HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

HAART is toxic: Mainstream concedes it, in backhanded ways

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2011/12/30

Just as it’s rare to find “HIV” mentioned without the add-on of “AIDS” or “the virus that causes AIDS”, so it’s rare to see antiretroviral drugs mentioned without the adjective “life-saving”. Yet the technical mainstream literature is replete with backhanded admissions that antiretroviral drugs are highly toxic.
What do I mean by backhanded? Making the admission in such a way that it seems like not an admission.
For example, in what the Journal of Infectious Diseases  labeled a “Major Article”, Walensky et al. calculated “The survival benefits of AIDS treatment in the United States” (194 [2006] 11-19) without claiming any survival benefit for the use of AZT from its introduction up to its approval in 1994 for prevention of mother-to-child transmission. Yet when mainstream researchers are confronted with dissident statements about the lack of life-saving benefit of AZT and its toxicity, they resist ferociously by every conceivable evasive maneuver.

I’ve just come across another choice example of admitting in one context what in other contexts is not admitted. The activist gurus of the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) have long castigated President Mbeki and others for not providing the life-saving benefits of antiretroviral drugs to South Africans. But now the very same self-appointed experts, in collaboration with Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) have asked the Gates Foundation  not to support a clinical trial in which the relative benefits of tenofovir are to be compared with stavudine at 20 mg dosage — because stavudine is so toxic!
Mbeki was President of South Africa from 1999 to 2008. Had he bowed to TAC activists, he would have been providing this highly toxic stavudine to his fellow country-people, because stavudine has been one of the staples of antiretroviral treatment since the mid-1990s. It was approved for adults in the middle of 1994, and for children in the latter part of 1996. In 1998 it was recommended for antiretroviral treatment at dosage of  40 mg for body weights > 60 kg and 30 mg for <60 kg (MMWR 47, RR-5, 24 April). The Treatment Guidelines issued by the National Institutes of Health have sanctioned use of stavudine as first-line or alternative ever since, despite the pleas by the World Health Organization cited  in the TAC/MSF letter to the Gates Foundation.
The letter says, “In 2004, stavudine was removed from the list of preferred first-line antiretroviral drugs recommended by the US Department of Health and Human Services”. That might mislead unwary readers into thinking that stavudine had been removed from all recommended uses, whereas in fact it continues to be listed in the Treatment Guidelines as an available alternative. Thus the Guidelines of 1 December 2009 include the following:
“The 2NN trial compared efavirenz and nevirapine, both given with stavudine and lamivudine, in treatment-naïve  patients. Virologic responses were similar for both drugs, although nevirapine was associated with greater toxicity and  did not meet criteria for noninferiority compared with efavirenz”, illustrating that stavudine was by no means regarded as beyond the pale.
Note too the mention of toxicity of nevirapine. Dissidents have long protested the use of nevirapine and AZT as the standard procedure recommended to avoid mother-to-child prevention of transmission of “HIV”, whereas vigilantes like the TAC gurus have consistently supported these uses of these drugs — see for example “Nevirapine, TB, and HIV/AIDS”  and “Nevirapine — P.S.”
Of course the Treatment Guidelines do acknowledge the toxicity of stavudine:

— at least in combination with lamivudine. But “Not recommended as initial therapy [emphasis added]” is not at all the same as “Should not be used”.
The 2009 Guidelines also warn that “combined use of didanosine and stavudine as a dual-NRTI backbone can result in a  high incidence of toxicities, particularly peripheral neuropathy, pancreatitis, and lactic acidosis . . . . This  combination has been implicated in several deaths of HIV-infected pregnant women secondary to severe lactic acidosis  with or without hepatic steatosis and pancreatitis . . . . Therefore, the combined use of didanosine and stavudine is not recommended”. Again, “not recommended” is not synonymous with “should not be used”.
Furthermore, “NRTI Substitutions (e.g., changing from zidovudine or stavudine to tenofovir or abacavir): This may be considered for a patient who has no history of viral resistance on an NRTI-containing regimen” (p. 74) illustrates that both zidovudine (= AZT) and stavudine continued, in 2009, to be standard components of antiretroviral cocktails.
Beyond that, the dangerous combination of didanosine and stavudine continues to be recommended as a possible last resort:

or if patients already have renal or hepatic insufficiency (= kidney or liver disease):

Perhaps the reasoning is that they’re dying anyway, maybe the stavudine will help them along?

