The HIV/AIDS Hoax

In the 1980s a virus was ‘discovered’ they called HIV and would lead to the deadly disease AIDS. Since then a lot of financial and human resources have been taken away from ‘ordinary’ development activities towards ‘AIDS-related’ activities. This has lead to the move from African doctors going to work for international organisations working in the ‘AIDS-business’ and a shortage of doctors in hospitals and clinics dealing with ‘ordinary’ diseases. Secondly, there was less money available for clean water, sanitation, education and healthcare activities and poverty alleviation in general, preventing development in these areas.

To be able to understand the HIV/AIDS business better I have done a little research to increase my knowledge on what exactly are we talking about and does it validate these side-effects of the shift in focus.

We have all been told the same story about HIV/AIDS: You attract the virus by means of sexual intercourse or blood transmission. After (sometimes 10) years your CD4 (certain white blood cells) count will go below 200 and that is when you will be diagnosed with AIDS. You will be put on ARVs (AIDS medication) that will elevate your CD4-count to normal levels, but will not cure you, it will only prolong your life.

There are 4 issues here:

  • The test for the HIV-virus
  • The CD4-count
  • AIDS
  • ARVs

The test for the HIV-virus

Let us start with the HIV-test. Naïve as I was, I thought this test detects a HIV-virus in your blood (same as a malaria test in which they count parasites in your blood). No, the HIV-test detects antibodies in your blood (according to: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/vttests.htm):

The HIV antibody tests do not detect a virus. They test for any antibodies that react with an assortment of proteins experts assure us are unique to HIV which, almost everyone agrees, is a retrovirus and the cause of AIDS. What happens is this: A sample of blood serum is incubated with a mixture of these proteins in a test called an ELISA, an acronym for Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay. The ELISA is positive if the solution changes colour thereby indicating a reaction between the proteins in the test kit and the patient’s antibodies. However, according to many experts, the ELISA is not specific meaning it may react in the absence of HIV infection…….. If you were randomly selected and found to be antibody positive there is only a 50/50 chance you are actually infected.

In http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/category/hiv-tests/ some questions have been answered about what health risk is there when you test positive:

How many “HIV-positive” people are actually at some health risk?
If one tests “HIV-positive” in absence of any symptoms of illness, what are the chances that a health risk is actually present?

One answer comes in data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for incidence of “HIV”, diagnoses of “AIDS”, and mortality from “AIDS” or “HIV disease”: something like 50% of “HIV” diagnoses are false-positive in the sense of not reflecting any health-threatening condition; or, one might regard these as what the mainstream calls “long-term non-progressors” or “elite controllers”.

Another answer was published last year by Sighem et al. (“Life expectancy of recently diagnosed asymptomatic HIV-infected patients approaches that of uninfected individuals”, AIDS 24 [2010] 1527-35): “The life expectancy of asymptomatic HIV-infected patients who are still treatment-naive and have not experienced a CDC-B or C event at 24 weeks after diagnosis approaches that of non-infected individuals”. “Asymptomatic” of course already implies not having suffered a CDC-B or -C event, which are respectively “symptomatic conditions” and “AIDS-indicator conditions”. If there are no signs of any illness, in other words, no abnormal symptoms, then “HIV-positive” in itself is nothing to worry about. One great wickedness of HIV/AIDS dogma is that it instills great fear and inflicts great psychological harm on many people for no good reason; perhaps half of all those who test “HIV-positive” are worried needlessly.

In short:

Some people test positive on the test. Does this mean they have the HIV-virus? Apparently not. The test is so inaccurate that if the test is positive there is a 50% chance it is actually negative. The test gives in 50% of the cases a false-positive. Which, basically makes the test completely useless, because before you test you have 50% chance of being negative and if you have tested positive you still have 50% chance that you are negative. So, why are we testing???

Further on, people who test positive but are healthy and have no signs or symptoms of an AIDS-related disease within 24 weeks of testing, live as long as HIV-negative people. Which means testing positive is not a sure path to developing the deadly disease AIDS as they keep telling us.

