None so blind as those who WILL not see

The mainstream HIV/AIDS literature is replete with evidence that HIV/AIDS theory is wrong. Here’s a nice selection made by R. Crumb and obtained courtesy of Martin Barnes, from HIV and the Pathogenesis of AIDS by Jay Levy (3rd ed., 2007). Levy is one of the elders and gurus of HIV/AIDS matters, and he even claims to be a co-discoverer of HIV. Moreover, that his text is in its 3rd edition indicates that it has found favor among his peers. Yet it acknowledges as clearly as can be that there is actually no genuine evidence that HIV caused AIDS then or causes AIDS now:

A central point is the “Unresolved Mystery” of CD4 cell loss (p. 327)
“What causes a decrease in IL-2 (CD8 cell anti-viral factor) production is not known” (331)
“The process leading to a reduction in anti-HIV immune responses, mirrored by the loss of CD4 cells and CD8 cell responses, are not yet well defined. Most likely, multiple factors are involved in CD4 cell loss” (328)
“[R]elatively few infected cells show sufficient virus replication that would lead to cell death” (329)
“The exact mechanism toward CD4 cell depletion and immune deficiency are not yet well defined, and its cellular latency, as well as several other features of HIV infection, remain mysterious” (429)

“The mechanism for anti-body mediated neutralization of HIV has not yet been well-defined” (239)
“The clinical relevance of neutralizing antibodies remains unclear” (246)
“Why certain laboratory strains (of HIV) passaged for months or years in vitro, are very sensitive to neutralization by a variety of heterologous sera is not clear” (240)

“[T]he true nature of the envelope structure of an infectious virion has not been resolved” (10)

“Studies with individual HIV isolates may not provide the correct conclusions relating to in vivo pathogenesis” (328)

“The reasons for this disconnect between viral load and CD4 cell count are not known” (333)

“Thus, how, where, and when HIV emerged in human populations and existed in various groups and clades are not clearly evident” (21)

“While current anti-viral drugs have had substantial effects on HIV infection and development of disease, the side effects can be very harmful to the infected individual. These include abnormalities in body fat distribution and in lipid and glucose metabolism, cardiac disease, and pancreatic, liver, and kidney disorders” (381)

CONCLUSIONS: “Encouraging progress has been made in understanding the pathogenesis of HIV infection…Nevertheless, the path toward eventual control of HIV still requires major efforts toward immune restoration and the development of an effective vaccine” (429)

———————————————-
That last statement is quite typical. The details in the text make plain that nothing is understood about how HIV is supposed to kill off the immune system and cause AIDS. But those who believe in their bones that HIV causes AIDS can only repeat over and over again, “Much is known but more needs to be understood”; Fauci, for one, says that almost routinely. What exactly it is that’s known is never specified, however.

As always, it’s quite difficult to resist the emotional impulse to interpret the sorry state of affairs in terms of deliberate hoodwinking of the public by the experts and insiders. But there is a more plausible albeit complicated interpretation that’s based solidly in the history and sociology of science. Recognize that the vast majority of HIV/AIDS researchers are engaged in excruciatingly specialized studies of intricate details, based unthinkingly on the accepted dogma. No one who enters HIV/AIDS research has the slightest doubt about it. Therefore when conundrums are encountered, they are regarded as challenges and reasons for further research, not as potential falsification of the fundamental premise. This may be particularly so with those like Jay Levy who have been in the field since its beginning and whose careers are inseparable from HIV/AIDS theory.
It’s not that these people willfully ignore evidence, it’s that they are incapable of appreciating its significance because their mindset makes it literally inconceivable; it’s an illustration of the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance, by which our minds guard themselves against threats to our beliefs.
It follows that Rethinking cannot reasonably aim to change the minds of the HIV/AIDS research establishment: those will be the very last people to admit the truth. Change must be forced from the outside, by those who make public policy and feed the funding of research, treatment, and ancillary public activities. One tiny silver lining in the pervasively gloomy global economic clouds may be that some politicians might become willing to listen to claims that tens of billions of dollars are being wasted annually in pursuit of a non-existent entity that causes an invented disease.

