Guest guest Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 How can HIV be the primary and sufficient cause of AIDS? Why would a virus infect 1% of the US population and 30% of some Africa countries? Why would a virus cause different symptoms depending on your age, gender, sexual orientation, race and geographic location? Why hasn't 20 years worth of research and billions of dollars spent created a vaccine or " cure " ? Why do the pharmaceutical companies and the government censor the scientists, doctors and laypeople that ask these questions and provide reasonable answers? The infectious model does not work that way. See how 'HIV=AIDS' unfills Kochs' Three Postulates of the Infectious Model of Disease. If there is no heterosexual 'AIDS' epidemic in the West, there can be no homosexual pathogenesis either. How can these bugs be that smart, are they supposed to be like smart bombs;) This is why there will never be an 'AIDS' vaccine or cure for 'AIDS' or a manner to prevent transmission of the alleged 'HIV.' IMAGINE THERE'S NO HIV, IT'S EASY IF YOU QUESTION AIDS If you can't even imagine, allowing for the possibility, that 'HIV/AIDS' could be an infectious misconception, not necessarily a conspiracy, then you cannot begin to question the alleged viral pathogenesis and progression of 'HIV=AIDS.' I formerly served on AIDS Project Los Angeles Spiritual Advisory Committee and the Director of the InterFaith Project for Gay/Lesbian Concerns at USC for three years and am the first open AIDS Dissident appointed to the Federation of Gay Games, Sydney 2002, " AIDS, Breast Cancer and Wellness Subcommittee. " Will you offer the human, moral response by adding your voices in supporting: FULLY INFORMED CONSENT, before someone is given information about 'HIV/AIDS' or given an 'HIV' antibody test, given a diagnosis of death and told to that to 'progress' one should expect illness or prescribed up to forty highly toxic, experimental chemo-therapy like drugs, the AIDS Industry should be ethically if not legally required to provide AIDS Alternative resources and information, including those dissenting from, and uncomplementary to, the dominant, conventional pharmaceutically-based medical model for the alleged viral pathogenesis and progression of 'HIV=AIDS.' FREE SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY and EXCHANGE, end to AIDS Apologist arrogance and ignorance in not supporting even 1% of research, education and health care dollars directed to exploring outside the virus/germ 'one- cause, one-course or cure' drug-based model-- including the Dissident Scientific and Alternative Medicine paradigm and protocols. PROPORTIONATE ACCESS TO ALTERNATIVE HEALTH CARE, when more than 50% of those 'HIV/AIDS' diagnosed do not avail conventional drug therapies and 40-69% of Americans use some form of Alternative Medicine-- AIDS Apologists do not support even 1% of the health care budget in providing primary Alternative Health Care which is more cost effective and at least as clinically efficacious without major side effects. The CDC/NIH/NIAID/NCCAM currently do not fund any research outside the dominant, conventional medical model, research that challenges or does not accept without question, the 'HIV' theory of immuno- deficiency. Dissident Scientists and Advocates and Alternative Medicine Physicians and Consumers are addressing the health of such persons given an 'HIV/AIDS' [mis]diagnosis, though are not involved in treating 'HIV' or 'AIDS' as we do not accept the evidence as sufficient in establishing 'HIV' non-specific antibody response, indicating anything more than past exposure, current immunity or one, possible indicator of a stressed immune system. We also do not accept the evidence as sufficient establishing the 'AIDS' definition valid as diagnosis, since all of the 'AIDS' defining conditions occur in those who test 'HIV' negative, and all have seperate causes and treatments unrelated to 'HIV' or 'AIDS.' The definition and diagnosis of 'AIDS' is therefore a circular construct, in which 29 old illnesses are lumped under a new classification called 'AIDS' only in persons who test 'HIV' positive-- whatever that non-specific marker means. HOW CAN YOU HELP? By communicating these concerns to your local 'HIV/AIDS' service provider, AIDS organization, community center, religious or civic leaders and representatives-- you can become a part of the solution in peace-making and justice-pursuing in this matter. Persons are being given a diagnosis of death, told to expect illness and prescribed up to 40 highly toxic and experimental drugs known to cause many of the 'AIDS' [re]defining conditions. Messages from this billion dollar health scare campaign teach people to fear sex and equate love-making with life-taking. If they hear from enough of us, it will make a difference with policy makers. == If not you, who will be the answer? If not you, who will heal the cancer? If not you . . . who? Who will tell the children that they can fly? Who will play the catcher in the rye? Where are the teachers who ask the reasons why? In the schools the minds all die. Our desire to address the health of persons diagnosed with 'HIV/AIDS' leaves out a significant proportion of *stakeholders.