HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Posts Tagged ‘Perth Group’


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2008/02/16

MacDonald reminded me that the Perth Group have documented in devastating fashion that “HIV-positive” data on mothers and babies proves that testing HIV-positive does not signify an infection.

I really should have emphasized that when commenting on the self-contradictions regarding “HIV” and breastfeeding (HIV and BREASTFEEDING AGAIN, 13 February 2008; FIRST: DO NO HARM!, 19 December 2007; MORE HIV, LESS INFECTION: THE BREASTFEEDING CONUNDRUM, 21 November 2007) and claims of mother-to-child transmission generally (for instance, TWINS ATTRACT THEIR MOTHER’S HIV, 12 January 2008; HIV-POSITIVE CHILDREN, HIV-NEGATIVE MOTHERS, 25 November 2007).

The Perth Group’s website has two comprehensive discussions available as links: “Monograph on mother-to-child transmission”, and “BMJ Online Debate”.

MacDonald cited (from the latter) this concise yet fully documented argument by the Perth Group in response to orthodox viewpoints pressed by a certain Peter Flegg:

“In regard to ‘HIV’ seropositive mothers, their infants and antibody specificity, we would be grateful for Peter Flegg’s view on the following:

In 1987 the CDC advised: ‘Most of the [CDC] consultants believed that passively transferred maternal HIV antibody could sometimes persist for up to 15 months’. (18 ) In 1991 the CDC extended the time to 18 months 13 and by 1995 ‘…the range of WB seroconversions might eventually extend beyond 30 months’, (14) that is, at double the age ‘believed’ eight years earlier. Before the AIDS era the evidence was that transplacental maternal antibody in offspring did not persist beyond nine months.(15) In 1993, Parekh from the CDC developed ‘a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-specific 1gG-Fc capture enzyme immunoassay (1gG-CEIA) to elucidate the dynamics of HIV-1 maternal antibody decay and de novo synthesis of HIV-1 antibodies in infants’. He and his colleagues demonstrated a rapid decay of maternal ‘HIV’ antibody ‘with decline to background levels by 6 months’. (16 ) In other words, if the ‘HIV’ antibody test is specific, any child who has a positive ‘HIV’ antibody test beyond 9 months should remain positive for the remainder of his or her life. In the only study providing a detailed analysis of post partum loss of infant HIV seropositivity, the European Collaborative Study, (17) approximately 23% of the children became seronegative between birth and 9 months. However, 59% became seronegative between 9 and 22 months. Since the latter cannot be due to loss of maternal antibodies, the only explanation is that either: (i) the antibody test is non-specific or; (ii) the children managed to clear ‘HIV’ infection without treatment. If 23% of children test positive because of maternal antibodies and in 59% the test is non-specific, how certain can Peter Flegg be that in the remaining 18% of children the test will not also serorevert after 22 months? Or if the test remains positive, is it a true positive? May we ask, what does Peter Flegg tell the mother of a child who tests positive between 9 and 30 months and what is his approach to the clinical management of this child?”

The cited references are

14. Chantry CJ, Cooper ER, Pelton SI, Zorilla C, Hillyer GV, Diaz C. Seroreversion in human immunodeficiency virus-exposed but uninfected infants. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1995;14(5):382-7.

15. Stiehm ER. Immunologic diseases in infants and children. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company, 1973.

16. Parekh BS, Shaffer N, Coughlin R, Hung CH, Krasinski K, Abrams E, et al. Dynamics of maternal IgG antibody decay and HIV-specific antibody synthesis in infants born to seropositive mothers. The NYC Perinatal HIV Transmission Study Group. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1993;9:907-12.

17. Epidemiology, clinical features, and prognostic factors of paediatric HIV infection. Italian Multicentre Study. Lancet 1988;ii:1043-6.

18. CDC. Current Trends Classification System for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection in Children Under 13 Years of Age. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1987;36:225-30, 235-6.


