Special Announcement: Because of Sukkos (the Festival of Huts) next week and Shemini Atzeres (the extension of the Sukkos Festival) the following week, the next JAHG-USA Newsletter will be postponed until three weeks from now (on November 1, G-d willing). May you be sealed for a good year on Yom Kippur (Thursday), and have a happy Sukkos!

"Issues of World War III" Survey

Readers reacted to last week's question, "Should HIV-positive people be allowed to refuse treatment?", with a unanimous "yes" to allow patients to reject medical treatments; we received no other answers at all. Here are some relevant comments by our readers:

• "…there are good reasons to worry about the dangers of AIDS treatment, especially since AIDS is not one disease…."
• "Refusal should be allowed for EVERY medical procedure, vaccination, dental fluoridation, flu shot, etc. We should have the right to investigate all of our options before allowing ourselves and our children to be possibly harmed…."

Factual Background:
The first five cases of homosexual men with unusual illnesses were reported in June, 1981, by the Centers for Disease Control, which treated the disease cluster as if it were a single, infectious epidemic (later called "AIDS"). Some scientists at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found evidence that the sicknesses resulted from long-term abuse of nitrite inhalants and other drug combinations unique to homosexual men, but their evidence was pushed aside for political reasons. Other researchers jumped in to try to be the first to discover an "AIDS virus," and soon several different viruses were isolated and blamed as causing AIDS. One of those researchers was Dr. Luc Montagnier, who isolated a virus from one homosexual man (who did not, incidentally, have AIDS diseases). The race ended in 1984 when the well-connected, politically powerful Robert Gallo, an NIH researcher, claimed Montagnier's discovery as his own and bypassed normal scientific procedure to have "his" new virus officially declared the "AIDS virus" by government officials. From that day forward, no scientist could get funded or recognized for any other direction of research into the cause of AIDS, and quickly thousands of career-minded scientists fell into line to back the HIV dogma.

But other voices dissented. Already by 1983, Dr. Joseph Sonnabend of New York was persuasively arguing that AIDS was not infectious at all, based on observation of the AIDS patients he himself was treating; Dr. Harry Haverkos, at the NIH, was meanwhile showing a strong relationship between drug abuse and AIDS illnesses. By 1987, Dr. Peter Duesberg and Dr. Harry Rubin, both veteran virus researchers at the University of California (and both members of the National Academy of Sciences) joined in to argue that the scientific evidence showed HIV could not be the cause of AIDS. By the early 1990s the dissent snowballed, with hundreds of scientists and medical doctors — including researchers at top universities and winners of the Nobel Prize — forcefully arguing against the HIV doctrine of the US government. For a few years, the controversy mushroomed both in scientific journals and in parts of the news media, while panicked government officials moved to silence the debate. Various forms of political and financial pressure were exerted, and one by one most of the dissident scientists became quiet, though generally still disagreeing with the HIV establishment. (Several articles by Boruch Ellison, who himself was involved in the debate, give an overview of the issue and can be viewed on ATTAC Report.)

One of the most controversial findings of the dissenting scientists was that the AIDS treatments themselves — especially AZT, ddI, and ddC — are not only severely toxic, but are likely to cause AIDS, even in healthy HIV-positive people (the vast majority of whom never develop any "AIDS"). This is a fundamental decision point: According to the HIV establishment, AZT and similar drugs are needed to save lives from AIDS, whereas the dissenting scientists insist that those treatments are costing tens of thousands of lives annually by causing AIDS! Increasingly, many healthy, HIV-positive people are refusing AZT treatment because of the dissident scientific warnings. The HIV medical establishment, angered at this growing rebellion, is moving to require involuntary HIV testing and AZT treatment of growing numbers of people, including mothers and their children.

One side of the debate wishes to make HIV testing and treatment mandatory; the other largely advocates banning such treatments altogether. This argument has no middle ground; either the treatment saves lives, or it kills.

