Making HIV/AIDS a Disease Part One

Monday 10 September 2012.
 

Making HIV/AIDS a Disease

A very strong case may be made that after thirty years (three decades) of the HIV/AIDS crisis that more is unknown than know. Why is that? Looking at the beginning of the HIV/AIDS crisis and the foundation upon which it is built is very revealing.

“The theory that HIV causes AIDS has remained the preeminent AIDS paradigm throughout the course of the epidemic, despite the fact that orthodox researchers readily admit to the existence of multiple lacunae or paradigmatic anomalies that this theory of specific etiology does not resolve. Examples in this regard include the following: there is still no effective treatment to cure the disease; there is still no vaccine against HIV that can evoke protective immunity for populations at risk for the disease; and orthodox AIDS science and research communities have failed to construct an adequate theoretical model that can describe or model the “pathogenesis of HIV infection” (e.g. the exact mechanism or means by which the human immunodeficiency virus induces immune suppression in a host infected with the retrovirus).” "(Cochrane, When AIDS Began San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic, p. 176-177)

The definition of HIV/AIDS has been changed numerous times and varies from country to country. Some who were excluded in the original 1981 definition are now included in 1993 definition, this change also included a gender specific cancer, cervical cancer that only occurs in women. The original definition was that the person had no known cause/history for suppression of their immune system, but those with known causes of a suppressed immune system are now included.

Of greater concern should be that the HIV virus that is attributed to causing AIDS has not been isolated as an entity by itself. Also the tests for the HIV virus do not detect the virus itself, but rather detect antibodies that are thought be as a result of infection by the HIV virus. The newer “viral load” tests are said to detect parts of the virus. How is it that parts of the HIV virus may be detected, but the whole virus itself cannot be found? The companies that manufacture the HIV tests include written documentation in the test kits themselves that state, “These test kits are not to be used for diagnosing the presence of HIV virus in those being tested”.

This lengthy article has been divided into two sections with the following headings “What is HIV/AIDS”, Changing Definitions”. The second section includes “HIV Tests”, How HIV/AIDS Differs from Other Diseases”, and “Who is at Risk for HIV/AIDS?”.

"“Regardless, AIDS remains to this day a government-defined syndrome with simultaneously, no specific clinical symptoms of its own yet a myriad of indirect illnesses and symptoms supposedly "caused" by the immune suppression-really quite a clever idea, since essentially everything is a symptom.”" (Culshaw, Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, p. 23)

The following three quotes address the “questionable start” to what became known as the HIV/AIDS crisis.

“It was just before Christmas 1980 when immunologist Dr. Michael Gottlieb of UCLA’s School of Medicine suggested to his Fellow, Dr. Howard Schanker, that he hunt up a case that would be good for teaching about the immune system.

Most Fellows will say, ‘Sure, sure’ then go to the library and read, but Howard went to the wards and found a thirty-one year old man with a diagnosis of some sort of leukemia” Gottlieb recalls. “The man had been admitted through medical service with candidiasis of the esophagus so bad he could hardly breathe. His throat was blocked by the fluffy white growth.”” (Fettner and Check, The Truth About AIDS Evolution of an Epidemic, p. 11-12

“It remains a matter largely hidden from the public that the first cases of AIDS did not suddenly arrive all at once, but rather were sought out by an assistant professor of immunology at UCLA Medical Center named Michael Gottlieb in 1981. After searching hospitals in Los Angeles for gay men suffering from opportunistic infections, he managed to find five (Brown 2001). Upon measuring their T-cells, a subset of the immune system, he found that in all five men they were depleted. What is quite curious about this discovery is that the technology to count T-cells had only just been perfected.” (Culshaw, Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, p. 23)

“It is assumed that AIDS “broke out,” among gay men, but in fact, it was searched out. In 1980, Michael Gottlieb, a researcher, at the University of California medical center, “wanted to study the immune system and began scouring the hospital for patients with immune deficiency diseases”. He found a case- a man in his early thirties with a yeast infection in his throat and a case of Pneumocystic cariini pneumonia. Using a new technology that counted T-cells, a subset of white cells of the immune system, Gottlieb found out that his patient had very few. Gottlieb kept searching, and eventually found four more similar cases.” (Farber, Serious Adverse events: An Uncensored History of AIDS, p. 14)

What is HI/AIDS?

