In this discussion, we will discuss the discussion question of explain the journal entry for issuing bonds at a premium and the journal entries for interest and amortization. Support accounting instruction by clicking the link below giving you a free mug membership to all of the content on our website broken out by category further broken out by course each course then organized in a logical reasonable fashion making it much more easy to find what you need than can be done on a YouTube page. We also include added resources such as Excel practice problems PDF files and more like QuickBooks backup files when applicable. So once again, click the link below for a free month membership to our website and all the content on it. If we see an essay question or discussion question like this and we don't know where to start we could start with just thinking about bonds what are bonds can we define bonds and hopefully that'll get us going so that we can expand from there. So when we think about bonds we are the ones issuing the bonds and that means that we're issuing them and we're going to get money. So we're issuing the bonds we're going to receive money for it. The bond itself is just going to be a promise to repay and give the rent on the money that we're receiving the interest payments. So the bonds can be a promise to pay back some principal amount and interest at the end of the bond or some stated amount on the bond the face amount on the bond plus any interest on the bond. So that's where we start and then we can think about I would think about the journal entry. So it's asking us for the journal entry here so we can just start to construct it and we can think well what we're trying to do when we have the bond is get cash. So if that's the case when we issue the bond we're going to debit cash that's going to be very sloppy journal entry over here but we're going to debit cash for some amount and then we're going to have the bond payable that we're going to pay back which is a liability. And those two things are pretty straightforward typically the bonds you can always think of it as like a thousand often they're issued in terms of thousands. And then the question is you know what is a premium or a discount in this case we're talking about a premium. What does that mean? I always think about it from the sense of if I'm the purchaser when I think about these discounts or premiums. So in other words if we have this bond here and we have it's a thousand dollar bond that's kind of like the sticker price on the bond and if it was a 10% interest rate bond then that's going to be the interest rate. Now if I paid anything less than 1000 I would call that a discount we bought it for less than the sticker price less than what's on the bond. If we paid anything more than the 100,000 we'd call it a premium in this case we're paying more. So we're going to say we paid something more like 1100 and that's what results in the premium. So here's kind of like the journal entry we would have if we would have purchased something. Now notice how useful it is just to make up numbers. These numbers are totally made up but it's useful to write down the journal entry and if you have an essay question possibly make up some numbers and write down the journal entry because then it's just a matter of describing the journal entry. So if we're going to issue the bond when we issue the bond we're going to debit cash because we issued the bond we're going to put the bond on books for whatever the face amount of bond is and then if it's issued at a premium we got more cash than is on the face amount of the bond and we would then have to credit the premium and that credit do we know if we need a debit or credit that's usually a confusing component because to know if it's going to be a debit or credit versus a bond premium versus a discount. Then we can get into well why would that happen so why would it be that someone would pay in this case someone's paying us more than the face amount of the bond and so this is always going to be the question with any kind of bond issuance and we just got to understand this to some degree and that's going to be the fact well it has to do with the interest rates this interest rate can't change and the amount can't change as it would if it was a note we would change basically if like a loan we would change the interest rate that's what we would haggle over but we can't change the interest rate here it's fixed so whatever interest rates on the market rate we have the market rate then it's going to determine whether it's going to be a premium or and or a discount why would that be well if if the market rate over here was 12% then what would happen is this if I'm this person I'm thinking of loaning money to the business giving a thousand dollars over here why would we do that because we want to get rent on our money we want to get a return and if we can give our money somewhere else and get 12% on a return then we're not going to give our money to to the business unless the business says well I'll give you this thousand dollar bond I'll give you a thousand dollars at the end plus 10% interest I know that's below the market rate therefore I'll accept something less so that would be a discount a premium on the other hand would be if the market rate was only 5% and this person could only go somewhere else and get 5% on the 1000 then they're going here they're going to say yeah I want to buy this bond for a thousand dollars and we're going to say no because we know that we're issuing 10% that's what's on the bond and we know you can only get 5% elsewhere so that means that we're going to have to issue it for something more so that means we want something more in this case we're saying 110 now what is that more how would you know what that more is it would be you'd have to present value the future cash flow payments to figure it out in other words the stream of payments that we're going to have here is going to be one the 1000 at the end and then we could say that there's going to be some series of payments which are going to be 10% of the 1000 some periodic payments semi monthly or semi yearly or yearly payments if we present value those those payments at the market rate then that's going to give us the present value and that's what will differ that's what will determine that difference but we don't need to do that calculation most likely in an essay question like this but we could explain that what would happen then of course now we have this credit on the books for a premium of a hundred dollars and we're going to have to deal with that throughout the time periods so throughout the time periods what's going to happen is we're going to pay interest and that interest you can think of it as pretty straightforward we're just going to pay whatever the face amount is times the interest and then we'll adjust it for whatever time period we're dealing with it's semi month semi yearly or over yearly or whatnot we'll enter that journal tree which will be a debit to interest expense and a credit to cash that's the actual cash will pay but we're also going to have to deal with this premium that we're going to have to amortize over the life of this bond so there's a couple different ways we can do that we could think about it in a separate journal entry and think about it that way and we would say well what's going to happen with the bond premium we're we could the easy way to do it is to just amortize it over the same life of the bond 15-year bond with semi annual payments over 30 years we'll amortize this and we could just take the straight line method which would just take that 100 divided by the 30 and that would mean that we're going to allocate that portion whatever we get over the life to interest expense so the journal entry there since this is a credit when it goes on the book we'd have to do the