Does AIDS Cause HIV?

May 12, 2010

How we’ve gotten AIDS wrong for 25 years, and how to fix it…

Those ‘in the know,’ who read and scour and search the medical literature on AIDS and HIV testing, are well aware that neither of these belief systems works according to their promised plan. Here’s how it was supposed to go:

by Liam Scheff

A single unique particle, (originally called LAV, then HTLV-III, then rechristened HIV) gets into the body via semen or blood exchange; it gravitates somehow to the white blood cells called T-Cells; it opens the cell door, somehow, and copies itself into the genome, using an enzyme called Reverse Transcriptase. These cells are then impaired, and die, supposedly. This weakens the body over time and other illnesses occur.

That’s the official narrative. But only more or less, because there are so many alterations and versions of the official story at this point that it’s hard to keep up. “Maybe cells aren’t killed directly, maybe latent infection is really active, maybe constant exposure causes immunity…” The official story has caused nothing but headaches and trauma for the mainstream, as it’s never held together, and no part of it is ably demonstrated or proven. In fact, most aspects of the story are countered by observation.

That is, there is no unique, purified, isolated, gold standard particle called “LAV,” or “HTLV-III,” or “HIV.” There are many divergent proteins that are grabbed out of blood samples through antibody testing, and a far greater number of genetic threads, copied out of cell cultures by a touchy, highly sensitive technology called PCR. All of these are supposed to be “HIV.”

This wild diversity of fragments gave CDC cop and New York Times pharma-shill Lawrence Altman the impetus to coin his second-most famous line: “HIV, the wily retrovirus.” (His first is “The virus that causes AIDS.“)

And right there you have the second major problem. AIDS is about, well, if I said 10,000 diseases, I’d be in the ballpark. It is a disease category as long as Pinocchio’s nose, and as deep as a the Grand Canyon. It grows at will, and can never be filled up – it grows and goes. Any disease can be called “AIDS” if it occurs in people who the medical cops think are “at risk for AIDS.”

HIV Profiling

That’s how it works – literally. You have a fungal toenail? Get treatment. You’re in a “risk group?” (Gay, black, drug-addict, or poor). Then, “It could be AIDS! Better get tested.” Otherwise, you’re just another shlub who drinks too much and has bad hygiene, so take an anti-fungal drug, and soak it in Epsom salts or some other concoction. But if you’re a gay male, you’re “at risk for AIDS,” so you get an HIV test. And then you’re in the stream – HIV death sentence, AIDS drugs, support groups, red ribbons, pharma bills, major side-effects and early (but sanctified) death.

You have a recurring sore throat, and you’re a black woman in the inner city ghetto? “Could be AIDS! Better get tested.” If you’re a straight white college girl or boy, you’ll be told to eat less sugar, that you could have weakened immunity, or Chronic Fatigue, or Epstein-Barr or Guillain–Barré Syndrome, or some other concoction of non-specific symptoms given a three-name moniker.

The mainstream has just about crucified itself revealing that it has no good solution to the ‘how does HIV cause AIDS’ question, when you put them on a pin, or under the spotlight. When they’re feeling particularly honest and generous, they’ll tell you that “There’s a great deal to be known that we do not already know,” and “the specific mechanisms remain elusive,” and, “It will require increased funding and may take years to solve this perplexing riddle,” and so on.

Meanwhile, when making public policy, they’re absolutely sure of it, and don’t wait to tell everyone in the world that HIV is a single particle which is the cause of a single disease, and so everyone (in a risk group) must be tested (meaning, in all practical senses, “The ghetto can line up here for testing, but walk away, wealthy people, walk away!”)

Tap-dancing HIV Tests

But HIV tests themselves give the store away – all you have to do is get your hands on a manufacturer’s explanation of the technology and limitations of the test. Read this literature and you will quickly discover that none of these things test “for” any particular particle. They’re all “aids” in testing for HIV, and they all require “further supplementary testing” to verify their result. All of them, from the bottom-most to the topper-most. None of them stands on their result; they all pass the buck.

None has a ‘gold reference standard.’ They’re all open to interpretation, and here’s the rub. When the test result is in opposition to the perceived clinical picture and risk evaluation, then the result can be presumed “false” by the clinician. Again – if you test ‘reactive’ (because the tests aren’t “positive” and “negative,” they’re more or less reactive on a sliding scale) – if your test is reactive, but you’re not in the risk group, then the test is generally presumed to be a “false positive.” You’re positive, “but not really” (says the clinician, based on your looks and clinical health), so you’re negative.

On the other hand, if your test is not reactive, or minimally reactive, but you are in a risk group, and you do fit a clinical picture of any of that Grand Canyon of symptoms, then you, my friend, are not really “negative.” You are a “false negative,” and they reel you in for more testing with increasingly sensitive (reactive, non-specific) tests, until they get one to spike, and then they’ve got you.

That’s what “HIV” is, in reality, in actual living patients. “It” is any variety of test results, with immensely reactive, non-specific tests, targeted for use at certain populations.

