The Fabricated Epidemic

This grim statement was made by Dr. Johnathan Mann of the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1987 and quoted by the Wall Street Journal. Only a few months earlier, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop had announced to a terrified nation that a minimum of 100 million humans would be dead by the end of this century. Worse still, this disaster had cruelly chosen the form of a progressive, absolutely fatal disease that killed only with extreme suffering — a disease that had come to be known as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

A bewildered public was told that a highly unusual virus had somehow broken into the human population. But, unlike in the past, scientists seemed paralyzed in trying to find a solution. Vaccination wouldn’t work. The most potent drugs might, at best, only delay the symptoms. The condition wouldn’t show up until eight to ten years after infection with the virus, but was inevitable. It would only appear after the victim had developed antibodies. Everyone was at risk.

Of course, there was only one solution. As Dr. Mann of WHO put it, “Global AIDS control will require billions of dollars over the next five years.” Who could argue?

As of about the middle of 1987, this was the official status of the worst natural epidemic to strike mankind in the twentieth century.

But then something happened that wasn’t supposed to. A twenty-two page article appeared in the March issue of the scientific journal Cancer Research. The author was the highly respected Dr. Peter Duesberg, a professor and research scientist in molecular biology at the University of California. As co-discoverer of the first viral cancer gene, expert on viruses, and member of the National Academy of Sciences, he was a voice that could not be easily ignored. In that article, after using several pages to question the role of viruses in cancer, Duesberg turned to AIDS.

AIDS, he defiantly declared, couldn’t possibly be caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Which meant that everyone was on a wild goose chase.

The reaction from scientific and medical circles was equally incredible. Not one professional even responded to this landmark article. When questioned by occasional curious reporters, scientists either refused to respond or launched personal attacks on Dr. Duesberg.

Since that article, a growing list of scientists has come to agree at least partly with Duesberg: Dr. Harry Rubin, also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and a colleague at the University of California; Professor Gordon Stewart, a British epidemiologist; Dr. Walter Gilbert, virologist and Nobel laureate at Harvard University; Dr. Albert Sabin, inventor of the polio vaccine; Dr. Robert S. Root-Bernstein of Michigan State University; Dr. Harvey Bialy, editor of the journal Bio/Technology; Beverly Griffin, a London virologist; Dr. Alfred S. Evans, a Yale University epidemiologist. The list continues to grow.

At the same time, an increasing number of practicing physicians treating AIDS patients has also come to challenge the idea that any virus is responsible, much less HlV. The list includes such names as Stephen Caiazza and Joseph Sonnabend of New York, and Alan Cantwell of Los Angeles.

Yet, the established view has not budged one single inch. Virtually no challenge is offered against the arguments of these dissident scientists and doctors. In fact, almost no one outside of scientific circles has even heard that this “debate” exists.

Most people are surprised to learn that AIDS is not a new disease, but rather a syndrome composed entirely old ones. Since September of 1987, the federal government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have updated the official definition of this syndrome. It contains a list of such diseases as Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, Kaposi’s Sarcoma (cancer of blood vessels), herpes, tuberculosis, salmonellosis, several cancers, and any “other bacterial infection.” Presumably these diseases are tied together by a common cause of immune system malfunction.

But this definition explicitly states: “Regardless of the presence of other causes of immunodeficiency, in the presence of… HIV infection, any disease listed above or below indicates a diagnosis of AIDS.” No matter what else may have happened to the patient to suppress the immune system, when antibodies to HIV are present, the virus is presumed to be the sole cause of the condition. HIV itself does not have to be present; antibodies against the virus are enough. So, of course, by definition, people exposed at any time to the virus are likely to get AIDS. In other words, an arbitrary correlation has been created.

Further, no controlled study has ever been done to compare people exposed to HIV with those unexposed, to see if those with the virus are more likely to get those old diseases. This type of controlled study is usually one of the first tests done to see if the correct cause of a disease has been found.

The HIV virus itself can only be found active in a tiny fraction of all AIDS patients; in most, it is either inactive or even unable to be reactivated. Among the total number probably infected, only a tiny fraction each year actually develop something diagnosed as AIDS.

The picture gets stranger. Even though all AIDS patients have essentially the same virus, afflicted individuals tend to get different conditions depending on which risk group they belong to. Kaposi’s sarcoma develops almost exclusively in homosexuals with AIDS. Heroin addicts are far more likely to develop pneumonia. Infants with HIV contract pediatric diseases. Heterosexuals outside of risk groups tend not to develop AIDS at all.

“HIV was claimed to kill billions of T-cells, which retroviruses don’t do,” shrugs Peter Duesberg when asked what first made him suspicious of the HIV hypothesis.

T-cells form a crucial part of the immune system. In AIDS patients whose immune failure is verified, the universal hallmark is a severe depletion of those T-cells. Yet HIV is particularly unsuited to kill so many cells, since it belongs to a class of viruses known as retroviruses. These viruses are particularly distinguished by the fact that they reproduce without killing cells.

Upon investigation, Duesberg discovered that, even in a full-blown AIDS case, no more than one in ten thousand T-cells is actively infected with HIV. But, he protests, the human body regenerates far more T-cells than that every day. So, even if every infected cell died, the body would never notice. In all other diseases, huge amounts of the causal microbe can be isolated when the patient displays symptoms. In AIDS, the almost nonexistent HIV can only be detected with ultra sensitive equipment that came into use in the early 1980s, and which is often used to detect inactive virus.

