"True science invites attacks on its hypotheses. So when people tell you that you aren't allowed to question the HIV-AIDS hypothesis you know you aren't in the realm of science anymore-you're dealing with dogma." (from the letter below)
Some who question it, like Dr Charles Thomas, a molecular biologist and former Harvard professor of biochemistry, say it is complete nonsense. "The HIV-causes-AIDS dogma represents the grandest and perhaps the most morally destructive fraud that has ever been perpetrated on the young men and women of the Western world," he says.
For the first four years of AIDS in America leading AIDS researchers concluded that AIDS was caused by 'recreational' and other drugs being consumed in alarming quantities by those in the limited risk groups (drug users) who were getting sick. Why do you think these researchers changed their analysis? Because the data actually pointed in that direction? Or because it became apparent that there would not be billions of dollars handed out to study drug-induced illness, but that the money would flow freely if someone shouted "Virus!" It was as if someone shouted "Fire!" in a crowded theatre but instead of people running for the exits it was the truth which vacated the premises. Shout "Virus!" and watch the money start to flow! (One leading researcher, when asked why he changed his story, was honest enough to answer: 'Because that's where the money is.')
Actually, there is not one scientific paper out of all the tens of thousands on HIV and AIDS that proves HIV causes AIDS. There was never any 'discovery' in the scientific definition of the word 'discover'. The idea that HIV causes AIDS was announced to the world, not in the form of a scientific paper or verifiable experiment, but at a press conference in 1984 by Dr. Robert Gallo-a product of the failed but hugely costly national 'war-on-cancer' effort to find a cancer virus. "Although Gallo presented no evidence to support his tentative assumption, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) immediately characterized it as '..another miracle of American medicine.the triumph of science over a dreaded disease'. On that same day, Gallo filed a patent for the antibody test now known as the 'AIDS test.' By the following day, the New York Times had turned Gallo's proposal into a certainty with front page news of 'the virus that causes AIDS', and all funding for research into other possible causes of AIDS came to an abrupt halt..Dr. Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute in France accused Gallo of stealing his HIV sample, resulting in negotiations between the French and American governments. A congressional investigation then determined that Gallo had presented fraudulent data in his paper on HIV and that the virus he claimed to have discovered had been sent to him by Montagnier. Montagnier has since stated that he does not believe HIV alone is capable of causing AIDS". (from the book "What if everything you thought you knew about AIDS was wrong? by Christine Maggiore of aliveandwell.org))
Did you know that AIDS is not a disease?
"Popularly referred to as a disease, AIDS is actually a new name for 29 previously known and relatively common health conditions when these conditions appear in someone who has tested positive for antibodies to HIV. For example, a person who tests HIV (antibody) positive and has herpes is classified as having AIDS, while a person who tests HIV (antibody) negative has herpes, not AIDS. All 29 health conditions categorized as AIDS occur in people who test HIV (antibody) negative, and none are exclusive to those who test HIV (antibody) positive.
"An epidemic is generally defined as the outbreak of a contagious disease that spreads rapidly, grows quickly and is widely prevalent. Since 1981, AIDS has remained confined almost exclusively to the original risk groups, has not spread rapidly among the risk group members, and is not widely prevalent anywhere in the world. For example, 99.5% of the people living on the African continent, an area often described as being devastated by AIDS, do not have AIDS." (Maggiore, op cited)
In the US and Europe AIDS is restricted since 1981 to two main risk groups, intravenous drug users and male homosexual drug users. This meant they "partied" with every conceivable "recreational" drug. Pot, cocaine, ecstasy methamphetamines, heroin, LSD, PCP, uppers, downers, etcetera, and, last but certainly not least, amyl nitrite, otherwise known as 'poppers', a chemical that is inhaled perhaps dozens of times per night to "feel good" but which is highly toxic, carcinogenic and suppresses the immune system. Most or all of these 'recreational' drugs are directly toxic to the body and immune system and a number of these drugs suppress the appetite--and not eating suppresses the immune system.