So by 2009 there were certain caveats to the use of stavudine, by contrast to the “strong recommendations” for its use in earlier years, even in the deadly combination with didanosine:
In February 2001, the Treatment Guidelines “strongly recommended” stavudine “for initial treatment of established HIV infection”, in combination with “didanosine or lamivudine plus efavirenz or indinavir”.
Again in July 2003, The “Recommended Combination  Antiretroviral Regimens” included  “Efavirenz + (zidovudine or tenofovir or stavudine)  + lamivudine as preferred initial NNRTI-based  regimens (except for pregnant women)”.
In  October 2005, it was downgraded to ordinary, not strongly recommended:
“NNRTI-Based Regimens —  Efavirenz + (didanosine or abacavir or stavudine) + (lamivudine or emtricitabine) (except during pregnancy, particularly the first trimester, or in women  with high pregnancy potential)”. However, it was still lauded for efficacy: “The most experience with efavirenz, demonstrating  good virologic responses, has been shown in  combination with 2-NRTI backbones of lamivudine plus zidovudine, tenofovir, stavudine, abacavir, or  didanosine”. “Alternative PI-based regimens may include: . . . all used in  combination with zidovudine or stavudine or  tenofovir . . .”.
For “Selection of Dual Nucleoside ‘Backbone’  as Part of Initial Combination Therapy” the recommendation was “(Zidovudine or tenofovir) + (lamivudine or emtricitabine) as the 2-NRTI backbone of choice  as part of some combination regimens. . . . (Stavudine or didanosine or abacavir) + (lamivudine or emtricitabine) may be used as  alternative 2-NRTI backbone combinations”.
“It may be necessary to prescribe alternative NRTIs for some patients because of side effects of these agents, such as bone marrow  suppression with zidovudine and the increasingly reported toxicities including lipoatrophy and  symptomatic lactic acidosis with stavudine”.
A backhanded admission that AZT/ZDV suppresses the bone marrow — an admission that was not made, of course, when Duesberg said it and pointed out that this kills the immune system, so that the drugs produce the very disease they are supposed to treat.
Given the acknowledged toxicities, why are antiretroviral drugs continuing to be administered?
Because of  their supposed effectiveness — effective in lowering “viral load”, that is: “Both the tenofovir + lamivudine combination and stavudine + lamivudine combination  are highly and durably effective when used in  combination with efavirenz, with data up to 144 weeks . . . .  In this study, patients randomized to the stavudine + lamivudine arm experienced more adverse effects including peripheral neuropathy and  hyperlipidemia”.  “The combined use of didanosine and stavudine as a 2-NRTI backbone can  result in a high incidence of toxicities, particularly peripheral neuropathy, pancreatitis, and lactic acidosis . . . .This combination has been implicated in  several deaths in HIV-1 infected pregnant women  secondary to severe lactic acidosis with or without hepatic steatosis and pancreatitis . . . . In general, a  combination containing didanosine and stavudine should be avoided unless other 2-NRTI combinations have failed or have caused unacceptable toxicities, and where potential benefits outweigh the risks of toxicities”.
“Avoided unless” once again falls far short of condemning the use.
Evidently the “operation” is a success if it kills “HIV”, even if the patient also dies in the process.
Note the shameless evasion or disclaiming of responsibility in weasel-expressions like “where potential benefits outweigh the risks of toxicities”. How might one practice that? By spelling out what the risks actually are and what the benefits are supposed to be — what are the odds ratios? For absolute risk and absolute benefit? Does anyone do that for patients?
Note too that “not recommended” is the Treatment Guidelines’ backhanded way of acknowledging dangerous toxicity. Stavudine went from “strongly recommended” merely to “not recommended” and “alternative” when other things don’t seem to work. Yet the TAC/MSF letter cites copious evidence that stavudine is so toxic that it shouldn’t be used even at half the original dosage, even in a clinical trial where incipient adverse events would be closely monitored. That’s because “For good reason, tenofovir has become the gold standard for today’s first-line antiretroviral  therapy”.
That surprised me, since I had blogged about the toxicity of tenofovir already 4 years ago: “To avoid HIV later, damage your kidneys and liver now”; “Tenofovir and the ethics of clinical trials”; “Kidney-disease denialism (a special case of HAART denialism)”: “increasing exposure to tenofovir was associated with a higher incidence of CKD [chronic kidney disease] . . . . Nephrolithiasis was seen in up to 27% of patients treated with indinavir . . . and there are numerous studies . . . demonstrating that tenofovir is associated with impaired kidney function”.

Not that I claim to have discovered the toxicity of tenofovir — it’s noted in government sources:

as well as by the manufacturers:

To summarize:
Stavudine was highly recommended for antiretroviral treatment for about a decade and is still in use, though it was soon found to be so toxic that TAC/MSF describes it as unacceptably toxic — by comparison to tenofovir, which has been known for years to cause serious liver damage  and lactic acidosis, both potentially fatal. But then, as noted in the manufacturer’s warning above, these toxicities are associated with all nucleoside analogues (NRTIs).

How many people were killed or maimed by stavudine during the decade or so when it was strongly recommended and used routinely?

TAC/MSF are correct: “There is therefore no good reason why a properly  informed patient should want to enrol in this study” [of tenofovir vs. 20 mg stavudine]. But they ought to have made that more general:

A properly informed “HIV-positive” patient
would refuse antiretroviral drugs altogether.

The TAC/MSF letter stretches over 4 pages and is a cornucopia of other deficiencies. To support their claim of tenofovir’s superiority, for instance, they cite an article just published “ahead of print” — when anyone who understands science knows that no just-published claim is to be taken seriously until others have confirmed it. The letter refers to the “Serious adverse event” of mitochondrial toxicity, without acknowledging that this serious adverse event is characteristic of ALL antiretroviral drugs. That’s been known for a long time: “Hidden in plain sight: The damage done by antiretroviral drugs”.

I’m left with a curiosity about the social psychology of all this. What could stimulate this group of people to compose so pompous and unwieldy a petition whose only purpose is to give preference to one highly toxic drug over another highly toxic drug?
I think this illustrates how addled brains become when they have been so indoctrinated as to lose the ability to weigh the actual evidence.
Or, as I’ve mused before, behold what cognitive dissonance does to true believers.

20 Responses to “HAART is toxic: Mainstream concedes it, in backhanded ways”

  1. Francis said

    Happy New Year Henry.

    The mainstream quite openly concedes that HAART is Toxic, you just have to look at the correct literature as this snippet from a December 2010 abstract in the Journal of Clinical Pharmacology shows,

    “The strong need for the development of alternative anti-HIV agents is primarily due to the emergence of strain-resistant viruses, the need for sustained adherence to complex treatment regimens and the toxicity of currently used antiviral drugs.”

    Now this statement doesn’t single out any specific anti retroviral it plainly says, “Currently Used Antiviral Drugs”, that’s all of them. What’s actually disturbing from this abstract though, is whilst correctly condemning the current crop of poisons, it’s promoting the use of a “New” drug called Rapamycin that has shown promising results against HIV.

    Rapamycin is hardly new though as it can be referenced back to 1975 and is sourced from another fungus that grows on the side of those giant heads on Easter Island (Weird or what).

    “Rapamycin is a macrolide antibiotic produced by a species of the fungus Streptomyces, found in Easter Island (Rapa Nui). The Ayerst Company in Canada first investigated rapamycin as an anti-fungal and anti-tumour agent. It caused severe lymphocyte depletion in experimental animals and therefore was shelved.”

