by Janic » 11/03/15, 13:14
When tested, classical HIV / AIDS theory contradicts clinical evidence.
Is "Purifying HIV" nothing more than a clutter of cellular debris?
C 1999 by Valendar F. Turner Department of Emergency Medicine Royal Perth Hospital Perth, Western Australia and Andrew Melntyre Freelance Journalist Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Translated by Claude Dhorbais
The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure that nature has not misled you by causing you to think something that in reality you do not know ... A logical faux pas and a whole scientific edifice collapses. A false deduction regarding the machine and you crash indefinitely.
Robert Pirsig, Zen and the art of maintaining motorcycles.
SOME SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS RELATED TO HIV THEORY
Theory versus definition
The central premise of the HIV theory of AIDS is that there is a unique retrovirus, transmissible through blood and sexual secretions, which induces specific antibodies and kills T4 cells, the relative absence of which then causes the appearance of thirty diseases which constitute the clinical syndrome. However, the official definition of AIDS used clinically completely contradicts the theory.
In Australia, an individual is diagnosed as having AIDS if he meets the criteria set by the last revision (1993) of the American definition "Centers for Disease Control" CDC. (Other definitions in use around the world make comparison almost impossible. In Africa, AIDS is diagnosed on the basis of symptoms and without blood tests.) Since the CDC since 1985 "accepts" HIV as the cause of AIDS, it should not be possible to diagnose AIDS by any means incompatible with the theory of HIV. However, even a cursory reading of the 1993 definition reveals that AIDS can be diagnosed with the support of the CDC on the basis of Kaposi's sarcoma (which even Gallo says is not caused by HIV), in absence of immune deficiency, "without laboratory evidence of HIV infection" and, surprisingly, "in the presence of negative HIV infection results" (emphasis added).
Sexual transmission
HIV / AIDS is said to be sexually transmitted in both directions. The data that support this claim is based not on the isolation of the agent and the tracing of contact according to orthodox practice aimed at proving that the diseases are infectious and sexually transmitted, but on predominantly retrospective studies concerning groups of 'Highly selected individuals comprising gay and bisexual men as well as heterosexual men and women, including prostitutes, and testing for antibodies in the blood which react with certain proteins deemed to be' HIV specific '. These studies include an assessment of the risk factors linked to specific sexual practices (penile intercourse with penetration; vaginal; passive anal; passive oral).
Gay men
In 1984, Gallo et alii showed that "out of eight different sexual practices, the HIV positive antibody test correlates only with passive anal intercourse". They also found that the more frequent a gay man has active anal intercourse, the less likely he is to become HIV positive. This is incompatible with an infectious cause. In 1986, Gallo et alii reported "having found no evidence that other forms of sexual activity contribute to the risk" of HIV sero conversion in gay men
In an article combining 25 studies of homosexual men published in 1994 by Caceres and van Griensven, the authors conclude that “no risk, or no significant risk, of acquiring HIV-1 infection was found in with regard to the active report ”.
In the West, the most important and best conducted prospective epidemiological studies such as the “Multicenter” cohort study on AIDS (1 ~ MCS), involving 4 homosexual men have proved conclusively that, among homosexual men, the only significant sexual practice that is linked to seropositivity is passive anal intercourse. Thus, in homosexual men, AIDS can be assimilated to a non-infectious state. It is acquired by the passive partner but it is not transmitted to the active partner.
Significantly, MACS has shown that, once a gay man becomes HIV positive, the progression of AIDS is later determined by the amount of passive anal intercourse experienced after "infection". This is contrary to all that is known about infectious diseases. It is the infection, not repeat infections, that causes the disease. In fact, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) considers HIV positive surgeons to be "infectious" and "prohibits them from performing invasive procedures and examinations", but "authorizes them to provide these services to patients with the same infection" .
Heterosexuals
The largest and best studies of heterosexuals, including that of the European Study Group, have shown that, among women, the only sexual practice leading to an increased risk of seropositivity is anal intercourse. The unidirectional transmission of "HIV" observed in OECD countries is supported by Nancy Padian's 10-year study of heterosexual couples (1986 1996). There were two parts to this investigation: one transversal, the other prospective.
In the cross - sectional study, "the constant contact contagion for male to female transmission was estimated at 0,0009 [1 in 1]. The risk factors for women were: (111) anal intercourse; (1) partners who had acquired this infection through drug addiction (Padian says that this means that women can also use intravenous drugs); (2) the presence of sexually transmitted diseases (in an “HIV” test, antibodies can react to their causative agents). Among the HIV-negative male partners of 3 HIV-positive women, only two became HIV-positive, but in circumstances that Padian considers ambiguous.
In the prospective study, which started in 1990, 7 sero-discordant couples were followed for approximately 282 couple years. At the start of the study, a third used condoms reliably, and in the six months before their last follow-up visit, 26% of couples were not using condoms. There was no sero-conversion after the start of the study, including among the 47 couples who did not use condoms. Two of the 86 men who became HIV positive in the first study. it has been calculated that the risk, for an uninfected man, of becoming HIV positive due to his HIV-positive female partner was around 1 in 9 contacts. Based on this. statistically, we can calculate that, on average, a man would need 000 sexual contacts with an infected woman to have a 6 in 000 chance of becoming HIV positive. If intercourse started at the age of 50 and continued three times a week, it would take a lifetime.