opposite we'd have to debit the premium and then we would credit interest expense which is a little bit unusual because then we would credit interest expense here which would make interest expense go down but note what really happening is we're netting it out against the payment that we're making we're making the payment at whatever the rate is on the bond and and we're netting out the premium why does that make sense because the premium is really a result of the difference between these two rates now that would be the simple method of amortizing we could use that the effective method would be the preferred method to figure out what the amount that we should be recording each time period the amortization of this premium and that would be using more of a fixed method it'd be similar to us using using an amortization table when we figure out the amount of loan payments to be allocated between interest and expense and the effective method is more precise because it's going to be better lined up to the matching principle so it should be more precise now if the difference between the effective method and the straight line method is not material it's very small doesn't affect decision-making then we can decide which one we want to use but the preferred method is the effective method but in essence the two journal entries we're gonna have then you're gonna sum this up this will be the journal entry to put the bond on the books and then we were gonna have a journal entry that we could do in two journal entries or oftentimes it's combined into one which will do basically two things it's gonna record the interest expense that we pay plus the amortization of this premium and that's gonna that's gonna include a debit to interest expense it's gonna include a debit to the premium for whatever amortization method we're gonna use each period and then we're gonna credit the cash that we're gonna pay and that's gonna be repeated for however many times that we have the loan payments for by the end of the loan will be left with just the bond payable because the premium will go away and then we'll finally pay off the bond payable and we'll do that by crediting cash and debiting the bond payable account


I was highly surprised to receive an invitation from my colleague Hans Hermann Hoppel, a couple of months ago, well almost half a year ago but now, to talk about the question or discuss the question whether AIDS is indeed a viral epidemic. It was surprising to me because in the US and in other politically correct mainstream countries, this is almost a verboten topic by now. You can't ask that question anymore. It's only in rare cases. Now I understand a little better, since I have heard him now for the first time speaking, but he would be one of those free thinkers who would still ask this question. And there is plenty of reason as you will see to ask that question whether AIDS is a viral or the chemical epidemic. Let me remind you briefly what the definition of AIDS is. In case you had forgotten, I mean you're supposed to read it every day in the newspaper. But since the 1980s, the US Centers for Disease Control, CDC as it is called, it's the Public Health Office of the United States, reported that the consumption of psychoactive party drugs in other words and the incidence of about two dozen old diseases, previously known diseases, had achieved epidemic proportions in the US, particularly in male homosexuals and in intravenous drug users, addicts to intra-heart intravenous drugs. Shortly after that, in 1981, the CDC named this epidemic AIDS for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome because it assumed that all these diseases were consequences of a common as yet to be determined cause. Syntrum means different manifestation of the same cause. The CDC definition, however, came right away with some flaws. The question we are asking right now is, can immunodeficiency really explain all AIDS diseases? I already mentioned some of them, caposi, sarcoma, pneumonia, I'll show you the full table in a minute. And what is the cause of this immunodeficiency? That was not a test. And what explains AIDS diseases that are not caused by immunodeficiency such as cancer, dementia, and weight loss? The caposi, sarcoma, in fact, was the signature AIDS disease, the critical one that changed the doctor's mind in the US at least and thus in the world because in that sector, the US is still, over all this. The doctors are very conservative, but caposi, sarcoma, was so rare, and is so rare in the US, 50 cases per year the most that most of them had not even heard about it ever before. And this now came up thousands of times in these risk groups, made them available or open to a new idea or new hypothesis or new theory for AIDS that something new is happening that wasn't there before. Here are those, here are 14 of those diseases, there are more, but the list changes with the addition of it. This is the last time the CDC published how they are called and how frequently they are observed in the, you have a point, maybe not, they occur in the US. And here you see those percentages, 38% of the cases have pneumocystis pneumonia and 5% have herpes and 4% toxoblasmosis and 15% tuberculosis and tuberculosis like diseases. But so these are all consistent with the idea that we have an underlying immunodeficiency because these are all microbes, fungus, bacteria, viruses, herpes, they all benefit from a defective immune system. But these among them, as I said, at that time, at least initially the signal disease, caposi, sarcoma, has nothing to do with immunodeficiency. Cancer is independent of the immune system. It is something, a mutational event, which I'll explain tomorrow morning. It doesn't give me any breaks here. But it has nothing to do with the immune system and it's not caused by a micro. And so is lymphoma and cervical cancer which they added to get it sexually balanced because there was only boys. Dementia likewise is not a consequence of a defective or good immune system.  And weight loss likewise is not a consequence of the immunodeficiency. You can gain weight and be immunodeficient on the other way along. So the solution came with the saviour Robert Gallo on April 23, 1984. He and Margaret Heckler, Ronald Reagan's secretary of health and human services called an international press conference in Washington and said the cause of AIDS had been found. Don't worry, in two years they said we come with a vaccine. It is a retrovirus, the type that Dr. Gallo and many of us at the time were studying, including me. I'm not studying HIV, but retrovirus. They were hardly popular because they were named as the most likely candidate for a cancer virus. In Reagan's war or Nixon's war on cancer, plenty of money was given for the search of cancer viruses. So this was announced unusually for scientific discovery. It's more like a political or religious event without any documentation or peer review. There were no papers available at the time for the scientific world to inspect and see what the evidence was. And on the same day, that's also not mentioned, was not mentioned generally, the NIH and Gallo also walked over to the patent offices and patented their work, non-published work, as an HIV test. But the test was somewhat odd.  