fulfilled in Jesus' healing of the sick, a reading inconsistent with the Christian mistranslation of 53:4 itself.

53:4 "Yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, smitten of G- D and afflicted." See Jer. 30:17 - of G-D's servant Israel (30:10), it is said by the nations, "It is Zion; no one cares for her."

53:5 "But he was wounded from (NOTE: not for) our transgressions, he was crushed from (AGAIN: not for) our iniquities." Whereas the nations had thought the Servant (Israel) was undergoing Divine retribution for its sins (53:4), they now realize that the Servant's sufferings stemmed from their actions and sinfulness. This theme is further developed throughout our Jewish Scriptures - see, e.g., Jer. 50:7; Jer. 10:25. ALSO: Note that the Messiah "shall not fail nor be crushed till he has set the right in the earth" (Isa. 42:4).

53:7 "He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth. Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so he did not open his mouth." Note that in the prior chapter (Isa. 52), Israel is said to have been oppressed and taken away without cause (52:4-5). A similar theme is developed in Psalm 44, wherein King David speaks of Israel's faithfulness even in the face of gentile oppression (44:17- 18) and describes Israel as "sheep to be slaughtered" in the midst of the unfaithful gentile nations (44:22,11).

Regarding the claim that Jesus "did not open his mouth" when faced with oppression and affliction, see Matt. 27:46, Jn. 18:23, 36-37.

53:8 "From dominion and judgement he was taken away." Note the correct translation of the Hebrew. The Christians are forced to mistranslate, since - by Jesus' own testimony - he never had any rights to rulership or judgement, at least not on the "first coming." See, e.g., Jn. 3:17; Jn. 8:15; Jn. 12:47; Jn. 18:36.

53:8 "He was cut off out of the land of the living." 53:9 "His grave was assigned with wicked men." See Ez. 37:11-14, wherein Israelis described as "cut off" and G-D promises to open its "graves" and bring Israel back into its own land. Other examples of figurative deaths include Ex. 10:17; 2 Sam. 9:8; 2 Sam. 16:9. 53:8 "From my peoples' sins, there was injury to them." Here the Prophet makes absolutely clear, to anyone familiar with Biblical Hebrew, that the oppressed Servant is a collective Servant, not a single individual.

The Hebrew word "lamoh", when used in our Scriptures, always means "to them" never "to him" and may be found, for example, in Psalm 99:7 - "They kept his testimonies, and the statute that He gave to them."

53:9 "And with the rich in his deaths." Perhaps King James should have changed the original Hebrew, which again makes clear that we are dealing with a collective Servant, i.e., Israel, which will "come to life" when the exile ends (Ez. 37:14).

53:9 "He had done no violence." See Matt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15-16; Lk. 19:45; Lk. 19:27; Matt. 10:34 and Lk. 12:51; then judge for yourself whether this passage is truly consistent with the New Testament account of Jesus.

53:10 "He shall see his seed." The Hebrew word for "seed", used in this verse, always refers to physical descendants in our Jewish Scriptures. See, e.g., Gen. 12:7; Gen. 15:13; Gen. 46:6; Ex. 28:43. A different word, generally translated as "sons", is used to refer to spiritual descendants (see Deut. 14:1, e.g.).

53:10 "He will prolong his days." Not only did Jesus die young, but how could the days be prolonged of someone who is alleged to be G-D?

53:11 "With his knowledge the righteous one, my Servant, will cause many to be just." Note again the correct translation: the Servant will cause many to be just, he will not "justify the many." The Jewish mission is to serve as a "light to the nations" which will ultimately lead the world to a knowledge of the one true G-D, this both by example (Deut. 4:5-8; Zech. 8:23) and by instructing the nations in G-D's Law (Isa. 2:3-4; Micah 4:2-3).

53:12 "Therefore, I will divide a portion to him with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty." If Jesus is G-D, does the idea of reward have any meaning? Is it not rather the Jewish people - who righteously bore the sins of the world and yet remained faithful to G-D (Ps. 44) - who will be rewarded, and this in the manner described more fully in Isaiah chapters 52 and 54?



The following is from www.jewsforjudaism.org

Question: Isaiah 53:7 says that the suffering servant "humbled himself and opened not his mouth" as a lamb about to be slaughtered or a sheep dumb before its shearers. Does this describe Jesus' behavior at his trials?

Answer: Jesus' claim to be the Messiah was the accusation placed against him before the Sanhedrin and Pilate. To the charge of his messianic claim, Jesus answered both the Jewish authorities and Pilate in a forceful manner (John 18:19-23, 33-37).

The statement: "Therefore Pilate entered the judgment hall again and called Jesus, and said to him: 'Are you the King of the Jews?'" makes it clear that claiming to be the King Messiah was the Jewish accusation against Jesus. Matthew and Mark comment that Jesus did not answer the Jewish accusations when questioned by Pilate: "But he did not answer him, not even to a single charge" (Matthew 27:14); "But Jesus made no further answer" (Mark 15:15).

However, the list of charges made by the Jews, which is found in Luke's Gospel: "misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a King" (Luke 23:2), is answered by Jesus. The charges are answered in his defense before Pilate, as found in John's Gospel. There he claimed to head a peace-loving, nonmilitary, otherworldly group, which would not countenance revolt against the Roman Empire. John argues, with the help of alleged quotations from the trial, that Jesus claimed to be King of the Jews but not one who sought power in this world, i.e., at the expense of the Roman Empire (John 18:36).

Far from showing the humility and silence with which Isaiah describes the servant in verse 7, the encounter between the high priest, the elders, and Jesus is highlighted by a vigorous verbal exchange. In addition, Jesus did not show humility and silence during his confrontation with Pilate. At their meeting, Jesus is depicted as skillfully defending himself. Jesus at no time humbled himself, but, on the contrary, presented a clever verbal defense before Pilate (the one man who could condemn him to death), pleading shrewdly that his messianic teaching was a nonviolent, "not of this world" movement, one which the Romans need not fear. Pilate, Jesus assumed, would not be interested in a non-political, non-military movement that was not of "this world." However, Jesus' movement must have appeared to Pilate like any of the other seditious movements that confronted him. He reacted accordingly.