* These include Alternative Medicine Physicians, Consumers, Dissident Scientists and Advocates. When the AIDS Industry admits they are reaching maybe 20% to 50% of those 'HIV/AIDS' affected and 50% of those diagnosed do not avail access to conventional medical protocols despite a concerted and costly education campaign over the last 20+ years-- and at the same time somewhere between 40-69% of Americans use some form of Alternative Medicine, sharing an alternative health care philosophy and/or practise-- is it not reasonable to assume a significant proportion of those 'HIV/AIDS' affected may not be 'in denial' or apathetic in responding to socalled 'prevention' efforts-- but disaffected or even dissenting from the dominant, conventional pharmaceutically-based medical model for the alleged viral pathogenesis and progression of 'HIV=AIDS?' And why does the AIDS Industry not advocate for even 1% of the AIDS budget to be directed to providing alternative health care for the largest underserved and underepresented 'HIV/AIDS' diagnosed consumers. Although there is not one scientific paper that can be considered definative to either proving or disproving the 'HIV' Theory of immuno- deficiency, the following scientific critiques have been published in the popular press and medical, scientific journals. I hope we will teach people how and not what to think about, resolve, prevent the definition, diagnosis of 'HIV/AIDS' and all health issues affecting humanity. Dissidents dissent from a legitimate scientific and medical bases as to the causatives and curatives for 29 previously known and unrelated 'AIDS' clinically redefined illnesses, all of which occur in those diagnosed'HIV' non-specific antibody negative. So, besides the definition and diagnosis of what is called 'AIDS' Dissidents are also challenging the accuracy and specifity of the 'HIV' non-specific antibody tests to measure infection with any virus since there are over 60+ known cross-reactors from pregnancy to the flu to immunizations to hepatitis to transfusions and on and on. We endorse a multi-factorial approach to immune suficiency and sustainability in addressing the oxidative stressors including physical[malnutrition], chemical[toxicologic], biological [dis-ease], psychological[chronic stress], and spiritual[religious reconciling]-- of which 'HIV' non-specific, non-confirmatory marker positivity is no reliable indicator of worthiness or wellness. And we are disbelievers in a [sAME-]SEXUAL=SIN=SICKNESS mindset having lead to the unquestioned acceptance of the HIV=AIDS=DEATH paradigm. As you can see ideologies, from political, ethical and medical/scientific, enter the discussion on 'HIV/AIDS' to some extent, and I believe, have prevented our progress in the knowledge about health in many areas. Below, I put together a detailed summary analysis of the critique or challenge of AIDS Dissidents with resources and links. Healthfully and Hopefully, Jon Landis PEER REVIEW REVIEWED See especially: Little Evidence for Effectiveness of Scientific Peer Review, British Medical Journal 326:241, February 1, 2003; Study Faults Industry Clinical Trials: Company-backed Tests Rarely Follow Guidelines, Report Finds; Associated Press, October 23, 2002, Trials Funded by for Profit Organizations Favor the Intervention: The British Medical Journal, August 3, 2002; 325:249; Scientists for Sale, Health Editor The Guardian, Thursday February 7, 2002; Medical Journal Eases Conflict Rules The Associated Press; Conflicts of Interest in Medical Journals, AMA Journal Critiques Report Data, Associated Press. Hidden Risks, Lethal Truths, Sunday Reporter, Los Angeles Times June 30, 2002; Something Rotten at the Core of Science? Trends in Pharmacological Sciences Vol. 22, No. 2, February 2001; Definning Disease A review by Marilyn Werber Serafini, from National Journal June 8, 2002: Pharmacracy. INDEX OF ARTICLES IN MAINSTREAM PRESS INCLUDING THOSE LISTED: http://aliveandwell.org/index.php?page=PeerReview ARE THE DRUG COCKTAILS RESPONSIBLE FOR A DECLINE IN 'AIDS' ATTRIBUTED ILLNESSES/DEATHS? CDC data on number of AIDS cases and AIDS deaths. AIDS cases and deaths CLEARLY begin to decline *PRIOR* to the release of new " miracle " drugs! (Taken from: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hivsur92.pdf). However, only 19% of so- called " HIV-positive " people were on the new drugs by the end of June *1996* (see: http://www.retroconference.org/2001/abstracts/abstracts/abstracts/494. htm ). Also, the dosage of the TOXIC AZT has been lowered SUBSTANTIALLY (by at least 50%) since its release in 1987. See THIS GRAPHIC for related information. WHAT IF EVERYTHING YOU THOUGHT YOU KNEW ABOUT HIV/AIDS WERE WRONG? BEYOND FLAT EARTH MEDICINE How popular consensus and