The Questions the Medical and Scientific Community Are Not Allowed To Ask

There are questions that seldom, if ever, get asked. And when they are asked, they are asked quietly, in closed offices, behind the closed doors of corporate headquarters. The question is this: has someone built a better system? Does someone, somewhere, have a product or a service or an idea that exceeds — in a good way — the outcomes we have been offering through whatever it is we happen to be selling?

It is a serious question, and it is almost never asked honestly, because in most fields you are only permitted to work on what I would call a monotheistic level. There is one goal, one platform, one paradigm, one set of truths you are allowed to operate within. And inside that closed system, the reason you are doing your work will never be questioned, because everyone is doing it for the same reason: gaining an edge in the marketplace.

A new vaccine, a new drug, a new food — whatever the product, the questions the industry asks are always the same. Is something better out there? Who is our competition? What gives us product differentiation, service differentiation? When the market for a single hamburger patty on a bun had been saturated, someone came up with two patties. Well, that differentiates. If you can pay the same price and get twice the hamburger, why not? Remember the famous Wendy’s commercial where the little old lady marched up to the counter and demanded, “Where’s the beef?” That line struck a nerve in the American psyche, and it helped launch an entire ethos: the idea that more is always better — without ever once looking at the consequences of more.

But more is not better. Excess protein in the body is toxic; when protein is broken down and deaminated, ammonia is left behind as a byproduct. We do not need a lot of protein. We need quality protein, and we can get it from plants. We never have to kill or eat anything with a heartbeat or a face. And yet knowing this — having this information freely available — does not automatically change a single person’s diet. Most Americans flatly refuse to change the core of what they eat, even though we now know, beyond the need for any further study — we have thousands of studies — that the standard American diet shortens your lifespan, drives massive inflammation and inflammatory cytokine storms throughout the body, floods you with excess calories, and prematurely ages every cell you have. We hurt ourselves three times a day, and that is considered not merely normal but fully acceptable.

Meanwhile, try to persuade someone to adopt a clean, healthy, plant-based diet — a diet rich in the phytonutrients, antioxidants, and protective compounds that we know can prevent disease, slow the disease process, or even reverse it — and everything you say is negated. In fact, for decades there was a name for people like me. Through the 1940s, ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s, you were called a health quack. Don’t go too far with this cult of health, they warned, as if being too healthy were somehow dangerous. Look at us — we smoke, we drink. The AMA once told America that smoking was fine, and nobody in authority had a word to say against alcohol.

The Cult of the Acceptable

Look at the advertising, even today. We see smiling, beautiful people having the time of their lives, drinking something that — if you drank it without the ad, without the slice of lime, whether it’s vodka or bourbon or rye — would burn going down your throat, inflame your esophagus and the lining of your stomach, upset your stomach’s pH balance, contribute to ulcers and colorectal cancer, and kill liver cells and brain cells along the way. But no one seems to care. Certainly not the people selling it to us, because they dress it up so beautifully. Watch closely: in virtually every food and beverage commercial today, people are dancing. It started with one campaign and now it is every campaign. They show people laughing, hip and cool and surrounded by friends. They stage what looks like a country-western festival for a bourbon, and everyone in the frame is glowing. Look at us, the ad says. Look at our dancing. We’re happy.

Well, no. I would like to look at the lining of your stomach. I would like to look at your tongue, your esophagus, your liver, your kidneys, your brain cells, your heart cells, and your muscle cells after you have that drink. But the truth is never what gets promoted. What gets promoted is the feeling of need.

Manufacturing Need

That is the real product being sold: the need to do something, buy something, be something. And so people find that they “need” to buy what they do not need, spend money they do not have, and go into debt they cannot afford. They go off to college and take on massive debt for degrees that will likely have little value by the time they graduate, because automation, artificial intelligence, and downsizing will have transformed the landscape beneath their feet. Why don’t more of them go to an electrical school, a masonry school, a plumbing school? A skilled tradesperson is far more likely to have a good income, steady employment, and a genuine quality of life than the eighty percent of college graduates who are going to walk straight into a wall. Where are the educational programs helping young people understand why college may not be right for them, depending on what they actually want to do with their lives and the skills they will actually need? Nowhere. Because no one profits from telling you that.

