HIV/AIDS Skepticism

Pointing to evidence that HIV is not the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS

HIV-POSITIVE BABIES ARE NOT VIRUS-INFECTED

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2008/02/16

MacDonald reminded me that the Perth Group have documented in devastating fashion that “HIV-positive” data on mothers and babies proves that testing HIV-positive does not signify an infection.

I really should have emphasized that when commenting on the self-contradictions regarding “HIV” and breastfeeding (HIV and BREASTFEEDING AGAIN, 13 February 2008; FIRST: DO NO HARM!, 19 December 2007; MORE HIV, LESS INFECTION: THE BREASTFEEDING CONUNDRUM, 21 November 2007) and claims of mother-to-child transmission generally (for instance, TWINS ATTRACT THEIR MOTHER’S HIV, 12 January 2008; HIV-POSITIVE CHILDREN, HIV-NEGATIVE MOTHERS, 25 November 2007).

The Perth Group’s website has two comprehensive discussions available as links: “Monograph on mother-to-child transmission”, and “BMJ Online Debate”.

MacDonald cited (from the latter) this concise yet fully documented argument by the Perth Group in response to orthodox viewpoints pressed by a certain Peter Flegg:

“In regard to ‘HIV’ seropositive mothers, their infants and antibody specificity, we would be grateful for Peter Flegg’s view on the following:

In 1987 the CDC advised: ‘Most of the [CDC] consultants believed that passively transferred maternal HIV antibody could sometimes persist for up to 15 months’. (18 ) In 1991 the CDC extended the time to 18 months 13 and by 1995 ‘…the range of WB seroconversions might eventually extend beyond 30 months’, (14) that is, at double the age ‘believed’ eight years earlier. Before the AIDS era the evidence was that transplacental maternal antibody in offspring did not persist beyond nine months.(15) In 1993, Parekh from the CDC developed ‘a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-specific 1gG-Fc capture enzyme immunoassay (1gG-CEIA) to elucidate the dynamics of HIV-1 maternal antibody decay and de novo synthesis of HIV-1 antibodies in infants’. He and his colleagues demonstrated a rapid decay of maternal ‘HIV’ antibody ‘with decline to background levels by 6 months’. (16 ) In other words, if the ‘HIV’ antibody test is specific, any child who has a positive ‘HIV’ antibody test beyond 9 months should remain positive for the remainder of his or her life. In the only study providing a detailed analysis of post partum loss of infant HIV seropositivity, the European Collaborative Study, (17) approximately 23% of the children became seronegative between birth and 9 months. However, 59% became seronegative between 9 and 22 months. Since the latter cannot be due to loss of maternal antibodies, the only explanation is that either: (i) the antibody test is non-specific or; (ii) the children managed to clear ‘HIV’ infection without treatment. If 23% of children test positive because of maternal antibodies and in 59% the test is non-specific, how certain can Peter Flegg be that in the remaining 18% of children the test will not also serorevert after 22 months? Or if the test remains positive, is it a true positive? May we ask, what does Peter Flegg tell the mother of a child who tests positive between 9 and 30 months and what is his approach to the clinical management of this child?”

The cited references are

14. Chantry CJ, Cooper ER, Pelton SI, Zorilla C, Hillyer GV, Diaz C. Seroreversion in human immunodeficiency virus-exposed but uninfected infants. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1995;14(5):382-7.

15. Stiehm ER. Immunologic diseases in infants and children. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company, 1973.

16. Parekh BS, Shaffer N, Coughlin R, Hung CH, Krasinski K, Abrams E, et al. Dynamics of maternal IgG antibody decay and HIV-specific antibody synthesis in infants born to seropositive mothers. The NYC Perinatal HIV Transmission Study Group. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1993;9:907-12.

17. Epidemiology, clinical features, and prognostic factors of paediatric HIV infection. Italian Multicentre Study. Lancet 1988;ii:1043-6.

18. CDC. Current Trends Classification System for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection in Children Under 13 Years of Age. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1987;36:225-30, 235-6.

**************

One can hardly ask for better grounded reasons for recognizing that “HIV-positive” does not signify permanent infection; and that consequently all the claims of mother-to-child transmission of a virus — be it perinatally or as a result of breastfeeding — cannot be taken as valid, based as they are on the most dubious grounds.

Given these facts, how could anyone recommend the administering of toxic antiretroviral drugs to pregnant women and babies? Yet now we have studies exploring how longer exposure to these drugs might influence the spurious indications of the presence of “HIV” (HIV and BREASTFEEDING AGAIN, 13 February 2008).

6 Responses to “HIV-POSITIVE BABIES ARE NOT VIRUS-INFECTED”

  1. Martin Kessler said

    To dissidents like ourselves, this news is self-evident. After all, if the quacks actually tried to have viral isolation performed on either the mother or the child, they would come up with bupkis, no surprise either to the scientists in the HIV/AIDS establishment or us dissidents. You see, if they actually performed an attempt at HIV isolation from those allegedly “positive” people, they would have a lot of explaining to do, or they would have the results covered up somehow. That’s why they should all be thrown into prison for genocide.

  2. Martin Kessler said

    I was just watching the NBC Evening News (at 6:30 EST). There was a report on AIDS in Uganda. It’s a damned shame how those who allegedly have HIV are being treated with the so-called ARVs. One little girl was profiled — she had both parents die, according to the reporter, of “AIDS”. Unfortunately, most watching this broadcast (propaganda for continuing AIDS infusion of more money from contributions) will feel pity for the “HIV infected” children. If the journalists did any investigating, i.e. ask the wrong questions like: Where is the proof that these people are actually infected? Or, Has anyone actually had HIV isolated from their blood or tissues?, they would probably be fired and their report would never have been broadcast.

  3. hhbauer said

    Martin, exactly: “their report would never have been broadcast”. The No. 1 question for dissidents is, what can be done to make Big Media look at the facts?

    As to tonight’s TV: “60 Minutes” had a story about Trasylol, used for more than a dozen years to control bleeding during heart surgery. It causes severe kidney damage in a significant number of people, maybe 5% or so. Bayer knew about it years ago, but didn’t tell the FDA. Now that the FDA knows, they’ve issued a warning…

  4. Martin Kessler said

    Hi Dr. Bauer, That’s the “$64,000,000,000” question. The media has been “bought”. With print media’s ad revenue falling off a cliff, and a good percentage of their revenue coming from drug companies, they can ill afford to “bite the hand that feeds them”. Broadcast media, because of ad revenue, also have their hands tied behind their backs as well. The big Pharma may be acting as a surrogate free-speech blocker for the government. What a conspiracy theory. Oh what a tangled web we weave once we practice to deceive. AIDS has been so intertwined with political correctness, and added to that a war is being waged against personal responsibilty — you can “cure” or at least “treat” your problems in living called mental illness, after all it’s chemical imbalances (a hypothesis) that causes it, not (good or usually bad) reasons.

  5. lukas said

    prof bauer,
    I wish to know if young kids were exposed to aids,were dying like flies and have been saved by arvs as aids vigilants say.As they have no other immunosuppressive factor they shouldn’t had to catch aids.I guess if some have dead it might be caused by azt or arvs itself.I know their statistics are tricked.I wish to know if you have some data or opinion on this argument.

    • Henry Bauer said

      lukas:
      Sorry, I have no pertinent data. The mainstream doesn’t look into these things.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s