Re: I'm courious

February 8, 2004

, You are soooo in the wrong group. I know you believe that you're

doing

good work and if you're truly open minded, then I hope you will find the

following

sites useful: [http://www.aliveandwell.org]www.aliveandwell.org

[http://www.duesberg.com]www.duesberg.com

[http://www.aidsrc.org]www.aidsrc.org

[http://www.virusmyth.com]www.virusmyth.com

Most of us in this community do not believe that the HIV virus has anything to

do with AIDS, if it even exists at all. The majority of us are dissidents. We

have spent much of our time researching HIV and find it to be a giant machine

for

getting drug money and that's it. You will find that the sites listed above

have

a plethorah of research and analysis conducted by mainstream and dissident

scientists.

If you're patient and truly open minded as you say, I think you'll find the

information

interesting and informative.

If you think we're all crazy, you might consider the fact that the majority of

us are HIV postive people who are healthy and have been healthy for many years.

We have done nothing except take care of ourselves. No toxic medications. No

stupid

Viral Load tests or CD4 counts. Just plain living well. Good luck. Caer

I'm courious

As a HIV researcher (Molecular Biologist/Virologist) at University I

tend to read several HIV related science journals a day, along with

my own research I've conducted so I'm fairly knowledgable about the

HIV virus and it's interactions. I like to think outside the box

when it comes to my research/views and I'd like to talk to a couple

people who strongly believe in the alternative approaches. I would

like them to be either a MD with exposure in AIDS treatments or a

Molecular biologist/Virologist. My goal is to talk to someone that

knows the molecular " workings " of the HIV virus yet believes in

alternative approaches. My goal is not to attempt to change anyones

view just to enlighten me on your own.

thanks,

---Matt

Read AIDS-Cured

February 8, 2004

Hey Matt,

I don't know if there are any MDs or Molecular Biologists/Virologists

on this list, but a couple of points for your consideration.

Why should any of the Dissident Scientists speak directly to you,

assuming you are even someome who is truly open to the dissenting

scientific critique? Why do you think you haven't heard of this

critique or read anything about it before your post to this consumer

forum? Can you not do a search on the net and come across the largest

depository of dissident scientists at VirusMyth.net? In order to

justify the expenditure of energy, and thousands upon thousands of

requests for information, please explain why you are someone who can

have any significant effect on scientific censorship or

medical 'correctness' or whether you are even willing to give up your

career if that were on the line? Perhaps that might explain why there

are not many of these professionals hanging around forums to answer

your questions. Perhaps you could convince one of your professors or

student organizations to organize a debate on campus from a neutral

third party and I will seriously consider making my recommendation to

The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis.

In the meantime, why don't you tell us what the evidence for your

belief in the 'HIV/AIDS' model or myth is? And please don't say

something along the lines of " concensus of scientific and medical

opinion, blah, blah, blah. " Also, in the meantime, check out the

resources that you were either unaware of or were prevented from

finding in your one-sided education. Especially note the current

debate between the Perth Group at the British Medical Journal.

Healthfully and Hopefully,

Jon Landis

First AIDS Dissident appointed to the Federation of Gay Games, Sydney

2002, " AIDS, Breast Cancer and Wellness Subcommittee. "

RESOURCES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

The GROUP for the SCIENTIFIC REAPPRAISAL

of the HIV/AIDS HYPOTHESIS [100s of pages of articles, papers]

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/find.htm

BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL [bMJ]

MODERATED ONLINE DEBATE ON HIV/AIDS

http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7387/495

[especially note referenced contributions of The Perth Group of

Austrailian AIDS Dissident Scientists, lead by biophysicist Eleni

Papadopulos-Eleopulos, whose other extensive archives are found here

http://www.theperthgroup.com and here:

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/perthgroup/ ]

o Giraldo, MD

President of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS

Hypothesis http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/papers.html

TREATING AND PREVENTING ILLNESS ATTRIBUTED TO OR ASSOCIATED

WITH " AIDS "

http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/TreatingAndPreventingAIDS.htm

l

REBUTTAL TO NIAID/NIH " Evidence for HIV " DOCUMENT

http://www.healtoronto.com/nih

INTERNATIONAL AIDS PANEL, INTERIM REPORT

Synthesis of deliberations by the panel of experts invited by the

President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki and the ten experiments the

Panel designed in attempt to resolve the controversy, endorsed by the

African National Congress [AIDS Dissidents/'Denialists' and AIDS

Apologists/Orthodoxy]

http://www.polity.org.za/govdocs/reports/aids/aidspanel.htm

REBUTTAL TO DURBAN DECLARATION http://thedurbandeclaration.org/

HEAL [Health Education AIDS Liason]

http://www.healtoronto.com

ANOTHER LOOK [breastfeeding and 'HIV/AIDS']

http://www.anotherlook.org

MOMM [Mothers Opposing Mandatory Medicine]

http://www.informedmomm.com

ALIVE and WELL http://www.aliveandwell.org

AIDS MYTH EXPOSED

[Largest AIDS forum on MSN]

http://www.aidsmythexposed.com

HIV/AIDS ALTERNATIVE VIEWS

[Largest AIDS forum on Delphi]

http://forums.about.com/innocuous

SIGN and READ SIGNATORIES OF THE ONLINE PETITION TO SUPPORT SOUTH

AFRICAN PRESIDENT THABO MBEKI's SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH ABOUT THE

DEFINITION, DIAGNOSIS, CAUSATION AND PREVENTION OF 'HIV/AIDS:'

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/news/mbeki.htm

==

Will you offer the human, moral response by adding your voice in

supporting the following health and human rights within the realm of

your influence and control?

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 scientific censorship

and medical 'correctness' of AIDS Industry Apologists' 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.

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/ideological, ethical/moral

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 DRUG COCKTAILS RESPONSIBLE FOR DECLINES IN 'AIDS' DEFINED 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. AIDS Dissidents are not

required to prove a negative or establish 'HIV's innocense, whereas

AIDS Apologists are required to establish 'HIV's guilt.

Alternative Medicine has long questioned the virus/germ mode or 'one-

cause, one-course/cure' drug-based model, which is confirmed hundreds

of Dissident Scientists, including Nobel Laureates and Members of the

National Academy of Sciences and pioneers in their fields. Many often

disconnect the alternative theories of diagnosis from the alternative

therapies of treatment-- in what together comprise the Alternative

Medicine or Holistic Health Care philosophy and practise. Holistic

means multi-factorial or 'many-causes, many-courses/cures.' These

physicians and practitioners treat the underlying causes of symptoms,

and do not recognize many conventional disease classifications and

see all illness as on a continium between immune deficiency and

sufficiency.

" For disease, all experience shows, are adjectives, not noun

substantives. "

" There are no specific diseases: there are [only] specific disease

conditions[states of dis-ease]. "

Florence Nightingale (Nursing Pioneer, Dis-ease Dissident and

Lesbian?)

RETHINKING SOCALLED 'SAFE-SEX' CONDOMANIA AND SLIDE EFFECTS

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, by 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 allegedly 'contracts' these

bugs, approximately 80% 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 a 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 soil-organism's role in immune sufficiency and

sustainability. This unfulfills Koch's Postulates for the infectious

model as not even a majority of subjects are developing symptoms.

Homosexual Pathology or Pathogenesis?

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.'

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, within a decade the medical diagnosis of

GRID-- Gay Related Immune Dysfunction was described in the literature

thus revealing a lingering bias of science mirroring the culture at

large.

WHY WE DISSENT ON AIDS...

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.

We are disbelievers in a [sAME-]SEXUAL=SIN=SICKNESS mindset having

lead to the unquestioned acceptance of the HIV=AIDS=DEATH paradigm.

Healthfully and Hopefully,

Jon Landis

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)

'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