Apparently, HIV Doesn't Cause AIDS

Ok, Bill. You're getting off track here. Are you saying that our government would actually lie to the people in order to protect the profits of the pharmaceutical industry? Outlandish! Government lie to us? BWAHAHAHA!

Ok, Bill. You're getting off track here. Are you saying that our government would actually lie to the people in order to protect the profits of the pharmaceutical industry? Outlandish! Government lie to us? BWAHAHAHA! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm saying - quite emphatically - that the US government is willing to sacrifice millions of lives - both American lives and in other countries - to further the depopulation agenda of Africa.

Without "interference" from the indigenous population, the systematic plunder of the African continent's resources represents vast material wealth to those entities who dictate global policy.

.

You sound like a hysterical conspiracy theorist, who just happens to be right. My brother from another mother.

You sound like a hysterical conspiracy theorist, who just happens to be right. My brother from another mother.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

For the rest of you, let me tell you what's in those mugs...

VIRUSMYTH HOMEPAGE

DEBATING AZT
AZT: A Medicine from Hell
By Anthony Brink


The more ignorant, reckless and thoughtless a doctor is,
the higher his reputation soars, even amongst powerful princes.

Praise of Folly, Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1466-1536), Dutch humanist.

National Health Minister Nkosazana Zuma has been condemned by just about everyone recently for her heartless decision not to make a drug called AZT available at State expense to HIV-positive pregnant women. It reduces the risk, so it’s said, of the transmission of HIV from mother to child. Politicians and journalists from left to right have joined moist-eyed, hand-wringing doctors in pleading for the free provision of AZT to these women, their babies cruelly deprived and doomed to die, they say.

In all the fuss about the minister’s decision on AZT, no one, it seems, has stopped to ask, “So what the hell is this stuff anyway?”

In 1964, a chemist called Jerome Horwitz synthesised a sophisticated experimental cell poison for the treatment of cancerous tumour cells (1). It was called Suramin, or Compound S. Its formal title is 3’-azido-3’-deoxythymidine - zidovudine for short - but everyone knows it by its nickname, AZT.

It works like this. Thymidine is one of the four nucleotides (building blocks) of DNA, the basic molecule of life. AZT is an artificial fake, a dead ringer for thymidine. As a cell synthesises new DNA while preparing to divide in order to spawn another, AZT either steals in to take the place of the real thing, or else disrupts the delicate process by interfering with the cell’s regulation of the relative concentrations of nucleotide pools present during DNA synthesis. That’s the end of the cell line. Cell division and replication, wrecked by the presence of the plastic imposter, comes to a halt. Chemotherapeutic drugs such as AZT are described as DNA chain terminators accordingly (2). Their effect is wholesale cell death of every type, particularly the rapidly dividing cells of the immune system and those lining our guts. Horwitz found that the sick immune cells went, but with so many others that his poison was plainly useless as a medicine. It was akin to napalm-bombing a school to kill some roof-rats. AZT was abandoned. It wasn’t even patented. For two decades it collected dust, forgotten - until the advent of the AIDS era.

As soon as Dr Robert Gallo made his famous announcement at a press conference on 23 April 1984 that his virus was the probable cause of AIDS, the race was on to find a pharmaceutical weapon against it. The stratospheric profit potential (since borne out) of being the first past the post was on everybody’s mind. Obviously, if an already synthesised drug could be applied to the malady, it would short-cut most of the road-race there. AZT was fished off the shelf, along with numerous other abandoned brews, and put to some in vitro tests. It demonstrated a bright alchemical sparkle. On the basis of a reassuring but fallacious assertion that AZT was specifically antagonistic to HIV, and a thousand times more toxic to the latter than human cells generally, the drug went to clinical trials. The chaos into which the trials degenerated is a tale too long to tell here. It wouldn’t be extravagant to call them fraudulent (3). (Subsequent trials consistently turned in opposite results.) At best, they were so incompetently staged that the data gathered under them were useless, save to note that one in five of its subjects taking AZT needed repeated blood transfusions to keep going. Small surprise, since the label on bottles of AZT supplied to laboratories bears a skull and cross-bones and cautions, “Toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed. Target organ(s): Blood, bone marrow…Wear suitable protective clothing.”

