Home Random Page


CATEGORIES:

BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism






Federal Court Declares AIDS Book Illegal

In a far-reaching decision that could throw the publishing industry into turmoil, the Federal court of the Southern District of New York has officially banned a controversial AIDS book from being distributed - even for free - anywhere in the United States.

The verdict against the book, rendered on November 28, ended a contentious five-day trial in which publisher Alfred S. Regnery was suing to stop publication of the book. Judge John E. Sprizzo is expected to enter the official judgment any day now, including a permanent injunction against the book and over half a million dollars in penalties against the book's publisher and main author, Bryan J. Ellison. The injunction will extend a restraining order that already shut down the book's publication last week.

"As far as I know, this is the first time in American history that the Federal government has banned a documentary book," said Ellison, who was clearly shaken by the decision.

Evan Tolchinsky, the attorney who represented Ellison at the trial, has taken this case without pay because of the free speech issue. "There's no question that this decision represents a radical departure from two hundred years of American legal tradition," he noted. "Unless this decision is overturned, more books will soon join the banned list, businesses everywhere will suddenly find their contracts invalid, and - worst of all - the AIDS epidemic will continue to claim victims unnecessarily."

The book is controversial because it documents a growing scientific debate over whether the Federal government has blamed the AIDS epidemic on the wrong cause; no charges of indecency, libel, or violation of national security have been made against the book. Instead, Regnery justified his lawsuit against Ellison by trying to enforce a terminated contract made between Ellison and another publisher who had refused to publish the book. Regnery himself has never published the book, nor has he taken any serious measures to do so.

Critics accuse Regnery of illegally reviving the contract merely to shut down the book's publication, and point out that Regnery worked for several years as a high-ranking official in the U.S. Justice Department.

Not surprisingly, some Federal officials have openly stated they do not want the general public to learn about the AIDS information contained in the book. The Federal government currently spends over $7 billion per year on AIDS, all directed against HIV, the virus said to cause AIDS. The Ellison book explains why hundreds of prestigious scientists and physicians now believe the government has blamed AIDS on the wrong cause since 1984, and it provides startling evidence for what many of these scientists believe is the real cause of AIDS.

The book also carefully documents why the government blamed AIDS on this virus in the first place, and names the people who designed the War on AIDS.

Widespread distribution of the book could shake public faith in the biomedical research establishment, says Ellison, resulting in budget cuts for numerous Federal agencies. Judge Sprizzo's decision is controversial not only for banning the book, but also for his conduct during the entire lawsuit. Sprizzo, himself a former top official of the Justice Department, remained consistently hostile to Ellison's defense - declaring, for example, that Ellison had no due process rights, and trying several times to replace Ellison's attorney with another who knew little about the case.



During the trial, Sprizzo repeatedly changed the testimony of witnesses and ordered the jury to ignore any testimony that reflected badly on Regnery's case. Sprizzo's final instructions then suddenly redefined the entire lawsuit, thus guaranteeing the jury's verdict against the book.

Peter Duesberg, Ellison's co-author on the book, joined Regnery's side late in the lawsuit. During the trial, Duesberg confessed that he had been contacted by Federal officials who offered him money and other inducements to suppress the information in the book. Duesberg claimed he did not accept these offers, yet he refused to disclose the identities of the officials.

Ellison's supporters believe this case is a turning point that will awaken and outrage the American public against big government and its abuse of power. Not only will he appeal the decision, says Ellison, but a movement against the Public Health establishment will undoubtedly grow around this banned book.

The lawsuit was held in Federal court in the Southern District of New York.

The case number is 95 Civ. 0157 (JES).

1995 Nov 28: Federal court of the Southern District of NY (95 Civ. 0157 JES) bans all US distribution of the Ellison & Duesberg AIDS book. APFN


 

http://www.science-bbs.com/131-med-diseases-cancer/69d88e67792e618c.htm

21 Dec 1998

The following is the text version of a letter that was sent to Dr. Duesberg. The letter speaks for itself...and many eagerly await his reply.