One can hardly ask for better grounded reasons for recognizing that “HIV-positive” does not signify permanent infection; and that consequently all the claims of mother-to-child transmission of a virus — be it perinatally or as a result of breastfeeding — cannot be taken as valid, based as they are on the most dubious grounds.

Given these facts, how could anyone recommend the administering of toxic antiretroviral drugs to pregnant women and babies? Yet now we have studies exploring how longer exposure to these drugs might influence the spurious indications of the presence of “HIV” (HIV and BREASTFEEDING AGAIN, 13 February 2008).

Posted in antiretroviral drugs, HIV in children, HIV tests, HIV transmission | Tagged: , , | 6 Comments »


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2008/01/12

“twin pregnancies remained associated with a 2.3-fold increased risk of mother-to-child HIV spread.

The association was particularly strong . . . in cases of premature rupture of the membranes, a condition in which the sack around the foetus breaks early. In such cases, the risk of mother-to-child HIV spread was increased 4.5-fold.

‘In cases of multiple pregnancies in HIV-infected women, [physicians] must take into account the risk of preterm premature rupture of the membranes and preterm delivery,’ the investigators conclude. ‘In particular, we would recommend starting effective [anti-HIV] therapy no later than beginning of the second trimester.’”

This report emanated from Dr Laurent Mandelbrot of the University of Paris, courtesy ReutersHealth, 12 June 2007.

There’s an obvious need for more research into this strange phenomenon, in which the virus living in the mother is able to sense that she is bearing twins and thereupon makes an extra effort to send emissaries into the embryos or to have them hitch rides perinatally as the twins are being delivered. And if the virus foresees that the membranes are going to rupture prematurely, it sends its emissaries with redoubled efficiency.

For those poor skeptics who are not doing well by doing good (pace Tom Lehrer’s drug peddler)—doing well from grants for HIV/AIDS research, by doing good through inventing new antiretroviral drugs—this phenomenon does not present a research-worthy opportunity, however. Skeptics merely recall the Perth Group’s demonstration that testing HIV-positive is an indication of oxidative stress, and make the not-so-huge leap to the conclusion that bearing twins is more stressful than is a single-embryo pregnancy, and that the premature rupture of the membranes indicates the presence somewhere of some extra source of physiological stress.

Posted in HIV absurdities, HIV as stress, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV in children, HIV transmission | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2008/01/04

According to HIV/AIDS dogma, one can catch “HIV” from one’s mother or, as adults, from blood, dirty needles, or sex. The last is the most usual way.

Therefore, if identifiable groups of people are consistently HIV-positive at a high rate, something about those groups bespeaks a propensity for much unsafe sex.

After HIV had been announced as the cause of AIDS, and “HIV” tests had been introduced, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) carried out “sentinel surveys” of various population groups: college students, blood donors, hospital patients, prisoners, prostitutes, runaway homeless youths, people attending clinics for family planning and STD and abortion, and more.

It turned out that people at tuberculosis (TB) clinics often tested HIV-positive at a much higher rate than any other except the high-risk groups of drug injectors and gay men—as high as 58%, according to data published by the CDC (Dondero & Gill, “Large-scale HIV surveys: What has been learned?” AIDS 5, suppl. 2 [1991] S63-9). TB patients were a third high-risk group, testing HIV-positive more often even than people attending clinics specializing in sexually transmitted diseases or those visiting specifically HIV clinics—in other words, TB patients are more likely to be HIV-positive even than people who suspect they might have contracted a venereal disease or HIV:


Either TB patients are inveterate injectors with HIV-infected needles, or they are inveterately and unsafely promiscuous; and whichever is the case, they don’t know that those practices render them liable to catch a sexually transmitted infection.

That seems unlikely, to put it mildly. But that’s what one has to conclude if one obeys HIV/AIDS dogma. If one is free of that dogma, however, it surely takes very little consideration to realize how absurd it is to believe that having TB links tightly with promiscuous sex or drug injecting.

