Was Aids a Man Made Desease?
Kane Sab
SPA...@webtv.net
really buy it though.
å®øªå
disturbed and emoitionless to destroy people.....if it is something that
exists as a freak of nature......than it makes you wonder what hides
around the next corner.....either way is scarey.......
Tofu_...@webtv.net
MD does not stand for Medical Deity
Darryl Stewardson
trying to find out, crazier than the disease is already making us. The focus now has to be on
treatment and managing the disease and staying alive! Darryl
Kane Sab wrote in message <2348-360...@newsd-103.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Poz...@webtv.net
major cities was the government put the virus in the water systems of
gay, bars, sex clubs, bath houses. Gays, blacks, drug users were
dispensible and a bad element in our society. I don't buy into it, but
considering some of the other things our government has done. I wouldn't
put it past them. When it hit white, heterosxual society; I'm sure they
realized they blew it.
PozMan
Bill Canfield
unexplained PCP and KS. I think the virus has been around for a very
long time, and this age of mass travel is the reason that the virus has
spread the way it has. Unlike Ebola; that kills its victims in a matter
of weeks, HIV developed an almost symbiotic relationship with its host,
allowing the virus to be passed in a more effective manner. Instead of
killing off its host in a short amount of time.
Darwin summed up the virus very well I think. He said given enough time
an organism will evolve and adapt to its environment. It may surprise
some of you, but at one time oxygen was poison to all life on earth and
the atmosphere was made up of mostly carbon dioxide. Plants then evolved
to use the carbon dioxide and to release oxygen into the atmosphere and
oceans. Allege and bacteria were then force to combine in order to adapt
to the change in gases and a new EVOLVED form of life was born.
Darwin also said one other thing that applies to HIV. He said that
undoubtedly that all organism would by develop geneic defects that at
first may seem undesirable, but prove to be advantageous. ie...People
that have a genienic defect of the cells protean wall that wont allow
HIV to infect them.
Was Aids a Man Made Disease? I don't think so...its just nature.
WalterNY
It certainly was and remains a man made disease. Read these two articles and
you'll understand that AIDS was indeed man-made, atleast the AIDS your
thinking of.
WHY HIV DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS AND AIDS IS NOT CONTAGIOUS
-Michael Martinez
As you read this paper, remind yourself of the most important point:
from the very beginning there has never been any scientific proof that
HIV plays a role in AIDS. No matter how much publicity is given or
medical research conducted under the assumption that a virus causes
AIDS, it's based nonetheless on this completely unsubstantiated
assumption. The viral-AIDS hypothesis was never anything different
than a hypothesis. Certainly not fact. For over a decade, everywhere
you've looked you've seen "HIV, the virus that causes AIDS." You've
heard that you must practice safe sex so you won't catch AIDS and die.
All of this is the result of an erroneous statement to the press on
April 23, 1984, originated by one man, Dr. Robert Gallo.
WHAT IS AIDS?
First, HIV and AIDS are not synonymous. Using the terms
interchangeably is dangerously misleading. HIV is Human
Immunodeficiency Virus -- a virus, an inanimate protein. On the other
hand, AIDS is Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome -- a collection of
diseases, a syndrome. Someone who's HIV+ retains the virus within his
body. He may or may not be healthy, with conditions that may or may
not have anything to do with the virus. Someone who actually has AIDS
suffers from one or more of 29 specific "AIDS-indicator diseases," as
defined by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Supposedly, the
underlying characteristic is that an AIDS patient's immune system is
deficient -- not doing it's job to ward off illness -- hence he
repeatedly suffers from infections that don't affect the average
healthy person. These infections are "opportunistic infections"
because they take advantage of the fact that the patient's immune
system isn't functioning properly. Otherwise, a healthy immune system
keeps them at bay. Thus, many (but not all) of the official
AIDS-indicator diseases represent opportunistic infections.
The original two diseases are still the two most common, one or both
appearing in over 80% of AIDS patients: Pneumocystis cairn pneumonia
and Kaposi's sarcoma. Before the 1980's, the pneumonia was rare and
usually struck cancer patients whose immune systems were deprived due
to chemotherapy. However, the Pneumocystis carinii organism itself
inhabits the lungs of almost everyone on the planet (at least 90% of
the world's population). Kaposi's sarcoma was a rare blood-vessel
tumor, which, being a cancer, has nothing to do with the immune
system. (In spite of speculation otherwise, any link between cancer
and the immune system, such as the notion of immune surveillance, has
never been established.)
HISTORY
On April 23, 1984, Margaret Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human
Services, held a press conference to announce that they'd found the
"probable cause of AIDS", and introduced Dr. Robert Gallo, then head
of the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology at the National Cancer
Institute. Gallo made his statement that HIV causes AIDS with
absolutely no scientific evidence to support it. Furthermore, he
hadn't published a single paper describing his findings. Such neglect
is unacceptable from the standpoint of the research community. A
basic tenet of science is to publish your work so others may examine
and critique it. Since Gallo didn't do this, no qualified person
outside of his own colleagues had a chance to review his reasoning.
Instead, he made his claim public for the first time to a group of
individuals (the press) not qualified to determine the validity of the
claim.
The press took his statement and ran with it. HIV as the cause of
AIDS was public before the medical community had a chance to examine
it. The following reasons describe why Gallo was successful in
convincing the world of his false hypothesis:
-He had the backing of the federal government (Margaret Heckler). The
government's Health and Human Services is the paymaster for all
health departments and agencies, including the National Institutes of
Health (NIH).
-The CDC supported him. Prior to his announcement, they had put heavy
pressure on him to find a viral cause of AIDS.
-He had power and pull in the NIH, as head of a huge and well-funded
retrovirus lab.
-A powerful promotional campaign made it instant fact.
-It was in the interests of the pharmaceutical companies since it
meant they could eventually market AIDS-drugs.
-It was in the interests of the biotechnology companies since it
generated lots of research funds.
-The media trustingly relayed the news.
-Gallo and team denied dissident journalists access to "inside"
information.
-The bureaucracy of the medical establishment and the federal
government made it difficult to halt the rolling stone.
-Virology is a "secret" field open only to insiders, no one else has
the right to question it. Virologists wield much influence in the
medical field.
-The rest of the world (the ones who care) accepted the hypothesis
because everyone looks up to looks up to the American medical
establishment.
-Gallo had intoxicating motives: money (he's now a millionaire), power
(to tell researchers what they can and can't do), and glory (he's now
a famous man).
The result, a select few individuals control all AIDS research money
in the United States, $6 billion a year. The names include Robert
Gallo, and Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases (part of the NIH). They have total power to
direct AIDS research in the manner they like. Scientists who voice
opposition to the HIV- AIDS hypothesis, don't get to do research! All
work is done with the agreement that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Prior
to 1984, many groups besides Gallo's investigated a multitude of
possible viral and non-viral avenues to AIDS. All this ended
abruptly. That's not right. Science is about questions and answers,
open discussion and sharing of knowledge. Suppressing this discussion
of knowledge, like the "AIDS-establishment" has done, is completely
unscientific, not to mention extremely unethical.
Many researchers today actually don't question the hypothesis. They
just blindly work on their own piece of the puzzle. That's how
science operates today. Scientists who do have doubts, justify their
quiet compliance in a variety of ways:
1. Their research somehow will prove beneficial in other ways
2. They'll lose their jobs if they speak out
3. The money for a nicer house, extra vacations and more cars is just
too tempting
4. They just don't care
These are scientists. Remember, they're people too, with the same
range of morals and rationalizations as everyone else. With
limitations. With goals, desires, and hopes. With the same potential
to lie. Some scientists aren't even very intelligent. They have good
days and bad days, days when they're impatient and grumpy and they
decide not to take that last measurement from the flask. Why did the
Challenger blow up? Because of the human aspect of science. Because
of the bureaucracy and misdirected communication.
Scientists are fallible too. That's why there's prior review by
experts in the field. Gallo avoided it. To get people to believe his
HIV nonsense, he relied not on the scientific method, but on his
weight and influence, on the timing of events, on who he knew, on the
fact that virology is highly-cliquish, and on the fact that he had the
patent and the rights and the ability to control it all.
There was and is no independent, objective watchdog group.
Remember the controversy surrounding the discovery of the virus and
the patent for the antibody test? That was Gallo. The NIH instigated
an ethics investigation and its Office of Research Integrity
eventually convicted him of scientific misconduct on Dec. 30, 1992.
People have repeatedly proved him guilty of fraud (e.g.. faking HIV
photographs). Investigative committees found all of his original
papers on HIV/AIDS (published after his public announcement) to be
fraudulent. Over the years, even his own friends have discredited
him, questioned his intellect, and expressed doubts about his motives
and competence. Yet, the AIDS establishment still marches onward,
unimpeded. Remember, Gallo is the guy that started it all!
Why did he make his unfounded claim? There's only two possible
reasons:
1. He's incompetent, in which case he shouldn't have been head of the
NIH's lab. (In his own book he expresses lifelong fears of not being
good enough, of being second rate. At one time, he even referred to
HIV as "an intelligent and mysterious virus." A virus, technically,
is a non-living particle. What person in his right mind would refer
to a protein as "intelligent"?)
2. He's dishonest.
Reason #1 is why there's supposed to be prior review. Reason #2 is
unacceptable and he must be held fully responsible.
Gallo's book Virus Hunting came out in 1991. By that time, due to all
the advertising and promotion, the world had accepted HIV as the cause
of AIDS. Thus, because of this bias, the reader is more prone to
forgive the sloppiness of his book. My challenge to you is,
temporarily forget everything you've heard about HIV/AIDS. Read Virus
Hunting without prior bias, as if it's your first introduction into
AIDS. After all, it's the most complete explanation Gallo's ever
provided for how he proved his hypothesis. Is it convincing? Upon
finishing it, are you certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that HIV
causes AIDS?
DISEASE CAUSATION
There are two ways to cause disease: either an infectious organism can
do it, or some kind of non-infectious stimulus like an environmental
toxin, chemical or even some internal condition. AIDS researchers all
along have admitted they don't know how HIV works to cause AIDS. So
if you don't know how it does it, how do you know it does it? For any
disease, the answer to that is Koch's Postulates, the experimental
equivalent of germ theory. To tell whether or not a particular germ
causes a certain disease, you must satisfy these simple, commonsense,
logical rules:
1. The microbe must be found in all cases of the disease (and must be
biologically active)
2. The microbe must be isolated from the host and grown in pure
culture
3. The cultured microbe must reproduce the original disease when
introduced into a susceptible host
4. The microbe must then be found present in this experimental,
infected host
But Gallo dismisses Koch's postulates, saying they don't apply because
they're outdated, whereas HIV is new and mysterious. The problem is,
he doesn't replace Koch's postulates with any of his own. He doesn't
outline any new model for determining the cause of disease. He
doesn't present any new way to determine that a particular
microorganism causes a certain disease. So again, the question is,
how did he know HIV was the culprit? What method did he use to prove
that HIV causes AIDS? And I mean prove, because for something as
serious and impacting as AIDS, you better be sure you've got proof.
His only response is correlation. In other words, he found HIV in
some AIDS patients (48 out of 167). Correlation is indeed "one hell
of a good beginning", he's right about that. But in his case, that's
all it ever was -- it never left the "beginning" stage, and it wasn't
even "good." Finding HIV in these people says nothing about
causation. For one thing there are higher rates of other infectious
germs, like cytomegalovirus (100% in AIDS patients), EpsteinBarr
virus, and various herpes viruses. Why not these, instead of HIV?
(Initially they did investigate cytomegalovirus as the cause and
prematurely abandoned it.) Plus, besides microorganisms, there are
other health risks that show up in all AIDS patients, including drug
use, infections, extreme use of antibiotics, sexually-transmitted
diseases (STD's), and pre-existing health problems. To prove the
bandit causing immune deficits is HIV instead of these other factors,
you have to do very thorough studies. For example, you have to divide
AIDS patients into groups based on their health risks. Health-risks
means congenital problems, like hemophilia, and "risk-behavior" which
in this paper has a different definition than the AIDS
establishment's. Risk-behavior means activities that people engage in
which jeopardize their health, like drug-abuse or jumping out of an
airplane without a parachute. Now, once you've divided these groups,
you need to find out how many HIV- people in the same risk groups
experience the same illnesses. And then you need to compare risk-free
populations -- people who don't abuse drugs, don't repeatedly come
down with infectious disease, and don't have congenital health
problems - - and see how the AIDS-diseases show up in HIV+'s and
HIV-'s. In other words, you have to do very careful
mixing-and-matching, comparing-and-contrasting for all population
samples: people who have AIDS, people who don't have AIDS, people who
have HIV, people who don't have HIV, people from risk groups, people
from risk-free groups. It's a very complicated process. You must
complete these studies before you can say HIV causes AIDS. You can't
do what Gallo did, and prove causation by looking only at AIDS
patients in the lab, because you aren't comparing these people with
anyone else. You're seeing one side of the story. Since the
variables are 1. HIV, and 2. someone with various diseases (AIDS),
it's a difficult scenario. There are soooo many things that can lead
from one to the other. Health and disease depends on what you eat,
what you do, what chemicals you come in contact with, for how long,
what's your medical history. The presence of HIV could be mere
coincidence. The point of comparative studies is to show that it's
not.
But Gallo and team performed no epidemiological studies. They didn't
rule out other variables. They half-heartedly attempted to satisfy
Koch's postulates and failed. So they relied on "correlation" to
claim with utter certainty that if you have HIV you are going to die.
VERY DISGUSTING!
EVIDENCE
AIDS researchers admit they don't know what HIV does to cause AIDS.
For over a decade they've generated proposal after proposal, only to
abandon them in favor of new ones. The truth is, AIDS data collected
from all relevant areas excludes HIV from playing any role in this
syndrome.
LABORATORY DATA
The main dogma is that HIV damages the immune system by harming or
killing it's T- helper cells (T-cells).
-HIV belongs to a class of viruses called retroviruses, which
scientists studied thoroughly during the War on Cancer. Human
retroviruses by nature do not cause serious illness. In fact they
were among the last viruses to be discovered, precisely because of
their non- pathogenicity, i.e.. inability to cause disease. HIV is a
completely typical retrovirus.
-HIV has no observable effect on any cells of the immune system. No
one has ever seen HIV harming T-cells either in culture or in vivo (in
a real person). Such havoc wreaking is pure speculation. If
anything, retroviruses actually cause cells to multiply faster instead
of killing them. That's why we studied them as a possible cause of
cancer, because cancer is caused by cells that grow out of control,
not by cells that are dying.
-HIV is consistently inactive even in people dying from full-blown
AIDS. 50% of AIDS patients don't even have detectable virus. None
whatsoever. A virus must be actively replicating and abundant in many
cells to cause disease.