The same is true in medicine. If a company says take our statins for your heart condition and your elevated cholesterol, the question that should be asked is a simple one: is there any other way of approaching this problem? And if so, what is it, and does it require medication at all? But that question is forbidden, because the business model answers it in advance. If we can lower your cholesterol with our medication, we benefit — so we will pour all of our money and all of our science into medication. And if we don’t have the real science, we will hire people to manufacture it. Ghostwriters will draft the studies; famous names in medicine and science will be paid to endorse the product. None of that makes it legitimate. It only makes it marketable.

Then look one level higher. Big companies, big funds, hedge funds, private equity partners — colossal institutions deploying enormous amounts of our money, drawn mainly from our retirement funds, our pensions, our 401(k)s. They are using our own savings to invest in products and services that promise a guaranteed return. But what if the companies delivering the highest returns are the ones selling the unhealthiest products and services? And what if the only question anyone in the room ever asks is, are we making enough money? These institutions grow big enough to buy out their own competition. And anything that represents a natural, non-toxic approach — an approach that does no harm and does real good — is not merely left unresearched. It is condemned. Whole teams are assembled to destroy it.

For decades — in fact, for my entire career — I have never seen a time when a board-certified physician who helped patients with natural, non-toxic approaches was celebrated for it. Consider the work of Dr. Dean Ornish and others, whose patients got well, avoided the stents, the drugs, the bypass surgeries, because they reversed the underlying causes of their disease. Who makes money from that? No one. For decades, insurance companies refused to pay for preventive care — acupuncture, chelation therapy, an intravenous vitamin C drip. The very things that would help a person live longer and healthier and stay out of the hospital were the very things that would not be covered, while every drug and procedure inside the hospital was reimbursed without question.

A Monopoly, Not a Health Care System

So we have had a pure, one-hundred-percent, take-no-prisoners monopoly in every field, but especially in medicine. We say we have a health care system. We do not. We have a sick-care maintenance system. It is also among the leading causes of death, disease, and injury in this country — iatrogenic, meaning caused by the treatment itself, systematically induced by the very institutions charged with healing us. But we will not recognize that, because to recognize a problem is to be obligated to address it, to reform it, to change it. In medicine, a drug that is shown to harm and kill people — like the synthetic hormone replacement therapies — can take twenty years to be pulled from the market. Meanwhile, something known to be beneficial and non-toxic can take fifteen to seventeen years to be allowed in, if it is allowed in at all. The gates are guarded absolutely.

I have lived my whole working life in that environment. I have watched really good, intelligent people — a holistic dentist, a caring physician — work with their patients to prevent disease and change lifestyles, and teach them, along the way, to make better and more critical decisions about their own lives. Those practitioners were cultivating critical thinkers. And here is the thing about the average person: the average person is not a bad person. They are good people. But they have been conditioned to be good citizens, and a good citizen is far more likely to obey whatever an authority figure tells them than to go looking for the truth themselves. Where is the truth? Whose advice should I follow? Those questions take courage, and our conditioning has bred the courage out of us.

Dying at the Altar of Arrogance

Here is where it gets personal, because here is where I have lived my whole life. I have had a longer career than most people in my field, and I have had more success at preventing disease — and more success working with people facing serious and life-threatening illness — than the orthodox system that failed them. By the nature of things, I generally receive people only at the end stages of life, after they have been told to go home, to enter hospice care, because “there is nothing more that can be done for you.”

Those doctors are half right. What they should say is: there is nothing more that our paradigm, and the protocols within our paradigm, can do to change the outcome of your disease. That would be honest. So the patient asks the obvious question: well, can I try another paradigm? Can I try another process? And the answer comes back: No. It’s unscientific. It’s quackery. It’s pseudoscience. You don’t want to involve yourself with that.