    In its current form though it was licensed by the FDA in 1999, not as an anti fungal agent, but as an immune suppressant agent predominantly for use in liver transplant patients to prevent organ rejection by the immune system.

    “A drug used to keep the body from rejecting organ and bone marrow transplants. Rapamycin blocks certain white blood cells that can reject foreign tissues and organs. It also blocks a protein that is involved in cell division. It is a type of antibiotic, a type of immunosuppressant, and a type of serine/threonine kinase inhibitor. Rapamycin is now called sirolimus.”

    Now if you bother to read about the action of the drug Rapamycin it is an effective immune suppressant as it targets CD4 cells. Simply put it very effectively kills CD4 lymphocytes to provide immune suppression. I’m at that point left wondering WTF? isn’t HIV infection all about the virus killing off CD4 cells to an end point where one is classed as having an Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, the deficiency of course being a lack of CD4 cells in the peripheral blood?

    I’m at a loss, how does taking an immune suppressing drug assist someone suffering an immune deficiency? Unless of course by taking it you kill off all the T Cells and therefore PCR will show no virus being present in you. Undetectable Viral Load is the Holy Grail of all anti viral medications and “proves” efficacy, you still have AIDS at that mute point though and the Grim Reaper is not far from your door. I was also aghast when reading about the possible side effects of Rapamycin itself which can include fatal lung infections, fatal brain infections, increased chance of numerous cancers etc etc etc in fact it reads just like AZT.

    I also wonder (cynically) if Rapamycin which is also known by a trade name Rapammune (which suggests an immune function) will itself mutate rapidly in to something like Rapavir (suggesting an anti viral action) if approved for use as an HIV medication.

    If you think it’s far fetched just Google up Rapamycin and HIV, yes they are actually hard at it.

    Have a great New Year Folks and remember medicine is working for you and your family and a better world in the future.

    • Henry Bauer said

      I’d come across rapamycin somewhere, and its toxicity and immune suppression, but I hadn’t seen that extraordinary item you mention, of its possible use “against HIV”. Of course that would be a direct confirmation of Duesberg’s classic critique, that anti-HIV drugs cause the disease they are supposed to treat.
      And Happy New Year also to you — As I recall, you’re in the Antipodes and started the New Year about 15 hours ahead of me 🙂

  2. Martin said

    Happy New Year Dr. Bauer! Now why would possibly the most toxic chemotherapy ever made (AZT) be prescribed to people whose immune system was either severely compromised or collapsed? Here’s my theoretical justification: these AIDS “scientists” knew they couldn’t find HIV in human beings that were supposedly “infected” much less isolate it. But they “knew” it must be there (in the body) somewhere. So there’s this chemotherapy developed 20-30 years earlier that was so powerful, it killed all the rats in the toxicity study — too toxic to use as a cancer treatment. So they proposed prescribing it to AIDS patients in the belief that, this stuff will kill anything! Nothing could withstand an AZT assault including retroviruses. As an aside, how could any honest scientist claim a so-called treatment resistant (to AZT) viral strain. That’s medically impossible except in the fantasy world of the HIV/AIDS establishment.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Intriguing rhetorical question. I haven’t seen anyone else pose the riddle of how anything could become resistant to AZT, or by extension to the other NRTIs. I’d welcome comments from biochemists, molecular biologists, immunologists…

  3. Jean Umber said

    I think biologists have foolishly thought it was enough to add into the cell a nucleoside analogue in which the 3′ OH would be replaced by something that would prevent the esterification of the phosphate of another nucleoside and therefore which would also prevent replication of virus DNA.

    The substance they had on hand was AZT. They found it should be used in vitro 1.5 g AZT per day for a 70 kg person to prevent the virus replication (in fact to eliminate p24). That’s why they used this dose for 6 or 7 years. Decreasing the dosage under the pressure of facts (Concorde study) is actually in complete contradiction to their initial experiments. The “therapeutic” then became a real kitchen.