And then this from the Nobel Prize winner for the ‘discovery’ of the HIV-virus:

 April, 2011 —  HIV co-discoverer Luc Montagnier‘s extended House of Numbers interview“I believe we can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected, our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system.” (http://rethinkingaids.com/)

Right. Couldn’t he have told us this when he ‘discovered’ the HIV-virus and they started brainwashing us?

The CD4-count

What is it?

A CD4 test measures the number of T-helper cells (in a cubic millimetre of blood) which is known as a CD4 count. Someone who is not infected with HIV normally has between 500 and 1200 cells/mm3. In a person infected with HIV, the CD4 count often declines over a number of years.

HIV drug treatment is generally recommended when the CD4 test shows fewer than 350 cells/mm3. World Health Organization (WHO) 2010 guidelines recommend starting treatment for all patients with CD4 counts of <350 cells/mm3 in all countries.1 Although most resource-limited countries aim to follow these guidelines, a number still observe the WHO’s 2006 guidelines, which recommend starting treatment at less than 200 cells/mm3.

If there are complications, such as if the patient has hepatitis B, an AIDS-defining illness or is pregnant, guidelines usually recommend that treatment is started earlier.

(http://www.avert.org/antiretroviral.htm)

This means that people without symptoms start ARVs when their CD4-count is lower then 350, or you start ARVs when you have symptoms, or when you are pregnant.

Unfortunately, we can not be sure this pregnant woman is really HIV-positive because she could be a false-positive and she does not show symptoms, how can we be sure she needs these ARVs?

I put CD4 in Google and expect that articles come up which state that a low CD4-count is caused by the HIV-virus. Well that is what it says, however, to my surprise there is actually a whole list of causes for a low CD4-count:

  • HIV-virus
  • Common cold
  • Corticosteroid use (fi prednisone for asthma, COPD, TBC, allergy, etc and cortisol for rashes, eczema and allergies)
  • Infections with viral, bacterial or fungus agents
  • Malnutrition (mainly shortage of vitamins and minerals intake)
  • Severe stress
  • Intense or prolonged physical exercise
  • Rheumatoid Arthritis
  • Sarcoidosis
  • Chemotherapy (malaria and worm treatments are chemotherapy)
  • Antibiotic: Sulfonamides (for urinary tract infections, eye infections and burns)

Now, I am seriously confused. Because this list indicates that most Africans regularly will have a low CD4-count due to malnutrition, stress, chemotherapy and other medication given by the doctor. But we have been told that a low CD4-count (<200 cells/ mm3)* means you have AIDS. So, everybody has AIDS? Is it actually just a coincidence that some people test HIV positive that would lead to AIDS but the majority will have AIDS also as a result of other causes?

The strange thing here is that AIDS is supposed to be a deadly disease and only people who have tested positive on a HIV-test receive ARVs, then all the other ones are supposed to die, right? But they don’t, the death rate would be immense if everybody with a low CD4-count would die. Apparently when people stop with medication after their treatment is finished or eat nutritious meals the CD4-count goes up again and people are healthy again. Then why do the people who by accident tested positive need ARVs to lift their CD4-count? How do we know that their low CD4-count was caused by the HIV-virus?

*You have ‘AIDS’ when your CD4 is below 200, but you are being given ARVs when the CD4 count is below 350.

Let me describe a story which occurs regularly. A woman, married with children, goes to a VCT clinic and receives a HIV-positive test result. She goes home and tells her husband. He gets angry and kicks her out of the house. She goes to her family and they refuse to take her in. She leaves, builds herself a self-made shack in a remote area and tries to scramble together 1 meal per day. After several months she goes back to the clinic. She gives blood and she has a CD4-count below 350. She is diagnosed with AIDS and receives ARVs to be taken for the rest of her life.