Relevant Torah Principles:
1) The Torah clearly teaches that medical doctors, per se, are empowered by G-d to treat sick people. This, however, is contingent on the integrity and competence of the individual doctor, and is obviously limited by the available medical knowledge.

2) The Torah prohibits suicide (as murder), and any corollary acts of self-injury or needless self-endangerment. This means a person (Jewish or gentile) is forbidden from avoiding life-saving medical treatments needlessly — and, conversely, is equally forbidden from taking "treatments" that endanger life or risk injury without good reason.

3) The law is therefore required to force people either to take treatments — or to prevent them from taking "treatments" — which constitute reckless self-endangerment, if the evidence is clear on the subject. If the evidence is not clear and judgments must be made, the government may not itself recklessly endanger people according to politically-motivated decisions.

4) Leaders empowered to make such decisions must, according to Torah, be both deeply G-d-fearing and competent. If two people are eligible for a leadership position, one who is G-d-fearing and the other who is competent, the G-d-fearing person must be selected — and then trained to develop competence in his area of leadership. Under no circumstances must a dishonest or spineless person be allowed to hold powerful positions, for his decisions affect everyone.

Analysis:
If there is one thing both sides of the HIV debate agree on, it is that the evidence on AZT treatment is not ambiguous; one side insists it saves lives, the other that it clearly kills. Thus some decision must be reached and enforced politically. But which one?

On the basis of our own involvement in the issue (Boruch Ellison himself conducted and published scientific research on the subject, in addition to writing general articles), we decisively reject the HIV hypothesis. We can convincingly prove, on the basis of the available scientific evidence, that (a) AIDS is not caused by any virus, and (b) that AZT and all other AIDS treatments are deadly and should be banned entirely.

But some people will feel unable to decide between the two sides, and so this comes down to the larger issue of who should be running the medical establishment. Since the early 20th century, a rigid political agenda based on atheistic, anti-religious philosophies has governed the training and selection of medical doctors and research scientists. The result has been a gigantic, growing medical research bureaucracy that increasingly ignores the scientific evidence in favor of junk science and deadly "treatments" supporting radical political goals. Instead of choosing G-d-fearing scientists, the medical establishment has deliberately weeded such people out and replaced them with opportunists, technocrats, and even Marxist revolutionaries (of which there are actually a surprising number in medical research!).

Rejecting AIDS "treatments" isn't a matter of choice; it's a moral duty. And so is the need for a total, top-to-bottom overhaul of the medical establishment, requiring religious and moral tests before allowing people to become doctors or scientists. Only once this is accomplished (and it will be soon, in the approaching Messianic Redemption) will we be rid of the ulterior motives and subversive agendas that throw truth into a state of confusion.

And now for this week's survey question:

Only one answer per e-mail address will be accepted; only e-mail addresses on our subscription list are eligible. Please send your input by Tuesday, November 1, 2005, 12pm PST (three weeks from now).

This week's example:
Rabbi Avrohom Levitansky, Bais Chabad of Simcha Monica, S. Monica, CA

Rabbi Levitansky received our Proclamation (declaring the Torah duty for everyone to help defund the PLO) on March 24th at 2:06pm, but ignored the urgent request for his endorsement. We tried again by e-mail on June 26th, but he remains silent.

More than running just one Chabad House in this Los Angeles suburb, Rabbi Levitansky is also regarded by many in California as a Rav (head of a Jewish court) with authority to make decisions of Jewish Law. As such, he sets a terrible example and is responsible for leading countless people away from their duty to help defund the PLO and save lives from the approaching terrorist war. Shame on Rabbi Levitansky! He is not excused by the fact that he serves under Rabbi Boruch S. Cunin, head Chabad representative for California — even though Cunin is notorious for opposing the PLO defunding campaign (and the Rebbe's Noahide campaign, as detailed at www.noahide.com/cunin.htm) — since the Torah demands that Levitansky show some spine and stand up to Cunin's wicked influence.