HIV itself contains no genetic information unusual for retroviruses, nor can it “save” any of its genes for use ten years after infection, which is the “latent period” for AIDS. So it should not suddenly be able to spring back to life years later and cause conditions that it did not cause when it first infected.

What does cause AIDS? Duesberg offers what he calls the “risk hypothesis.” According to him, the AIDS story actually began with major lifestyle changes around 1970. Homosexuals came out of the closets and went into the bathhouses, while drug abuse in general began increasing.

The dramatic increase in sexual activity by homosexuals led to repeated bouts of such diseases as hepatitis and syphilis. These alone can eventually weaken the immune system, but the problem was compounded when homosexuals began regularly taking antibiotics to prevent bacterial infections. Some antibiotics, such as tetracycline, are partly immunosuppressive.

As if this were not enough, recreational drugs became popular in these public baths; stimulants such as cocaine and depressants such as marijuana came to be used on a daily basis among homosexuals in major cities. These drugs all have the ability to weaken the immune system over time. Most important, nitrite inhalants came into use as aphrodisiacs; because of their unique function, these drugs were used almost exclusively by active homosexuals. Some studies have lent support to the idea that these inhalants may directly cause Kaposi’s sarcoma.

Various recreational drugs whose use has increased over the last twenty years, including heroin, are immunosuppressive. Therefore, heroin may be more responsible for AIDS conditions than dirty needles are. This, compounded with the malnutrition often experienced by drug addicts, can explain much.

There is no documented evidence to indicate that hemophiliacs get more diseases after exposure to HIV. But they certainly experience more conditions than the average healthy person. One significant reason may be the use of Factor VIII, a clotting factor used today by hemophiliacs; it, too, can suppress the immune system.

Another interesting alternative hypothesis for AIDS has been advanced by, among others, Dr. Stephen Caiazza, a New York physician who treats AIDS cases. As with other medical doctors, he noticed that some of the symptoms of AIDS conditions were remarkably similar to those of syphilis. When he began treating his patients with penicillin in 1987, virtually all recovered. While Caiazza believes much of AIDS may actually be syphilis, Duesberg is convinced that this only explains a certain percentage of the cases, particularly some of those involving “AIDS dementia.”

Given the contrived definition of AIDS, misdiagnosis and confusion with immune suppression undoubtedly comprise a great proportion of AIDS cases. When an otherwise treatable condition is diagnosed as AIDS, it is assumed to be terminal and goes untreated.

These explanations do help in understanding the paradoxes of HIV in AIDS: the dissimilar distributions of conditions among those with HIV or AIDS, the inactivity of HIV even in full-AIDS patients, and why therapies aimed against the virus don’t do anything to alleviate the conditions. They also place HIV among the long list of harmless microbes that humans and animals perpetually harbor.

That such a monumental error could be made in the first place is both tragic and unbelievable. That this deadly error continues to dominate the scientific and medical establishment seems positively bizarre, until one understands the story behind the myth.

President Nixon in 1971 signed legislation that inaugurated a war on cancer. This program was supposed to cure cancer by throwing large sums of money into scientific research — taxpayers’ money. The largest science project established under its auspices was the virus-cancer program, an attempt to study cancer genes by studying retroviruses. The previous year Peter Duesberg had isolated the first such gene from a retrovirus, so the field looked promising.

But, by the 1980s, cancer was no better understood than before and viruses turned out to be irrelevant in human cancers. The only product of this virus program was a large, well financed, and powerful establishment of biological scientists who made their careers studying retroviruses. Several had even won Nobel prizes.

So it should come as no surprise that, once AIDS cases were first defined in 1981, a few perceptive scientists began suggesting that AIDS was transmissible and that the agent of this “new” disease must be a new microbe — for example, a retrovirus.

“Retrovirologists had to push for clinical relevance,” explains Duesberg. “They were reaching out for relevance, and therefore looked for retroviruses in humans which caused disease.” He adds: “Retrovirology is the best-funded program in biology.”

The American retrovirologist who pursued the unlikely possibility of an AIDS virus with the most enthusiasm was Robert C. Gallo, a researcher at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda. The NIH is not only a major agency of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but is also the primary federal agency for funding basic biological and medical research. Once a latent virus had been stimulated to life in cells isolated from an AIDS patient, Gallo decided the cause had been found.

A press conference called by Gallo and Margaret Heckler, then secretary of HHS, first announced the “cause” of AIDS to the world on April 23, 1984. But no scientific paper establishing reasons for believing HIV to be the culprit had yet been published. A government press conference, not scientific debate, decided the cause of AIDS. Heckler also announced that henceforth government money would finance the study of the HIV virus, with all other lines of investigation being dropped immediately. Most other retrovirologists quickly fell into line and eagerly began working on the new program.

Probably the most powerful member of this virus-studying establishment to quickly support the AIDS-virus hypothesis was David Baltimore. With his position at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his Nobel prize for his work in retroviruses, Baltimore had developed a tremendous base of power. His call for the use of federal funds to draw scientists away from other pursuits into studying HIV helped to build his own influence, and of course to suppress dissent through what can only be called bribery with tax dollars.

More recently Baltimore has been plagued by charges of falsifying experimental data; his position in science, however, may have been rescued by his appointment as president of the scientifically prestigious John D. Rockefeller University. Controversy among Baltimore’s peers failed to stop the appointment, largely because the position was offered by the chairman of the university’s board of trustees, David Rockefeller.

