HIV “INFECTION” DISAPPEARS SPONTANEOUSLY
Posted by Henry Bauer on 2008/01/22
HIV/AIDS dogma has it that there’s no cure; once infected by HIV—as demonstrated for example by confirmed positive HIV-antibody tests—there’s no possibility of reversion to uninfected, not even by antiretroviral treatment. The long-term healthy “non-progressors” or “elite controllers” still remain infected, they just have some mysterious physiological knack that stops illness from developing.
Dissidents know different. The epidemiology of HIV in the United States shows that testing HIV-positive is not the mark of an infection, it’s a quite non-specific reaction (The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory); according to the Perth Group, a sign of oxidative stress.
The latter view explains why HIV-positive people can and sometimes do spontaneously revert to HIV-negative, illustrations of which are cited at p. 96 ff., “HIV-positive may be only temporary”, in The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory.
The orthodoxy has ignored this evidence that HIV-positive may be temporary, so it’s something of a surprise to see published in a mainstream journal the report of “Spontaneous HIV-1 seroreversion in an adult male” (Coyne et al., Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 34  627-30). That article is well worth having in one’s files, for several reasons:
— The man in question is in a high-risk group, he is a young gay man.
— The meticulous series of tests carried out by Coyne et al. gave results precisely in accord with what the orthodoxy postulates for a newly infected person: negative HIV tests, risky behavior, an episode of “gastro-intestinal symptoms, sweats, rash, and lymphadenopathy”, followed by inconclusive tests, followed finally by positive tests. “This man was at high risk of HIV acquisition and had symptoms consistent with HIV seroconversion. His HIV antibody response evolved from negative to equivocal to a combination of reactions considered to be positive, and the interpretation was that he had developed HIV infection.”
— The researchers used a stunning array of tests from a variety of manufacturers. The implicit inference from the use of so many tests is that any given test kit is unreliable; and the data support that inference. For example (their Table 1), on the same day one test is negative, p24 antigen also negative, yet another test is positive. A few weeks later, again one positive and another negative.
— Positive antibody tests are supposed to run parallel with appreciable viral load. “However, persistently undetectable viral loads prompted repeat antibody tests 10 months later, which were negative. P24 antigen and proviral DNA could not be detected. . . . Our patient did not have immunosuppression or antiretroviral drugs to account for his seroreversion. Nor did he have detectable proviral DNA to indicate he was infected with HIV. His results are therefore intriguing.”
The authors mention the possibilities of non-specific reactions and false positives, but in so dismissive a manner as to effectively discount them—“These findings appear to be exceptionally rare”.
They would have liked to study this case further “if the patient had consented to further investigations”. I’m inclined to be on his side in refusing. Having been told of being infected by a fatal, incurable, disease, he was subjected to innumerable tests; then, after months of undoubted mental anguish, he was told by obviously puzzled doctors that they really didn’t understand what was going on, but that apparently he might not be incurably ill after all, they had possibly frightened him for no good reason—but of course they couldn’t be sure, they’d love to keep on doing tests (maybe in the hope that he’d turn out to be fatally ill after all?).
* * * * * *
Coyne et al. sum up their paper with “These findings appear to be exceptionally rare”. That displays a highly selective point of view, for the literature is replete with data showing that the tests are unreliable, that seroreversions occur quite often, that CD4 counts do not jibe with viral load, and that neither viral load nor CD4 counts jibe with patient health.
This paper has five authors, who are associated with organizations in the United Kingdom specializing in HIV, infections in general, and virology. It reveals something about contemporary medical science that the flood of HIV-related publications persistently ignore even mainstream publications that fail to support the prevailing dogma, for example, that babies spontaneously revert from HIV-positive to HIV-negative (Clinical and Experimental Immunology 102: 476, Lancet 347: 213, New England Journal of Medicine 332: 833) and that drug abusers also revert spontaneously if they kick the habit and that needle-sharing is NOT associated with higher “infection rates” (American Journal of Epidemiology 146: 994); that HAART doesn’t work (Lancet 368: 451), that “viral isolates” are mixtures (Virology 230: 134), that sexual transmission cannot explain the African “AIDS epidemic” (AIDS 4: 11, International Journal of STD & AIDS 14: 144); and much more.