First of all, we are not sure she was actually HIV-positive or belonged to the 50% false-positives. Secondly, is it not more likely that she has a low CD4-count because of severe malnutrition? How do we know it is the HIV-virus causing the low CD4-count? Would it not be better to first give her the money the drugs are worth, so she can buy herself 3 nutritious meals and see what the result is of that, instead of putting her on drugs she has to take for the rest of her life?

AIDS

Thirdly let us talk about this dangerous, deadly disease called AIDS. What is AIDS? It is called Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. So, it is not really a disease, it is a syndrome. According to the dictionary syndrome means: a medical condition that is characterized by a particular group of signs and symptoms.

De signs and symptoms of AIDS are according to the WHO Bangui definition:

Exclusion criteria

  1. Pronounced malnutrition
  2. Cancer
  3. Immunosuppressive treatment
 

Inclusion criteria with the corresponding score

Score
Important signs
Weight loss exceeding 10% of body weight 4
Protracted asthenia (muscle weakness) 4
Very frequent signs
Continuous or repeated attacks of fever for more than a month 3
Diarrhoea lasting for more than a month 3
Other signs
Cough 2
Pneumopathy 2
Oropharyngeal candidiasis 4
Chronic or relapsing cutaneous herpes 4
Generalized pruritic dermatosis 4
Herpes zoster (relapsing) 4
Generalized adenopathy 2
Neurological signs 2
Generalized Kaposi’s sarcoma 12

 The diagnosis of AIDS is established when the score is 12 or more.

The 1985 WHO AIDS surveillance case definition was heavily criticised, for both medical and political reasons. The 1994 expanded World Health Organization AIDS case definition was introduced in 1994 to incorporate the statement that HIV testing should be done. However, if testing was unavailable, then the Bangui definition should be used. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_World_Health_Organization_AIDS_surveillance_case_definition)

When I read this list I think or you have malaria, or typhoid, or a bacterial infection, or whatever more is out there. In Africa it is not that difficult to score a 12 on this test.

So, in conclusion, if there is a lab available, people with a CD4-count below 200 are labeled as AIDS-patient, although nobody knows if it was the result of the HIV-virus, and if there is no lab available the labeling of AIDS-patients is based on the appearance of clinical symptoms although these signs could belong to an entirely different disease.

Right, this story is starting to make less and less sense:

  • We have a test that might or might not give you the correct answer whether you have the HIV-virus;
  • The test is based on antibodies because nobody has ever seen the HIV-virus so you cannot look for it in blood, because nobody knows what it looks like;
  • This funny, invisible virus leads to a low CD4-count;
  • A low CD4 count is also the result of so many ordinary factors in the life of an African person that there is no way to know what caused the low CD4-count;
  • The symptoms of AIDS are also the symptoms of other diseases existing in Africa for ages before there was ever a HIV-virus discovered, and therefore it is impossible to say if the symptoms are caused by the HIV-virus or something entirely different.

My questions:

  1. Why are we testing people on HIV if we do not even know if the result will be correct?
  2. Why are we calling diseases/ symptoms that are prevalent in Africa for ages all of a sudden ‘AIDS’ leading to the intake of drugs for the rest of your life?

ARVs

Everybody diagnosed with AIDS has to take ARVs for the rest of their life. What are these ARVs doing? Are they prolonging your life? And what are the side-effects of taking this drug for the rest of your life?

In http://www.westerncape.gov.za/eng/pubs/public_info/F/87102/6

Question: What is antiretroviral therapy? How does it work?

 Answer: Currently there is no cure for AIDS. However, there are drugs that can slow down the progress of HIV and thus slow down the damage to your immune system. These drugs are called antiretrovirals (ARV’s). ARV’s slow down the reproduction rate of HIV. Once the virus is reproducing at a slower rate, it is less able to harm your immune system. If your immune system is functioning properly, your body is less likely to become sick. Your immune system is your body’s defense system against infection. Since ARV’s slow down the damage to your immune system, if they are used properly, they allow you to live a longer, healthier life.

