HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Compounding HIV/AIDS absurdities

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/10/11

HIV/AIDS theory and practice have covered much ground in nearly 3 decades, without reaching a coherent understanding of where “HIV” came from, how it destroys the immune system, or how the supposed benefits of antiretroviral drugs are achieved and how those purported benefits are supposed to outweigh the drugs’ toxicity.

Instead, a host of mutually contradictory tenets are held simultaneously. A recent instance to come to my attention concerns the ability of “elite controllers” to infect others despite an absence of “virus”:

“the viral loads of elite controllers range from a scant 50 down to levels so small that even the most sensitive tests can’t detect them. Doctors know these people have the virus only because separate tests have revealed the presence of antibodies to HIV in their systems. In other words, elite controllers aren’t HIV-free; they may still be able to pass the virus to others, to whom it may be deadly” (Charles Slack, “Researchers hope ‘elite’ group holds clues for others”, Washington Post, 7 July 2009, pp. E1, 4; a longer version is in PROTO Magazine, Winter 2009, pp. 22-7; PROTO is a quarterly biomedical magazine published by Massachusetts General Hospital ).

Thus the presence of antibodies has become, in the conventional wisdom, proof of the presence of virions, even when no virions are to be found.

That virions may be transmitted even in their absence also runs directly counter to another tenet of the conventional HIV/AIDS wisdom, namely, that the likelihood of transmitting “HIV” increases with the magnitude of the “viral load”, i.e. the purported number of virions:
“blood HIV load, which is higher during the postseroconversion period and during advanced disease, is the principal predictor of heterosexual transmission [5-8]” (Wawer et al., Journal of Infectious Diseases, 191 [2005] 1403-9).

Kissing was early declared not to be a risky behavior insofar as transmitting “HIV” was concerned, because of the (relative) absence of “HIV” in saliva. Nevertheless, transmission of “HIV” has been officially recognized as having occurred from mother to child through pre-chewing food [CHEW ON THIS, 7 February 2008] as well as from child to mother through biting [HIV: IT MUST HAVE BEEN TRANSMITTED BY BITE!, 24 April 2008].

Then there’s the universally accepted HIV/AIDS “fact” that “HIV” is responsible for the disappearance of CD4 cells, even as there is no correlation between amount of “HIV” — “viral load” — and the subsequent course of CD4 counts [Rodriguez et al., JAMA 296 (2006) 1498-1506].

There is also no explanation for how “HIV” might accomplish this disappearance of CD4 cells:
“It is not clear how much of the pathology of AIDS is directly due to the virus and how much is caused by the immune system itself. There are numerous models which have been suggested to explain how HIV causes immune deficiency: Direct Cell Killing . . .  Antigenic Diversity . . . . The Superantigen Theory . . . . T-cell Anergy . . . . Apotosis [sic] . . . . TH1-TH2 Switch . . . . Virus Load and Replication Kinetics . . . .” [MicrobiologyBytes: Virology: AIDS I — Updated 8 April 2009;  see also Henry et al., JAMA 296 (2006) 1523-5].

A currently faddish shibboleth is that “AIDS” results from “chronic immune activation”, a fine example of the sort of “explanation” that, in other circumstances, is laughed at for being a “hand-waving” evasion of specifics: Exactly what sort of “activation” is it that apparently can’t deal with the activating stimulus and instead accomplishes suicidal self-destruction? When the typical reaction of the immune system to a stimulus is the very opposite?

We are also treated continually to new discoveries of where and how “HIV” originated in humans, discoveries based on careful analysis of “HIV” genomes and their change over the decades and centuries — even as in other contexts it is emphasized that “HIV” mutates at so incredible a rate that
“Within a single . . . host, HIV-1 population represents a complex mixture, or swarm, of mutant virus variants . . . [whose] prevalence . . . is changing . . . on almost a daily basis (intrahost evolution). Moreover, infected individuals within a human population harbor distinct viruses (interhost or populationwide heterogeneity). Finally, the global HIV-1 pandemic is composed of many local epidemics, which generally differ in . . . virus genotypes in circulation (global variation)” [V. V. Lukashov, J. Goudsmit, & W. A. Paxton, “The genetic diversity of HIV-1 and its implications for vaccine development”, in AIDS Vaccine Research, ed. Flossie Wong-Staal and Robert C. Gallo. Chapter 3, 93-120, Marcel Dekker, 2002].
That’s why it’s so difficult to manufacture a vaccine: “This isn’t just one virus . . . . You’re talking about tens of thousands of different viruses” [Dennis Burton, immunologist at Scripps Research Institution, cited by Charles Slack, cited above].