For more info. about the controversy surrounding Duesberg's ties to the NIH, please visit the Censorship Bypass web site at

http://www.***.com/ ~bypass

**********************

July 1, 1996

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

Dr. Peter H. Duesberg

University of California

Dept. of Molecular and Cell Biology

229 Stanley Hall

Berkeley, CA 94720

 

Joel A. Schwartz

3463 State Street, #135

Santa Barbara, CA 93105

Dear Dr. Duesberg,

The debate over the cause of AIDS has, of course, many far-reaching consequences. It throws into question the entire course of federal spending and policy in the War on AIDS, including the current treatments for AIDS.

However, a new and larger issue is beginning to emerge from this controversy.

A growing body of evidence indicates that governmental agencies, acting directly or through the Public Health lobby, have been attempting to hide the AIDS controversy from public knowledge. According to this evidence, various Public Health officials have used influence, {*filter*}, and intimidation to silence dissent among scientists, in the communications media, and in other public forums.

As the scandal of a government cover-up becomes public knowledge, taxpayers and voters are demanding a full accounting of the secret measures being used to silence dissent. I am writing on behalf of this growing movement.

It has come to our attention that you have been one of the targets of this cover-up. Specifically, you have publicly admitted that officials of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have offered you compensation for recanting your position on AIDS. But you have so far refused to identify these officials or the exact terms of the offers. As an establishment scientist who has received government funding, you owe the American public a full disclosure of the facts.

For the record, I now call on you to provide the answers to the following questions:

1) On November 9, 1995, you gave sworn testimony that an official of the NIH visited you in late 1994 and made you an offer in exchange for your agreement to recant your views on AIDS. You confirmed the existence of this meeting in the book "Inventing the AIDS Virus", released this year, which lists you as the sole author. What was the exact date and place of that meeting?

2) What is the name of the NIH official with whom you met?

3) Who else was present at that meeting?

4) In your testimony, you stated that this NIH official handed you a letter declaring that HIV causes AIDS. On this letter were three names: yours, and two others - one of whom you refer to as an "old friend." What were the names of these other signers, and which one did you refer to as an "old friend"?

5) Who authorized these NIH officials to make you this offer? Who else, in the government or elsewhere, was aware of this offer?

6) You have stated that, had you accepted the offer in full, the letter was to be published in Nature magazine. You have also mentioned Nature editor John Maddox as having been involved. Did John Maddox know about the offer, and the meeting, before they took place? Did Maddox agree to use his magazine as a forum to publish the letter? Which NIH officials were in contact with Maddox regarding this offer? Have you communicated with Maddox regarding this letter? If so, what did you and Maddox say?

7) Who actually wrote the letter? Please provide a copy of the complete letter.

8) What, precisely, were you offered in return for signing the letter?

9) Precisely how long did you take to think over the offer?

10) What factor(s) did you consider while making a decision on the offer?

11) What was your final answer to the offer? Did you accept any part of their offer? Did you make any counter-offers?

12) When did you first publicly reveal that this offer was made to you? Where did you reveal this?

13) Are there any terms the government could offer that would persuade you to recant your views on AIDS - even against the scientific evidence?

14) According to testimony we have received, you have privately admitted the existence of previous offers made to you in return for your willingness to change your position on AIDS. Written documents also suggest the existence of such offers.

a) What were the exact dates and places of those meetings?

b) What were the names of the persons who met with you at those times, or who helped arrange those meetings?

c) Were you given letters to sign at any of those meetings? If so, please provide copies of each of those documents.

d) Who authorized each of those offers? Who else was aware of those offers?

e) What were the terms of each of those offers (what were you asked to do, and what were you promised in return)?

f) How long did you take to make a decision on each of those offers?

g) What was your answer to each of those offers?

h) Have you publicly revealed any of these previous offers made to you?

When did you reveal them? Where did you reveal them?

15) Have you received any such offers since 1994?

16) Have you been made any offers by Alfred Regnery, or by any of his agents or associates, in return for your cooperation regarding the AIDS debate? Did you agree to take any information out of the book you co-authored with Bryan Ellison?

Certainly you must agree that the federal government cannot be allowed to censor this AIDS debate, or any other controversy, from public view. As a scientist involved in such a debate, you have a special responsibility to disclose all government attempts to suppress opposition. The public has a right to know.

