OFFICIAL: NOTHING is KNOWN about HIV/AIDS

The mainstream literature reveals quite clearly that essentially nothing is known or understood about “HIV” or about “AIDS”; but to appreciate these revelations one must be prepared sometimes to read more or less between the lines.

A fine opportunity for that was provided by the recent 20th International AIDS Conference. The lack of knowledge is not admitted overtly but it clearly underlies what the HIV/AIDS protagonists regard as grist for further research funding. For example, When will there be a cure?
“‘We have plenty of data telling us we can make progress,’ said Françoise Barré-Sinoussi . . . . But she’s not foolish enough to give a timetable. She recalled predictions in the mid-1980s that a vaccine would be relatively simple to design. As of now, of course, there is still no vaccine even close to clinical availability.”

30 years of promises, announced breakthroughs later retracted, and other “progress” haven’t gotten anywhere.

What needs to be known?
“Which cells are targets? How do they work? Are there antibodies that can be manipulated? How? What cells can harbor latent HIV? Can they be located and destroyed?”

“[W]e don’t know how to eradicate the virus. We don’t know all its hiding places. And we don’t have good tools to measure it even in the hiding places we know about.”

And of course the central question remains, how on Earth “HIV” is supposed to destroy the immune system. No credible mechanism has been discovered during these 30+ years (section 1.3 in The Case against HIV).

One doesn’t know whether to laugh or to cry in recalling Robert Gallo’s assertion a couple of decades ago: “We probably know more about how HIV produces its pathology than
about the pathological mechanism of virtually any other microbe” (p. 296 in Virus Hunting: AIDS, Cancer, and the Human Retrovirus: A Story of Scientific Discovery, 1991).

As to the Mississippi baby that had been thought to have been cured by massive antiretroviral treatment starting at birth, a couple of years later she was found to be still (or again!?) “infected”. More conundrums:
Ø The child had no detectable immune response to HIV before the rebound. What was keeping the virus at bay?
Ø Sensitive tests could find no latent virus. Where was HIV hiding?
Ø What triggered the rebound?

Dissidents, of course, DO understand what’s going on. There’s no such thing as “HIV infection”. “HIV+” is a very non-specific biomarker for a number of conditions, chiefly those associated with weakened immune systems involving CD4 cells; but not only those: for example, pregnancy is a “risk factor” for testing “HIV+” (section 3.2.2.5 in The Case against HIV).

HIV/AIDS theory rests on the ignorant mistake that is so prevalent, notably in medical “research”: confusing an association with a causal relationship. “AIDS” victims often tested “HIV+” because some or many of the conditions umbrella’d under “AIDS” are associated with weakened immune systems and the propensity to test “HIV+”.

By construing positive tests as signs of infection, mainstream researchers are chasing phantoms, inevitably turning up conundrums and mysteries and enigmas, endlessly chasing red herrings and wild geese. Browse the rich crop of absurdities generated in this way.

Nothing about HIV/AIDS theory makes sense or fits the evidence, but the mainstream continues its insane pursuits: insane because they keep repeating the same blunder-based activities and expecting that somehow there will be a different result, that understanding instead of conundrums will somehow pop up.