-A virus has to get into a cell in order to cause disease. Outside of
a cell, a virus does nothing. HIV infects (gets into) at most 1/1000
new T-cells every two days. In the same amount of time, the body
replaces at least 30/1000 of these cells. So even if HIV kills every
cell that it infects (which it doesn't), it is not enough to affect
the T-cell count.
-Discussion about wild and unpredictable mutation making HIV so
harmful and so difficult to deal with, is inappropriate. HIV mutation
is limited by genetics - the virus must remain genetically compatible
with its target cell. (For example, plants are so different than
animals that plant viruses never affect the animal kingdom and
vice-versa.) Furthermore, there has never been a retroviral mutant
that escaped antiviral immunity, which means that a mutant retrovirus
is susceptible to antibodies.
-Different strains of HIV are so similar (look at the fact that they
all react to the same antibody-test), there is no such thing as a
"harmless" strain or a "harmful" one.
-Retroviruses do not kill their host cells, so HIV does not kill
T-cells.
-Retroviruses do not infect non-dividing cells (eg. brain cells)
therefore HIV cannot cause the AIDS-indicator disease dementia.
-HIV has never been found in Kaposi's sarcoma, therefore the virus has
nothing to do with this cancer.
-HIV is a very weak virus. It survives only 15 minutes in water,
which is a substance most amiable to life. HIV is fragile. Very
special lab conditions are necessary in order to grow it outside the
human body.
-Animal models are misanalogous to human HIV and AIDS. Simian
(monkey) AIDS is drastically different (resembling mostly the flu) and
doesn't compare at all to human AIDS. Since SIV is genetically
different than HIV, there's no grounds to relate the two.
-Hypotheses about HIV's indirect methods of causing illness are
unsupported speculation and have never been observed or proven.
-HIV fails Koch's postulates 1,3,&4:
1. The microbe must be found in all cases of the disease (and must be
biologically active): HIV virus isn't found in half of all AIDS
patients. When it is found, it's never active.
2. The microbe must be isolated from the host and grown in pure
culture: This has technically been fulfilled. But it's ironic,
because HIV is grown in T-cell cultures and never harms the T-cells!
3. The microbe must reproduce the original disease when introduced
into a susceptible host: There's 3 ways to test this: a) Infect a lab
animal -- No animal injected with HIV has ever become deathly ill b)
Accidental infection of humans -- Such infection of 1000+ health care
workers has never produced a single AIDS case! c) Vaccination
experiments -- In every case, AIDS only shows up after antibodies have
suppressed HIV, therefore the virus plays no role.
4. The microbe must be found present in this experimental, infected
host: Since postulate 3 hasn't been satisfied, then postulate 4
doesn't apply. Infecting an experimental host has never produced
AIDS, so we can't consider postulate 4.
-The CDC admits over 4200 AIDS cases without any HIV antibodies or
virus. Why do these people have AIDS?
-The CDC admits at least 1/4 of all AIDS cases have never been tested
for HIV! So no one knows whether they had it or not. (There are
43,606 such "presumptive diagnoses" up to 1988.)
-Is HIV necessary to cause AIDS? No. If HIV was necessary, then all
AIDS cases would have HIV. Furthermore, there are other
well-established causes of immune deficiency identical to AIDS having
nothing to do with HIV. Is it sufficient on its own? The fact that
the establishment talks about HIV carriers at "high risk" for
developing AIDS and carriers at "low risk", means no.
-Soon after Gallo's "discovery", his own lab-mates talked about
cofactors and other methods to cause the syndrome, because they had
trouble finding the virus in AIDS patients. Even Luc Montagnier, the
French co-discoverer of HIV, says he doesn't believe HIV is the sole
cause of AIDS.
-Science magazine last year in 1994 wrote, "According to some AIDS
researchers, HIV now fulfills the classic postulates of disease
causation established by Robert Koch." It doesn't, but the point is,
it's no good satisfying these postulates now. They should have done
it before April 23, 1984.
AIDS researchers themselves agree with all the above facts. What they
refuse to admit is that HIV does not cause AIDS. Instead, they invent
far-fetched ideas to explain how it does in spite of the fact that all
the evidence discounts it.
EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA
Epidemiology is the statistical study of disease epidemics and
involves correlation. They said AIDS was going to have a huge impact
on the world. Millions dead. Yet most people in America still have
never met an AIDS patient. The news at one point even talked about
1/5 of the population walking around with HIV. So how come 1/5 of the
population isn't dropping dead with AIDS? And what about whole
countries in Africa infected with HIV? Why haven't these countries
disappeared by now?
The first 5 AIDS patients in 1981 were identified by Pneumocystis
pneumonia. The next 26 (most of them on the opposite coast of
America) had Kaposi's sarcoma. Clustered outbreaks of disease like
this don't necessarily reflect common exposure to a germ. Disease
clusters may mean instead that their victims shared the same diet,
behavior or environmental hazard. Indeed, each AIDS risk group -- gay
men, IV drug users and hemophiliacs -- possess very serious
immune-damaging conditions (apart from the "killer" virus). There has
never been an AIDS patient who didn't have serious health risks to
begin with (long before any HIV infection). In the fast-life
promiscuous gays, it's drugs and STD's. In IV-drug users it's the
drugs. In hemophiliacs it's hemophilia. With Africans, it's the
usual starvation, malnutrition and parasitic disease. 83% of American
AIDS babies were already hemophiliac or "crack" babies, and the rest
are ghetto kids suffering from malnutrition. With every unfortunate
other person, it's AZT. To pin the cause of AIDS in these people on
the virus HIV, you must perform studies to eliminate contributions
made from their other risks. These studies have never been done. The
fact that AIDS manifests itself differently in different risk groups
lends itself much better to the notion of different causes rather than
the single-HIV. Furthermore, multiple causes limits confidence in
talking about "contiguousness." In other words, it's hard to say a
disease with many causes is at all contagious.
Consider different types of sexual practices -- oral sex, anal sex,
masturbation and vaginal intercourse. How did the CDC in the early
1980's determine which of these behaviors are "more" or "less" risky
for transmitting HIV/AIDS? They admit that no biological evidence
exists. Their method was contact-tracing: finding out who had sex or
shared blood with AIDS patients, locating these partners, seeing if
they had AIDS, and asking them questions about their lifestyle. This
type of surveying is totally inconclusive. It's impossible to trace
the sexual transmissibility, much less pin down the types of sexual
practices that are more or less risky, of a disease with a 10-year
latent period. (HIV supposedly is latent -- sleeping, dormant, not
doing anything -- for up to 10 years after infecting somebody.) Tell
me they went out and reliably charted when and where every AIDS
patient had sex for the previous 15 years, what kind(s) of sex each
encounter included, and finally concluded that HIV didn't get Mr.
Jones during those 10 oral sex adventures he had in March 1983 but
nailed him during that one act of intercourse in April. Ridiculous!
To argue the point, the establishment says that the determination of
risk factors can't be made by studying one patient at a time, but it's
necessary to conduct general studies with lots of subjects to get lots
of comparisons. The problem is, this argument mixes apples and
oranges. To classify different types of sexual behaviors into
categories like "more efficient at transmitting HIV" and "less
efficient," you need to account the specifics of each HIV+ person's
sexual practices, otherwise the basic data contributing to the big
overall studies are inaccurate, which means the end results are
unreliable. To make fine distinctions between different modes of HIV
transmission (eg. oral sex is 10 times safer than vaginal sex), it's
necessary to conduct studies that are equally as minute in scope --
laboratory studies, which have never been done.
For every other disease, breaking down into such detail how it's
transmitted is absurd. It's either sexually transmitted or it's not.
You either pass it by coughing on someone or you don't. The detailed
explanations always coupled with HIV are nothing more than the AIDS
establishment groping for ways to convince everyone to be concerned
about AIDS.
AIDS surfaced in the 1980's because of the emergence of three
coincidental phenomenon:
1. The advent of the drug-culture of the sixties
2. The use of nitrite inhalants ("poppers") exclusively by fast-life
homosexual men
3. The visibility of the gays as a group (and to a lesser extent the
IV-drug users) when they "came out of the closet", making it easier to
identify their drug-induced suffering
The fact of the matter is, AIDS is not contagious:
-AIDS has never left its original "risk groups" -- IV drug users, gay
men and hemophiliacs. After more than 15 years, 95% of AIDS patients
are still members of these three groups. If AIDS were contagious,
especially sexually with a long latent period, it would have spread
out of these bounds already.
-There are 20,000 American hemophiliacs. 75% of them have been HIV+
for at least a decade. But they're still alive! Instead of dying,
the opposite has occurred: in the last decade, the median age for
hemophiliacs has doubled.
-The U.S. Army tests 2.5 million applicants per year for HIV. This
testing shows equal HIV distribution between males and females!
However, 9/10 AIDS patients are males. In causing disease, viruses do
not discriminate between the sexes. Furthermore, the AIDS- indicator
diseases are not male-specific, which means that if HIV truly caused
AIDS, then there would be as many female as male victims.
-It takes an HIV+ person 500-1000 unprotected sexual acts to pass the
virus just once. This rate of transmission is too low for a sexually
contagious epidemic.
-The incidence of venereal disease has increased in the last decade
(which means people aren't practicing safe sex) but not HIV. In fact,
the number of HIV-infecteds hasn't gone up at all, and the number of
new AIDS cases leveled out in the late 1980's, according to official
CDC statistics. So, HIV isn't spreading in spite of the fact that
people aren't using condoms, and AIDS is occurring in a manner totally
unrelated to sex.
-The official number of HIV+'s in America has remained a constant 1
million since 1985. If HIV has a latent period of 10 years (the
official doctrine) then 1 million Americans should be dead from AIDS.
However, 2/3 of this million have not developed any AIDS diseases in
the last 10 years.
-They said Haiti was 10-20% infected in the 1980's. Why hasn't 10-20%
of Haiti disappeared?
-The official world-wide estimates of HIV-infection have remained
constant since AIDS started. This means HIV stopped spreading long
before the 1980's. A person freshly acquires it only in rare
instances. If HIV causes AIDS, then AIDS as its defined today would
have noticeably existed long before 1980. But since it didn't, that
means HIV has nothing to do with it.
-For all sexually-transmitted diseases (STD's), the microorganisms
must occur greatly in sperm. However, there is an overwhelming lack
of HIV in sperm, which means HIV does not cause an STD.
-HIV can infect no cells but those with a CD4 surface protein.
T-helper cells and macrophages are the only cells in the body with
this protein. Both these cell types are mostly found in blood, and
much less in the genital tract. Thus, HIV is not primarily sexually
transmitted.
-For 1/4 of the total AIDS cases to date, we don't know whether they
were HIV+ or HIV-!
-According to everyone including the AIDS-establishment, HIV has
probably been around for centuries. The reason that the U.S. Army
uncovers an HIV distribution equally M/F, is that the virus is long
established, especially in Africa, where it's permeated the population
by perinatal transmission and not heterosexual intercourse. The
primary mode of transmission for retroviruses is perinatal, because
this is the most efficient means of maintaining its residency in a
population. Any perinatal virus cannot be fatal, otherwise it would
kill off its hosts (infected people) and itself (long before getting
rooted). HIV is probably somewhat established in Africa but not
America, perinatally-transmitted in Africa but less so in America.
-By far, most of the AIDS cases in America are diagnosed in men. But,
AIDS in Africa affects men and women equally. There's absolutely no
reasonable way to explain how one virus or strains of one virus HIV
would make such discrimination.
-The CDC's portrayal of AIDS as a sexual epidemic is entirely
unfounded. Any of their attempts to trace HIV/AIDS through sexual
contact is impossible with a virus that supposedly has a 10-year
latent period. Reports linking an AIDS case to sex are either
anecdotal or false.
-The establishment always uses anecdotal evidence to support their
epidemic -- e.g.. dental patient Kimberly Bergalis. But anecdotal
cases can always be found for anything. Can't they show us more than
just a few strange cases to demonstrate the seriousness of this
"contagious" disease?
-Why does HIV occur preferentially in AIDS patients? First, HIV
occurs more in people with AIDS because AIDS patients with their
behaviors tend to collect more infectious agents than the average
person. For example, hepatitis virus is uncommon in the general
population but very common in junkies, promiscuous people and
hemophiliacs, with or without HIV-infection. Second, you can't
separate HIV and AIDS because the definition of AIDS depends on HIV!
In other words, it seems that HIV shows up only with AIDS patients and
vice-versa, but that's because the definition of one depends on the
other.
-HIV didn't "spread" into IV-drug users and hemophiliacs after they
first discovered it in homosexuals. The reason it "spread" is because
they started looking for it in other places and it was already there.
-For each passing year, the CDC adds a year to the official latency
period for HIV. This deception serves the purpose of diverting
people's attention from the fact that HIV is not killing anybody.
-AIDS began as two diseases. Now it is 29. Every few years, the CDC
expands its official list of indicator diseases. This makes it seem
like AIDS is indeed spreading, which it isn't. Realistically, AIDS
should remain the original two diseases.
AIDS researchers including Gallo keep looking for and excitedly coming
up with new evidence (which inevitably turns out to be incorrect) that
HIV causes AIDS. Why are they doing it now?! Shouldn't they have
done all this 15 years ago?! They were supposed to have been sure
about it then, not now! In 1984, Gallo blamed HIV and only HIV.
Nowadays he talks about causal "co-factors." In light of this, how
could his original statement have been accurate? "Proof" doesn't
change over time. The fact that Gallo and team continue to present
evidence that HIV satisfies Koch's postulates and causes AIDS, must
mean that Gallo's original statement was based on something less than
proof. Therefore there are no grounds whatsoever to talk about any
role of HIV in AIDS.
THE DEFINITION/DIAGNOSIS OF AIDS
How does a physician know it's AIDS? One person has tuberculosis but
no HIV. Another person has TB and HIV. Both manifestations of the
illness are clinically identical. One person has Kaposi's sarcoma and
pneumonia. Another has diarrhea and wasting disease. Medical
personnel rely on T-cell counts too. But how accurate is T-cell count
a measure of the strength of the immune system? We don't know.
Counts are very individualized. Not only that, but they fluctuate for
everyone, depending if you have a cold or come down with a minor
infection. Even in the course of a single day. Consider this: the
official range for a healthy adult T-helper cell count is 600/mL -
1200/mL. Anything lower than 200/mL warrants an AIDS diagnosis. But
if the healthy leeway has a range of 600/mL, there's no justification
in saying that 400/mL less is an unequivocable sign of death and doom.
If you don't know beforehand what the patient's normal, healthy
T-cell count is, you can't use a T-cell count to make an AIDS
diagnosis. Yet, that's what's being done. The point is, since the
immune system is very complicated, it's unlikely that such a simple
calculation as T- cell would be a good reflection of your health. So,
what is AIDS? Is it tuberculosis or Kaposi's sarcoma? Is it a T-cell
count of 600 in someone who normally likes to have 1000, and in
someone else an 800 who normally operates at 1500?
