Doing harm to babies
Posted by Henry Bauer on 2012/04/12
For me, the most harrowing consequence of HIV/AIDS theory is that babies are subjected to lifelong damage by antiretroviral treatments; even if they do not die early from immediate toxic effects of the drugs, they experience irreversible damage to the mitochondria which are the energy centers of all our cells (Hidden in plain sight: The damage done by antiretroviral drugs, 2011/07/25).
Babies are damaged in this way not only if they happen to be HIV-positive: they are subjected to antiretroviral toxins already in utero if their mothers happen to be HIV-positive — despite the evidence that pregnancy itself is likely to stimulate false-positive “HIV” tests (of course, ALL “HIV” positives are false positives, but pregnant women are much more likely than others to test poz — Why pregnant women tend to test “HIV-positive”, 5 October 2009).
The data show quite clearly that “HIV”-poz is more likely, the greater is physiological stress (The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, in particular Figure 22 and associated tables and discussion). Furthermore, most newborns that test “HIV-poz” revert to negative within a year, in absence of antiretroviral treatment and simply because the mother’s antibodies that make for a poz test have dissipated (The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, pp. 96-100).
Newborns lack effective immune systems and are safeguarded primarily by antibodies transferred from the mother and by the nutrition and safety from infection provided by breastfeeding. One of the major crimes committed by HIV/AIDS true believers is the advice to mothers, and the moral and legal pressures applied to HIV-poz mothers to avoid breastfeeding — in the face of hosts of studies revealing that exclusively breastfed babies do much better than others, “HIV” notwithstanding (HIV and breastfeeding again, 13 February 2008; More HIV, less infection: The breastfeeding conundrum, 21 November 2007).
David Crowe has just published a detailed, documented discussion of “The AIDS War on Breastfeeding”. Given that this is addressed to a general audience, the essay does not engage in argument about HIV/AIDS theory, it demonstrates that the pressure against breastfeeding is unwarranted and deleterious even on the mainstream’s own terms. This sad story, well into its third decade, illustrates how powerful a “mainstream consensus” is nowadays in the face of clear disproof. The only slightly cheering note is that the official sources are slowly retreating from their mistaken stance. At the same time, Crowe’s citations illustrate how deviously the mainstream tries to avoid admitting its mistakes.