They also took antibiotics-sometimes daily for weeks or months-to prevent the infections they were prone to. Taking antibiotics long-term to prevent illness is very dangerous and suppresses the immune system. And the infections they were prone to-gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis, intestinal worms and other parasites, etc will wear down anyone's immune system if the infections repeatedly recur as is often the case with these risk groups. Further, since 1987 when the first AIDS drug (AZT) was approved, many who Acquired Deficiencies in their Immune Systems also took the doctor-prescribed anti-HIV drugs AZT, ddI, D4T, ddC and 3TC which ".are all highly toxic chemotherapies that destroy the immune and digestive systems, in addition to causing five of the 29 official AIDS-defining illnesses.There is no case of AIDS documented in a person whose sole risk is exposure to HIV."
(Maggiore, op cited)
Smoke cigarettes for twenty years and see if you don't get lung cancer. Indeed, now that that there are twenty years of AIDS statistics it is clear that the graphs for AIDS-defining illness and lung cancer look similar. They both increased over the years (as people smoked more cigarettes and as people took more drugs) then both graphs 'leveled off' (as smoking and drug taking declined). The graphs for true viral-induced diseases always look completely different from environmental induced illnesses. Viral diseases have a 'bell-shaped' curve, rising-as the virus kills-and then falling, as viral immunity is gained by a population.
But what about Africa, you say. In America and European countries the AIDS epidemic is highly 'non-random' infecting primarily 80% men whose "lifestyle" as mentioned above includes heavy drug taking. When is the last time you heard of any virus that wasn't 'equal opportunity", that is, infecting men and women in equal numbers? But, in Africa, it is indeed random, 50/50? Why the difference? Why does the so-called 'AIDS virus' infect 80% male drug users in the U.S. but 50/50 in Africa? Here's another anomaly mainstream AIDS researchers cannot, or will not, explain.
Have you ever been to Africa? Ordered a glass of water and seen flecks of fecal material floating in the glass or suspended in the ice cubes? Try this experiment: take a baby and subject it to the same living conditions as in Africa. To a malnourished, calorie-protein-and-vitamin-deficient womb environment. Then born into a world of more malnourishment, hunger, starvation and famine; no immunizations, flies, filthy drinking water. Also, insect, rodent, food and water borne illnesses including malaria, filariasis, river blindness, sleeping sickness, relapsing fever, typhus, plague, yellow fever, hemorrhagic fevers, intestinal worms, dysentery, typhoid fever, cholera, dracunculiasis, polio, Hepatitis A, B, C, & E; trachoma, Lassa fever, Ebola fever, Margburg fever, meningococcal meningitis, plague, rabies, cholera, encephalitis.
Subject a person to these conditions for about 5 or 10 years and see if they don't Acquire a Deficiency in their Immune System.
Indeed, this is why millions of Africans were getting sick from hepatitis, herpes, tuberculosis, and pneumonia etc-all now termed "AIDS-defining illnesses"--long before the age of HIV. But now that antibodies to a virus (but not the virus itself!) can sometimes be found, all of a sudden we're supposed to believe that it is a mysterious new virus that is killing African people?
If you ask any epidemiologist 'What is the number one cause of immune suppression on the planet?' they will not answer "HIV". No, they will say, "poor nutrition and filthy drinking water both caused by poverty." Speaking of Africa, why aren't their any substantive media stories about President Mbeki of South Africa who dares to suggest that AIDS is caused, not by some mysterious new virus which violates all known laws of virology, but is caused instead-in Africa--by poverty and malnutrition? How dare Mbeki suggest that adequate food, basic vaccinations and clean drinking water should take priority over expensive, unproven and toxic anti-viral chemotherapy drugs!
The presence of antibodies (the 'soldiers' of the immune system)-especially in the absence of illness--was considered a good sign, a sign the body has mounted a successful defense against an invader. Indeed, we get vaccinations precisely so that antibodies will be produced. But AIDS researchers stood viral science on its head by, among other things, pronouncing that antibodies were now a thing to be feared and for which expensive, toxic and unproven chemotherapy drugs should be taken-even if actual HIV virus cannot be found and even if people show no sign of illness.
