QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF AIDS

Ugghh..

I have always dreaded writing about AIDS because to question the validity of AIDS is worse than belonging to the KKK, worse than saying you agree with Hitler, worse than actually being a white cop who beats a black man, and worse than being a homophobic murderer. Seriously, it’s worse than all of things, combined. It is absolutely socially unacceptable to question the validity of AIDS. To do so means you are “ignorant” or that you are “in denial” or that you are a crazy conspiracy theorist, or that you just don’t know what you are talking about. I rarely speak with anyone about the controversy in the medical and scientific community over AIDS because to do so unleashes a hostility that is completely disproportionate and unwarranted. This is the only issue that I am actually fearful of discussing.

Still, I cannot sit back and be spoon-fed a reality that is manufactured by corporate media and a miserable medical industry. Being educated about health and disease through the industry of medicine is about as smart as being educated about nutrition through the sponsorship of the Meat and Dairy Council (which is from where most of our assumptions about eating come).

There are certain scientific and medical facts about the entire AIDS “epidemic” that very few people actually have the luxury of time and/or the ability of research to know. I call these things "facts" because they are offered from reputable scientists and researchers who have everything to lose, and the only responses I have found to contradict these facts are dismissive and flippant without actually proving the facts as wrong or inaccurate. I cannot say what is TRUE because I am not a researcher or a doctor or a scientist, but I offer to you what I have found so that you can question for yourself, as I have. Most of what I will write below will be in my own words, but some parts may be excerpts from other educational sites. An excellent site that organizes and references all of its facts can be found at ALIVE AND WELL.

A huge portion of the medical and scientific community is just beginning to stand together and create organizations to help transform the massive level of potential misinformation we have all accepted for years. Unfortunately, many doctors, researchers, and students are threatened of losing their licenses, status, credibility, etc. if they even suggest there is something wrong with what we have accepted as true. My friend in medical school regularly updates us as to how the system is in place to encourage the students NEVER to question the validity of the practices, but to more importantly learn how to impose them. For instance, it is not common knowledge that a doctor who has received a patient as being diagnosed HIV Positive or with AIDS is expected under a rule called “standard practice” to then begin enforcing the intake of immuno-suppressant drugs. If the doctor refuses this standard, he will lose his license; he must AT LEAST work hard to encourage the use of drugs as treatment.

But why am I writing about this now? Because a very dear friend of mine was just diagnosed as being HIV Positive. Why would I dispute this common verdict? Because he was also diagnosed as HIV Negative… within the SAME month, different place. Because he was then also diagnosed as “we can’t tell” and is now going through a 4th and 5th HIV Test.

When my friend told me he was diagnosed as HIV Positive, I encouraged him to get tested again through someplace else. He got tested again because I encouraged him to question and educate himself beyond the courteous fence of popular media. If he did not know me, he may very well have concluded himself as being someone who lives as an HIV Positive person, immediately succumbing to the intake of immuno-suppressant drugs. Instead, he is now paying attention to the contradictions and inconsistencies in regard to this so-called "epidemic." He continues to be tested and re-tested in a bumbling industry full of drones who know a lot less than what you would think about what they are treating. It’s absolutely infuriating and absurd at the same time. In addition to the diagnosis that he was HIV-Positive, he was immediately under pressure to send out anonymous cards to anyone with whom he has ever had sex, alerting them that they, too, were now possibly HIV-Positive and should get tested. It is frightening to me to see the parallels between the medical industry's process of education and successful scare-tactic marketing schemes.

So all of this has led me to reducing speculation and hysteria to just the FACTS of AIDS and HIV as presented by Nobel-prize winning researchers and doctors and scientists who have everything to lose and only the truth to gain. The following bits of information are solid and however controversial, they are still true. If anyone has any information to counter the facts listed below, I welcome them as part of our seeking the truth.

Again, I present all of this as FACTS, but not necessarily as a conclusive truth about what is happening. I only encourage you to question and learn beyond what is given to us as the truth. Look beyond what we are fed, and always question the motivation of the source.

Here we go...

HIV TESTING IS ABSOLUTELY INVALID AND USELESS

Fact: HIV testing is NOT STANDARDIZED. This means the test is based on the varying interpretations of varying doctors across the various states and countries. This means that if you test HIV Positive in one state, you can also be HIV Negative in a different state! Most people do not realize this arbitrary means of being tested and they live with a verdict that then leads to a monstrously painful reality.