———————————————————-
Literary digression:
The insight that “none are so blind as those who will not see” has been traced back as far as the 16th  century. Answers.com cites, apparently from the Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs:
Who is so deafe, or so blynde, as is hee, That willfully will nother here nor see [1546 J. Heywood Dialogue of Proverbs ii. ix. K4]
There is no manne so blynd as he that will not see, nor so dull as he that wyll not vnderstande [1551 Cranmer Answer to Gardiner 58]
My Wordsworth Dictionary of Proverbs (ed. G. L. Apperson, 1993) also gives, from 1547, Borde’s Breviary of Helthe
Concepts like this were doubtless known well before they could be traced in written records. For a delightful as well as informative illustration, see Robert Merton’s On the Shoulders of Giants.

Health-Threatening and Life-Threatening Tests

One of the worst aspects of standard HIV/AIDS practices is the failure to emphasize the unreliability of “HIV” tests. For example, a recent press release touts a self-administered HIV test:

“Orawell USA Helps Patients Discover the Presence of HIV Antibodies As Early As Three Months after Transmission
Following, is information from Orawell USA regarding some of the latest statistics concerning new scientific findings about how long after exposure it takes for the HIV virus to become visible in the human body.”

“ORAWELL means accuracy to the fullest.”

“Of the 1 million people in the United States living with AIDS, there are approximately 20 percent of patients that are unaware they have the disease. Doctors suggest that people be tested for AIDS annually if they have participated in any activity where exchange of bodily fluids has occurred, such as blood and semen. However, only about 10-20 percent of people in the US are tested each year. . . Today, because of scientific breakthroughs, one could test for HIV antibodies in the privacy of his or her home and have results within 10 minutes.
Orawell is an Oral HIV rapid test that tests for HIV1/2, and is recommended by doctors, and is proven to be more than 99% accurate. . . . The kit comes with tools that allow patients to collect a sample of saliva and place it on a test panel for analysis. After 10 minutes, the panel should display the results as positive or negative. . . . Orawell HIV1/2 rapid test is as simple as taking a home pregnancy test. It is affordable at $29.99 and is available on Amazon and http://www.orawellusa.com.”

Par for the PR press-release course are the deceptive claim of scientific breakthroughs and the typically deceptive citation of unnamed “doctors” who recommend this test as well as annual testing. Specific to HIV/AIDS matters is the failure to point out that detection of HIV antibodies does not mean infection by HIV, and that in fact there is no test at all for HIV infection — no laboratory test, no gold standard for such a test [Weiss & Cowan , “Laboratory detection of human retroviral infection”, Chapter 8 in Wormser (ed.), AIDS and Other Manifestations of HIV Infection, Academic Press, 4th ed., 2004].

Perhaps most damaging is the entirely misleading claim that the tests are 99% accurate. Any reasonable person must take that to mean that if one tests positive, there is at most 1 chance in 100 of a false positive, at most 1 chance in 100 that one is not “HIV-positive”. However, it’s a very basic mathematical, statistical, fact that the chance of a false positive depends not only on the purported accuracy of a test but also on the prior probability of being “HIV-positive”:
If the prevalence of some condition — call it “Z” — is at a low level in a population, 1% say, then out of an average 100 tested persons 1 will actually be Z-positive. A test that is 99% accurate means that i of every 100 tests will be wrong. So with population prevalence of 1% and test of 99% accuracy, there will be an equal number of true positives and false positives, 1 per 100 in each case. In other words, there is a 50% chance that an apparent, reported, “positive” is in reality a false positive.
The prevalence of “HIV-positive” in the United States is well under 1%, so the average chance of a false-positive test is greater than 50% with tests of 99% specificity and sensitivity.
The damage is considerable to any individual classed as “HIV-positive”: It’s a severe psychological blow (also to the individual’s family and associates), and in many cases becomes physical harm as well owing to “treatment” with the highly toxic medications.

It is simply unconscionable that people are urged to take HIV tests without being told of the high probability of a false positive and the damage potentially accruing from that.