Let me translate, because I want to be very clear about what is actually being said in that exchange. You are telling me that I should rather die at the altar of your arrogance and ego than have a chance of living by trying something you are totally unfamiliar with — something that happens to be competition, and competition is not allowed. That is the monotheistic, single-minded, single-purpose mindset, and it governs everything in medicine and in science. It governs finance. It now governs education.

That is the background. That is the foundation upon which people like me have had to work. In effect, we have been told: you don’t know what you’re talking about; you are unqualified, no matter what your qualifications actually are. And even if you succeed at curing people we cannot cure, we will still deem you unacceptable at every level. We will trash your character. We will trash your reputation. We will say you never helped anyone, that you have no education, that you practically fell off a banana boat and were lucky enough to wash up on an American shore. Pay no attention to that man.

Imagine having to apologize on those terms. I’m sorry, sirs. I’m so sorry that I helped a person prevent a disease, or reverse a disease, that you were not smart enough or good enough to address yourselves. But we never say that. We simply stay quiet and take the beating — from everyone, and I mean everyone, in science and health. And that is why we have so much death, disease, and corruption at every level: because everything has been commodified, commercialized, and weaponized for the benefit of the monotheists — the people with a single purpose, which is to squeeze out as much money and maintain as much power and control over every person as possible. In their eyes we are just broken machines, and they are the mechanics paid to service us.

We are not willing to look that far. We are not willing to look that deeply. We are filled with biases — biases that come from our religions, our ethnicities, our cultures, our family histories, and above all from not being courageous enough to look for a truth beyond the door we have been told never to open. Open that door, they warn, and you are no longer one of us. But what if behind that door are truths I need? No, comes the answer. We will tell you which truths you need.

The Price of Believing Experts

And a large percentage of the American population goes along with it. It does not matter whether you call yourself conservative or liberal — those are stupid titles anyway. Nearly everyone complies. That is the great achievement of our educational oppression system: you may ask any question you want, but you may never challenge the answer. Ever. And so we learn to ask only safe questions — questions that never make a person in authority feel uncomfortable. We never ask the one question that matters: Sir, what if you’re wrong?

What if you’re wrong, pediatrician? You are willing to administer more than a hundred vaccine doses to children between birth and age eighteen, while autism has gone from one in ten thousand children to one in eighteen by some counts, and you are unwilling even to consider cause and effect? No — if we say there is no connection, then there is none. Do you have proof? We don’t need proof. We are the authorities; therefore our authority is the proof.

I see. So when Anthony Fauci declared that the vaccines were safe and effective — and knew at the time that this was not established, while billions of dollars flowed to the interests he supported — we were supposed to trust him anyway. Yes. Are people still trusting him today? Yes. Will he, or anyone else, ever be held accountable for the wrongful deaths, for the catastrophe engineered through those 121 laboratories doing what they euphemistically call “gain-of-function” research — which really means taking something that is not lethal and making it lethal? No. There will be no accountability. There never has been. When was the last time anyone at the CIA, the FBI, the national security agencies, the White House, the State Department, or the Justice Department was held accountable for anything? They aren’t. And if no one is held accountable when proven crimes against humanity have been committed, why in the world would I ever trust anything else these people say?

Why would I ever buy another New York Times after Judith Miller helped create a false narrative by trusting the wrong sources — telling America that a dictator had weapons of mass destruction, that the next thing we might see was a mushroom cloud? He had no nuclear devices. He was not the threat described. And on the strength of that falsehood, a war was launched that killed perhaps a million people. Why is that relevant here? Because if you are willing to swallow one expert’s lies, you will swallow them all. And then your whole life becomes a structure built on how those lies can be used against you.