Four months after the trials started, they were called off prematurely, on an interpretation of provisional results deemed positive for the drug by the trial overseer. Which is odd for a drug claimed to be on double-blind test, with neither doctor nor patient supposed to know who was on what, but there we are. Next, it went before the FDA, to be approved in record time under huge political pressure from the gay lobby. Strong reservations were expressed at the hearing about its dreadful toxicity. The chairman’s vote against it was defeated. As the most poisonous drug ever licensed by the FDA for indefinite use, and with the conviction apparently that the terrible new disease needed a terrible medicine, AZT was approved for use in extreme AIDS cases only - for which you might want to read, in cases of people very ill with their presenting AIDS indicator disease, fungal pneumonia or what have you. Scarcely a year later, in the orgy of stupidity that characterises the AIDS age, AZT was officially recommended for administration to entirely healthy people, whose misfortune it was to register positive to an HIV antibody test. Since the drug destroys the very immune cells allegedly attacked by HIV, the introduction of AZT as a treatment regimen for asymptomatic HIV-positive people saw the AIDS mortality rate among the previously well take off like a rocket. Five years and countless deaths later, and only after the disastrous results of the European Concorde and St Mary trials, was this murderous treatment recommendation reversed. AZT, it was found, did no good. Of course not. On any intelligent consideration of its pharmacological action, AZT could never be ‘antiviral’, any more so than arsenic could have cured the scurvy for which it was administered to sailors, and later, to troops in the trenches in the First World War.

In Europe and the US, HIV-positive ‘long term survivors’ quietly gather to form groups, having sloughed off the terror of the death sentences imposed on them by their doctors. Here’s the strangest thing. Without exception, what they find they all have in common is that they all eschewed (or quickly gave up) AZT, related nucleoside analogues like 3TC, and protease inhibitors. Some have pondered the unthinkable: that nearly all medically managed AIDS cases, always terminal, represent that balefully familiar phenomenon in the history of medicine, iatrogenocide - to be killed by the cure. Their reasoning becomes less obscure when one reads the AZT package insert. To do so might tempt one to wonder impertinently whether AZT isn’t AIDS by prescription. Indeed, such perverse conjecture is actually confirmed in capitals: AZT use “MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH HEMATOLOGIC TOXICITY INCLUDING GRANULOCYTOPENIA AND SEVERE ANEMIA” (destruction of white and red blood cells respectively), and “PROLONGED USE OF RETROVIR HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH SYMPTOMATIC MYOPATHY (gross atrophy of muscle tissue) SIMILAR TO THAT PRODUCED BY HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS”. As to the latter claim, history will judge whether the thousands of healthy HIV-positive people who embarked on their metabolic poison treatment and wasted away (just as the AZT insert predicted) would have died had they ignored doctor’s orders and thrown their pills away. Here the syphilis story is instructive.

Before the introduction of mercury and arsenic salts as a treatment for this clap, the organic brain damage and dementia that signalled ‘tertiary-’ or ‘neuro-syphilis’ was quite unknown to medicine. When penicillin replaced the older decoctions, it then disappeared. The moral is hard to miss.

One sane notion in that otherwise mad dance with death that chemotherapy for cancer involves is that you stop before you drop. Since healthy cells are always killed in the crossfire, the idea is to rescue the patient from going over the cliff along with the target bad cells, by taking him off the drug in the nick of time. That iron rule is broken in AIDS treatment. You’re going to die, you’re told, so better take the bitter medicine to the bitter end, to stave off the evil day. But as AZT heads like a heat-seeking missile for one’s immune and energy transporting cells (“target organs: blood, bone marrow”, remember?) dying of AIDS on AZT is a racing certainty. No one has ever been cured by AZT, but it sells like hot cakes all the same, still the most widely prescribed AIDS drug, and it reaps profits counted in billions.