The goals for ARV treatment are:

  1. to ensure maximum and lasting control of the amount HIV in your body;
  2. to restore and protect the immune functioning of the body by allowing the CD4 cells to replenish their numbers;
  3. to reduce HIV-related illnesses and deaths and
  4. in the long run to improve the quality of life for people living with AIDS.

In http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/category/hiv-tests/

Sighem et al.’s prognostication of no life-shortening for asymptomatic “HIV-positive” people not treated with antiretroviral drugs seems to be better than that for “HIV-positive” people treated with antiretroviral drugs. Lohse et al. (“Survival of persons with and without HIV infection in Denmark, 1995–2005”, Annals of Internal Medicine 146 [2007] 87-95) estimated that 25-year-olds diagnosed with HIV and undergoing HAART had a median survival of an additional 35 years, which is considerably less than the >50 years for asymptomatic untreated “HIV-positive” people.

AZT, of course, actively killed people in the years before monotherapy was replaced by HAART cocktails; the immediate drop in mortality when HAART was introduced indicates that AZT monotherapy treatment had been responsible for some 150,000 deaths. AZT (Retrovir, zidovudine) and other NRTIs (Nucleoside-analogue Reverse-Transcriptase Inhibitors) continue to be components of many HAART treatments; that the doses are smaller than with earlier monotherapy doesn’t make them non-toxic, it just means that they kill less rapidly or less surely or cause non-lethal damage.

Indeed, the Treatment Guidelines issued by the National Institutes of Health acknowledge the toxicity of HAART in reporting that “In the era of combination antiretroviral therapy,  several large observational studies have indicated that  the risk of several non-AIDS-defining conditions,  including cardiovascular diseases, liver-related events,  renal disease, and certain non-AIDS malignancies . . . is greater than the risk for AIDS in persons with  CD4 T-cell counts >200 cells/mm3” (p. 13, 1 December 2007 version).

In short if you have a CD4 above 200 the chance of getting serious diseases is higher when you take ARVs than when you do not take ARVs. For people in developed countries if you start taking ARVs when you are 25 years old (when you do not have any symptoms) you have 35 years to live, if you don’t take the ARVs you will live more than 50 years. But what are ARVs doing in people who do not have access to clean water, no 3 nutritious meals per day and are regularly infected by parasites, worms and bacteria’s?

ARVs have lots of long-term side-effects. They are toxic to the kidneys and liver and influence processes inside the bodily cells. Metabolic side-effects are for instance lipodystrophy (destruction of fatty tissues) and diabetes mellitus. http://www.aidshealing.org/pc1-arvs.php

Lipodystrophy

Lipodystrophy involves losing or gaining body fat, often in ways that can be disfiguring and stigmatising. Three main patterns are seen:
•    Losing fat on the face, arms, legs and buttocks, resulting in sunken cheeks, prominent veins on the limbs, and shrunken buttocks.
•    Gaining fat deep within the abdomen, between the shoulder blades, or on the breasts.
•    A mixture of fat gain and fat loss.

http://aidscurefound.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52&Itemid=61

I never thought I would ever say this but: The positive side of all this wide-spread corruption is that not only government leaders but also local NGOs have stuffed the money meant for ARVs in their own pockets. That is why the ARV-disaster is still relatively small.

What about other ways to increase your CD4-count?

A simple, inexpensive, non-toxic cure for AIDS that has no negative side-effects has been described by Pacini and Ruggiero at the 6th International AIDS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention (Rome, 17-20 July 2011).
The basic mechanism involves stimulation of the immune system which increases CD4 counts and corrects CD4/CD8 balance, in “HIV-positive” people and also in HIV-negative people.

→   Treating manifest illnesses has a better record of good patient outcomes than does antiretroviral treatment.
→   CD4 counts can be increased quickly and safely by means of probiotic dietary supplements.