Jesus was obviously defending himself by presenting a shrewd verbal response when he tried to convince Pilate that he was not the head of a seditious movement but that his intentions were peaceful.

Contrary to what Christian theologians claim, the Gospels' Jesus presented a strong defense before the Jewish officials and Pilate. Jesus was not "dumb" but very outspoken before his accusers, Jewish or Gentile. Therefore, it is simply not true to say of Jesus that "he humbled himself and did not open his mouth."



The following is from www.jewsforjudaism.org

Question: Isaiah 53:4 says that the suffering servant was considered "stricken" by his enemies. Does this describe Jesus in any way?

Answer: In verse 4 the Gentile nations exclaim, concerning the servant, "we considered him stricken [by God]." The verb appears again in verse 8. This does not describe Jesus in any way whatsoever. The verb, nagua, "stricken," is commonly used in the Jewish Scriptures for being stricken with leprosy (for example, 2 Kings 5:27, 15:5; Job 19:21; Leviticus 13:3, 9, 20; Numbers 12:10). Jesus was not stricken physically with leprosy!

Yet, even metaphorically, nagua cannot be applied to Jesus who was not generally shunned as a loathsome pariah. The respectively supportive, indifferent, or hostile audiences he confronts in the Gospels show a variety of responses to his message. Those who apparently despise Jesus are numerically represented in insignificant numbers. They exist, but no more so than one may expect in reaction to any extremely controversial figure. Consideration must also be given to the fact that the great majority of contemporary Jews never heard of Jesus. The application to Jesus of nagua, that is, stricken metaphorically in the manner of one who has leprosy and treated as such by fellow human beings, is unwarranted.





Further sites to research:

Muhammad was prophesiesed in the Bible.

Corruption in the Old Testament.

Answering Trinity.

The New Testament confirms the Apocalypse (Revelation in Greek) of Peter which claims that Jesus never died on the cross!

Crucifixion of Jesus is a lie according to several of the Disciples' early writings.

History of Man's corruption of the Bible.

The New Testament was not even written by its original authors.

The "God" title in Isaiah 9:6 was given to others before and after Jesus.

The early Christians rejected Trinity and never believed in it.

Contradictions in the resurrection story in the

* "HIV tests" yield high levels of false-positive results by cross-reacting with antibodies to a host of "indicator diseases" and materials in blood plasma. Mumps, diptheria, tuberculosis, malaria, venereal warts, and approximately 50 other conditions will produce antibodies that can yield a "positive" on the "AIDS tests". Some people test positive, but then test negative a few months later on. Or someone may test positive at one laboratory, and the same blood sample will test negative at another lab. Even flu-shots and antibiotics a person may be taking may trigger a false positive reaction, as well as foreign proteins in the blood, which occur from blood transfusions and/or injection drugs. The role of "HIV" in triggering disease symptoms, as well as in triggering a positive reaction to the Western Blot and Elisa "AIDS test", remains unproven, and use of these tests, in spite of their widespread "acceptability" by mainstream medicine, constitutes a highly questionable and unscientific method for rendering a "diagnosis". See the following controlled experimental evaluations of the "AIDS tests":

Eleini Papadopulos-Eleopulos, et al: "Is a Positive Western Blot Proof of HIV Infection?", Biotechnology, Vol.11, June 1993, p.696-707. Article posted at the Sumeria web site.

Oscar Kashala, et al: "Infection with Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1) and Human T Cell Lymphotropic Viruses among Leprosy Patients and Contacts: Correlation Between HIV-1 Cross-Reactivity and Antibodies to Lipoarabinomannan", J. Infectious Diseases, 1994:169:296-304.

If you or a loved one has "tested positive" be aware that the only scientifically valid statement which can be made from the Elisa or Western Blot (or home AIDS test kits) is that the individual has, either in the recent past or present, been subjected to some kind of immunological stress. The "tests" say nothing concrete or objective about the presence or absence of HIV. For this and other reasons, more and more scientists and laypeople are objecting to the entire structure of the HIV theory of AIDS, and the misdirected multi-billion dollar public scare campaign and social engineering experiment our government and "medical authorities" have embarked upon.

MILLA, it is very unfortunate , with this kind of your post you are very, very uncivilized. The Hausas you are reffering to are more civilised than you. It seems you have not gone through any kind of civilasation, from babarism to decadence
Be more civil in your manner of address.

Because you dont know what is HIV.
HIV; REALITY OR ARTEFACT?
By Stefan Lanka

Continuum April/May 1995



An error can never become true however many times you repeat it.
The truth can never be wrong, even if no one ever hears about it.

Mahatma Gandhi

For the past 10 years or so it has been the accepted wisdom that the human immuno-deficiency virus, HIV, causes AIDS. It supposedly occurs in many body fluids, and its transmission especially in semen and blood to a new host, triggers a slow but inexorable progression to AIDS and ultimately death. To infect another cell, HIV must at some stage in its life cycle exist as a separate and identifiable entity.

What has been ignored and kept from public awareness is, that there has never been a workable HIV test and that the definition of 'positive' has always changed according to the views of different organisations dealing with it, changed also according to the kind of tests used and changed from laboratory to laboratory performing the tests:

", Its techniques have not been standardised, and the magnitude and consequences of interlaboratory variations have not been measured. Its results require interpretation, and the criteria for this interpretation vary not only from laboratory to laboratory but also from month to month , "(1)

The dispute over who discovered HIV (2), was a distraction from the question of whether the virus actually exists at all. The public was impressed that if a President and a Prime Minister (3) had to meet to resolve attribution, then the thing they were negotiating about must be real.

In 1993 a research group from Perth, Australia succeeded in publishing a paper on the HIV test.(4) Since then anybody could have read for him or herself that no AIDS test could ever work, because HIV has never been isolated nor even shown to exist. Since AIDS research and the media have largely ignored any critique of HIV=AIDS, especially the essential question of whether HIV really does exist, it is time to call again for a reappraisal of the whole HIV/AIDS hypothesis. In going back to the origins of HIV virology and telling the HIV story, a view will be presented which will make clear that HIV itself, the very object of this Manhattan Project of modern medicine, AIDS research, does not exist.(5)

A little virology

Viruses are essentially just packages of genetic information enclosed in a coat which consists of proteins. They can reproduce themselves only by infecting a suitable host cell and appropriating the chemical machinery they find there. The proteins making up the viruses are characteristic for each species of virus. Apart from enveloping and transporting the genetic information intact, the composition of proteins for a given virus results in a specific shape for the virus particle.