Ever irrepressible as a medicine following one failure after another, in 1994 AZT was proposed as a treatment for pregnant women to prevent the transmission of HIV from mother to child, or so it was touted. Until then, it had been staunchly contraindicated during pregnancy. Generously underwritten by the drug’s manufacturer, the study, ACTG 076, in which this startlingly novel use of AZT was tried, epitomises the junk-science that characterises so much AIDS research. Of 477 babies born to HIV-positive mothers in the trial, 13 in the AZT-treated group were born antibody-positive, against 40 in the placebo group. Apart from the lunacy of basing a decision to dose HIV-positive mothers with a cell-toxin as lethal as AZT on such feeble numbers, the underlying assumption that an HIV-positive test result predicts inevitable illness and death is a canard of modern medicine which, surprisingly, wants for evidence. Most babies ‘seroconvert’ to HIV-negative in any event, medicated or not. The other overarching myth is that the mere presence of antibodies in one’s bloodstream signifies an active infection. Isn’t it elementary that we carry antibodies to all sorts of pathogens that we have met and defeated? Isn’t this first-year stuff? Advocates of AZT confess to being completely in the dark to account for the vaunted HIV blocking effect they claim. The reason why administering vitamin A instead works precisely the same magic might be a pointer to something less interesting: stressed health, thanks to chronic poor nourishment and living conditions. As for the positive immune signals a ‘short course of AZT’ can generate, poison ingestion provokes an immune reaction as the body rises to the insult. This is old hat.

Thrown to the wind have been all the safeguards set up to ensure that the Diethylstilbestrol and Thalidomide tragedies would never happen again. Before the hysteria of the AIDS age, women were enjoined even to avoid drinking beer during pregnancy. A recently reconfirmed active carcinogen, and teratogen too - cells not killed outright are nastily maimed - AZT freely crosses the placental barrier, so the package insert tells us cheerfully. Has anyone here paused to question whether a growing foetus comprising rapidly dividing cells should be exposed to a random terminator of DNA chain synthesis? Apparently not. Certainly not the recipients of GlaxoWellcome’s largesse from its slush fund of millions for those who make AIDS their business in this country. Nor our doctors carrying out bold medical experiments on the foetuses of pregnant black women - whose unlucky dice gives them a positive registration to the irredeemably and hopelessly non-specific ‘HIV-antibody’ test. Of course anyone in the game crying foul, and drawing attention to the reams of literature in the medical journals about the harm caused by AZT, especially to the young, is going to find himself sent off and defunded, for keeps. Were it not for the amazing collapse of critical intelligence in the AIDS age, GlaxoWellcome’s heart-warming contributions to ‘the fight against AIDS’, with its research grants and cut-prices - described by the Mail and Guardian as a “bouquet of assistance” - might have been seen less as philanthropy than commerce, pure and simple. As it has achieved so successfully abroad, what better way to fix its local market than by buying off our medical establishment and ‘AIDS activist’ crowd with lolly aplenty to fund their dumb projects? And by enticing our government with current discounts for its rancid wares, in order to hook longer-term contractual commitments.

The AIDS Law Project at Wits currently busies itself with plans to sue the minister in the High Court for an order compelling her to respect ‘pregnant women’s rights to AZT’, and dole it out on the house. Then again, its ‘AIDS activist’ lawyers gratefully take junkets to AIDS conferences in holiday cities overseas at GlaxoWellcome’s expense. The ‘human rights’ they pursue might be better served were these legal crusaders to call off their foolish case and think of ways best to bite the hand that feeds them. Several actions for loss of support have been launched against GlaxoWellcome in England and the USA, arising out of the deaths of family members killed by their doctors’ prescriptions of AZT (5).

Although she has justified her perplexing decision on AZT on the basis of financial considerations exclusively, saying she would rather spend her money on ‘AIDS education’, one day Health Minister Nkosazana Zuma will be praised for her great prescient wisdom in keeping AZT away from pregnant women and their foetuses. A bit like much-lauded Dr Francis Kelsey, whom Kennedy honoured for her wise perspicacity in sparing the USA the European Thalidomide calamity, when in truth her only notable trait was her fortuitously inefficient foot-dragging in obstructing the start of the FDA approval process.

It’s high time that everyone involved in this nightmarish mess went off to do some basic homework in the subject in which they have so much to say for themselves.

refs: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/abazt.htm

.

Of course the OMSJ discredits expert witnesses. That's their job! And quite frankly, it isn't too difficult to discredit an expert using legal tactics. So as far as placing OMSJ on a pedistal, I say BS.