As time goes by, more and more people (both Jewish and Arab) are dying from PLO terrorism — and their blood is on Levitansky's hands (as the Torah itself states). If he does not turn around soon and do teshuvah (repentance), he will one day have to answer to his Maker. We would not want to be in his shoes at that time.

This week's example:
Rabbi Raphael Jaworowski, Yeshiva Chanoch Lenaar, Brooklyn, NY

Rabbi Jaworowski, in contrast, was presented our Proclamation on June 1st by a JAHG-USA volunteer, and he signed without hesitation. As a teacher for a yeshiva that serves troubled Lubavitch youth, Rabbi Jaworowski is in a position to excercise positive influence on many people. And certainly his endorsement is helping turn other people in the right direction.

What do you think about Jewish leadership on PLO defunding? Send us your comments at newsletter@noahide.com.

For a complete listing of all rabbis who have received our proclamation, the up-to-date status of their responses, and how you can get help the campaign, visit ATTAC Report at http://www.attacreport.com/plo/.

This week's edition of our sister site, ATTAC Report, presents:

• A profile of why Afghanistan survived so long before suddenly falling to Communist revolution
• The first installment in our new, nation-by-nation analysis of why some countries receive more Divine protection than others
• A dozen concentration camps in Tajikistan today, including at least 5 death camps

• (In response to our "al Qaeda" critique, where we stated that two PLO-affiliated groups took credit for the 9/11 attacks):
"WRONG. All of it.… Wrong: No one has ever boasted about this. Either openly or discreetly, no one has taken responsibility for this. This is the work of your government!!…" — "JO".

Our response: Actually, it is a matter of public record that on the morning of September 11, 2001, while the attacks were in progress, representatives of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) and the Islamic Jihad called up Arab news media to take credit for the attacks. They presumably used the standard operating procedure, in which they provide special code words to the journalists to prove their identities, and that would be why the Arab media publicized this claim as credible. To back up the claim, the PLO organized public celebrations in the Gaza Strip and West Bank areas of Israel, openly dancing and rejoicing at their 9/11 victory over the US.

A little while later, when the World Trade Center buildings collapsed completely (something the terrorists apparently hadn't planned on), spokesmen for the DFLP and Islamic Jihad called back to withdraw credit! They now realized that the attack had been overly successful, and would probably invite an angry American backlash rather than a timid retreat from supporting Israel. Within hours, the PLO also suddenly stopped the street celebrations of the attacks, and by the next day Arafat was disingenuously offering to donate blood for the victims! Obviously, the PLO had become frightened.

Both calls — taking credit, and then withdrawing it about an hour later — were announced throughout the day of September 11th, in both the Arab and American news media; these announcements can still be looked up today. But by the next day, none of the news media were any longer mentioning those two groups, presumably under pressure from the Bush Administration, which, as we previously explained, staunchly supports the PLO.

The DFLP is a member group of the PLO umbrella organization; it has an openly Marxist, anti-religious ideology and is led by Nayaf Hawatmeh, an Arab Christian-turned-Communist. Islamic Jihad is a close ally of the PLO, backed by the Communist governments of Egypt, Syria, and Iran — and by their Soviet Russian overlords. Both groups are notorious for suicide attacks, including against American targets, and often work together under Soviet direction. Their original message to Americans was 'stop supporting Israel or there will be more!' But when faced with massive retaliation, they kept their heads low and counted on President Bush leading Americans on a merry chase off to Afghanistan, looking in remote caves for people with no ability to pull off the 9/11 attacks.

And overt leftists have helped cover for Bush, concocting stories that blame everyone but the PLO for the attacks — even Bush himself, or the Israelis! The propagators of such stories have no evidence, but they have plenty of documentable ties to Communist organizations and revolutionaries. The fact that the Communists and their allies have largely succeeded at diverting backlash away from the PLO means they will feel emboldened to try again. In their calculus, Americans will eventually become timid rabbits and start surrendering rather than fighting back.

But if we act now to defund the PLO, they'll never have the chance.

Send your letter to the editor to newsletter@noahide.com.

Be sure to visit our Web site, Noahide.com.