I am SO impressed and happy with the responses to my AIDS post! Everyone responded so thoughtfully and considerately! I am thrilled that there are some readers out there who are as interested in the truth as I am! YAY! And mind you, none of the responses unquestioningly AGREED with what I had written; there were just thoughtful interests in knowing more. This gives me a lot of hope that such a taboo topic can actually find intelligent, open debate. I don't need anyone to agree, but an intelligent discussion is really refreshing.
Okay, so I decided to create a separate entry to respond to the comments from the original AIDS entry.
Here we go:
You've put a lot of energy into this essay. I have to come back and re-read it because it REALLY challenges a lot of concepts that have solidified in my mind over the past 20 years. Can't respond now...
...except to wish the best to your friend. The confusion in test results is nothing short of harrowing. I thought that an initial positive result on the ELISA or Western Blot (antibodies) resulted in an IMMEDIATE re-testing of the sample using p24 (antigen). Perhaps policies vary regionally. No-one should have to live through that kind of fear. I'll check back to hear how things are going. In the meantime, my hopes for the best are with you.
Thank you for the well-wishes. My friend reads this blog, so he will see the support. It's greatly appreciated.
As for the retesting, I am uncertain as to the varying policies, but I suppose the retesting is kind of moot, if you think about the fact that there is supposedly no validity or accuracy to the tests in the first place.
In fact, did you know that these tests come packaged with their OWN disclaimers that they cannot be standardized or relied upon?
I suppose double-testing with something that isn't accurate in the first place wouldn't really be that helpful.
Another interesting Fact: LESS than 50% of all people diagnosed as having AIDS actually test Positive for HIV. More than 10% of people who are not at risk and have no illness test Positive.
Troy, my dear, one of the many things I've ALWAYS admired about you is your willingness to speak your mind --- even if you expect your words to be received with hostility (as they often have been). I don't have a lot of knowledge about this subject; I only know what I've always been taught and have never pursued more information. I DO know that the allopathic medical community is primarily money-driven and, therefore, loves to push dangerous drugs and unnecessary medical procedures. So your post doesn't strike me as very far-fetched, although it's still VERY thought-provoking and even shocking. I wonder if the knowledge of "The AIDS Myth" will lead to a lot more unprotected sex. (That's not meant to be joking or flippant). Anyway, I wish I had some wisdom to impart on the topic; thank you for the information...
Thanks, Nick, for the support and open-mindedness.
The part I want to respond to is your question about unprotected sex going rampant, if people begin to question the validity of AIDS and HIV. If you look at the numbers for just the STDs and pregnancies, it's fairly safe to assume that unprotected sex is, has, and always will be a factor that is chosen by the individual with or without fear tactics telling them one way or the other. There is no way to truly confirm if people are, or are not, having unprotected sex, but if certain ailments and conditions reported are any indication, then nothing has really changed that much before or after AIDS. In my own personal opinion, I doubt there are very many people who are using condoms now who would suddenly, ecstatically, launch into barebacking like wild animals just because of the questioning of the validity of AIDS. Most people who DO use condoms are using them for many more reasons than AIDS, alone, and those who don't use them do so against many more risks than just "AIDS."
P said...Hi, P! These are great questions!
I hope things turn out well for your friend, he's lucky to have you around to give him perspective. Still, as someone who came "of age" when ACT-UP was already wearing thin and AIDS education was everywhere, I have to question these claims.
What about monogamous spouses who've been infected by a philandering closeted partner? What about housewives and kids infected via blood transfusions? What about traceable infection patterns from person to person? What about "patient zero"? Isn't it established that blood, semen, or vaginal fluids have been passed from person to person in every case of infection?
Are you saying that the cataclysmic destruction of life among gay men in the 80's was not based largely on exchange of infected bodily fluids? Poppers are supposed to be to blame?
Clearly I haven't researched this anywhere near as much as you have, but it does seem a stretch. Maybe I'm just not cynical enough, but I don't believe that the entire medical profession globally is evil, and would invent a disease just to generate revenue. Is that what you're saying?
My first response is to clarify that to question how those reported instances of AIDS can exist if AIDS is a myth, is kind of like asking "then how do you explain Jesus' virginal birth, if the bible isn't true?" If one part is a myth, it is highly likely that a LARGE part is myth.
In consideration of heterosexual infection due to a "philandering closeted partner" (as a "for instance"):
Only 6% of Americans diagnosed with AIDS actually cite heterosexual contact as their sole AIDS risk. However, upon further investigation, 60% to 99% of these people are reclassified as injection drug users and/or men who have sex with men; groups with identifiable health risks well-documented to cause immune dysfunction. Also consider that people diagnosed with AIDS voluntarily select a risk group from among six categories determined by the CDC, which limits health risk options to ONLY possible exposure to HIV through sex or blood.
In consideration of those who supposedly receive HIV through blood transfusions:
Hemophiliacs and blood transfusion recipients together make up only 2% of adult AIDS cases in the US. Factor VIII, the blood clotting treatment used by hemophiliacs, is itself an immune suppressive. Hemophilia is a life-threatening condition in people with or without an HIV positive diagnosis. Ryan White, for instance, the young HIV positive hemophiliac who became famous as an "AIDS victim," actually died of common complications attributed to hemophilia (internal bleeding and liver failure), not of illnesses that in any way define AIDS.
Blood transfusions suppress the immune system. Medical experts note that higher amounts of blood transfusions among hospitalized patients correlate with higher death rates. It is known that transfusions, alone, are an immune suppressive, leaving recipients vulnerable to deadly opportunistic infections that can all be arbitrarily attributed to AIDS.