In fact, the story is, the scandal is that he probably got it from Montrengier in France because he couldn't find it. So what he did, he made a virtue out of necessity. He said we test antibodies instead of the virus. And that he patented and now blood could be tested. Homo heterosexuals, everybody could be tested, is a positive or negative. But the fundamental inconsistency here, when you look for an antibody against the virus instead of the virus, it's like you lose, you look at a policeman instead of a robber or criminal. The antibody is typically a sign and has been so for 200 years, ever since Edward Jenner invented vaccination in 1793, has been considered as the only and the most effective way of defending against Genslauss. It is in other words called vaccination. And here we use vaccination against this virus as an indication of a disease to come or identify somebody who should be in prison like this girl two weeks ago in Germany and many others in the world who had sex with somebody because had antibody against the virus. For all other viruses, all, no exception. The presence of antibody signals to every doctor, immunologist, scientist, and layman even that's protection against the disease. That's not going to happen again or very unlikely because the antibody makes it impossible. With HIV, it's the other way around simply because it was said by the government, when the government scientist that in this case it means otherwise. The disease is yet to come. Overnight, this is one of the consequences of the press release of the International Press Conference, the New York Times, and all other obsequious media I should say, including the Spiegel, the cause of independent Spiegel, all fell for the virus hypothesis, they said. All scientists said, nobody said a word. It was a unanimous agreement that we finally had the cause of AIDS and now we know what to do, make a vaccine and soon it's over and we move on to the next problem. It was also immediately adopted by the gay interest organizations of which there are many. In fact, some people calculate there are more AIDS organizations in the U.S. than AIDS patients. There are only 20,000, 30,000 AIDS patients, but certainly more organizations, definitely there. They're jogging, they're collecting money, they're running from door to door, they beat up heterosexuals or homosexuals, whatever it is, they take serious or particularly they are now after the denialists. That's the language used for scientists who have other theories. They deny, it's like religious language all around. And then it was, of course, adopted immediately by thousands of frustrated virus researchers, to which I belonged, although I wasn't all that frustrated about it, but many were more than I was, who had failed to find cancer viruses in Nixon's war on cancer. They were well in doubt, but we couldn't find a cancer virus. I was skeptical about this one pretty soon, so they said, okay, we are so well-trained as virologists, we know so much, we can't get cancer, we have to get a disease to make us clinically relevant. Otherwise, we'll never end up in the textbooks, we'll be somewhere in the archives, so virology will be soon forgotten. So it was clearly important to find a clinically relevant disease, and AIDS came in time, and Gallo has all sent us out for politically overturned or correct solutions. And he presented it right as it was asked for. But there were already to begin with some of the scientific problems that showed up immediately. As a result of this hypothesis now, two dozen old diseases, most of which you have seen on that table a minute ago, such as tuberculosis, dementia, caposi, weight loss, cervical cancer, are now attributed to HIV, and are even treated for HIV if antibody against HIV is present in the patient. So if the patient is antibody positive and has tuberculosis, then it's an AIDS patient. Doctors are eager to see him, to treat him. Money is around for this. They will be published in Nature and in Science. An old-fashioned tuberculosis patient rotting away while Robert Koch will be nobody's interest. He won't even appear maybe in an obituary, but nowhere else. No doctor will get a married increase on that one, but this right away. So it's called AIDS. It's called an AIDS patient now when he or she has tuberculosis and antibody against HIV, and tuberculosis patient otherwise. This one gets antibiotics. This one gets DNA chain terminators. I tell you in a minute what these are. Dementia likewise in the presence of antibody. It's a popular fashionable disease. It's AIDS. In the absence is simply unintelligence or whatever you want to call it. At the same time also, a multi-billion dollar vaccine program was launched as a consequence of the theory for which we still have no vaccine, as you will see. Now, 2009, 25 years later after this traumatic event. Oh, thanks very much. Very good. Of this press conference, and billions of dollars spent, 10 billion roughly per year in the last 5 or 10 years, which was a lot of money until last year. Now everybody spends 100 million. So now it's pennies, but it was a lot of money then. It was very impressive. It's more than was spent for all viruses history combined, for which we all have vaccines and solutions. Here we don't. So there is still not even an explanation for how HIV would cause AIDS. And the reasons are already obvious at the time. HIV cannot be sufficient for AIDS because millions of HIV antibody positives are healthy, including a million Americans. That was published in Science in 1981, in 1985, and it's now the same number. It's completely steady. HIV is an in-bred, an inherent virus that probably came with the immigrants 200 years ago, although it's said to be brand new. And even the World Health Organization has recently kept a relatively stable number. They used to, up from every year, 5 or 10 million, but now they have been criticized for this. Now they're stable at around 40 million. And most of these are healthy too. HIV is also not even necessary for the over two dozen AIDS-defining diseases because all of these diseases have been around and appear in the absence of HIV. So we have a very difficult match here. A virus that is supposed to be the sole cause of AIDS, according to Gallo at the Nobel Prize now for Montagnier, is neither sufficient to do anything to millions of people and it's not necessary when these diseases appear in the majority, people who are still HIV-free. There's further disappointment, 25 years after the announcement of the great discovery. As we said, already hinted at, we probably know, we have no vaccines. Remember Edward Jenner, I mentioned him before, 200 years ago, with 60 pounds, he invented the concept of vaccination and came up with the first vaccine against pox virus, Vaka, stands for cow. He observed that the milkmaids there in near London didn't get the pox epidemic, didn't get any of the dos, maybe there's something in the cows. They have a similar disease. He scraped it off and ejected it. They said in his son and he never got there. And as a result, the vaccine concept was invented and the working vaccine was available in a couple of months. Now we have the most affluent, most sophisticated, most expensive scientific establishment, thousands of them working around the globe that the planet has ever seen. 25 years later, they have yet to match Jenner's success from 1793, not 1973, 1793. The equipment was far less advanced. We have no curative medications. I'll show you in a second that everybody agrees with that. The treatment that is prescribed is inevitably toxic chemotherapy that was developed for cancer treatment and the NIH funds no research on AIDS other than linking HIV and AIDS. I have applied nine times for a grant on checking on drugs, you'll see in a minute, and they were all turned down. Research failures, in fact, are used quite skillfully for fundraising by the best propaganda apparatus that we ever had. This is a poster that a student of mine then took in part, is Bay Area Rapid Transit, it's a subway, Uber and S-Bahn combination. And that's the poster, that's how they advertise. They make money out of their failures. That's AMFAR, the largest private foundation on American foundation for AIDS research, collecting money and say, look at this, we have 40 million HIV, 40 million HIV positive and we have cured zero. We need more money. They only had 10 million, but that's the old idea. The more money, the better the solution. But sometimes it just doesn't work when you don't need where to go.  