The problem with our medical system is mainly due to attorneys such as those who practice in malpractice companies such as OMSJ. I admit there are a few bad docs who do fuck up, but the majority do not and yet they have to defend against BS suits brought on by law firms such as the OMSJ.

We have already stated to see a decrease in medical and personal injury cases due to the fact that many states are limiting the amount of frivelous (sp) lawsuits and limiting the amount of compensation that is awarded.

AIDS is real and kills. You cannot deny physical outcomes. All you conspiracy theorists need to get a life and wake up.

Of course the OMSJ discredits expert witnesses. That's their job! And quite frankly, it isn't too difficult to discredit an expert using legal tactics. So as far as placing OMSJ on a pedistal, I say BS.

The problem with our medical system is mainly due to attorneys such as those who practice in malpractice companies such as OMSJ. I admit there are a few bad docs who do fuck up, but the majority do not and yet they have to defend against BS suits brought on by law firms such as the OMSJ.

We have already stated to see a decrease in medical and personal injury cases due to the fact that many states are limiting the amount of frivelous (sp) lawsuits and limiting the amount of compensation that is awarded.

AIDS is real and kills. You cannot deny physical outcomes. All you conspiracy theorists need to get a life and wake up. Originally Posted by satexasguy

The OMSJ doesn't bring malpractice lawsuits against anyone.

Their action to which I referred was the commendable defense of those wrongly accused of spreading HIV to others. The OMSJ also doesn't discredit expert witnesses; it doesn't have to - since those so-called expert witnesses decline giving their testimony under oath (pain of perjury). Instead, the organization merely presents facts to refute the non-science of HIV = AIDS.

Your accusation is frivolous.

.

Of course the OMSJ discredits expert witnesses. That's their job! And quite frankly, it isn't too difficult to discredit an expert using legal tactics. So as far as placing OMSJ on a pedistal, I say BS.... Originally Posted by satexasguy

The OMSJ doesn't bring malpractice lawsuits against anyone.

...

. Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

You don't read well, do you, Bill. satexasguy said it was BS and you promised to ignore further BS on this thread. Are you lying, Bill? Can't imagine that.

Ten reasons why HIV could not cause AIDS


1.) HIV is harmless.

HIV reproduces itself through what is called reverse transcription. Its
receptacle attaches to the coating of the T cell and encodes its information (RNA)
into the information contained in the gene (DNA). Like all viral that
invade the body, at first they reproduce rapidly. In doing so they may
indeed create cold symptoms. But the body has antibodies that seek out
things like HIV and render it dead or harmless. When a person test positive,
the test they took actually doesn’t find the virus itself but the antibodies
that are in the blood and are left over after they have attacked and
disabled the HIV. What that means is that when you test positive, it means
your body has already encountered the virus and is now immune to it. The
body has done its job. There are no viruses in the history of medicine that
reemerge and re-attack the body after the bodies’ immune system has rendered
them inactive. Even a high school student biology student would find fault
with the HIV theory when the facts are presented. We should ask why we spent
billions of dollars and nothing has come from it. Nothing except death.

2.) HIV does not kill the t-cells it affects.

People with AIDS are indeed losing t-cells. Because these were the cells
that HIV effects, it was ASSUMED that HIV was the culprit. But Retroviruses
do not kill their hosts. Only under rare laboratory conditions is it
possible to make HIV kill its host cell. AIDS researchers actually use
t-cells to grow the virus in their reacearch because both live together very
compatibly. It was this notion that initially made Duesberg and over 600
other scientist, including 181 that have advanced degrees question the whole
thing in the first place. Truth is, HIV is not a killer virus. Viruses that
kill a cell couldn’t cause cancer. If HIV were a killer cell then those with
AIDS indication diseases would not have some form of cancer as some of the
defining diseases do.

3.) HIV does not infect enough t-cells to cause AIDS.

After a retrovirus is brought under control by the immune system, the virus
particles become dormant and begin to disappear. Before long the virus can
hardly be found at all. I have posted before HIV only effects up to 1 cell
per thousand and sometimes only 1 cell per 100,000 thousand. But t-cells
reproduce at up to 5% per day. Simple mathematics proves that HIV can in no
way infect enough cells to bring down the immune system. In fact, the HIV
scientists even admit that this low t-cell amount is difficult to explain.
Of course they can’t. It isn’t true. Very few t-cells that are infected by
HIV can actually be found in the sickest persons. Gallos original hypothesis
that this is all based on is the equivalent of saying that a person who
nicks himself shaving is going to die. You are losing 1/1000 of your blood
but you are not going to die.