There is a far better explanation: something about having TB stimulates a physiological response that shows up “positive” on an HIV-test, a FALSE POSITIVE in terms of “HIV”. Indeed, Christine Johnson listed TB as one of the many conditions that delivers a positive HIV-test. The Perth Group has adduced much evidence that testing HIV-positive indicates nothing more than some level of oxidative stress. Empirical support for this general view includes the high rate of HIV-positives found in trauma victims: emergency-room patients and in autopsies (references at p. 85 in The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory).

Under the latter explanation, the more seriously ill a TB patient is, the more likely to test HIV-positive. Under HIV/AIDS dogma, the fact that the more seriously ill TB patients test HIV-positive more often has to be interpreted as the more ill they are, the more they have promiscuous sex—which makes less than no sense.

The tendency to test HIV-positive is a marker of the degree of illness. Mainstream HIV/AIDS dogma blithely turns connections between TB and HIV-positive upside down. It asserts that because “HIV” damages the immune system, therefore any given condition—malaria, TB, worm-infestation, malnutrition—is worse in the presence of HIV, and thereby even becomes an “AIDS-defining” condition.

In light of this preamble, consider a few of the news reports that express alarm, sometimes to an hysterical degree, over “co-infections” with HIV and TB:

* * * * * *

“Reported HIV Status of Tuberculosis Patients — United States, 1993–2005” (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 56(42), 26 October 2007, 1103-1106:

“Patients with both TB and HIV infection are five times more likely to die during anti-TB treatment than patients who are not HIV infected (CDC, unpublished data, 2003).”

Of course! They are more ill to start with, that’s why they tested HIV-positive.

“TB is an acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)-defining opportunistic condition.”

Balderdash. TB was around long before there was HIV or AIDS. TB became counted as an “AIDS-defining” disease only because TB patients so often deliver a FALSE POSITIVE HIV-test. (The emphasis here on false-positive should not be taken to mean that I think there are any HIV tests that are NOT false positives insofar as detecting a retrovirus is concerned.)

* * * * * *

“HIV/TB—a ‘forgotten’ co-infection that threatens the world” (Destination Santé, 30 décembre 2007):

“One third of the 40 million carriers of the AIDS virus are also infected with tuberculosis. This fact is all the more worrying as it is in sub-Saharan Africa, already badly hit by HIV/AIDS, that these co-infections are on the increase.”

Balderdash. One third of the people said to be “carriers of the AIDS virus” probably test HIV-positive only because they have TB.

“The AIDS pandemic has increased the number of cases of TB worldwide by about 15%.”

How, one asks, could such a calculation be made validly?

“By depressing our immune defences, HIV increases thirty fold the risk of developing TB after contact with the bacillus.”

Upside-down again: The rate of TB among HIV-positive people is 30 times that among HIV-negative people because having TB makes one likely to test HIV-positive.

“As a result, half of all the new cases of TB declared each year in sub-Saharan Africa are in patients already infected by the AIDS virus.”

What were they tested for first? Are HIV-positive people tested for TB more often than others? Anyway, the general level of health in sub-Saharan Africa is not as good as it might be, and people in poor health are both more likely to contract TB and to test HIV-positive in any case. (Moreover, sub-Saharan Africans are genetically prone to test HIV-positive, see chapters 5 to 7 in The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory.)

* * * * * *

“HIV/TB co-epidemic rapidly spreading in Sub-Saharan Africa, report says” ( [Washington, DC] 2 November 2007):

“deaths from HIV/TB coinfection are five times higher than deaths from TB alone . . . . About 90% of people living with HIV/AIDS will die within months of contracting TB”
because HIV-positive MEANS they are more ill—WITH TB!— than those who don’t test HIV-positive.

“about half of all new TB cases in sub-Saharan Africa occur among HIV-positive people”
because people already in poor health are more likely to contract a further infection.