Well, at least at university, if I had a student who had spent now 25 years, 4 to 5 billion, up to 10 billion a year on a hypothesis and had not one result, no vaccine, no explanation, nothing, I would tell my friend, it's time to come up with a new theory. That's what science is all about. It's not a religion, it's science. When it doesn't work with one theory, then we need another. So the scientists are supposed to apply the scientific method when a theory fails, questioning it and come up with an alternative. Following our friend Einstein's one of his many proverbs, the important thing is not to stop questioning. And that is very, very unpopular now when it comes to AIDS and quite a few other things in science, more and more of them, in the age of political correctness that was addressed so well here already at this conference. So this is what a free scientist, before the political correctness days, would have asked, even possibly at the NIH, is AIDS indeed caused by a virus? What's the evidence for that? And if not, what does HIV do, if you believe in the virus, the HIV virus? And then the next important question, what could be an alternative explanation? Could chemicals be a cause of AIDS? Or can antiviral treatments, which are exceedingly toxic, the most toxic tox that medicine has ever prescribed, chemotherapy for cancer, is legitimate if you have an enemy like cancer at your throat or at your chest or everything. But if you have a hypothetical virus, it's another question. And why that's always cited when something doesn't work in America? Or in Europe, then they say, well, look at Africa. Africa is always offering some solution. It has these nice jungles and the black trice that nobody knows and who don't have freezers and libraries so everything can happen there. So now here, the six predictions that the virus theory would make, and this is simply scientific standards that I have practiced for 25 years. I was a red probioticist only for 20, 25 years. So virus is the first thing that even kids know. Oh, little one. Primary school, they're all actually always asking, do I have an infectious disease? Can I stay at home, play with the computer? And she said, no, it's probably not. It's somebody else in school who will have, hopefully, a swine flu or something so we can play. So they know that an infectious disease, a viral disease, is contagious. When you have it, you come in contact with somebody else. The risk is high that he or she will get it. The virus would kill if it were AIDS virus. Immune cells as fast as it replicates. Virus is killed by infecting cells and replicating in them or change them to cancer cells in some rare cases or too much type of cells. But they can only do that when they do something, too. Not when they are dormant or not wrong. Since the HIV virus, that started over and over, not pointed out at all, replicates in 24 hours, 24 hours. Like every other virus, retrovirus particularly, Rauza, coma virus, mouse leukemia virus, monkey leukemia. The disease should, if it could, cause AIDS, should appear within days or weeks. And prior to antiviral immunity. That's when the show is over for viruses. The immune system comes in, the virus goes. It blocks the virus from infecting new cells and the disease is over. In a very rare cases, the immune system comes too late and then too bad, you'll be dead or sick. But that happens very rarely, otherwise we wouldn't be talking here. AIDS would be a virus-specific disease. Not 24 old diseases. That's, as I said, totally unprecedented.  They have two or three genes compared to the 50 or 100,000 that we have and much less DNA. So they cannot do a whole lot, but they can do one thing typically. Polyu causes polyomeritis. Hepatitis virus causes liver disease and not polio. And yellow fever causes the disease rather than measles. So an AIDS would be also self-limiting, as I just said, by inducing antiviral immunity. Individually, that is, your own disease will be terminated by immunity and also population-wise. When there's a flu epidemic, it goes up and down. I'll show you an example in one minute. And then the survivors are resistant and the virus has to move on and hide somewhere until it comes back when they have lost their immunity. And of course, much very important, no viruses are sex-specific or homosex-specific or heterosex-specific. They're all random. They take what they can get. They're not that picky. They take anybody they can get as long as they can get. That is their business. So, but now look at the evidence for contagiousness of AIDS. The most fundamental prediction of the virus hypothesis. You can use your laptops right while I'm talking and check whether it's true what I'm saying or not. Not one doctor or nurse has ever contracted AIDS. I'm not saying HIV. HIV, I suspect, is a harmless little retrovirus from over 1 million and now 30,000 AIDS patients in America. But 1,000 of them contract annually hepatitis B virus by accidents. There are 5 million doctors, so 1,000 is still a small number and a lot of them are junkies and so on who have hepatitis and others have hepatitis. But AIDS, in 25 years, 1 million opportunities for this virus to move from the patient to the doctor who has in fact more intimate contacts with the patient often by transfusions and needle sticks and cutting and surgery than even sex. Sex has barriers built into it but when you have a transfusion or stick yourself with a needle then you got everything that you could possibly get. It didn't happen once in the peer-reviewed literature that an eager American doctor would send a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine. Look what I did. I worked for 10 years in San Francisco General and have treated all these AIDS patients. Now I have Kaposi Sakoma. My planned wife is crying and the kids have to get out of the private school and part with school and the Porsche has to be sold because in a year I'll be dead. That story would be wonderful. The newspapers Nature Science would run for it. They would beg you for it because it would be proof that AIDS is infectious. It has not appeared to my knowledge in any of these journals. Nowhere. Probably because it didn't happen. Not one of the thousands of HIV researchers, many of them, my former friends, they're all now kind of cool with me but I see them working. Gallo in the lab, I was there, stirring in an earlmire. Millions of viruses produced in an earlmire. Much more than you ever get in a patient there's no immune system in the earlmire. Not one of these heroes, as they were described in the New York Times in the front lines, trenches against the deadly virus, has ever died. Not one. Not one of thousands of AIDS researchers and we don't have a vaccine to protect them. Or you could say we have polio vaccine that's why they don't get polio. We have no AIDS vaccine. They work without an artist dancing without a net. None of them get AIDS. The rise of HIV positive hemophilias, not one of them has contracted AIDS from a hemophilia or transfused with HIV once. It's actually this. There's no heterosexual AIDS epidemic in the US and Europe. They were predicting they would all get infected. Country would be decimated. Our young heterosexuals are dying. None of this happened. And four and a half million babies are produced in the US every year without condoms and without safe sex. Obviously, otherwise it wouldn't work. There's no AIDS epidemic in prostitutes. They were also out of prostitutes. In all these porn movies, they're dying like the flies. Finally, our country will be puritan again. Nothing happened. They do everything.  Not one of them has been.  