Henry Bauer
Darin BrownUPDATE: MORE SPONTANEOUS SEROREVERSION
Posted by Henry Bauer on Friday, 23 May 2008
According to HIV/AIDS dogma, testing “HIV-positive” denotes infection by “HIV” which is permanent and ineradicable. One of several independent proofs that HIV/AIDS theory is wrong is the fact that people do spontaneously revert from “HIV-positive” to “HIV”-negative, perhaps most notably and frequently, babies born “HIV-positive” and reformed drug abusers (p. 96 ff. in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory). But whenever spontaneous reversion happens to be noticed, it’s treated as the secular equivalent of a miracle (HIV “INFECTION” DISAPPEARS SPONTANEOUSLY, 22 January 2008). Here are a couple more instances:
“BEIJING, Dec. 3 (Xinhua) — A farmer in northeast China’s Jilin Province has tested HIV negative, six years after being diagnosed as HIV-positive, according to the provincial Center of Disease Control (CDC).
Wen Congcheng . . . first tested HIV positive in 2001 [during testing of blood donors]. . . . Late in 2003, he was re-confirmed to have HIV/AIDS as a result of another test . . . . However, in July this year [2007], Wen received a negative test result at the No. 1 Clinical Hospital of Beihua University in Jilin. Wen decided to seek another opinion and went to the First Hospital of the China Medical University and another three hospitals for HIV tests, which all proved to be negative. The Jilin municipal CDC carried out a follow-up test which confirmed the negative result, and later the provincial CDC also confirmed the result.”
But, of course, the white-coated gurus refuse to accept this, and have questioned the original positive result, while the lab that made the diagnosis sticks by it.
“ ‘I am pretty sure there are no problems with the blood samples and the tests,’ said Liu Baogui, former director of the HIV/AIDS and STD Section of the CDC of Jilin City. . . . Professor Wu Min, a member of the HIV/AIDS experts’ committee under the Ministry of Health, is sceptical about the validity of the original positive test result. ‘I can not believe that such miracle could have really happened,’ he said. ‘Some patients appear to be free of the virus after effective treatment, but the HIV anti-body is always there, so the test result will still be positive.’ Wu said the inaccuracy rate of tests by the provincial CDCs is lower than 0.01 percent. ‘But it is possible that the person’s name and blood sample was mixed up at the Chuanying District CDC where Wen tested HIV positive for the first time,’ he said.
. . .
In 2003, Andrew Stimpson, a 25-year-old Briton, tested HIV-negative 14 months after testing positive in May 2002. The case has never been scientifically explained.”
And here’s more detail about Andrew Stimpson:
“Doctors baffled as HIV man ‘cures’ himself” (Sophie Kirkham, Sunday Times, 13 November 2005)
“A MAN who tested positive for HIV, the virus that causes Aids [sic, British usage], has subsequently shown up negative for the disease in a case that has mystified doctors. It was claimed last night that Andrew Stimpson, 25, may have shaken off the virus with his own immune system after contracting HIV in 2002.
If proved, the NHS has said the case would be ‘medically remarkable’. … The Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS trust, which treated Stimpson, has said he needs to undergo more tests before it can be established how he apparently conquered HIV. ‘These tests were accurate and they were his, but what we don’t know at the moment is why that has happened, and we want him to come back in for more tests… It is potentially a fantastic thing.’ Stimpson was tested three times in August 2002 … and the results showed he was producing HIV antibodies to fight the disease. Stimpson … contracted the virus from his boyfriend, Juan Gomez, 44. He began taking vitamins and other dietary supplements to keep his body healthy in the hopes that this might fend off the development of full-blown Aids. In October 2003, after impressing doctors with his good health, Stimpson was offered a new test, which came back negative. Further tests in December 2003 and March last year also proved negative. … ‘I couldn’t understand how anyone could cure themselves of HIV . . . I thought it had to be wrong because no one can recover from HIV, it just doesn’t happen.’ The tests were re-checked by the Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust when Stimpson threatened litigation believing there must be a mistake, but the results confirmed all the tests had been accurate. In a letter understood to be from the NHS Litigation Authority in October this year, Stimpson was told: ‘The fact you have recovered from a positive antibody result to a negative result is exceptional and medically remarkable.’ The trust said there had been several other cases of claimed ‘spontaneous clearance’ of the virus worldwide, although it is not believed any have been proved. A spokeswoman added that the trust had urged Stimpson to return for tests, but that so far he had not done so.”
If I were Stimpson, I too would decline further tests administered by people who would love to be able to tell me that I do, after all, have an incurable and fatal illness. Stimpson’s case is readily explicable by Tony Lance’s intestinal dysbiosis hypothesis [WHAT REALLY CAUSED AIDS: SLICING THROUGH THE GORDIAN KNOT, 20 February 2008] or by the Perth-Group view that testing HIV-positive merely denotes oxidative stress. It was not that Stimpson “contracted the virus from his boyfriend”, but that they shared a lifestyle conducive in some manner to oxidative stress or intestinal dysbiosis.
Martin said
In 2003, Andrew Stimpson, a 25-year-old Briton, tested HIV-negative 14 months after testing positive in May 2002. The case has never been scientifically explained.”
The scientists are unwilling to do the detective work that a good explanation requires because it would put into serious question thier basic premises – that HIV is the cause of AIDS.
My question is this: with respect to China, why would a huge country like China (or even the Soviet Union) have any interest in maintaining that HIV is the cause of AIDS? Do they lack the technology (or the will) to do an honest investigation? Why was Thado Mbeki the only leader of a country willing to question HIV dogma?
hhbauer said
Martin:
It’s quite common for scientists to leave unexplainable anomalies for later resolution. What’s unusually prominent with HIV/AIDS is actually ignoring so many direct contradictions of the theory. I think part of the reason is that the virologists take no notice of the epidemiology, and are fascinated by the endless mysteries they turn up, which also provide endless reasons for getting more research grants.
Mbeki is extraordinarily unusual: a “philosopher-king”, or economist-premier, who actually has the intellectual capacity and self-confidence to enquire into the substance of scientific claims.
As to China and Russia, what incentive would there be for their scientists to “start from scratch” on a subject where “everyone” seems agreed?
Martin said
The sad thing is these anomalies are very easily explainable if the requirement to adhere to the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is dropped (to do that would be professional suicide).
Have China or the USSR revealed their “AIDS” statistics? Not much comes up in the news.
By the way, Saturday’s NYTimes wrote another attack on Thabo Mbeki http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/opinion/24sat1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
If that doesn’t work, the NYTimes website has it available for free.
Thanks for the reply, I thought that my response might have disappeared because I didn’t see anything for a few days.
heja said
Whether China and Russia have incentives to question the shaky theory, and why they do not, seems more complicated than Henry suggests. It is not only just about rational choices or about the need to deal with a “medical problem”. Of course it would be opportune for Russia or China to find a better way of dealing with the problem, for example, because of the remains of the cold-war rivalry that are still so present in today’s politics, or because of the current economic rivalry (how many of the big pharma companies are ‘Chinese”?). However, these countries may have accepted certain paradigms as a consequence, for example, of membership in international organisations or acceptance of certain grants and aid. There may be real benefits of being a member of the WHO, for example, but the membership may come at a cost of going with the ‘consensus’ on various health issues. And consensus in such organisations is not even determined ‘democratically’ but by the influence of various pressure groups and ‘important’ countries. We are all living in a second-best world that constrains our choices.