One day the bill comes due. You hit a rough patch — you’re out of work, money is tight. You used to eat out four nights a week, even when a vegan meal ran thirty dollars. Now you can’t. You open your closet and find twenty thousand dollars’ worth of clothes hanging there. Did you need them? No. Did you want them? Yes. Then how did you end up buying them? Because someone convinced you that your wants should be converted into needs, and because you were never taught to think critically, you complied. And now, to find a real answer, you would first have to be honest with yourself about how foolishly you have acted, how compliant you have been, what a good citizen you have been. So here you are, with the diseases, or the empty bank account, or the mountain of debt, and you are hurting. Could anything have stopped the hurt before it began? Of course. But who lives that way? Maybe five to ten percent of Americans are living the right life. The vast majority of us make wrong choices every single day.

I will say it plainly: the fact that you define yourself as a Republican or a Democrat is itself evidence that you have surrendered your capacity to make important decisions about your own life. There is no critical thinking or independent judgment in tribal loyalty. What is the Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal apparatus, really? It is a guild. It is a cult. Your bias will reward you — it will promise you things beyond your dreams. Challenge it, and it will destroy you. And that is where we are.

1971: A Hypothesis That Became Fact and Marked the Beginning of Energy Medicine and Energy Healing

Now let’s go back, because you need to know how I came to see all of this so clearly.

In 1971, I was invited to conduct a simple test at a very prestigious scientific research institution — an institution in the mold of the Koch Institute in Germany, the Institute Pasteur in France, the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. It was called the Institute of Applied Biology, and it was staffed by older scientists, men and women in their sixties and seventies, many of them Jewish scientists who had fled Hitler during the Second World War and had come to America to rebuild their lives and their work.

And suddenly there is this young kid — not terribly bright, young and naive — talking with the director of the institute. It happened because one of the scientists there, Dr. Lawrence LeShan, had attended a meeting the week before and could not wrap his mind around some of the thoughts this young Gary Null was expressing. What I had was merely a hypothesis, but it intrigued him. He asked me: what if you had an opportunity to test this scientifically? I said, that would be great.

So he went to the director and asked whether they could clear out a space on the third floor — it was being used for storage — so that I could try an experiment. What experiment? A woman named Elena was in the room; she was the head of science, which meant she had to approve every request from all sixteen departments for whatever was needed to run an experiment. Understand the context: everything at that institution was controlled by orthodox medicine and by pharmaceutical funding. That is where the money came from.

I said: it’s about the principle of energy. I’m assuming you’re all atheists here. Yes, they said, we’re atheists. So you believe that life begins at conception and ends at death. I don’t. Now, I’m not going to attach a religious word to what I believe. I will simply call it energy. Every single action in life is based upon an exchange of energy. When water flows across turbines, you get hydroelectric power. When the sun strikes a solar panel, you get solar energy. But I am saying there is something far beyond that — something science has not yet validated but that every one of us already knows. It is in the difference between how we feel when we are laughing and when we are crying; happy versus sad; angry versus calm and meditative. It is in what happens when we walk hand in hand with someone we adore, look into their eyes, and feel the passion of that moment. Happiness gives one kind of energy. Sadness gives another. And I believe the energy of sadness shortens our lives. I believe it contributes to disease.

You will say there is no proof of that. I agreed — not yet, not scientifically. But I wanted the chance to prove it. How would you prove it, they asked. I said: I would bring in a group of people — none of whom I know — and see whether they could heal ascites tumors in rats. And here is the key: they would not be told the rats had tumors at all.

The director sat there, rubbing his chin, puzzled. I’m not sure I understand this, he said. I explained: there are thousands of people around the world — physicians, scientists, activists, researchers — who believe we are more than broken parts; that there is a whole universe of reality within our cells and our DNA that we remain unaware of because we have never studied it. Reductionism has not been able to find it, so we simply assume it does not exist. But I believe it does exist. I believe that something like faith — that determination, and the meaningfulness of a life — gives a person a real advantage in fighting disease.

Well, these are all nice theories, the director said. But it was Elena who spoke up: I have room upstairs. We can give him some rats. I’ll oversee it. The director shrugged. Okay.

That is how I started my career as a scientist — in a cleaned-out storage room, on sufferance, with borrowed rats.