None of them comes home with AIDS. The bill siding is waiting for them. Nobody has anything to say. There's no pediatric. AIDS epidemic in Africa, where millions are said to be 30% of the population for 20 years are said to be HIV positive. The kids of all these HIV positive mothers, 30% that includes certainly some mothers, would be dying from AIDS. None of this. So AIDS cannot be infectious. That's based on conventional standards. Here's how... It's a model of a... that meets the predicted standards that I mentioned, is the flu, the measles virus. It's an old textbook on... on how virus diseases proceed. There are short incubation periods. You get infected today in your school. And within a few days, the few cells that get infected produce viruses at multiplication rates of 100, 2,000 and an incubation periods or replication periods of 8 to 6 hours. So within a couple of days, you have millions and billions of viruses out of the one you caught from your friend. The titer goes up and the disease develops and the immune system kicks in and within two weeks, typically, the show is over. You're now immune. You have some shingles, some... some... some blisters and you heal and the disease is over. This is true for flu. Sarcoma virus and herpes and yellow fever, any virus that you can think functions that way. And importantly, that was my basis, of course, of my strengths in questioning this, having worked with retrovirus, it's exactly the same with retrovirus. There are no exceptions.  It gets a little tumor, two weeks later, tumor disappears and it makes antibody against the virus. And it ruins the veins if you have an antigenic cancer. If it's made of your own genes, which is almost always the case, too bad, the immune system cannot help. So here's the old classical flu epidemic that has been advertised by the CDC in vain now for the last four or five years. First, there's a bird epidemic. Few birds have died, I heard, but nobody else. For three years, they hyped it up. Now they're hyping up swine flu. Very well. But here, that was a real flu epidemic that was in the immunodeficient population worldwide after World War I, and 20 million people died. And this is from Google. This is the original data from them. Here's New York. Here's London. And here's Paris. And here's Berlin. They were all about exactly the same time. This is down here, you see, this is months. It would be days. In a population, it has to go up and down, so it's millions of people. So it started off in November, in October, and in November, end of December, it was practically over. That's how AIDS should have looked if it had been as the New York Times and Gallo described it in 84. But it doesn't happen. Now, the prediction that the virus is pathogenic after a short time is not met by AIDS as an HIV. It only causes it because they have now millions of HIV positive through a healthy. So they had to invent something to connect disease with the virus. And they invented what's called a long-lakin period. They said, this is a slow virus that affects you today and causes the disease only 5 or 10 years later. What it does in those 5 or 10 years is 25 years with billions of dollars not being figured out. But they insist in this idea that it's a slow virus. But when you look at the replication of HIV, which the orthotoxy has published, it is exactly as fast as every other retrovirus within a few weeks after infection, accidental infections, it raises antibodies, you're 100% in antibody against HIV. And the virus is no longer detectable. There's a trouble with finding it while they use the antibody test. That's what's left, the virus is gone. But they don't want to say that. So they use polymerase chain reaction, some focus and say it's indirect and it's hidden and whatever. And now 5 to 10 years later the virus is now essentially in prison for 10 years already. Has been unable to do anything. Now it knocks out the infected person. Causes disease that's what they say. When you look at the dying AIDS patient there's still no virus, only antibody. I mean there's a tiny, tiny, tiny bit 1 in 100,000 cells at most is infected. At most free virus is not to be seen. But since it comes from the US and comes from, it's like when it came from Rome 100 years ago. It is not a big question. The prediction of a viral epidemic that is self-limiting failed. This shows although it does look a bit like a bell shaped curve you have to look at the abscissa to see what they show. This is the Centers for Disease Control publishing the AIDS epidemics in Australia and Canada, United States, Spain, Italy. They all go up slowly and then come down somewhat and now they're stabilizing around somewhere at this point. They're now about at the same level here. So this is not a self-limiting epidemic. There is an epidemic that lasts over a long time which is typical for diseases like lung cancer from smoking to give you a hint. Here a viral epidemic should actually also correlate or coincide with the distribution of the virus in the population. And here's the distribution of an embarrassment to the AIDS establishment. They never show it actually. They don't like to show these pictures to you. They published in 85 that 1 million Americans were HIV positive. And they published just now in 2007 in the latest edition of HIV AIDS surveillance from the CDC. It's still a million Americans HIV positive. That virus has been a steady point. It was roughly a force of a parent or sort of a percent of the population since it can be detected. No gain and no loss. It's extremely steady. That is the hallmark of a long established virus. Herpes virus is 30 or 40 percent. Papilloma virus 60 or 70 percent. Completely steady, stable, typically relatively harmless passenger virus. They're there for a new virus does this exactly as the flu thing goes down or we go down. That's the other possibility. We would go down with it. But the virus didn't go up and we didn't go down so far at least. Didn't see. So the prediction virus would be random is also flawed since the beginning of American AIDS even now with all the manipulations they try to get any women in for anything they can possibly do 80 percent are still male and 20 percent were females. This is not random enough. Even among those males it is very picky this virus if it is a virus and the assertive on very non-random IV drug uses although drug use is common in America now but certainly not that common that it would be assertive of the it would pick only IV drug uses and two thirds are male homosexuals but again only those who use psychoactive aphrodisiac drugs over many years and actually flaunt that they have thousands of sexual contents. It's like in the Olympics they break the old records in the bedrooms with chemicals like they break them now in the Olympics with chemicals as well. Yeah. This is the total of the U.S. AIDS population or AIDS Yeah they would be separate. They say they list these as IV drug uses they have also overlap between them but roughly one third in the U.S. are IV drug users and two thirds are said to be male homosexuals and there are so 5-10 percent left for hemophilia and things like that and then there is of course a normal incidence of these 20 diseases they haven't disappeared they have all been there before except at a very low rate normally they pay attention to it. So it's highly non-random which is totally uncommon for the virus as I said. So the conclusion then is AIDS cannot be a viral epidemic it is not contagious it is highly non-random it's group specific in U.S. and Europe Africa is of course the exception there we can talk about this a little later it is not self-limiting by antiviral immunity which all microbial infections are if they weren't again I would say we would not be sitting here the microbe that could not be limited a pathogenic microbe by immunity would wipe us out and itself out it's a fatal combination that has never happened and is independent AIDS is independent of HIV because it occurs if at all only 5-10 years after the infection when the virus is