4.) HIV has no AIDS causing gene.

HIV simply has no specific gene or unique genetic reason to cause AIDS. All
retroviruses have only three major genes and six minor genes. Because the
genes are so limited in these very simple viruses, they need all the genes
to replicate. HIV is almost identical to all other retroviruses genetically.
There are 50 to 100 of these retroviruses in everyone’s body and they are
all (including HIV) kept in check by the immune system. It would be
extremely rare for genes which such similar genetic sequences to act any
different than other almost identical genes. If HIV causes AIDS then why can’t
the others cause the same intense problems? It simply doesn’t make sense.

5.)There is no such thing as a slow virus.

They say that HIV takes up to 12 years to cause AIDS. They use words like
migrate, mutate, replicate, reactivate, and hibernate. They give HIV magical
powers that no other virus in the body has. Actually the words come from
people like Gallo and Gajdusek who used this magical theory to buy time when
their hypothesis didn’t work. They based their slow virus hypothesis on
studies of Epstein Barr virus and Herpes virus, but these are very different
than is HIV. In both cases large amounts of virus can be found that cause
specific problems related to the disorders. But HIV is dormant. How does a
dormant virus cause 30 unrelated diseases ten years later? None of which are
specific to HIV itself. We are buying lots of time for something else to
cause AIDS at this point. They have a safety net. There is not even a shred
of light at why it would take ten years for this to happen. It has never
happened with any other virus in history. No one even bothers to ask that
question from the HIV/AIDS side.

6.) HIV is not a new virus so it would not cause a new epidemic.

They assume that since AIDS has grown dramatically since 1981 that HIV
virus must cause it. They tell you about green monkey bites and promiscuous
gay flight attendants but science fails to ask a simple question, How old is
HIV? Using what science calls Farrs law we can assume that it is very old.
What Farr said was that when a new virus comes along it spreads
exponentially, like a flu epidemic. But since HIV was detected only
1,000,000 Americans ever have it each year (CDC). So if it is in 1 million
people every year for ten years and simply doesn’t grow exponentially (as it
doesn’t) it can’t be new. HIV is older than the country you live in. It has
been and is in many people and there offspring for centuries according to
Farrs law.

7.) HIV fails Koch’s postulates.

This is a universal law in science. It states 1, the germ must be found in
all cases. But there are 10-20% of people that have AIDS and don’t have HIV
at all. When it can be found it is in extremely small amounts and dormant.
Number two states that the germ must be isolated from the host and be able
to be grown in a culture. But it takes huge amounts of cell tissue to find
it, then a difficult chemical process is necessary to reactivate it. The
third postulate states that HIV must be able to be injected into a healthy
host and must thrive in that host. But HIV injected in Chimps which have
similar DNA to use does not live in these animals. It fails to live when
injected in any other animal and yes people. Human health care workers who
are injected with HIV accidentally, very very rarely get AIDS unless they
use drugs. The statistics of the CDC prove that. The HIV orthodoxy have
stated that Koch’s postulates are old and outdates but it has stood the test
of time. In fact those that have ignored it have all met peril. In the case
of Beri-beri, Scurvy, Pelegra, SIMON, and the failed Virus-cancer program,
all ended in a dismal failure. All were supposedly infectious but were not.
And Robert Gallo was responsible for the ridiculous virus-cancer
investigation. All the researchers ignored Koch’s postulates and were proved
to be wrong as a result. Looking at the population study AIDS fails also.
The population studies that the CDC releases every year prove by themselves
that HIV does not cause AIDS.

8.) AIDS has remained in its original risk groups for 12 years.