“The most serious substantive difficulty is that the criteria for identifying a case of AIDS have changed so much over the years that AIDS in 2000 is actually an entirely different set of diseases than AIDS was in the early 1980s.” (Bauer, The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, p. 16)

“What we now know as "AIDS" bears little resemblance to the original cases of AIDS, as observed in New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco in 1981. The original definition of AIDS was based upon the observation of very rare opportunistic infections in previously healthy homosexual men. This list of opportunistic infections included Kapoi’s sarcoma (although it is highly debatable whether KS has anything It all to do with immune suppression), Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, and severe candidiasis (CDC 1986). The status "HIV-positive" had nothing to do with a diagnosis of AIDS prior to 1984, as HIV had yet to be identified.

"It is worth noting that AIDS was not originally conceived as a specific disease. The definition was developed as a surveillance tool to assist clinicians and epidemiologists in identifying and controlling this strange new syndrome.” (Culshaw, Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, p. 23)

“The story of HIV/AIDS begins in the 1979 and in 1980 when doctors in the US observed clusters of previously extremely rare diseases. These included a type of pneumonia carried by birds (pneumocystis carinii) and a cancer called Karposi’s sarcoma. The phenomenon was first reported in the Morbidity and Morality Weekly report (MMWR) of 5 June 1981, published by the US Center for Disease Control in Atlanta. The MMWR reported five cases of pneumocystis carinii. A month later it reported a clustering of cases of karposi’s sarcome in New York.” (Barnett and Whiteside, AIDS in the Twenty-First Century Disease and Globalization, p. 28)

“It was in 1981 that the first cluster of cases of what was eventually to be called AIDS, was identified in five young homosexual men in California. They all had two medical conditions in common, a type of pneumonia called pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) and a form of a blood vessel tumor called Kaposi’s sarcoma causing internal and external lesions. They also had one other thing in common, they inhaled poppers-amyl and butyl nitrites.” (Shenton, Positively False Exposing the Myths Around HIV and AIDS, p. xx)

“AIDS was first recognized as a new and distinct clinical entity in 1981 (Gottlieb et al,. 1981; Masur et al., 1981; Siegal et al., 1981). The first case were recognized because of an unusual clustering of disease such as Kaposi’s sarcoma and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) in young homosexual men. Although such unusual diseases had been previously observed in distinct subgroups of the population-such as older men of Mediterranean origin in the case of Kaposi’s sarcoma or severely immunosuppressed cancer patients in the case of PCP-the occurrence of these disease in previously healthy young people was unprecedented. Since most of the first cases of this newly defined clinical syndrome involved homosexual men, lifestyle practices were first implicated and intensely investigated. These included the exposure to amyl or butyl nitrate ‘poppers’ or the frequent contact with sperm through rectal sex, which might have acted as immunostimulatory doses of foreign proteins or antigens.” (Mayer and Pizer, editors, The AIDS Pandemic: Impact on Science and Society, p. 15)

“The first identified case of AIDS in the United States occurred in the spring of 1981, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that five young, previously healthy, homosexually active men in Los Angeles exhibited a rare upper respiratory infection, Pnuemocystis carinii (Fauci, et al., 1984, Gallo, 1987). One month later, the CDC reported another 10 cases of this illness and 26 cases of Kaposi’s sarcoma, a rare cancer of connective and vascular tissues. All these cases occurred in New York City, San Francisco, and Los Angeles among previously healthy young homosexual men.” (Kalichman, Understanding AIDS Second Edition Advances in Research and Treatment, p.10)

“In 1981, physicians in the San Francisco Bay area of California began to see small numbers of gay men infected with an unusual protozoan parasite identified as Pneumocystis carinii, this infection became known as Pneumocystic carinii pneumonia. Other gay men were developing a rare neoplasm called Kaposi’s sarcoma, whose lesions could cover the body externally and might also internalize to attack some or all of the major organs. Up until this time, karposi’s sarcoma had been believed to occur only in elderly men of Jewish extraction who lived on the shoreline surrounding the Mediterranean. In Jewish men it did not internalize and was most frequently seen as skin lesions between the knee and the ankle. Both the protozoan infection and the cancer appeared to be opportunistic as they only occurred in individuals whose immune systems had been comprised by an unknown infection that caused massive destruction of the T4 lymphocytes.” (O’Donnell, HIV/AIDS: Loss, Grief, Challenge, p. 1-2)