essentially long neutralized so what's left for the virus could it be a passenger virus? Hardly anybody ever talks about them it's the vast majority of all viruses they do as we say in Oakland know nothing or hardly anything very little they are around for the ride like a passenger on an airplane but they don't determine when you start where you land and what happens in between so many viruses are that by either my gallo virus and particularly the retro viruses all the retro viruses we have with very few exception and have these oncogenes do actually nothing they are harmless passenger viruses so a passenger virus is then defined by a virus that doesn't cause a disease a given disease occurs with or without it without making any particular difference you can get Kaposi's sarcoma with HIV it does happen right now so HIV meets the passenger exactly even in molecular biological detail only antibodies around only one in 500 to 1000 T cells is ever infected that was determined with these most sensitive methods called polymerase chain reaction that detects a needle in a haystack now we couldn't even see it until Kerry Mullis had invented that method got Nobel Prize for it but he didn't help them either because you can't die from losing one in 500,000 T cells even if they were all killed by the virus it's less than cutting yourself while you're shaving every day you could survive that for a very long time expression of RNA is non-correlated it's minimal anyway but with a polymerase chain reaction you find a little bit sometimes but it could be high or low in asymptomatic carriers and it could be high or low in symptomatic carriers there's no correlation between the dosage or the tidal of viral RNA as low as it is and the disease and here's what when that came up two years ago in Germany what the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases this is Fauci's headquarter at the NIH Fauci is now the nation's leading AIDS researcher Antony Fauci it has been so for 25 years it's getting a bit old but he even more I think he was already dead so what they say about the non-correlations between HIV expression and AIDS this is quote from JAMA which is a very prestigious mainstream medical journal in America they can say that somebody made it that point earlier to do the spiel can say it they can show a few flastic guns in the furor here then but if I did it wouldn't look so good but here 25 years into the HIV epidemic a complete understanding of what drives the decay of CD4 cells that's the immune cells that HIV is supposed to kill the essential event of HIV disease they call it presumptuously HIV disease when much is happening is lacking 25 years Nobel Prize billions of dollars later we still don't know what's happening on TV if you have a good immune system maybe you get nothing just last week but he has a Nobel Prize can get away with it too the findings presented by the Rodriguez and Aldous is the study that showed these non-correlations most recently in the same journal support those who favor non-virological mechanisms as the predominant cause of T-cell loss guess that who that could be I have never heard of one the sustainability of the current paradigm for the more than 40 million HIV infected individuals and the more than 4 million new HIV infections per year is at best questionable and that's the 10 billion dollar paradigm in the US and actually the world it's everybody follows it whether whether Fidel Castro in Cuba locking up HIV positive Cuban soldiers because Dr. Gallo from Washington has said that's not so good and so did Brezhnev in the good old days when the Iron Curtain was still there and so does Dr. Gallo at the so can chemicals cause AIDS having eliminated viruses in my copes' causes what is left well here I'm consulting Cheryl Collins how often have I seen this what he said to Watson his assistant how often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the tools classic Cheryl Collins what is it what could cause a new epidemic or a new epidemic of new diseases whatever you want to call it there are only two choices for a new epidemic of diseases like AIDS is said to be only two it's either germs and that's what they all like particularly the CDC we can make a vaccine we are under textbooks it's clean nobody is to be blamed and we are good Americans or good scientists and in textbooks forever and rich and famous or it's chemicals alias lifestyle which is not very popular not one of the 5 million American doctors who curd the AIDS patients and treat them anywhere and publish others not one of them ever publishes interviews of 20 million fellow Americans who use illegal drugs every day not one of them you don't read anywhere anything about it that's not done in America including it's not studied by the doctors they go three times around the globe to find an AIDS patient with a high or low T cell count but for 20 million Americans that are addicted to drugs they are not talked about they are not mentioned in the 21st century that's not something we talk about and we don't deal with they rot on the street you can see them in Oakland or somewhere it's very odd and certainly not very romantic when you think about Hippocrates who came from an island here 10 miles away so this must be 20 million potential patients there's no publication anywhere what heroin cocaine does and why they do it and what could be done about it but HIV tons of money, vaccines we have 50 billion for Africa give condoms and backs and talks but not a word about our own junkies in Oakland or in San Francisco or in New York or in Los Angeles that is a no doctor would touch it it's not good for their reputation as an example of one here the blue germs was the flu epidemic in 1980 in 1820 which I show as an example for two is the lung cancer epidemic that started in Europe and in America in the 30s with the widespread cigarette consumption availability so hardly anybody remembers now that in 1981 three years before HIV AIDS AIDS researchers had advanced the lifestyle AIDS hypothesis again in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine one of the survey also there were six groups one of them was Durak who wrote an editorial to it he's still working now on AIDS but studies ACT has forgotten about this altogether according to this hypothesis the massive consumption of recreational party and sex drugs like nitride inhalants or poppers amphetamines cocaine was the cause of the then new AIDS epidemic in the US this drug epidemic after the Vietnam war and soon after in Europe the Beatles and the yellow submarine and the rock stars were all high on drugs still today not quite as high as they used to be and all the woodstock and parties they go for two or three nights without sleeping high on whatever lots of good stuff better than ACT that is so here's the chemical basis of AIDS that I would trans in line with the original it's not even original for me it's published in the England Journal but conveniently forgotten the chemical AIDS theory says AIDS is a consequence of the long term consumption or exposure to recreational drugs anti HIV drugs or malnutrition that's chemistry too if you don't have enough to eat or water to drink your immune system goes down and you get what the Africans have the poor Africans have or long term effects of chemical AIDS risks explain these long latent periods that are now attributed to the slow virus HIV that is immunogenic in weeks like any other virus but slow in causing a disease sometimes 10 years later so here's some evidence for this drug AIDS theory hypothesis here's how AIDS went up and down it's not really down this was an update they're usually the last years low and then they have late reporting it's like this about now this comes up later the year later so it's from the CDC so it's about in the middle now it's not as high as it was in 93 but it's somewhere in the