Please note that the so-called "HIV test" tests ONLY for antibodies. Actual virus (HIV) often cannot be found. It should also be noted that the so-called 'HIV test' has no clear standards and is notoriously unreliable, producing many false positives. Moreover, because of the unclear standards you can test positive in one country and negative in another. Tests can even vary from lab to lab, or differ in the same lab on different days.
If researchers want to prove that a virus is the cause of disease they must isolate the virus from a sick person or animal and then inject the virus into a healthy animal and see if it will make that animal sick. Can they do this with HIV? No. In most cases-some scientists say all cases-they can't even find the virus. And when they do 'find' the virus-using elaborate artificial cellular stimulants in a laboratory dish-when they inject this into healthy animals---surprise!-it doesn't make them sick. "What the heck", says the AIDS establishment, "if HIV violates the 'laws' of virology (Koch's postulates, for example) then let's construct a parallel universe in which we make up our own whacky ideas to suit our agenda."
Why don't you or I know of anyone with AIDS who wasn't a recreational drug user or who took toxic anti-AIDS chemotherapy drugs? You probably don't even know anyone who has AIDS? Why? Where is this terrible epidemic which was said to be like the plague? Remember twenty years ago when Ophra and Time magazine and the virus hunters from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) warned that Americans would be dying by the millions from AIDS? Why haven't we? And where is this mysterious new virus which, unlike all other known viruses, supposedly takes years or decades to cause disease? Why can't the scientists find any actual virus in individuals who have "AIDS"? "Ah" they reply, "we have the 'viral load' test."
But the so-called 'viral load' test detects and multiplies single genes, not virus, and most often only fragments of genes. Then a complicated mathematical algorithm is performed on the genetic fragments giving these virus hunters something they call 'viral load.' Actual virus cannot be found.
Kerry Mullis won the 1993 Nobel Prize in chemistry for inventing PCR--Polymerase Chain Reaction--that has revolutionized genetic research (making possible the unraveling of the human genome, among other things), and which is used in the 'viral load' test. He is a member of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis and refutes those who claim that HIV is the causative agent of AIDS. He is less than happy that his technique, PCR, is being used to claim that HIV is present when in fact none can be found.
"If billions of HIV are present, why is PCR necessary to find them? And if PCR is the only way HIV can be detected, how is it possible for scientists to verify the results of PCR?"
"The FDA has not approved PCR viral load for HIV screenings or for diagnostic purposes. The CDC acknowledges that the specificity and sensitivity of PCR are 'unknown' and that 'PCR is not recommended and is not licensed for routine diagnostic purposes'. The viral load test manufacturers' literature warns 'the test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV'". (Maggiore, op cited)
This is a "load" alright, as, in the words of one virologist, "a viral load of crap".
Fortunately, not all scientists have let their rational minds go on extended vacation. There is a group of scientists---"The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis"-- who have demanded a rethinking of these issues.
There are thousands of personal tragedy stories of those who have unnecessarily taken the toxic antiviral medicines that the virus hunters have frightened them into taking based on a notoriously unreliable and highly dubious "HIV test". Thousands of people made sick or killed by these toxic chemotherapy drugs even though they never showed any sign of illness. And now the virus hunters-after many years of urging these toxic drugs on people-have changed their recommendations hoping that the public doesn't notice their 'about face' (see material below). These contemporary virus hunters are descended from those earlier virus hunters who told us scurvy, beriberi, and black tongue diseases were caused by microbes but which, just as the dissenters predicted, were later shown to be vitamin deficiencies. Thousands died then while the virus hunters pursued their misguided theories.