“The story of AIDS began long before the fateful 1984 press conference. At least as early as mid-1980, reports began to surface of a small group of gay men who were dying from a strange pneumonia and a hitherto rare-and not previously fatal-form of skin cancer called Kaposi’s sarcoma. The first five men with AIDS were patients of Michael Gottlieb who used a new technology that enabled technicians to count not just the total number of white blood cells a patient has but the number of each subset of T-cells. Using this new technology-which coincidentally came into existence and was patented at the beginning of the AIDS era-Gottlieb was able to determine that these men suffered from an unusually low number of the white blood cell subset known as helper T-cells.” (Culshaw, Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, p. 59)

“It was at the CDC that the first indications of the impending AIDS epidemic became evident in the autumn of 1980. Between October 1980 and May 1981 an alert physician, Dr Michael Gottleib, together with colleagues at three different hospitals in Los Angeles, became intrigued by a cluster of five young male patients, whose ages ranged from 29 to 36 years, under their care. Two of the patients died and the remaining three were seriously ill. All five men, who had previously been healthy, were diagnosed as having a highly unusual form of pneumonia due to a parasite called Pneumocystis carinii. Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (often abbreviated to PCP) had previously been found virtually exclusively in patients with severe suppression of their immune systems caused by drugs or disease. In addition, all of these patients had evidence of having been infected with a virus called cytomegalovirus (CMV) which is similarly common in immunosuppressed patients. All five of these patients were also infected with thrush, which is again characteristic of immunosuppressed individuals. Indeed, in three of the five who were tested there was evidence of marked disturbances in the functional capacities of their immune systems. A further feature of the five men was that all were sexually active homosexuals. None of them knew each other, however, and there did not appear to be a common sexual contact. At this stage this all pointed to an association with a homosexual lifestyle and a sexually transmitted disease.

The first report of these observations appeared in a relatively small unobtrusive insert in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of the CDC on 5 June 1981.” (Schoub, AIDS & HIV in Perspective, p. 2)

“The theory that HIV causes AIDA has remained the preeminent AIDS paradigm throughout the course of the epidemic, despite the fact that orthodox researchers readily admit to the existence of multiple lacunae or paradigmatic anomalies that this theory of specific etiology does not resolve. Examples in this regard include the following: there is still no effective treatment to cure the disease; there is still no vaccine against HIV that can evoke protective immunity for populations at risk for the disease; and orthodox AIDS science and research communities have failed to construct an adequate theoretical model that can describe or model the “pathogenesis of HIV infection” (e.g. the exact mechanism or means by which the human immunodeficiency virus induces immune suppression in a host infected with the retrovirus).” (Cochrane, When AIDS Began San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic, p. 176-177)

“Thus, despite repeated statements by government officials that the cause of AIDS is known and that it is HIV, I can no longer find any major investigator in the field of AIDS who will defend the proposition that HIV is the only immunosuppressive agent involved in AIDS. Even Robert Gallo, one of the staunchest defenders of the HIV-only hypothesis, has written that “although infection by HIV-1 has been implicated as the primary cause of AIDS and related disorders, cofactorial mechanisms may be involved in the pathogenesis of the disease.” (Root-Bernstein, Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus, p. 330”)

“As mentioned in the Introduction, AIDS is the acronym for ‘acquired immunodeficiency syndrome’ and was a term coined early on in the history of the disease. AIDS is by definition, the end-stage disease manifestation of an infection with a virus called human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The virus infects mainly two systems of the body, the immune system and the central nervous system, and disease manifestations are consequent on damage to these two systems.” (Schoub, AIDS and HIV in Perspective, p. 20)

“AIDS is a syndrome of about thirty diseases, not a disease. It displays no unique combination of diseases in the patient. Clinically, it is identified by the diagnosis of specific diseases known to medical science for decades or centuries. The CDC has several times increased-but never decreased-the official list: of AIDS indicator diseases, most recently on January 1, 1993 (See Table 2).