So “HIV” is sufficiently stable that one can trace its ancestry over many decades, yet at the same time so unstable that one cannot manufacture a vaccine. Leave aside the extraordinary ability of this chameleon to mutate and mutate and mutate and remain deadly in each of its variants.

On the one hand, it’s extraordinarily rare that “HIV-positive” people don’t progress to AIDS and remain extraordinarily healthy; that’s why they are called “elite controllers”, a term that seems to have replaced the earlier “long-term non-progressors”. There are “no more than one in every 300 cases, or perhaps 5,000 of the more than 1 million infected Americans” (Slack, cited above).
On the other hand, about 1 million Americans have been “HIV-positive” in each year since the mid-1980s at least [specific sources for an estimate of 1 million for 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1993, 2003 are cited at pp. 1-2 & 108 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory]; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention continually urge universal testing because about one quarter (A) or perhaps one third (B) of all “HIV-positive” people don’t know that they are “HIV-positive”, in the United Kingdom (C) as well as in the United States.
[(A): “One of out of three people infected with HIV in the U.S. doesn’t know it, according to the CDC. Many of them are unknowingly spreading the disease to people they love” — Richard Sine, “Braving an HIV Test” (reviewed on 14 August 2006 by Charlotte Grayson Mathis, MD) ;
(B) MMWR 56 (2007) 1233-7;
(C) Michael Carter, “HIV testing in gay social venues is viewed as inappropriate”, 22 December 2007]

So ever since the mid-1980s there have been 250,000-333,000 “HIV-positive” Americans who didn’t know they were positive; and who therefore were also not known to the authorities to be positive. How many of those, one is allowed to wonder, are “elite controllers” who have never been tested and who have remained perfectly healthy, for as much as two decades or more?

Of course, the fact that the number of “HIV-positive” Americans has been steady at about 1 million throughout the AIDS era is in itself an obvious disproof of the notion of a spreading epidemic.

The latest estimate postulates an annual rate of about 55,000 new “HIV-positive” cases (Hall et al., JAMA 300 [2008] 520-9). There is no reason to imagine that the 1 million “HIV-positives” in 1985 generated fewer new cases than the 1 million “HIV-positives” in recent years, so 1 million have been augmented at an annual rate of 55,000 or so for more than two decades, without exceeding appreciably that steady total of about 1 million. That makes no sense.

Deaths from “AIDS” or “HIV disease” can’t be invoked as balancing out those extra 55,000 annually, because the officially reported numbers of deaths are much smaller, beginning with 430 in 1982, rising to 42,000 in 1994, and declining to 13,000-14,000 by 1996, remaining there ever since [Table 3 in HAART saves lives — but doesn’t prolong them!?, 17 September 2008].  Cumulatively through 2007, just over 583,000 “AIDS” deaths have been reported (Table 8 in HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 2007; vol. 19, 2009).
For more than 20 years, about 55,000 “HIV-positives” have been added to the initial 1 million, so by 2007 there should have been something like (1 + 0.055 x 20) million minus 583,000, in other words about 1.52 million living “HIV-positive” or with “AIDS”.
However, the CDC reports 264,000 “Living with HIV infection” and 469,000 “Living with AIDS” at the end of 2007 (Table 14 in cited report), a total of 733,000.
The difference between 1.52 million and 733,000, namely 787,000, represents plausibly the number of people who, at one time or another, were “HIV-positive” but have never been tested nor become ill from anything that would occasion an “HIV” test: in other words, “elite controllers”.
The number of elite controllers, then, is plausibly on the order of 800,000, comparable in magnitude to the number of those who have been diagnosed with “HIV” or “AIDS”. Half of all “HIV-positives” may well be “elite controllers”.