The SMON Fiasco
And let us not forget the deadly Japanese 'epidemic' in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's known as 'SMON' which the virus hunters assured us was viral induced and for which they demanded and received hundreds of millions of dollars and years of wasted time to 'fight' but which was later shown to be caused by the medicine (clioquinol) doctors were prescribing for stomach ailments! (Towns were cordoned off, and the sick were placed in isolation and shame from family members who were afraid to go near them, and many of the victims committed suicide.) The maker of the offending drug, Ciba-Geigy, was later sued especially since it was revealed that they knew of the drugs dangers without informing anyone.
"Today most scientists and laymen outside Japan have never heard of the virus-SMON controversy .The story that SMON research had ignored the evidence of a toxic cause for fifteen years and had sacrificed thousands of human lives to a flawed virus hypothesis is too embarrassing to the virus-hunting establishment to record. Once the truth about SMON could no longer be ignored, the episode dissolved into lawsuits for the thousands of remaining victims. This story has remained untold outside of Japan, ignored as being too embarrassing for the virus hunters. It deserves to be told in full here." See article at: www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/besmon.htm
If you question the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, you may very well be dismissed with a "What, are you crazy? Everyone knows HIV causes AIDS." Be ready for the hysteria that will ensue, coming from all those on board the multi-billion dollar AIDS gravy train-from AIDS-funded researchers to AIDS activists/counselors to the drug companies. Be prepared to be met with outright anger from the true believers, and be prepared to see these true believers descend into a kind of foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy when attempting to dismiss your questions. They haven't figured out that science isn't about "beliefs". It's about verifiable experiments--not shouting matches. True science invites attacks on its hypotheses. So when people tell you that you aren't allowed to question the HIV-AIDS hypothesis you know you aren't in the realm of science anymore-you're dealing with dogma.
Welcome to the brave new world of AIDS, Incorporated. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the 'truth'. At the very least, AIDS researchers need to be made to answer the questions contained in the "the HIV-AIDS hypothesis:17 predictions versus the facts." Instead of shouting "Show me the money!", as a character did in a movie, we should be shouting "Show me the virus!"
note: my apologies if you receive more than one copy of this email.
The HIV-AIDS hypothesis*: 17 predictions versus the facts.
*All quotes are from The Durban Declaration, the most authoritative edition of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis to date, which was signed "by over 5000 people, including Nobel prizewinners" and published in Nature in 2000 (The Durban Declaration 2000).
1. Since HIV is "the sole cause of AIDS", it must be abundant in AIDS patients based on "exactly the same criteria as for other viral diseases."
But, only antibodies against HIV are found in most patients (1-7)**. Therefore, "HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences, or viral isolation." But, HIV can only be "isolated" from rare, latently infected lymphocytes that have been cultured for weeks in vitro - away from the antibodies of the human host (8). Thus HIV behaves like a latent passenger virus.
2. Since HIV is "the sole cause of AIDS", there is no AIDS in HIV-free people.
But, the AIDS literature has described at least 4621 HIV-free AIDS cases according to one survey - irrespective of, or in agreement with allowances made by the CDC for HIV-free AIDS cases (55).
3. The retrovirus HIV causes immunodeficiency by killing T-cells (1-3).
But, retroviruses do not kill cells because they depend on viable cells for the replication of their RNA from viral DNA integrated into cellular DNA (4, 25). Thus, T-cells infected in vitro thrive, and those patented to mass-produce HIV for the detection of HIV antibodies and diagnosis of AIDS are immortal (9-15)!
4. Following "exactly the same criteria as for other viral diseases", HIV causes AIDS by killing more T-cells than the body can replace. Thus T-cells or "CD4 lymphocytes . . . become depleted in people with AIDS".
But, even in patients dying from AIDS less than 1 in 500 of the T-cells "that become depleted" are ever infected by HIV (16-20, 54). This rate of infection is the hallmark of a latent passenger virus (21).
5. With an RNA of 9 kilobases, just like polio virus, HIV should be able to cause one specific disease, or no disease if it is a passenger (22).
But, HIV is said to be "the sole cause of AIDS", or of 26 different immunodeficiency and non-immunodeficiency diseases, all of which also occur without HIV (table 2). Thus there is not one HIV-specific disease, which is the definition of a passenger virus!