    Then, by applying the method of screening, they tested various analogues and stumbled into substances that appeared to be more effective (lamivudine and emtricitabine). It is possible that they (reducing agents) simply chemically counteract the toxic effects of AZT (oxidant).

    Note that in all the studies you mention, one of these two compounds is routinely used, as they have not studied them alone.

    With regard to tenofovir, its structure of organophosphorus compound (it contains a carbon phosphorus bond) makes it toxic in the same way that some herbicides that are similar chemically, which, too, reduce the replication of DNA. But those people will never admit it.

  4. SkepticalGuy said

    It seems reasonable to assume Jean Umber has a background in chemistry!

    Jean Umber:
    … the 3′ OH would be replaced by something that would prevent the esterification of the phosphate of another nucleoside and therefore which would also prevent replication of virus DNA.

    You remind me here of something I have had tumbling in my mind for several years, so I’ll ask if anyone can clarify:
    AZT as anti-retroviral. Who came up with that idea? They dust off an old, toxic drug and just say “AH! This will work!”
    I understand RNA cannot be affected, so the designation as ARV has rightly been questioned, but I have wondered about the claim that it is 1000 times (?) more effective at destroying infected cells. I know Duesberg mentioned it in a paper, but I don’t think he explained it too deeply. That particular claim of AZT has always seemed to me to be outrageous, and probably the most fraudulent. I’ve wondered what evidence or proof they have for such a claim? It would also seem the most easiest to discredit, and thereby call the entire AZT “efficacy” into serious question.

    That was very interesting! I perused your links, and looked up a few myself. Although one paper was a bit too technical for me to come to any conclusion at the time, it did mention a specific effect on CD4 cells, although I couldn’t determine what exactly that was. Apparently one of its effects occurred at a later stage during some chemical process, and THAT differentiated it from another type of drug, but you stated >> “Rapamycin is an effective immune suppressant as it targets CD4 cells. Simply put it very effectively kills CD4 lymphocytes to provide immune suppression.”

    Most of the links just said lymphocytes in general. Maybe I’m nitpicking?

    Nonetheless, pretty scary. Overall depletion of the immune system to treat immune system depletion.
    Reminds me of something I heard recently somewhere (possibly a guest on radio show?) that made me chuckle, and maybe some of you have heard it before, but darn it, it reminds me of AIDS…

    “The surgery was a success, but the patient died!”
    HAART, anyone?

    • Henry Bauer said

      Skeptical Guy:
      Bruce Nussbaum, “Good Intentions”, gives a detailed account of AZT against AIDS

  5. SkepticalGuy said

    One quick question for all, especially Henry:

    Having followed this topic, as well as blog, for a number of years now, I have wondered, how has this affected your overall view of medicine, alternative medicine, etc?
    It would seem to me that delving deep into this subject would leave a lasting impression on one’s trust in medical science and institutions as a whole.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Skeptical Guy:
      You’re right. I was led to read about medicine in general, and realized that present-day drug-centered medicine has gone badly off track with respect to chronic conditions — cardiovascular, adult-onset diabetes, arthritis, osteoporosis — which are actually accompaniments of old age, not diseases. See list of books at

      • That page suggests “The plethora of exposés has not stopped the abuses, let alone needed reforms.”

        I think there is a word such as “provided” missing from just before “needed”. Such flaws lead me to suggest that *every* potentially flawed web page (and which are not?) needs a prominent FEEDBACK button to lead toward a more perfect future.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Richard Karpinski:
        Took me a while to figure out which page you meant.

  6. Rogers said

    Hi “AIDS Denailists”

    I have been recently tested positive for HIV to gether with my partner who is about 28 weeks pregnant. The question that i ask is if we still deny existence of this virus how possible is that multiple tests detected this virus from both of us? we have done a test sometime last year and we were both negative. is it not too much of a coincident?

    last question – i am also reluctant about the use of the ARV drugs and i just want to know what are the chances of our survival (including the baby) if we reject the drugs?