That last calculation illustrates not only how baseless is the asserted rarity of “long-term non-progression” or “elite controlling” but also that one can prove just about anything on the basis of official HIV/AIDS data.

Perhaps the most direct hard data on elite controllers and long-term non-progressors comes from the Armed Services, whose members are typically “HIV”-tested annually. TACC (Tri-Services AIDS Clinical Consortium) found 382 such individuals among 4574 who had been followed for up to 20 years, that is, 8.4% of all the “HIV-positives” [Okulicz J, Marconi V, Dolan M. 2008. “Characteristics of elite controllers, viremic controllers, and long-term nonprogressors in the US Military HIV cohort.” Keystone symposium on HIV pathogenesis, Banff (Alberta, Canada)].
This means that on average about 8% of “HIV-positive” people will derive only harmful “side”-effects and no benefit at all from antiretroviral treatment.


Scan the “HIV absurdities” category on this blog to relish further examples of the mutually contradicting, common-sense-insulting things that HIV/AIDS believers must stand firm on, like marriage as a risk factor for “HIV” but being a porn star as one of the surest ways to avoid “HIV”; more breast feeding producing less “transmission”; “HIV-disease” deaths not the same as “AIDS” deaths and mutually contradictory numbers from two different administrative units within CDC; prison as a hotbed of spreading “HIV” and yet no appreciable spread of “HIV” in prisons; black Americans both more affected by “HIV/AIDS” and yet surviving better; death rates from “HIV/AIDS” not varying much by age; and much, much more.

Okulicz J, Marconi V, Dolan M. Characteristics of elite controllers, viremic
controllers, and long-term nonprogressors in the US Military HIV cohort.
Keystone symposium HIV pathogenesis. Banff, Alberta, Canada; 2008.

14 Responses to “Compounding HIV/AIDS absurdities”

  1. GFAB said

    Here’s the entire Okulicz abstract:

    Characteristics of elite Controllers, Viremic Controllers, and long-term Nonprogressors in the US Military HIV Cohort

    JF Okulicz, VC Marconi, and MJ Dolan. Infectious Disease Clinical Research Program (IDCRP) and Infectious Disease Service, San Antonio Military Medical Center (SAMMC), San Antonio, TX, USA, 78234-6200.

    Background: A small minority of patients are able to maintain virologic, immunologic, and/or clinical control of HIV infection for extended periods in the absence of antiretroviral medications. Study of these rare individuals might provide insight into the correlates of natural control of HIV infection. Various criteria have been used to describe these patients such as elite (EC) and viremic controllers (VC) and long-term nonprogressors (LTNP). We describe the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of these groups from a US military cohort of 4574 HIV-infected persons followed for up to 20 years.

    Methods: 5 overlapping groups were examined: EC – ≥3 longitudinal HIV RNA determinations ≤50 copies/mL in the absence of ART for ≥1 year (n=24, 0.5%); VC – ≥3 longitudinal HIV RNA determinations ≤2000 copies/mL in the absence of ART for ≥1 year (n=153, 3.3%); LTNP – asymptomatic HIV infection in the absence of ART, with all CD4 cell counts >500 cells/uL for ≥7 years (n=153, 3.3%) or ≥10 years (n=52, 1.1%); and non-EC/VC/LTNP (n=4279).

    Results: There were no statistically significant differences between age, race, gender or history of concomitant STDs among the groups (P=NS). Baseline CD4 cell count was higher for EC (mean 649 cells/uL), VC (701 cells/uL), 7-year LTNP (829 cells/uL) and 10-year LTNP (917 cells/uL) compared to non-EC/VC/LTNP (518 cells/uL). Kaplan-Meier analysis for a death endpoint showed that the 7-year LTNP curve began to fall in parallel with the overall cohort after a delay, while the 10-year LTNP curve remained relatively constant during 20 years of follow-up. EC had a significantly longer time to AIDS 1993 diagnosis (P=0.048) than VC. There was a trend toward longer time to death (P=0.07) among 7-year LTNP who were EC/VC compared to those who were not.