I therefore assume you will provide the above answers in a timely manner.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Joel A. Schwartz

30 Dec 1998 [http://www.science-bbs.com/131-med-diseases-cancer/4b3bb8295c8c811f.htm]

 

Following is the text version of a letter that was sent to the Director of NIH concerning his agency's role in offering dissident AIDS scientists bribes to Cover-up the AIDS debate. For those who would like to learn more about the AIDS Cover-up, please visit the CENSORSHIP BYPASS web site at: http://www.***.com/ ~bypass

 

July 11 , 1996

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

Joel A. Schwartz

3463 State Street, #135

Santa Barbara, CA 93105

 

Dr. Harold E. Varmus

Director, National Institutes of Health

1 Center Drive

Bldg. #1, Room 126

Bethesda, MD 20892

(ph) 301-496-2433

 

Dear Dr. Varmus,

As you know, for several years there has been a scientific debate over the cause of AIDS. A growing body of researchers are disputing the claim that HIV causes the AIDS epidemic, suggesting that something else may be the real cause. This debate has, of course, many far-reaching consequences. It throws into question the entire course of federal spending and policy in the War on AIDS, including the current treatments for AIDS. However, a new and larger issue is beginning to emerge from this controversy.

A growing body of evidence indicates that governmental agencies, acting directly or through the Public Health lobby, have been attempting to hide the AIDS controversy from public knowledge. According to this evidence, various Public Health officials have used influence, {*filter*}, and intimidation to silence dissent among scientists, in the communications media, and in other public forums.

As the scandal of a government cover-up becomes public knowledge, taxpayers and voters are demanding a full accounting of the secret measures being used to silence dissent. I am writing on behalf of this growing movement.

It has come to our attention that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been one of the participants in this cover-up. Specifically, testimony of Dr. Peter H. Duesberg, a virologist at the University of California at Berkeley and one of the dissenting scientists in this AIDS debate, has revealed that officials of the NIH have offered him compensation in return for recanting his position on AIDS. But Dr. Duesberg has so far refused to identify these officials or the exact terms of the offers. As director of the NIH, you bear full responsibility for extra-legal actions taken by your agency, and therefore, you owe the American public a full disclosure of the facts.

For the record, I now call on you to provide the answers to the following questions:

On November 9, 1995, Dr. Duesberg gave sworn testimony [Deposition, case 95 Civ. 0157 (JES), Regnery and Duesberg v. Ellison, Federal District Court, Southern District of New York] that an official of the NIH visited him in late 1994 and made him an offer in exchange for his agreement to recant his views on AIDS. Dr. Duesberg confirmed the existence of this meeting in the book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" released this year (Regnery Publishing, Washington, D.C.), which lists him as the sole author.

1) What was the exact date and place of that meeting?

2) What is the name of the NIH official with whom Dr. Duesberg met?

3) Who else was present at that meeting?

4) In Dr. Duesberg's testimony, he stated that this NIH official handed him a letter declaring that HIV causes AIDS. On this letter were three names: Dr. Duesberg's, and two others - one of whom he refers to as an "old friend."
What were the names of these other signers?

5) Who authorized these NIH officials to make Dr. Duesberg this offer?
Who else, in the government or elsewhere, was aware of this offer?

6) Dr. Duesberg has stated that, had he accepted the offer in full, the letter was to be published in "Nature" magazine. Dr. Duesberg has also mentioned "Nature" editor John Maddox as having been involved. Did John Maddox know about the offer, and the meeting, before they took place? Did Maddox agree to use his magazine as a forum to publish the letter? Which NIH officials were in contact with Maddox regarding this offer? Have you communicated with Maddox regarding this letter? If so, what did you and Maddox say?

7) Who actually wrote the letter? Please provide a copy of the complete letter.

8) What, precisely, was Dr. Duesberg offered in return for signing the letter?

9) Precisely how long did Dr. Duesberg take to think over the offer?

10) What was Dr. Duesberg's final answer to the offer? Did he accept any part of the offer? Did he make any counter-offers?