Consider a hypothetical situation. Suppose a disease called ID is the
result of an infectious organism that causes immune deficiency. Since
immune deficiency can manifest itself in so many 10's of ways and be
completely different from person to person, the only way you could
distinguish ID from other immune deficiencies would be the presence of
this microorganism. But before you can make such an assessment, you
have to be sure that this particular germ causes immune deficiency.
Since we hardly understand the immune system, it's so complex, there
are only two ways that you can be sure this germ does it:
1. prove that the germ damages a known aspect of the immune system
through a known mechanism of action. You have to use an
already-existent and proven model for the immune system, and
demonstrate how the germ affects this model.
2. show that the germ exists in people with immune deficiency, and
show that these people also have no other known causes of immune
disorder. Immune deficiency is not a black-and-white condition, so
you need to develop a consistent definition and stick with it. For
example, the best definition anyone's presented so far, is that it
manifests itself as repeated opportunistic infections, increased
susceptibility to infections, increased frequency of illness and
decline of overall health.
Using one or both of the above proofs pins down the germ as the cause
of ID.
Now consider AIDS. Method #1 can't be used -- the entire premise of
HIV is that it works in mysterious, unknown ways. No one knows
exactly how it affects the immune system. That's why they spend
billions of dollars each year on research. Regarding #2, Gallo and
his colleagues never ruled out other known causes of immune disorder
in their AIDS patients. Furthermore, they never developed a
consistent definition of immune deficiency -- first, they used a
handful of opportunistic infections as a sign; later, they threw in
T-cell counts, then they added more and more infections to the list.
The problems in diagnosing AIDS stem from an inherent flaw in it's
definition. In most cases, if the patient doesn't have HIV, he
doesn't get diagnosed with AIDS. (However, in certain instances the
CDC allows presumptive guesses, which means an AIDS- diagnosis without
an HIV test. Technically, this shouldn't happen much, but in reality
it happens 1/4 of the time. Contrast this with a different scenario
-- the 4200+ AIDS cases that actually had an HIV test which came out
negative. Also keep in mind that the typical test is an
antibody-test, but applying an actual virus-test reveals that half of
all AIDS patients have absolutely no HIV virus in them.) But in the
presence of HIV, any of the indicator diseases means AIDS. However,
the previous paragraph explains that no one has ever established a
link between HIV and the immune system. Thus, there's no legitimate
way to distinguish AIDS from other immune deficiencies. So, the
disease AIDS does not have its own diagnostic criteria. The diagnosis
and definition relies entirely on the presence of HIV occurring with
an indicator disease, but
1. there's no way to explain the presence of the disease in relation
to HIV
2. the disease is not unique to HIV-infection
<Diagnosis of legitimate disease = presence of particular germ +
particular symptoms>
<AIDS = unreliable detection of HIV + almost any symptom you can think
of>
The establishment's argument is, HIV doesn't directly cause the
indicator diseases. HIV causes immune deficiency, which leaves the
body vulnerable to these diseases. This argument makes no sense
because:
1. these diseases have nothing in common and many of them have
nothing to do with immune deficiency: some are caused by funguses
(systemic mycosis); some by protozoa (cryptosporidium gastroentenitis,
toxoplasmosis, and PC pneumonia); by mycobacterium (tuberculosis); by
viruses like cytomegalovirus. The mechanism for weight loss/wasting
syndrome is not yet understood. And we don't know what causes the
cancers (Kaposi's sarcoma, lymphomas). 29 as an official number of
indicator diseases is totally arbitrary.
2. 38% of all AIDS cases have nothing to do with immune deficiency
3. AIDS researchers admit they don't know the mechanism by which HIV
causes immune suppression. How then do they know it affects the
immune system at all? They are never able to answer this question.
4. To define AIDS, there's got to be some way to separate the
symptoms of the disease from those of other immune deficiencies.
There's no difference between AIDS and other immune deficiencies,
though, except for the presence of HIV.
As a counter-example, consider tuberculosis. You can be infected with
mycobacteria but not have TB. You get a diagnosis of TB (disease)
when you're infected and suffering. Symptoms means you've got some
disease. To determine which disease you have (to make a diagnosis),
the doctor must do some investigative work. If you're coughing up
blood and you're lungs are full of the bacteria, that's TB. We know
it's TB because for every other patient in the world, their TB
progresses in the same way, in roughly the same amount of time, and
they all have in their lungs the same little mycobacteria that anyone
can see through a microscope. Furthermore, you can't get TB without
having the mycobacteria in your lungs. Hence, the if-then
relationship for any legitimate infectious disease looks like this:
microorganism #1 ----maybe---> disease #1
disease #1----definitely---> microorganism #1
However, the if-then relationship for AIDS looks like this:
HIV ----maybe---> AIDS-indicator diseases
lots of things without HIV ----maybe---> AIDS-indicator diseases
AIDS-indicator diseases ----maybe---> HIV
Too many maybes. With AIDS, the symptoms are completely different
from group to group, the virus isn't there half the time, and the way
the disease progresses is drastically different depending on the
patient. AIDS diseases have been around long before HIV came on the
scene. They already have causes other than HIV. So what makes the
symptoms of one of these diseases indicative of AIDS and not something
else? Solely the presence of HIV, which is the screwy part, because
there's nothing linking the two. The bottom line is, the definition
of AIDS doesn't make sense. It doesn't accurately describe the
syndrome as a unique disease entity. The definition is logically
faulty, a complete mess. There's no way to diagnose AIDS accurately.
There's no data supporting any role of HIV. Something is
fundamentally wrong. What's wrong is, AIDS is not the result of
infection by HIV or any other microbe. AIDS is an arbitrary
collection of diseases that have different causes, none of which are
new. HIV does not cause AIDS. You can get "AIDS" with or without
having it. The medical literature lists the real ways you acquire
immune deficiency:
narcotics, sedatives, tranquilizers, alcohol, cardiac drugs, steroids,
chemotherapy, non- steroidal inflammatory drugs, antivirals,
antibiotics, radiation, malnutrition, immunosuppressive drugs (used in
blood transfusions, tissue transplants), and excessive stress.
MEDICAL DATA
The majority of people do not succumb to disease, even when infected.
That's because most immune systems are normal, naturally able to fight
off invasion and illness. It's the exception rather than the rule
that someone contracts disease. There are two factors: 1. the
germ must be present, otherwise no disease 2. the condition of the
host determines if he's susceptible to the germ. Both of these
operate at the same time. Every single one of us walks around
harboring many microorganisms. Right now you and I carry the
Pneumocystis carinii protozoan. 2/3 of all Americans carry herpes
virus and cytomegalovirus. 4/5 carry Epstein-Barr virus. More than
80% harbor papilloma virus. The reason these germs don't affect us is
because our immune systems keep them at bay. It's the normal mode of
our existence. In Africa, most people have leprosy bacillus(the
bacteria), but few have leprosy. How do you tell if someone has a
normal immune system? That's the tricky part. No one knows. The
immune system is very complex and we don't have a clear understanding
of it. Our methods, like T-cell count, for gauging the strength of
our immune system, are hazy. "It should be obvious that the immune
system is highly complex, that it is capable of a wide range of
effector functions, and that it's activities are subject to potent,
but only partially understood, regulatory processes." (editor William
E. Paul, M.D., Fundamental Immunology 3rd ed., Raven Press, NY, 1993,
p. 20) Furthermore, "[b]ecause these fields are developing very
rapidly, it would not be expected that a consensus would have yet been
achieved even among leading specialists in the area." (p. xvii) And
Edward Golub and Douglas Green, in their textbook Immunology a
Synthesis, write "In fact, during the time it will take you to read
this book, it is safe to assume that there will be at least four
articles published that radically change at least one of the areas in
this field." (2nd ed., Sinauer Associates, Inc., MA, 1991, p. xxvii)
When it comes down to it, the way to point out a healthy immune system
is what the first sentence in the paragraph says: most people have
healthy immune systems.
When a person is exposed to a new microbe, his body develops
antibodies, proteins designed specifically to disable the microbe.
Once the body wins over the germ, conquering it, these antibodies
float around in the bloodstream from then on, ready for the next time
the same germ shows up. The person is "antibody- positive"; he's
immune to the disease caused by the microbe. (Note: one reason we
continue to get colds is because new cold viruses pop up from time to
time. Another reason is that many viruses, whether they're "cold"
viruses or not, cause cold-like symptoms.) Just as we constantly have
germs in us, we have lots antibodies. For every disease that plagues
mankind, having antibodies means you're immune. AIDS is the first in
history for which it's not supposed to work like that, but no one's
given a reason. There is none, because being HIV-antibody positive
(HIV+) means you're immune to the effects of HIV! (Anything it could
possibly do to you is minor. Upon infection, it might cause initial
flu-like illness or swollen glands, which is typical of any initial
viral infection, before seroconversion, or developing antibodies and
knocking out the virus.) HIV is a typical virus; it doesn't defy the
immunity principle. In fact, in the laboratory, HIV can be grown only
in the absence of antibodies. Think about that. Being HIV+ is the
opposite of a death sentence! If for some reason, a person's immune
system isn't capable of making antibodies, or maybe not in the right
quantity or fashion, or with the right speed, that's when disease
might occur. And it'll usually happen quickly, within a matter of
days. You catch a cold, you get sick in a couple of days and you
remain sick until you're body fights it off. You come down with Ebola
fever, and if fate's against you, you die in a week or two.
Furthermore, you'll readily be able to chart the progression of the
disease. If you know what the cold virus looks like, you'll find it
abundant and actively replicating wherever you have your cold. If
it's a head cold, it'll be strong in the nasal passages. A chest
cold, in the lungs. Now, there are slower diseases like syphilis, but
the same principle applies. Your body is busy as always trying to
fight off the spirochete, but it's not quite successful. An up and
down battle. So the bacteria slowly multiples and makes its way
around your body. You might not have noticeable symptoms for a long
time, but you can match the movement of the bacteria with the
progression of the disease. On the other hand, it's entirely possible
to be infected with spirochete and never come down with syphilis.
That means you're immune system is doing it's job. Many people don't
realize this important fact because of the powerful campaign to
eradicate infectious disease.
The immune system fluctuates through the course of time. Sometimes it
works above capacity, sometimes below. When it dips below, you may
experience a recurrence of symptoms from some of the germs in your
body. They can gain a foothold for a short while, until your body
knocks them out again. So, being immune doesn't mean you'll never
again experience the effects of the germ. But it does mean your body
knows specifically how to combat it, and as long as you're otherwise
healthy and your immune system as a whole is functioning regularly,
any effects will be minor and short-lived. Not a problem. (A third
reason we get colds: our immune systems aren't always up to par and
occasionally we're more susceptible, to a new infection or perhaps
something we already have.)
The previous paragraphs derive two conclusions. First, there is no
such thing as a universally-fatal microorganism. There are no
viruses, bacteria, funguses, parasites, or any tiny organisms that
kill everyone they infect. HIV, if it were harmful, would be no
exception. The idea of HIV infection as 100% fatal is completely
absurd. (Many people don't even know that the CDC actually projects
a 50-100%, or 30-100% depending on who you talk to, fatality. Not
100%) Second, there's no such thing as a latent virus causing disease.
A latent virus sleeps, it's not active, it's non-replicating. It
doesn't do anything. You cannot match the progression of the virus
with the progression of any disease in the body. Latency means that
your immune system is doing its job to hold it down. AIDS researchers
argue that HIV after some amount of time reactivates (awakens) and
starts killing T-cells for the final onslaught. The problem with what
they're saying is this "reactivation". A latent virus requires the
person to undergo immune deficit beforehand in order to reactivate and
start killing cells or otherwise noticeably affect the body. For
example, this is what happens with herpes. When immunity drops a bit,
it allows herpes to resurge for a while. Saying HIV causes immune
deficiency is logically faulty. Rather, immune failings would cause
any supposed HIV reactivation. Suppose then some minor immune
suppression reactives HIV. Once you regain your immune system, your
body will be able to do what it did initially, knock out the HIV all
over again. Only a major immune risk would lead to any opportunistic
HIV role, but then of course it's useless to talk about HIV causing
AIDS. It's the major immune risk that does it. It's not even
necessary that HIV be present?
AIDS researchers talk about cofactors, triggers and indirect methods
by which HIV accomplishes its deed. That only supports the
conclusions above. With all these extra factors (if they exist),
there's no way you could say whether or not you're ever gonna get sick
and die! When you start throwing in all this other stuff, it becomes
irrelevant. You can go on living without worrying, because you're
chances of dying, of being healthy or not, are like everyone else's on
the planet. First, they said you'd die in a year. Then two. Now
it's a decade. Health officials claim that "early prevention" has
prolonged the lives of their patients. What is this "early
prevention" they're talking about? Supposedly they can prolong your
life by treating opportunistic infections better. But the latent
period that went from 1 year to 10 is exactly that, latent -- where
you are not suffering opportunistic infections, so you aren't being
treated with anything.
If you can find an AIDS patient with HIV who otherwise did not
practice behavior or have some kind of pre-existing condition that put
their health in jeopardy, then we would have no choice but to
seriously consider HIV. The thing is, no such AIDS patient exists.
If you think you know one, you need to do some investigative work.
Are you absolutely sure they weren't a drug user? That they never
took AZT? That they did not have a history of health problems?
AIDS IN AFRICA
In Africa, AIDS is characterized by diarrhea, weight loss, and fever
-- a whole different set of symptoms than America. Africans don't
care about HIV/AIDS. Why? "AIDS" in Africa hasn't changed for
centuries - - it's caused by malnutrition, starvation, and parasitic
disease! Not HIV. Anthony Fauci himself stated that the world's #1
cause of T-cell depletion is malnutrition. In Africa, AIDS shouldn't
be called "AIDS".
The establishment claims that AIDS manifests itself differently in
Africa because their set of native microorganisms are different than
ours. So why is their "slim disease", one of their biggest AIDS
markers, so unlike our "wasting syndrome"? There aren't any
microorganisms involved with that. Plus, half of all Africans with
slim disease are HIV-. America has 1 million HIV+, with 315,000 AIDS
cases. Africa has 6-8 million HIV+ with a smaller number 250,000 AIDS
cases. There's no difference between the two peoples or places
consistent with the HIV- hypothesis to explain this discrepancy. In
fact, with much poorer health conditions overall in Africa, their
number of AIDS cases should be astoundingly high, if HIV was the
cause.
THE REST OF THE WORLD AND AIDS
Our perception of AIDS is mostly inherent to America. We get a very
one-sided picture. Africans don't care about it because there is no
AIDS there. The London Sunday Times in England called the African
AIDS epidemic a "myth." Furthermore, this newspaper actively carries
a large debate on the HIV-causality issue. Prominent scientists and
doctors on one side arguing against prominent scientists and doctors
on the other. We don't get that here in the US.