    • Henry Bauer said


      See my response to Rony. The chief point is that “HIV” tests can respond to a huge variety of substances and conditions. Some of those are infectious, so partners may well start to test “positive” at about the same time.

      It has never been shown that “HIV” even exists. It has never been shown that positive “HIV” tests even correlate with the incidence of AIDS; that’s fully documented from mainstream sources in my book, The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, Jefferson (NC): McFarland 2007

      • Rogers said

        Thanks for the response Henry

        Yes. My partner has been diagonised with HPV sometime in October last year (however both of our HIV tests were negative at that time) and of course this was never detected on me due to lack of HPV test on males. I am suspecting that our systems could be producing antibodies for HPV and that perhaps the ELISA test is detecting just that. Could this be a possibility in your view?

        lastly, what is your reponse to my last sentence above? ” … i am also reluctant about the use of the ARV drugs and i just want to know what are the chances of our survival (including the baby) if we reject the drugs?”

      • Henry Bauer said


        Cross-reaction between HPV and HIV tests seems very likely. In 1993, CDC declared cervical cancer to be an HIV-caused disease, i.e. a significant proportion of cervical-cancer patients tested “HIV+”. A few years ago, the Nobel Prize was awarded for discovering that it’s HPV that causes cervical cancer, i.e. a significant proportion of cervical-cancer patients tests HPV-positive.

        Read for yourself the Treatment Guidelines issued — and modified several times a year — by NIH. Their listing of toxicities and morbidities from ARVs would deter anyone from taking them.

        Most babies who test “HIV+” revert to negative within a year, because they tested positive only because of substances (“HIV antibodies”, in mainstream jargon) transferred from the mother and which dissipate in a matter of months.

        Keep in mind that all of the test-kits acknowledge that they have not been approved for diagnosis of HIV infection: a positive “HIV” tests does not mean infection! Furthermore, there are no confirmatory tests, according to a mainstream monograph now in its 4th edition — S. H. Weiss and E. P. Cowan, “Laboratory detection of human retroviral infection”, Chapter 8 in AIDS and Other Manifestations of HIV Infection, ed. G. P. Wormser, 2004.


        The trouble with all these general points I make is that individual cases may be different in some way. Testing “HIV+” might indicate something that should be treated; certainly NOT “HIV infection”, though. Ideally you would find a doctor who would not accept the HIV orthodoxy and would judge illness by actual symptoms and not by lab tests.

        There are plenty of stories from “HIV+” people who never become ill from anything like “AIDS”, for example reported in Christine Maggiore’s book, “What if everything you thought you knew about AIDS was wrong?”
        At our Oakland Rethinking AIDS Conference, we heard from the Nagels, who rescued their adopted daughter Lindsey from ARV treatment by moving away from the medical services that were enforcing treatment; and Lindsey has been healthy for 2 decades — albeit very short in height — and recently gave birth to a healthy baby herself.

        ARVS are known to cause damage to mitochondria, which are the universal energy-producing centers in all cells. Such damage is irreversible, and mitochondrial deterioration is widely thought to be a significant cause of aging.

        It is a very unhappy state of affairs, that we cannot rely on the advice from the medical establishment and have to do our own research, as best we can, pertinent to our own particular circumstances. Marcia Angell, former editor at the New England Journal of Medicine, has written:

        One result of the pervasive bias is that physicians learn to practice a very
        drug-intensive style of medicine. Even when changes in lifestyle would be
        more effective, doctors and their patients often believe that for every ailment
        and discontent there is a drug. Physicians are also led to believe that the
        newest, most expensive brand-name drugs are superior to older drugs or
        generics, even though there is seldom any evidence to that effect…. [C]on –
        flicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particu-
        larly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible
        to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the
        judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no
        pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my
        two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.
        — “Drug companies and doctors: a story of corruption,” New York Review of Books, 56 #1, 15 January 2009.

