HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

UPDATE: MORE SPONTANEOUS SEROREVERSION

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2008/05/23

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.

7 Responses to “UPDATE: MORE SPONTANEOUS SEROREVERSION”

  1. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. Philip said

    I have seen luc montagnier being interviewed by Brent leung. I think this is exactly what was being said – a healthy immune system can shake it off. It’s possible that this happens relatively rarely for two reasons in my mind. First how often are HIV positives retested with ELISA ? I assume that since HIV positives are assumed permanently infected they don’t bother? Hence, seroreversion is not often detected. Second, if whatever caused the rise in serum antibodies needed to be so severe as to place the patient in a one-in-thousands population where the levels are high enough to go above the cut off point, then maybe even after a patient recovers from the initial insult to the system it takes a while for the system to normalize. Just some thoughts.

  6. Aut Aut said

    reading this blog for a while -very very precious – I often came across to sentences like this: “According to HIV/AIDS dogma, testing “HIV-positive” denotes infection by “HIV” which is permanent and ineradicable”. Well, if I am not wrong, this sentence asserts two things: first, having antibodies ALWAYS means you are CURRENTLY infected (which seems to be true only for the hiv, isnt’ it?) and, secondly, the same infection is ALWAYS permanent and ineradicable,menaing that the same antibodies are pretty useless. Now, I know those are statements which no one in the orthodox side has never proved true, nontheless someone in the early days – maybe Gallo himself -must have given some sort of explanation, some sort of theory for these dogmas! after more than a year of intense reading I haven’t found any yet, .. can anyone help me? thank you a lot

    • Henry Bauer said

      Aut Aut:
      A good discussion is by Rodney Richards, Appendix II, “The birth of antibodies equals infection”, in “Serious Adverse Events” by Celia Farber. Melville House, 2006.
      There was no reasoning and no observations that led to this, just a colossal mistake that has had terrible consequences.

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