The list now includes brain dementia, chronic diarrhea, cancers such as Kaposi’s sarcoma and several lymphomas, and such opportunistic infections as Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, cytomegalovirus infection, herpes, candidiasis (yeast infeclions), and tuberculosis. Even low T-cell counts in the blood can now be called "AIDS," with or without real clinical symptoms. Cervical cancer has recently been added to the list, the first AIDS disease that can affect only one gender (in this case, women). The purpose behind adding this disease was entirely political, admittedly to increase the number of female AIDS patients, creating an illusion that the syndrome is "spreading" into the heterosexual population. Originally the AIDS diseases were tied together because they were all increasing within certain risk groups, but today they are assumed to derive from the common basis of immune deficiency. The overlap between AIDS and certain risk groups still holds true but, as pointed out in Table I, a significant number of these diseases are not products of weakened immune systems.” (Duesberg, Inventing the AIDS Virus, p. 209)

“We have to see what AIDS is, AIDS is not a disease entity, AIDS is a whole bag of old diseases under a new name.” (Adams, AIDS: The HIV Myth, p.130)

“One could justifiably argue that the AIDS epidemic is due at least partially to the grouping of two dozen causes of death under one rubric, rather than to a new disease.” (Root-Bernstein, Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus, p. 67)

“In other words, AIDS is new not only in the sense that it was only recently recognized; AIDS is also new in the way that biomedical researchers have defined it. These are important points to remember when we try to determine what AIDS is, what causes it, and whether its causes are in fact new. After all, if the biomedical tools and concepts did not, as Grmek asserts, exists twenty years ago for recognizing AIDS, how could it have been observed even if it had existed?” (Root-Bernstein, Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus, p. 65)

“Although in aggregate the cohort studies corroborate orthodox constructions of AIDS historiography and epidemiology, a critical reading of these texts shows, at best, a messier picture of “science in the making.” And when in key instances, data from the cohort studies either fail to confirm or explicitly refute central premises of orthodox AIDS science, accepted wisdom on risk factors for AIDS, or the proportion of HIV-infected gay men in San Francisco, and so on, these data are marginalized or wholly elided from subsequent scientific accounts.” (Cochrane, When AIDS Began San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic, p. 33-34)

“This finding is consistent with an argument I have developed throughout this text, namely that the social construction of AIDS as a sexually transmitted disease meant that drug use (and all other HIV/AIDS risks) among gay male AIDS cases has always been, and continues to be, significantly underreported in official AIDS surveillance statistics as homosexual and bisexual orientation preempts all other modes of HIV transmission in surveillance practice.” (Cochrane, When AIDS Began San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic, p. 56)

“Regardless, AIDS remains to this day a government-defined syndrome with simultaneously, no specific clinical symptoms of its own yet a myriad of indirect illnesses and symptoms supposedly "caused" by the immune suppression-really quite a clever idea, since essentially everything is a symptom.” (Culshaw, Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, p. 23)

Changing Definitions

“Almost all AIDS statistics for the United States come from CDC publications. The number of AIDS cases has increased over time, partly because the definition of AIDS has been expanded. In particular, the number of conditions that meet the CDC’s criteria for AIDS changed in 1993, resulting in a substantial increase in the number of cases.” (Rushing, The AIDS Epidemic: Social Dimensions of an Infectious Disease, p. 3)

“Here is how the progressive re-definitions of AIDS came about. After 1985, HIV testing became routine in hospitals, as part of precautions taken to guard medical personnel against a presumed danger of infection through needle-sticks or transfers of body fluids. In time, significant numbers of positive HIV-tests were noticed among patients suffering from a variety of ailments, and these were reported to the CDC. These positives were not interpreted as the rather non-specific indication of a health challenge that they are, like a fever or an inflammation; they were interpreted as showing infection specifically by an AIDS-causing virus, Since that virus is presumed to wreck the immune system, it could be held responsible for just about anything that ails a person the reasoning being that had the immune system not already been damaged, the illness might not have occurred. Thus the CDC found (spurious) reason to list a progressively increasing number of ailments as AIDS-indicative. Therefore all the relevant statistics have become misleading. The numbers of people with AIDS was expanded by, for example, tuberculosis patients; but including a so common a condition as TB turns on its head the original AIDS definition of rare opportunistic infections. By adding to the AIDS-defining disorders quite common ones that strike males and females about equally, the relative incidence of AIDS among men and women was distorted; and even more by the incorporation of cervical cancer, which affects only women. So the degree of apparent correlation between HIV and AIDS was augmented by definition, and the actual lack of correlation became obscured.” (Bauer, The Origins, Persistence and Failings of the HIV/AIDS Theory, p. 113-114)

