Apparently, HIV Doesn't Cause AIDS

[Mr. Bill]

DC Man Files Lawsuit Against Whitman-Walker Clinic

WASHINGTON - A D.C. man says he walked around for five years thinking he was HIV-positive when he was actually not. Terry Hedgepeth says he was misdiagnosed in 2000 by the Whitman-Walker Clinic. He says the misdiagnosis drove him into a deep depression.

In 2005, a friend suggested he seek holistic healing. He went to the Abundant Life Center where he was tested and told he was HIV-negative. A third round of testing at Johns Hopkins confirmed it.

Hedgepeth launched a lawsuit, but it was thrown out because the law said you could only sue if there was physical injury. Then just last week, a D.C. Appeals Court expanded the law to include emotional injury and gave Hedgepeth the green light to sue.

A lawyer for Whitman-Walker released a statement saying they are looking carefully at the ruling before making their next move in the pending legal matter.

video news report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDdfyXg2X5A

.

[Mr. Bill]

HIV Tests

Reading the standard medical literature on HIV tests, you will discover that:

• The Tests ‘test’ for no one thing.
• They diagnose no one thing.
• They do not show infection with any single thing.

HIV tests may tell you that you have an illness, or they may tell you that you are pregnant. They give no single response, and diagnose no single condition. They may indicate immune suppression, or any variety of major or minor ailments.

The complex details of HIV testing are not reported to the public; they remain hidden in the medical and industry journals, and are actively suppressed by major media in public discussion. These are important public issues, and we all should have a clear and unobstructed view of all available data, no matter how it affects or challenges a publicly-held idea or policy.

It is impossible in a court of law to receive a death sentence for any crime as easily as it is to receive a false reading on an HIV test. It is a label that cannot be overcome in court, and cannot be appealed under any circumstance.

• Images from HIV Tests
• Testing PDFs

—————————————————————————————— ————————

If you are about to be tested, or have recently been tested, then you must understand the technical flaws and limitations of HIV testing, what the tests react with, and how they are interpreted.

Know your rights: You have a right to informed consent, a right to read and review all critical literature on a medical procedure before agreeing to undergo it.

Know your rights: You have a right to read and review all critical literature on HIV testing, before submitting to a test. You have a right to choose whether or not to take a test, based on your reading of the critical medical literature on testing. It is your legal right:

• To review all critical literature on the tests and on testing
• To take or to not take a test.

Before you test, seek answers to the following questions:

• How are the tests constructed? How do they work? What do they measure?
• What are the specific mechanical components of the tests? Where are the parts made? Where do they come from?
• What makes a test react? What makes a reaction positive or negative?
• What is the difference between a positive and a negative reaction?
• What standards are used to interpret a reaction?
• What other factors are used to determine the meaning or interpretation of a test result?
• Do the tests measure only one thing? Do they measure what they claim to measure? Do they cross-react, and if so, with what? Why do they cross-react?
• Who are the tests used on? Where are they issued most often? What gives a test a higher versus a lower “predictive value“?

Excercise your right to informed consent, and make the decision according to a full understanding of the tests, their limitations and uses, as reviewed in twenty-five years of the medical literature.

More Entries: “Tests” Category

Exercise your right to informed consent, and make the decision according to a full understanding of the tests, their limitations and uses, as reviewed in twenty-five years of the medical literature.

More on testing here: ARAS.ab.ca/test

.

[Mr. Bill]

HIV Pictures; What They Really Show
By Stefan Lanka

It has been long known that what "AIDS" researchers have presented as photos of "HIV" show normal cellular particles in use for export/import and other tasks. As those particles are designed, in contrast to viruses, for cellular use only, they are very unstable when removed from their context, and not able to be isolated and photographed in an isolated state.

Genuine viruses are so stable that it is easy, in order to prove successful isolation, to photograph them directly as three dimensional particles in the electron microscope (EM) without prior chemical fixation. In contrast, the cellular-transport and other particles are so unstable (excluding cell organelles like Mitochondria, the energy producing sites which are able to be isolated in a stable form) they can only be photographed in a chemically fixed state, in cells, tissues or in supernatants.

As these particles are not isolated and therefore are together with other materials the chemically fixed and resin-embedded cells, tissues or liquids - the mixed material has to be cut in very thin sections (ultrathin sections) to be able to see anything - it's not possible in the electron microscope to look through thicker sections. Of course existing viruses can be photographed in ultrathin sections too but, and this is the point, in their isolated form.

All that have been shown to us "HIV" are ultrathin sections of cellular particles.



EM photo of very small particles in ultrathin cell-line section. The particles are claimed to be HIV, but are cellular and not viral particles (they are normally refered to as 'virus-like particles', 'microvesicles' and 'microsomes'). The debris on the lower part of the photo indicates that the particles are not purified or isolated. These photos are always published without any evidence that the particles are of viral origin.




Computer enhanched EM photo of a cell surrounded by small particles. The blue/grey stained particles, which are claimed to be HIV particles attacking or (depending on the publication) leaving a white blot cell, are artefacts of the staining and/or fixation process and at best may be cellular particles entering or leaving the cell (in a well known process called endo-/ or exocytosis). These kind of nice photographs, made by Lennart Nilsson, have been published without any evidence that the particles have a viral origin.





HIV researchers believe the AIDS virus looks like this; like a bomb or water (blood) mine. This model is based on the detection of cellular particles in cell lines under very special conditions. Such particles never have been isolated or somehow else demonstrated to exist as a virus or be of viral origin. This is nothing but a model based on a collection of proteins of various size (no other characterization!) which by antibody detection (known as HIV- or AIDS-test) have been chosen to be said to represent parts of HIV according to the ill-minded and false concept of retroviruses and how they should look like.

• Go here for some info on some recently published HIV photographs.
• Here you will find a paper by Lanka.

.

[Sa_artman]

Hey mods...at what point does a forum become just a 'free host' for a blog with crap like this? Beyond the ridiculousness of it, is there any point of discussion or is Mr. Bill just using Eccie as a poor mans Wordpress. Just saying...

[Mr. Bill]

Myths and Mysteries of HIV and AIDS



Myth 1: AIDS is a Distinct Disease
There are several dramatically different definitions of AIDS, depending upon your location and age. In Third World countries AIDS can be diagnosed from fever, diarrhoea and a persistent cough lasting more than a month, with no HIV test required. A laboratory measurement (abnormal CD4 immune cell counts), along with a positive HIV test result, but with no signs of illness, accounts for more than half the diagnoses in the US, but is not accepted as a diagnosis for children under 14, or for anyone in Canada. AIDS may also be diagnosed in Western countries by one of about 30 different cancers and infections (usually, but not always, with a positive HIV test result required).

Myth 2: HIV Antibody Tests are Accurate
The tests used to determine whether someone is HIV positive are based upon the detection of antibodies. False positives may be recorded due to laboratory errors, vaccinations against other diseases or current or past diseases. Even pregnancy makes a false positive test more likely. Unfortunately, the only way to check a positive test is with more tests. Indeterminate test results may be interpreted as positive in a person believed to be at high risk of AIDS, and negative in others.

Myth 3: Viral Load Tests Count Virus Particles in the Blood
A test used to monitor HIV infections is called "Viral Load". It magnifies a portion of genetic material that is believed to be from HIV. However, since HIV has never been purified it is impossible to know what its genetic material is and, even if it was known, only a fragment of it is used as the probe, meaning that cross reactions with other viruses are likely. The virus "load" that is produced is just a mathematical calculation, not a particle count, and cannot determine what proportion, if any, of the genetic material detected reflects infectious virus particles. Viral load may be measured in people who are antibody negative and considered uninfected, or sometimes, under similar circumstances, considered infected.

Myth 4: Hit Hard, Hit Early is the Most Effective Treatment Strategy
Many AIDS doctors recommend starting HIV medications before symptoms arise. This philosophy continued even after the Concorde study of the benchmark AIDS drug AZT showed that early treatment was not beneficial, and that many more people died while taking the drug than on placebo. HIV drugs interfere with normal workings of the human body, and it is not clear that people can survive on them for many years. AZT, for example, has been associated with an almost 50:50 chance of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (a normally fatal blood cancer) after 3 years. On the other hand, it takes an average of 10 years between becoming HIV positive and starting to develop AIDS without therapy.

Myth 5: New AIDS Drugs are Saving Lives
A new generation of AIDS drugs, Protease Inhibitors, first became available late in 1995 and are credited with saving many lives. However, the AIDS death rate was already declining in 1994, the definition of AIDS in the US had been expanded to include people with no visible illness in 1993, and the annualized death rate of people diagnosed in 1997 was higher than in those diagnosed in 1995 and 1996. Protease inhibitors have been associated with serious health problems, including diarrhoea, nausea, dangerously high cholesterol levels, diabetes and heart disease.

Myth 6: Women are the Fastest Growing Group of AIDS Victims
This claim is based on the percentage of new AIDS cases among women rising (from 7% in 1993 in Canada to 14% in 1997, for example). Yet, the actual number of AIDS cases among women dropped from 126 in Canada in 1993 to only 75 in 1997. Similarly in the US, the percentage of AIDS cases in women rose from 16% in 1993 to 19% in 1997, while the actual number of female cases dropped from 16,824 to 13,105. The use of percentages creates the illusion of a growing epidemic among women.

Myth 7: AIDS is a Growing Risk for Children
The risk of AIDS among Canada's approximately 6 million children is minuscule. There were only 25 new cases in 1995, dropping to 10 in 1997. Similarly, the number of AIDS cases among the almost 60 million children in the US was only 937 in 1992, dropping to 167 in 1997. Compare this with a risk of dying at birth of about 6 for every 1,000 live births.

Myth 8: HIV+ Pregnant Women should take Drugs to Prevent Transmission to Babies
Women pass many different antibodies to their children through the placenta and, after birth, through breast-feeding. These antibodies are protective, and partially account for the better health of breast-fed babies. Naturally, HIV antibodies may also be transmitted, and it is impossible to distinguish these antibodies from those due to HIV infection in the baby. Yet AZT, the drug prescribed to reduce the risk of infecting the baby (at most about 25%) can cross the placenta and can cause anemia, bone marrow damage cancer and birth defects, as well as other serious health problems in both mothers and their babies. These health problems will likely be blamed on HIV, and not the therapy.

Myth 9: HIV is Sexually Transmitted
Sexual transmission of HIV seems to be highly inefficient - official estimates claim it requires an average of 1000-10,000 heterosexual contacts and 32-10,000(!?) homosexual contacts. The reason may be that there is little, if any infectious virus in semen. In a group of 25 antibody-positive men, only one single HIV provirus was found in over a million semen cells of just one man - virtually none. Another study showed that 19 out of 21 wives of HIV positive hemophiliacs were HIV negative, and none had signs of sickness.

Myth 10: Clean Needles Stop HIV Transmission in Drug Users
A study of IV drug users in Montreal showed that consistent users of needle exchange programs were more than 10 times as likely to be HIV positive than non-users. A study of female prostitutes showed that those taking drugs only intravenously were less likely to be HIV positive (46%) than those exclusively taking cocaine in non-intravenous ways (84%). The infectious theory of AIDS cannot explain these anomalies.

Mystery 1: Paramedics and Surgeons are Immune to HIV Infection
Not one paramedic, emergency medical technician or surgeon in the US has contracted AIDS from on-the-job exposure. Out of 633,000 total US AIDS cases through 1997 only 25 are thought to be occupationally acquired. In Canada, out of 16,235 AIDS cases through 1998, only 3 are reported as occupationally acquired, based on circumstantial evidence. Pretty strange for a supposedly blood-borne virus!

Mystery 2: HIV Positive Animals Don't Get AIDS
After years of trying it has proved virtually impossible to get Chimpanzees transfused with HIV-positive human blood to become sick with any AIDS diseases. Yet their genes are about 98% the same as humans. In other studies, dogs and inbred mice were positive for one or more HIV antibodies, yet had never been infected!

Mystery 3: HIV Destroys While Dormant
The average latency period for HIV is estimated at 8-16 years. During this time HIV is supposedly dormant (in that no symptoms of the disease exist), yet somehow destroying the immune system of the infected person. Supposedly the virus emerges after years of dormancy and the person quickly gets sick and dies. This theory only became possible with the recent viral load "counts". Suddenly frightening figures like "400,000 copies per milliliter" appeared. Even the exponents of viral load tests admit that these "counts" are an average 60,000 times higher than the actual amount of virus. Besides, the clinical significance of HIV viral load counts has not been established.

Mystery 4: Some HIV Positive People Never Get AIDS Diseases
A number of people, known as Long Term Non-Progressors, have been HIV positive for over a decade, have not taken HIV therapy, yet have still not got sick with AIDS. These people, along with the long latency period in others, are living evidence that something apart from HIV is needed to make people get sick with AIDS.

Mystery 5: Some People with AIDS Diseases are HIV Negative
Some people with AIDS are not HIV positive. Thousands of cases of HIV negative people with diseases that would qualify as AIDS if they had a positive HIV test have been documented. Because the definition of AIDS requires a positive HIV test, these cases have been given the name Idiopathic CD4 Lymphocytopenia, and are excluded from AIDS tracking and research.

Mystery 6: AIDS rates are falling, even where STD rates are rising
In Western countries the annual rate of new AIDS cases dropped dramatically between 1993 (78,164 cases) and 1997 (30,986 cases) and from 1,735 to 498 in Canada[14]. Over the same time period, in San Francisco, one of the cities hardest hit with AIDS, a sharp rise in cases of Gonorrhea, Chlamydia and Syphilis occurred. If HIV/AIDS is also sexually transmitted, why is it not following the same pattern?

Mystery 7: Kaposi's Sarcoma Prefers Homosexual Men
One of two diseases that triggered the AIDS era was Kaposi's Sarcoma, a form of skin cancer that had formerly been found only on the lower extremities of older men. Why was it suddenly found in the face, chest and lungs of young homosexual men? Why so rarely in IV drug users, hemophiliacs and other AIDS victims? If it is caused by HIV, it should be found in all risk groups. One study showed that 97% of homosexual men with Kaposi's Sarcoma were also users of carcinogenic and immunosuppressive nitrite inhalants.

Mystery 8: AIDS Affects Rich Countries More than the Poor
Why does AIDS attack people in the United States (1 out of 9,000 in 1997) over five times more than in Canada (1 out of 50,000[14]) and over one hundred times more than in poverty stricken India (1 out of every million)?

Mystery 9: Billions in Research Dollar$, but still no Photographs
The first microscope photographs of purified HIV would make any scientist famous. Yet, although billions of dollars have been spent on HIV and AIDS research, nobody has ever photographed purified HIV. Why? Is it possible that nobody has ever really purified it? The first electron micrographs of what had previously been considered to be purified HIV, showed that they consisted mostly of cellular debris.

.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by KRiggins

The source of information may sometimes skew the information.

A "retrovirus" is termed that based on how it replicates. It has nothing to do with if a virus is harmful or not. HIV causes the body harm by destroying a portion of the immune system (CD4 cells).

This part of your immune system is responsible for defending your body from many different things. It has been found that it assists your body in destroying defective cells in your body that will not stop growing (cancer).

Cervical cancer that is highly agressive is not often observed in healthy women. There was an emergence of this type of cervical cancer and it was found that many of these individuals also were HIV positive, which linked a particular type of cervical cancer with HIV.

The HIV virus has been photographed and isolated. Otherwise, how would we know about it? The entire genome (genetic makeup) of the virus is now known. The human genome was completed over 10 years ago.

There are 2 types of test for HIV, one that is a screening test and one that actually confirms infection. The test does that by actually growing the virus. The test will also tell how many virus particles are in the blood (viral load). This is how doctors determine if a particular HIV drug is effective or if the medication should be discontinued.

HIV is a retrovirus. Passenger viruses infect cells but do not immediately kill the cells they infected. Key word is immediate. Viruses are unable to reproduce by themselves. Virus's use the cells they infect to help them reproduce. The virus replicates until there are so many virus particles inside of the cell that the cells burst (and dies....thus is harmful) and releases all o the newly formed viruses.

Most times, this process takes years to complete, which is why many people can be affected and have no clinical signs or symptoms.

Many people think that HIV and AIDS are the same thing. They are not. AIDS is a syndrome which is a group of symptoms seen with certain medical diagnoses. So yes it is true that people can have AIDS from other diseases that decreases the function of a person's immune system. The point is that there are numerous conditions that can cause AIDS, HIV is just one of them.

I will finish with these facts.

HIV is a virus that is very transmissible (Most bodily fluids).

People with HIV that do not get treated, can lead normal lives for a period of time, but when the HIV infection decreases the immune system to the point that the CD4 count is less than 200, the patient will then get "opportunistic infections" and have AIDS

Unless one gets a medical text and really studies this topic, they may misunderstand or misinterprete any information that they read from the Internet (This includes directors who may not have ANY medical background)

Contact your physician to discuss ANY medically related topic.

For many, it is only when people get really sick that they believe what doctors advise.
This is also the time that they will seek medical help and care.
If one believes in doctors during times of severe illness, why not believe in them all the time.

My posts are only designed to educate.

With Topics of this magnitude, incorrect information or the beliefs of the minority of the WORLD, should not be presented as FACTUAL!

If there is doubt of HIV, talk to the people in Africa that this disease is greatly affecting.

Lastly, put "photograph of HIV" into google search and see what one finds.

The reliable test for HIV is called "Western Blot".

Any terms used in this post can be searched and defined in google.

KR

After anyone reads MrBill's shit they should cleanse themself by reading the reasoned and factual above post!

[Mr. Bill]

HIV = AIDS, An Unproven Hypothesis



by Dr. Stefan Lanka
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v...wXno&vq=medium


Retroviruses were postulated as being that species of micro-organism which caused reverse transcription to occur, which, as a working hypothesis at the time in the early 1970s, was entirely reasonable. The mistake was to elevate the hypothesis to a dogma. Early gene detection techniques lent some credence to the existence of an entity that could be transmitted from one cell to another, which was unfortunate, because this, too, turned out to be wrong. Errors of this kind occur whenever technology makes available for general use a new experimental procedure, which propels a whole army of researchers into mass producing experimental data, heedless of what the biological significance, if any, of their work might be.

Even worse, is the habit of making countless ad hoc adjustments to the original theory, which completely distort the original hypothesis. Correct science demands that there should be a radical re-think when this happens. If there isn't, a fundamentally flawed concept goes haywire ending in disaster.

Many allow themselves to be bedazzled by the technical feat of "retrovirologists" who manage to reproduce in a consistent manner certain phenomena peculiar to particular biological constituents of cells. In so doing, they allow themselves to be misled into believing that this was due to a virus. It is a complete non-sequitur. This lack of intellectual rigour has, in a contemporary metaphor, debased molecular biology to a virtual science, leading to the deplorable state of having a disease (AIDS) with a virtual definition, due to a virtual pathogen (HIV). Unfortunately for humanity, AIDS is not unique in this regard, but represents merely the tip of a much larger iceberg.

To the astute observer, it should have been apparent as early as 1973 that the working hypothesis of ascribing the experimentally observed phenomenon of reverse transcription to retroviruses had become untenable, when it became known that reverse transcription was anything but rare; by 1980 at the latest, the hypothesis should have been abandoned by everyone. Indeed, the extraordinarily artificial and circumscribed conditions under which reverse transcription could be induced in the laboratory should have alerted everyone to the extreme improbability of such exclusively laboratory conditions having any bearing whatsoever on naturally occurring phenomena. All the more so, as no retrovirus was ever shown to exist-for example, by being able to isolate and characterise it, and to demonstrate its transmissibility.

These failures (obviously not for want of trying) should have sufficed to kill off the whole concept.

It may be hard to believe that all maps purporting to represent a whole retrovirus, including HIV, are always compilations, many bits and pieces cobbled together by their authors to the best of their beliefs. They are collages. No complete retrovirus nor its RNA in its entirety has ever been proved to exist either in vivo or in vitro.

A further difficulty for the hypothesis was that it had never proved possible to show that the experimental observations attributed to retroviruses were exogenous to the cells used in experiments, i.e. that they came from outside of the cell; indeed, all the evidence pointed to the opposite, i.e. that they were endogenous (inherent) to the cells themselves. Part of the evidence was that the so-called retroviral activity could only ever be induced experimentally in one type of cell, whereas HIV is supposed to infect many different types of cell in the body. The two contentions are clearly incompatible.

The whole theory is rendered even more implausible when it is remembered that retroviral concentrations are always extremely low, which is why a huge excess of cellular material from "patients" is needed to be able to demonstrate any replicating virus at all. This, incidentally, is also the basis for the claim that HIV has only a low rate of infectivity: a much more rational explanation is that there is no virus there at all.

History furnishes an unhappy precedent for this form of research. At the turn of the century experiments were conducted using highly in-bred laboratory animals. Under strictly circumscribed conditions, these displayed higher disease susceptibilities than animals which were not in-bred; the phrase 'highly in-bred' was forgotten about, and generalisations about viral infectivity were made which turned out to be wrong, from which medicine has not recovered to this day.

In like manner, experiments are nowadays performed with cell cultures instead of whole animals, for the very good reason that they greatly speed up experiments. The disadvantage is that this limits experimentation to just one of a few cell lines, which are always cancerous, because only they will grow continuously in the laboratory. History is repeating itself: generalisations are made about the behaviour of normal cells on the basis of results obtained from highly abnormal cells.

Such cells can incorporate extraneous pieces of DNA (into their own DNA) when added to growth medium (as normal cells can, too, only more slowly). Cells, which have incorporated such DNA, will obviously manifest characteristics for which the DNA coded, making it appear that a virus had been at work, when nothing of the sort had happened. It is easy to see, therefore, how the bizarre notion of 'infectious' DNA arose, and to conclude (wrongly) that a virus, in the conventional use of the word, is involved. The whole argument collapses, however, when it can be shown that non-viral DNA can be made to do this too, both in vivo and in vitro. If that DNA happens to be DNA arbitrarily defined to be HIV DNA (or part thereof), then clearly the cell, which has incorporated the DNA, will behave as if it had been infected by HIV.

Folded up DNA wrapped in a protein coat so that the DNA can be transmitted from one cell to another, is what is normally called a virus. A loose strand of DNA could not do this by itself; it would be exposed to enzymic degradation; it would become entangled with other components. How would it identify its target; how would it get there; how would it enter it without a specific mechanism?

Replicating (=cloning) something in a test tube and then detecting that something (=molecularly cloned DNA), in a place where you have previously put it, is a circular argument, and therefore no argument at all. But then, tautologies are an indispensable part of all retrovirology, thus the fallacy inherent in HIV antibody tests.

CONCLUSION

Until AIDS was invented, retrovirologists were a minority sect who were happy to accept each others' flights of fancy without being too critical. They could fiddle around to their hearts' content, safe in the knowledge that "retroviruses were the least dangerous of all viruses." Well-meaning and credulous colleagues, as well as aspiring virologists, journalists and, through them, laymen were mesmerized by incomprehensible jargon into believing that the mass of data on HIV and retroviruses somehow meant something. Each property relating to HIV, and retroviruses generally, can be shown to pertain to the cells used in the co-cultivation experiments.

At no time have there ever been any credible grounds for thinking that these properties and components had anything to do with viruses in general, nor with "HIV" in particular.

No particle of HIV has ever been obtained pure, free of contaminants; nor has a complete piece of HIV RNA (or the transcribed DNA) ever been proved to exist.

Dr. Stefan Lanka
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v...wXno&vq=medium
.

[Mr. Bill]

AIDS: A Death Cult

by John Lauritsen



This article has been hard to write. I've taken a break from "AIDS" for several years, and returning to the topic now, I've been in shock over what has been done to us. My opinions have not changed: I still regard "AIDS" as the greatest blunder and the greatest hoax in medical history -- an epidemic of incompetence and an epidemic of lies.

As long as there has been "AIDS" there have been critics of the orthodox AIDS model: "AIDS dissidents". For the most part our voices were silenced. As AIDS became a religion, a death cult -- with sacred commodities, dogmas, rituals, and sacrifices - any expression of skepticism was tantamount to blasphemy.

For this article I don't intend to cover the waterfront, or go into the usual technobabble. Instead, I'll go back to the very earliest AIDS assumptions, and show the kind of skepticism that ought to have been applied to them. I'll try to analyze the basic "AIDS" concept in plain English, its contradictions and absurdities.

In 1981 five young men, all "active homosexuals" who were "previously healthy", were diagnosed as having Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), which was then believed to be a rare disease caused by a protozoan. Shortly after this a couple of dozen men, also active homosexuals, were diagnosed as having Kaposi's sarcoma (KS), which was then believed to be a rare form of cancer. Public health workers and physicians *assumed* that there must be a connection, and strained mightily to find one. One term bandied about was "Gay Related Immune Deficiency", or GRID.

After gay leaders objected to GRID, it was changed to "Auto-Immune Deficiency Syndrome" (AIDS); some people believed that the body might somehow be destroying its own immune system. When the folks at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) realized that the "auto-immune" bit was untenable, but the acronym had caught on, they changed it to "*Acquired* Immune Deficiency Syndrome", even though nobody was sure what was meant by "acquired".

Even at this early stage there was a deficiency of skepticism. The PCP organism is now thought to be a fungus, rather than a protozoan, and it is ubiquitous -- present in the lungs of every human being in the world. Normally it co-exists peacefully with human hosts, causing illness only in those in desperately poor health. How, therefore, could PCP be *rare*, since poor health has always been part of the human condition? The alleged rareness of PCP is merely an artifact of the difficulty in diagnosing it. If someone in the past stopped breathing -- an old man at the end of his life or a heroin addict starving in an cold room -- the diagnosis would simply be "pneumonia", without reference to a micro-organism that had yet to be identified.

Kaposi's sarcoma was then considered to be a cancer. Most of the gay men with KS received cancer chemotherapy, and they quickly died. It is now known, and has been publicly admitted by top public health officials, that KS is not a cancer, but a rather benign affliction of the blood vessels; KS is not caused by HIV, and is not in any way related to "immune deficiency". The deaths of tens of thousands of gay men with KS were caused by toxic anti-cancer and anti-HIV drugs, not by KS itself. (See my poppers articles in the VirusMyth web site for the case that nitrite inhalants are causing KS in gay men.)

The basic AIDS-concept, prior to 1984, was that something caused a condition of "immune deficiency", which in turn caused PCP, KS, and various other "AIDS-indicator diseases". But here "immune deficiency" was defined in a way that was new and unprecedented: by counting CD4+ T lymphocytes, by computing T4/T8 ratios. By a miraculous coincidence, the technology for counting T-cells had been perfected just before the emergence of "AIDS", which the world had allegedly never seen before. Later on, CD4 counts, rather than the health of the patient, would be the basis for evaluating the efficacy of AIDS drugs. It has been known since at least 1993 (when the results of the Concorde AZT study were published), and has been publicly admitted by public health officials, that the CD4 test is worthless; nevertheless, this worthless test is still being used to evaluate the alleged efficacy of toxic and worthless AIDS drugs.

The very earliest attempts by the CDC to formulate a surveillance definition for "AIDS" involved a process of elimination. If a "previously healthy" patient developed an AIDS-defining illness, as well as low CD4 counts, and there was no known cause of the "immune deficiency", then he had AIDS. There are multiple fallacies involved here. For one thing, the early AIDS cases were by no means "previously healthy" -- they had, in fact, been quite sick for a long time. Secondly, all of the early cases had multiple and severe health risks in their lives. Thirdly, there are innumerable ways to become seriously sick (or "immune deficient"), and it is impossible to eliminate all of these.

In the early years various hypotheses were advanced as to the nature and causes of AIDS. All this changed in 1984, when the U.S. Secretary of Health announced at a press conference that the "probable cause of AIDS" had been found: HTLV-III ("Human T-cell lymphotropic virus type III", later re-named as "Human immunodeficiency virus" or HIV). Though there was no evidence for the AIDS-virus hypothesis then, and there is none now, it became instant dogma. From 1984 on, AIDS could only be discussed in an "AIDS virus" context.

I witnessed this shift first hand as a member of the New York Safer Sex Committee, which met in 1983-1984 to formulate the first comprehensive set of risk-reduction guidelines. I fought hard, and succeeded, in getting the guidelines to address drug abuse. Our brochure, with cartoons by Harold Cruse, came right out and said: "Avoid drugs. Shooting up kills... Poppers are also dangerous." In 1984 Gay Men's Health Crisis, the first and largest AIDS organization, ordered our brochure suppressed and supplanted by its own, which treated risk-reduction entirely in terms of avoiding a putative virus.

If HIV were the cause of "AIDS", or any other form of illness, then there would be HIV infection in every case of the disease. This is the logic of Koch's First Postulate, a standard test of whether an infectious agent causes a disease. Not only does HIV flunk Koch's First Postulate, it has never been properly isolated. Although we all have seen pictures of HIV, these are merely artist renditions of what HIV is *assumed* to look like. In reality, it has never been seen through the electron microscope, and may not even exist in a cell-free, infectious form.

Amazingly, no one has ever demonstrated HIV infection, even in a single case, using "infection" in the ordinary sense of the word. "Infection" implies a large amount of virus or microbe, and a high level of biochemical activity; there would be what's known as "viremia": the blood would be teeming with whole, cell-free, infectious viruses, hundreds of thousands to millions of them in every milliliter of blood. In fact, viremia has never been demonstrated.

Many people believe that the so-called "viral load" tests actually count whole viruses in the blood. This is not true, and the tests have been denounced by Kary Mullis, who ought to know, as he received the Nobel Prize in Science for inventing the technology on which they are based. According to Mullis: "Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron."

Neither of the "HIV-antibody" tests -- the Elisa or the Western Blot -- has ever been properly validated, which means that no one knows what their results mean. The tests are chemical reactions to antigens, which are substances that provoke an immune response. Many dozens of conditions can produce a positive result on these tests, including drug abuse, flu vaccinations, past infection with malaria, pregnancy, and liver disease. Nevertheless, physicians still use these worthless tests, assume that positive results mean HIV infection, and give their patients doom-diagnoses of "HIV-positive" or "AIDS".

"AIDS" is not a coherent disease entity, which has ever been rationally defined, but rather a dubious and contradictory construct, which has changed radically several times. Originally, those with an "AIDS" diagnosis were close to death; now one can obtain the diagnosis without even being sick. When "AIDS" is deconstructed, one is left with 29 (at last count) extremely heterogeneous "AIDS-indicator diseases", and can only say that different people are getting sick in different ways and for different reasons. For gay men, those reasons involve drugs (both "recreational" and pharmaceutical), alcoholism, venereal diseases, and powerful psychological factors.

The various AIDS drugs are, without exception, toxic and worthless. It is not true that the protease inhibitor "cocktails" have caused AIDS deaths to drop; on the contrary, they are causing death and deformity in people who would otherwise be healthy. These drugs were approved on the basis of invalid and even fraudulent research; their alleged benefits are concocted by behind-the-scenes public relations firms, who feed their stories into popular media and medical journals.

I'm afraid that I have barely scratched the surface of the AIDS-dissident arguments, but this is not intended to be a long article. For those of you who would like to learn more, a good place to begin is the Internet. The largest AIDS-dissident web site is based in Amsterdam: www.virusmyth.net/aids/. The HEAL Toronto web site is especially valuable for its emphasis on the psycho-social aspects of the AIDS Cult: www.healtoronto.com.

.

[essence]

Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

When Leung asks him, “If you take a poor African who’s been infected and you build up their immune system, is it possible for them to also naturally get rid of it [HIV]?”. Montagnier responds, “I would think so…It’s important knowledge that is completely neglected. People always think of drugs and vaccines.”

.

I think we have to be careful taking quotes (with some ....'s in them) and twisting them into something else.

Montagnier does NOT say that building up the immune system will get rid of HIV.

He says, with slight rewording '(maybe) it is possible that building up the immune system (in some cases) will get rid of HIV. This is an area in which i think more research should be done'.

That is a perfectly reasonable statement which most would agree with. It is possible. More work should be done.

Don;t spin his words into something else. I fear an awful lot of the quotes are in a similar vein.

[Mr. Bill]

Originally Posted by essence

I think we have to be careful taking quotes (with some ....'s in them) and twisting them into something else.

Montagnier does NOT say that building up the immune system will get rid of HIV.

He says, with slight rewording '(maybe) it is possible that building up the immune system (in some cases) will get rid of HIV. This is an area in which i think more research should be done'.

That is a perfectly reasonable statement which most would agree with. It is possible. More work should be done.

Don;t spin his words into something else. I fear an awful lot of the quotes are in a similar vein.

Neither I, or Brent Leung's House of Numbers have taken Luc Montagnier's remarks out of context, nor spun what he states to mean something else.

Watch and listen for yourself...

http://www.youtube.com/v/bvj6Th3BycQ...y=1&fs=1&rel=0



Mr. Montagnier - the original discoverer of the alleged HIV retrovirus - totally reverses the theory of HIV = a death sentence by stating emphatically in no uncertain terms that HIV (currently marketed as a permanent infection and certain death) can be eliminated from the body if you have a good immune system.

.

[essence]

Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

Neither I, or Brent Leung's House of Numbers have taken Luc Montagnier's remarks out of context, nor spun what he states to mean something else.

Watch and listen for yourself...

http://www.youtube.com/v/bvj6Th3BycQ...y=1&fs=1&rel=0



Mr. Montagnier - the original discoverer of the alleged HIV retrovirus - totally reverses the theory of HIV = a death sentence by stating emphatically in no uncertain terms that HIV (currently marketed as a permanent infection and certain death) can be eliminated from the body if you have a good immune system.

.

I have watched the video, and it exactly confirms my comment. He says health, nutrition, hygeine, clean water etc etc etc help build up the immune system and can help reduce the epidemic. He says it is possible that these actions will help (some individuals) get rid of the virus.

Very non controversial. Obvious common sense.

So don't twist his words into something else.

It seems you dont; understand nuances - 'can be' does not mean 'will be', 'possible' does nto mean 'will always', 'hygiene is important' does not mean 'medicine is useless'.