Fact: HIV HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST. Why is the testing not standardized? Because you can’t validate or standardized a test that is testing for something that hasn't been proven to exist. Most people do not know that no HIV has ever been found or isolated by any valid scientific standard. This is a scientific fact. There is NO Human Immunodeficiency Virus on record to-date. If this virus exists, SO FAR there has been no proof of it in any way. To be fair, it should not be said that HIV "does not exist" as much as it should be that HIV has simply never been proven to exist. At best, it is only a theory. There simply 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. By most disidents, it is freely conceded that the assertion may be wrong, but to date no HIV expert has responded with any argument that has ever proven otherwise.

There is a tradition in science that those who propose theories must also 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, which goes that Martians MUST exist because there is no proof they do not exist. It is a long-held view by dissidents 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.

Luc Montagnier's group of scientists from the Institut Pasteur in Paris first claimed they had found a new virus in samples taken from a gay man at risk of Aids. Their paper was rejected by Nature, the British science magazine, and by Robert Gallo, the leading American virologist, on the grounds that there was no clear evidence of a genuine, disease-inducing virus having been isolated.

"Isolation" means freeing the suspected virus particle from all other cell products so that it can be clearly characterized. It is an essential step in demonstrating the presence of an infectious agent, and producing a reliable diagnostic test for it.

Gallo's own subsequent claims to have isolated a new virus from several patients, and his simultaneous patenting of a diagnostic test, were accepted by the scientific community, and what came to be known as HIV was launched at a press conference by the American government in 1984.

However, Gallo's claims of isolation have subsequently been demonstrated to have been untrue as a result of inquiries arising out of a dispute between France and the US over who was first to find the virus. What he had claimed as his own virus turned out to be the same particle Montagnier's team had found which Gallo had previously not accepted as the “Aids virus.”

There are several organizations offering financial rewards to anyone who can isolate and prove the existence of this virus. To date, no one has been able to claim any of the rewards.

When you are tested for HIV, you are basically “testing” for ANTIBODIES that are theorized as having something to do with indicating the presence of a virus that has never been scientifically validated!

The frightening part of this is that these very antibodies are the same antibodies that show up when you have a common cold or if you have been exposed to someone who is sick with any number of common diseases.

Prior to the notion that HIV causes AIDS, viral antibodies were considered a normal, healthy response to infection and an indication of immunity. Antibodies alone were not used to diagnose disease or predict illness. Before HIV, only ELISA and Western Blot tests that had been shown to correspond with the finding of actual viruses were used to diagnose viral infections. There is no credible scientific evidence to suggest that these rules should be disregarded to accommodate HIV.

AIDS IS NOT NEW, NOT A DISEASE, and NOT an “Epidemic”

Fact: AIDS is a collection of common, familiar illnesses and conditions including yeast infection, herpes, diarrhea, pneumonia, cancer, salmonella, tuberculosis, etc. A person is diagnosed as “having AIDS” only if he has one of these common ailments AND shows signs of disease-fighting proteins or antibodies against those ailments. So if you have a yeast infection, you simply have a yeast infection. If you have a yeast infection and you have antibodies they assume are related to the phantom HIV, then you are diagnosed as having AIDS.

The numbers of AIDS victims continue to rise because the umbrella of AIDS continues to grow to include more and more common illnesses and conditions. In fact, many of the sharp rises in AIDS cases do not come from anything new, but from a RE-definition of what AIDS is. For instance, in 1993, it was determined to include anyone whose T-cell count was below 200 to be considered to be suffering from AIDS, even though there were absolutely no clinical symptoms of any disease. This caused the number of cases to literally double overnight.

It is only through expansions of the AIDS definition that the number of new AIDS cases has grown. The definition of AIDS in America has been expanded three times since 1981. Although each addition to the definition has caused significant increases in the number of new AIDS cases, AIDS had leveled off in all risk groups by 1992 and has been declining steadily since the second quarter of 1993.

If the CDC had continued to use the first three definitions of AIDS, new American AIDS cases for 1997 would have totaled just over 10,000, making AIDS a relatively insignificant health problem. Using the 1993 definition, 21,000 new cases of AIDS were added to the year's total, and of these, more than 20,000 cases were counted among people with no symptoms or illness.