“HIV/TB coinfection also could be fueling the increase in drug-resistant strains of TB”:
Here is the usual mainstream alarm-generating speculation. HIV makes anything and everything worse and must be exorcised even if people die in the process (ARE INTESTINAL WORMS GOOD FOR US? . . . , 30 December 2007; DRUGS OR FOOD? , 25 December 2007; FIRST: DO NO HARM!, 19 December 2007; WHAT HIV DRUGS DO, 15 December 2007).

* * * * * *

“TB killing HIV positive people”, 26 February 2007
“A rare drug resistant strain of TB found in South Africa and 26 other countries world wide is killing HIV positive people. . . . The strain of TB is known as XDR-TB, and was first identified in 52 out of 53 HIV positive patients who died in South African hospitals.”
Or: Those people who have this most serious strain of TB are more likely to test HIV-positive.

“3800 AIDS researchers have assembled to try to sort out what to do to combat the strain of TB that is killing HIV positive people across the world. The World Health Organization estimates that each year 27 thousand new cases of XDR-TB, are reported resulting in 16 thousand deaths.”
And the hysterical bandwagon rolls on, and the World Health Organization doesn’t hesitate to project estimates of alarming proportions—estimates based on the most slender of evidence.

* * * * * *

“HIV, tuberculosis jointly kill 300 Peruvians every year” (, 4 December 2007):

“Around 300 Peruvians die every year of tuberculosis worsened by acquired immune-deficiency syndrome (AIDS) [emphasis added] . . . . Tuberculosis speeds the process that turns human immuno-deficiency virus (HIV) infection into full-blown AIDS . . . . Every year Peru reports nearly 36,000 tuberculosis cases. Official figures estimate 30,000 people are infected with HIV in Peru, but non-governmental organizations put the figure at nearly 100,000.

How do we know that HIV is worsened by TB? Because correlation proves causation?

Well, of course correlation doesn’t prove causation, even if the CDC doesn’t understand that (e.g., p. 194 in The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory).

As to the numbers: 300 out of 36,000 annual cases of TB die? That’s only about the normal death rate in an averagely healthy population. (Of course, the media report may have misplaced a zero somewhere.)

In any case, note once again the freedom exercised by “non-governmental” organizations—activist groups furthering their own agendas—to multiply official HIV/AIDS figures by 3 or 4.

* * * * * *

And so on and so forth. HIV/AIDS theory is blatantly wrong in its view of how HIV-positive relates to having TB. But mainstream researchers, official institutions, and the media and other pundits fail to see the absurdity of accepting that people who are suffering from a serious illness like TB or also likely to be actively pursuing lots of unsafe sex—more actively, the sicker they are.

Posted in HIV absurdities, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV risk groups, HIV tests, HIV/AIDS numbers, sexual transmission, uncritical media | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2007/12/20

A valued observer of this blog was horrified to see me repeat the inaccurate claim that the Perth group had tried to prove that HIV doesn’t exist (COMMUNICATING VIA PERSONAL E-MAIL, 17 December).

Had I gone first and straight to the primary source–the Perth Group’s website–I would have seen among the FAQs:

The Perth Group does not broker beliefs and has never claimed HIV does not exist. (Neither have we claimed AIDS does not exist although we and our colleagues are often referred to as ‘AIDS Denialists’). What we have argued on numerous occasions in our publications and presentations is there is no proof that a retrovirus HIV does exist. Not in test-tubes, not in AIDS patients and not in anyone who is ‘HIV’ positive. We freely concede that our assertion may be wrong but to date no HIV expert has responded with any argument that has convinced us otherwise. There is a tradition in science that those who propose theories provide the proof. According to this tradition it is up to the HIV protagonists to come up with proof that HIV does exist. A scientist cannot employ the ‘Martian’ argument. That Martians exist because there is no proof they do not exist. It is our long held view that the laboratory phenomena documented by Montagnier and Gallo in Science in 1983/84 (which are still the best papers on this particular topic) are not specific for retroviruses and do not constitute proof of isolation of a retrovirus. In regard to Montagnier’s ‘discovery of HIV’ please read our recent paper mhmont.pdf

I offer a sincere apology in all directions.