The government’s funding policy is not the only factor silencing debate. In blatant violation of all scientific precedent, a growing number of research discoveries is now presented to the media before publication of the data for review by peers. Sometimes the data is not published at all. This makes claims about the virus difficult to evaluate, and misleads the public about AIDS. The premature press conference of Heckler and Gallo has opened the door to ever greater degrees of irresponsibility in science.

Therapies now being developed to treat AIDS are designed to target viruses, and will therefore prove ineffective. Worse yet, they are in fact dangerous.

The drugs proposed for treatment are essentially all chemical analogs of DNA, the genetic material. This means that they kill cells by disrupting DNA replication. Zidovudine, or AZT, is the only one currently approved by the FDA. This particular drug was actually developed in the 1960s for the purpose of killing cancerous T-cells; it was shelved because of its toxicity. When used in humans, it kills the same T-cells depleted in AIDS.

While this effect is officially justified with the assertion that HIV will kill those cells anyway, AZT has the capability to cause a condition of AIDS. The federal government has recently decided to begin testing AZT on pregnant mothers and on children exposed to HIV, as a preventative measure against future development of AIDS. Needless to say, many will develop sickness solely because of the therapy.

Could there be hidden reasons for fighting such a disastrous war on AIDS? A hint appeared in the February 5, 1988 issue of Science. An article by two economists, “The Economic Impact of AIDS in the United States,” offers this observation: “The AIDS epidemic will also highlight the financial problems of Americans who face large medical bills without adequate insurance.” The result may be “calls for a broader system of government health insurance.”

This last July Professor Michael Adler, of the University College and Middlesex School of Medicine in London, went even further by announcing that only with government action to fight unemployment and poverty would spread of the “AIDS virus” be stopped.

Another suggestion was offered in the Spring 1988 issue of Foreign Affairs, the journal of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations. In a landmark article entitled “The Case for Practical Internationalism,” Professor Richard Gardner of Columbia University called for dramatic expansion of the powers of the UN World Health Organization to battle AIDS internationally. Dr. Noble, of WHO, agrees. “We are a global village… and must face this problem together.”

The war on AIDS itself is a new and growing spending program. In fiscal year 1989, $1.3 billion was spent through the Public Health Service, and a projected $1.6 billion will be given out this year. Of that amount, $785 million will be used to buy conformity from science through funding of biological and medical research on the HIV virus. Another $367 million of this will fund a program known as “Information and Education/Preventative Services,” which covers federal efforts to “educate” Americans about the nature of AIDS. This particular program also funds private AIDS foundations and activist groups, which in turn sponsor protests and other activities to call for more funding of the war on AIDS. In effect, the government is purchasing publicity for expanding this war.

Clearly, public exposure of the HIV hoax must be generated as quickly as possible. The war on AIDS, which uses tax dollars to generate its own expansion, threatens to bring about vast increases in socialism and losses of sovereignty while actually promoting the deaths of those who take AZT. All of this is in reaction to a harmless virus; the risk exists only for those few who choose to practice risk behavior.

The only conceivable solution is an immediate de-funding of the war on AIDS at all levels. To accomplish this, however, it may be necessary to launch a Congressional investigation in which dissident scientists and medical doctors are finally provided a public forum, thereby bringing the debate about HIV into the open where it belongs.

The Hidden Face of HIV – Part 1
"Knowing is Beautiful"
http://gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=1035

by Liam Scheff

As a journalist who writes about AIDS, I am endlessly amazed by the difference between the public and the private face of HIV; between what the public is told and what’s explained in the medical literature. The public face of HIV is well-known: HIV is a sexually transmitted virus that particularly preys on gay men, African Americans, drug users, and just about all of Africa, although we’re all at risk. We’re encouraged to be tested, because, as the MTV ads say, "knowing is beautiful." We also know that AIDS drugs are all that’s stopping the entire African continent from falling into the sea.

The medical literature spells it out differently – quite differently. The journals that review HIV tests, drugs and patients, as well as the instructional material from medical schools, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and HIV test manufacturers will agree with the public perception in the large print. But when you get past the titles, they’ll tell you, unabashedly, that HIV tests are not standardized; that they’re arbitrarily interpreted; that HIV is not required for AIDS; and finally, that the term HIV does not describe a single entity, but instead describes a collection of non-specific, cross-reactive cellular material.

That’s quite a difference.

The popular view of AIDS is held up by concerned people desperate to help the millions of Africans stricken with AIDS, the same disease that first afflicted young gay American men in the 1980s. The medical literature differs on this point. It says that that AIDS in Africa has always been diagnosed differently than AIDS in the US.

In 1985, The World Health Organization called a meeting in Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic, to define African AIDS. The meeting was presided over by CDC official Joseph McCormick. He wrote about in his book "Level 4 Virus hunters of the CDC," saying, "If I could get everyone at the WHO meeting in Bangui to agree on a single, simple definition of what an AIDS case was in Africa, then, imperfect as the definition might be, we could actually start counting the cases..." The results – African AIDS would be defined by physical symptoms: fever, diarrhea, weight loss and coughing or itching. ("AIDS in Africa: an epidemiological paradigm." Science, 1986)

In Sub-Saharan African about 60 percent of the population lives and dies without safe drinking water, adequate food or basic sanitation. A September, 2003 report in the Ugandan Daily "New Vision" outlined the situation in Kampala, a city of approximately 1.3 million inhabitants, which, like most tropical countries, experiences seasonal flooding. The report describes "heaps of unclaimed garbage" among the crowded houses in the flood zones and "countless pools of water [that] provide a breeding ground for mosquitoes and create a dirty environment that favors cholera."