    Conclusions: The definitions of EC, VC, and LTNP describe different populations and have very different clinical outcomes in long-term follow-up. A 10 year requirement for LTNP defines a substantially different population, with improved long-term outcome, than a 7 year requirement. Finally, LTNP who are EC/VC fare better than those who are not.

  2. MacDonald said

    Kissing was early declared not to be a risky behavior insofar as transmitting “HIV” was concerned, because of the (relative) absence of “HIV” in saliva. Nevertheless, transmission of “HIV” has been officially recognized as having occurred from mother to child through pre-chewing food [CHEW ON THIS, 7 February 2008] as well as from child to mother through biting

    As HIV+ you can kiss other people all you want, but if you drool or spit on them you have attacked them with a lethal weapon and face being put in prison for at least the length of an average HIV latency period. Talk about walking a fine line.

    With regard to a constant 250,000 to 300,000 Typhoid Mary’s who are not aware of their status, one wonders how just a couple of patient zeros could make the numbers explode to a million in a decade or so, when one million out of which 1/4 – 1/3 are unaware of their status are unable to start new epidemics.

    If we factor in population growth, they are struggling even to keep up current HIV prevalence rates in terms of percentage of the population, despite the claim that all HIV+ are now saved by the drugs and free to infect 55,000 new victims each year.

    This quickly reached saturation point (in non-African countries) is one of the more bizarre aspects of HIV epidemiology.

  3. Henry,

    Great posting!

    In the past, I’ve put up an example of another absurdity: “Virological response after starting HAART improved over calendar years, but such improvement has not translated into a decrease in mortality.” May MT et al 7 August 2006 in Lancet, 368(9534): 451-8.

    This usually gets met with bumbling rig-a-ma-roll from the AIDS-Truth clan that I’ve got it all wrong. A report comes out, that even though drugs have an effect, there’s no decrease in deaths from it. Meaning, HAART therapy to be utterly worthless if someone endeavors to take them in the likelihood it’s going to increase their life span.

    Now, in your opinion, do I really have it wrong or is this another fine example of a mainstream absurdity?

    • Henry Bauer said

      Brian: I think you’ve got it RIGHT, and this is indeed another mainstream absurdity. Quite a few things about HAART are. That the NIH Treatment Guidelines distinguish among virologic failure, immunologic failure, and clinical progression means they are indepedent of one another: viral load, CD4 counts, and patient health are not inevitably correlated! Under HIV/AIDS theory, they ought to be.

      • Martin said

        The AIDS establishment “scientists” have never really looked at at the data the way you, John Lauritsen or Peter Duesberg (and many others) have. That would be like looking the gift horse in the mouth — ignorance is bliss. The statistics from the data from the Thai vaccine study apparently was more optimistic than after they looked more closely at the data (a definite No-No but it would have been discovered by someone else). Another absurdity is seeing the video of Luc Montagnier saying that the body (with a “good” immune system) can rid itself of HIV. Really? What concrete proof did they have that HIV was in the body other than the unvalidated indirect tests? The myth must be perpetuated (like from Dune: The spice must flow).

  4. Francis said

    Dear Henry,

    Thank you for your tireless work in dismantling the HIV/AIDS Dogma. I have been following your work and that of other “Dissidents” for some time now and it has been a source of inspiration.

    Musing on the subject of Montagnier’s Nobel Prize. I believe it to be a strategically logical response from factions within the mainstream that are steadily, though quietly, backing away from a hardcore philosophy.