the medical establishment have often stubbornly clung to the wrong ideas, unable to think outside the box. When medically 'correct' wasn't always. Any medical dictionary will tell you that influenza is caused by a virus or that scurvy results from lack of vitamin C - both pieces of common knowledge. Less well known is the fact that the majority of doctors and scientists started out with the wrong ideas about these and many other diseases. It is often the case that what becomes common knowledge has first to be argued by a lone dissenting voice against huge resistance. Science is regularly reminded that Nature is oblivious to democracy. Freeman, who challenged Margaret Mead on Coming of Age in Samoa, once said, " To seek to dispose of a major scientific issue by a show of hands is a striking demonstration of the way in which belief can come to dominate the thinking of scholars. " The prevailing hypothesis, in the long run, is a matter of natural selection - not popular concensus. A Brief History of Mismanaged Epidemics [Disease]---[Popular Consensus]---[Actual Cause] Scurvy------Contagious---Malnutrition: Vitamin C deficiency Beri-beri---Contagious---Malnutrition: Thiamin deficiency Maternal Fever---Non-contagious---Contagious: Unsanitary doctor practices Influenza---Bacteria---Virus Pellagra----Contagious---Malnutrition: Niacin deficiency SMON(1950s-70s, Japan)---New Virus---Iatrogenic: Pharmaceutically induced In science as in the law, the affirmative theory bears the burden of proof for establishing itself. Those who critique it's establishment in fact, are not required to reprove or replace another theory of it's aetiology, especially when immune dysfunction has a multi- factorially influenced set of unrelated conditions, or according to Alternative Medicine, all illness/wellness is on a continuum and the result of immune sufficiency or deficiency. Alternative Medicine has long questioned the virus/germ theory of illness which is confirmed by the work of hundreds of Dissident Scientists, including Nobel Laureates, Members of the National Academy of Sciences and pioneers in their fields. Many often disconnect the alternative theories from the alternative therapies-- in how Alternative Medicine diagnoses illness. They treat the underlying causes of symptoms, not syndromes and they do not generally recognize conventional disease classifications. " For disease, all experience shows, are adjectives, not noun substantives. " " There are no specific diseases: there are [only] specific disease conditions. " Florence Nightingale (Nursing Pioneer, Dis-ease Dissident) Interesting that AIDS Apologists, or those who defend or defer to the affirmative statement or new theory, in this case the 'HIV=AIDS' hypothesis, often compare AIDS Dissidents with Flat Earthers, but Galileo was a Dissident, the Flat Earthers were the mainstream scientific establishment. There is a famous story about Galileo, that is relevant here, I think. Galileo was in trouble with the Church authorities, for his observation of Jupiter's moons, through his telescope. (The four moons that he saw are traditionally called the " Galilean " moons, after their discoverer.) Anyway, he offered to let an influential member of the Clergy look through the telescope at these moons, so that said clergyman would see what Galileo had seen. This pious man refused, saying that as long as he did not look, his religious faith could remain intact. Sadly, we are dealing with a kind of medical " church " , regarding the HIV theory; its members do not want their faith shaken (or stirred! :- ) ) Scurvy was thought to be transmitted by a microbe for 200 years even while Dissident Scientists were arguing it was a Vitamin C deficiency. The implication was that Seamen or Sailors engaged in 'buggary' were sexually transmissing a 'bug.' Homosexuality was deemed a psychiatric disorder by the medical and scientific establishment until 1973, a decade later the medical diagnosis of GRID-- Gay Related Immune Dysfunction was described in the literature. AIDS DISSIDENT SCIENTIFIC SUMMARY ANALYSIS what is hiv? No laboratory has ever obtained an undisputed sample of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), despite countless attempts. Most laboratories, clinics and medical corporations have come to accept indirect signs, or 'markers', such as antibody reactions, proteins, genetic fragments, 'virus-like' particles, enzymes - that could suggest a virus but also other things - as proving the presence and existence of an 'HIV'. If such a virus were ever isolated by standards applicable until the late 1970s, the expectations are that it would be a retrovirus - a concept of viruses adopted in the early 1970s. The genetic code of a retrovirus would work 'backwards' - 'retro' - transforming RNA to DNA. Most retroviruses are known as harmless passenger viruses a part of all of endogenous or naturally occuring genetic make-up. 