6. All viruses are most pathogenic prior to anti-viral immunity. Therefore, preemptive immunization with Jennerian vaccines is used to protect against all viral diseases since 1798.
But, AIDS is observed - by definition - only after anti-HIV immunity is established, a positive HIV/AIDS test (23). Thus HIV cannot cause AIDS by "the same criteria" as conventional viruses.
7. HIV needs "5-10 years" from establishing antiviral immunity to cause AIDS.
But, HIV replicates in 1 day, generating over 100 new HIVs per cell (24,25). Accordingly, HIV is immunogenic, i.e. bio-chemically most active, within weeks after infection (26, 27). Thus, based on conventional criteria "for other viral diseases", HIV should also cause AIDS within weeks - if it could.
8. "Most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within 5-10 years" - the justification for prophylaxis of AIDS with the DNA chain terminator AZT.
But, of "34.3 million . . . with HIV worldwide" only 1.4% [= 471,457 (obtained by subtracting the WHO's cumulative total of 1999 from that of 2000)] developed AIDS in 2000, and similarly low percentages prevailed in all previous years (28). Likewise, in 1985, only 1.2% of the 1 million US citizens with HIV developed AIDS (29, 30). Since an annual incidence of 1.2-1.4% of all 26 AIDS defining diseases combined is no more than the normal mortality in the US and Europe (life expectancy of 75 years), HIV must be a passenger virus.
9. A vaccine against HIV should ("is hoped" to) prevent AIDS - the reason why AIDS researchers try to develop an AIDS vaccine since 1984 (31).
But, despite enormous efforts there is no such vaccine to this day (31). Moreover, since AIDS occurs by definition only in the presence of natural antibodies against HIV (§ 3), and since natural antibodies are so effective that no HIV is detectable in AIDS patients (see No. 1), even the hopes for a vaccine are irrational.
10. HIV, like other viruses, survives by transmission from host to host, which is said to be mediated "through sexual contact".
But, only 1 in 1000 unprotected sexual contacts transmits HIV (32-34), and only 1 of 275 US citizens is HIV-infected (29, 30), (figure 1b). Therefore, an average un-infected US citizen needs 275,000 random "sexual contacts" to get infected and spread HIV - an unlikely basis for an epidemic!
11. "AIDS spreads by infection" of HIV.
But, contrary to the spread of AIDS, there is no "spread" of HIV in the US. In the US HIV infections have remained constant at 1 million from 1985 (29) until now (30), (see also The Durban Declaration and figure 1b). By contrast, AIDS has increased from 1981 until 1992 and has declined ever since (figure 1a).
12. Many of the 3 million people who annually receive blood transfusions
in the US for life-threatening diseases (51), should have developed AIDS from HIV-infected blood donors prior to the elimination of HIV from the blood supply in 1985.
But, there was no increase in AIDS-defining diseases in HIV-positive transfusion recipients in the AIDS era (52), and no AIDS-defining Kaposi's sarcoma has ever been observed in millions of transfusion recipients (55).
13. Doctors are at high risk to contract AIDS from patients, HIV researchers from virus preparations, wives of HIV-positive hemophiliacs from husbands, and prostitutes from clients - particularly since there is no HIV vaccine.
But, in the peer-reviewed literature there is not one doctor or nurse who has ever contracted AIDS (not just HIV) from the over 816,000 AIDS patients recorded in the US in 22 years (30). Not one of over ten thousand HIV researchers has contracted AIDS. Wives of hemophiliacs do not get AIDS (35). And there is no AIDS-epidemic in prostitutes (36-38). Thus AIDS is not contagious (39, 40).
14. Viral AIDS - like all viral/microbial epidemics in the past (41-43) - should spread randomly in a population.
But, in the US and Europe AIDS is restricted since 1981 to two main risk groups, intravenous drug users and male homosexual drug users (§ 1 and 4).
15. A viral AIDS epidemic should form a classical, bell-shaped chronological curve (41-43), rising exponentially via virus spread and declining exponentially via natural immunity, within months (see figure 3a).