Note in particular that Pacini and Ruggiero obtained increases in CD4 counts
of several hundred in a few weeks
whereas the claimed benefits of anti-retroviral therapy
cite increases of only about 90 per year

Recall that AIDS was discovered and defined in the early 1980s as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, the immune deficiency being specifically a loss of CD4 cells. Later the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defined AIDS as being “HIV-positive” with a CD4 count below 200. Therefore an increase of CD4 above that level constitutes reversion of AIDS to non-AIDS.
That a healthy immune system can withstand HIV has also been emphasized by Luc Montagnier, co-discoverer of HIV, on several occasions. Two decades ago, it was shown in Montagnier’s laboratory that in fact HIV alone is harmless to immune-system CD4 cells but that the latter may be damaged by a mycoplasma that appears to be often present in some patients. http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/category/alternative-aids-treatments/

In short taking ARVs has many dangerous and disfiguring side-effects and shortens your life. The best way is to treat the symptoms of AIDS (and hasn’t this been done already for ages in Africa, since these symptoms are not a new phenomenon) and make sure that everybody eats 3 nutritious meals a day.

 

There is one issue that I have not touched yet and that is the fact that HIV is supposed to be a sexually transmitted disease.

Henry Bauer writes on http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/racial-bias-in-hivaids/:

I’ve drawn attention several times and from a variety of evidence to the racial bias in HIV/AIDS. Perhaps the most egregious example is the willingness to presume or postulate that black people are so much more sexually promiscuous than others that they are “infected by HIV” much more often: African-American men about 7 times as often as white American men and 10 times as often as Asian-American men; African -American women about 20 times as often as white American women and perhaps 50 times as often as Asian-American women; Africans in South Africa >20 times as often as white South Africans or South Africans of (Asian) Indian ancestry.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are willing to regard these differences in “HIV infection” rates as stemming from behavioral differences. James Chin calculates and accepts that 20-40% of adult Africans have about a dozen sexual partners at any given time, changing them about annually. Not only does the HIV/AIDS mainstream accept a sexual-transmission explanation for these racial disparities, it does so even though the disparities as to “HIV infection” are seen in every social sector and have not changed over 25 years, whereas relative rates for gonorrhea and syphilis vary by social sector and change over time, not at all parallel with relative rates of “HIV-positive”.

You can go on the internet yourself and find out that there is absolutely no prove that this is a sexually transmitted disease. The reason Africans have more often a HIV-positive test is because they are Africans and the test is calibrated for Caucasians.

In http://www.theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/africafactandfiction.html:

The data widely purporting to show the existence and heterosexual transmission in Africa of a new syndrome caused by a retrovirus which induces immune deficiency is critically evaluated. It is concluded that both acquired immune deficiency (AID) and the symptoms and diseases which constitute the clinical syndrome (S) are long standing in Africa, affect both sexes equally and are caused by factors other than HIV. The presence of positive HIV serology in Africans represents no more than cross-reactivity caused by an abundance of antibodies induced by the numerous infectious and parasitic diseases which are endemic in Africa, that is, a positive HIV antibody test does not prove HIV infection. Given the above, one would expect to find a high prevalence of “AIDS” and “HIV” antibodies in Africa. This is not proof of heterosexual transmission of either HIV or AIDS.

What is interesting about this myth (outright lie) is that it reminds me of the ‘dehumanising’-campaign of DC. Not only are Africans lesser or inferior ‘beings’ with the feelings and memory of a fish, in addition they ‘fxxx like rabbits’.

Now I would like to know:

  1. Is this whole scam of the multi-billion dollar business called HIV/AIDS only about money, or is there another purpose?
  2. Are the 2 multi-billion dollar businesses called DC and HIV/AIDS working together towards a mutual goal?
  3. If yes, what is the goal?

A vaccine for HIV/AIDS

My immediate questions when people talk about a vaccine are:

  • How can you make a vaccine protecting people from a virus nobody has ever seen, or technically isolated?
  • What is in that vaccine? What are the components?
  • What are the long-term (5 – 10 years) side-effects of this vaccine?