    For twenty something years both Montagnier and Gallo have been publicly lauded as the co-discoverers of HIV. Even though it has since been conclusively shown that Gallo swiped his “discovery” from the French and beat them to the punch with some inside help at the patent office, cementing the deception together with an unreviewed announcement to the world press. That announcement, also now shown to have been rapidly cobbled together from his frantic rewriting of Popovic’s actual research papers, which did not actually show a viral causation of AIDS. Indeed those original papers unambiguously stated that the cause of AIDS was unknown. I suppose it was a blow to Gallo, who had been pinning his hopes for glory for several years on a string of viruses he’d “discovered” and nominated as the cause for Leukemia, which tragically had killed his younger sister when he was 11. Unfortunately, none of Gallo’s previous discoveries had been found to cause anything at all and he had had some spectacular failures, resulting in a degree of peer ridicule.

    I suppose I can understand Gallo’s motivation up until that point. You have a family tragedy that affects you deeply, resulting in you spending the rest of your life in an attempt to discover why? And hopefully prevent it happening to other people. Added to this is a personality that does not take failure lightly and desperately seeking the approval and acceptance of your peers. I said I could understand it. Having been a police officer for 25 years now and still serving in that capacity, I have come to understand how many people fall into criminal behaviour. I don’t condone it, I simply understand that no one is born bad, they just turn out that way.

    Succinctly, Gallo was a failed virologist with an axe to grind and a large ego at stake. Ultimately he committed theft and fraud in a vain attempt to prove his point. In a criminal-court context, any evidence he would submit should be ignored on the basis that his credibility was seriously at issue on this subject. Sadly, the world in a blind panic and clutching at straws, took him seriously. As they say, the rest is history. The only defence I would give Gallo is that I think he probably genuinely believes in his theory. In the court context though, a genuine belief never mitigates a factual error, so his culpability is still 100% at law.

    Now Montagnier on the other hand had actually discovered what he thought was a new virus causing devastation in the Gay communities. He sent his samples to the US for verification of his findings, only to have Mr Gallo do the old switch-a-roo on him. Suddenly Gallo was a rich hero and Montagnier wasn’t getting any of it, not quite fair, I’d say. Eventually, after the threat of litigation and government intervention, Montagnier got some recognition and patent money out of the Americans, but certainly not without a fight. Montagnier continued his research into his LAV cultures which had been renamed HTLV III by Gallo. At some point Montagnier has obviously come to the conclusion that his LAV wasn’t actually causing the chaos that Gallo et al. had now heaped upon it. He is obviously an astute man and probably saw the damage caused to careers that “denialism” could do. At that time he was now becoming quite wealthy too and had a fair degree of professional kudos, which would all be at stake if he denied his own discovery. In this context he came up with the theory of co-factors. It was a way of mitigating the role of LAV in AIDS without actually becoming a “denialist”. Professional “fence sitting”, I guess you could call it.

    Steadily the HIV/AIDS paradigm has been falling apart, if not publicly then certainly within the ranks of those who study the subject professionally. At this time, though, a sudden reversal would wreak absolute havoc within the medical profession and the follow-on effects are incalculable. I’d hazard a guess and think it would make the economic downturn seem like small change. The damage has been done and no one wants to take credit for that little one. Hence we have a scenario of a failed theory causing untold human misery and vast sums of money and fantastic reputations at stake. Not least would be the absolute lack of faith the public would from then on endow the entire medical profession with. The question is how to get out of it with as little damage as possible? It would appear that this retreat requires small rearward steps. The analogy I would use it like backing slowly away from a hungy lion until hopefully you get far enough away that you can make a run for it. Not always a successful tactic, I might add.

    The upshot of this is the award to Montagnier of the Nobel Prize and no recognition of Gallo’s input. Although publicly a “co-discover”, his reputation is in tatters with those in the know. And his continued unreserved support for the paradigm is not in line with current thinking or strategy. Better to award it to Montagnier. In this manner, the discovery of LAV remains intact, and a lot of what has been done can be justified to the public. It also publicly signals an acceptance of the co-factors espoused by Montagnier. In effect, it is the first official step backwards from Gallo’s lion. Logical and strategically smart; probably the lion is still going to get you, though. I note also that since the award of the Nobel, Montagnier has become a little firmer in his distancing from the paradigm. He is now stating that you can be cured of HIV, the co-factors will still kill you though.