The Healers and the Rats

We took five hundred rats and divided them. Two hundred fifty were set aside as controls; two hundred fifty would receive the intervention, beginning with a first group of fifty. And with those first fifty, nothing happened — no change whatsoever. But within another three months, we had found six people who were able to reverse the tumors in those rats almost immediately. Rats with ascites tumors normally die in about twenty-two days. These rats went on to live normal lives.

Then we did it again. And again. And again and again and again. The gold standard of science is replication — another person following the same protocol and producing the same result as the original. We achieved exactly that, repeatedly.

Who were these six healers? One was Dr. Dolores Krieger, the head of nursing at New York University. Another was Dr. Thomas Kruth of the Order of St. Luke. Another was Rabbi Abraham Weisman, known throughout Brooklyn as the Healing Rabbi. Every person in the study had one thing — and only one thing — in common: they believed that life was sacred, and that there was some element within the life process, beyond the mechanical, that allowed people to live a more authentic and happier life. That single shared conviction was the whole of their similarity.

And what none of them knew was that the rats had ascites tumors. The untreated control rats died, as expected. But the rats that carried those tumors and received nothing more than these healers’ focused, meditative attention — they lived, and the cancer disappeared. You could get that result once and call it an anomaly. You cannot get it six times out of six.

What the Plants Knew

Then I went further with them. Over the following months I must have run forty experiments on energy transfer at that institute. In one, I placed a ficus tree in a lab. I prepared six cards and numbered them. One card instructed its holder to go in and play three minutes of meditative flute music to the tree. Another: go in, mist the tree, and hum to it. Another: give it fresh potting soil and water while light symphonic music played. And one card said: go in and yell at the plant, shake it, and tear off some of its leaves. Each person drew a card blindly and did exactly what it said, no one knowing their assignment until the card was in their hand.

We had electrodes wired into the soil of that ficus tree. And one at a time, months into this work, the participants would enter the room and simply stand there — saying nothing, doing nothing. Nothing happened; the needle sat exactly where it should. But then, with one particular person, the needle suddenly swung to the far extreme of the scale and hung there, vibrating. I went in to see who it was — the experiment was blinded; I had mixed all the cards in a box and did not know who had drawn which. Standing there was the person whose card had read: scream at the plant, shake it, tear its leaves.

For the first time that I am aware of in scientific history, we proved with quality science that a plant could register the emotional signature of a particular human being — and hold a memory of it. That was the first study of its kind. Others would later replicate it and find the same thing.

But now it gets deeper. Remember: I never told the healers that they were treating terminal cancer. If they did not know what was wrong with the rats, then how did the energy they directed know to act against cancer specifically? The implication is staggering: the energy being shared carried within it, somehow, the information of what to do — instructions for extending life rather than surrendering to disease. Understand that this was years before Dr. Bruce Lipton’s celebrated work at Stanford opened up the field of epigenetics — the science showing that the environment you are in, and the people in it, directly affect your well-being, constructively or destructively, with influences that can reach back generations. We were staring at the leading edge of that truth in a converted storage room.

Decades later, one of the world’s great forest biologists, Dr. Suzanne Simard in Canada, would show that trees are in communication with one another constantly — that when a tree is sick, the surrounding trees send electrical signals and chemical support through their interconnected root systems to help it. I featured that science in a documentary I made, Saving the Planet One Bite at a Time. It confirmed what our little ficus had already taught me: life is not isolated. You cannot isolate a universal truth.

Censored and Hidden by Design

So what happened to all this research? When the results were complete, Elena came to me and said: I don’t know what you want to do with this, but we cannot submit it. It would be far too esoteric — it has nothing to do with medications. Do with it what you want. She went downstairs and had a long talk with the director. The director’s ruling: he can continue this research, but he cannot talk about it, because it will upset the rest of the people here who don’t believe in any of this.

I published an article in a journal of psychotronic research that circulated around the world. And the proof of all of this still exists — letters more than fifty years old, posted on garynull.com, where you can read them yourself. On the strength of that work I was invited to speak before what were then called paranormal healing societies — para meaning outside of, alongside the normal. These gatherings drew doctors, scientists, and researchers by the thousands, because until then there had been no science supporting what they had witnessed in their own practices. Now there was. On my website you can even see a photograph of Dr. Dolores Krieger holding one of her rats.