“The continual redefinitions of AIDS have resulted in a syndrome day whose clinical manifestation is very different from that seen in the original AIDS cases of the early 1980s. Some of the conditions listed are not even caused by immune deficiency, whereas others are clearly politically motivated, such as the 1993 inclusion of invasive cervical cancer. One can only presume that this disease was added to correct the disparity between male and female AIDS numbers, as there is little basis for including as "AIDS-defining" a cancer that is relatively common among women with no evidence of immune suppression whatsoever. After this addition, the media began issuing alarming statements such as "women are the fastest growing group of people with AIDS," conveniently neglecting to mention that the increases were simply small percentage differences and in some case actually indicated a decrease in overall incidence.” (Culshaw, Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, p. 25)

“A study of the social construction of San Francisco AIDS surveillance data and national AIDS statistics demonstrates that frequent changes in the clinical criteria by which patients are diagnosed has contributed in large measure to the dramatic growth in the number of AIDS cases reported during the past two decades. A failure to grasp this central point of AIDS surveillance practices distorts the analysis of the historical evolution of the epidemic, compromises a critical understanding of who is at risk for AIDS and why, and confounds evaluation of the efficacy of treatment and prevention initiatives.” (Cochrane, When AIDS Began San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic, p. 148)

“The original AIDS was defined as an immunodeficiency for which there was no apparent reason, and which allowed illness and death to be produced by bacteria and viruses that are widespread but typically held in check by healthy immune systems. The signature diseases were Kapsosi’s sarcoma (KS – visible as purple blotches on the skin), a specific type of pneumonia (PCP – Pneummocystis carnii pneumonia), and fungal infections – candidiasis, yeast, thrush (Broder and Gallo 1984).” (Bauer, The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, p. 18)

“Essentially the classification systems for AIDS consist of three major features: firstly, laboratory test for HIV infection as well as immunosuppression; secondly, demonstration of what are called indicator diseases, that is the specific opportunistic infections or tumors which predict that the individual is at least significantly immunosuppressed; thirdly, the cerebral manifestations of AIDS as well as the other direct effects of the virus such as wasting." (Schroub, AIDS and HIV in Perspective, p. 36)

“Each time the definition of AIDS has been altered by the CDC, it has led to an increase in the number of AIDS cases. In 1985, the change in definition led to a 2% increase over what would have been diagnosed prior to the change. The 1987 change led to a 35% increase in new AIDS cases per year over that expected using the 1985 definition. The 1993 change resulted in a 52% increase in AIDS cases over that expected for 1993. Such rapid changes altars the baseline from which future predictions are made and makes the interpretations of trends in incidence and characteristic of cases difficult to process.” (Stine, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, p. 27)

“In 1982, the CDC developed a surveillance case definition for this syndrome focusing on the presence of opportunistic infections; it initially received case reports directly from both health care providers and state and local health departments.” (Smith, Encyclopedia of AIDS, p.33-34)

“The AIDS case definition was expanded in 1985 to include a total of 20 conditions. Four of these conditions were cancers: Kaposi’s sarcoma and three distinct types of lymphoma. The remaining conditions were opportunistic infections - those caused by bacteria, fungi, protozoans, and other infectious agents - that an intact immune system can usually manage but which take advantage of the “opportunity” provided by weakened immunity to proliferate in the body.” (Smith, Encyclopedia of AIDS, p.34)

“Ongoing evidence about the inadequacy of the case definition prompted another revision in 1987 and the inclusion of three additional conditions. One of the new conditions was an opportunistic infection, tuberculosis (TB), but only the extrapulmonary (outside the lungs) type. The other conditions were not opportunistic infections, but rather conditions resulting from the direct effects of infection by HIV in cells of the digestive system (wasting syndrome) and the central nervous system (encephalopathy or dementia).” (Smith, Encyclopedia of AIDS, p.34)

“In November 1992, the CDC announced that it was expanding the surveillance definition, effective January 1, 1993, to include the three conditions from the community proposal and any HIV positive individual with a CD4+ cell count of 200 or less or whose CD4+ cells represented less than 14 percent of all lymphocytes. Evidence for HIV seropositivity could be obtained by any means of an HIV-antibody test, direct identification of the virus in tissues, an HIV-antigen test, or another highly specific licensed test for HIV.” (Smith, Encyclopedia of AIDS, p.35)

The United States Center for Disease Control’s defining of HIV/AIDS chronologically.