    I think that you are mistaken if you think that the AIDS establishment is going to give in without a fight, or that there will be a sudden about-face on this issue. There is simply far too much at stake, there has been for a long time. No sane well-paid medic wants to be sucked into the “Duesberg” black hole. It will take a long time for this mess to be cleared up and will take a generational shift in thinking to achieve, the battle is far from over. The only real hope for that would be a public intellectual revolution followed by government intervention, which at best is unlikely. Sadly, the general public is simply not astute in these matters. I do think that the recent documentary “House of Numbers” has more than a few shaking in their boots, though. This is exactly the weapon the “dissidents” needed at this time and hopefully it will be followed up on.

    If I could offer advice on strategy, it is to totally ignore the defenders of the paradigm. Engaging in discussion with them is to lend them a voice and a further venue to shout it in. There are no doubt “believers” in the theory who are motivated by their own misguided sense of helping. The vast majority of those that fight the “dissidents” publicly, though, are the well-paid mouthpieces of varying organisations and individuals who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. These are the like of John P Moore, Seth Kalichman, Snout and numerous others. Simply, it is their job and livelihood to attempt to shoot you down. If their masters told them to argue that black was white, they would. It is quite obvious by the style and methodology of their attacks, that they are a small but important part of vast propoganda machines. I would not be surprised to discover if Moore’s rantings are ghost-written themselves, I simply don’t see an educated man, supposedly holding down a taxing job, spending the amount of time he would have to invest and lowering himself to that level of gutter talk (for nothing).

    The mainstream maintain the “War on AIDS”. The FIRST casualty of every war is TRUTH. The first method of attacking an enemy is to dehumanise them, as no one likes to think they are capable of killing off other humans. Hence the terms used like “Mass Murderers”, “Denialists”, “Quacks” and so many others. The Germans did it with Jews calling them “Untermensch” (less than human). In the first world war we accused the Germans of eating babies and other atrocities. Recently we accused Saddam of pretty much everything. It is a tried-and-true method of garnering public sympathy for less than ideal causes.

    Maintain your dignity and above all your humanity. The TRUTH is not always popular, but it is always the TRUTH and will eventually prevail, it always has. Attack the paradigm and not its defenders, a just cause is worth fighting for. The mainstream are desperately hoping that the HIV/AIDS issue will eventually fade away, and their motivation now is more fear than money. Not fear of a virus but fear of the TRUTH and what it will do to them. FEAR is always the most powerful motivator.

    Just some thoughts, and having just returned from a 12-month secondment to the United Nations, I’ve seen part of the beast from the “inside” and have many more thoughts to share.

    Regards to you all

    • Henry Bauer said

      Francis: Many thanks indeed for your thoughtful and thought-provoking comments.
      I’m in full agreement that arguing with the defenders of the faith is pointless. It is the popular media, the general public, the politicians, who need to be awakened to the truth.
      I also have to agree about how drastic the consequences are going to be. A good friend who read a draft of my book warned me, as you do now, that the eventual success of the “denialist” viewpoint will bring a massive loss of public faith in medical science as a whole.
      Your insights into Gallo and Montagnier are fully in keeping with their behavior.
      I wish I could believe, though, that the mainstream as a whole is starting to back away slowly. I hope devoutly that you’re right about this!

  5. MacDonald said

    Another absurdity is seeing the video of Luc Montagnier saying that the body (with a “good” immune system) can rid itself of HIV. Really? What concrete proof did they have that HIV was in the body other than the unvalidated indirect tests?

    Martin, once again you have not grasped the full extent of the absurdity. If you test antibody positive, it means your body wasn’t able to fight off infection. I’ll repeat that: If you have antibodies against HIV, it means your immune system is not “good” — you’re not immune.

    The following excerpts are from an African study of HIV-resistant prostitutes with the purpose of coming up with novel vaccine approaches:

    These women have had frequent exposure to a range of African HIV-1 variants, primarily clades A, C, and D, for up to 12 yr without becoming infected. Nearly half of them have CTL directed towards epitopes previously defined for B clade virus, which are largely conserved in the A and D clade sequences. Stronger responses are frequently elicited using the A or D clade version of an epitope to stimulate CTL, suggesting that they were originally primed by exposure to these virus strains.