If a disease does not spread it is not contagious and must be caused by
something else. AIDS is still in its original risk groups of gay males, IV
users, Hemophiliacs and drug transfusion patients make up of over 97% of all
AIDS cases and the other less than 3% suffer from immuno deficiency at
random and happen to be infected by HIV. If AIDS is caused by a virus the 3%
group would grow but it doesn’t. In 1984 the army started to test new
recruits, they found that HIV infection was evenly distributed 50/50 amongst
men and women, and has remained that way. It should follow that AIDS should
be spread 50% male and 50% female, but nine out of ten AIDS cases are still
male. A germ related disease should be spread evenly and it is not. This may
explain why drug use is more related to HIV infection. In the US over 80%
of all psychoactive drugs are used by males. Amongst women, 60% use hard
drugs. Health care workers have not begun getting AIDS. There are a handful
of cases and even these are disputed. AIDS has to do with specific medical
risks and behavior than HIV.

9.) International comparisons differ greatly.

AIDS statistics are totally different here than in a country like Africa. In
the US it is 90% male. But in Africa it is evenly split at 50% male and 50%
female. AIDS remains among the 97% risk group in the US but in Africa AIDS
has no risk group and is found randomly. Only 62% of the cases of AIDS
diseases in this country are microbial, but in Africa over 90% are
microbial. AIDS diseases not germ related are at 38%, but in Africa less
than 10% are not germ related. This simply doesn’t make sense. Over 14
million have the virus in Africa. Because of the malnutrition and other
health conditions conducive to AIDS, statistics from Africa should be 14
times higher than the US but is the opposite. People in the US develop AIDS
10-20 times faster. WHO and CDC data confirm that from 1987 to 1996. Last
year numbers show that the CDC reported official AIDS cases in the US at
513,486 and the WHO reported that 442,735 Africans officially had it. Why
would the AIDS epidemic behave differently in the industrialized world? The
answer is simple, DRUGS. You guys who think AIDS is decimating the population
in Africa are wrong. If tens and thousand of people are dyeing in Africa,
where are these people? Philip Krynen and his wife Evelin are in Tanzania
(thought to be the epicenter of the AIDS outbreak). They are rather
interesting French people who belong the “the Group”. After being there for
a few years to help supposed AIDS orphans, supported by money from France,
Philip stated that there was no AIDS in Africa. It was something that the
outside world invented. These kids were not orphans but were left with
relatives while parents went to find work in the dry seasons. Anyone
interested in speaking with him personally, please contact me and I will get
you in touch. The AIDS diseases that these people are suffering from are
nothing more than diseases which existed since the beginning of time but have all been grouped into this ridiculous word, AIDS.

10.) AIDS occurs without HIV infection and most who are positive, never
develop AIDS.

The presence of HIV does not prove that HIV causes AIDS just like birds on
power lines do not prove that power failures are caused by the birds. In
both cases they only correlate. In science correlation does not prove
causation. If HIV is a passenger virus that does not cause it we should see
two things. One, People with AIDS not infected with HIV and two, people with
HIV who do not get AIDS. That is exactly what is happening. Why do different
risk groups develop different diseases? Why do IV users usually develop TB
and wasting Syndrome yet gay males primarily develop KS and
cytomegloviruses? IV drug users get the same TB and wasting syndromes
whether they officially have AIDS or not and even lose CD-4 t-cells like
those with HIV infection. AIDS is nothing more than a new name for something
they have always had. In the case of gay males KS is found in many gays
males who do not have or get AIDS. The similarity is the use of poppers and
other immune killing medications. Something other than HIV must be causing
AIDS. There are on record over 6000 cases of AIDS without HIV. Something is
terribly wrong with their whole equation. Why is KS by itself KS but with a
positive HIV diagnosis it is not KS but AIDS? Why is Pneumonia, pneumonia
except if it has a diagnosis of HIV, then it is AIDS. What is the
difference? NOTHING. AIDS is nothing more than 30 disease that have already
existed with this inclusion of a mostly false HIV test. There is a
correlation of HIV and AIDS if you ignore the cases of AIDS that don’t have
HIV. Statistics around the world prove that.

97% of those in Africa who are HIV positive do not have AIDS.
Statistics show that in this country (The United States) over 1.5 million
people are supposedly infected with HIV and yet the number of people with
AIDS is never near half of that number. They say that there are over
28,000,000 people with AIDS worldwide and yet less than (1,393,649) are
officially reported to have AIDS. That is less than 5%. Even the estimates
of the total worldwide cases of AIDS is 7,700,000, less than 28% of the
estimated total who have been infected with HIV.