That original work opened the door to everything that would later be called energy medicine — bringing in physicians, who brought in their patients, and demonstrating that everything has energy, but some energy is constructive and some is destructive. With the help of a professor of physics at a major university in Italy, where we worked nearly every day for almost two months, we developed ways to measure the life force of plants — a natural extension, since we had already proved that plants hold a conscious awareness of the energy they exchange.

The Living Foods Diet and the Discoveries That Followed

Out of that measuring work came a scale. I graded foods from zero to ten: zero was dead, ten was ultimate energy. Over a period of months, I tested and graded foods in every form you could consume them. Take the apple: an apple seed; a whole apple; an apple that had been sprayed, coated, and stored in refrigeration for months, as commercial apples routinely are; an organic apple, uncoated and fresh; bottled apple juice; apple juice pressed fresh; apple butter; apple sauce. Every form was measured. And every single time you altered a food from its natural state, you reduced its vitality. Bottled juices were not the same as fresh juices. Brown rice was excellent — but everything depended on how it was cooked, and once you refined it into something like bread, the reading fell to zero. Look at how much of our national diet is built on refined carbohydrates. Cook a food until it forms a brown crust — toast, pretzels, potato chips, french fries — and you have taken something that might have measured a six in its natural state down to nothing. Sugar, fructose, artificial sweeteners: zero. Alcohol: below zero — meaning you are actively killing yourself, slowly, every time you drink, just as surely as when you smoke or expose yourself to toxins.

From that scale I created what I called the living foods diet. If a food measured a nine or a ten, it went into the protocol, to do the best possible job of restoring cells to health and repairing DNA wherever possible — foods flooded with enzymes, phytonutrients, and polyphenols. That was fifty-three years ago. Today, science has accepted and embraced this; there are hundreds of thousands of studies confirming what those measurements showed. At the time, there were none.

In fact, one day I asked for volunteers, and a hundred people came to the institute. We drew their blood. Then I sent fifty of them out on what I called the doctor’s diet: there were three hospitals in the area, including Sloan Kettering, and their instructions were to wait outside, and when a doctor came out, to ask him — Doc, I’m looking for a place to eat lunch; who better than you to tell me what a healthy doctor’s meal would be? Then they went and ate exactly that. I had others do the same with nurses. The remaining fifty I sent to specific vegan restaurants, with instructions on exactly which foods to order. Two hours later, everyone returned and we drew their blood again.

It was night and day. In the vegan group, the blood was thinner and the red blood cells were evenly dispersed — no clumping, no aggregation of the kind that produces clots and strokes. In the doctor’s-diet group, you could see it plainly: long, stringy formations of fat strung through the blood. It was the first time I had ever seen that comparison demonstrated directly, and we recorded the results.

Then I turned to another question: aren’t we simply overeating? I thought we were. So I modified one variable in a rat study — after the last meal at night, no food would be given until breakfast the next day, a window of twelve to fifteen hours. To my knowledge, that was the first such study ever conducted in America. Today it has a name: intermittent fasting. I ran the experiment twice, and because those rats live about a year, each run took a full year of my life. The first time, the fasting group lived twenty-seven percent longer. The second time, twenty-five percent longer. Intermittent fasting is now an accepted scientific reality practiced around the world. What people do not realize is where it started. I founded that. I discovered that — that, and 176 other things.

Fraudulent Nutritional Science: You Must Eat Meat and Dairy Three Times a Day. My Original Research Disproved All of that

By testing beans and grains, nuts and seeds, legumes, tubers, and pulses, I found that they contained all eight essential amino acids. We had been told they contained none of them — that complete protein required meat, fish, chicken, eggs, dairy. That doctrine became the food pyramid: your daily servings of animal protein, of dairy, of flour products. It was a sick person’s diet. But we trusted it, because we believed in the authorities — the dietitians and the nutritionists. I was a registered dietitian myself. I was a board-certified nutritionist. I knew exactly what the orthodoxy taught, because I had been trained in it.