In case to understand is to excuse: several newspaper accounts asserted explicitly that Parenzee’s defense insisted that HIV doesn’t exist, for example “Shadow of doubters” (originally published by Ruth Pollard in the Sydney Morning Herald).

I was reminded by another friendly correspondent that perhaps one ought not to believe everything one reads in the newspapers.

* * * * * *

On the plus side:


It’s extremely reassuring to me that alert and knowledgeable observers of this blog tell me about mistakes and other deficiencies.

I’ve been interested for many years in the role that heresies and heterodoxies play in the progress of science. A crucial point is that the orthodoxy is highly structured and organized whereas those who dissent from the orthodox view tend to be unorganized (not to say DISorganized). Tangible benefits accrue from belonging to mainstream organizations, whereas being a dissenter brings anything but benefits.

To the extent that science has been self-correcting and increasingly reliable, those virtues stem from mutual critiquing among researchers, in other words, “peer review”. Dissenters don’t usually have the benefit of peer review. The orthodoxy is dismissive and doesn’t offer constructive, substantive criticism. Individual dissenters may be reluctant to criticize details of other dissenters’ views because they are all “in the same boat”; and they may also be more interested in pursuing their own pet ideas than becoming familiar with and constructively discussing the ideas that other dissenters have. Whatever the reasons, it is rare that dissenters are able to organize for effective, unified action.

So I’m truly grateful to those who provide me the benefit of peer review by telling me of deficiencies and outright errors.


I would like to think that by striving for all possible accuracy, and by acknowledging and correcting errors, HIV skeptics can stand in stark contrast to the dogmatic defenders-of -HIV dogma-at-all-costs who stick by mutually contradictory assertions and refuse to acknowledge even the facts published in their own articles, say, the plain fact that Padian failed to observe even one instance of HIV transmission during the course of her study; “Over time, the authors observed increased condom use (p <0.001) and no new infections [emphasis added]” (Abstract); “We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study” (p. 354)—Padian et al., American Journal of Epidemiology, 146 [1997] 350-7.

* * * * * *

I remain with the central point in my discussion draft, canwelearnfromparenzee.doc : “the need to identify exactly what is necessary to establish sufficient doubt about HIV = AIDS dogma”, and to find some way of bringing those points effectively to the attention of the general public.

Another way of putting it: Keep it as simple as possible. Reporters find it difficult to recognize, or to write accurately about, such distinctions as between “has not been proven to exist” and “does not exist”.

* * * * * *
* * * * * *


That peer review constitutes the actual scientific method is discussed in Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method. Scientific knowledge begins as hunches, which generate frontier research from which relatively reliable understanding eventuates after running the gauntlet of the knowledge filter, whose efficacy depends on how disinterested and conscientious peer review is.

The differences between orthodox scientific activity and the strivings of dissenters and heretics, and the corollaries and consequences of those differences, are discussed in Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena, and Other Heterodoxies; The Enigma of Loch Ness: Making Sense of a Mystery (especially chapter 6, The Quest, and chapter 10, Nessie, Science, and truth); Beyond Velikovsky (especially chapter 8, Pseudo-Scientists, Cranks, Crackpots, and chapter 15, Some realities about science).

Characteristics of science and of unorthodoxies are discussed in Fatal Attractions: The Troubles with Science.

Posted in HIV skepticism, HIV transmission, Legal aspects, sexual transmission, uncritical media | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2007/11/16

My first post on this blog made this point: The central issue as to HIV/AIDS is whether HIV tests detect a viral infection. The day after I posted, I received a very informative e-mail from Darin Brown with useful detail about HIV tests.