'HIV' has never been found in suficient quantities to kill T-Cells and in fact there is no concensus even after 21+ years as to 'HIV's cytotoxic or cell killing mechanism. For a decade, researchers thought cancer was caused by a retrovirus. Professor Duesberg, UC Berkeley, isolated the first retrovirus and is a Father of Retrovirology says 'HIV' is a harmless passenger virus that does not cause the syndrome known as 'AIDS.' In 1984 some signs suggesting a possible new virus were detected in cell cultures by the scientific teams of Frenchman Luc Montagnier in Paris, and American Gallo in Washington, who were trying to explain a single cause for 'AIDS'. The French called their findings Lymphadenopathy Associated Virus (LAV), the Americans called theirs Human T-cell Lymphotrophic Virus III (HTLV-III). The US Government announced at a press conference in 1984 that a new virus was " the probable cause of AIDS, " yet before any scientific papers inviting peer scrutiny were published. When such papers appeared in Science some weeks later, a dispute erupted between Montagnier and Gallo. Gallo was found guilty of scientific misconduct by a Senate Ethics Committee, for misappropriating material and photographs of 'virus- like' particles from the French. Because of the financial stakes - Gallo and the US government applied for a patent for tests for 'HIV' the day of the press conference - the matter was eventually solved only by a closed meeting between the scientists which produced an official history of events, and a meeting between the US and French Presidents. However, neither Gallo nor Montagnier ever managed to purify samples of the virus they claimed to have detected. Many scientists believe that without fulfiling this traditional primary requirement of virus isolation, multiple confusions at the molecular biological level are inevitable over what or whether anything has actually been found. To this day, primary purification of 'HIV' has never been achieved. The last attempts, published in 1997 in Virology, revealed proteins and genetic fragments from microvesicles - sub-cell particles - but no virus. hiv antibody tests INDEX OF ARTICLES, PAPERS http://www.healtoronto.com/hivtest.html Over the years of the HIV/AIDS theory, different types of test have been used to try to detect such a virus in patients. These have included (1) antibody tests, which look for a reaction in a person's blood between their natural antibodies and synthetic proteins said to belong to HIV, and (2) Polymerase Chain Reaction - PCR - or 'viral load' genetic tests, which purport to use part of the virus' genetic code to detect its presence. All these tests are indirect, or surrogate. They do not claim to detect any whole virus. Rather, they use markers to infer whether a virus might be present. Unfortunately for the accuracy of these tests, these same markers can be found in a variety of non-HIV situations. No HIV test of any kind has ever been validated against the one measure that is not indirect - the gold standard: physical virus isolation. This is because isolation of HIV by the previously conventional standards of viral isolation has never been achieved, despite numerous attempts. Of the antibody tests for HIV, there are two main types - called ELISA, and Western Blot. Neither was designed especially for HIV, but are examples of laboratory methodologies used in many investigations. Around the world many companies market their versions of the ELISA and Western Blot antibody tests for HIV. However, the uncertain, unvalidated nature of these tests is reflected in the product literature supplied by their manufacturers. A typical example for the ELISA reads: " At present there is no recognised standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood. " - Axsym System, Abbott Laboratories A typical example for the Western Blot reads: " Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection. " - Epitope, Organon Teknika Neither Isolation Nor Validation Any scientist who declares that a genetic sequence, moreover a genetic sequence arrived at by human concensus, represents a naturally occuring virus, has compromised their scientific integrity. To further suggest that this genetic sequence represents a competent, exogenous, sexually transmitted and indeed pathogenic retrovirus is to enter the realms of pseudo-science. Without HIV isolation all is mere speculation. Even if HIV were isolated and the proteins tested for by the ELISA antibody test were actually proteins specific to HIV, an antibody test would still not be accurate enough for determining actual viral infection. Everyone tests HIV positive on ELISA if their serum is not diluted by a factor of 400 because of non-specific antibodies which bind to any proteins. " Of course we looked for it [HIV]... We saw some particles but they did not have the morphology [shape] typical of retroviruses. ... I repeat we did not purify. " ~ Dr. Luc Montagnier, the " discoverer of HIV " (see French transcript of quote from the interview http://healtoronto.com/lmfrench.html , Did