THE HIV-ANTIBODY TEST
All versions of the test, including the Eliza and Western Blot, test
for the presence of HIV- antibodies in the bloodstream. There's an
important distinction to be made between antibodies and virus. The
HIV-test does not locate viruses. It reacts to the presence of
antibodies. Testing for antibodies by nature is not cut-and- dry.
False positives occur -- where you come up HIV+ but really aren't.
This can happen if the test cross- reacts with other viruses. Suppose
you've had a cold, flu, measles, or similar sickness recently. You
can show HIV+ without having ever been exposed to HIV! For example,
the U.S. Army tests a group of the same 1000 soldiers twice. The
first time, 1/100 shows up HIV+. The second testing reveals only
1/1000. That means 9/10 who originally tested positive, are not
positive! Furthermore, you can be HIV+ but have no virus. This
indicates previous infection, but your body cleared the virus from
your system. The antibodies are still hanging around, but testing for
the actual virus reveals nothing. Who knows how many people fall in
this category? It's also possible to seroreconvert -- i.e.. go from
HIV+ to HIV- by natural means of clearing the virus from your body.
The body so efficiently destroys HIV that there is no need to produce
more antibodies, so the # of antibodies decreases to an undetectable
level. A slightly different case exists with newborns who inherit HIV
antibodies (with or without the virus) from their mothers. Within a
couple of years 1/2 of all these babies become HIV- because there's
no need for protection against a nonexistent or inactive virus. The
five-year old kid who made headline news several months back
definitely wasn't the first. The Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is a
highly accurate test that locates actual virus in the body.
Unfortunately for AIDS-establishment, ever since the PCR arrived in
the early 1990's, it has never found active HIV in any AIDS patients!
In fact, the inventor Kary Mullis, who won the 1993 Nobel prize for
chemistry, does not believe HIV has anything to do with AIDS.
DISSIDENCE
Many people aren't aware that there's a notable body of dissenters,
including Nobel-prize winners in science, who don't agree with the
HIV-AIDS hypothesis. People these days often refer to Dr. Peter
Duesberg, molecular biologist at UC Berkeley and member of the
National Academy of Sciences. The history behind Duesberg, ever since
he questioned the HIV-hypothesis in 1987:
-he lost his NIH grant
-he lost the ability to publish -anything he's able to publish on AIDS
produces hardly any responses from the establishment
-Gallo and other top retrovirologists praised Duesberg in the past.
Now they shun him. In the same breath, they exonerate him as the
world's foremost expert on retroviruses, but they can't allow him to
express his views on AIDS.
-Gallo commented once that Duesberg knows "more about retroviruses
than any man alive" but later said Duesberg's AIDS claims were "too
ridiculous to waste time answering." Gallo devotes 10 pages of his
book to combat him.
-Gallo has repeatedly refused to publicly debate Duesberg. But a
handful of interesting journal debates exist. You should read them.
-The establishment never gives any reason why they don't want Duesberg
to speak out, except that they don't like his ideas on AIDS.
Another notable dissenter is physician Robert Willner, who in recent
years repeatedly injected himself with HIV+ blood on TV and at press
conferences to show that it's harmless. One of the most pronounced
things that stick out about these dissenters is how they have put out
many books detailing and defending their ideas, but there's an
overwhelming lack of similar literature by the AIDS establishment. In
arguing how they know HIV causes AIDS, Gallo and team always cite
post-1984 studies. Well, then what they hell were they doing back in
1984?! Looking into crystal balls?! A popular AIDS book, The Search
for the Virus (Conner and Kingman, Penguin Books, 1989) says this:
"Without Duesberg [questioning the HIVAIDS hypothesis], perhaps no one
would have bothered to justify why HIV, a virus with such an
extraordinary biology, is the cause of the immune suppression that
results in AIDS." (pg. 111) Hold on, wait a second! That doesn't
make sense. They're supposed to justify it before announcing it to
everyone, not afterwards!
CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT FOR AIDS
The public is a bit more aware of the fraudulent and destructive
situation in treating AIDS. Everyone knows there's no "cure" and no
"vaccine." When it comes to treatment, people are more familiar with
the ineffectiveness and toxicities of the standard methods: AZT, ddI,
ddC, and d4T. Less known about these methods:
-The warning on the AZT label provided to lab researchers (the
following is taken from the Zidovudine product label, Sigma Chemical
Co.):
Toxic
Toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed. Target
organ(s): Blood, Bone marrow
If you feel unwell, seek medical advice (show the label where
possible). Wear suitable protective clothing.
(But the patients who take AZT swallow it every day!)
-Side effects of AZT (taken from the insert of retrovir): cancer;
hepatitis; dementia; mania; epileptic seizures; anxiety; generalized
pain; anemia; leukopenia; impotence; severe nausea; chest pain;
insomnia; ataxia; depression; muscle atrophy; granulocytopenia;
dyschromia of nails; dyspnea; neutropenia; pancytopenia;
thrombocytopenia; fever; rash; urinary frequency; vertigo; "sick
feeling"; encephalopathy; polymyositis; weakness; diarrhea; itching;
sweating; alteration of taste; vaginal cancer in laboratory animals;
serious interactions with all pain medicines, from aspirin to morphine
Anemia, one of the prominent side-effects, often requires either blood
transfusions or discontinuation of the AZT. According to the Bantam
Medical Dictionary, neutropenia is a decrease in the number of
neutrophils, a type of white blood cell, resulting in an increased
susceptibility to infections. In other words, another side effect of
AZT is immune deficiency. The Physician's Desk Reference says AZT's
side effects are often indistinguishable from AIDS itself.
-AZT was developed in the 1960's as a chemotherapy agent. The theory
behind its application for AIDS is the same as the theory behind
chemotherapy: kill everything in sight, hope that the bad stuff dies
in the process but not you too. AZT was shelved in the 1960's because
they determined it was too toxic for human use.
-AZT is a DNA-chain terminator. It incorporates itself into a cell's
own DNA and interrupts DNA synthesis. AZT kills all growing cells on
contact.
AZT destroys blood and bone marrow. That's the immune system! AZT's
side effects produce immune suppression. Why in the world would you
want to treat and prevent AIDS (immune deficiency) with a medication
that causes it?! It makes no sense. (Note: in special cases, AZT may
benefit a patient riddled with opportunistic infections by killing off
a great portion of these infections, thereby allowing his immune
system some room to breathe. In this sense, AZT plays the same role
as chemotherapy, which works sometimes, but the process is less of a
science than it is hit-and-miss. In any case, it's not guaranteed and
probably uncommon.)
Simply put, AZT causes AIDS. Over 200,000 people are being
iatrogenically poisoned with AZT. It's a self- fulfilling prophecy.
If you don't already have AIDS, AZT will ensure that you get it and
die.
THE REAL CAUSES OF AIDS
One of the big points of this paper is, the medical establishment's
handling of the whole AIDS phenomenon is so thoroughly muddled and
confused -- statistics, predictions, hypotheses, treatments -- there's
no grounds at all to talk about HIV. Therefore, since HIV has nothing
to do with it, no matter what anyone says, no matter how strongly they
say it, no matter how often "HIV, the virus that causes AIDS" is
repeated on TV or in the news, no matter how many signs you see in
subway stations, it doesn't change the truth. You can study HIV all
you want, but it has no bearing on AIDS or any human illness.
AIDS is not caused by an infectious agent. AIDS is largely the result
of drug-abuse and the destructive lifestyle that goes with it. Since
there is no viable definition for AIDS, there should be no more
diagnoses of AIDS in anybody. Calling this diverse group of diseases
by this one name implies one cause, which is incorrect. The causes
vary according to the differing lifestyles associated with separate
groups. It makes much more sense to refer to these conditions by
different names. Indeed, HIV could be a "marker" for AIDS, a signal
that a person's health is in jeopardy. It's hard for a healthy person
to acquire HIV and become antibody-positive. To get infected, your
immune system already must be working below par.
The causes of AIDS are as follows:
HOMOSEXUAL MEN
AIDS is strictly limited even within the gay population, to a
particular subset -- the fast-life gays that abuse drugs, maintain a
huge number of sexual contacts, and experience repeated infections of
STD's requiring extensive treatment with antibiotics. To give you an
idea of the magnitude of their behavior, some of these men are known
to have had more than a thousand (1000) different sex partners, often
averaging 20 sexual contacts a week. They're used to a lifestyle of
attending bathhouses and clubs where drug use and sex is rampant and
faceless. They're in the habit of using antibiotics prophylactically,
even every night, to minimize their risks with disease. All these
factors, in the extreme that these men experience them, produce
serious consequences on the immune system, resulting in AIDS. 78 of
the first 87 AIDS patients in the 1980's all admitted to the practice
of inhaling a type of chemical called nitrites ("poppers") in order to
stimulate sexual pleasure. The problem is, nitrites are well-known
carcinogens. They cause cancer. Kaposi's sarcoma, which has been the
prevalent marker for AIDS since the very beginning, appears often
around the face, nose, on the hands and in the lungs -- the exact
locations that come in contact with the chemical upon inhalation. The
use of nitrites as a drug is practiced mostly by homosexual men. As
an AIDS disease, Kaposi's sarcoma shows up only in the homosexual
group, not the others. Prior to Gallo's 1984 press conference,
studies on the KS-AIDS link were well known. Many states have
outlawed nitrite inhalants because of their toxicity.
Besides poppers, 58% of these original AIDS patients also admitted to
abusing five or more other recreational drugs, all of which take a
toll on health. 100% of them were admittedly heavy drug users. The
same ratios still hold true today. Besides drugs, these men are used
to repeated infections with a variety of venereal diseases. It's not
unusual for a man to undergo treatment on dozens of separate occasions
for STD's. Repeated infection of course damages your health and the
ability of your immune system to rebound. Furthermore, these
infections require extensive antibiotics. The medical community well
acknowledges the fact that repeated use of antibiotics alone corrupts
your body's natural ability to fight off infections.
Combine poppers, recreational drugs, STD's and antibiotics. The
result is AIDS in the typical homosexual sufferer.
IV-DRUG USERS
A completely different story. The symptoms of AIDS in IVDUs are
unlike those of the gays. The drug injecting AIDS patient suffers
from tuberculosis and pneumonia, the same maladies as an HIV- addict.
Again, it's the drug use and unhealthy lifestyle causing "AIDS." The
effects of being a junkie are long- known: pneumonia, emaciation.
Other unhealthy behaviors going hand-in-hand that only worsen the
problem, include lack of proper diet and exercise.
HEMOPHILIACS
AIDS is different in this group, too. The hemophiliac "AIDS" patient
suffers in the exact same manner as the HIV-negative hemophiliac,
coming down mostly with pneumonia's. The thing causing their problem
is their condition -- hemophilia -and the treatment for it, blood
transfusions and Factor VIII additives. Hemophilia is a condition
where your blood doesn't clot naturally, so when you get a cut you
bleed profusely. Hemophilia is a serious condition, worsening through
time, with a low life expectancy. So, the outlook isn't good to begin
with. Hemophiliacs undergo regular blood transfusions to stay alive.
In order to "help" their bodies accept all the foreign proteins that
come with a transfusion, intentional immunosuppressant chemicals are
often added. Well, there you go -- one direct contribution towards
immune deficiency. Factor VIII is a clotting agent, a protein found
in normal blood. Hemophiliacs inject it to help restore their
clotting ability. But Factor VIII also reduces the competence of the
immune system. Another direct contribution. Interestingly, ever
since Factor-VIII was purified and perfected in the last decade, the
median life span of all hemophiliacs has doubled. Wait a second! HIV
came on the scene in the last decade, which means hemophiliacs should
be dying, with or without clotting factors, right? The answer is, of
course, HIV doesn't kill anybody. Hemophiliac AIDS is different than
homosexual AIDS, different than IV-drug users' AIDS. In hemophiliacs,
blood transfusions + Factor VIII + hemophilia ---causes---> AIDS.
AZT USERS
Unfortunately, everyone else is on AZT. Even people who don't abuse
drugs. They're basically healthy. Just HIV+. However, they're going
to get AIDS and die, from AZT. AZT treatment is now the leading cause
of AIDS in America.
CONCLUSION
The reason that AIDS transmission is associated with blood and with
sex, is from the CDC's unscientific, sloppy and improper
epidemiological studies at the beginning of the 1980's. These
studies realistically prove no such transmission.
The existence of African, European and American AIDS epidemics has no
basis in fact:
1. Gallo's HIV hypothesis remains unproven
2. AIDS should not be called "AIDS" due to a faulty definition
3. doctors don't know how to diagnose AIDS properly
4. an unknown # of AIDS cases everywhere were diagnosed w/o an HIV test
5. the HIV-antibody test is unreliable
HIV fails every test for causing disease. It fails every known method
by which conceivably it could adversely affect the immune system. HIV
does not cause AIDS. AIDS is not contagious. The clinical
manifestations of illnesses known as "AIDS" have many non-contagious,
behavioral causes.
There's no need for any AIDS vaccine because there's nothing to
vaccinate for. And preventing AIDS is simple:
-don't get tested for HIV
-don't use AZT
-don't use poppers
-don't use narcotics
-avoid getting venereal diseases all over the place and using
antibiotics left and right
If you are HIV+ don't worry. Under no circumstances take AZT, ddI,
ddC, d4T or any other treatment. And don't abuse your body in other
ways. I highly recommend joining a support group called "HIV+ and
Healthy." Call Harry F. Flynn at (818) 769-3769. Only in this way
with enough people, will the truth emerge and encourage pursuing the
study and treatment of the real causes of AIDS.
If you're HIV+ and you're still worried about it, there are many
subsidiary reasons not to:
1. Infectious organisms never kill everyone they infect
2. It's possible for you to become HIV- again, on your own
3. You might be falsely HIV+
4. Being HIV+ means you're immune to the effects of HIV 5. There are
healthy people alive today who have been infected with HIV for 18+
years
Treatment and cure for real, full-blown AIDS -- that's a different
story. Such utter immune devastation is a serious matter. The goal is
to nurse yourself back to health. Start by following the preventative
guidelines above.
The key players in the AIDS-establishment, including Robert Gallo and
Anthony Fauci, have purposefully avoided the issue of HIV's lack of
role. We must hold them fully responsible and punish them for
creating a fraud that has cost many people their lives, created
unfounded concern for the rest of the population, and directed money
and effort away from studying and treating the true causes of AIDS.
A sampling of the self-contradictions spewed by the AIDS
establishment:
-they talked about how it could be passed in saliva then they said it
wasn't casually transmitted
-they said you'd die within a year after infection
-they said whole countries in Africa were infected
-it causes 29 diseases in the U.S. and Europe but only 3 in Africa
-it's less virulent in the most unsanitary nations
THINGS YOU CAN DO ON YOUR OWN
1. Forget everything you've heard and read for the last decade. Put
it all out of your mind, roll back the clock 15 years, and start
fresh. Examine the facts. Every time you catch yourself unconciously
jumping to a conclusion based on the HIV-AIDS assumption, drop it.