I wrote on November 12 that it has never been shown that a positive “HIV test” corresponds to the presence of virus particles. That’s a hard fact to swallow, since the whole world seems to assume–at least, the whole official world and the mass media do–that a positive HIV-test indicates actual active and health-threatening infection. To make more believable that the conventional wisdom is wrong about this, let’s look more closely at how these tests were invented and what they really do.

Neville Hodgkinson (among others) has pointed out that the apparent correlation of AIDS with finding HIV antibodies (= a positive HIV test) is the result of a circular, illogical, and unjustifiable set of procedures and assumptions (“The circular reasoning scandal of HIV testing”, 21 May 2006,

Virus particles have not been isolated from AIDS patients, nor from the cultures in which their immune-system cells were stimulated in the attempt to grow the virus. But filtered material from these cultures contained “some 30 proteins . . . that gathered at a density characteristic of retroviruses” and some of these were assumed to come from HIV. Which ones? “They selected those that were most reactive with antibodies in blood samples from AIDS patients and those at risk of AIDS”! So “HIV” antigens (proteins) were not “identified” in relation to HIV itself– remember, pure particles of HIV have never been isolated; rather “HIV antigens” were chosen, defined, by their relation to antibodies occurring in AIDS patients. “AIDS patients are then diagnosed as being infected with HIV on the basis that they have antibodies which react with those same antigens. The reasoning is circular.”

There are two types of tests. The more recent and less frequently applied type uses the polymerase chain reaction, PCR, to look for bits of RNA or DNA said (but not proven) to be characteristic of HIV; the inventor of PCR, Kary Mullis, concurs with what the manufacturers of PCR tests say in their instructions: these tests cannot be used to diagnose infection by HIV. Hodgkinson’s comment applies to the more traditional tests which look for proteins said (but not proven) to be characteristic of HIV–the so-called ELISA and the so-called Western Blot tests. The accepted “best practice” is to use ELISA and to confirm a duplicated positive result by the Western Blot.

But the Western Blot is no better than the ELISA. It is anything but well defined or unambiguous.

“HIV” proteins are named by two properties, their molecular weight (for instance, p24) and the viral genes thought to code for their production (env, gag, pol). “Env” proteins include p160, p120, p41; “pol” comprise p68, p53, p32; “gag” have p55, p39, p24, p18.

A naïve lay person might assume that, since HIV tests are looking for actual virus, they would be looking to find all those proteins, moreover in the fixed proportion to one another, since that’s how they presumably occur in virus particles. The standard practice is grossly otherwise, however, quite shockingly otherwise: in different countries, and even in different laboratories in a given country, what is called a “positive” Western Blot may be pronounced upon finding only a few of these proteins!

Valendar Turner of the Perth Group has written detailed analyses of the Western Blot: “in Australia a positive test requires particular sets of four bands [one band per protein]. In the USA, different sets of two or three suffice, which may or may not include the bands required in Australia. In Africa only one designated set of two is required. Put simply, this means that the same person tested in three cities on the same day may or may not be HIV infected” ( In an affidavit for a law suit in Australia in 2006, Turner had this instructive diagram:


(click for larger image)

The naïve lay person might imagine, in line with ordinary common sense, that it would be enough to discredit the tests, that a person can be pronounced HIV-positive in one country but HIV-negative in another on the basis of tests with the same name. But this ambiguity also implies much more, namely, it raises the question whether these “HIV” proteins are even characteristic of HIV. Why does (for example) Australia require that four of the proteins be present? Because one or two of these supposedly “HIV specific” proteins are often found in perfectly healthy, “HIV-negative” people. So those one or two proteins are not specific to HIV, and finding them does not mean that lurking HIV has been detected. So, then: what research has shown that the presence of four of these proteins means that HIV has been lurking?