Mid 1981: “a person who 1) has either biopsy -proven KS or biopsy-proven life threatening opportunistic infection, 2) is under age 60, 3) no history of either immunosuppressive underlying illness or immunosuppressive therapy.”

September1982: “a disease at least moderately predictive of a defect in cell-mediated immunity, occurring in a person with no known cause for diminished resistance to that disease.” 1) Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS) (< 60 years of age) 2) Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PSP) 3) a specific list of “other opportunistic infections” (a list which which the CDC has amended over the years). This was a list of 14 different opportunistic diseases.

June 1985: After discovery of HIV and its identification as “the cause of AIDS” the CDC once again revised the definition of AIDS. It added 7 more diseases to the previous list of 14 different opportunistic infectious diseases. The list now included 21 diseases. Also this new AIDS definition included a person who was HIV seropostive by any test.

January 1993: This definition change retained the previous list of 24 diseases and added 3 additional diseases, one of which, invasive cervical cancer is gender specific. It affects only women. The other 2 diseases are pulmonary tuberculosis and recurrent pneumonia in persons with documented HIV infection. The list of indicator and opportunistic infectious diseases has grown from 14 to 29. Also more significant any person was considered to have AIDS if they had developed a significant loss of a particular white blood cell, called T-helper lymphocytes. The person’s T-helper cell count was to below 200 per cubic millimeter of blood if the individual is HIV seropositive, even if they did not have any opportunistic infectious diseases.

“But the point just now is not what causes AIDS; it is how the definition of AIDS has changed over the years. Following the announced discovery of HIV in 1984, what had originally AIDS-defining illnesses became AIDS-indicating only if accompanied by a positive HIV test. Thereby HIV became associated with AIDS by definition, though at first this had little effect on statistical counts. In 1987 further disease were added as AIDS-defining. In 1993 a portentous change immediately doubled the count of cases regarded as AIDS by including asymptomatic HIV-positive people with low counts of CD4 cells, just as long as they were HIV-positive.” (Bauer, The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, p. 19)

“Perhaps the most egregious addition was the inclusion of low T-cell numbers as qualifying a person for an AIDS diagnosis. This change came about in 1993 and resulted in the number of reported AIDS cases more than doubling overnight. The rationale for this change was as follows: the immune suppression observed in AIDS patients could be quantified by counting the number of CD4+ T-cells per cubic millimeter of blood. CD4+ cells are those cells for which HIV possesses a receptor, and it has been stated that the normal level of CD4+ T-cells per cubic millimeter of blood in a healthy individual is about one thousand. However, it is also well established that these counts very dramatically among healthy individuals and even within the same individual under conditions as severe illness or drug use, or as mild as over-exercise or simply taking the measurements at different times of day (Beck et al. 1985, Carney et al. 1981, Des Jarlais et al. 1987). (CD4+ T-cell counts are subject to diurnal variation, similar to variations in appetite and energy level.)” (Culshaw, Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, p. 25-26)

“In other words, acquired immune deficiency syndrome attributed to HIV infection is now diagnosed even among people who were born with congenital immune deficiencies; who have demonstrable, preexisting, or coexisting causes of immune suppression due to chemotherapy, radiation treatment, or corticosteroid use; among transplant patients who are on regimens of immunosuppressive drugs for life; and so forth.” (Root-Bernstein, Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus, p. 63)

“Originally, AIDS had been identified by actual symptoms of illness; by a little more than a decade later, symptom-free people who did feel ill were being diagnosed as having AIDS on the basis of laboratory tests- moreover, tests so lacking validated standards that the criteria for "positive” vary from country to country (Chapter 8, "HIV" tests).

In 1999,the previously used tests for HIV, which were designed to detect antibody, were augmented by so-called "viral load" tests for particular bits of DNA, RNA, or protein that had come to be accepted as characteristic of HIV (Nakashima and Fleming 2003). “Viral loads” implies that the amount of HIV is being measured, an implication taken for granted by adherents to HIV/AIDS theory. However, makers of the testing kits disclaim that they even detect HIV, let alone measure the amount of the virus present; there are also technical grounds to question the validity of the technique used. (See Chapter 8. “HIV” tests.)" (Bauer, The Origins, Persistence and Failings of the HIV/AIDS Theory, p. 20-21).


Signatures: 0

Forum

Date Name Message