        If you read BAD PHARMA (2013) by Ben Goldacre, MD, you will not take any prescription drug introduced in the last couple of decades, which includes ARVs.

        I hope this response helps. I personally would never take an ARV or give it to a baby. I’m fortunate, though, in having a doctor who DISCUSSES with me, and respects my own searching of the literature, and allows me to make final decisions; for example, that it makes no sense for an 80-year-old with average blood pressure about 160/75 to take blood-pressure-lowering drugs.

      • Rogers said

        Thanks Henry

        I will choose not to be on ARVs (more especially because im not sick) and hopefully i will convience my wife to do the same. I will also convince my wife not to put any of these drugs on our son. Please note that i choose to do this because of my own skepticism (should anything happen :)). Whenever i get sick i’ll make no assusmptions about my HIV status and will deal with the desease and possibly the cause.

        Thanks a million for clarifying my questions. I will stay close to this blog and update you as time progress.

      • Rogers said


        One last question. How would you explain an HIV positive test through ELISA, a viral load of 70 000 through PCR and a CD4 Count of 300? what else could cause all of these factors combined?

        Could a PCR viral load test also react to flu and could a cd4 count drop because of flue or pregnancy?

      • Henry Bauer said


        The worst problem with all research being based on HIV/AIDS theory is that there are probably not sufficient data anywhere, certainly not published, to answer your question. We know that ELISA has many false positives. We know that viral load does not measure actual virus particles. We know that CD4 counts (in the blood) vary over a very wide range in healthy people, including from day to day or even hour to hour.

        CD4 counts can be low for many reasons, but I don’t know specifically about flu or pregnancy.

        I’m going to send you query to a number of people who might have more informative responses.

      • Benedetto said

        yeah, a positive Elisa and WB, followed by a positive viremia, and a low cd4 count, all lined up.. too much of a coincidence, isn’t it? that’s exactly what I’d been replied by a friend of mine, hiv positive, when I tried to explain to him how meaningless those tests/markers are.. he cut me short by saying that maybe they can even be meaningless on their own, but ..but when they all appear together, in the same person, then.. isn’t it too much for a meaningless coincidence?
        Needless to say that he left me speechless..maybe he has a point, doesn’t he? Henry, what do you think, what would you have replied to him? thank you.

        PS – and by the way, what do you think about the Roberto Giraldo’s point of view on the diluition ratio (1:400) of the sera in the Elisa Tests. For me, it is preatty clear that he has a point, insofar the diluition ratio heavily affects the cut-off of the test… who established such treshold, and how/why? thanks again

      • Henry Bauer said


        It doesn’t have to be a “meaningless” “coincidence”. The original “HIV” test was actually an AIDS test: Designed to respond to what turned out to be about a dozen proteins that were often found in people ill from a variety of fungal infections (PCP, candida) plus damage to arteries (“KS”). Then the “viral load” test picked up substances — bits of RNA or DNA — that are also often found in popeple who are ill from a variety of causes (drug abuse, long history of gonorrhea, syphilis, etc. etc. and many courses of antibiotics).

        So of course one will sometimes find, with some unknown number of infections or ilnesses or other conditions, that all those “tests” are “positive” at the same time. Maybe “HPV” is one of the stimulants to produce “+” on all of those! After all, since cervical cancer has been attributed authoritatively to both HIV and HPV, it means that “HIV” and “HPV” tests both respond often to substances found in people with cervical cancer.

        Keep in mind that we know beyond doubt that “HIV” doesn’t cause “AIDS”. We also know that “HIV” tests are incredibly non-specific, i.e. they generate “false positives” in a huge range of conditions. “HIV” tests, all of them, are meaningless in the sense that they do not detect infection by “HIV” — and, of course, they have never been approved for such detection as the test kits state plainly.

        As to the 1:400 dilution, it’s my understanding that this has not been the procedure for a long time — so I was told by someone who has worked with these tests, but I don’t know the details of how the procedure was able to be changed. It’s irrelevant to the present point, anyway.

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