I am focussing on this one example because by the time I read and comprehend all your other posts I will have died not of AIDs but of old age. By attacking your credibility on this one short paragraph, I hope to undermine your credibility on this complete thread.

[Mr. Bill]

Originally Posted by essence

I have watched the video, and it exactly confirms my comment. He says health, nutrition, hygeine, clean water etc etc etc help build up the immune system and can help reduce the epidemic. He says it is possible that these actions will help (some individuals) get rid of the virus.

Very non controversial. Obvious common sense.

So don't twist his words into something else.

It seems you dont; understand nuances - 'can be' does not mean 'will be', 'possible' does nto mean 'will always', 'hygiene is important' does not mean 'medicine is useless'.

I am focussing on this one example because by the time I read and comprehend all your other posts I will have died not of AIDs but of old age. By attacking your credibility on this one short paragraph, I hope to undermine your credibility on this complete thread.

First of all - let's be clear - there is no 'epidemic' of HIV - in Africa or anywhere else. The stats have been grossly inflated by the CDC and the WHO to fit an agenda.

Secondly and equally important - for Luc Montagnier (the original contributor to the HIV hypothesis) to say that improved nutrition, better hygeine and clean water can purge HIV from the body - instead of using AIDS drugs - his statement completely destroys the orthodox view of HIV infection - which asserts that HIV can NEVER be eliminated from the body and will ALWAYS lead to AIDS and death.

This is a huge departure from so-called conventional HIV/AIDS 'wisdom.'

Instead of wasting your energy attempting to discredit me or the thousands of scientists, virologists and doctors worldwide who disagree that HIV = AIDS, you could be seeking the truth rather than only being a mockingbird for an unproven theory that continues to use chemical poisoning to kill innocent people.

If you only hear one side of a story, you will never have a clear perspective and you will always be influenced by that single narrative.

.

[essence]

Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

First of all - let's be clear - there is no 'epidemic' of HIV - in Africa or anywhere else. The stats have been grossly inflated by the CDC and the WHO to fit an agenda.

Secondly and equally important - for Luc Montagnier (the original contributor to the HIV hypothesis) to say that improved nutrition, better hygeine and clean water can purge HIV from the body - instead of using AIDS drugs - his statement completely destroys the orthodox view of HIV infection - which asserts that HIV can NEVER be eliminated from the body and will ALWAYS lead to AIDS and death.

This is a huge departure from so-called conventional HIV/AIDS 'wisdom.'

Instead of wasting your energy attempting to discredit me or the thousands of scientists, virologists and doctors worldwide who disagree that HIV = AIDS, you could be seeking the truth rather than only being a mockingbird for an unproven theory that continues to use chemical poisoning to kill innocent people.

If you only hear one side of a story, you will never have a clear perspective and you will always be influenced by that single narrative.

.

He says 'there are many ways which are not the vaccine which can be used to decrease the rate of transmission'

That is different to 'the vaccine cannot reduce the rate of transmission'

He does NOT say that vaccines are useless. He is simply saying that nutrition and hygeine etc. are another avenue, alongside vaccines, which can be used, and maybe in Africa, they may be a more cost effective way because of the already reduced immune system.

So, yes, you are twisting his words.

Then, you make assertions about the conventional view, and your assertions are complete nonsense.

No sensible scientist would ever say 'HIV can never be eliminated from the body and will always lead to AIDS and death'. Please give a reference to this viewpoint, and I will surely show you a true nutcase. 'Never' and 'always' are simply not words used in scientific literature. Even 2 + 2 does not always make 4.

So, again, you are both twisting words and putting false statements into the mouths of your so called oponents.

Science, particularly medical science, is not exact and is not full of absolutes, but always has some degree of uncertainty. However, you make absolute statements without any uncertainty and without any scientific backing. Very dangerous.

Ever thought that journalists and authors may have as many hidden agendas as the government (whatever that is, apart from groups of eminent scientists) and the pharmeceutical industry?

Maybe your command of English and grammar is not so good so you misunderstand the statements?

All swans are white - false
Not all swans are white - true
Not all white things are swans - true
There are many things which are not swans which can be white - true
Swans can be white - true
Swans are always white - false
Being a swan always causes death in swans - false
Swans always die - true

Get the idea?

[Mr. Bill]

Originally Posted by essence

He says 'there are many ways which are not the vaccine which can be used to decrease the rate of transmission'

He does NOT say that vaccines are useless. He is simply saying that nutrition and hygeine etc. are another avenue, alongside vaccines, which can be used, and maybe in Africa, they may be a more cost effective way because of the already reduced immune system.

So, yes, you are twisting his words.

Then, you make assertions about the conventional view, and your assertions are complete nonsense.

No sensible scientist would ever say 'HIV can never be eliminated from the body and will always lead to AIDS and death'. Please give a reference to this viewpoint, and I will surely show you a true nutcase. 'Never' and 'always' are simply not words used in scientific literature. Even 2 + 2 does not always make 4.

So, again, you are both twisting words and putting false statements into the mouths of your so called oponents.

Science, particularly medical science, is not exact and is not full of absolutes, but always has some degree of uncertainty. However, you make absolute statements without any uncertainty and without any scientific backing. Very dangerous.

Ever thought that journalists and authors may have as many hidden agendas as the government (whatever that is, apart from groups of eminent scientists) and the pharmeceutical industry?

Apparently in your defense of an unproven theory promulgated by the medical mafia, you choose to recite a dream version of what Montagnier really said. Not only does Montagnier emphasize nutrition and hygiene to rid the body of HIV, he also indicates his contempt for the AIDS drugs industry.


Here is what Montagnier actually said:

Luc Montagnier: "Our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system."

Brent Leung: "If you have a good immune system, then your body can naturally get rid of HIV?"

Luc Montagnier: "Yes."

Brent Leung: "Do you think we should have more of a push for antioxidants, and things of that nature in Africa than antiretrovirals (AIDS drugs)?"

Luc Montagnier: "We should push for more, you, a combinations of measures; antioxidants, nutrition advice, nutritions, fighting other infections -- malaria, tuberculosis, parasitosis, worms -- education of course, genital hygiene for women, and men also."

Luc Montagnier: "And this is my, actually my worry about the many spectacular action for the global funds to buy drugs and so on, and Bill Gates and so on, for the vaccine. But, you know those kind of measures are not very well funded, they're not funded at all..."

Brent Leung: "If you take a poor African who's been infected and you build up their immune system, is it possible for them to also naturally get rid of it?"

Luc Montagnier: "I would think so."

Brent Leung: "That's an important point."

Luc Montagnier: "It's important knowledge which is completely neglected. People always think of drugs, and vaccine."

Luc Montagnier: "...my message, it's different from what you heard from (Anthony) Fauci."


Also, a few cursory searches via Google reveals any number of websites that do in fact promote the permanency of HIV infection. Behold the references you demanded:


National Institutes of Health (NIH)
www.nih.gov/

- HIV is a chronic medical condition that can be treated, but not yet cured.
- Almost all people infected with HIV will develop AIDS if not treated.

Centers for Disease Control
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/treatment/index.htm

- there is no cure for HIV infection

HIV Is Permanent
http://www.freehivtest.net/hivispermanent/

- There is no cure for HIV.

A Cure for AIDS
http://www.avert.org/cure-for-aids.htm

- There is no cure for HIV.

Is there a cure?
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/hiv?page=basics-00-12

- At this time, there is no cure for HIV.

HIV/AIDS - Treatments and drugs
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hiv...ents-and-drugs

- There is no cure for HIV/AIDS, but a variety of drugs can be used...


Further, the problem with the AIDS definition is that most people are not aware that dozens of already well-known diseases have simply been re-packaged and sold as 'AIDS.' This is how AIDS statistics have been inflated to scare the public into supporting billion$ more funds for 'AIDS research.'

Thus, you are INCORRECT on many dimensions; you are hypnotized by the HIV/AIDS propaganda machine and you refuse to look a fact in the face. Unfortunately, instead of having good intentions, your only goal is to: "I hope to undermine your credibility on this complete thread."

.

[essence]

A more complete transcript.

L. you talked about oxidative stress earlier;is treating oxidative stress one of the best ways to deal with the African AIDS epidemic?

M. I think this is one way to approach,to decrease the rate of transmission because i believe HIV, we can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected, our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system; and this is also the problem of African people. Their nutrition is not very equilibrated,they are in oxidative stress, even if they are not infected with HIV; so their immune system doesn't work well already.

So it is prone, it can, you know, allow HIV to get in and persist.

So there are many ways which are not the vaccine, the magic name, the vaccine,many ways to decrease the transmission just by simple measures of nutrition, giving antioxidants -- proper antioxidants -- hygiene measures, fighting the other infections.

So they are not spectacular, but they could, you know, decrease very well the epidemic,to the level they are in occidental countries,wetsren countries.

L. If you have a good immune system, then your body can naturally get rid of HIV?

M Yes

L Oh, interesting. Do you think we should have more of a push for antioxidants, and things of that nature in Africa than antiretrovirals (AIDS drugs)?

M We should push for more, you know, a combination of measures;antioxidants, nutrition advice, nutritions,fighting other infections -- malaria, tuberculosis, parasitosis, worms -- education of course, genital hygiene for women, and men also.

Very simple measure which not, not very expensive, but which could do a lot.

And this is my, actually my worry about the many spectacular action for the global funds to buy drugs and so on, and Bill Gates and so on, for the vaccine.

But, you know those kind of measures are not very well funded, they're not funded at all, or they are, you know, it really depends on the local government to take choice of this, but local government they take advice of the scientific advisors from the intelligent institutions,
and they don;t get this kind of advice very often.

L well there's no money in nutrition, right?

M There's no profit, yes. Water is important. Water is key.

L Now one thing you said, you were talking about the fact that if you have a built immune system, it is possible to get rid of HIV naturally. If you take a poor African who's been infected and you build up their immune system,is it possible for them to also naturally get rid of it?

M I would think so.

L That's an important, that's an important point.

M It's important knowledge which is completely neglected. People always think of drugs and vaccine, So this is a message which may be different from what you heard before, no?


Comments

M uses the word epidemic, not I.

M does not at any time say vaccines and drugs are useless or dangerous. he is simply talking common sense and saying that other measures need to be used also, and need to be better funded, there should be a holistic approach (not exactly radical statements). He nowhere says that drugs should not be used in the west, he is saying that different strategies should be used in Africa to bring the epidemic down to western proportions.

M does not provide any evidence or references to support his claim that 'if you take a poor African who's been infected and you build up their immune system, it is possible for them to also naturally get rid of it'. Indeed his response is rather cautious. He first says 'yes', but when pushed he says 'I would think so'. Not exactly a firm 'Yes'. Then he goes on to refer to this as 'knowledge', to maybe try to bolster his position a bit.

In summary, M makes some very valid points about the importance of nutrition, immune system etc etc etc which are very sensible. You are the one who is reading too much into his words.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Emphasising hygiene etc. is not denial of efficacy of drugs/vaccines. It is simply providing a counter balance.

Note also in the first part of the interview (which you do not quote) he is talking about a good immune system will help prevent being infected when we are exposed to HIV. I think this is clearly understood by 99% of the medical community.

Now, for some hard scientific evidence that thr immune system alone will eradicate HIV from somebody who has already become chronically infected? Completely eradicated, not just controlled?

Show it to me, I know you can't. Apart from maybe a few exceptional cases.

Unless of course you are the pope (sorry, shouldn't bring religion into this....)