middle and here are the it's dare harder to get these numbers then you never see them in nature or science the trochus illicit trochus that I mentioned in America you have to go to National Institute on trochopuse or to some drug surveillance organization they sent you in brown paperbacks some material it's not openly published but it is I mean it is government numbers and they're not very accurate but close enough and you can see this was America at the days of the French connection when it was sensational that somebody called Kilogram or two of cocaine or heroin in New York somewhere in the harbor and now we are importing or we are confiscating this is the confiscated that's a fairly solid number by the drug surveillance agency about 100 tons of cocaine per year and they estimate they catch about 20 to 25 percent of the good stuff the rest goes to the clients the consumers so America consumes roughly 400 tons of cocaine per year and about something like more like 10 or 20 tons of heroin and confirming figures are also cocaine hospitalizations that means diseases or collapses or episodes that come from overdose or from long-term dose this went all up together with AIDS epidemic and AIDS epidemic I can't claim it's a perfect coincidence but it's close enough when you check the literature before AIDS when it was still possible to publish what recreational drugs do starting 100 years ago in the French literature when it was very popular to use cocaine Sigismund Freud in his office has a kilo jar of cocaine a little bit of cocaine Marcel Poust used cocaine Sherlock Holmes used cocaine the Pope used cocaine it was a very popular and chic thing to do and when he had a coffee he used cocaine and a buyer in the cafe in Coca-Cola was cocaine so even Americans used cocaine there the first paper on it is French paper on immunodeficiency in long-term cocaine and heroin uses 1908 and then it's literature on Kaposi's these are abbreviations of the drugs that cause any of these diseases in long-term uses and C is cocaine, H heroin and nitride inhalants, A amphetamines so Kaposi is almost exclusively found in nitrides and Candida and see these are all AIDS defining diseases and these are diseases beyond that are not considered AIDS defining premature births impotence severe atherosclerosis tooth loss, caries, dermatitis hepatitis, epileptic seizures endocarditis and bronchitis these are not AIDS defining yet but all the others diarrhea, tombocytemia, night sweats spontaneous abortions, dementia weight loss, tuberculosis and Candida all of them are AIDS defining diseases that's how you get these diseases but again that is not cited in the AIDS literature everything is reduced to the virus in some way or another so the epidemic as I said earlier is not self-limiting it goes on over years or the epidemics which is typical for drug diseases there is no immunity against drug diseases there is no immunity liver cirrhosis when you drink a lot of schnapps and no immunity against emphysema when you take too much tobacco American or European drug risk groups as I already pointed out a third of all American and half of the Europeans are IV drug users two-thirds are male homosexuals and minor groups are transfusion recipients who receive the long-term transfusion of factor 8 or clotting factor is immunosuppressive in hemophilia and it has been published again before it's proportional to the lifetime dose of units of of clotting factor that they have received the CDC here 1983 the last year when you would have seen that after April 1984 they converted overnight to the virus hypothesis and drugs were forgotten not mentioned by hundreds of AIDS researchers the next morning they all had their grants written now for HIV and here's what the CDC they took these pilot groups of male homosexual AIDS risk groups 50 had already AIDS, 120 were at risk for AIDS and there are quite a few more of these papers and here they list tracefully what these guys self-reported they didn't even test it okay 96% use the poppers which gives you a high and facilitates anal sex it relaxes the smooth muscles it was invented 100 years ago for angina if you have an attack you pop a vial inhale it and your muscles are relaxed and you get rid of the constriction or whatever that is and in the 60s everybody figured out and it checked out everything for psychoactive effects and they said oh you get a high it's fun it's also used in discos here but heterosexuals use it less consistently because the plumbing is different, they don't need relaxing the anus for sex the plumbing is different so they are independent of the nitride inhales for sex some of my new way well they said when you really into it you don't need a date anymore all you need is the nitride inhales it becomes autonomous like many countries say acyl chloride is another one that gets you high cocaine, amphetamines, phenylcycline and you can see these percentages are overlapping they use these all together or overlapping or one Monday one and Tuesday the other and there's only one entry in that table that comes from me it's the last one I checked this paper and subsequent ones from them is in those copes that they looked any one of them says I've never done it I'm an angel and there was not one of them I mean not one of them who said I'm just a drug free homosexual there was not one honest guys, that's hard to say for them I'm not complaining but they're not told why should they not use it 5 million American doctors tell them we are not policemen as long as you use your condoms and pray to Anthony Fauci and George Bush you'll be saved what they do good doctors can anti HIV treatments that's the last chapter in the book here can they cause AIDS in 87 the AIDS establishment has opened up a new chapter of chemical AIDS the prescriptions of anti HIV medications to now 4 to 500,000 Americans every day it's the best business also for the drug companies they ever had so inevitably toxic this is why in principle a specific anti viral drug is biologically impossible nature has been around whenever nature hasn't been able to do something you can count on it, there will be no scientists who ever will do it the only thing that works is antibodies immunity that works very well with HIV so well that Galo couldn't find it and almost lost his job when he fully figured out he stole it the cell makes all macromolecules for the virus the virus is just like a sticker program in your computer it cannot write one sentence it can only tell the cell what to do and the cell makes viral DNA RNA and protein so in order to inhibit the virus you have to inhibit cellular protein, DNA or RNA synthesis in other words you have to kill or intoxicate the cell and this is the reason why there is no anti viral drug and ACT is was originally designed as a DNA chain terminated inhibits viral DNA synthesis but inhibits human DNAs much better human DNAs 10 to the 9 nucleotides, viral is 10 to the 4 it's about 100,000 times bigger it's like shooting a battleship or shooting the captain of the battleship if you could get the captain maybe you could get the ship but in most cases they shoot the ship in order to get the captain it's much easier so this is how it looks the DNAs out of these 4 nucleotides adenine sitedine and they have 2 arms and then the enzymes connect the arms and then we get these chromosomes in which roughly close to 10 to the 9 10 to the 8 per chromosome about 100 million are connected to form the DNA strands that in all of our cells now you saw in it an analog ACT is called acetylcymidine it has this arm is cut off there is a faulty molecule there is acetyl chemical that the enzyme doesn't recognize so the DNA stops and the cell dies it's a clever thing for chemotherapy collateral damage is enormous here fallout the immune system goes the guts die but in many cases the cancer goes before the patient goes and