There is no epidemic, only alterations of statistical data.

In 1998, the CDC ceased providing information on what AIDS diseases or definitions qualify people for an AIDS diagnosis each year. This means that the public will no longer know how many new AIDS cases are diagnosed in people who are not ill.

Another surprising fact is that you can receive a diagnosis of AIDS without ever having an HIV test. This is referred to as a "presumptive diagnosis." According to CDC records, more than 62,000 American AIDS cases have been diagnosed with no HIV test. Even though the only difference between "pneumonia" and "AIDS" is a positive HIV test, the test is not required for a diagnosis of AIDS.

THERE IS NO AIDS EPIDEMIC IN AFRICA

FACT: Because there is little funding for actual HIV Tests in Africa (not that they would be valid), not only is HIV Testing not required as a factor, but there are only four common clinical symptoms that are used to impose the diagnosis of AIDS: Diarrhea, Fever, Persistent Cough, and Weight Loss of more than 10% over two months. The four clinical AIDS symptoms are identical to those associated with conditions that run rampant on the African continent such as malaria, tuberculosis, and parasitic infections, the effects of malnutrition, and unsanitary drinking and bathing water. These symptoms are the result of poverty and other problems that have troubled Africa and other developing areas of the world for many decades. Now we call those same symptoms and conditions, AIDS.

FACT: AIDS is not the leading cause of illness or death in any African Nation. While Africa is the frequent subject of dramatic media reports, actual numbers of diagnosed AIDS cases on the continent are relatively unremarkable. For example, 1981 through 1999 cumulative AIDS cases for South Africa, the new epicenter of AIDS, total just 12,825.

Unfounded estimates, rather than unprotected sex, are responsible for the alarming number of AIDS cases said to occur in Africa. United Nations' AIDS estimates were cited as the inspiration for news reports claiming "a Kenyan dies of AIDS every three minutes." If Kenyans were dying at this rate, there would be more than twice as many dead Kenyans in just one year than have ever been diagnosed with AIDS in the entire period of time known as the AIDS epidemic.


SO WHY ARE PEOPLE DYING

FACT: They have always been dying. There are no more people dying today of anything spectacular or rampant than usual that can be attributed to AIDS. More people die every day from Heart Disease than do from what is called AIDS. More people die in traffic than do from AIDS. That is a scientific fact when you strip the numbers of speculation, artful interpretation, and hypotheses.

FACT: Prior to the designation of "AIDS," the commonly-known 29 diseases had no single, common cause. In fact, all have recognized causes and treatments that are unrelated to HIV. For example, yeast infection is a widespread problem due to an imbalance of natural bacteria. The yeast infections that occur in people who test HIV positive and in people who test HIV negative are caused by the same imbalance of natural bacteria. All of the opportunistic illnesses called "AIDS" have various, medically-proven causes that do not involve HIV.

FACT: Immune deficiency can be acquired by several risk factors that are not infectious or transmitted through blood or blood products.

The following factors are widely recognized causes of immune suppression, compromised health, and opportunistic infections, as documented in the medical literature for more than 70 years. Chronic, habitual and multiple exposures to the risks below can cause the group of symptoms called AIDS. In fact, there is no case of AIDS described in the medical literature without one or more of these health risk factors.

These risks include:

• Malnutrition and chronic lack of sleep.

• Immune-compromising chemicals, including pharmaceutical drugs such as AZT and other cancer chemotherapy compounds, protease inhibitors, antibiotics and steroids, and recreational drugs such as cocaine, crack, heroin, nitrites (poppers), and methamphetamines (crystal, speed).

• Multiple exposures to and/or chronic infections with syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia and other venereal diseases, hepatitis, tuberculosis, malaria, fungal diseases, amoebas and parasites such as giardia, bacterial infections such as staph and E coli, chronic bowel infections, blood transfusions, and the use of blood products. In addition to the damaging effects of recurrent infections, many of the pharmaceuticals used as treatment have adverse effects on immune function, which can lead to the diagnosis of AIDS.

• Factor VIII (the blood clotting agent used by hemophiliacs) and blood transfusions are immune suppressive and leave patients vulnerable to infection. Due to the serious conditions for which transfusions are necessary and the deleterious effects they have on the immune system, half of all HIV negative transfusion recipients die within a year of receiving a transfusion.