"[L]atrines are built above water streams. During rains the area residents usually open a hole to release feces from the latrines. The rain then washes away the feces to streams, from where the [area residents] fetch water. However, not many people have access to toilet facilities. Some defecate in polythene bags, which they throw into the stream." They call these, "flying toilets.’’

The state-run Ugandan National Water and Sewerage Corporation states that currently 55% of Kampala is provided with treated water, and only 8% with sewage reclamation.

Most rural villages are without any sanitary water source. People wash clothes, bathe and dump untreated waste up and downstream from where water is drawn. Watering holes are shared with animal populations, which drink, bathe, urinate and defecate at the water source. Unmanaged human waste pollutes water with infectious and often deadly bacteria. Stagnant water breeds mosquitoes, which bring malaria. Infectious diarrhea, dysentery, cholera, TB, malaria and famine are the top killers in Africa. But in 1985, they became AIDS.

The public service announcements that run on VH1 and MTV, informing us of the millions of infected, always fail to mention this. I don’t know what we’re supposed to do with the information that 40 million people are dying and nothing can be done. I wonder why we wouldn’t be interested in building wells and providing clean water and sewage systems for Africans. Given our great concern, it would seem foolish not to immediately begin the "clean water for Africa" campaign. But I’ve never heard such a thing mentioned.

The UN recommendations for Africa actually demand the opposite –"billions of dollars" taken out of "social funds, education and health projects, infrastructure [and] rural development" and "redirected" into sex education (UNAIDS, 1999). No clean water, but plenty of condoms.

I have, however, felt the push to get AIDS drugs to Africans. Drugs like AZT and Nevirapine, which are supposed to stop the spread of HIV, especially in pregnant women. AZT and Nevirapine also terminate life. The medical literature and warning labels list the side effects: blood cell destruction, birth defects, bone-marrow death, spontaneous abortion, organ failure, and fatal skin rot. The package inserts also state that the drugs don’t "stop HIV or prevent AIDS illnesses."

The companies that make these drugs take advantage of the public perception that HIV is measured in individual African AIDS patients, and that African AIDS - water-borne illness and poverty - can be cured by AZT and Nevirapine. That’s good capitalism, but it’s bad medicine.

Currently MTV, Black Entertainment Television and VH1 are running "Know HIV/AIDS"-sponsored advertisements of handsome young couples, black and white, touching, caressing, sensually, warming up to love-making. The camera moves over their bodies, hands, necks, mouth, back, legs and arms – and we see a small butterfly bandage over their inner elbows, where they’ve given blood for an HIV test. The announcer says, "Knowing is beautiful. Get tested."

A September, 2004 San Francisco Chronicle article considered the "beauty" of testing. It told the story of 59 year-old veteran Jim Malone, who’d been told in 1996 that he was HIV positive. His health was diagnosed as "very poor." He was classified as, "permanently disabled and unable to work or participate in any stressful situation whatsoever." Malone said, "When I wasn’t able to eat, when I was sick, my in-home health care nurse would say, ‘Well, Jim, it goes with your condition.’

In 2004, his doctor sent him a note to tell him he was actually negative. He had tested positive at one hospital, and negative at another. Nobody asked why the second test was more accurate than the first (that was the protocol at the Veteran’s Hospital). Having been falsely diagnosed and spending nearly a decade waiting, expecting to die, Malone said, "I would tell people to get not just one HIV test, but multiple tests. I would say test, test and retest."

In the article, AIDS experts assured the public that the story was "extraordinarily rare." But the medical literature differs significantly.

In 1985, at the beginning of HIV testing, it was known that "68% to 89% of all repeatedly reactive ELISA (HIV antibody) tests [were] likely to represent false positive results." (NEJM - New England Journal of Medicine. 312; 1985).

In 1992, the Lancet reported that for 66 true positives, there were 30,000 false positives. And in pregnant women, "there were 8,000 false positives for 6 confirmations." (Lancet. 339; 1992)

In September 2000, the Archives of Family Medicine stated that the more women we test, the greater "the proportion of false-positive and ambiguous (indeterminate) test results." (Archives of Family Medicine. Sept/Oct. 2000).

The tests described above are standard HIV tests, the kind promoted in the ads. Their technical name is ELISA or EIA (Enzyme-linked Immunosorbant Assay). They are antibody tests. The tests contain proteins that react with antibodies in your blood.

In the US, you’re tested with an ELISA first. If your blood reacts, you’ll be tested again, with another ELISA. Why is the second more accurate than the first? That’s just the protocol. If you have a reaction on the second ELISA, you’ll be confirmed with a third antibody test, called the Western Blot. But that’s here in America. In some countries, one ELISA is all you get.

It is precisely because HIV tests are antibody tests, that they produce so many false-positive results. All antibodies tend to cross-react. We produce antibodies all the time, in response to stress, malnutrition, illness, drug use, vaccination, foods we eat, a cut, a cold, even pregnancy. These antibodies are known to make HIV tests come up as positive.

The medical literature lists dozens of reasons for positive HIV test results: "transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune disorders, malignancies, alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that are unclear..."(Archives of Family Medicine. Sept/Oct. 2000).