that's the rationale and the strategy of chemotherapy it's not pretty but sometimes works and therefore it's justifiable but here we are fighting with the phantom virus that does know nothing as I already told you makes no DNA at that time many years before the immunity but not now I've studied it a little bit I didn't get it from the talk companies that package it nicely with unicorns and nice labels on it this is from an old-fashioned, on-over biochemical company, sigma huge, by the way and I got 100mc to test it in cells in tissue culture how toxic it is and it comes with this one warning, scarlet and cospons that's about the highest warning for toxicity they have for 100mc, this is the fifth of the dose that is the standard of care for a pregnant woman in the second and third trimester when she's HIV positive for a baby, developing baby remember in the US they were not supposed to drink even a 2% unholy bush beer because it could possibly do something to the fetus but now in the U.C. and the National Institute of Allergy Infectious Diseases request and recommend 500mg per day for a pregnant woman for the baby making DNA like crazy because the virus is even worse than just die and here's what it says on it toxic by inhalation in contact with skin, target organs are the blood bone marrow, that's where the immune cells come from if you feel unwell seek medical advice this is what they say to a PhD or a professor at university with a lab, the lab coat, the gloves and everything, studied 5 or 10 years who knows roughly what to do wear suitable clothes but mom takes it for the baby when she's HIV positive or else the doctor gives her help and makes her so this is what ACT side effects are or side effects as they call it it's the only effect it has it kills cells by terminating so the next 4 slides give you some evidence for this and then here Nature Maddox, the editor of Nature with editorial hyped this up said see, Duisburg is wrong, I am wrong we show it here with hemophiliacs the hemophiliacs in England they did really fine until HIV came around in 86 and 87 well that's when it was discovered and tested in them before then they didn't test it what he didn't say so much in the paper but it was in the fine print is that the HIV positive hemophiliacs were dying as you can see here the HIV negatives are doing fine they are dying and the same with severe hemophilia what he didn't say these are the ones who got ACT and he said well Duisburg may have taught this conclusion but this conclusion may be wrong it shows that HIV is bad well, HIV was not invented or born in 86 we know from from this steady curse that it has been around probably for millions of years like all other viruses I don't think God has been active recently maybe in Gallo's lab but certainly not otherwise so another serious point is over 50% of American AIDS patients now die not from these 12 or 28 AIDS defining diseases instead they die from liver, heart and kidney diseases guess why these are the target organs for toxicity the liver and the kidney that's where it goes through and the heart where the DNA chain terminators killed the mitochondria it's a consequence also of chemotherapy that younger cancer patients die 10 years later without cancer from a heart attack because the mitochondria have DNA in them that's terminated and that's the power house of the muscle cells and the heart is one that never sleeps if you damage the mitochondria they don't come back and there's again accumulative effect so these are the diseases and this is not I'm just showing you here you can copy them later these references that say from the AIDS orthodoxy which is hard to learn it's like a language grade 4 events are as important as AIDS events in the era of heart that means in German toxicity from ACT is as important as AIDS event as HIV I assume in the era of heart these are the highly active antiretroviral therapies in other words ACT so they recognize it and as yet it is not an HIV an HIV or AIDS defining disease heart, kidney and liver diseases which is the cause of death for 50% of American AIDS patients not pneumocystis pneumonia are composing this is what it's now in the era of heart highly active antiretroviral something, DNA chain terminus and here's an article from Lancet today revealing with hundreds of British and American authors titled HIV treatment response and prognosis in Europe and North America their conclusion in red not by me by Lancet the biological response after starting heart improved over calendar years in other words they say they can do inhibit whatever is there from the virus better than before but such improvements have not translated into decrease in mortality in other words they have not helped the patient live a day longer and I suspect this may be a euphemism but maybe it's right it would be nice if they would live as they would live they would die not sooner with these talks than without biochemically I think it's very very unlikely but they used to say they live longer from it now they say they don't live longer anymore soon after might be they would say a little bit shorter I don't know what to say so after African AIDS maybe we can cover that in the discussion let's say maybe I could summarize in this one briefly what the two theories predict the AIDS facts and what each of these theories predict the viral theory would of course predict a vaccine and a vaccine that hasn't shown up so this is a count against the viral theory and for the chemical AIDS theory there's no vaccine against chemical toxicity there's no virus only antibodies against HIV to be found in AIDS patients it's a negative for the viral theory and a plus for the chemical theory antiviral drugs do not cure AIDS a negative for the viral theory again a plus for the chemical theory AIDS 5 to 10 years after neutralization of HIV an unprecedented negative therefore for the viral theory and a cumulative effect of drug use for chemical AIDS the time causes of the epidemic follow lifestyles not self limiting by natural immunity again consistent with chemistry but not with viral disease in the US and Europe the epidemics are restricted to risk groups drug using male homosexuals and intravenous drug users again a plus for chemistry and not for virus in Africa there's a plus for the viral theory after all we can discuss that the epidemic in Africa is said to be random in the population and that's what the chemical theory would say and also the viral theory says the answer in a very shown nutshell the chemicals in Africa is malnutrition and no running water and poverty and that's why and those are both bisexual I mean girls and boys are equally poor and they die from that the doctors and the tourists never get it and the scientists traveling in Africa never come home with AIDS but the people who are drinking out of the same river they bury their cadavers and so that's where the problems are it's no contact infection for AIDS in 25 years and a million opportunities very negative for a virus no virus would make a living if it couldn't make it from one host to the next in one million opportunities in a year but consistent with stocks and so is the pediatric the no pediatric AIDS epidemics in Africa particularly in the world the last point how you could prove me wrong or this wrong is prove this find a contagious AIDS in drug free subjects and show that in two matched groups say of US soldiers and I picked those specifically because I know them a little bit and also the US Army carries out 3 million HIV AIDS tests since it's also a government agency in 1985 but they never say a word what happens to the positive they have 1 in 1000 positives that's a good number out of 3 million you could do a perfect study matched study take 1000 soldiers HIV positive and 1000 negative and give them a call every 6 months do you have Kaposi Zekoma pneumonia or how are you to