    The resistant women are defined as those remaining seronegative for 3 yr of follow-up. They remain healthy and persistently seronegative for HIV-1 (ELISA for HIV-1/2/0, Murex); repeated testing for HIV-1 proviral DNA by PCR (using specific primer sets for HIV-1 env, nef, and pol) has always been negative.

    To sum up: frequent exposure, “priming” of cellular immune response, but no antibodies allowed. Note that Montagnier claims in the clip that it takes “a few weeks” to fight off a transient infection, so a few weeks of infection without inducing antibody production, that’s the criteria.

    Here is the implicit rule the authors are referring to:

    There is now a substantial body of evidence that T cell responses to HIV can be elicited from exposed individuals in the absence of detectable infection, without the development of circulating HIV-specific IgG antibodies, which are the hallmark of persistent HIV infection

    These are highly trained professionals studying transient infection(s) with subsequent natural immunity in the context of developing vaccine approaches, and at the same time they are denying that there is immunity if there are antibodies.

    It simply defies belief: What are traditional vaccines, including HIV vaccines, if not transient/mock infections designed to elicit an antibody response, which is then taken as a measure of acquired immunity?

    But that is not allowed to be the case with “natural immunity” to HIV, and apparently none of these professionals, working on such studies for years, ever think to ask why.

    • Martin said

      Dear MacDonald: Yes, I have been well aware that the absurdity of testing “positive” for antibodies means that your immune system is ineffective against HIV, I did not need your “once again” ad hominem. That the mainstream AIDS acolytes accept a positive result on an antibody test as proof of infection is unfortunate. That of course makes Montagnier’s video quackery squared. The other absurdity is testing vaccines with no virus present — isn’t that why all of the vaccine tests have failed so miserably? You’ve got to have a virus to have a vaccine against it.

  6. MacDonald said


    My suspicion is that a lot of vaccines don’t work that well, both in the sense you are implying and for other technical reasons.

    Note the tendency for vaccines that are measured by “infection” rather than clinical endpoints to fail.

    They use PCR among other things to determine whether supposed components of HIV are present other than those in the vaccine. This actually raises the bar because, to be protected against those viral genes that are not in the vaccine, the virus has to be a coherent entity composed of parts unique to it, and it probably has to be exogenous as well, depending on the type and efficacy of the vaccine.

    Most of the great vaccine successes, such as polio, are ultimately measured in terms of actual cases of the disease. So, if you rename polio and stop spraying DDT on school kids, in addition to giving people a shot of junk in the arm, polio incidence is magically decreased — all due to the shot of junk of course.

    Same thing with the flu. Because of the short incubation period, they measure that in clinical endpoints as well. But flu symptoms are so vague and universal, it is the easiest thing in the world to rename.

    To wit, the new H1N1. It’s the “normal” flu, often with unusually mild symptoms of perhaps only 3 days duration. This is an example of how you can call anything the flu, and you can call the flu anything.

    When it becomes too obvious to rename, the explanation changes. Then it’s because this year’s vaccine batch was a bad match for the new mutated strain.

    It follows that it’s the lentiviruses and whatever else they are called that are most difficult to vaccinate against, and that is because, in the absence of clinical endpoints, you need to do PCR. You simply cannot hang around for a decade to see if the untreated vaccinees develop AIDS. The same thing with hepatitis C.

    There is one glaring exception though, the HPV vaccine (Gardasil), which was found to be effective at protecting virgins. HPV is a phantom virus if ever there was one, identified by PCR and with latency periods up to 40 years. According to Kaiser Foundation, it can even cause cancer years after the body is rid of it. A textbook phantom.

    So why was the vaccine deemed partly successful? Because the geniuses at Merck found out that they could use pre-cancerous lesions as clinical endpoint predictors.