Factor VIII and blood transfusions can cause positive results on HIV antibody tests in persons never exposed to HIV by triggering the production of antibodies that react with the nonspecific proteins used in the HIV antibody tests. Once a person has tested positive, they are then subjected to even more immune suppressive drug treatment regimens, and, of course, the psychological terror of developing AIDS.
Members of these risk groups can be more accurately described as people with serious pre-existing health challenges, critical or chronic exposure to immune suppressive blood products and toxic AIDS drugs, and/or who are affected by the chronic despair of a fatal diagnosis. Based on this view, immune compromising anti-HIV chemotherapy and continuous antibiotic treatments would compound pre-existing health problems, rather than resolve them.
In regard to "traceable infection patterns"...
To-date, there are none. Consider these questions:
If AIDS is a widespread health risk, why has it not spread into the general population?
Since health care workers are at high risk in any valid epidemic, why are there only 25 (you read it correctly, only 25) claimed cases of occupational AIDS among health care workers after nearly two decades of AIDS?
If AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease (STD), why do cases of syphilis, chlamydia and gonorrhea far outnumber AIDS?
Since female prostitutes are at high risk for all STDs, why are they not a risk group for AIDS?
There simply is no discernible or valid pattern of infection. It may be because there is no validity to the existence of HIV and AIDS. In fact, it has never been proven in any way that AIDS is a transmittable disease at all. That's not a joke. It's never been able to be proven. In any case of a valid transmittable disease, it is easy to demonstrate its validity.
In response to the question of "patient zero"...
In particular, this refers to Gaëtan Dugas (February 1953 March 30, 1984), a Canadian airline steward who was Patient Zero for an early epidemiological study on HIV by the Centers for Disease Control. His sexual partners were surveyed for the disease in order to demonstrate that it was sexually transmitted. Several of them were among the first few hundred to be diagnosed with AIDS. Dugas eventually died, but not of AIDS or any complications related to AIDS, but of renal failure.
A misconception holds that Dugas was the first person to introduce HIV into North America. This myth may have its origins in sensationalism surrounding Randy Shilts' book And The Band Played On and the movie based upon it (Neither the book nor the film claims that Dugas was the first to bring the virus to North America). Dugas is referred to as 'Patient Zero' not because he was the first to be diagnosed with the disease but rather because at least 40 of the 248 people diagnosed with AIDS by April 1982 had either had sex with him or with someone who had. He was "patient zero" only in that context.
The CDC certainly did not conclude that Dugas had introduced HIV into North America, nor was he the first to have his infection identified. In fact, many AIDS cases had been identified in North America prior to "Patient Zero."
Furthermore, later research has cast doubt on the validity of the conclusions that were advanced. At the time, it was believed that HIV incubated for about one year. The patients who were studied due to their contact with Patient Zero had their symptoms emerge on an average of eleven months after having sex with him. Now that the incubation time of HIV is considered to be substantially longer, it is highly unlikely that any of Patient Zero's sexual partners studied were ever initially infected by him.
As far as fluid exchanges being involved with every diagnosis of AIDS...
Nope. Consider the fact that you don't even have to be HIV Positive to be diagnosed as having AIDS, or that you don't even have to have any symptoms at all. There are very few people who cannot say they have had SOME kind of fluid exchange with someone in their life, so it's easy to attribute that factor to any disease. It's just not enough to consider it a primary factor of exchange, especially when you consider the absolute lack of consistency among those diagnosed with AIDS and those who are not.
As far as being "cynical" and that the entire medical community is globally "evil" and conjured this to make a profit...
Well, I never said anything of that nature, and the facts are just facts. I just research the facts and consider them. I can't help it that they are so controversial. I am amazed as any of you!
However, it's not a new concept that the medical industry has an investment in our ill-health and that the CDC regularly promotes some new disease to generate fear and revenue. Consider the blunder of Mad Cow Disease, the Bird Flu, the Flu in general, and the West Nile Virus, which are all relatively, barely noticeable blips in our population, but the promotion of such "epidemics" have been RAMPANT! Before AIDS, the CDC tried pawning off Cancer as a contagious disease, as well, promoting revenue for a vaccine. Cancer, at the time, was also attributed to being confined to Blacks and Gays. Now we think that is absurd, but that's exactly what was announced as medical truth in the past.
And consider that within a year or so (as anticipated), it will be announced that that an AIDS Vaccine will be available, which will bring in a great amount of profits. Consider also that AZT was a warehoused drug that was originally created for Cancer treatment, just sitting without any revenue for YEARS because it was a failed and unusable potion. A new disease with no discernible definition created the perfect foundation for the promotion of AZT to be used experimentally, therefore generating profits to compensate for its initial failure. It's not so much that specific, intentional lies are promoted to create profits, but that profits are the bottom line, not our well-being and certainly not the truth.
This information isn't presented as cynicism or an implication of conspiracy. AIDS and HIV are just a simple, bumbling, snowballing misconception that we may eventually look back upon and find it to be unbelievable that we participated in it.
I mean, just look at history... Remember when people actually thought unquestioningly that Blacks were a different species who were born to be enslaved? That those of Jewish religion were of a different species? Remember when people thought homosexuality was a crime and maybe even contagious? (some people still do!) Remember when people thought it was scientific and practical to hunt down and try suspected Witches? Remember when we used to think the world was Flat, and that it was heresy to speak in terms of science against the oppression of religion? You might think I am citing the past so far back that we have actually outgrown our idiocies as a human race, but consider that there is still a MAJORITY of people who believe we are in Iraq just to promote Democracy and that Bush is a well-intentioned President.
This isn't just a potentially unusual, rare, unbelievably embarrassing situation in our history as a country or as a planet.
It's just ANOTHER one.