None! It has never been shown that one can isolate actual virus particles from samples “positive” by Western Blot. Anyway, the very fact that criteria are so different in different places shows that the choice of what to regard as a positive test is a matter of judgment, not of soundly based scientific knowledge. The fact that different criteria have resulted from the judgment of different experts indicates further that none of them represents objective science.

In any case, as said earlier, if actual virus particles were present, and their protein composition were what it is assumed to be, then all these proteins should be found in the same proportion. They are not. A positive Western Blot does not demonstrate the presence of virus.

Perhaps the most consequential corollary is this: so-called “HIV” proteins are often found in people not classed as infected by HIV. What do these proteins signify?

An analysis of the totality of HIV tests in the United States reveals that the probability of testing HIV-positive increases as there are more obvious challenges to health. People ill for any of many reasons are likely to have some of those “HIV” proteins in their blood and therefore to come up “positive” on an HIV test. The diagram below shows how the frequency of positive HIV-tests varies between different social groups. The progression from left to right corresponds to the likelihood that people in that group are experiencing a health challenge; it makes no sense in terms of the frequency of occurrence of a sexually transmitted infection.


 (from The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, McFarland 2007)

A “positive HIV test” can therefore mean many different things, in terms of the actual substances that have been detected: anywhere from almost any two to almost any four of a set of ten proteins. Turner offers a nice analogy:
“. . . imagine this experiment. In place of the AIDS patient cell culture [with the proteins suspected to be from HIV] someone hands you a test tube containing milks obtained from half a dozen different animals. In other words, a mixture of several different proteins but you don’t know from which animals. Now in place of a mixture of antibodies from AIDS patients you obtain a second test tube containing a number of different acids. You add the mixture of acids to the mixture of milks and produce curdles [a positive finding]. Now you claim you’ve isolated [shown the presence of] a cow.”
The point is that a “positive” ELISA or Western Blot only shows the presence of some mixture of a few of those “HIV” proteins–some or all of which are also found at times in people certainly not infected by HIV. That’s why positive HIV-tests have been found in people with dozens of different conditions other than AIDS, see
“HIV” tests do not detect HIV and they are not proof of infection by HIV.

* * * * * *

This is why HIV testing is dangerous to life and liberty. Dangers to life are these:

  • A positive HIV test does not demonstrate active infection by a deadly virus.
  • However: innumerable people have been incorrectly told, on the basis of these tests, that they are infected and that without antiretroviral treatment they will get AIDS and die.
  • For those who immediately get treatment, the toxicity of the drugs is likely to produce death within a decade or so, and in the meantime the drugs often produce ghastly side-effects.
  • Those judged not to need treatment yet are not really much better off. As soon as they become ill for any reason, no matter how minor–flu or diarrhea, say–this is likely to be taken as a sign that the HIV is starting to do its nasty work, and their toxic treatment regimen will begin.

But even without the physical dangers of antiretroviral treatment, the psychological impact of being told that one is HIV positive can be devastating. Testimonials to that–if any were needed–are legion. Imagine what it’s like to be told that you have a fatal and incurable illness. Imagine what it’s like, to be told that you have a sexually transmitted disease when you know that you have done nothing that makes contracting such an infection possible.
As to danger to liberty: Medical personnel have been accused of negligence, or incompetence, or evil intent, when patients under their care became “HIV positive”. The case of the Bulgarian nurses in Libya is the most notorious example, but there are instances from other countries as well, where doctors and nurses have lost their jobs because some patients became HIV positive.

* * * * * * *

There will be many illustrations in later postings on this blog, of the damage done by the assumption that HIV tests detect HIV, as well as many illustrations of the most implausible claims being given credence just because the media and officialdom do not doubt that positive HIV tests denote infection by a virus.
For more about the lack of validity of HIV tests and the dreadful consequences of that, see for example the Perth Group; material collected on the website of the Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society and of HEAL Toronto; essays by Liam Scheff.

Posted in HIV tests | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »