All attempts to vaccinate against “HIV” have failed, despite Gallo’s three-decade-old promise of a vaccine within a couple of years.
All attempts to prevent “HIV infection” by means of microbicides have failed despite a couple of decades of attempts.
Unbiased observers might well infer that there is something wrong with HIV/AIDS theory.
Biased observers and interested parties, on the other hand, might experience cognitive dissonance and continue to put more of their efforts into “managing HIV infection”. Indeed, prominent spokespeople like AIDS-Tsar Anthony Fauci have been crowing for quite some time about the wonders of contemporary antiretroviral treatment which has allegedly turned the dreaded disease into a manageable, chronic ailment.
On the other hand, most “HIV-positive” individuals tell quite a different story, as do the official Treatment Guidelines, provided one reads between the lines of those Guidelines and notes that they are revised several times a year, that once-recommended treatment protocols get de-recommended and even recommended-against as time goes by, and that the Guidelines are replete with descriptions of hideous “side” effects of all the drugs and their combinations and their interactions with other medications — see “Antiretroviral drugs lead to normal life?”
Another instance of needing to read between the lines about antiretroviral drugs comes in the recent hyping of HIV/AIDS “cure research”:
Congressman Henry Waxman meets on Cure for HIV
Those taking “HIV treatment medications . . . are saddled with side effects and can die at a higher rate than non-HIV people. . . . David O’Dell . . . reported on his 27-year battle with HIV/AIDS [including] . . . . his many ongoing side effects of medications and complications from the HIV, including a stroke and extreme neuropathy, due to general inflammation caused by HIV and the treatment medications themselves have resulted in disability requiring governmental financial assistance. This was gripping testimony about a stark life with what is popularly called a ‘chronic controllable disease’ or the ‘new HIV normal.’”
Antiretroviral treatment does not make for a normal life and normal life-span, no matter the ballyhoo in advertisements by drug companies and in public statements by the likes of Fauci.
Furthermore, the “complications from the HIV” and “general inflammation caused by HIV” are ascribed to HIV only since the advent of antiretroviral drugs; there is no genuine evidence that HIV causes general inflammation, it is a speculation invented only because researchers have been unable to find a mechanism by which HIV can do what it is alleged to do.
A similar acknowledgement of the horrors of antiretroviral treatment is hidden in plain view in the Press Release from the International AIDS Society about “New cure HIV research”:
“HIV-infected individuals who harbour drug-susceptible virus, who have access to antiretroviral drugs, who can tolerate the drug side effects, toxicities, and other complications, and who are able to adhere to therapy can maintain control of HIV infection indefinitely. . . .
[One may wonder how many “HIV-positive” individuals satisfy all those caveats]
[T]hese therapies have limitations. They do not eradicate HIV, requiring people to remain on expensive and potentially toxic drugs for life. They do not fully restore health as patients still experience co-morbidities such as increased cardiovascular disease, bone disorders or cognitive impairment” [emphases added].
So cure research is certainly called for, with the sky the limit in terms of the resources that should be devoted to it:
“NIH recently awarded the Martin Delaney Collaboratories, large grants for research toward a cure, as well as a series of targeted funding initiatives to support this area of research. These programs are in addition to the substantial portfolio of ongoing basic and clinical HIV research of research related to the elimination of viral reservoirs and other research toward a cure.
Other traditional government-based funders of biomedical research like the French National Agency for Research on AIDS and viral hepatitis (ANRS), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Medical Research Council (MRC) in the United Kingdom are also increasing their commitment to cure research, and a number of non-government groups are raising and spending considerable amounts of money on cure research. Many of the pharmaceutical companies that invested heavily in antiretroviral drugs are now also allocating some of their resources to address this question.
The investment now going to cure research is substantial but almost certainly not
sufficient”[emphasis added; researchers are not known to consider resources and investments sufficient, no matter how large they happen to be].
And once again, reading between lines may raise some eyebrows:
“ The profound regulatory issues that surround the testing of novel drugs (many with high potential for toxicities) in a population that is generally doing well will need to be addressed, and a regulatory pathway for advancing candidate therapies through the clinical trial process identified;
Strong community support is needed to advocate against complacency and to ensure that patients and their communities are fully engaged and informed about the risks and benefits of curative studies” [emphases added].
The second point acknowledges that “cure” research is risky, something that might not seem obvious to the uninitiated. The first point says that some way must be found to sidestep the normal regulations that safeguard human subjects from being enticed into dangerous trials that may not offer them any benefit. My guess would be that ways will be found to carry out such trials in Africa.