When I made that discovery, my first assumption was that I had made a mistake. For three weeks I kept redoing the experiment, and asking friends who were scientists to run it independently, because I thought: maybe I’m simply not smart enough to understand what I’m looking at. But there they were — all eight essential amino acids, in all of these plant foods. The standard textbook, Normal and Therapeutic Nutrition — a very good book, by the way, in most respects — stated flatly that only animal proteins are complete and that fruits and vegetables are hopelessly incomplete. They were wrong. And that was the first time in scientific history that this doctrine was directly challenged. By combining plant foods properly, you can meet and exceed every protein requirement. I identified more than three thousand combinations that delivered greater net protein utilization than any animal protein. It set a new scientific standard. I called it the Egg Project, because our combinations exceeded the net protein evaluation of the egg — which was then the gold standard. My audience knew about the work; the wider world took roughly twelve years to see it published in a scientific journal. Before then, I held a press conference and published a best-selling book under the same name.

Letters from the Institute’s Head of Science Confirming My Multiple Discoveries and the Deliberate Suppression of My Life’s Work

All these discoveries — and yet today, people do not realize any of it. Let me tell you what troubled me most. When Dolores Krieger finished the healing studies — and she was a very good, very kind person — she asked me: what am I supposed to do with this, Gary? I said: why don’t you create a class, and call it Therapeutic Touch? She said she would think about it. She later did exactly that, and with a collaborator I had never heard of, she wrote a book. Guess what was missing from the book? Any mention that I had created this. It was as if — Gary? No, he doesn’t exist. That was her right, I suppose. I have been written out of a lot of discoveries in science and public health. It is not uncommon.

But it went deeper than omission, and I only learned how much deeper decades later. After all those studies — hundreds of them, successful — one day a couple of years ago, I received a letter. It was from Elena. I had not spoken with her in perhaps fifteen years. She wrote: I have just had three strokes, and I am going to pass, but I want to get something off my chest before I do. We owe you a great debt, and we also owe you an apology. After you finished your research projects, and they were successful, you assumed that when you handed your results to me, I would send them out for peer-reviewed publication. I was told not to. We never sent a single one of your studies out for peer review. And later in life, other people took credit for all that you had done.

Read Elena’s Letters For Yourself

.

.

I was the first person to cure AIDS. Had That discovery been made public, means millions of Lives Could have been saved but all the Scientific data was suppressed and censored.

The gold standard of science, she reminded me, is for someone else to take your finished, successful protocol, apply it independently, and achieve the same results. 

.

.

Well — your reputation for helping people with AIDS was well know within the AIDS community in NY. At the Tri-State Healing Center, you were helping people with AIDS, and they weren’t dying; they were getting better. I came to the center and found that you had been working with thousands of AIDS patients, for free. And one afternoon I sat for two hours with some of the medical doctors on your staff — you had a medical staff of twenty-two — and I obtained your entire AIDS protocol, A to Z. I took it back to the institute. I received permission to run the study. We had a physician, we had nurses, and we had ten of our own AIDS patients — advanced AIDS, across the range of conditions. Over a two-year period, using your exact protocol, we reversed AIDS in all ten. Ten out of ten. And understand: none of the AIDS patients we had been treating conventionally lived very long. We were failing miserably.

So she went to the director, and at the monthly meeting she announced the success of the project to everyone. No one seemed happy about it. She argued: this is a scientific breakthrough — the first in the world showing that AIDS can be reversed, and it is proven. I have the histology. I have the blood workups. I have laboratory documentation from Hoffmann-La Roche showing the progression of disease reversing. We have the proof, and we replicated it ourselves.