This much is generally known. Less well-known is the existence of other particles which look like viruses but aren't, and are nonchalantly referred to as "virus-like" particles. Such particles are far from rare, found, for example, always in placentas, and very frequently in the artificial environment of laboratory cell cultures. They have served to muddy the waters considerably as far as AIDS research is concerned, because particles just like these have been called HIV. To date, none of these has been characterised and shown to exist as an entity which one may justifiably call a virus.

One root of the belief in the AIDS virus

In classical theory DNA encodes the genetic material of heredity, which is then transcribed into messenger RNA which in turn specifies the assembly of amino-acids to construct the proteins of all living beings. In 1970 an enzyme (biological catalyst) was discovered in extracts of certain cells which was capable of converting a molecule of RNA into DNA. This was a revolutionary discovery, because it overturned a fundamental tenet of molecular genetics, namely, that the flow of information was strictly one-way and never reversed. It had hitherto always been thought that DNA was transcribed (converted) into messenger RNA and that the reverse process from RNA to DNA was impossible. The enzyme responsible became known as reverse transcriptase (6) and a lot of new myths arose.

An error of the past: cancer caused by viruses.

It was believed that the new enzyme was a marker for a virus, because the cells in which it was detected, and which were used to study cancer (7), were thought to have become cancerous through being infected by a virus. New to the idea of cancer viruses ( was that nucleic acid, when in the form of RNA could be converted into DNA by the enzyme, thus providing a mechanism for viral nucleic acid to be inserted anywhere in the chromosome of the cells.(9) These "new" viruses became known as retroviruses.(10) The insertion of certain retroviral genes was thought to trigger cancer.

The idea that these postulated viruses caused cancer quickly became "hot news" the world over, but did not survive investigation (11) and other explanations were sought.(12) The theory did not predict or explain the dramatic increase in cancer cases, cancer could not be shown to be transmissible, nor could it suggest any remedy in the form of a vaccine.(13) Interestingly, the spread of cancer viruses was blamed on homosexuals, prostitutes and black people, just as AIDS came to be 13 years later.(14)

Whenever and wherever reverse transcriptase activity was detected it was rashly assumed that retroviruses were at work. This turned out to be a grave error, because it was later found that the enzyme occurred in all living matter, proving that reverse transcriptase activity had nothing to do with retroviruses per se.(15)

Repetitive elements

Further research showed that at least 10% of mammalian DNA was composed of repetitive sequences which were referred to as "nonsense genes", parts of which, nonetheless, were described as "retroviral genes". They exist in their hundreds if not thousands. Some of them can even replicate independently and jump within and between chromosomes, and for this reason became known as retrotransposons.

In the laboratory they can be made to migrate, and when this happens reverse transcriptase is invariably detected, which underlines the fact that reverse transcriptase activity has nothing to do with retroviruses as such.(16)

LAV, HTLV-III, HIV and all that

Because all this was already well known in 1983 it is incomprehensible that Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, a member of Montagnier's group, as well as Gallo's group itself in 1984, claimed to have discovered a new virus, when all they did was to demonstrate reverse transcriptase activity, and to publish photographs of cellular particles without proof that they were viruses. They could neither isolate them nor show that they were responsible for creating the observed reverse transcriptase activity nor the tissue abnormalities from which they were obtained.(17) They concluded: "the role of the virus in the aetiology of AIDS remains to be determined".(18)

What makes a virus new?

The isolation and purification of a real virus is a straightforward matter, because unlike cells, viruses of one species are always of the same size and shape, and can be readily separated from other cell components by standard techniques. A control experiment is to try an isolation with putative non-infected material in exactly the same way as the supposedly infected material. Nothing should be isolated in this case.

To identify a virus definitively, a first and simple step is to photograph isolated particles of it in an electron microscope, and they must look like the viral particles observed in cells, body fluids or cell cultures to distinguish them from other cellular particles which look like viruses, but are not. Proteins making up the viral coat must then be separated from each other and photographed. This produces a pattern which is characteristic of the species of virus. A similar separation and identification procedure must be gone through for the DNA or RNA of the virus. Only after the viral proteins and nucleic acid components have been properly identified, is it legitimate to speak of a new virus.

No evidence for the existence of HIV

Such evidence has up till now never been produced for HIV. No photograph of an isolated HIV particle has ever been published nor of any of its proteins or nucleic acids. No control experiments as mentioned above have been published to date. What has been shown are photographs of virus-like particles in cell cultures, but none of isolated viruses, let alone of a structure within the human body having the shape ascribed to HIV. What the whole world has seen are models representing HIV with dish aerials, said to be receptors with which the virus attaches itself to cells.

The existence of HIV is inferred from an antibody test, but how this is supposed to work, when the virus has never been shown to exist and obtained free of contaminants, remains a mystery.

The AIDS Test

Let us recall that the AIDS test is supposed to detect antibodies produced by the immune system in response to infection by the virus. This is routinely done by layering proteins ostensibly from the virus in the wells of a plastic rack and adding blood serum to be tested to each. If antibodies are present, they bind to the proteins, and when this happens sophisticated staining procedures can make this visible. But, because no proteins which are viral and free from contaminants, have ever been obtained, one cannot be sure what the antibodies are that bind to the proteins.

This is the crux of the problem facing all HIV (AIDS) tests. The inability to isolate a viral entity, and to characterise its constituent proteins unambiguously means that the evidence for the existence of HIV using antibodies is just arguing in a circle. Antibodies that are detected, are due to other causes.

Why no HIV test is ever able to work

It is consequently quite illogical to claim that a positive test results from prior contact with the virus.(19) Because various ill-characterised proteins are involved, every test kit manufacturer applies his own arbitrary criteria, and no two kits ever give the same result. It makes no difference that learned committees set standards to decide which tests should be regarded as "positive" and which not, because this merely skirts round the problem, namely, to what are antibodies actually being detected in the AIDS test? It is of no help that nowadays "second" and "third" generation tests exist using synthetic proteins which give greater consistency and comparability, because only by an unscientific stretch of the imagination are they viral proteins!

Neither fudging the true identity of the proteins, nor advocating two kinds of test - reassuringly but mistakenly described as "search" and "confirmatory" tests - resolves this difficulty.

The ELISA test is used to screen for antibodies, which is "confirmed" by the more specific Western Blot. The dilemma cannot be stated more poignantly than by quoting from the leaflet accompanying one such test kit:

"The test for the existence of antibodies against AIDS-associated virus is not diagnostic for AIDS and AIDS-like diseases. Negative test results do not exclude the possibility of contact or infection with the AIDS-associated virus. Positive test results do not prove that someone has an AIDS or pre-AIDS disease status nor that he will acquire it".(20) Quite.

The direct proof of HIV

Some HIV researchers have tried to circumvent the problem by pointing to something called "direct" evidence for the virus. All that this meant, though, was arbitrarily selecting a protein of a certain size which happened to coincide with that shown in HIV models. The delusion of such "evidence" was illustrated when the protein later turned out to be of human origin! (21)

How the genetic information of HIV was manufactured through ,

Despite this deplorable state of affairs the majority of AIDS researchers still cling to the authenticity of HIV, because a genetic sequence for it has been published. Moreover, genetic procedures now exist, which, unlike antibody tests, attempt to identify the presence of HIV more or less immediately, instead of only weeks later when antibodies are formed. The fact that the genetic tests (PCR)(22) do not give the same results as the antibody tests is simply ignored.

Since no virus has been isolated, it follows that no nucleic acid has been isolated from it either. Complicated procedures are even so described in the literature, at the end of which something is produced which is called the nucleic acid of HIV.(23)

, a test tube

HIV and its DNA can allegedly be made by the "bucketful" (24), but under very surprising conditions which, inter alia, entail the use of extracts from plants and other oxidising chemicals, which could not possibly exist in vivo. Immortalised cell lines devised (and later patented) by the Montagnier and Gallo groups are co-cultured with extracts from human cells or the cells themselves. At the end of it all HIV itself is not actually obtained - only reverse transcriptase activity is shown to occur - which is taken to imply that the DNA that is found, must have been viral in origin.

The real explanation of what happens is as follows. In the mixture of cell cultures and stressed human cells, RNA and reverse transcriptase come to be produced in large amounts, because the cells have been specially selected and treated to do this. The RNA is transcribed into DNA by reverse transcriptase, and long pieces of DNA are produced which are said to be viral DNA. In fact they are composed of unrelated pieces of expressed cellular RNA, transcribed into DNA and linked together by a process of "template switching" (a well-characterised property of reverse transcriptase).(25) This misleads ordinary researchers into believing that they have actually produced viral DNA.

It is said that this linear DNA is the free or the non-integrated form of HIV, which furthermore is said to be a unique feature of HIV, because a lot of detectable free linear DNA has not been suggested in any other models of retroviruses.

, and a selecting process

The resulting pieces of DNA too, are necessarily both shorter and longer than the "correct" length of HIV. Pieces corresponding to the "correct" length of HIV must be selected for size, because otherwise the purported DNA preparation would be a mixture of various lengths, which would violate a cardinal rule of virology that all nucleic acid of a particular virus be identical in size.

, and a detecting process

Having artificially prepared DNA pieces of uniform length, they are still not ready for presentation, because they consist of a mixture of all kinds of RNA fragments transcribed into DNA and thus cannot be shown to represent unique viral DNA. Accordingly, the mixture is subjected to a kind of lock-and-key detection process called hybridisation, whereby pieces of DNA are detected which complement more or less a probe of that which it is desired to be shown to have been prepared.

, and choosing a desired probe

Since no DNA from HIV existed to hybridise with the prepared DNA, Gallo and Montagnier simply used stretches of DNA from what they said was specific to HTLV-I, a retrovirus Gallo had earlier claimed to have discovered, and which they deemed suitable for this purpose. The DNA detected in this way was replicated and certain stretches of it cloned and declared to be the DNA of HTLV-III (later to be called HIV).

To summarise, the purpose of the exercise is to grow HIV, but it actually produces a mixture of different lengths of DNA, contrary to theory which says they should all be identical, and no virus at all. It is then claimed that the "correct" DNA has been prepared by finding certain strands in this heterogeneous mix by hybridising them with an HTLV-I DNA probe whose sequence is known and defined to be similar to HIV. However, non-hybridising strands of DNA should not be there at all, and the fact that they are, proves that a complete rag-bag of DNA has been prepared, without any indication of what it is made up of.

It follows that "HIV" DNA must just be a laboratory artefact constructed to a preconceived idea of what retroviral DNA should be, and this assessment does not even raise the question why no virus can be obtained, whatever the experimental conditions.

Gallo and Montagnier's cloned HIV DNA

One cannot help asking why no-one had not long ago spotted the flaw in the techniques employed by the Gallo and Montagnier groups. After defining some segments of DNA to be "HIV"-specific, every researcher in the field worked exclusively with short, cloned sequences (never the whole strand) on the reasonable assumption that the original characterisation had been correctly performed. From the isolation and identification procedure described above, it follows that the resultant sequences vary widely from one preparation to the next, which sequence analysts misinterpreted as the legendary capacity of HIV to mutate. A computer simulated phylogenetic tree was constructed, which established precisely what its designer sought to prove.(26)

Some history

(I) Perhaps one reason for this calamitous state of affairs is that HTLV-III was presented to the world as the cause of AIDS at a historic press conference on April 23, 1984 (a patent for an antibody test was applied for on the same day!), instead of making the evidence for it available beforehand, as correct science demands. The undue haste may be explained by the fact that both the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) had actually one day earlier in a lengthy front page article in The New York Times on April 22 come out in favour of the French claim for priority.(27)

(II) Even so, one must admire Gallo's audacity, because using the same technique he claimed in 1975 to have discovered the first human retrovirus (HL23), but which turned out to be nothing more than pieces of DNA from three different sources of contamination.(28) Nowadays, even an undergraduate would know that if you added DNA to a cell culture, part of the DNA would be incorporated into the cells without any virus being involved.

What does the AIDS test actually test for?

Since "HIV" has been shown to be a laboratory artefact it must be assumed that, when not just cross-reacting with other known antibodies, the "AIDS" test detects antibodies against proteins produced in the procedure itself. They must be of human origin because the cells used originated from leukaemic patients. Test positivity, logically, results from immunological contact with them. However, since positivity actually correlates with otherwise unrelated factors such as rheumatism and sun bathing, no specificity can be ascribed to the test.(29) Whether antibody positivity really correlates with disease as is commonly supposed, remains to be determined by a critical re-evaluation of the data. Condoms, therefore, serve only to protect against venereal diseases and as contraceptives, and worse lull the user into a false sense of security by ignoring real dangers he may be exposing himself to.

Re-direction of AIDS research

AIDS research is therefore back at square one and not at Basic Science as suggested elsewhere.(30) The main players have since 1993 begun to slink off, arguing that the virus having mutated so much is now no longer detectable. AIDS has therefore to be explained "in the absence of further whole virus".(31) Apart from the shortcomings of the antibody test, other misconceptions such as T-cell counting exist, which mean that the whole concept of AIDS needs to be completely revised.(32) It must be shown that there is any point in renaming a collection of known diseases as AIDS, just because someone is positive in the antibody or genetic (PCR) tests. Leaving HIV out of the picture explains why the epidemiological projections, which years ago had forecast a world-wide epidemic, have been a complete failure. Africa in 1986 was held up as a dire warning of what would befall the Western world. There, AIDS was diagnosed by a combination of clinical conditions (33) such as chronic fevers, diarrhoeas, coughs and weight loss, all symptoms of the diseases of poverty, without testing for HIV antibodies.(34) It should hardly come as a surprise that an entirely different definition produced a different outcome.

Finally, the effect of a positive test result on mental and physical health needs to be considered and investigated.(35)

Anti-virals

Whatever happens, the use of AZT and other "anti-virals" which are supposed to target HIV replication, but actually kill cells indiscriminately (and ultimately the whole body), must be stopped immediately. It is especially distressing to note that AZT and its analogues preferentially attack those cells which divide most rapidly, namely, cells in the intestines causing diarrhoea and malabsorption of food, and in bone marrow, ironically, the primary production site for cells of the immune system.(36)

The people who need enlightenment

The most important and delicate task is to convince HIV positives that their test result is not a death sentence, to be generally supportive of them, to assuage their anxiety, and to help them understand that with appropriate treatment of any specific disease, they have a good chance to retain or regain their health. The large number of long-term positives, whose condition cannot be explained by conventional AIDS theory, as well as the phenomenon of sero-reversion (return to negative test status), provide eloquent testimony to this. HIV/AIDS researchers and health officials are herewith called upon to debate the whole subject of HIV/AIDS openly and humanely, and to recognise the mistake that immune deficiency was acquired by an infectious agent.

The future

To be able to live a fuller life we have first to regain and then retain autonomy over our bodies and health from self-appointed experts, who have dispossessed us of it.(37)

If we refuse to learn from what has happened in AIDS research and related medical policies, then worse is on the way, some of it is, indeed, here already.(38) The genetics agenda begun in the 1860's (39) and a primitive genetic determinism have become established through the availability of genetic sequences and the ability to manipulate them easily, which are, in fact, pure fantasy.(40) Furthermore, all models of genetics and associated technologies, e.g. genome therapy, are based on a one-dimensional, static model of genetics which is a crass oversimplification, not defensible even when Mendel first proposed it.(41) *



Health as a Virtue (Ivan Illich):

Health designates a process of adaptation. It is not the result of instinct, but of an autonomous yet culturally shaped reaction to socially created reality. It designates the ability to adapt to changing environments, to growing up and to ageing, to healing when damaged, to suffering, and to the peaceful expectation of death. Health embraces the future as well, and therefore includes anguish and the inner resources to live with it.

Health designates a process by which each person is responsible, but only in part responsible to others. To be responsible may mean two things. A man is responsible for what he has done, and responsible to another person or group. Only when he feels subjectively responsible or answerable to another person will the consequences of his failure be not criticism, censure, or punishment but regret, remorse, and true repentance. The consequent states of grief and distress are marks of recovery and healing, and are phenomenologically something entirely different from guilt feelings. Health is a task, and as such is not comparable to the physiological balance of beasts. Success in this personal task is in large part the result of the self-awareness, self-discipline, and inner resources by which each person regulates his own daily rhythm and actions, his diet, and his sexual activity. Knowledge encompassing desirable activities, competent performance, the commitment to enhance health in others - these are all learned from the example of peers or elders. These personal activities are shaped and conditioned by the culture in which the individual grows up: patterns of work and leisure, of celebration and sleep, of production and preparation of food and drink, of family relations and politics. Long-tested health patterns that fit a geographic area and a certain technical situation depend to a large extent on long-lasting political autonomy. They depend on the spread of responsibility for health habits and for the socio-biological environment. That is, they depend on the dynamic stability of a culture. The level of public health corresponds to the degree to which the means andresponsibility for coping with illness are distributed among the total population. This ability to cope can be enhanced but never replaced by medical intervention or by the hygienic characterisitcs of the environment. That society which can reduce professional intervention to the minimum will provide the best conditions for health. The greater the potential for autonomous adaptation to self, to others, and to the environment, the less management of adaptation will be needed or tolerated.

A world of optimal and widespread health is obviously a world of minimal and only occasional medical intervention. Healthy people are those who live in healthy homes on a healthy diet in an environment equally fit for birth, growth, work, healing, and dying; they are sustained by a culture that enhances the conscious acceptance of limits to population, of ageing, of incomplete recovery and ever-imminent death. Healthy people need minimal bureaucratic interference to mate, give birth, share the human condition, and die. Man's consciously lived fragility, individuality, and relatedness make the experience of pain, of sickness, and of death an integral part of his life. The ability to cope with this trio autonomously is fundamental to his health. As he becomes dependent on the management of his intimacy, he renounces his autonomy and his health must decline. The true miracle of modern medicine is diabolical. It consists in making not only individuals but whole populations survive on inhumanly low levels of personal health. Medical nemesis is the negative feedback of a social organization that set out to improve and equalize the opportunity for each man to cope in autonomy and ended by destroying it.

Acknowledgements:

This article is dedicated to Ivan Illich and Thomas McKeown: had their writings been taken more seriously the world would have been spared the AIDS panic as well as other perversions. I would also like to thank Volker Gildemeister (Meditel, London) for translation and constructive criticism, and of course, my family, Hans-Walter Wiegand and other friends too numerous to list, for all their support.

References

1 Klemens B. Meyer and Stephen G. Pauker. 1987. Screening for HIV: Can we afford the false positive rate? NEJM 317: 238-241. See also: Marsha F. Goldsmith. 1985. HTLV-III testing of donor blood imminent; complex issues remain. JAMA 253: 81-86, 173-175, 179-181.

2 John Crewdson. The Great AIDS Quest. Special report. Nov. 19. 1989. Chicago Tribune.

3 Frankel, Mark; Mary Hager, Theodore Stanger. July 25 1994. The End of a Scientific Feud. Newsweek.

4 Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F. Turner, John M. Papadimitriou. 1993. Is a positive Western Blot proof of HIV infection? Bio/Technology 11: 696-707.

5 A similar article was published in a German monthly: Stefan Lanka. 1994. Fehldiagnose AIDS? Wechselwirkung, Aachen, December, 48-53.

6 Temin H.M. and Mizutani. 1970. Viral RNA-dependent DNA-polymerase. Nature 226: 1211-1213. Temin H.M. and Baltimore D. 1972. RNA-directed DNA synthesis and RNA tumor viruses. Adv Vir Res 17: 129-186.

7 Gerald B. Dermer. 1994. The Immortal Cell: Why Cancer Research Fails. Avery Publishing Group, Garden City Park, NY. Gerald B. Dermer. 1994. Another Anniversary for the war on Cancer. Bio/Technology 12: 320.

8 Gye W.E. and W.J. Purdy. 1931. The cause of Cancer. Cassell, London.

9 Weiss R. et al. 1982. RNA Tumor Viruses. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Cold Spring Harbor, New York.

10 Bishop J.M. 1978. Retroviruses. Ann. Rev. Biochem. 47: 35-88. Bishop J.M. 1983. Cellular oncogenes and retroviruses. Ann. Rev. Biochem. 52: 301-354. Doolittle R.F. et al. 1989. Origins and evolutionary relationships of retroviruses. The Quarterly Review of Biology 64: 1-30. Varmus H. and Brown P. 1989. Retroviruses. In: Mobile DNA: 53-108, eds.: Berg E. and Howe M.M. American Society for Microbiology. Washington D.C. Coffin J.M. 1990. Retroviridae and their replication. In: Virology. Fields B.N. ed., New York. Doolittle D.F. et al. 1990. Retrovirus Phylogeny and Evolution. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology 157: 1-18.

11 Why we will never win the war on AIDS. Ellison B.J. & Duesberg P.H. 1994 Inside Story Communications, El Cerrito CA

12 John Higginson, Calum S. Muir, Nubia Munoz. Human cancer: epidemiology and environmental causes. Cambridge University Press. Samuel S. Epstein. 1992. Profiting from Cancer. Vested Interests and the Cancer Epidemic. The Ecologist 22: 233-240. Samuel S. Epstein. 1993. Evaluation of the National Cancer Program and proposed reforms. International J. Health Services 23: 15-44.

13 Tim Beardsley. 1/1994. A war not won. Scientific American 70: 118.

14 see ref 11

15 Malcolm A. Martin et al. 1981. Identification and cloning of endogenous retroviral sequences present in human DNA. PNAS 78: 4892-4896. T.I. Bonner et al. 1982. Cloned endogenous retroviral sequences from human DNA PNAS 79: 4709-4713. Callahan R. et al. 1982. Detection and cloning of human DNA sequences related to the mouse mammary tumor virus genome. PNAS 79: 5503-5507. Temin H.M. 1985. Review: Reverse Transcription in the Eukaryotic Genome: Retroviruses, Pararetroviruses, Retrotransposons, and Retrotranscripts. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2: 455-468. Harold Varmus. 9/1993. Reverse Transcription. Scientific American 257:48

16 Dixie L. Mager and Paula S. Henthorn. 1984. Identification of a retrovirus-like repetitive element in human DNA. PNAS 81: 7510-7514. Catherine O'Connell et al. 1984. ERV3, a full-length human endogenous provirus: chromosomal localization and evolutionary relationships. Virology 138: 225-235. Baltimore D. 1985. Retroviruses and Retrotransposons: The Role of Reverse Transcription in Shaping the Eukaryotic Genome. Cell 40: 481-482. Paulson K.E. et al. 1985. A transposon-like element in human DNA. Nature 316: 359-361. Callahan R. et al. 1985. A new class of endogenous human retroviral genomes. Science 228: 1208-1211. Weiner A.M. et al. 1986. Nonviral retrotransposons: Genes, pseudogenes, and transposable elements generated by the reverse flow of genetic information. Ann. Rev. Biochem. 55: 631-61. Dixie L. Mager and Douglas Freeman. 1987. Human endogenous retroviruslike genome with Type C pol sequences and gag sequences related to human T-Cell Lymphotropic viruses. J Virol. 61: 4060-4066. Shih A. et al. 1989. Detection of multiple, novel reverse transcriptase coding sequences in human nucleic acids: relation to primate retroviruses. J Virol. 63: 64-75. Krause H. et al. 1989. Molecular Cloning of a Type D Retrovirus from Human Cells (PMFV) and its Homology to Simian Acquired Immunodeficiency Type D Retroviruses. Virology 173: 214-222. Wilkinson D.A. et al. 1990. Autonomous expression of RTVL-H endogenous retroviruslike elements in human cells. J Virol. 64: 2157-2167. Banki K. et al. 1992. Human T-cell lymphotropic virus (HTLV)-related endogenous sequence, HRES-1, encodes a 28-kDa protein: A possible autoantigen for HTLV-I gag-reactive autoantibodies. PNAS 89: 1939-1943. Horwitz M.S. et al. 1992. Novel Human Endogenous Sequences Related to Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1. J Virol. 66: 2170-2179. Maizels N. and Weiner A.M. 1993. The Genomic Tag Hypothesis: Modern Viruses as Molecular Fossils of Ancient Strategies for Genomic Replication. In: The RNA World. Gesteland F. and Atkins J.F. eds. Cold Spring Harbor.

17 Robert C. Gallo et al. 1984. Frequent detection and isolation of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and at risk for AIDS. Science 224: 500-503

18 Francoise Barre-Sinoussi et al. (including. L. Montagnier). 1983. Isolation of a T-lymphotropic retrovirus from a patient at risk for Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Science 220: 868-871. Robert C. Gallo et al. 1983. Isolation of Human T-Cell Leukemia Virus in Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Science 220: 865-867.

19 see ref 4

20 Bio-Rad, 1989.

21 see ref 4

22 Just how little confidence is placed in the validity of such tests is revealed by the caveats in the leaflet accompanying one of them: "The Amplicor HIV-1 PCR test has been tested using whole blood specimens only. Performance with other specimens has not been evaluated and may result in false negative or false positive results, Detection of HIV-1 may be dependent on the amount of proviral DNA in the specimen. This may be affected by specimen collection methods and patient factors such as age, disease status and risk factors etc. As in any diagnostic test, results from Amplicor HIV-1 test should be interpreted with consideration of clinical and laboratory findings." It will become clear later why whole blood rather than serum is used for this test, all the more so as the purpose of the test is to detect transmissible virus particles which should not have anything to do with the presence or absence of blood cells. This all the more significant, since a major form of HIV transmission is supposed to be via Factor 8 given to haemophiliacs, where blood cells are absent. The implication is that without blood cells no "viral" DNA would be detected!

23 Beatrice H. Hahn et al. (incl. Robert C. Gallo). 1984. Molecular cloning and characterization of the HTLV-III virus associated with AIDS. Nature 312: 166-169. Shaw G.M. et al. (incl. Robert C. Gallo). 1984. Molecular Characterization of Human T-Cell Leukemia (Lymphotropic) Virus Type III in Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Science 226: 1165-1171. Marc Alizon et al. (including. Luc Montagnier). 1984. Molecular cloning of lymphadenopathy-associated virus. Nature 312: 757-760. Wain-Hobson S. et al. 1985. Nucleotide Sequence of the AIDS Virus, LAV. Cell 40: 9-17. Ratner L. et al. 1985. Complete nucleotide sequence of the AIDS virus, HTLV-III. Nature 313: 277-284.

24 Tedder R.S. UCL Medical School London, 1994 personal communication

25 Guangxiang Luo and John Taylor. 1990. Template Switching by Reverse Transcriptase during DNA Synthesis. J Virol 64, 4321-4328. Goodrich D.W. and Duesberg P.H. 1990. Retroviral recombination during reverse transcription. PNAS 87: 2052-2056.

26 Hahn B.H. et al. 1986. Genetic Variation in HTLV-III/LAV Over Time in Patients with AIDS or at Risk for AIDS. Science 232: 1548-1553. Alizon M. et al. 1986. Genetic Variability of the AIDS Virus: Nucleotide Sequence Analysis of Two Isolates from African Patients. Cell 46: 63-74. Yasuo Ina and Takashi Gojobori. 1990. Molecular Evolution of Human T-Cell Leukemia Virus. J Mol Evol 31: 493-499. Balfe P. et al. 1990. Concurrent Evolution of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 in Patients Infected from the Same Source: Rate of Sequence Change and Low Frequency of Inactivating Mutations. J Virol 64: 6221-6233.

27 Barbara J. Culliton. 1990. I: Inside the Gallo Probe. Science 248: 1494-1498. Ellis Rubinstein. 1990. II: The Untold Story of HUT78. Science 248: 1499-1507. Barbara J. Culliton. 1992. NIH report vindicates Gallo on conduct of AIDS research. Nature 357: 3-4. John Maddox. 1992. More on Gallo and Popovic. Nature 357: 107-109. Jon Cohen. 1993. HHS: Gallo Guilty of Misconduct. Science 259: 168-170.

28 Steve Connor. 1987. AIDS: Science stands on trial. New Scientist 12.2., 49-58.

29 see ref 4

30 Fields B.N. 1994. AIDS: Back to Basic Science. Nature 369: 95.

31 Laurie Garrett. 1993. Seeing the Light; AIDS scientists shift their focus. Newsday, September 6. Charles A. Thomas, Jr., Kary B. Mullis, Bryan J. Ellison, and Phillip E. Johnson.Why there is still an HIV controversy . October 20, 1993. Cited as reference 72 in Richard Strohman (37). Nature, submitted in November 1993; rejected December 1993, manuscript available upon request (RS).

32 J.S. Goodwin, 1981. A Piece of My Mind: OKT3, OKT4, and All That. This article is a diatribe against the measurement of T-cell subsets in human diseases. JAMA 246: 947-948. Caspar G. Schmidt, 1984. The group fantasy origins of AIDS. J. Psychohistory 12: 37-78. Peter H. Duesberg, 1987. Retroviruses as Carcinogens and Pathogens: Expectations and Reality. Cancer Research 47: 1199-1220. AIDS - A different View. Abstracts. International Symposium 14.-16. May (Amsterdam). Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F. Turner and John M. Papadimitriou, 1992. Kaposi's sarcoma and HIV. Med. Hypotheses 39: 22-29. Peter H. Duesberg and Jody R. Schwarz, 1992. Latent viruses and mutated oncogenes: no evidence for pathogenicity. Prog. Nucleic Acid Res. Molec. Biol. 43: 135-204. Peter H. Duesberg, 1992. AIDS acquired by drug consumption and other noncontagious risk factors. Pharmac. Ther. 55: 201-277. Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F. Turner and John M. Papadimitriou, 1992. Oxidative stress, HIV and AIDS. Res. Immunol. 143: 145-148. John Lauritsen, 1993. The AIDS War. Propaganda, Profiteering and Genocide from the Medical-Industrial Complex. Asklepios, New York. Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F. Turner and John M. Papadimitriou, 1993. Has Gallo proven the role of HIV in AIDS? Emergency Medicine 5: 113-123. Serge Lang, 1994. HIV and AIDS: Have we been misled? Questions of Scientific and Journalistic Responsibility. Yale Scientific, New Haven. Neville Hodgkinson, 1994. Paradigms Lost. Continuum 2/5&6, London. Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F. Turner, John M. Papadimitriou and David Causer, 1995. Factor VIII, HIV and AIDS in haemophiliacs: an analysis of their relationship. Genetica. Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F. Turner, John M. Papadimitriou, David Causer, Bruce Hedland-Thomas and Barry A.P. Page, 1995. A critical analysis of the HIV-T4-cell-AIDS hypothesis. Genetica.

33 Chirimuuta R.C and Rosalind J. Chirimuuta 1989. AIDS, Africa and Racism. Free Association Books, London.

34 Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F. Turner, John M. Papadimitriou and Harvey Bialy, 1995. AIDS in Africa. Distinguishing fact and fiction. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 11.

35 Hassig A. Research paper, 1993. Study Group on Nutrition and Immunity. Neuroendocrine causation of CD4/CD8 shift 3066 Stettlen, Switzerland.

36 John Lauritsen. 1990. Poison by Prescription. The AZT Story. Asklepios, New York. John Lauritsen, 1993. The AIDS War. Propaganda, Profiteering and Genocide from the Medical-Industrial Complex. Asklepios, New York.

37 Ivan Illich. 1990. Limits to Medicine. Medical Nemesis: The expropriation of health. Penguin. Thomas McKeown The Role of Medicine - Dream, Mirage, Nemesis 1979 Princeton University Press. Robert S. Mendelsohn. 1979. Confessions of a Medical Heretic. Chicago.

38 Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald with Nicholas Hildyard. 1993. The Eugenics of Normalcy. The Politics of Gene Research. The Ecologist 23: 185-191. Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald. 1994. Exploding the Gene Myth: How Genetic Information is Produced and Manipulated by Scientists, Physicians; Employers; Insurance Companies, Educators, and Law Enforcers. Beacon. R.C. Lewontin. 1994. Women Versus the Biologists. The New York Review of Books, April 7. Steven Rose. 1995. The rise of neurogenetic determinism. Nature 373: 380-382.

39 D.J. Weatherall. 1991. Ethical issues and related problems arising from the application of the new genetics to clinical practice. In: The New Genetics and Clinical Practice. D.J. Weatherall (ed.). Oxford University Press.

40 Theodore Friedmann. 1994. The promise and overpromise of human gene therapy. Gene Therapy 1: 217-218.

41 John Rennie. 3/1993.DNA's New Twists. Scientific American 260: 88. and most important: Richard Strohmann. 1994. Epigenesis: The Missing Beat in Biotechnology? Bio/Technology 12: 156-164.


VIRUSMYTH HOMEPAGE

HOW DANGEROUS IS MARIJUANA
COMPARED WITH OTHER SUBSTANCES?
Number of American deaths per year that result directly or primarily from the following selected causes nationwide, according to World Almanacs, Life Insurance Actuarial (death) Rates, and the last 20 years of U.S. Surgeon Generals' reports.
TOBACCO 340,000 to 450,000
ALCOHOL (Not including 50% of all highway deaths and 65% of all murders) 150,000+
ASPIRIN (Including deliberate overdose) 180 to 1,000+
CAFFEINE (From stress, ulcers, and triggering irregular heartbeats, etc.) 1,000 to 10,000
"LEGAL" DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental) from legal, prescribed or patent medicines and/or mixing with alcohol - e.g. Valium/alcohol 14,000 to 27,000
ILLICIT DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental) from all illegal drugs. 3,800 to 5,200
MARIJUANA 0
(Marijuana users also have the same or lower incidence of murders and highway deaths and accidents than the general non-marijuana using population as a whole. Crancer Study, UCLA; U.S. Funded ($6 million), First & Second Jamaican Studies, 1968 to 1974; Costa Rican Studies, 1980 to 1982; et al. LOWEST TOXICITY 100% of the studies done at dozens of American universities and research facilities show pot toxicity does not exist. Medical history does not record anyone dying from an overdose of marijuana (UCLA, Harvard, Temple, etc.).


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
In The Matter Of MARIJUANA RESCHEDULING PETITION
Docket No. 86-22
OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law Judge
DATED: SEPTEMBER 6, 1988

Section 8 of Judge Young's "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision."

Page 56 & 57 http://mojo.calyx.net/~olsen/MEDICAL/YOUNG/young

3. The most obvious concern when dealing with drug safety is the possibility of lethal effects. Can the drug cause death?

4. Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality.

This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that from twenty million to fifty million Americans routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death.

6. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.

7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.

8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity.

Home | How Dangerous is Marijuana? | Chapters to "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" | Photos
1938 Popular Mechanics | Jack's Initiative | Jack's Hemporium | Links | Contact Jack


© Jack Herer 2006
Photo of Jack by Malcolm MacKinnon

To write Jack or order any products, send an e-mail to: jack@jackherer.com

A good Christian does not eat meats on Fridays, and good Christian does not tell lies on Fridays. But one day father met BUKU eating meat;
Father: you are eating meat on Friday?
Bukku: no father is not meat.
Father: you are telling lies on Friday ?
Buku: no father.
Father: Tell me.
Buku: Father, my family were very hungry, and went to the bush and hunted for a rabbit and i sprinkled water on it and i said from meat to became fish. Because when you met me , my name was Buku when you sprinkled water on me i became John.

Americanism for the Americans inside America is good, outside it stinks. Like a rotten egg, it shines outside and stinks inside. Nairalanders don't forget that America and Nigeria are British colonies.