Ultimately, wherever the facts lead, that's what you need to conclude
for yourself.
2. When you compare the AIDS establishment with the dissenters, ask
yourself who makes more sense?
3. When you hear about somebody who suffered or died from AIDS, ask
yourself the following questions:
a. what exact health conditions led to his AIDS diagnosis?
b. what immune-suppressing activities did he engage in? did he have
a history of health problems? did he use drugs? DO YOU KNOW FOR
SURE?
c. how much of his background, lifestyle, medical history and status
are you certain about?
d. if you effectively eliminated each of his health risks (eg. drug
abuse and AZT) and treated each of his health problems in the
conventional manner, would he still have AIDS?
The "Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis"
is a coalition of prominent dissidents. If you would like to learn
about this group, receive their newsletter, or even sign your name,
write to Charles A. Thomas, Jr., Publisher, 7514 Girard Ave. #1-331,
La Jolla, CA 92037. Fax (619) 272- 1621. Annual subscriptions to the
newsletter are $25 in the U.S. and $35 elsewhere.
If you would like to be part of a class-action lawsuit against
Burroughs-Wellcome, the manufacturer of AZT, call or write to:
Project AIDS International
8033 Sunset Blvd. #2640
Los Angeles, CA 90046
(213) 660-3381, (213) 661-3339 fax
Write to your legislators and Congressmen. They have the power to
investigate and initiate changes. You can find their addresses in
your local newspaper or at the library.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I highly recommend the following books:
Inventing the AIDS Virus by Peter H. Duesberg, Regnery Publishing,
1996. 722 pages. Phone (800) 955-5493. The most intelligent,
comprehensive and detailed exploration of the AIDS phenomenon.
Infectious AIDS: Have We Been Misled? by North Atlantic Books, 1456 4th
Street, Berkeley CA. Phone (510) 559-8277. A collection of Duesberg's
13 best papers for academic journals. 582 pages. Otherwise, you have to
go to your university's library, where they are scattered all over the
place, and make a bunch of Xerox copies.
The AIDS War by John Lauritsen, Asklepios, NY, 1993. Order it
directly from the author: Send $20 check (already includes postage) to
John Lauritsen, 78 Bradford St., Provincetown MA 02657. Lauritsen is
a market survey research analyst and a brilliant investigative
journalist. He wrote Death Rush: Poppers and AIDS (with H. Wilson,
Pagan Press, NY, 1986). He also wrote an excellent book, the most
comprehensive AZT expose to date: Poison by Prescription: The AZT
Story (Asklepios, NY 1990). Look in libraries.
AIDS: Scare or Scam by Evan C. Lambrou, Vantage Press, NY.
Nice and short 40 p. $10.95 write or call the author at 156 Honness
Lane, Ithaca, NY 14850. (607) 273-6142
AIDS by Peter Duesberg and John Yiamouyiannis, Health Action Press,
OH, 1995. $15 to Health Action Press, 6439 Taggart Road, Delaware OH
43015. Phone (800) 721-4124
AIDS: the HIV Myth by Jad Adams, St. Martin's Press, NY,1989. One
of the originals. The majority is trustworthy, but Adams presents
many alternative views without pinning one down as truth. A good book
because it introduces the key players and ideas on all sides. The
best chapter is the last, Endgame. Available in libraries.
AIDS Inc. by Jon Rappoport, Human Energy Press, CA, 1988. 1493 Beach
Park Blvd. #210, Foster City, CA 94404. (415) 349-0718. Another
original.
All of the above books contain outstanding lists of references.
Virus Hunting -- AIDS, Cancer, & the Human Retrovirus: a Story of
Human Discovery by Robert Gallo, Basic Books, NY, 1991. An inciteful
look into the foggy mind and motives of this man. Contains no
bibliography.
Copywrite 1995 by Michael Martinez All rights reserved.
Permission is granted to reproduce ONLY if kept intact and
nothing is charged for it's use.
Ten reasons why HIV could not cause AIDS (Excerpt) WalterNY
1.) HIV is harmless
HIV reproduces itself through what is called reverse transcription. Its
receptacle attaches to the coating of the T cell and encodes its information
(RNA) into the information contained in the gene (DNA). Like all viral that
invade the body, at first they reproduce rapidly. In doing so they may
indeed create cold symptoms. But the body has antibodies that seek out
things like HIV and render it dead or harmless. When a person test positive,
the test they took actually doesn’t find the virus itself but the antibodies
that are in the blood and are left over after they have attacked and
disabled the HIV. What that means is that when you test positive, it means
your body has already encountered the virus and is now immune to it. The
body has done its job. There are no viruses in the history of medicine that
reemerge and re-attack the body after the bodies’ immune system has rendered
them inactive. Even a high school student biology student would find fault
with the HIV theory when the facts are presented. We should ask why we spent
billions of dollars and nothing has come from it. Nothing except death.
2.) HIV does not kill the t-cells it affects
People with AIDS are indeed losing t-cells. Because these were the cells
that HIV effects, it was ASSUMED that HIV was the culprit. But Retroviruses
do not kill their hosts. Only under rare laboratory conditions is it
possible to make HIV kill its host cell. AIDS researchers actually use
t-cells to grow the virus in their reacearch because both live together very
compatibly. It was this notion that initially made Duesberg and over 600
other scientist, including 181 that have advanced degrees question the whole
thing in the first place. Truth is, HIV is not a killer virus. Viruses that
kill a cell couldn’t cause cancer. If HIV were a killer cell then those with
AIDS indication diseases would not have some form of cancer as some of the
defining diseases do.
3.) HIV does not infect enough t-cells to cause AIDS.
After a retrovirus is brought under control by the immune system, the virus
particles become dormant and begin to disappear. Before long the virus can
hardly be found at all. I have posted before HIV only effects up to 1 cell
per thousand and sometimes only 1 cell per 100,000 thousand. But t-cells
reproduce at up to 5% per day. Simple mathematics proves that HIV can in no
way infect enough cells to bring down the immune system. In fact, the HIV
scientists even admit that this low t-cell amount is difficult to explain.
Of course they can’t. It isn’t true. Very few t-cells that are infected by
HIV can actually be found in the sickest persons. Gallos original hypothesis
that this is all based on is the equivalent of saying that a person who
nicks himself shaving is going to die. You are losing 1/1000 of your blood
but you are not going to die.
4.) HIV has no AIDS causing gene.
HIV simply has no specific gene or unique genetic reason to cause AIDS. All
retroviruses have only three major genes and six minor genes. Because the
genes are so limited in these very simple viruses, they need all the genes
to replicate. HIV is almost identical to all other retroviruses genetically.
There are 50 to 100 of these retroviruses in everyone’s body and they are
all (including HIV) kept in check by the immune system. It would be
extremely rare for genes which such similar genetic sequences to act any
different than other almost identical genes. If HIV causes AIDS then why can
’t the others cause the same intense problems. It simply doesn’t make sense.
5.)There is no such thing as a slow virus
They say that HIV takes up to 12 years to cause AIDS. They use words like
migrate, mutate, replicate, reactivate, and hibernate. They give HIV magical
powers that no other virus in the body has. Actually the words come from
people like Gallo and Gajdusek who used this magical theory to by time when
their hypothesis didn’t work. They based their slow virus hypothesis on
studies of Epstein Barr virus and Herpes virus, but these are very different
than is HIV. In both cases large amounts of virus can be found that cause
specific problems related to the disorders. But HIV is dormant. How does a
dormant virus cause 30 unrelated diseases ten years later? None of which are
specific to HIV itself. We are buying lots of time for something else to
cause AIDS at this point. They have a safety net. There is not even a shred
of light at why it would take ten years for this to happen. It has never
happened with any other virus in history. No one even bothers to ask that
question from the HIV/AIDS side.
6.) HIV is not a new virus so it would not cause a new epidemic.
They assume that since AIDS has grown dramatically since 1981 that HIV
virus must cause it. They tell you about green monkey bites and promiscuous
gay flight attendants but science fails to ask a simple question, How old is
HIV? Using what science calls Farrs law we can assume that it is very old.
What Farr said was that when a new virus comes along it spreads
exponentially, like a flu epidemic. But since HIV was detected only
1,000,000 Americans ever have it each year (CDC). So if it is in 1 million
people every year for ten years and simply doesn’t grow exponentially (as it
doesn’t) it can’t be new. HIV is older than the country you live in. It has
been and is in many people and there offspring for centuries according to
Farrs law.
7.) HIV fails Koch’s postulates (pronounced like the slang for a penis).
This is a universal law in science. It states 1, the germ must be found in
all cases. But there are 10-20% of people that have AIDS and don’t have HIV
at all. When it can be found it is in extremely small amounts and dormant.
Number two states that the germ must be isolated from the host and be able
to be grown in a culture. But it takes huge amounts of cell tissue to find
it, then a difficult chemical process is necessary to reactivate it. The
third postulate states that HIV must be able to be injected into a healthy
host and must thrive in that host. But HIV injected in Chimps which have
similar DNA to use does not live in these animals. It fails to live when
injected in any other animal and yes people. Human health care workers who
are injected with HIV accidentally, very very rarely get AIDS unless they
use drugs. The statistics of the CDC prove that. The HIV orthodoxy have
stated that Koch’s postulates are old and outdates but it has stood the test
of time. In fact those that have ignored it have all met peril. In the case
of Beri-beri, Scurvy, Pelegra, SIMON, and the failed Virus-cancer program,
all ended in a dismal failure. All were supposedly infectious but were not.
And Robert Gallo was responsible for the ridiculous virus-cancer
investigation. All the researchers ignored Koch’s postulates and were proved
to be wrong as a result. Looking at the population study AIDS fails also.
The population studies that the CDC releases every year prove by themselves
that HIV does not cause AIDS.
8.) AIDS has remained in its original risk groups for 12 years.
If a disease does not spread it is not contagious and must be caused by
something else. AIDS is still in its original risk groups of gay males, IV
users, Hemophiliacs and drug transfusion patients make up of over 97% of all
AIDS cases and the other less than 3% suffer from immuno deficiency at
random and happen to be infected by HIV. If AIDS is caused by a virus the 3%
group would grow but it doesn’t. In 1984 the army started to test new
recruits, they found that HIV infection was evenly distributed 50/50 amongst
men and women, and has remained that way. It should follow that AIDS should
be spread 50% male and 50% female, but nine out of ten AIDS cases are still
male. A germ related disease should be spread evenly and it is not. This may
explain why drug use is more related to HIV infection. In the US over 80%
of all psychoactive drugs are used by males. Amongst women, 60% use hard
drugs. Health care workers have not begun getting AIDS. There are a handful
of cases and even these are disputed. AIDS has to do with specific medical
risks and behavior than HIV.
9.) International comparisons differ greatly.
AIDS statistics are totally different here than in a country like Africa. In
the US it is 90% male. But in Africa it is evenly split at 50% male and 50%
female. AIDS remains among the 97% risk group in the US but in Africa AIDS
has no risk group and is found randomly. Only 62% of the cases of AIDS
diseases in this country are microbial, but in Africa over 90% are
microbial. AIDS diseases not germ related are at 38%, but in Africa less
than 10% are not germ related. This simply doesn’t make sense. Over 14
million have the virus in Africa. Because of the malnutrition and other
health conditions conducive to AIDS, statistics from Africa should be 14
times higher than the US but is the opposite. People in the US develop AIDS
10-20 times faster. WHO and CDC data confirm that from 1987 to 1996. Last
year numbers show that the CDC reported official AIDS cases in the US at
513,486 and the WHO reported that 442,735 Africans officially had it. Why
would the AIDS epidemic behave differently in the industrialized world? The
answer is simple, DRUGS. You guys who think AID is decimating the population
in Africa are wrong. If tens and thousand of people are dyeing in Africa,
where are these people? Philip Krynen and his wife Evelin are in Tanzania
(thought to be the epicenter of the AIDS outbreak). They are rather
interesting French people who belong the “the Group”. After being there for
a few years to help supposed AIDS orphans, supported by money from France,
Philip stated that there was no AIDS in Africa. It was something that the
outside world invented. These kids were not orphans but were left with
relatives while parents went to find work in the dry seasons. Anyone
interested in speaking with him personally, please contact me and I will get
you in touch. The AIDS diseases that these people are suffering from are
nothing more than existed since the beginning of time but have all been
grouped into this ridiculous word , AIDS.
10.) AIDS occurs without HIV infection and most who are positive, never
develop AIDS.
The presence of HIV does not prove that HIV causes AIDS just like birds on
power lines do not prove that power failures are caused by the birds. In
both cases they only correlate. In science correlation does not prove
causation. If HIV is a passenger virus that does not cause it we should see
two things. One, People with AIDS not infected with HIV and two, people with
HIV who do not get AIDS. That is exactly what is happening. Why do different
risk groups develop different diseases? Why do IV users usually develop TB
and wasting Syndrome yet gay males primarily develop KS and
cytomegloviruses? IV drug users get the same TB and wasting syndromes
whether they officially have AIDS or not and even lose CD-4 t-cells like
those with HIV infection. AIDS is nothing more than a new name for something
they have always had. In the case of gay males KS is found in many gays
males who do not have or get AIDS. The similarity is the use of poppers and
other immune killing medications. Something other than HIV must be causing
AIDS. There are on record over 6000 cases of AIDS without HIV. Something is
terribly wrong with their whole equation. Why is KS by itself KS but with a
positive HIV diagnosis it is not KS but AIDS? Why is Pneumonia, pneumonia
except if it has a diagnosis of HIV, then it is AIDS. What is the
difference? NOTHING. AIDS is nothing more than 30 disease that have already
existed with this inclusion of a mostly false HIV test. There is a
correlation of HIV and AIDS if you ignore the cases of AIDS that don’t have
HIV. Statistics around
the world prove that. In Africa 97% of those in Africa who are HIV positive
do not have AIDS. Statistics show that in this country over 1.5 million
people are supposedly infected with HIV and yet the number of people with
AIDS is never near half of that number. They say that there are over
28,000,000 people with AIDS worldwide and yet less than (1,393,649) are
officially reported to have AIDS. That is less than 5%. Even the estimates
of the total worldwide cases of AIDS is 7,700,000, less than 28% of the
estimated total who have been infected with HIV.
Ric- å®øªå
in 1947 there was a care wich included KS, toxoplasmosis. and other
commen known related ailments to Aids....
A sample of that persons blood was frozen and saved and recently
redocumented......Now as I mentioned I did read this and I have have
real no way of knowing weather it is true or not....
But if it is true...then the stories and what not about it being man
made could be questionable.....It was also mentioned that it was over in
Europe that this happened....
I believe there were also similar cases in 1952 and 1957......I am no
expert...and most of the times as thick as a stick.......so I do't know
what to believe.....but there are things out there that could help make
the question of whether it was man made or not worth checking into....