By the way, if you’re a researcher and you want references for all of this, try these articles listed below [1, 2], and this reference sheet [3]. Or do a Google search for “false positive, false negative HIV test,” or “HIV test, risk group evaluation,” etc. The literature you’re looking for will be found in the major medical journals, and downloadable from the test manufacturer’s websites, and that of the barely functioning FDA (The crime syndicate that my friend Robert Scott Bell calls the “Fear and Death Administration” – but he’s colorful like that). You can also look at these immense lists at the ARAS website which are updated regularly, and tell the story, over and over again [4].

The T-Cells Are Doing Just Fine, Thanks

A few years ago, some AIDS researchers shot themselves in the foot – or maybe the head – by publishing a study that demonstrated that by using these genetic tests (called PCR) and assuming that they were finding HIV. They then disproved that HIV affects T-Cells at all – that is, that their “HIV” caused their definition of “AIDS.” The Rodriguez, et al paper demonstrated that the presence of “HIV” seemed to affect T-Cells somewhere in the ballpark of 4 to 9 percent in total. That’s just above statistically insignificant. That is, “HIV” mostly leaves T-Cells alone, as per their scientific proof.

So, how does “HIV” cause “AIDS?” The mainstream did a few back-flips and somersaults to un-demonstrate their published failure, but to anyone watching, it was a fait accompli. But there’s the problem: No one cares. The sad truth is, the only people who pay attention to the AIDS industry, and their technical research, are AIDS dissidents, (so named for being rebels against an errant church). The AIDS mainstream likes to heighten the drama by calling themselves “AIDSTruthers,” and their critics “denialists,” openly equating them with people who deny the Nazi social, medical and military Holocaust against the Jews and other peoples of Europe. (The mainstream misses the point that the Holocaust was performed, in large part, by doctors and scientists). It is a term that has caught on in certain media outlets (those my friend Clark Baker calls the ‘pharmasluts’), but I’m not sure how far it can go, being so vindictive and transparently hateful.

But it doesn’t have to go far, because the majority of the world doesn’t give much of a damn about HIV or AIDS. It’s all too distant, too “African,” too complicated. They’re all watching the markets crash, and wondering about tomorrow and today. And there are the other political passions – global warming, fundamentalist Islam, tea party activists, etc. Others to crucify and hate and fear, which require less-technical reading, and are far easier to have violent opinions about.

Leave the Tests at Home

If all of this is a little wonky, it also ignores the most important actor in this drama: The AIDS patient. Someone can be given an AIDS diagnosis for having diarrhea, if they’re African or Chinese or Brazilian, and poor, starved and chemically- or bacterially-poisoned enough by their local environment. The HIV test comes later. It comes AFTER the AIDS diagnosis. After the presumption of AIDS.

Which means that Rodriguez, et al, were right: We should go treat AIDS patients for all the things they have wrong with them –  give them food, anti-oxidants, clean water, and a little help building some basic infrastructure – and we can leave the HIV tests at home to rot.

Or, maybe HIV tests can be given a new use. They come up positive for so many things, perhaps they can be used to tell people that they are, in fact, alive. Or that they have the flu, or are pregnant. Or that they are a dog, a mouse, a cow, or a goat. Because HIV tests come up reactive for all those things too… (see the links below).

Maybe the good (and not-so-good) scientists searching for viruses all those years ago got it just a little bit wrong. Or quite backwards. AIDS was real enough – a lot of people with “immune deficiency” of various types is something a doctor wants to concern him or herself with. But to a genuine healer, treating the “immune deficiency” ought to be more important than selling a brand-name label for poverty to the world’s poorest people.

Why not leave the HIV tests at home, and go out and treat AIDS? It’s been done, and it works. It works when people try it, when they’re not railroaded by the criminal syndicates known as the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, and UNAIDS. Maybe AIDS is much more treatable, in fact, than “HIV.” Wouldn’t that be a discovery? A blessing to millions, in fact. Who wouldn’t want that? (Only the pharma industry).

And that means that the international pharmaceutical syndicates have to be reined in. They need a bit in the mouth. Pharmaceutical products are necessary to human health in small doses. But the pharma-medical industry has gotten fat and comfortable, and they’re now in the business of re-labeling poverty as sexually-transmitted, life-long viral illness; this is a ‘eugenic-model’ diagnosis.

It’s Up to You

In an optimistic mood I think, “we can do better.” But I know we can also do worse. Let me ask you personally then, to start talking about the need for transparency in the medical industry, for freedom to challenge medical and pharmaceutical dogma, and for this small favor:

Be kind to AIDS patients. Don’t tell them that “they’re permanently infected” and doomed to an early death. They’ve been given a false label, “HIV positive.” They may be sick, and they may just have a chance to get better, if we help them, if we let them.

Further Reading

1. The Hidden Face of HIV Part One: Knowing is Beautiful | PDF

2. The Hidden Face of HIV Part Two: Sex Crimes | PDF

3. References to 1. and 2. PDF download.

4. Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society – HIV Tests in the Medical Literature

5. Reduce the on HIV Tests in Review

Tags: , , , ,

You must be logged in to comment

Log in