Let me first give you the story of another medical myth/cover-up story: the story of the Spanish flu:

It started by American soldiers fighting during WWI:
I heard that seven men dropped dead in a doctor’s office after being vaccinated. This was in an army camp, so I wrote to the Government for verification. They sent me the report of U.S. Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson. The report not only verified the report of the seven who dropped dead from the vaccines, but it stated that there had been 63 deaths and 28,585 cases of hepatitis as a direct result of the yellow fever vaccine during only 6 months of the war. That was only one of the 14 to 25 shots given the soldiers. We can imagine the damage that all these shots did to the men.

The First World War was of a short duration, so the vaccine makers were unable to use up all their vaccines. As they were (and still are) in business for profit, they decided to sell it to the rest of the population. So they drummed up the largest vaccination campaign in U.S. history. There were no epidemics to justify it so they used other tricks. Their propaganda claimed the soldiers were coming home from foreign countries with all kinds of diseases and that everyone must have all the shots on the market.

The people believed them because, first of all, they wanted to believe their doctors, and second, the returning soldiers certainly had been sick. They didn’t know it was from doctor-made vaccine diseases, as the army doctors don’t tell them things like that. Many of the returned soldiers were disabled for life by these drug-induced diseases. Many were insane from postvaccinal encephalitis, but the doctors called it shell shock, even though many had never left American soil.

The conglomerate disease brought on by the many poison vaccines baffled the doctors, as they never had a vaccination spree before which used so many different vaccines. The new disease they had created had symptoms of all the diseases they had injected into the man. There was the high fever, extreme weakness, abdominal rash and intestinal disturbance characteristic of typhoid. The diphtheria vaccine caused lung congestion, chills and fever, swollen, sore throat clogged with the false membrane, and the choking suffocation because of difficulty in breathing followed by gasping and death, after which the body turned black from stagnant blood that had been deprived of oxygen in the suffocation stages. In early days they called it Black Death. The other vaccines cause their own reactions — paralysis, brain damage, lockjaw, etc.

When doctors had tried to suppress the symptoms of the typhoid with a stronger vaccine, it caused a worse form of typhoid which they named paratyphoid. But when they concocted a stronger and more dangerous vaccine to suppress that one, they created an even worse disease which they didn’t have a name for. What should they call it? They didn’t want to tell the people what it really was — their own Frankenstein monster which they had created with their vaccines and suppressive medicines. They wanted to direct the blame away from themselves, so they called it Spanish Influenza. It was certainly not of Spanish origin, and the Spanish people resented the implication that the world-wide scourge of that day should be blamed on them. But the name stuck and American medical doctors and vaccine makers were not suspected of the crime of this widespread devastation — the 1918 Flu Epidemic. It is only in recent years that researchers have been digging up the facts and laying the blame where it belongs. (http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sf1.html)

Medical historians have finally come to the reluctant conclusion that the great flu “epidemic” of 1918 was solely attributable to the widespread use of vaccines. It was the first war in which vaccination was compulsory for all servicemen. The Boston Herald reported that forty-seven soldiers had been killed by vaccination in one month. As a result, the military hospitals were filled, not with wounded combat casual­ties, but with casualties of the vaccine. The epidemic was called “the Spanish Influenza,” a deliberately mis­leading appellation, which was intended to conceal its origin. This flu epidemic claimed twenty million victims; those who survived it were the ones who had refused the vaccine. http://elliotlakenews.wordpress.com/2007/11/17/vaccine-caused-spanish-flu-epidemic/

 AIDS is not the only incomprehensible story about a virus. Other examples are the swine and the bird flu, you are urged by the medical world to vaccinate against these viruses also. The dangers of vaccinations are to be find al over the internet. It causes death, all kind of diseases and disabilities. But the Spanish flu certainly tops in the number of deaths due to mass vaccinations.

(First published in stopaidnow.wordpress.com)

 

Advertisements