But, AIDS has been increasing slowly since 1981 for 12 years and is now declining since 1993 (figure 1a), just like a lifestyle epidemic, as for example lung cancer from smoking (figure 3b).
16. AIDS should be a pediatric epidemic now, because HIV is transmitted "from mother to infant" at rates of 25-50% (44- 49), and because "34.3 million people worldwide" were already infected in 2000. To reduce the high maternal transmission rate HIV-antibody-positive pregnant mothers are treated with AZT for up to 6 months prior to birth (§ 4).
But, less than 1% of AIDS in the US and Europe is pediatric (30, 50). Thus HIV must be a passenger virus in newborns.
17. "HIV recognizes no social, political or geographic borders" --just like all other viruses.
But, the presumably HIV-caused AIDS epidemics of Africa and of the US and Europe differ both clinically and epidemiologically (§ 1, table 2). The US/European epidemic is highly nonrandom, 80% male and restricted to
abnormal risk groups, whereas the African epidemic is random.
**Please note that all references corresponding to the reference numbers above have been omitted here. To see the complete references as well as the excellent article from which they are drawn, please read "The chemical basis of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition" at www.duesberg.com. For further background on the HIV=AIDS myth see the book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg, Ph.D. Also, the two websites www.aliveandwell.org and www.virusmyth.net
AIDS drug cheerleaders do an abrupt 'about face' (which you never heard about because the media did no stories on it)
A major government policy affecting the treatment of AIDS was suddenly and inexplicably reversed in April 2005. Chances are you have not been made aware of this since no media has reported on this event.
What prompted the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services to suddenly and quietly reverse a decade long policy of recommending antiviral drugs for people who test HIV (antibody) positive? 450,000 Americans-and millions more worldwide--have been taking anti-viral drugs based on these now defunct recommendations. HIV (antibody)-positives-even if they showed no signs of AIDS--have followed doctor's orders to "Hit Hard and Hit Early" in accordance with the now reversed recommendations. What prompted them to issue a stunning reversal of this policy? Why have there been no stories on this? What are the implications?
Studies now reveal what the critics suspected years ago--that HIV antibody-positives treated with antiviral medicines have significantly higher mortality than their untreated HIV-antibody positive cohorts. The implications are alarming for the millions who took and still take these drugs. This growing body of scientific evidence shows that it is these toxic chemotherapy drugs themselves which can impair the immune system, in effect, causing the body to Acquire a Deficiency in the Immune System.
If true, it would not be the first time that medical efforts have harmed people with ideas later shown to be misguided. (Read the chapter on the history of virology in the book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" for examples of mismanaged epidemics by fame-and-fortune-seeking virus hunters.) It's starting to look like the virus hunters have once again led us down a path costing billions of dollars and many, many lives.
These new federal guidelines basically admit that more harm than good comes from taking these chemotherapy drugs unless the person is already sick. And taking these toxic drugs even when sick is questioned by the growing number of scientists who doubt the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Governments have extracted billions of dollars in damages from the tobacco companies because the tobacco companies sold drugs which they knew harmed human beings. But few have raised a peep about the sale of toxic chemotherapy drugs to healthy people who merely tested positive for HIV antibodies using an unreliable test.
In the mid-1980's there was a group of scientists who questioned the prescribing of toxic HIV antiviral drugs to otherwise healthy people who were merely found to have antibodies. Mainstream AIDS researchers were aware at the time of these warnings about the inefficacy and toxicity of these drugs, yet they persisted in prescribing them to people who showed no signs of illness, saying in effect, "if you don't take these drugs you will die." It appears-just as the critics warned-that if you take these drugs, you die. But now, many years later, the very people who frightened people into taking antiviral drugs are changing their tune and saying 'well, maybe you shouldn't be taking these toxic chemotherapy drugs after all'.
Are they now trying to absolve themselves of responsibility the way the tobacco companies wished they could have done? The sad truth is they knew a long time ago about the dangers of these drugs.