"[H]uman or technical errors, other viruses and vaccines" (Infectious Disease Clinician of North America. 7; 1993)

"[L]iver diseases, parenteral substance abuse, hemodialysis, or vaccinations for hepatitis B, rabies, or influenza..." (Archives of Internal Medicine. August. 2000).

"[U]npasteurized cows’ milk…Bovine exposure, or cross-reactivity with other human retroviruses" (Transfusion. 1988)

Even geography can do it:
"Inhabitants of certain regions may have cross-reactive antibodies to local prevalent non-HIV retroviruses" (Medicine International. 56; 1988).

The same is true for the confirmatory test – the Western Blot.
Causes of indeterminate Western Blots include: "lymphoma, multiple sclerosis, injection drug use, liver disease, or autoimmune disorders. Also, there appear to be healthy individuals with antibodies that cross-react...." (Archives of Internal Medicine. August. 2000).

"The Western Blot is not used as a screening tool because...it yields an unacceptably high percentage of indeterminate results." (Archives of Family Medicine. Sept/Oct 2000)

Pregnancy is consistently listed as a cause of positive test results, even by the test manufacturers. "[False positives can be caused by] prior pregnancy, blood transfusions... and other potential nonspecific reactions." (Vironostika HIV Test, 2003).

This is significant in Africa, because HIV estimates for African nations are drawn almost exclusively from testing done on groups of pregnant women.

In Zimbabwe this year, the rate of HIV infection among young women decreased remarkably, from 32.5 to 6 percent. A drop of 81% - overnight. UNICEF’s Swaziland representative, Dr. Alan Brody, told the press "The problems is that all the sero-surveillance data came from pregnant women, and estimates for other demographics was based on that." (PLUS News, August, 2004)

When these pregnant young women are tested, they’re often tested for other illnesses, like syphilis, at the same time. There’s no concern for cross-reactivity or false-positives in this group, and no repeat testing. One ELISA on one girl, and 32.5% of the population is suddenly HIV positive.

The June 20, 2004 Boston Globe reported that "the current estimate of 40 million people living with the AIDS virus worldwide is inflated by 25 percent to 50 percent."

They pointed out that HIV estimates for entire countries have, for over a decade, been taken from "blood samples from pregnant women at prenatal clinics."

But it’s not just HIV estimates that are created from testing pregnant women, it’s "AIDS deaths, AIDS orphans, numbers of people needing antiretroviral treatment, and the average life expectancy," all from that one test.

I’ve certainly never seen this in VH1 ad.

At present there are about 6 dozen reasons given in the literature why the tests come up positive. In fact, the medical literature states that there is simply no way of knowing if any HIV test is truly positive or negative:

"[F]alse-positive reactions have been observed with every single HIV-1 protein, recombinant or authentic." (Clinical Chemistry. 37; 1991). "Thus, it may be impossible to relate an antibody response specifically to HIV-1 infection." (Medicine International. 1988)

And even if you believe the reaction is not a false positive, "the test does not indicate whether the person currently harbors the virus." (Science. November, 1999).

The test manufacturers state that after the antibody reaction occurs, the tests have to be "interpreted." There is no strict or clear definition of HIV positive or negative. There’s just the antibody reaction. The reaction is colored by an enzyme, and read by a machine called a spectrophotometer.

The machine grades the reactions according to their strength (but not specificity), above and below a cut-off. If you test above the cut-off, you’re positive; if you test below it, you’re negative.
So what determines the all-important cut-off? From The CDC’s instructional material: "Establishing the cutoff value to define a positive test result from a negative one is somewhat arbitrary." (CDC-EIS "Screening For HIV," 2003 )

The University of Vermont Medical School agrees: "Where a cutoff is drawn to determine a diagnostic test result may be somewhat arbitrary….Where would the director of the Blood Bank who is screening donated blood for HIV antibody want to put the cut-off?...Where would an investigator enrolling high-risk patients in a clinical trial for an experimental, potentially toxic antiretroviral draw the cutoff?" (University of Vermont School of Medicine teaching module: Diagnostic Testing for HIV Infection)

A 1995 study comparing four major brands of HIV tests found that they all had different cut-off points, and as a result, gave different test results for the same sample: "[C]ut-off ratios do not correlate for any of the investigated ELISA pairs," and one brand’s cut-off point had "no predictive value" for any other. (INCQS-DSH, Brazil 1995).

I’ve never heard of a person being asked where they would "want to put the cut-off" for determining their HIV test result, or if they felt that testing positive was a "somewhat arbitrary" experience.

In the UK, if you get through two ELISA tests, you’re positive. In America, you get a third and final test to confirm the first two. The test is called the Western Blot. It uses the same proteins, laid out differently. Same proteins, same nonspecific reactions. But this time it’s read as lines on a page, not a color change. Which lines are HIV positive? That depends on where you are, what lab you’re in and what kit they’re using.

The Mayo Clinic reported that "the Western blot method lacks standardization, is cumbersome, and is subjective in interpretation of banding patterns." (Mayo Clinic Procedural. 1988)

A 1988 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that 19 different labs, testing one blood sample, got 19 different Western Blot results. (JAMA, 260, 1988)

A 1993 review in Bio/Technology reported that the FDA, the CDC/Department of Defense and the Red Cross all interpret WB’s differently, and further noted, "All the other major USA laboratories for HIV testing have their own criteria." (Bio/Technology, June 1993)

In the early 1990s, perhaps in response to growing discontent in the medical community with the lack of precision of the tests, Roche Laboratories introduced a new genetic test, called Viral Load, based on a technology called PCR. How good is the new genetic marvel?