Luc Montagnier Discover HIV? http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/dtinterviewlm.htm or video) " No one believed we really had that many isolates... No one believed we really meant that... " ~ Dr. Gallo, also discovered " HIV " (see Gallo Investigated http://healtoronto.com/galloindex.html) Any biological entity that mutates to the degree that HIV is said to do cannot be biologically viable. For example " HIV protease " has to make a large number of cleavages in the " HIV " gag-pol polyprotein in order to produce biologically viable HIV. Kinetic analysis (J. of Biological Chemistry, 1997, Vol. 272, p 6348-6353) shows that a mutated HIV protease could not do this. The idea with evolution by natural selection is that organisms improve themselves by random mutations preserved by natural selection. So, if a mutation confers an advantage it is preserved and the organism is optimised for survival. When mutations confer a disadvantage they are selected against because the organism carrying this unfortuate mutation cannot persist in the population. If we are talking about HIV as a viable biological entity then always the fittest virions will comprise the greatest proportion of any particular HIV population. Natural selection dictates that beneficial mutations are PRESERVED. The basic message is that viral populations can tolerate " high " levels of mutation as long as they are not so high that beneficial mutations cannot be preserved in the majority of the viral population. We are being asked to believe that HIV is so prone to mutation as to become simultaneously resistant to a combination of 3 anti-retroviral agents and that despite this level of mutation HIV can still sustain itself as a pathogenic virus. If we assume that HIV does not mutate to an extent that renders it naturally harmless (it is harmless anyway) then it will have optimised its activity through natural selection. When exposed to an unnatural inhibitor designed to block its HIV protease, the protease will mutate to become resistant but because of the high precision required of the protease in its function, infectious HIV cannot be produced. To quote Dissident Scientist Dave Rasnick, PhD and former designer of PIs or Protease Inhibitors from an article: " Since the wild-type HIV protease has evolved to the optimal level of activity, virtually all alterations to the enzyme's structure that affect catalytic efficiency are lethal to the virus. Mutations of the protease that reduce inhibitor binding result in an even more profound reduction in catalytic activity. This is because the overall catalytic efficiency of a mutant HIV protease is given by the product of the relative efficiencies of the mutant enzyme with respect to the wild-type for all eight obligatory cleavages (28) . These eight cleavages can be thought of as an eight-number combination lock. Not only does HIV protease have to make all eight cleavages, but the enzyme must do it in the right order. Therefore, even in the absence of inhibitors, the inhibitor-resistant mutant HIV proteases do not lead to viable, infectious virus. " In the early days of the HIV era a small group of virologists to which everyone deferred stated as fact that HIV causes AIDS by directly destroying CD4 cells, although there was no evidence for this at the time. When there was still no evidence, rather than follow the scientific method and consider the importance of other factors, it was confidently stated as fact that HIV instead causes AIDS by INDIRECTLY destroying, or indirectly reducing, the number of CD4 cells. True to form, there is still no evidence to clarify this position. Even after handing out mind bogglingly huge research funding for over 21 years HIV 'scientists' or 'specialists' still do not have the evidence to show how the putative 'HIV' can cause the catch-all syndrome called AIDS. AIDS APOLOGISTS: " And if you doubt that the treatments are affective, I have 50 examples of people who were near death until they started their meds...now they are alive and well. Thats the real proof...not words of scientists, or your ramblings or even mine. Its the people who have come from the edge and are now alive because of this theory of HIV and the treatments that have resulted from it. " AIDS DISSIDENTS: Personal experience can be very convincing. After all, you've 'seen it with your own eyes.' That's exactly why scientists have mechanisms to confirm their results; to make sure of what 'it' is that they have actually seen. Your patients knew they were getting the 'new miracle drugs'. They expected to do better; you and the other personnel expected them to do better. That translates to a very real psychological benefit. There's a good reason that clinical studies are supposed to have a placebo control group. It's a shame no protease inhibitor study has had a true placebo control. There are other variables. It may even be that some of your patients benefitted merely from getting three square meals a day, regardless