Immaculate infection by HIV

The properties of HIV are so unusual, indeed actually unique, that one has been tempted at times  to consider them supernatural.

§     This virus, unlike any other, does not lose its virulence as it mutates, at an extraordinary rate, into dozens of “strains” and “recombinants”.

§    None of the strains can be neutralized by vaccination, and none of them can be inactivated by chemical microbicides.

§    HIV is “distinctively difficult to transmit” (according to its discoverer, Robert Gallo, p. 131 in Virus Hunting), with estimated rates of sexual transmission on the order of a few per thousand acts of unprotected intercourse; and yet it has produced explosively rapid epidemics — albeit only in restricted geographical regions and among specific groups of people in those regions.

§    It spreads by quite different mechanisms in different parts of the world.

§    In western Asia it spreads primarily through infected needles, even though the needles have no intercourse with one another.

§    It is transmitted from mother to child via breast milk, but not if the child is exclusively breast-fed.

§    It is quite politically incorrect, choosing to infect black people at rates 7-20 times greater than it infects white people, and it is even kinder to Asians who are infected at only about 2/3 the rate of whites.

§    It first infected human beings in mid-west Africa, but it caused disease first in discrete places in the USA and only among heavy users of drugs and indiscriminately and unsafely promiscuous people. Only a decade or two later did it (re)invade Africa, to cause its greatest damage not where it first appeared but only in the blackest regions of the South.

§    Though transmitted almost exclusively via sexual intercourse, it is most prone to infect people who are the least likely to be promiscuous, for instance pregnant women and tuberculosis patients.

§    Every other disease and illness kills older people more readily than younger adults; the mortality of people infected with HIV, however, is independent of age.

§    As time went by, HIV — in all its strains and varieties — learned how to cause more and more different illnesses — though none of them are new. At first HIV only knew how to cause Kaposi’s sarcoma, Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, and thrush. But soon it learned how to cause wasting, then dementia, and soon cervical cancer. By now it is producing cardiovascular disease and kidney and liver failure. One might say, therefore, that HIV is a quite novel type of virus, a new sort that one might call a  cuckoo type of virus, doing its damage by mimicking other causes just as cuckoos lay their eggs in foreign nests.

And so on. For fuller coverage of the uniqueness of HIV, please browse the posts under the category “HIV absurdities”.

But now HIV has outdone even itself: It has infected the baby of HIV-negative parents without the baby being exposed to any of the other known routes of HIV transmission:
“Mystery shrouds detection of HIV in 18-month-old”
It is difficult not to see in this a number of clues, signs, omens, that something supernatural is at work. “Mystery” is often used in connection with religious matters; and “shrouds” reminds one immediately of the Shroud of Turin.

Something or someone somewhere is somehow sending us a message.

Lessons from the “baby cure”

ABC News has an unusually well researched, insightful discussion by Sydney Lupkin of the much-ballyhooed alleged cure of an HIV-infected baby: “Experts question so-called HIV ‘cure’”.

The chief points raised are about lack of proof of infection and questions of informed consent. But I would like to point to some deeper issues in medical practice: doctors’ dilemmas and doctors’ ignorance.

“Caplan [medical-ethics specialist] and Kline [pediatric HIV specialist] said they believe Gay [the doctor responsible for the ‘cure’] had the patient’s interests at heart, and that she had the right to deviate from standard of care”.
Having a patient’s interest at heart is no more than the good intentions that, in general, pave the road to hell. Good intentions coupled with technical ignorance can have horrible consequences. Furthermore, human psychology being what it is, one’s belief to be acting with good intentions may not be well based if one suffers the usual conflicts of interest, say, wanting to demonstrate expertise.

“‘When we consider starting any medication in any patient, we always consider the risk-benefit ratio,’ Gay said during Monday’s press conference. ‘When the risk is something as serious as HIV disease, then it’s worth the benefit that you may get from preventing that disease. Even though you never want to start drugs that may cause toxicities, if the benefit outweighs the risk, you do it.’”
“Risk-benefit”, like “evidence-based medicine”, are phrases that can lull the unwary into believing that things are being done to the highest scientific standards.
But “evidence-based medicine” is a hope, a motto, an (impossible?) ideal, it is not a description of current practices, few if any of which are actually based on evidence; for example, innumerable people, are taking drugs to lower cholesterol or blood pressure and increase bone strength, yet “There are no valid data on the effectiveness . . . [of] statins, antihypertensives, and bisphosphanates” (the last, e.g. Fosamax, are prescribed against osteoporosis) — Järvinen et al., British Medical Journal, 342 (2011) doi: 10.1136/bmj.d2175.
As to “risk-benefit”, that sounds like a careful weighing of quantitative statistical data, when in practice — as in the baby-cure case — it’s no more than a subjective guess.

Ignorance about HIV/AIDS is the current “standard of care”, sadly.

For example, “transmission-reducing drugs during pregnancy . . . have been found to reduce the rate of HIV transmission to 1 percent, said Dr. Mark Kline, a pediatric HIV and AIDS specialist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. Without these prenatal preventive measures, babies have a 20 to 25 percent chance of becoming infected with their mother’s HIV”
— but those authoritative, impressive-appearing percentages are based, like all else about HIV, on tests that are simply not valid. Once more:

 THERE   ARE   NO   “HIV”   TESTS
 CAPABLE   OF   DIAGNOSING
 ACTUAL   INFECTION

—— S. H. Weiss & E. P. Cowan,
 “Laboratory Detection of Human Retroviral Infection”,
 Chapter 8 in Gary P. Wormser (ed.),
 AIDS and Other Manifestations of HIV Infection, 2004 (4th ed.).