    That meant their vaccine didn’t have to pass the PCR gold standard test. Furthermore, since even pre-cancerous lesions typically take months to years to develop, and the target population, virgins, were only participating in a few of the trials, with only a couple of years of follow-up, it wasn’t all that difficult to get the desired results.

  7. Tony said

    I found this amazing example of cognitive dissonance and of course had to share it (and compounding HIV/AID absurdities seemed like a good fit.) This quotation was priceless:

    “Although you have had a possible exposure, you have also had a course of PEP (Post Exposure Prophylaxis) which should effectively fight off any HIV antibodies.” ( accessed October 22, 2009.)

    So all we have to do is fight those darned anti-bodies.

    “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

  8. MacDonald said

    Dear All, Bill in particular,

    If any of you wonder how informed dissidents would fare in a prolonged debate with informed HIV enthusiasts, I can do no better than direct you to the discussion under “Can Peter Duesberg be trusted on cancer?” on Kalichman’s blog (second from top, 143 Comments at present).

    Someone calling herself Montagnier’s Ghost was inspired by my Comment above to pursue the question of whether antibodies mean “persistent infection” with Chris Noble and Snout, and if any of you has followed that discussion you will have witnessed in real time a total meltdown on the part of the Guardians of the Faith.

    Montagnier’s Ghost, and later Bill, systematically destroyed every thread of credibility these people might have imagined they had.

    To his credit, Kalichman allowed the slaughter to go on for some time, probably because he is too stupid to realise when he and his go-to guys, Snout and Noble, are being hopelessly outclassed, but when it became obvious that they had lost the “Gold Standard” argument as well, it became too much for Kalichman, and he decided to censor Montagnier’s Ghost. He has now posted a dishonest attempt at patching up his defeat in Comment 143, indicating that he will only allow Comments on the Duesberg topic.

    This is nonsense, since 1) Kalichman posted more comments on the gold standard by Snout and himself after he had begun censoring dissidents, and 2) the censored Comment from Montagnier’s Ghost, in addition to answering a vital question, also contained a paragraph directly related to Duesberg.

    Montagnier’s Ghost appears only on the goon blogs, but she has asked me to post her censored reply to Bill’s question in Comment 138. We hope Bill will read this and judge for himself why Kalichman considered this information too dangerous to publish:

    As you can see from his long-winded answer, Snout, being an intelligent fellow, is entirely on our side. Jackson et al. merely assumed the study subjects harboured a virus on background of an antibody test.
    Snout is also correct, as far as you are concerned, that dissidents occasionally confuse the test with the thing that is being tested for. You seem to be doing that, so his semantics lesson is useful. You write:
    “To determine whether woman is pregnant, the ultimate ‘gold standard’ is the birth of a baby.
    A generally acceptable ‘gold standard’ is a nice sonogram, showing the fetus.
    A lesser ‘gold standard’ (silver standard?) is a home pregnancy test.”
    Not the birth but the baby/foetus is the gold standard. Whether it is born or not is irrelevant.
    A pregnancy test is just that, a test. It can be verified against the baby. Some pregnancy test or other surely IS the gold standard test.
    Snout might quibble with my distinction between gold standard and gold standard test, but he asked for a clear, logical and consistent definition, not agreement with every textbook and wiki-article. To dissidents, what is being tested for is the gold standard, the gold standard test is, as the name suggests, ideally a test that has been verified against what is being tested for.
    If you look at my posts, I make a clear distinction between the gold standard = the virus, and the gold standard test = ideally a test that has been verified against the virus itself, but if not, at least against another test that has been verified against the virus itself (the latter in case the best test is too expensive to use in clinical practice).
    There is no such test for HIV.
    It is true there is no such test for several other alleged pathogens, but to a dissident compounding uncertainties does not not legitimise any one of them.


    The link you gave is to Anthony Brink’s website. Everybody knows Brink hates Duesberg and Rethinking AIDS (another letter from him has been posted or linked here I seem to remember). Brink will do anything to discredit Duesberg, including mediocre “deconstructions” of his papers. I wonder if Brink or “Jensen” even know what deconstruction means.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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