An early review of the technology in the 1991 Journal of AIDS reported that "a true positive PCR test cannot be distinguished from a false positive." (J.AIDS, 1991)

A 1992 study "identified a disturbingly high rate of nonspecific positivity," saying 18% antibody-negative (under the cut-off) patients tested Viral Load positive. (J. AIDS, 1992)

A 2001 study showed that the tests gave wildly different results from a single blood sample, as well as different results with different test brands. (CDC MMWR. November 16, 2001)

A 2002 African study showed that Viral Load was high in patients who had intestinal worms, but went down when they were treated for the problem. The title of the article really said it all. "Treatment of Intestinal Worms Is Associated With Decreased HIV Plasma Viral Load." (J.AIDS, September, 2002)

Roche laboratories, the company that manufactures the PCR tests, puts this warning on the label:
"The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test….is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection."

But that’s exactly how it is used – to convince pregnant mothers to take AZT and Nevirapine and to urge patients to start the drugs.

The medical literature adds something truly astounding to all of this. It says that reason HIV tests are so non-specific and need to be interpreted is because there is "no virologic gold standard" for HIV tests.

The meaning of this statement, from both the medical and social perspective, is profound. The "virologic gold standard" is the isolated virus that the doctors claim to be identifying, indirectly, with the test.

Antibody tests always have some cross-reaction, because antibodies aren’t specific. The way to validate a test is to go find the virus in the patient’s blood.

You take the blood, spin it in a centrifuge, and you end up with millions of little virus particles, which you can easily photograph under a microscope. You can disassemble the virus, measure the weight of its proteins, and map its genetic structure. That’s the virologic gold standard. And for some reason, HIV tests have none.

In 1986, JAMA reported that: "no established standard exists for identifying HTLV-III [HIV] infection in asymptomatic people." (JAMA. July 18, 1986)

In 1987, the New England Journal of Medicine stated that "The meaning of positive tests will depend on the joint [ELISA/WB] false positive rate. Because we lack a gold standard, we do not know what that rate is now. We cannot know what it will be in a large-scale screening program." ( Screening for HIV: can we afford the false positive rate?. NEJM. 1987)

Skip ahead to 1996; JAMA again reported: "the diagnosis of HIV infection in infants is particularly difficult because there is no reference or ‘gold standard’ test that determines unequivocally the true infection status of the patient. (JAMA. May, 1996)

In 1997, Abbott laboratories, the world leader in HIV test production stated: "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV antibody in human blood." (Abbot Laboratories HIV Elisa Test 1997)

In 2000 the Journal AIDS reported that "2.9% to 12.3%" of women in a study tested positive, "depending on the test used," but "since there is no established gold standard test, it is unclear which of these two proportions is the best estimate of the real prevalence rate…" (AIDS, 14; 2000).

If we had a virologic gold standard, HIV testing would be easy and accurate. You could spin the patient’s blood in a centrifuge and find the particle. They don’t do this, and they’re saying privately, in the medical journals, that they can’t.

That’s why tests are determined through algorithms – above or below sliding cut-offs; estimated from pregnant girls, then projected and redacted overnight.

By repeating, again and again in the medical literature that there’s no virologic gold standard, the world’s top AIDS researchers are saying that what we’re calling HIV isn’t a single entity, but a collection of cross-reactive proteins and unidentified genetic material.

And we’re suddenly a very long way from the public face of HIV.

But the fact is, you don’t need to test HIV positive to be an AIDS patient. You don’t even have to be sick.

In 1993, the CDC added "Idiopathic CD4 Lymphocytopenia" to the AIDS category. What does it mean? Non-HIV AIDS.

In 1993, the CDC also made "no-illness AIDS" a category. If you tested positive, but weren’t sick, you could be given an AIDS diagnosis. By 1997, the healthy AIDS group accounted for 2/3rds of all US AIDS patients. (That’s also the last year they reported those numbers). (CDC Year-End Edition, 1997)

In Africa, HIV status is irrelevant. Even if you test negative, you can be called an AIDS patient:

From a study in Ghana: "Our attention is now focused on the considerably large number (59%) of the seronegative (HIV-negative) group who were clinically diagnosed as having AIDS. All the patients had three major signs: weight loss, prolonged diarrhea, and chronic fever." (Lancet. October,1992)

And from across Africa: "2215 out of 4383 (50.0%) African AIDS patients from Abidjan, Ivory Coast, Lusaka, Zambia, and Kinshasa, Zaire, were HIV-antibody negative." (British Medical Journal, 1991)

Non-HIV AIDS, HIV-negative AIDS, No Virologic Gold standard - terms never seen in an HIV ad.
But even if you do test "repeatedly" positive, the manufacturers say that "the risk of an asymptomatic [not sick] person developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known." (Abbott Laboratories HIV Test, 1997)

If commerce laws were applied equally, the "knowing is beautiful" ads for HIV testing would have to bear a disclaimer, just like cigarettes:

"Warning: This test will not tell you if you’re infected with a virus. It may confirm that you are pregnant or have used drugs or alcohol, or that you’ve been vaccinated; that you have a cold, liver disease, arthritis, or are stressed, poor, hungry or tired. Or that you’re African. It will not tell you if you’re going to live or die; in fact, we really don’t know what testing positive, or negative, means at all."