"Controlled studies and uncontrolled surveys prove that anti-HIV drugs (possibly in conjunction with recreational drugs) increase the mortality of HIV positives 4 to 6 fold. It would appear that anti-HIV drugs are prescriptions for, rather than treatments of AIDS.' ("The chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition" Journal of Biosciences, June, 2003 available at www.duesberg.com)
"In view of this the US government has appointed a panel of AIDS scientists to review the toxic effects of antiviral medications and issued recommendations (see actual April 2005 NIH/DHHS recommendations below) to restrict prescriptions of anti-HIV drugs that were published by the New York Times (Altman 2001b):
'Altering a long-held policy, federal health officials are now recommending that treatment for the AIDS virus be delayed as long as possible for people without symptoms because of increased concerns over toxic effects of the therapies. More recently, concern has grown over nerve damage, weakened bones, unusual accumulations of fat in the neck and abdomen, diabetes and a number of other serious side effects of therapy. Many people have developed dangerously high levels of cholesterol and other lipids in the blood, raising concern that H.I.V.-infected people might face another epidemic-of heart disease. Dr Fauci, who is co-chairman of the panel, said in an interview, "We are adopting a significantly more conservative recommendation profile". (According to the panel), "Much remains to be learned about how best to treat H.I.V.-infected individuals".'
"However, it is hard to understand, why it should have taken AIDS researchers 14 years since the introduction of DNA chain-terminators as anti-HIV drugs (Kolata 1987) to make these observations and issue warnings about the "side effects" of these drugs. In April 2001, the FDA followed up on these concerns by "ordering drug makers to tone down their upbeat ads for AIDS medications, calling them 'misleading' . . . because they imply greater efficacy than demonstrated by substantial evidence, or minimize the risks associated with HIV drugs" (Russell 2001) - again 14 years after approving these drugs for currently 450,000 American recipients. Many other independent observers have since commented on the "U-turn" of AIDS researchers (Day 2000) from "Hit HIV early and hard" in 1995 (Ho 1995) to reducing, skipping and delaying treatments, and even recalling some anti-HIV drugs. (Altman 2001c; Associated Press 2001). (J. Bioscience op cited)
"HIV co-discoverer Jay Levy wrote in the Lancet, "Caution: should we be treating HIV infection early? No cancer patient takes three or four chemotherapeutic drugs for a lifetime. What is overlooked is that these drugs can be toxic and can be directly detrimental to a natural immune response to HIV." (Levy 1998)." (J. Bioscience op cited)
"AZT's toxicities are severe: AZT is the most toxic drug ever prescribed for long-term use. AZT causes severe anemia, head-aches, nausea, muscular pain, and cachexia. It damages the nerves and every organ in the body. It is a known carcinogen.
AZT was approved by the FDA on the basis of fraudulent research: I have examined hundreds of pages of documents that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was forced to release under the Freedom of Infor-mation Act. It is clear from these documents that the Phase II AZT trials were fraudulent: that all kinds of cheating took place, and that the investigators deliberately used data which they knew were false. (The Phase II AZT trials, conducted in 1986, formed the basis of AZT's approval in the U.S. and 31 other countries.)
There is no scientifically credible evidence AZT has benefits of any kind: The studies that have been used to claim benefits for AZT were all paid for and controlled by Well-come, the manufacturer of AZT. They are therefore unworthy of credence, in light of the fraud that was committed in the Phase II AZT trials.
John Lauritsen Alternative AIDS Symposium, Buenos Aires, 8 April 1995
AIDS cheerleaders quilty of moving the goalposts.
When the idea that HIV causes AIDS was first sold in America (1984) researchers told us the virus would 'get us' in matter of months, or, at best a couple of years. Then they changed that to four or more years. When that didn't pan out they moved the goal post yet again to 10 or so years, and now they tell us it might take a 'lifetime'. All other viruses take only a matter of days or weeks to cause illness, but not the 'mysterious' virus known as 'HIV', which researchers have now dubbed a 'slow virus' in their attempts to hide their ignorance.