.

To all readership:

The information presented to you in post number 99 immediately preceding this represents a true transgression of the truth about this insidious disease. Note that it is stated without sources cited and is truly dangerous given the reason we all convene in this place to begin with.

I implore you all, let's joke and belittle and cajole to our hearts content but when it comes to disseminating false information about a true killer, let's stand firm in our resolve to ignore and refute that which has been proven otherwise by countless unbiased scientific opinions. Independent physicians, grieving partners, grieving families, and death certificates do not lie. HIV/AIDS is a killer. Let him who has ears to hear.

All the best.

IS “HIV” REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS? ARE THERE REALLY ONLY “A FEW” SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS?


Over 2,000 scientists, medical professionals, authors and academics are on record that the “Hiv-Aids” theories, routinely reported to the public as if they were facts, are dubious to say the least.

Information shown in red indicates recent additions.

“It’s not even probable, let alone scientifically proven, that HIV causes AIDS. If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There are no such documents.”

Spin Magazine, Vol. 10 No.4, 1994


“The HIV-causes-AIDS theory is one hell of a mistake.”

Foreword, “Inventing the AIDS Virus”


“Where is the research that says HIV is the cause of AIDS? There are 10,000 people in the world now who specialize in HIV. None has any interest in the possibility HIV doesn’t cause AIDS because if it doesn’t, their expertise is useless.”

“People keep asking me, ‘You mean you don’t believe that HIV causes AIDS?’ And I say, ‘Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant! I have no scientific evidence for it.’ I might believe in God, and He could have told me in a dream that HIV causes AIDS. But I wouldn’t stand up in front of scientists and say, ‘I believe HIV causes AIDS because God told me.’ I’d say, ‘I have papers here in hand and experiments that have been done that can be demonstrated to others.’ It’s not what somebody believes, it’s experimental proof that counts. And those guys don’t have that.”

California Monthly, Sept 1994


“Years from now, people will find our acceptance of the HIV theory of AIDS as silly as we find those who excommunicated Galileo.”

“Dancing Naked in the Mind Field,” 1998


“If you think a virus is the cause of AIDS, do a control without it. To do a control is the first thing you teach undergraduates. But it hasn’t been done. The epidemiology of AIDS is a pile of anecdotal stories selected to the virus-AIDS hypothesis. People don’t bother to check the details of popular dogma or consensus views.”

HIV not Guilty, Oct 5, 1996


“[Aids] is not ‘God’s wrath’ or any other absurdity. A segment of our society was experimenting with their lifestyle, and it didn’t work. They got sick. Another segment of our pluralistic society, call them doctor/scientist refugees from the failed War on Cancer, or just call them professional jackals, discovered that it did work. It worked for them. They are still making payments on their new BMWs out of your pocket.”

Dancing Naked in the Mind Field. Vintage Books. 2000

— Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD, Biochemist, Winner, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for inventing the polymerase chain reaction, the basis for the HIV viral load tests.


“The HIV hypothesis of AIDS is the biggest scientific, medical blunder of the 20th Century. The evidence is overwhelming that AIDS is not contagious, sexually transmitted, or caused by HIV. The physicians who know or suspect the truth are embarrassed or afraid to admit that the HIV tests are absurd and should be outlawed, and that the anti-HIV drugs are injuring and killing people.”

Mail & Guardian, Johannesburg, SA, Jan 24, 2001


“As a scientist who has studied AIDS for 16 years, I have determined that AIDS has little to do with science and is not even primarily a medical issue. AIDS is a sociological phenomenon held together by fear, creating a kind of medical McCarthyism that has transgressed and collapsed all the rules of science, and has imposed a brew of belief and pseudo-science on a vulnerable public.”

Spin, June 1997


“Fifty percent of Africans have no sewage systems. Their drinking water mixes with animal and human waste. They have constant TB and malaria infections, the symptoms of which are diarrhea and weight loss, the very same criteria UNAIDS and the World Health Organization use to diagnose AIDS in Africa. These people need clean drinking water and treated mosquito nets [mosquitoes carry malaria], not condoms and lectures and deadly pharmaceuticals forced on pregnant mothers.”