THE GREAT HIV / AIDS HOAX

The multi-billion dollar AIDS/HIV fraud is based on two fabrications: that AIDS is a single disease and that it is caused by the HI virus or the "HIV virus" as some medical/media masterminds call it - perhaps they think the V in HIV stands for volcano.

In Japan "AIDS" is virtually unknown : yet, in random tests, 25% of people were found to be "HIV-positive".
HIV-positive response means nothing of any relevance to health: it can be triggered by vaccination, malnutrition, M.S., measles, influenza,
papilloma virus wart, Epstein Barr virus, leprosy, glandular fever, hepatitis, syphillis ... : over sixty different conditions.

Dr Robert E. Willner, inoculated himself with the blood of Pedro Tocino, a HIV-positive haemophiliac, on live Spanish television: an event which was not picked up the pharma-beholden British or US media.

The great HIV/AIDS lie was created by Robert Gallo who was found guilty of "scientific misconduct". "...instead of trying to prove his insane theories about AIDS to his peers...he went public. Then, with the help of
Margaret Heckler, former head of Health and Human Services, who was under great political pressure to come up with an answer to AIDS, the infamous
world press announcement of the discovery of the so-called AIDS virus came about.

This great fraud is now responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands... It was no accident that Gallo just happened to patent the test for HIV the day after the announcement...Gallo is now a multi-millionaire because of AIDS and his fraudulent AIDS test." Dr.
Willner.

By grouping together 25-plus different diseases and other allied factors -
pneumonia, herpes, candidiasis, salmonella, various cancers, infections, vaccine and antibiotic damage, amyl nitrate damage, malnutrition etc.and,
particularly in Africa, TB, malaria, dysentery leprosy and "slim disease" - and calling the whole thing an "AIDS epidemic", a multi-billion dollar/pound "AIDS research and treatment" racket has been created.

The mythical "HIV-induced AIDS plague" in the Third World generates huge sums of cash from Western relief organisations whilst smokescreening the
vaccine/drug boys, responsible for the carnage.

Every death of someone "HIV-positive" is recorded as an "AIDS death".

Periodically, the BBC/ITV/Press visit
Africa/Yugoslavia/Russia etc to
report on the "HIV/AIDS victims" and how they cannot afford the "life-saving AZT." Glaxo Wellcome's lethal drug, AZT, in combination with the diagnosis of
HIV-positive and the prediction, stated or implied, that - "You will die of AIDS" is one of the great pieces of Medical Black Magic - Voodoo Medicine at its most impressive: people have committed suicide on the
basis of the ludicrous diagnosis.

Pregnant women who are HIV-positive have been told to stop breast-feeding, dosed with AZT, have had abortions or have been sterilised. HIV-positive
babies who become ill -from vaccination or whatever - are automatically diagnosed as "suffering from AIDS".
"Considering that there is little scientific proof of the exact linkage of HIV and AIDS, is it ethical to prescribe AZT, a toxic chain terminator of DNA...to 150,000 Americans - among them pregnant women and newborn babies..? Rep.G Gutknecht US House of Representatives.

New Labour "Health" have now announced that all pregnant women in the UK will be "offered" a HIV test. Those who fall for the scam and who are diagnosed as "HIV positive" will be given the chance to have themselves and their unborn child permanently damaged by AZT etc. Pregnancy, itself, can cause a positive diagnosis.

AZT began as a "cancer drug" but was withdrawn for being too toxic: like being thrown out of the Gestapo for cruelty. Its effects include - cancer, hepatitis, dementia, seizures, anxiety, impotence, leukopaenia, , severe
nausea, ataxia, etc. and the termination of DNA synthesis. i.e. AIDS/death by prescription. AZT eventually kills all those who continue to take it.

"WARNING : Retrovir (AZT)...has been associated with symptomatic myopathy, similar to that produced by Human Immunodeficiency Virus..." Glaxo
Wellcome literature!

None of which stops the medical trade from pushing it on every trusting sap who is not ill to start with but is labelled with the "HIV-positive" nonsense and then destroyed by AZT; with "AIDS" getting the blame - and
more billions pouring in for the drug boys, vivisectors, animal breeders and the rest. The latest stunt is to give a "cocktail" of drugs - including AZT, of course, and at £12,000 per head, per year - to all homosexual men who are "HIV-positive".

A particularly good scam is to haul into court someone "guilty of deliberately infecting the victim with the 'HIV-Virus which causes AIDS' " which then develops into "full-blown AIDS" - no mention of vaccine,
antibiotic damage etc or full-blown AZT. Over 2000 - and rising, of the world's scientists are now disputing the HIV hoax, their efforts being continually suppressed by the AIDS establishment, the pharmaceutical/vivisection syndicate and their political and media lackeys