"There are no slow viruses-only slow virologists". (Peter Duesberg, Ph.d., author of the book, "Inventing the AIDS Virus"
Below I have excerpted the latest HIV/antiviral protocols & recommendations from the Dept. of Health & Human Services and National Institutes of Health, which recommendations are a complete reversal of their previous 'Hit Hard and Hit Early' recommendations. Note what appears to me to be ambivalence and uncertainty in their revised 'recommendations', leaving wide latitude for patient and physician interpretation, whereas before-for over fourteen years--- HIV (antibody) positives were frightened into taking highly toxic chemotherapy drugs, even if they showed no signs of illness.
"Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in HIV-1-Infected Adults and Adolescents April 7, 2005
"Developed by the Panel on Clinical Practices for Treatment of HIV Infection convened by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) It is emphasized that concepts relevant to HIV management evolve rapidly. The Panel has a mechanism to update recommendations on regular basis, and the most recent information is available on the U.S. Govt. AIDSinfo Web site http://aidsinfo.nih.gov or, in pdf form, http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/ContentFiles/AdultandAdolescentGL.pdf
"WHEN TO TREAT: Indications for Antiretroviral Therapy Panel's Recommendations (Table 4):
. Antiretroviral therapy is recommended for all patients with history of an AIDS-defining illness or severe symptoms of HIV infection regardless of CD4+ T cell count.
. Antiretroviral therapy is also recommended for asymptomatic patients with <200 CD4+ T cells/mm3
. Asymptomatic patients with CD4+ T cell counts of 201-350 cells/mm3 should be offered treatment.
. For asymptomatic patients with CD4+ T cell of >350 cells/mm3 and plasma HIV RNA >100,000 copies/ml most experienced clinicians defer therapy but some clinicians may consider initiating treatment.
. Therapy should be deferred for patients with CD4+ T cell counts of >350 cells /mm3 and plasma HIV RNA <100,000 copies/mL.
. 200-350 CD4+ T cell count, patient asymptomatic. The optimal time to initiate antiretroviral therapy among asymptomatic patients with CD4+ T cell counts >200 cells/mm3 is unknown. For these patients, the strength of the recommendation for therapy must balance other considerations, such as patient readiness for treatment and potential drug toxicities.
".the decision to initiate antiretroviral therapy also is influenced by an assessment of other potential risks and benefits associated with treatment..therapy initiation for the asymptomatic patient should be considered by the clinician and patient.
"Potential Benefits of Deferred Therapy include: . avoidance of treatment-related negative effects on quality of life and drug-related toxicities; . preservation of treatment options; . delay in development of drug resistance if there is incomplete viral suppression; . more time for the patient to have a greater understanding of treatment demands; . decreased total time on medication with reduced chance of treatment fatigue; and . more time for the development of more potent, less toxic, and better studied combinations of antiretrovirals."
(end of NIH guideline excerpts)
For further information you may check out the paper "The chemical basis of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition" (from which the above "The HIV hypothesis." is taken) at www.duesberg.com. Also, the book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg, Ph.D. Also, the two websites www.aliveandwell.org and www.virusmyth.net.
Note: You may want to read the article in the March 2006 issue of Harper's magazine: "Out of Control: AIDS and the Corruption of Medical Science" by Celia Farber. An edited version is available here: http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2006/AIDS-Medical-Corruption1mar06.htm or you can buy the complete article on the newsstand, or find it on the internet (or write me and I'll send you a PDF copy of it). The AIDS drugs that have caused sickness and death induced by the 'rush to market' mentality that the author chronicles in "Out of Control" is only the tip of the iceberg. If you dig deep enough you will find 20 years of misguided and deadly practices waged by the fame-and-fortune seeking 'virus hunters' and the pharmaceutical industry. Tens of thousands made sick or killed by unproven and highly toxic drugs. And patients were often urged, cajoled and frightened into taking these drugs even if they showed no signs of illness. Moreover, the doctors and industry knew of the dangers beforehand.