SAMANTHA W. DEDICATION
Alison "ALI" Gertz
Bubbles FromThe Heart!
PROFORMATIVE! 2 Examples
Proof of SYPHILIS, CAUSE!
SCHEDULE, for COMPLETION
Too Sweet Enterprises
Nuggets Of SCAM & COVERUP
No DBA RegistrationLEADER
SCOOP on Leaderspecialty!
Putting To Rest ALIASES
SCAM! Documents EXPLAINED
Is It a "Trick" or "Treat
The DISSOLVEMENT PROCESS
Bradham's 5 Laws!
Bradham's 1st Law
Bradham's 2nd Law
Bradham's 3rd Law
Bradham's 4th, 5th Laws
"Common Rule Of Law"
The P Sweetie Revolution!
The"Too Sweet" Trademark!
Home Of Book
New York Times 1988-91
AIDS Landscape, 1984
Doctor Of Divinity Degree
Attack on HIV Capability!
Proof Of Syphilis Connect
What Formed AIDS Disease?
Major Questions About HIV
Stating My Case!
Theorized, For Sure!
HIV Infection Rate!
Methodology Of Cure!
What's Lem Bradham About?
Tribute To The Coach!
16 Member Board Advisors
The Journey, Lem Bradham
Prep School/And Parents!
Prophecy Of My Teacher!
Table Of Contents
Too Sweet Enterprises/Bubbles From The Heart
Your Web Site's Slogan
Let's Clear Up HIV, Some More!
Major Questions About HIV And AIDS!
Have to admit: This thing had me puzzled for about 4
months. After reading the newspapers and a few books
I was just as confused as you are. I
asked myself the following questions:
1. If HIV isn't the cause of AIDS, why do the books state
it, as if is a known fact?
2. Why is it that "when people are HIV positive, more than
not they progress to a condition of AIDS?"
3. Why is it that most of the medical researchers the world
over accepted HIV as the cause of AIDS, if there isn't
sufficient proof that it is--- the absolute cause?
4. Why are infected individuals taking an abundant of potent-
ially harmful drugs, if medical administrators aren't sure
that HIV is the cause of AIDS?
We're not going to side-step these questions. We'll be very
direct. In my opinion, most of the confusion lies in the "chain of
command. Whatever, however the big boys (men) say, this is
the way it is, pretty much totally. The problem is that 'no one is
checking on the big boys'. Absolutely no one!"
This is scary! Who checks these guys? They are not suppose to be
"Kings and Queens."
"Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"
If these guys are so sure that HIV is the cause of AIDS,
and have the proof to back it up, then present this sort of
information to the public at large. This is the "check and
balance." You are! The general public.
Post it. Make this sort of proof available. There are many
researchers who would like nothing more than "properly
explaining to the public, what you have as proof."
I am one of them!
The public is the "check and balance."
You guys and girls, women and men, need
to understand your responsibility. Because when the "big
boys (men and women) are wrong, we're the ones who
suffer from it. We're the ones taking harmful, unnecessary
drugs if these guys are incorrect of their analysis of HIV."
My opinion: They are wrong! And they've been this way for
almost 30 years. This is 30 years of unnecessary "drug con-
sumption, which served to injure patients, rather than help-
ing them. This is serious! Not one ounce of sufficient proof has
been given to justify their actions."
Let's go on to another major area referred to as "correlation."
This has to do with infected individuals of HIV moving on to a
condition of AIDS. This has to do with questions No. 1 and 2.
If you were to ask anyone to defend HIV as the cause of AIDS,
the first thing they say is, "Well why do people with HIV move
on to AIDS?" This is certainly their defense. Let me explain
how this is a weak defense. This is correct. It's weak!
Consider the fact that everyone who moves to a classification
of AIDS, is not physically tested for the virus. This is right!
A person can be given this sort of classification because they
have what is called "AIDS-like symptoms." No direct test for
HIV is required. There's cases of AIDS without HIV. You are a-
ware of such situations. Right?
How about when you are given a test for HIV, and no virus is found
and a person ends up with AIDS, anyway? Where's the HIV, when a
physical test cannot find it? The excuse is that a "marker" for HIV
an enzyme called reverse transcriptase is present. So, even though
they cannot physically observe HIV, it has to be there,
Point being: It isn't so automatic. Is it? A lot ot tricks can be
played with this sort of stuff. We aren't trying to say that "the entire
community of the world is playing tricks." What I am saying is that
the system used is not an exact science." In my opinion, not one
single thing is exact about HIV. Not even its mere existence. No
one really knows about HIV. Is it a pure particle or a ghost? No one
really knows. So what are we really testing. Are they attempting to
catch up with a ghost? Or a real cause of a disease? There is noth-
ing definite about HIV. Nothing!
Write this down, and don't forget it:
Syphilis can give a false-positive HIV reading. What then? I have
never heard of HIV giving a false-positive syphilis reading. Have
you? Nothing is exact about HIV. Nothing!
You have been led to believe otherwise. This isn't fair.
It's like propaganda.
The virus is biochemically inactive. We do know this about HIV.
Has never be medically proven to have the ability to kill cells.
Not one cell directly killed by HIV. Where's the proof?
Proven medical documentation which can be repeated
by qualified researchers is all that counts.
What has been proven about HIV is what is called correlation.
Correlation doesn't mean causation. It means that "it is
in rhythm with AIDS disease." A couple on the dance floor
doesn't create the music. They just dance to the tunes.
We think HIV is a dancer. A signal that in some instances,
tells of an immune system under attack. The "smoke"
from the fire. The fire is being caused by syphilis!
We'll have a lot more on this within the book.
Website: A Continuous Work In Progress!