Please....I am no expert...just particapating in a group.....thank You
å®øçªå
BH2437
This is where I may appear as a lunatic but I do truly believe AIDS was
man-made. I believe that it was created at Ft. Monmouth, NJ around 1976, at
the United States Department of Defence Center for Immunolgical Studies aka to
insiders as the biological warfare center. I think that it was a government
development than ran amuck. I was at Fort Dix at that time working in the
hospital. I saw all these "volunteers" dying of this wierd disease all for
$55.00 extra a month "hazardous duty pay." These guys took injections of what
they thought were vaccinations, much like we do when we participate in clinical
trials. I lost one of my best friends to this disease. None of the volunteers
died of AIDS... They all died of Kaposi Sarcoma, PCP, strange forms of
meningitis. DIseases, that quite frankly, the hospital at Fort Dix had never
even heard of. Usually by the time that we even figured out what they were it
was too late.
And if anyone knows the government, I, myself, nor any other person will never
know the actual truth. I would venture to say, that any and all records of
those vacinnations these boys had are completely destroyed. All I know from
being there, the names of these strange diseases the boys died of became words
that were part of my daily vocabulary and a couple years after that became a
part of my everyday life.
Bill
Bill Holliday
Bill Canfield
great work of fiction...but fiction none the less. Don't take this the
wrong way Bill, and I do believe and value your views, but what we lack
here is evidence.
Show me a shred of evidence that the government had anything to do with
the development of the aids virus and I'll join you in an outcry the
likes of which this world has never known.
WORLD...@webtv.net
the reasons. There's been alot said about the poplualtion growth
exceding the Earth's ability to provide food.
BH2437
>Show me a shred of evidence that the government had anything to do with
>the development of the aids virus and I'll join you in an outcry the
>likes of which this world has never known.
My point exactly. You will never see a shred of evidence. I can only say what
I, personally , witnessed. I'm not crazy or anything like that. Why is this
so difficult to believe? Our government, mainly the military, would never keep
any secrets from us and NEVER harm its own citizens.... Lest we forget Tuskegee
experiment and/or the nuclear testing exposing our boys to high doses of
radiation
to see its effects. Believe it or not, I am no subversive and believe in the
US. I just spent too long in the military and have a full comprehension of how
expendable a human life is to the military machine. I'm not talking about
soldiers against soldiers. I am talking the "mission" is the primary goal.
This was back when the cold war days were still going on. I do not believe
that it was a government's intent to unleash this virus upon the general
population but it happened.
But think about it, since the onset of AIDS more government money has been
spent on finding the cure than in any other disease. Maybe there might be a
sense of responsibility within the system.
And by the way, I am definitely not the only one who witnessed, what we
believe, to have been the onset of AIDS as we know it today. The bottom line
of what I believe is that we will never know.
Bill Holliday
WILLIAM NORTON
WalterNY
There is only one thing that we are completely sure about AIDS. No where
in the world is there any proof whatsoever that HIV is the cause.
WORLD...@webtv.net
that AIDS was a made up desease and that it really doesn't exist? I
remembered reading am artical about this in LA Weekly.
Roger
infections.
Roger
that, I am HIV+ without AIDS yet and have O- blood. You are welcome to inject
some of my blood into your vein if you are HIV- and really want to prove your
point. Show me the recent western blot that shows you are neg and inject my
blood before I can beleive that you aren't some in denial HIV+.
kohle
and consequent spread of HIV I urge them to come forward with any kind of
evidence or anecdotal eveidence.
as some one who has to live with this virus i would just love to talk to
those who are responsible for this disease. all the stress, fear and
discrimination we have suffered so far because of this - if there is some
one responosible for it i want to know and claim compensation.
however, i am aware that it is much easier to blame some one rather than to
accept the fact that this might be a natural disease.
still, the situation in former apartheid-south africa was such that the
black population was not only targeted with 'natural' diseases such as
typhoid, but there were plans to create other, artifical diseases targeting
and exposing parts of the population in south africa with them. i would not
be surprised that HIV is the result of a secret government programme like
that.
B
own life. Open your mind and ears to all information relating to any issue
and then make a decision. If you only look out of the south window, you
will only get a view of the south.
WalterNY
<<if there is any one out there who witnessed anything regarding the
creation
and consequent spread of HIV I urge them to come forward with any kind of
There is your evidence of how this whoel myth was created.
WalterNY
<<You are welcome to inject
some of my blood into your vein if you are HIV- and really want to prove
your
point. >>>
Our group already did that twice. One of our sides doctors injected HIV
tainted blood in his vein twice. Today he is perfectly healthy and HIV
negative.
<<Show me the recent western blot that shows you are neg. and inject my
blood before I can believe that you aren't some in denial HIV+.>>>
Before we do that you must prove to me that the western blot test is even
valid for HIV. The diagnostic test commonly referred to as the "AIDS test"
does not identify AIDS. Both the Western Blot tests are supposed to detect
antibodies to HIV but both of these tests have numerous and WELL-documented
flaws.
HIV tests are not accurate because they are non-specific to specific means.
that means they respond to a great number of non-pathogenic particles
including the antibodies to a variety of microbes and bacteria that appear
in the blood of normal, healthy people. These reactions to other antibodies
and conditions will register as an HIV positive result. As shown in the
study "False positive Human Immuno therapy Virus Type 1- “Eleisa results in
low risk subjects” The Western Journal of Medicine Volume 159 page 214-215
by Chaulkery N. Rappapore " the HIV antibody test will test positive for the
following:
Anti-carbohydrate antibodies, Naturally occurring antibodies, Passive
Immunization (globulin’s),Leprosy, Tuberculosis,Micro-bacterial avium,
Systemic Lupus, Renal failure, Hemodialosis, Alpha Interferon therapy, The
flu,Flu vaccines, Herpes, Herpes simplex II, Upper Respiratory infections,
Cold, Recent viral infection, Viral Vaccine
Pregnancy in multifarious women, Malaria,High levels of circulating immune
complexes, Hypergomiglobilin anemia- High Levels of antibodies, False
positives on PRP (Syphilis test),
Rheumatoid arthritis, Hepatitis, tetanus vaccination, Organ transplant,
Renal transplant, Anti-Lymphatic antibodies, Anti-Collagen antibodies
(hemophiliacs),Serum Positive for Rheumatoid arthritis, Acute Viral
infections, Cancer, Alcoholic liver disease, Sticky Blood, Blood
transfusions, Anti Hepatitis A antibodies, Steven’s Johnson Syndrome, Heart
treated specimens, Blood with high levels of lipids (fat), Healthy
individuals as a result of poorly understood cross reactions, Other
retro-viruses,T-cell Lymphocyte antibodies, Epstien-Barr virus
Now if you can tell me that your body did not have any of these conditions
when you took the test, then your diagnosis is valid. But say it did. Say
you have Epstien Barr virus. You could. 90% of the world does. And if you do
and you HIV test was based on that false diagnosis, then you have begun a
treatment that can only lead to death because there is nothing wrong with
you, but if you are taking these meds, you are certainly destroying a
healthy immune system.
Some of these conditions have big names but you need nothing more than a
common illness like a cold, the flu, a flu shot or other vaccines to cause a
positive reaction on an HIV test as shown by this published study. Did you
have any of those when you took your test Conditions such as arthritis or
lupus or exposure to diseases like tuberculosis, hepatitis could have caused
it too. Perhaps you had a strain of hepatitis at the time. But think about
this. Your entire course of life has been determined by a test that has been
proven scientifically invalid.
One of the biggest fundamental problems with the use of HIV tests is that
antibodies do not indicate the presence of active infection or disease.
Antibodies in fact have always been the sign of a normal, healthy immune
response. Before Gallo’s theory of AIDS, antibodies had never been used as i
a predictor of illness. There is no credible scientific evidence to suggest
that this rule should now be changed to accommodate the HIV Hypothesis. It
is because there is plenty of money to be made and suckers like you to
believe anything your told.
The most outstanding problem with the use of any HIV test is what I have
told you here many times, that HIV has never been proved to be the cause of
AIDS.
Rather than bore you anymore with information that could be undermining your
entire diagnosis and proving that you may have been had, here is the link to
the published article that brings into question the validity of the entire
test that you hold so dear to your heart.. I urge you to read it.
WORLD...@webtv.net
could never get AIDS. Can somebody tell me alittle more about this.
wo...@interlog.com
<Walt...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> There is only one thing that we are completely sure about AIDS. No where
>in the world is there any proof whatsoever that HIV is the cause.
Except that everyone with AIDS started off HIV positive, and that
until all the drug therapies showed up just about everyone who was
HIV+ developed AIDS. Duh. Sometimes common sense and pattern
recognition are good enough when so-called "proof" is unavailable.
>
>
Roger
WalterNY wrote:
> <<You are welcome to inject
> some of my blood into your vein if you are HIV- and really want to prove
> your
> point. >>>
>
> Our group already did that twice. One of our sides doctors injected HIV
> tainted blood in his vein twice. Today he is perfectly healthy and HIV
> negative.
>
How long ago. What type of HIV-1? How do you know (by your own standards) that
it wasn't blood from a false positive.
>
> <<Show me the recent western blot that shows you are neg. and inject my
> blood before I can believe that you aren't some in denial HIV+.>>>
>
> Before we do that you must prove to me that the western blot test is even
> valid for HIV. The diagnostic test commonly referred to as the "AIDS test"
> does not identify AIDS.
AIDS is a syndrome, not a disease(hence it's name). You can not test for a
syndrome. Only evidence of opportunistic infection in combination with CD4
count/percentage can demonstrate AIDS. The Western Blot detects antibodies to
all HIV-1 types.
> Both the Western Blot tests are supposed to detect
> antibodies to HIV but both of these tests have numerous and WELL-documented
> flaws.
Actually the ELISA test is done first. If it shows positive, then a Western
Blot is performed on the blood sample. ELISA will detect antibodies to all
types of HIV-1 excluding HTLV-O. The Western blot is much more dependable than
the ELISA, but more expensive, so it is commonly used to confirm a positive
ELISA.
>
> HIV tests are not accurate because they are non-specific to specific means.
> that means they respond to a great number of non-pathogenic particles
> including the antibodies to a variety of microbes and bacteria that appear
> in the blood of normal, healthy people. These reactions to other antibodies
> and conditions will register as an HIV positive result. As shown in the
> study "False positive Human Immuno therapy Virus Type 1- “Eleisa results in
> low risk subjects” The Western Journal of Medicine Volume 159 page 214-215
> by Chaulkery N. Rappapore " the HIV antibody test will test positive for the
> following:
You quote a study on the ELISA test, not the Western Blot.
>
>
> Anti-carbohydrate antibodies, Naturally occurring antibodies, Passive
> Immunization (globulin’s),Leprosy, Tuberculosis,Micro-bacterial avium,
> Systemic Lupus, Renal failure, Hemodialosis, Alpha Interferon therapy, The
> flu,Flu vaccines, Herpes, Herpes simplex II, Upper Respiratory infections,
> Cold, Recent viral infection, Viral Vaccine
> Pregnancy in multifarious women, Malaria,High levels of circulating immune
> complexes, Hypergomiglobilin anemia- High Levels of antibodies, False
> positives on PRP (Syphilis test),
> Rheumatoid arthritis, Hepatitis, tetanus vaccination, Organ transplant,
> Renal transplant, Anti-Lymphatic antibodies, Anti-Collagen antibodies
> (hemophiliacs),Serum Positive for Rheumatoid arthritis, Acute Viral
> infections, Cancer, Alcoholic liver disease, Sticky Blood, Blood
> transfusions, Anti Hepatitis A antibodies, Steven’s Johnson Syndrome, Heart
> treated specimens, Blood with high levels of lipids (fat), Healthy
> individuals as a result of poorly understood cross reactions, Other
> retro-viruses,T-cell Lymphocyte antibodies, Epstien-Barr virus
I carry none of the aforementioned diseases. My Western Blots have been
performed repeatedly since the initial positive result, my HIV-1 type is HTLV-B
. I am an extremely well documented case including CD4 decline since
diagnoses. I have viral loads taken ever since 1992, before they were even
integrated into regular public testing.
>
>
> Now if you can tell me that your body did not have any of these conditions
> when you took the test, then your diagnosis is valid.
Done.
> But say it did. Say
> you have Epstien Barr virus. You could. 90% of the world does. And if you do
> and you HIV test was based on that false diagnosis, then you have begun a
> treatment that can only lead to death because there is nothing wrong with
> you, but if you are taking these meds, you are certainly destroying a
> healthy immune system.
You assume that I take drugs to treat HIV. You assume incorrectly.
>
>
> Some of these conditions have big names but you need nothing more than a
> common illness like a cold, the flu, a flu shot or other vaccines to cause a
> positive reaction on an HIV test as shown by this published study.
Antibodies to colds and flus are not the same.
> Did you
> have any of those when you took your test
As I said, I have had the test MANY times.
> Conditions such as arthritis or
> lupus or exposure to diseases like tuberculosis, hepatitis could have caused
> it too.
You are still unsuccessful in getting out of it...keep trying.
> Perhaps you had a strain of hepatitis at the time. But think about
> this. Your entire course of life has been determined by a test that has been
> proven scientifically invalid.
You fail to back this up. You can't back this up. Don't bother trying, as you
already demonstrate an ignorance of the difference between the ELISA and Western
Blot tests.
>
>
> One of the biggest fundamental problems with the use of HIV tests is that
> antibodies do not indicate the presence of active infection or disease.
True, however my virus has been type matched. It is irrefutably there, my CD-4
counts show a demonstrable decline. The tests were not designed to "indicate
the presence of active infection or disease." They were designed to detect the
antibodies generated by the immune system in response to HIV infection.
>
> Antibodies in fact have always been the sign of a normal, healthy immune
> response.
Immune response to HIV is not normal or healthy.
> Before Gallo’s theory of AIDS, antibodies had never been used as i
> a predictor of illness. There is no credible scientific evidence to suggest
> that this rule should now be changed to accommodate the HIV Hypothesis. It
> is because there is plenty of money to be made and suckers like you to
> believe anything your told.
And you have identified an alternative source of AIDS other than
immunosuppressant drugs and congenital defect? Let us here it.
>
>
> The most outstanding problem with the use of any HIV test is what I have
> told you here many times, that HIV has never been proved to be the cause of
> AIDS.
Don't be ridiculous!
>
>
> Rather than bore you anymore with information that could be undermining your
> entire diagnosis and proving that you may have been had, here is the link to
> the published article that brings into question the validity of the entire
> test that you hold so dear to your heart.. I urge you to read it.
You have not proven anything. My offer stands. Are you going to prove that you
are HIV- and then take some of my blood for your veins? Hmmmmm?
WalterNY
<<How long ago. What type of HIV-1? How do you know (by your own
standards) that
it wasn't blood from a false positive.>>
This was well documented. It happened twice in the early 90s in Fla. by a
doctor to prove that HIV is not pathogenic. You can read the story on the
Virusmyth.com website since people complain about me cutting and pasting
here.
<<,AIDS is a syndrome, not a disease(hence it's name). You can not test for
a
syndrome. Only evidence of opportunistic infection in combination with CD4
count/percentage can demonstrate AIDS. The Western Blot detects antibodies
to
all HIV-1 types.>>
Thanks for the obvious. Obviously you failed to read the published
scientific paper on the western blot test in my last post and the fact that
it is not an indicator of anything in regards to a persons health. So to
bother replying would be a losing battle with you because you look no
further than what you get in pamphlets.
<<<Actually the ELISA test is done first. If it shows positive, then a
Western
Blot is performed on the blood sample. ELISA will detect antibodies to all
types of HIV-1 excluding HTLV-O. The Western blot is much more dependable
than
the ELISA, but more expensive, so it is commonly used to confirm a positive
ELISA.>>>
Your information is great but once again read what I posted. In fact try
this too.
'AIDS: Is Anyone Positive?'
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/nheuropean.htm
'New Doubts Over AIDS Infection As HIV Tests Declared Invalid'
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/nhtests.htm
Is a Western Blot Proof of HIV Infection?'
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/epwbtest.htm
DO HIV ANTIBODY TESTS PROVE HIV INFECTION?
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/vttests.htm
PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE IN THE LABORATORY:
CAN YOU REALLY TRUST HIV TESTING?
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/chjroulette.htm
HIV ANTIBODIES: FURTHER QUESTIONS AND A PLEA FOR CLARIFICATION
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/epcurmedres97.htm
Now if you fail to read any of the scientific papers I have posted here and
try an ad hoc response then I can not debate the issue anymore.
First you said
<<<<You quote a study on the ELISA test, not the Western Blot>>>
Perhaps you need to reevaluate your stance. Because you are contradicting
yourself. Yes the paper I cited was about the Elisa test which I told you is
completely inaccurate. I also mentioned that the western blot test is
completely inaccurate to but you failed to acknowledge that. You failed to
read the paper in the link that specifically discusses the western blot test
and how inaccurate it is. But let's not look at my logic but yours. I said
that the test for HIV is inaccurate. You somewhat agreed with me in regards
to the Elisa test based on what I said , but then you said:<<<<You quote a
study on the ELISA test, not the Western Blot>>>
SO you are saying that in my citation about the Elisa test, it is not
accurate, but western blot is.
Our Army tested a group of the same 1000 soldiers twice. The first time,
1/100 shows up HIV+. The second testing reveals only 1/1000. That
means 9/10 who originally tested positive, are not positive! But you say
that one false test deserves another.
<<Actually the ELISA test is done first. If it shows positive, then a
Western
Blot is performed on the blood sample>>
So I showed you clear evidence that the Elisa test will be false positive
99% of the time and you say that if the Elisa is positive then further
testing is done. So the western blot test must be based on a false positive
Elisa. Great science there.
<<I carry none of the aforementioned diseases.>>
So you have never had a cold or a flu or had a vaccine? And you have been
tested for all 64 conditions (many are not diseases but common physical
conditions). Your doctor must make a good salary off of you.
My Western Blots have been
performed repeatedly since the initial positive result, my HIV-1 type is
HTLV-B>>>
And for the rest of your life you will probably test positive. In fact I
would bet your mom might test positive too. She probably carries the same
RNA sequence in her. The RNA for HIV has been around probably as long as
mankind. Retroviruses were first discovered during the twenty years of
recearch done on cancer. In fact Peter Duesbuerg was the first to identify
retroviruses (hense why Robert Gallo refers to him as the "father of
retrovirology"). In studying cancer, scientists were trying to map the body
in order to figure out what caused cells to mutate as they did in cases of
cancer. One of the last things they discovered and studied were
retroviruses. To this day over 3000 have been catalogued. The reason why
cancer scientists looked at retroviruses last was that they are very simple
genetically and have never in the history of man been responsible for any
disease. They still aren't!
<<Antibodies to colds and flus are not the same (as antibodies to HIV).>>>
Please give me the scientific citation that shows me this.
<<<The tests were not designed to "indicate
the presence of active infection or disease." They were designed to detect
the
antibodies generated by the immune system in response to HIV infection.>>
And an eighth grader knows from biology class that the mere presence of
antibodies in the system is a sign that the immune system has successfully
defended itself any pathogen. When a person is exposed to a new
microbe, his body develops antibodies, which are simply proteins designed
specifically to disable the microbe. Once the body wins over the
germ, conquering it, these antibodies float around in the bloodstream from
then on, ready for the next time the same germ shows up. The person
is "antibody- positive"; he's
immune to the disease caused by the microbe. One reason we continue to
get colds is because new cold viruses pop up from time to time. Another
reason is that many viruses, whether they're "cold" viruses or not,
cause cold-like symptoms. Just as we constantly have
germs in us, we have lots antibodies.
For every disease that plagues mankind, having antibodies means you're
immune. AIDS and HIV is the first in history for which it's not supposed to
work like that, but no one's given a reason. There is none, because
being HIV-antibody positive (HIV+) means you're immune to the effects of
HIV! (Anything it could possibly do to you is minor. Upon infection, it
might cause initial flu-like illness or swollen glands, which is typical of
any initial viral infection, before seroconversion, or developing
antibodies and knocking out the virus.) HIV is a typical virus; it doesn't
defy the immunity principle. In fact, in the laboratory, HIV can be grown
only in the absence of antibodies.
Think about that. Being HIV+ is the opposite of a death sentence! If
for some reason, a person's immune system isn't capable of making
antibodies, or maybe not in the right quantity or fashion, or with
the right speed, that's when disease might occur. And it'll usually happen
quickly, within a matter of days. You catch a cold, you get sick in a
couple of days and you remain sick until you're body fights it off. You
come down with Ebola fever, and if fate's against you, you die in a
week or two.Furthermore, you'll readily be able to chart the progression
of the disease. If you know what the cold virus looks like, you'll find it
abundant and actively replicating wherever you have your cold. If it's
a head cold, it'll be strong in the nasal passages. A chest cold, in
the lungs. Now, there are slower diseases like syphilis, but the same
principle applies. Your body is busy as always trying to fight off the
spirochete, but it's not quite successful. An up and down battle. So
the bacteria slowly multiples and makes its way around your body. You
might not have noticeable symptoms for a long time, but you can match
the movement of the bacteria with the progression of the disease. On
the other hand, it's entirely possible to be infected with spirochete
and never come down with syphilis.
That means you're immune system is doing it's job. Many people don't
realize this important fact because of the powerful campaign to
eradicate infectious disease. And as long as you believe theAIDS propaganda
your never going to free yourself of this death sentence.
<<<Immune response to HIV is not normal or healthy.>>>
There is no creditable science for this statement. This is all based on
Robert Gallos unpublished work.
<<And you have identified an alternative source of AIDS other than
immunosuppressant drugs and congenital defect? Let us here it.>>>
This has a big answer. But to understand it one look no further that the HIV
test itself which has no scientific gold standard and no world standard.
Since you specifically spoke of the western blot test, let's only refer to
it and its non specitivity. In the WB test a thin cellulose strip is read
after being affected by proteins form a blood sample. The important thing to
understand that the AIDS orthodoxy alone "claims" that these proteins are
specific to HIV. They have yet to prove this true. These proteins are
embedded in the strip and form bands which are "read". Each protein is
labeled with a 'p' followed by its molecular weight in thousands. Serum is
added to the strip and if there are antibodies to a particular protein this
band will "light up".
Sounds great on paper but there is not a world standard because no one
can agree about the results of the test. Around the world different
combinations of bands are considered positive. Hence a positive test in one
country is not positive in another. An African would not be positive in
Australia. A person from the parts of Europe and the US would not be
positive anywhere in the world including Africa. Yet the HIV Western blot is
considered to be highly specific and is considered synonymous with HIV
infection. To understand todays HIV, all you need to do is understand that
from the beginning of the supposed discovery of HIV, Robert Gallo made a
statement that he simply could not verify but in making it at a time when we
were all told we were going to die, he created a snowball effect that could
not be turned around. Remember that ALL AIDS theory today is based on
Robert Gallos original statement.
Now if you look at data presented in Lundberg et al. (JAMA 260:674-679) when
the US FDA criteria were used to interpret the HIV Western blot less than
50% of US AIDS patients were HIV positive whereas 10% of persons not at risk
of AIDS were also positive by the same criteria. I would not want to base my
life choices on something so inaccurate. But let us not forget that there
are over 6000 cases of AIDS without HIV (CDC Surveillance report). So if HIV
is the cause of AIDS then all people with AIDS have HIV, but the government
themselves says that isn't true. All this for a simple structure that has 6
main genomes and 6 minor. Such a non complicated little strand of RNA could
never do what they tell you.
The truth about the test is that the test does nothing more than test for a
condition that ant any time in our lives any perfectly healthy person could
test positive for. But since you are told that HIV is the cause of AIDS and
that AIDS is a death sentence, than you are caught in what many call the
"AIDS zone".
The philosophy behind the equations HIV=AIDS and AIDS=DEATH and their
implication HIV=DEATH has dominated the scientific and therapeutic research
aimed at ending the AIDS "crisis".
These equations are not only simplistic but they bear no relation to reality
and can interfere with the healing process.
Let's begin with the equation HIV=AIDS. This statement is supposed to
inform us that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS. It also says that if a person
has AIDS then HIV is always present. Furthermore, it begs the question of
"What is AIDS anyway?".
The fact is that no one has shown that HIV causes AIDS. The "orthodox" AIDS
establishment has satisfied itself that the "overwhelming epidemiological
evidence" linking HIV with certain well defined high-risk groups is
sufficient proof of causation. The evidence is not HIV but antibodies
against HIV. As I told you, antibodies are proteins manufactured by the body
of the infected person which neutralize the invading agent, that is,
antibodies are part of the body's protective reaction against HIV, and even
not all of the known AIDS cases are confirmed to have a positive HIV
antibody test as you can see from GOV statistics. Moreover, there is a body
of evidence showing that HIV is not sufficient to cause AIDS and in fact is
not even necessary.
In the face of this the orthodoxy now research "How HIV causes AIDS?" and
pharmaceutical companies continue to prod highly toxic anti-HIV drugs. All
of this at cost in lives and money. Now it is easy to see that AIDS is not
= HIV. So equation HIV=AIDS is categorically false.
The false equation HIV=AIDS presumes that AIDS is defined. The Centers for
Disease Control defines AIDS as one or more of twenty-nine diseases in the
presence of antibodies to HIV. These AIDS defining diseases existed before
HIV was discovered. The definition is revised from time to time to include
more diseases. The most recent change in 93 reflects activist pressure on
the CDC partly reflects obvious flaws in the health care system. There is
financial assistance in place for people with AIDS but there is no financial
assistance for HIV+ women with cervix cancer. On 1 January 1993 the
definition was expanded to include cervix cancer, pulmonary tuberculosis,
and two or more episodes of terial pneumonia. The new definition included
any adult infected with HIV who 200 or fewer CD-4 cells per microliter of
blood. As the Concorde trials proved, this white blood cell marker is known
as a poor indicator of a person's health. There are people with a 50 or
less CD-4 cell count who are without any symptoms while there are people in
the hospital with an 800 CD-4 cell count. It makes no sense and many of you
are beginning to realize this and the AIDS orthodoxy caught on and said that
Viral load is the "real" indication, but that is also very false as you'll
all begin to see.
Perhaps some examples will help clarify the situation. Pneumocystis carinii
pneumonia (PCP) was usually diagnosed as a secondary immune dysfunction
caused by malnutrition or reaction to medical drugs. In the presence of
antibodies to HIV, PCP is called AIDS. Tuberculosis is tuberculosis, cervix
cancer is cervix cancer except, after 1 January 1993, in the presence of
antibodies against HIV, it is called AIDS. People who are HIV+ but
otherwise healthy and have a CD-4 count less than 200 have AIDS ever since
December 31st1992 but not before that.
The definition of AIDS is circular. HIV is necessary for AIDS by
definition, that is, the definition of AIDS includes past infection with
HIV. The AIDS definition is apparently arbitrary and is often based on
considerations other than illness, as already mentioned above. Soon HIV may
be sufficient by definition because the CDC can continue to add diseases so
that for all practical purposes any malady in the presence of antibodies to
HIV will be called AIDS.
To be gay is to be at high-risk for AIDS by definition of "high-risk". This
is outrageous!
To make matters worse, there are some high profile AIDS researchers,
practitioners and activists who view AIDS as a disease entity itself. This
view reinforces the belief that there is some unique, as yet to be
discovered, cause of the entity AIDS or that HIV will eventually be shown to
have some role because of its correlation with high-risk behavior.
Unfortunately, this view takes the focus off of the well known factors that
define the highrisk groups and thereby drastically underplays the role of
these risk factors in AIDS. This view also helps support the near religious
belief in the HIV/AIDS HYPOTHESIS. a hypothesis is an unproven theory or
proposition or supposition!
The equation AIDS=Death is also false. People do not die from AIDS. They
die from one of the complications of one of the AIDS defining diseases as
you have so astutely pointed out. The toll on the body that the high-risk
factors take and/or the very toxic effects of the treatments for the
diseases associated with AIDS, , AZT, ddl, ddC, and a host of protease
inhibitors.
Since no one is immune to death the equation AIDS=DEATH must also mean AIDS
causes premature death. It is here that the enormous cost in lives and
money of the HIV hypothesis for AIDS becomes apparent. The equation THE
HIV/AIDS HYPOTHESIS= DEATH is true. The equation AIDS drugs=DEATH is true.
This treatment regime is justified on the grounds that AIDS is nearly 100%
fatal, which in fact is false. Any FDA approved medication or approved
medical procedure can be employed regardless of its toxicity or its level of
danger to the life of the patient. The mere suggestion that something may
stop HIV in its tracks can practically guarantee its application as long as
it come from a recognized pharmaceutical company.
It is long past the time to look at the risk factors as the cause of the
original perturbation of the immune system and to determine how t undo the
damage caused by these risk-factors
Finally, the equation HIV=DEATH. It is false because the others are false.
However, it is more pernicious than the other two equations. In the mind of
a person diagnosed with antibodies against HIV it is the driving belief of
future sickness and premature death. It is the substance of an unrelenting
expectation of sickness and death. The longer a person with antibodies
remains healthy and asymptomatic the more sure the person is in his belief
that he/she will be mortally sick tomorrow if not today. And sure enough
they will be because they are already mentally/ spiritually and emotionally
toxified from their expectation of disease and possibly from the various and
sundry medical drugs they are investing to ward off their 'certain"
premature death. Not to mention recreational drugs and malnutrition! Many
are willing laboratory animals. People with AIDS or antibodies against HIV
are the perfect laboratory animal!
What is the relation of mental stress and the CD-4 count? Does the belief
that HIV kills CD-4 cells (there is not enough HIV in the body to account
for the CD-4 depletion) lower the CD-4 count? The equation HIV=DEATH
deprives the diagnosed person of his/her natural expectation of health.
This is the usually unconscious knowledge that the body already has all that
is necessary to heal itself If you cut your finger you expect that it will
heal. I am not suggesting that AIDS is as simple as a cut finger, but I am
suggesting that if a person lives in fear of a premature death there is a
chance that physical damage will occur including immune dysfunction.
The absolutely false equation HIV=DEATH can interfere with the healing
process of the immune system. In almost all cases of infection with HIV
there is evidence of prior disturbance to the immune system. To repeat, the
fear factor in the diagnosis of HIV+ is itself damaging to the immune
system! What we fear, we believe in. What we believe in, we keep in mind.
What we keep in mind is created after its kind.
There is no denying the fact that most people truly infected with HIV have
some element of compromise of their health. Infection with HIV is a marker
for a perturbed immune system. What is a question here is the approach to a
viable solution that will prevent premature death without further iatrogenic
damage to the immune system, liver and kidneys. The medical treatments for
people diagnosed with AIDS are toxic to the liver, kidneys, and cause
destruction of blood cells as well as causing cancers! In most cases it is
not clear what actually killed the patient. But anyone who dies who is HIV+
is said to die from AIDS.
We must get out of the diseased "disease mentality" put upon us by the
high-tech 'scientific" medical/ pharmaceutical industry. We must
incorporate an attitude of expectation of health into our consciousness. We
must EXPECT HEALTH.
But what is health? It is more difficult to "define" a concept of HEALTH
than it is to list the symptoms that possibly define a disease. It is more
than the data described in a laboratory report that fit nicely into the
range of the statistical parameters of medical health.
In human beings health could be viewed on three levels: mental/ spiritual,
emotional and physical. It is then the subjective measurement of the
freedom the individual has in his/her daily life that determines that
person's health. Freedom from mental and emotional stress, freedom from
compulsions and obsessions, freedom from unfettered acquisitiveness, freedom
from addictions, freedom of bodily movement, and freedom from the pharmacy,
are all some parameters of HEALTH.
Three absolutely necessary qualities of mental/ spiritual health that should
go hand in hand with different functions of the mind are a) clarity, b)
rationality, coherence and logical sequence, and c) creative service for the
benefit of one's community as well as the benefit of oneself
In no way is it to be construed that medicine has not had its miracles, It
has! The implication here is that those miracles don't work for the immune
perturbation seen in AIDS. That is, the over zealous use of some if not
most of these heroic medical miracles may well be a leading cause of
toxification and immune perturbation to begin with. A further implication
here is that the germ theory model is itself not sufficient to the task of
ending the AIDS crisis. Just look at the past twelve years of the
allopathic/pharmacological broadside on AIDS.
The allopathic/ pharmacological axis has given us a
definition/non-definition of a disease non-entity/entity AIDS, based on an
unproven theory that holds a retrovirus, HIV, which has an infectivity level
so low that it cannot be found in most people with AIDS, as the cause. Only
the body's record of the possible past presence of HIV is detectable. That
is, antibodies against HIV, assuming that the test did not come up false
positive due to cross reactions with similar proteins which may well be in
the body of someone in a defined risk group. This germ theory "kill the
germ" model has given us AIDS medications and a host of other
pharmacologicals that carry high prices and bring embarrassingly high
profits for their manufacturers. These very same pharmacologicals could and
do produce numerous symptoms of AIDS.
Consider the San Franciscan misdiagnosed with AIDS in the late eighties who
was treated for HIV/AIDS for those six' years. His body was consumed by the
effects of the toxic HIV/AIDS drugs. He lived each day for six years
thinking that each day he arose would be his last day. He looked like he
has AIDS. He did. He has AIDS caused by medical drugs! But there was never
HIV present!
Is there a way out of this deadly quagmire? If there is it must be a
radically different approach from the one which is being taken now. It must
direct the person with HIV antibodies or AIDS toward HEALTH, and away from
the victimization of the allopathic/pharmacologists!
That the HIV/AIDS hypothesis does not hold up the first step towards Health
is the symbolic abolition of HIV/AIDS. To this end the acronym AIDS should
be put after the risk category that a person may find her/himself in,
specifically, gaymale/aids, gaymale/hiv+, woman/aids, woman/hiv+,
hemophiliac/aids, hemophiliac/hiv+, pediatric/aids, pediatric /hiv+, etc.
People in the various groups should be treated as the valuable and priceless
human beings that they are. Their health care should be designed to their
individual and personal condition. These people will have to take the leap
of faith necessary to put HIV/aids on the "shelf', so to speak. They will
have to disabuse themselves of the HIV=AIDS=DEATH equations and move out of
fear and live one day at a time.
They may have to incorporate some notion of spirituality into their lives to
aid them to live one day at a time. They must believe that the time of
their death is a wonderful mystery and it is not in the province of any
"physician", no matter how well meaning, to hypothesize on the "probable pre
mature death" of anyone.
Eventually the aids/HIV+ designation should be dropped and each of the risk
groups should be treated separately according to their needs. Ultimately
there ought to be no classifications at all. Each person, regardless of
ethnicity, gender, race, religion or non-religion, and sexual orientation
deserves affordable or free health care. Each person ought to have the
right to the health care option of their personal choice and ought to be
considered as an individual in medical matters.
For a person with HIV antibodies or AIDS to live a full quality life it is
absolutely necessary for him/her to answer the question with frank honesty:
"Do I want to live?" This question requires an in depth blameless self
assessment of one's personal journey to the present moment. It is neither
easy nor simple. It requires taking responsibility for one's own life and
health.
The self-assessment questions provide an instrument for empowerment over
one's own health care. The meditation on or the thinking over of these
questions is also helpful to the healing process. Healing is neither
scientific nor mechanical. Healing is! There are an abundance of
"scientific" descriptions but with the possible exception of Newton's Laws
of the motion of particles, I dare say there are no real scientific
explanations.
Roger
WalterNY wrote:
.....<<How long ago. What type of HIV-1? How do you know (by your own
standards) that
it wasn't blood from a false positive.>>
This was well documented. It happened twice in the early 90s in Fla. by a
doctor to prove that HIV is not pathogenic. You can read the story on the
Virusmyth.com website since people complain about me cutting and pasting
here......
>
>
So well documented that it only ends up on web sites like yours. I doubt that
whacko ever met the burden of proof.
>
>
.....<<,AIDS is a syndrome, not a disease(hence it's name). You can not test
for
a
syndrome. Only evidence of opportunistic infection in combination with CD4
count/percentage can demonstrate AIDS. The Western Blot detects antibodies
to
all HIV-1 types.>>
Thanks for the obvious. Obviously you failed to read the published
scientific paper on the western blot test in my last post and the fact that
it is not an indicator of anything in regards to a persons health. So to
bother replying would be a losing battle with you because you look no
further than what you get in pamphlets......
I am well educated in these matters. I have no need to read your garbage.
>
>
>
>
....<<<Actually the ELISA test is done first. If it shows positive, then a
Western
Blot is performed on the blood sample. ELISA will detect antibodies to all
types of HIV-1 excluding HTLV-O. The Western blot is much more dependable
than
the ELISA, but more expensive, so it is commonly used to confirm a positive
ELISA.>>>
Your information is great but once again read what I posted. In fact try
this too.
Now if you fail to read any of the scientific papers I have posted here and
try an ad hoc response then I can not debate the issue anymore.....
You fail to effectively debate this issue from the beginning. In fact, you have
entirely ignored the issue of my invitation.
>
....
First you said
<<<<You quote a study on the ELISA test, not the Western Blot>>>
Perhaps you need to reevaluate your stance. Because you are contradicting
yourself. Yes the paper I cited was about the Elisa test which I told you is
completely inaccurate. I also mentioned that the western blot test is
completely inaccurate to but you failed to acknowledge that. You failed to
read the paper in the link that specifically discusses the western blot test
and how inaccurate it is. But let's not look at my logic but yours. I said
that the test for HIV is inaccurate. You somewhat agreed with me in regards
to the Elisa test based on what I said , but then you said:<<<<You quote a
study on the ELISA test, not the Western Blot>>>
SO you are saying that in my citation about the Elisa test, it is not
accurate, but western blot is.....
I said what I said. It needs no inaccurate rephrasing on your part. If you care
to say that I said something in this newsgroup, I suggest you include the
original text unaltered. You subject yourself to liable.
>
>
>
>
...Our Army tested a group of the same 1000 soldiers twice. The first time,
1/100 shows up HIV+. The second testing reveals only 1/1000. That
means 9/10 who originally tested positive, are not positive! But you say
that one false test deserves another.....
Very poor information. Same type of test? Year of test? The U.S. has also
made many rockets that blew up on the launch pad, but the track record there has
improved somewhat also.
>
>
....<<Actually the ELISA test is done first. If it shows positive, then a
Western
Blot is performed on the blood sample>>
So I showed you clear evidence that the Elisa test will be false positive
99% of the time....
Bull crap.
>
...and you say that if the Elisa is positive then further
testing is done. So the western blot test must be based on a false positive
Elisa. Great science there....
Negative. Again you snip out meaningful data and fail to understand english.
>
>
>
......<<I carry none of the aforementioned diseases.>>
So you have never had a cold or a flu or had a vaccine? And you have been
tested for all 64 conditions (many are not diseases but common physical
conditions). Your doctor must make a good salary off of you......
My medical care is socialized. I didn't say that I never had a cold, flu, or
vaccination. I do eliminate them as any factor in causing a false positive in
my case. And once AGAIN, my HIV has been identified by type! That is not done
with your aforementioned tests. You are undebatable due to the fact that you
create your own "data" and misquote those you are talking to.
>
>
>
......My Western Blots have been
performed repeatedly since the initial positive result, my HIV-1 type is
HTLV-B>>>
And for the rest of your life you will probably test positive....
Right.
>
.....In fact I
would bet your mom might test positive too.....
Wrong.
>
.....She probably carries the same
RNA sequence in her.....
The ELISA and Western Blot test for antibodies to HIV, not the hosts RNA
sequence. Perhaps you are thinking about a test called PCR? Get your facts
together. You sound extremely ignorant.
>
....The RNA for HIV has been around probably as long as
mankind. Retroviruses were first discovered during the twenty years of
recearch done on cancer. In fact Peter Duesbuerg was the first to identify
retroviruses (hense why Robert Gallo refers to him as the "father of
retrovirology"). In studying cancer, scientists were trying to map the body
in order to figure out what caused cells to mutate as they did in cases of
cancer. One of the last things they discovered and studied were
retroviruses. To this day over 3000 have been catalogued. The reason why
cancer scientists looked at retroviruses last was that they are very simple
genetically and have never in the history of man been responsible for any
disease. They still aren't!.....
You are so wrong! SIV BIV and FIV are all retroviruses that cause illness! Get
a clue! Do you know how retro viruses work? They possess an innate ability to
cause ill health depending upon the target host cell.
>
>
>
.....<<Antibodies to colds and flus are not the same (as antibodies to HIV).>>>
Please give me the scientific citation that shows me this.....
You know nothing about debate either. You represented the contrary as fact, I
challenged it, it is now your turn to prove your ridiculous claim. But really,
don't bother. Your whole argument has so many holes in it that it is pathetic.
>
>
>
........<<<The tests were not designed to "indicate
the presence of active infection or disease." They were designed to detect
the
antibodies generated by the immune system in response to HIV infection.>>
And an eighth grader knows from biology class that the mere presence of
antibodies in the system is a sign that the immune system has successfully
defended itself any pathogen. When a person is exposed to a new
microbe, his body develops antibodies, which are simply proteins designed
specifically to disable the microbe. Once the body wins over the
germ, conquering it, these antibodies float around in the bloodstream from
then on, ready for the next time the same germ shows up. The person
is "antibody- positive"; he's
immune to the disease caused by the microbe. One reason we continue to
get colds is because new cold viruses pop up from time to time. Another
reason is that many viruses, whether they're "cold" viruses or not,
cause cold-like symptoms. Just as we constantly have
germs in us, we have lots antibodies.......
When the body fails to effectively ward off HIV, more CD-8 suppresser cells are
produced to stop the fight. Otherwise the body would burn itself out much more
quickly with the overproduction of IL-2.
>
>
> For every disease that plagues mankind, having antibodies means you're
> immune.
Not with HIV. You obviously know nothing about the mechanics of it.
>
> Think about that. Being HIV+ is the opposite of a death sentence! If
> for some reason, a person's immune system isn't capable of making
> antibodies, or maybe not in the right quantity or fashion, or with
> the right speed, that's when disease might occur. And it'll usually happen
> quickly, within a matter of days.
Different diseases take different amounts of time to produce varying ill effects
on the body. Take syphilis for instance.
> You catch a cold, you get sick in a
> couple of days and you remain sick until you're body fights it off. You
> come down with Ebola fever, and if fate's against you, you die in a
> week or two.Furthermore, you'll readily be able to chart the progression
> of the disease.
I have wonderful charts of the progression of my HIV infection.
> If you know what the cold virus looks like, you'll find it
> abundant and actively replicating wherever you have your cold. If it's
> a head cold, it'll be strong in the nasal passages. A chest cold, in
> the lungs. Now, there are slower diseases like syphilis, but the same
> principle applies. Your body is busy as always trying to fight off the
> spirochete, but it's not quite successful. An up and down battle. So
> the bacteria slowly multiples and makes its way around your body. You
> might not have noticeable symptoms for a long time, but you can match
> the movement of the bacteria with the progression of the disease. On
> the other hand, it's entirely possible to be infected with spirochete
> and never come down with syphilis.
>
> That means you're immune system is doing it's job. Many people don't
> realize this important fact because of the powerful campaign to
> eradicate infectious disease. And as long as you believe theAIDS propaganda
> your never going to free yourself of this death sentence.
The only guarantee in life is death, you idiot. Those that worry about death
all the time, aren't living well. Life is in fact the death sentence. Get over
it.
>
>
> <<<Immune response to HIV is not normal or healthy.>>>
>
> There is no creditable science for this statement. This is all based on
> Robert Gallos unpublished work.
Oh really? Geez, do you ever read any articles besides the ones by quacks that
"support" your crap?
>
>
> <<And you have identified an alternative source of AIDS other than
> immunosuppressant drugs and congenital defect? Let us here it.>>>
>
> This has a big answer.
And you failed to answer it.
The offer still stands. I meet the requirements to give you a nice sample that
you can inject. You can dance around this all you like, but I will hold you to
this offer. Go ahead, just say know. Because you know deep in your heart that
you are just a denial queen. Except your mortality. Get over it, and get on
with your life.