of what they may have told you. They may have been treated for opportunistic infections; or the 'HIV treatments' may have affected the OIs directly, instead of acting on the virus. And as I've said before, some of them may simply have gotten better. Some people do. But viewed through the HIV paradigm, when patients get better, the drugs get the credit. When they get worse, the virus gets the blame. But then, that problem occurs all through the elastic, plastic theory. Any fact can be stretched, squashed or wished away under the HIV theory as it is presented. AIDS DISSIDENTS: You're HIV positive and not sick at all? AIDS APOLOGISTS: You will be soon. AIDS DISSIDENTS: You've been positive for fifteen years and still the picture of health? AIDS APOLOGISTS: Then the medicines are responsible (even though we don't have any valid studies). AIDS DISSIDENTS: You don't take the medicines? AIDS APOLOGISTS: Then you're a long-term non-progressor, likely due to your genetic makeup (never mind that there's not a whit of proof for that). Or you have a 'weak' strain of the virus (never mind that we've never purified the virus). AIDS DISSIDENTS: You have AIDS but not HIV? AIDS APOLOGISTS: Use PCR, that will detect the virus (and never mind that PCR is not supposed to be used for diagnosis). Still no virus? Then it's reached indetectable levels (but it's still killing you somehow). AIDS DISSIDENTS: You have old blood samples and still no virus? AIDS APOLOGISTS: Then you don't have AIDS at all, you have idiopathic CD4 lymphocytopenia (which is exactly like AIDS, but different). AIDS DISSIDENTS: HIV infection in this country has never increased? AIDS APOLOGISTS: Then the safe sex messages are working (never mind that other STDs surged a few years ago, but HIV didn't). AIDS DISSIDENTS: AIDS is still in the risk groups? AIDS APOLOGISTS: It's on the verge of breaking out (just as it has been for fifteen years). THEORY OVERLOAD: VIRAL CATASTROPHY This is what Kary Mullis means when he says that the HIV theory is unfalsifiable: there is no fact or circumstance that can't be argued away by a HIV 'true believer', and thus, no way to disprove the theory as presented. That effectively makes the theory useless. Theories are supposed to explain and conform to facts; a theory that cannot be challenged by facts is worthless. When millions of lives and loves are in question, careful science is required, not anecdotes, correlations, jingos and regurgitated press releases. With over $100 Billion spent thus far, you'd think the NIH, NIAID, CDC could spare one hundredth of one percent of that to prove themselves wrong. That when hundreds of Dissident Scientists, including Nobel Laureates and Members of the National Academy of Sciences, confirming Alternative Medicine's long questioning of the virus/germ mode or 'one-cause, one-course' drug-based model, have risked their careers and reputations in standing up against the dominant, conventional medical and scientific model, we might have a free scientific inquiry and exchange. Science used to require exploration of the alternate or opposing paradigms in confirming hypotheses. Now they disassociate themselves from and denegrate the reputations of those that doubt the 'HIV' theory of immuno-defficiency. They openly censor conference programs and other scientific proceedings or publications. It is already past time for peer review to be reviewed. Scientists are not the gods of technology, and MD does not stand for Medical Diety. 'viral load' / PCR test Polymerase Chain Reaction - PCR - or the 'viral load' test, purports to detect, and quantify, blood-borne HIV in patients. However, the genetic fragments it amplifies have never been proved to originate in HIV, or in any virus. The accuracy of PCR viral load is estimated by leading doctors at plus or minus 300% - i.e. a reading of 90,000 could be 30,000 or 270,000! The PCR was not invented for HIV. Its Nobel Prizewinning inventor, Dr Kary Mullis, calls the use of PCR in AIDS medicine, " a tragedy in the practice of Western medicine " and a " viral load of crap. " The uncertain unvalidated nature of the PCR for HIV is reflected in the product literature supplied by manufacturers. A typical example reads: " The Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection. " - Roche, Amplicor VIRAL LOAD OF WHAT? http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/chjppcrap.htm t-cells Since the beginning of the HIV/AIDS theory, it has been suggested that a virus kills a certain type of cell of the immune system - called T-cells, or CD4 cells. 