The truth is hidden in plain sight, obscured only by cognitive dissonance. Thus Kline, who gets so much right — if only the premises were not wrong — apparently has not thought seriously about the implications of the absurdities  and conundrums that pervade HIV/AIDS theory:
“‘That’s a rather surprising statistic, I think, because you think to yourself: If the mother has HIV, won’t the newborn almost certainly also have HIV?’ Kline said. ‘In fact, even in an era in which we did nothing at all, only minor numbers of infants actually acquired HIV infection.’”

Exactly. Just as this supposedly sexually transmitted disease that supposedly galloped through southern Africa and elsewhere is, in the words of Gallo himself, “distinctively [sic] difficult to transmit” (Robert Gallo, Virus Hunting: AIDS, Cancer, and the Human Retrovirus: A Story of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books, 1991, p. 131);
and the officially claimed HIV+ rate in southern Africa can only be explained by postulating promiscuity so extraordinary that people could hardly have time for anything except sex and changing partners: James Chin, former epidemiologist for California and the World Health Organization, calculates that 20-40% of adults must have “multiple concurrent relationships” with several sexual partners, changing to new partners weekly or monthly, totaling to tens of different partners over the course of each year (The AIDS Pandemic, Radcliffe 2007, Table 5.1 on p. 64).

Surely the colossally mind-boggling absurdities and self-contradictions required by HIV/AIDS theory call for the most careful reconsideration of that theory; and reconsideration might bring to the fore the fact that “HIV” virions have never been isolated from patients even during so-called viremia when HIV is supposedly plentiful; and in absence of a sample of such virions, there cannot be a “gold standard” test to validate currently used tests. As Rodney Richards has pointed out, the so-called “HIV” tests are actually “AIDS” tests and have never been shown by evidence, only by official opinion, to show infection by HIV ( “The birth of antibodies equal infection”, Appendix II in Celia Farber, Serious Adverse Events, Melville House, 2006). “HIV” tests react positive when sera contain some of the things found in AIDS patients BUT  NOT  ONLY  IN  AIDS  PATIENTS  NOR  IN  ALL  AIDS  PATIENTS: several dozen conditions are capable of producing a positive “HIV” test, for instance such common diseases (in Africa) as tuberculosis (Christine Johnson, “Whose antibodies are they anyway? Factors known to cause false positive HIV antibody test results”, Continuum 4 (#3, Sept./Oct. 1996); also Figure 22, p. 83 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory).

When Dr. Gay talked of “something as serious as HIV disease”, her belief was based in large part on the fact that, since the introduction of antiretroviral drugs, “HIV” is being held responsible for all the “side” effects of the drugs; for instance the mal-distribution of fat caused primarily by protease inhibitors (PIs) is often referred to as “HIV lipodystrophy”  as though HIV and not the PIs were at fault.

In the abstract I can sympathize with doctors who follow official guidelines and believe they are doing right by their patients. In practice I am appalled at the human carnage consequent on stubborn adherence to an unsupportable theory, which remains unquestioned by innumerable so-called “researchers” even as contradictions of the theory crop up all the time. And I find myself unable to comprehend the mindset of practicing physicians who continue to administer “medications” to babies even when the result is screaming and convulsions; or the mindset of doctors supervising clinical trials where the drugs are so intolerable that they have to be forcibly administered via gastric tubes. Not to speak of the fanatics who try to justify such actions.

Baby might be saved

Breaking News: Rico Has Been Released From Hospital

Fighting to save a baby

There are more details about what has happened and is happening to Lindsey Nagel’s baby in this story; and in this one, which also has links to much more.

From one of our Board members who has been in touch with the family comes this:
The Nagels ask: “JOIN us at Mower County Courthouse – April 1st & 2nd – 9am”.

Bear in mind that Lindsey Nagel was saved from death-by-antiretroviral-drugs because her parents fled with her.

The fact that she has been healthy for 2 decades, while still HIV+, indicates that a positive HIV+ test on a baby does not mean an inevitable death sentence.
Of  course there’s a whole lot of other evidence, in the mainstream archive,  that HIV+ does not necessarily mean infection; and that there are “long-term non-progressors” or “elite controllers” who never become ill while HIV+.

See also the data in my earlier comment: Most HIV+ babies revert spontaneously to HIV-, because theybtested HIV+ only as a result of ANTIBODIES transferred from the mother.

Under those circumstances, it seems to me to be criminal medical malpractice to subject a newborn baby to antiretroviral treatment just because the mother may be HIV+ and a quick test on the baby also came up positive.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for citizens.

Should ignorance of medical facts be an excuse for doctors?
For social workers and lawyers who trust what the doctors say?

I’m reminded of a couple of decades ago when quite a number of British parents lost custody of their children on the grounds that they had been sexually abused. Eventually a Royal Commission, long demanded by the parents, found that the only evidence of sexual abuse was measurements made on the childrens’ anal muscles together with the hypothesis, initially by a single doctor, that those measurements could establish the occurrence of sexual abuse.
So much for late-20th century evidence-based medicine.

The Lindsey Nagel and baby Rico case illustrates that early-21st-century medicine is no more evidence-based than medical practice was a few decades, or a few centuries, or a few millennia ago.

More about killing a baby in Minnesota

A one-hour video on YouTube describes Lindsey Nagel’s experience of being saved from antiretroviral toxins. Now she is seeing her baby being slowly poisoned against the wishes of the baby’s parents and grandparents.

Gary Null hosts the video which features Lindsey’s father and Celia Farber,  David Rasnick, Andrew Maniotis