• Chronic anxiety, panic, stress and depression have been proven to compromise health, damage immune function, and result in symptoms identical to AIDS. Mental stress provokes production of the hormone cortisol; excessive cortisol causes rapid and dramatic reductions in T cells, a condition known as lymphocytopenia. Within minutes, stress induces cortisol levels to increase as much as 20-fold. High levels of cortisol can eventually cause what medical texts describe as "significant atrophy of all the lymphoid tissue throughout the body" which may lead to "fulminating infection and death from diseases that would otherwise not be lethal."

• In the only studies that asked gay men with AIDS about recreational drugs, 93% to 100% of participants acknowledged using cocaine, crack cocaine, poppers, heroin, ecstasy, methamphetamines like speed and crystal, and/or Special K (an animal tranquilizer).
  
  Nitrites, more commonly known as poppers, are immune-suppressive, carcinogenic drugs chronically used by some gay men. At one time, 95% of gay men in major urban areas like Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco reported using poppers. Nitrite use correlates with Kaposi's Sarcoma (KS) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, two AIDS-defining cancers found almost exclusively in this risk group. There are several studies that further strengthen the correlation between poppers and KS by documenting KS in HIV negative gay men who use poppers. KS is hardly ever found among members of any other CDC risk group or among women with AIDS, and is never diagnosed in children or infants with AIDS. In 1981 when AIDS was first identified, half of all AIDS diagnoses were for KS.
  
  As popper use has diminished, so has KS, which since 1993, has accounted for less than 5% of all new AIDS cases.

• Antibiotic treatments for recurrent venereal infections are immune suppressive, as is the practice of using these antibiotics on a regular basis as a prevention.

• Steroids are another immune damaging drug frequently prescribed to offset the wasting caused by diarrhea and malabsorption.

• A profound fear of AIDS is enough to cause even people who repeatedly test HIV negative to develop physical symptoms of AIDS. Termed "AIDS-phobia," this condition is characterized by weight loss, wasting, reduced T cell counts and other signs considered indicative of AIDS, and typically follows intimate contact with people who sufferers believe may be HIV positive.
  
  In modern medicine, the power of expectation is a commonly accepted fact known as the "placebo effect." Placebos are inert chemical substances disguised as active preparations and given to patients in place of drugs. The health benefits gained from a placebo occur because the person taking it expects a positive effect. Since the benefits of any drug may be due in part to this placebo effect, most new drugs are tested against a placebo preparation.
  

• Campaigns that encourage HIV testing, the consuming of toxic AIDS drugs, and living in fear of AIDS are primarily directed at the gay community. Many gay magazines may have up to half of their commercial advertising devoted to AIDS-related promotions. Such constant emphasis on AIDS gives rise to the notion of the inevitability of AIDS, a belief which can evoke chronic terror, despair and hopelessness, psychological risk factors known to impair immunity and compromise health.

• For people who test HIV positive, the drugs prescribed as preventative treatments for opportunistic AIDS-defining infections become harmful and even deadly. Bactrim and Septra, for example, are powerful sulfonamide antibiotics that kill digestive flora and cause anemia and bone marrow destruction. The anti-HIV drugs AZT, ddI, D4T, ddC and 3TC are all highly toxic chemotherapies that destroy the immune and digestive systems, in addition to causing five of the 29 official AIDS-defining illnesses. Two 1993 studies conducted in the US and Canada found that every one of several hundred gay men with AIDS had a history of significant recreational drug and/or AIDS drug use.

FACT: There is not one case of AIDS described in medical literature that does not include one or more immune-destroying health risk factors about which we have always known.

FACT: There is no case of AIDS documented in a person whose sole risk was exposure to HIV.

FACT: Every case of AIDS involves factors already long-known to damage the immune system, which leaves a person vulnerable to debilitating infection and deadly illness.

What I've included in this post is just a bit of the facts that exist in relation to AIDS and HIV.

Bottom line?

We need to start asking questions and be active participants in understanding things like this. Take some time to think and learn and go beyond the surface. The truth is not going to be found through the 5 o'clock news and the investments of education from an industry that is wholly reliant on illness.

Just think about it... and then let me know what you think.