'T' refers to the maturing of these cells in the gland of the Thymus, after their birth in the bone marrow. CD4 is short for Cluster Differentiation 4, referring to a method by which scientists group subsets of these cells according to protein markers on their surface. In fact there has never been any proof that an HIV kills these cells, or indeed that even when they seem in low numbers in a person's blood, cells have not instead migrated out of the blood to bone marrow and elsewhere. Despite common assumptions, even by doctors, CD4/T-cell counting remains a poor predictor of wellness and illness. Since the Berlin World AIDS Conference of 1992 considerably less scientific importance has been attached to T-cell counting. T-cell counts are naturally variable, within an individual over time, between individuals, and between communities. The technology for counting T-cells is accurate only to approximately plus or minus 100 cells. The cells sampled for counting are taken from a person's peripheral blood, where it is widely accepted, less than 10% of a healthy person's T-cells will ever be found. CD-4 T-cells: What Do They Count For? [index of articles/papers] http://healtoronto.com/cd4counts.html what is aids? Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is a medical diagnosis applied since 1984 in some branches of medicine and the wider public when a person perceived as infected with a human immunodeficiency virus ('HIV') experiences one of 29 conditions. But all of the 29 conditions exist or occur in persons diagnosed 'HIV' antibody negative and are only redefined as 'AIDS' when someone tests antibody positive. 'Acquired' specifies that the diagnosis does not apply to people with inherent immune deficiencies. 'Immune Deficiency' is conventionally taken to be the inability of a person's body to protect against illness. Syndrome is a group of symptoms or conditions which seem to be more or less linked. The growing list of conditions defined 'in the presence of HIV infection' since 1984 as AIDS, have already all been known for decades. Thus TB plus 'HIV' is AIDS, TB without 'HIV' is TB. Cervical cancer plus 'HIV' is AIDS, without is cervical cancer. Etc. In the early 1980s the 'AIDS-indicator' conditions numbered two: pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (thought to be caused by an opportunistic protozöon, now thought to be fungal), and Kaposi's Sarcoma (a quasi-cancer of the skin and other membranes, first reported in 1887). These two conditions were found increasingly frequently in the early 1980s in the USA and Europe in men having sex with men, and were hypothesised as resulting from infectious immune deficiency, inferred from counting people's peripheral T-cells. The syndrome was for a while classified as Gay Related Immune Deficiency (GRID). The list of 'defining' conditions has increased substantially since 1984, though the major risk groups for 'AIDS' in the West have remained men who have sex with men, people with haemophilia (Haemophilia), and IV drug users (Drugs). Despite early alarms, HIV/AIDS has never become a heterosexual epidemic in the West, which does not mean it's a gay disease, but it has failed to meet the parameters of the infectious model. 'HIV=AIDS' does not fulfill Koch's Postulates as none of the apes injected with 'HIV' have developed 'AIDS' conditions. The international CDC definition of AIDS is specifically founded on 'infection with HIV', assumed or demonstrated. Thus by definition it is nearly impossible to have 'AIDS' that is not 'correlative' with 'HIV', though it is widely accepted that 'Immune Deficiency' can be 'Acquired' in a many ways. There are also many well documented causes and treatments for all of the 29 'AIDS' redefined conditons or for addressing aquired immune deficiency. Between different regions of the globe, the criteria and means for arriving at an AIDS diagnosis vary. There are at least seven varying official criteria for diagnosing 'AIDS.' In Africa, for example, the same official concept of AIDS can be found, but since a meeting in 1985 in the city of Bangui, Cote d'Ivoire, the World Health Organisation's Bangui AIDS Definition has allowed for diagnosis of AIDS in Africa with no test performed for 'HIV', if a person experiences the relatively common African symptoms of weight loss, cough, fever and diarrhoea for more than a month. HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS. Why would a virus infect 1% of the US population and 30% of some Africa countries? Why would a virus cause different symptoms depending on your age, gender, and location? Why hasn't 20 years worth of research and billions of dollars spent created a vaccine or " cure " ? Why do the pharmaceutical companies and the government censor the scientists, doctors and laypeople that ask these questions and provide reasonable answers? The infectious model does not work that way. See how 'HIV=AIDS' unfills Kochs' Three Postulates of the Infectious Model of Disease. This is why there will never be an 'AIDS' vaccine or cure for 'AIDS' or a manner to prevent transmission of the alleged 'HIV.' 