Scheff, AIDS Debate, Boston Dig, 2003


“Those damn [HIV] tests should be outlawed. They’re lethal. First of all, it’s a death sentence in South Africa. People commit suicide, they’ve been stoned to death, they’ve had their houses burned down, they’ve been murdered. Just for having antibodies to HIV. They have been ostracized. And in certain rural communities, ostracism is equivalent to death. So you’re scared to death, first of all. And then you start taking the anti-HIV drugs, which cause AIDS, and if you take them long enough they will kill you.”

New York Press, vol. 14, no. 16, 2002


“In 1990 at the San Francisco AIDS conference, [HIV co-discoverer Luc] Montagnier announced that HIV did not, after all, kill T-cells and could not be the cause of AIDS. Within hours of making this announcement, he was attacked by the very industry he’d helped to create.”

Scheff


And hundreds more > http://aras.ab.ca/aidsquotes.htm


.

Thanks for the current sources, Bill. I remember 2002 like it was yesterday. And I do see where you're coming from, Spin magazine is used in many medical schools across the country.

The AIDS industry and media want you to think there are only a handful of scientists who doubt the HIV-AIDS theory.

Here's the reality.

2,848 doubters and growing: http://aras.ab.ca/rethinkers.php

.

The AIDS industry and media want you to think there are only a handful of scientists who doubt the HIV-AIDS theory.

Here's the reality.

2,848 doubters and growing: http://aras.ab.ca/rethinkers.php

. Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

And yet truth stands alone.

Iatrogenic Harm Following "HIV" Testing
Henry H. Bauer, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT

A large proportion of asymptomatic human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV) "positive" individuals - 50% or more - are likely never to
progress to illness if left untreated. That follows from official
estimates of numbers of undiagnosed "HIV positives," numbers of
known HIV/AIDS cases, numbers of AIDS deaths over the years, and
from the high frequency of false positive tests that result from
screening low-risk populations.

Nonetheless, antiretroviral treatment (ART) is, increasingly, being
initiated purely on the basis of laboratory tests for HIV and CD4 cell
counts, in the absence of symptoms. Perhaps half or more of HIVpositive
patients are needlessly taking drugs with highly debilitating
side effects. At highest risk of iatrogenic harm are pregnant women,
Africans, and persons of recent African ancestry.

AIDS InfoNet, established in 1998, is another putatively
authoritative resource for the medical profession and the general
public, being partly funded by the National Library of Medicine and
maintained by the AIDS Education and Training Center at the
University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center.

It asserts that "HIV testing tells you if you are infected with the Human
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) which causes AIDS," another
statement that is in direct contradiction to the facts that positive tests
do not necessarily indicate infection and that the tests have not been
approved for the purpose of detecting infection.

AIDS InfoNet does acknowledge that "one" of the rapid tests has had a
higher rate of false positives, and that some "special cases" can give false
positives, for example, babies who still carry their mother’s HIV antibodies;
but it goes on to assert that other tests, such as viral load, can be used
instead, as though these other tests could diagnose infection.

Commendably, AIDS InfoNet acknowledges also that "[p]regnant women may have
false or unclear test results due to changes in their immune system,"
but this falls short of acknowledging that pregnancy itself is the cause
of a positive HIVtest in someone who has no knownAIDS risks.

Furthermore, all these caveats are likely to be overlooked given the
statement that "Antibody test results for HIV are accurate more than
99.5% of the time," which misuses the term "accurate," and lacks the crucial
explanation that in low-risk groups (=0.1% HIV prevalence) five out
of six positives are false positives. It also fails to point out that
antibody positive does not necessarily mean infection.

Altogether, then, the clear impression is given by seemingly authoritative
sources, in information intended for medical professionals as well as for
general consumption, that HIV testing is highly accurate and can be
relied upon to detect infection.

This is not in keeping with the technical literature, which makes plain that
testing can be no more than an adjunct to clinical judgment in inferring
whether a person might actually be infected with HIV.

Dissemination of these unqualified and thereby misleading assertions that
HIV testing is 99.5% accurate misinforms practicing physicians and thereby
represents a clear danger to the psychological and physical health of the
general public, particularly of low-risk individuals.

Published in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons,
Medical Controversy
42 Iatrogenic Harm Following "HIV" Testing
Henry H. Bauer, Ph.D.


.