Factors Known to Cause
False Positive HIV Antibody Test Results
1.Anti-carbohydrate antibodies 52,19,13
2.Naturally-occurring antibodies 5,19
3.Passive immunization: receipt of gamma globulin or immune (as prophylaxis against infection which contains antibodies) 18, 26, 60, 4,
22, 42, 43, 13
4.Leprosy 2, 25
5.Tuberculosis 25
6.Mycobacterium avium 25
7.Systemic lupus erythematosus 15, 23
8.Renal (kidney) failure 48, 23, 13
9.Hemodialysis/renal failure 56, 16, 41, 10, 49
10.Alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients 54
11.Flu 36
12.Flu vaccination 30, 11, 3, 20, 13, 43
13.Herpes simplex I 27
14.Herpes simplex II 11
15.Upper respiratory tract infection (cold or flu) 11
16.Recent viral infection or exposure to viral vaccines 11
17.Pregnancy in multiparous women 58, 53, 13, 43, 36
18.Malaria 6, 12
19.High levels of circulating immune complexes 6, 33
20.Hypergammaglobulinemia (high levels of antibodies) 40, 33
21.False positives on other tests, including RPR (rapid plasma
reagent) test for syphilis 17, 48, 33, 10, 49
22.Rheumatoid arthritis 36
23.Hepatitis B vaccination 28, 21, 40, 43
24.Tetanus vaccination 40
25.Organ transplantation 1, 36
26.Renal transplantation 35, 9, 48, 13, 56
27.Anti-lymphocyte antibodies 56, 31

28.Anti-collagen antibodies (found in gay men, haemophiliacs, Africans of both sexes and people with leprosy) 31

29.Serum-positive for rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibody (both found in rheumatoid arthritis and other autoantibodies) 14, 62, 53
30.Autoimmune diseases 44, 29, 1O, 40, 49, 43
31.Systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma, connective tissue disease, dermatomyositis Acute viral infections, DNA viral infections 59,
48, 43, 53, 40, 13
32.Malignant neoplasms (cancers) 40
33.Alcoholic hepatitis/alcoholic liver disease 32, 48, 40, 10, 13, 49, 43, 53
34.Primary sclerosing cholangitis 48, 53
35.Hepatitis 54
36."Sticky" blood (in Africans) 38, 34, 40
37.Antibodies with a high affinity for polystyrene (used in the test kits) 62, 40, 3
38.Blood transfusions, multiple blood transfusions 63, 36, 13, 49, 43, 41
39.Multiple myeloma 10, 43, 53
40.HLA antibodies (to Class I and II leukocyte antigens) 7, 46, 63, 48, 10, 13, 49, 43, 53
41.Anti-smooth muscle antibody 48
42.Anti-parietal cell antibody 48
43.Anti-hepatitis A IgM (antibody) 48
44.Anti-Hbc IgM 48
45.Administration of human immunoglobulin preparations pooled before 1985 10

46.Haemophilia 10, 49

47.Haematologic malignant disorders/lymphoma 43, 53, 9, 48, 13
48.Primary biliary cirrhosis 43, 53, 13, 48
49.Stevens-Johnson syndrome 9, 48, 13
50.Q-fever with associated hepatitis 61
51.Heat-treated specimens 51, 57, 24, 49, 48
52.Lipemic serum (blood with high levels of fat or lipids) 49
53.Haemolyzed serum (blood where haemoglobin is separated from red cells) 49
54.Hyperbilirubinemia 10, 13
55.Globulins produced during polyclonal gammopathies (which are seen in AIDS risk groups) 10, 13, 48 cross-reactions 10
57.Normal human ribonucleoproteins 48, 13
58.Other retroviruses 8, 55, 14, 48, 13
59.Anti-mitochondrial antibodies 48, 13
60.Anti-nuclear antibodies 48, 13, 53
61.Anti-microsomal antibodies 34
62.T-cell leukocyte antigen antibodies 48, 13
63.Proteins on the filter paper 13
64.Epstein-Barr virus 37
65.Visceral leishmaniasis 45
66.Receptive anal sex 39, 64

Christine Johnson, a researcher and author, compiled this list of conditions documented in the scientific literature to cause positives on HIV tests, and provides references for each condition.
Christine notes:
"Just because something is on this list doesn't mean that it will definitely, or even probably, cause a false-positive. It depends on what antibodies the individual carries as well as the characteristics of each particular test kit.

For instance, some, but not all people who have had blood transfusions, prior pregnancies or an organ transplant will make HLA antibodies. And some, but not all test kits (both ELISA and Western blot) will be contaminated with HLA antigens to which these antibodies can react. Only if these two conditions coincide might you get a false-positive due to HLA cross-reactivity.

There are conditions that are more likely than others to cause false-positives. And there are some conditions that we aren't aware of yet which may be documented in the future to cause false-positives. Some of the factors on the list have been documented only for ELISA, while some have been documented for both ELISA and Western blot (WB) tests.

People may be eager to argue that if a factor is only known to cause false-positives on ELISA, this problem won't be carried over to the WB. But remember, a WB is positive by virtue of accumulating enough individual positive bands to add up to the total required by whatever criteria is used to interpret it 39. So the more exposure a person has had to foreign antigens, proteins and infectious agents, the more various antibodies he or she will have in their system, and the more likely it is
that there will be several cross-reacting antibodies, enough to make the WB positive.

It is to be noted that all AIDS risk groups (and Africans as well), but not the general US or Western European population, have this problem in common: they have been exposed to a plethora of foreign antigens and proteins. This is why people in the AIDS "risk groups" tend to have positive WBs (i.e., to be considered "HIV-infected") and people in the population don't. However, even people in low-risk populations have false-positive Western blots for poorly understood reasons 47.

Since false-positives to every single HIV protein have been documented 36, how do we know if the positive WB bands represent the various proteins to HIV, or a collection of false-positive bands reacting to several different non-HIV antibodies?"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.