'AIDS' IN AFRICA INDEX OF PAPERS, ARTICLES http://healtoronto.com/africa.html The AIDS Debate by Liam Scheff BOSTON WEEKLY DIG ~ May/June 2003 Part I: " The Most Controversial Story You've Never Heard " http://www.weeklydig.com/dig/content/3168.aspx Part II: " The Gay Plague " http://www.weeklydig.com/dig/content/3499.aspx Part III: " Africa: Treating Poverty with Toxic Drugs " http://www.weeklydig.com/dig/content/3593.aspx == SLIDE EFFECTS AND CONDOMANIA [iNDEX OF PAPERS] http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/safesex.htm INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND SUMMARY: 1) Many heterosexuals engage in anal sex, yet are not selectively biased under the PPVs or Positive Predictive Values formulary labeling gay men as 'at risk' for who they love. Prevention education programs focused on testing and retesting of all gay men which 5% population represented about 40% of all 'HIV' tests given. If they heterosexuals are tested, their results are more likely to be interpreted as cross-reactive or indeterminant because they are not in a 'high risk' group, so even if they would just as frequently test 'HIV' antibody positive they are not being tested proportion- ately. The 'HIV' non-specific antibody tests do not measure 'HIV' infection and with over 60 known cross-reactors, do not establish probable cause to live and love in fear. 2) Semen may cause minor antigenic stimulation or even immune supression, which also occurs, byt the way, in women who develop morning sickness upon conception to allow furtilization of the egg. It has not been established by Scientists as to the quantity or quality of semen that may be more or less antigenic stimulation or immune suppressive and this deserves further study. Human contact and certainly human physical and sexual intimacy is never 'safe' by nature. Yet gay men have been having anal sex throughout history, and most gay men who do practise anal sex are not testing 'HIV' non- specific antibody positive, yet with the added stress upon an emerging gay subculture and the widespread use of street drugs in the late 1970s, and other health-style factors that are important in all illness/wellness equations-- combined to contribute to aquired immune deficiencies among a certain sub-set of gay men. Yet, all gay men were assumed 'at risk' by the CDC in the 1980s because 'AIDS' was assumed to have a homosexual pathology or sexual transmission, even though there were many known health-style factors of the original sub- group of gay men, originally described as 'GRID'[Gay Related Immune Deficiency]. This, even though all of the CDC's official 29 'AIDS' defining conditions occur in those diagnosed 'HIV' negative and all have well documented causes and treatments unrelated to 'HIV/AIDS.' KS is one of the original defining condition, originally called the 'gay cancer' was first described in the literature in the 1800s and is seen today among middle eastern men. Today, KS is rarely seen in 'AIDS' patients and remains confined to gay men diagnosed with 'AIDS' though Gallo, the alleged 'co-discover' of the putative 'HIV' and other mainstream researchers admit KS likely has been correlated to amyl nitrites or " poppers " used by some gay men and another virus associated with it, HHV-8. 3) Anal health and hygiene, colon hydrotherapy, colonics, fasting, diet all are important illness preventives including reconsidering certain anal sex practises, fisting or rough, " unsanitary " sex. This might include the pull out method or accessing your partners general health while taking steps to sustain your own general health. Anal retentive focus on " bugs " or hypochondriacal sex-negativity are anathma to a holistic or multi-factorial, 'many-cause, many-courses' wellness promotion strategy. Where is the evidence that anal receptive partners or " bottoms " are the gay men testing socalled positive and the anal insertive partners or " tops " are the ones testing negative? This is the major impediment to the statement by even some AIDS Dissidents who propose anal receptive sex, without controlling for the amounts and quality of semen or seminal fluid which might be inherrantly immune suppressive. 4) Latex condoms and chemically carcingen-containing lubes role in immune suppression and the astronomical increase in anal cancer rates, from allergic to immunologic and even death, particularly among gay men. These products were never studied for internal (anal) use, were never approved for such and indicate for *topical use only* on package inserts. 5) Many STDs are not alleged to be spread through semen or seminal fluid, but sores and saliva. Condoms have not been shown effective in preventing most common STDs. Even if one 'contracts' these bugs, approximately 80-90% of those are said to be 'carriers' who do not develop chronic symptoms in their lifetimes, clear it from their bodies naturally after a short course of conventional antiboitic treatment or preferably through the more prophylactic use of alternative, non-toxic immune enhancing therapies-- thus calling into question the significance of the germ-seed or bug-virus over the human host or organism's role in immune sufficiency and sustainability. Healthfully and Hopefully, Jon Landis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.