11) According to testimony we have received, Dr. Duesberg has privately admitted the existence of previous offers made to him by NIH officials in return for changing his position on AIDS. Written documents also suggest the existence of such offers.

a) What were the exact dates and places of those meetings?
b) What were the names of the persons who met with Dr. Duesberg at those times, or who helped arrange those meetings?
c) Was Dr. Duesberg given letters to sign at any of those meetings? If so, please provide copies of each of those documents.
d) Who authorized each of those offers? Who else was aware of those offers?
e) What were the terms of each of those offers (what was Dr. Duesberg asked to do, and what was he promised in return)?
f) How long did Dr. Duesberg take to make a decision on each of those offers?
g) What was Dr. Duesberg's answer to each of those offers?

12) Has the NIH offered Dr. Duesberg any such deals since 1994?

13) Has the NIH ever collaborated with Alfred Regnery (of Regnery Publishing), or any of his authors, agents or associates, on the AIDS issue? If so, what were the circumstances surrounding any such collaboration and what were the names (from both sides) of those involved? Certainly you must agree that the federal government cannot be allowed to censor this AIDS debate, or any other controversy, from public view. As a federal official overseeing much of the spending on AIDS research, you have a special responsibility to disclose all government attempts to suppress opposition. The public has a right to know.

I therefore assume you will provide the above answers in a timely manner.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Joel A. Schwartz

Did Dr. Duesbery answer any of these questions in his book? Did he provide copies of the letter, or names of those involved? If not, why not?

No, Dr. Duesberg did not answer the questions in the book. Nor did he answer the questions in Federal Court. He flat-out refused to divulge the names of the NIH officials who offered him still unknown compensation to recant his views on AIDS. A letter was sent to Dr. Duesberg asking nearly the same questions that were put to the director of NIH. The letter was sent July 1, 1996. Two weeks later, and still no reply. The question is, why would Duesberg help conceal the identities of the very people who have been persecuting him all these years. I hope I'm wrong, but it looks as though he was/is about to recant because, as far as we know, he only made the issue public after he revealed the offer during cross-examination in federal court. However, it should be pointed out that he also refused to divulge the names in court. As it turns out, he had been concealing the bribe offer since Sept 94. And there is more evidence that, beginning in 1987, he has been offered repeated bribes by the NIH to recant his AIDS views . As far as we know, Duesberg has never made any of these bribe offers public until he was forced to admit the existence of one of them in Federal Court. In Duesberg's book, he reveals exactly what he revealed in court six months earlier -- nothing more. It's time he revealed the names of the NIH officials who abused their office to Cover-up the AIDS debate.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/aids.htm

 

cali...@netcom.com 9/1/95

(I think this is of general interest to some on m.h.a...Ellison's recent plea for funds to help him in his fight have been discussed here already

and this provides some additional information, but this time not from Ellison's side of the fence.)

Californ

======================================================================

From: Gregg Roberts

Subject: ELLISON'S BOOK

 

Dear AIDS Rethinkers:

Joel Schwartz' recent press release about the lawsuit against Bryan Ellison's and Peter Duesberg's book "Why We Will NEVER Win the War on AIDS" omits crucial information that you should all be aware of.

I have been on the phone with Peter Duesberg and he has authorized me to present a couple of highlights from his side of the story -- a side notably absent from both the press release and Ellison's 15-page legal fund-raising appeal, mailed out to purchasers of the book. Duesberg attributes the failure of the book to be published by a major publisher until now to Ellison's unnecessarily aggressive and unbending stance against *any* changes an editor wants to make.

Ellison sent a letter to St. Martin's challenging their editor's suggested revisions. The tone of his letter was so accusatory that St. Martin's asked Duesberg if he could not do something to get Ellison to restrain himself. As with the first two publishers that eventually dropped the book (Addison-Wesley and St. Martin's), the offending passages that Regnery has wanted to delete or soften consist of inflammatory statements about establishment AIDS researchers, their motives, and their integrity.

These statements appear in Ellison's Inside Story Communications version, so everyone who wishes to will be able to decide for themselves whether this dispute is about censorship...or something else. Duesberg believes it to be more important to concentrate on the science and get the book out to more people through a major publisher than to delve heavily into personal characterizations and risk a libel lawsuit.

The dispute over who should publish the book and how provocative it should be was originally between the publisher and Ellison, but Duesberg was inevitably forced to choose sides.

After exhausting all peaceful means, Duesberg eventually had attorneys write letters to Ellison, asking him to stop his publishing with Inside Story Communications so that a major publisher would be willing to publish the book.

Later, at the insistence of *Ellison*'s attorneys, Duesberg joined Regnery's lawsuit, which by forcing a delay in the case gives Ellison more time to sell his version of the book. Duesberg continues to work cordially with Regnery to publish the book in a slightly revised form, with the scientific content virtually untouched. The book appears in Regnery's fall catalog. These facts directly contradict Schwartz' statement that Regnery "has given no serious indication that he intends to publish [the book] himself." Duesberg also disputes Ellison's contention, made in the fund-raising letter, that the St. Martin's contract had been cancelled or terminated before being bought by Regnery. "Publishers can't buy a dead contract," Duesberg observes.

I personally believe it worth mentioning that Ellison's fund-raising letter expresses a clear, religion-based anti-gay position:

 

Much of that *35 billion dollars* spent on AIDS has ended up in the hands of militant (and numerous) 'gay rights' organizations who now use your tax dollars to defile your tender school-age children or grandchildren with their perverted 'AIDS education' little children are being taught about anal and oral sex!!! They're being taught that the abominable sin of homosexuality is an 'acceptable alternative lifestyle'.God must surely be *weeping* at this unthinkable violation of our youth.... (p. 10; all emphasis in original)

I truly appreciate the work Ellison has done for the HIV skeptics' cause, and I sympathize with the costs to his career that he has endured, but I see little evidence of a conspiracy to suppress his latest contribution. Rather, I see him painfully reaping the bitter fruit of his own paranoia and resentment, which also tend to poison the atmosphere for constructive debate -- as we have seen all too often on this list.

I repeat the call on Rethinkers to address everyone (including Ellison) with basic human respect, even when we disagree on facts and strategies.

Sincerely,

Gregg Roberts

 

Boruch (Bryan) Ellison grew up in an activist, anti-Communist household and has himself been an activist, writer, and scholar for various right-wing and/or Jewish causes since his days in high school. His unwavering commitment to the struggle against Communism has endlessly generated controversy even in conservative and Jewish circles, inspiring passionate support from some people while infuriating others.

 

He graduated from the University of California, Irvine, with a B.S. in biology. While working on his Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley (and while continuing his writing and involvement in anti-Communist issues), he became involved in research by leading scientists that showed that the AIDS epidemic was not caused by the HIV virus — a conclusion furiously opposed by the politicized AIDS establishment. He wrote a book, Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS, documenting the scientific controversy and exposing the AIDS agenda of the Marxist Public Health movement.

 

Ellison’s book was supposed to have been a first draft of his doctoral thesis, but in a maneuver to force him to abandon his book, he was suddenly pressured to leave the graduate program — despite having already passed his oral exams and being near the completion of his degree after five years of work, and despite having authored three studies published in leading scientific journals (one of those studies being on AIDS). He was formally expelled shortly thereafter and denied both his Ph.D. and, later, even a Master’s degree for his thesis work already performed. Ellison then self-published his own book until a left-wing federal judge banned him from doing so in 1995, using a spurious lawsuit as his thinly veiled excuse while flagrantly ignoring law and legal precedent.

 

Despite being out of business with virtually no remaining resources, Ellison continued his activist struggle while shifting his emphasis to teaching the Seven Laws of Noah to gentiles. He later attended yeshivas (Jewish rabbinical seminaries) in Brooklyn, New York, where he engaged in Hebrew studies while simultaneously pursuing his efforts to teach the Noahide Laws. In recent years he has established the various web sites listed under “About Us” (above), through which he publishes his ongoing writings. He is the founder and head of JAHG-USA.

 

Ellison has lectured on the subject of AIDS research at both national and international scientific conferences, at universities, and to medical and civic groups throughout the nation. He has been interviewed on the topic for television and radio programs, both local and national, reaching a combined audience of millions of Americans, as well as for various newspapers and magazines. He has also written articles for magazines and newsletters, lectured widely, and been interviewed on subjects ranging from intelligence reports on terrorism to the meaning of Biblical texts. Single, he currently lives in southern California.

 

All content and presentation on this site copyright © 2005-8 by Bryan J. Ellison, except where otherwise noted.

[Re: http://www.attacreport.com/aboutus.htm \20150228]

 

?Last one? àSeptember 10, 2006 ATTAC Report This Week

 

A Deadly Anthrax Hoax (Transcript)

 

Listen to the podcast mp3 / 5:00 min. / 1.5 MB

Government officials are steadily making preparations for a bio-warfare terrorist attack. But are those contingency plans protecting us, or are they creating unnecessary dangers?

 

Hello. I’m your host, Boruch Ellison, and this is “ATTAC Report This Week” for September 10th, 2006.

 

Public Health officials have been trying for decades to frighten the public about the possibility of a biological warfare attack. Whether in time of war or as a terrorist attack, according to those health authorities, an enemy could “weaponize” germs and disperse them in crowded cities, launching uncontrolled epidemics of deadly, infectious disease. Federal agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control have never stopped lobbying for emergency powers to deal with the threat.

 

During the 1990s, the Clinton Administration promoted the Public Health agenda by inoculating hundreds of thousands of soldiers with a vaccine against anthrax, the germ most popularly used in bio-warfare research for many years. The program slowed by the late 1990s over safety concerns.

 

The idea of mass anthrax vaccination received a new boost in late 2001, when huge doses of anthrax spores were sent by postal mail to members of Congress and a publisher in Florida, leading to several illnesses and deaths. Since then, the Bush Administration has revived the Clinton Public Health program and has begun the stockpiling of tens of millions of doses of anthrax vaccine while giving a boost to the pharmaceutical industry, which has been producing hundreds of millions of doses of the antibacterial drug Cipro.

 

Yet many scientists caution that anthrax may not be nearly as deadly as Public Health authorities try to make it seem. Although it has long been studied as a possible weapon, anthrax is a disease as old as the human race. It primarily affects cattle, and thus has always been one of the standard nuisances faced by ranchers and meat processors. The spores typically lie dormant in the soil, reactivating periodically to infect cows, sheep, goats, pigs, and horses.

 

Studies have shown hidden anthrax infection in as many as one out of every five workers involved in butchering, leather tanning, and meat processing; that translates into many thousands of infected workers, very few of whom ever develop anthrax symptoms.

 

Even those who become ill are not likely to die. In contrast to alarmist Public Health warnings, legitimate scientific research finds that even under the worst possible conditions, no more than one quarter of those ill with anthrax end up dying of the disease; most patients recover, even without adequate treatment.

 

That’s similar to the picture that emerged in 2001. Of thousands of postal workers and others exposed to anthrax spores, only eleven people ended up becoming ill, of whom only five died. The disease turned up almost entirely in elderly people as old as 94 years, whose immune systems are less able to fight off any disease, not just anthrax.

 

The difficulty of using anthrax as a weapon came to light in the 1990s, when the Aum Shinrikyo terrorist group in Japan dispersed anthrax germs several times in the crowded urban setting of Tokyo — without ever producing even the slightest epidemic. The healthy immune defenses of normal people simply neutralized the disease. That leaves little doubt that a full-blown bio-warfare attack probably wouldn’t have any noticeable effect.

 

But while the anthrax disease itself may not pose any real hazard, the Public Health response might. Mass immunization in the U.S. military produced large-scale illness among soldiers, with nearly two-thirds showing symptoms and a handful of cases becoming seriously ill from the vaccine’s side effects. When taken by pregnant mothers, the vaccine can lead to birth defects.

 

The drug Cipro is even worse. Its adverse reactions show up commonly, and can include such severe symptoms as inflammation and rupture of tendons. Cipro also can attack the central nervous system, producing hallucinations, depression, paranoia, and other brain disorders.

 

The best defense in a bio-warfare attack may be to do nothing at all. The germs will probably affect very few people, but the Public Health measures could be deadly.

 

Thank you for listening. From all of us at ATTAC Report, good-bye.

 

[Feb 28, 2015 http://www.attacreport.com/ar_audio/audio_transcripts/script_06_0910.htm ]
[Feb 23, 2015 http://www.cbgnetwork.de/378.html]

KEYCODE BAYER #83

 

May 22, 2003

 


Date: 2016-01-03; view: 1133


<== previous page | next page ==>
HIV Equals AIDS and Other Myths of the AIDS War | Bayer and others sell AIDS infected products?
doclecture.net - lectures - 2014-2024 year. Copyright infringement or personal data (0.019 sec.)