There was silence. Then the director spoke: well, that’s good news for those patients. It’s bad news for us. Bad news? The moment you hold a press conference, he said, and bring forward the doctors who ran the experiment, and the patients, and the records, it will make front-page news — and it is non-toxic. No medications were used. That is the problem. If we had cured AIDS, or improved these patients, with our medicines, I would say yes. But what do you think will happen when Anthony Fauci, or Robert Gallo, or the people controlling this paradigm — the people giving AZT to hundreds of thousands of young AIDS patients and watching them die of its toxicity — hear us announce a natural, non-toxic therapy? Overnight, every one of our research grants will be canceled. Millions of dollars. What happens to the sixteen department heads sitting in this room? What happens to all their research? Gone. We would have to close our doors. So, for our own survival, we cannot allow this information out.

And that is exactly what happened. That is exactly what she put in the letter. Thank goodness she sent it — because until that moment, I never knew. A cure was replicated, documented, and deliberately buried, and the man whose protocol produced it was not even told.

That is part of the world we live in. And it is only one of many such stories.

The Fear of Knowing

I was once invited — by the organizers of a large scientific conference attended by thousands of doctors and scientists — to come to Washington, D.C. as one of the keynote speakers. I brought people out on stage with me: a New York University professor who had reversed end-stage Alzheimer’s; the first documented case of complete reversal of autism in the United States; a woman who had reversed multiple sclerosis. Each of them came out and told their story, medical records in hand. Dr. Martin Feldman had all of the medical records as well, documenting the terminal conditions that had been reversed on these protocols.

After my twenty-two-minute presentation, I walked out into the wide hallway, and three or four hundred people followed. They asked me to stand on a chair so the crowd could see me, and I answered questions. Finally I said: look, I have an open-door policy at the Tri-State Healing Center and in my work with the Institute of Applied Biology. If you want all the details, just come by. We will happily answer your questions and show you everything we are doing. We have a board-certified medical staff of twenty-two people.

Not a single person called. Not one followed up. Why? Because this was done without medicines.

That showed me something. The father of Gestalt psychology, Fritz Perls, said that a fear of knowing is a fear of doing. These people were smart. They were intellectual. They had spent years sacrificing and studying. But not one of them had a single case they could point to of curing these advanced, supposedly irreversible illnesses. And to acknowledge what we had done — to put their own patients on these programs — would have meant sacrificing everything their status was built on. So they chose not to know. It did not only happen in Washington. It happened in Chicago. It happened around the country, everywhere I was invited because of this work.

What It Costs to Be Right

So that is the part of the story we never hear: what happens to the people who create original, natural, non-toxic therapies to prevent or treat disease — and are attacked for it. I reversed AIDS, and for my trouble I was called an AIDS denier. Two thousand patients treated successfully. Not a single death in fifteen years of treatment and follow-up. Eighteen out of eighteen patients who went on an advanced protocol reversed their AIDS completely — one hundred percent. We held a press conference with a full panel of doctors, scientists, and more than a hundred patients. Not a single member of the press corps that mattered would touch it.

And we did not merely claim it. We proved it. It was not a theory; it was a fact, and we filmed it. A documentary was produced by the International Society for Independent Investigative Journalists — you can watch it, narrated by Celia Farber. You will see the doctors testifying. You will see the patients testifying. You will see respected journalists — Tony Brown, Bill McCreary, Bill Tatum, and others — bearing witness. You will see the truth.

Why didn’t the media allow that truth out? Ask yourself: when was the last time you heard any truth concerning COVID — any honest accounting showing that America’s celebrated Dr. Fauci was never America’s doctor? “Trust me, I’m science,” we were told. Then yours is a corrupted science. What happened forty years ago is still in place today, run by the same incentives, guarded by the same gates.

So this is my history, and it is also a warning. This is what happens when science and medicine become monopolies — when they become orthodoxies, and, by extension, cults. They do not merely fail to find the truth. They find it, they verify it, and then they bury it, because the truth is competition, and competition is not allowed.

What do we challenge? What questions are we afraid to ask? Open the door they told you never to open — because behind it are the truths you need, and millions of lives depend on someone having the courage to walk through.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Dr. Gary Null is host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including his recent Last Call to Tomorrow. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.