Women prostitutes
The notion that HIV is a "non-discriminatory" virus is also inconsistent with data from studies of female prostitutes. Even if by some unknown means a sexually transmitted infectious agent had made its way into the male homosexual population of some large American cities in the late 70 years (as is generally accepted), and given the fact that Prostitutes are frequented by bisexual men and that "protected" sex practices date as early as 1985, HIV / AIDS would have been expected to spread rapidly among prostitutes and consequently in the General population. However, the prevalence of HIV antibodies in prostitutes is almost exclusively confined to those who are addicted. Practically, all other prostitutes have not been, and do not become, HIV-positive.
In September 1985, 56 prostitutes not using intravenous drugs (NDIV) were tested "... in the rue Saint Denis, the most famous street of Paris for prostitution. More than a thousand prostitutes work in this sector ... These women, aged from 18 to 60 years, have 15 reports to 25 times a day and do not systematically use protection. "None were seropositive.
In Copenhagen, 101 NDIV prostitutes, a quarter of whom were "suspected of having up to a fifth of their clientele among homosexuals and bisexuals", were tested between August and October 1985. The average number of sexual intercourse was twenty per week. None were seropositive. .
In 1985, 132 prostitutes (and 55 non-prostitutes) who attended a Sydney clinic specializing in STDs were tested for HIV antibodies. The average number of sexual partners (clients and lovers) in the previous month was 24,5. When an estimate was made to separate clients from lovers, the average number of sexual intercourse per year rose from 175 to 450. The partners of only 14 prostitutes (1,1%) used condoms at all encounters, and 49% of their partners used condoms only in less than 20% of encounters. No woman was HIV-positive.
The same Australian clinic tested another batch of 491 prostitutes who frequented it between 1986 and 1988. At 231 prostitutes (on the 491 under investigation), 19% "had bisexual non-paying partners and 21% had partners who injected drugs; 69% always used condoms for vaginal reports with paying customers, but rarely used them with non-paying partners. Condoms were rarely used by those clients and / or partners who practiced anal sex with 18% of prostitutes. "No woman was HIV-positive.
At the time of this survey, ten years after the onset of AIDS, the authors commented: "In Australia, there has been no documented case of female prostitute infected with HIV due to a report Sexuality "(emphasis added). However, these investigators at the Sydney Sexual Health Center concluded that "there are still many women working as prostitutes in Sydney who remain at serious risk of HIV infection."
In Spain, on 519 NDIV prostitutes tested between May 1989 and December 1990, only 12 (2,3%) had a positive test, which was 'only slightly higher than the rate recorded five years earlier in similar surveys'. Some prostitutes had up to 600 partners per month and the onset of seropositivity was directly related to the practice of anal intercourse. The authors also noted that "a more striking and very disappointing finding was the low proportion of prostitutes who constantly used condoms, despite several campaigns to prevent the Spanish mass media from AIDS."
Similar data come from two Scottish studies, the study of the 1993 European Working Group on HIV infection of female prostitutes and the 1994 report on 53 903 prostitutes working in the Philippines and tested between 1985 and 1992: all These studies confirm that non-prostitutes remain virtually immune to HIV infection. For example, in this latter study, 72 women only (ie 0,01%) were found to be seropositive.
In studies showing high HIV incidence among prostitutes, there are uncertainties that challenge any explanation. For example, although "HIV has been present in commercial sex networks in the Philippines and Indonesia for almost as long as it has been in Thailand and Cambodia", the prevalence of HIV in the former has been respectively Of 0, 13% and 0,02% and, in the latter, 18,8% and 40%.
While these data are accurate, the gap defies epidemiological explanation and has puzzled experts, even though they postulate "behavioral factors" as significant differences in the degree of sexual activity among prostitutes and clients in different countries. However, we could ask another question. What exactly are "HIV" antibody tests? In any case, since 5 674 (44%) and 4 360 (34%) of the 12785 "Cambodian HIV and AIDS cases" reported up to 31 December 1997 are recorded respectively as "unknown" sex and age , This set of data must be considered problematic, at least by the WHO in Cambodia.
Contradictions
Why would HIV spare prostitutes who are not drug addicts? If female prostitutes who do not use drugs do not become infected with HIV, despite the fact that they “are seriously at risk in the face of HIV infection”, what is the risk of the majority of Australian women who are neither drug addicts nor prostitutes? According to data from the National Center in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, this risk is close to zero. A 1989 study testing 10 blood samples from newborn babies (clear evidence of unprotected heterosexual intercourse) found no HIV-positive babies and therefore, one might assume, no HIV-positive mothers. If such women remain uninfected, how do their non-drug addict male heterosexual partners become infected with HIV?
According to Simon Wain Hobson, a prominent HIV expert at the Pasteur Institute, "the work of a virus" is to spread. "If you don't spread, you're dead. Studies of both gay and straight men show "overabundantly" that HIV / AIDS is not sexually transmitted in both directions.
In the entire history of medicine, there has never been such a phenomenon. Since microbes rely on their person-to-person spread for their survival, it is impossible to say, based on epidemiological data, that HIV / AIDS is a sexually transmitted infectious disease. Professor Stuart Brody, of the University of Tübingen, has also shown that doctors ignore actual heterosexual data and that, to fill this gap, they promote the politically correct idea that everyone is at risk. “Ideological knowledge about AIDS is much more prone to filter through society than scientific knowledge. "
THE DIAGNOSIS OF "HIV" INFECTION
HIV antibody tests
There are two commonly used "HIV" antibody tests: the Elisa test and the western blot). Elisa causes a color change when a mixture of “HIV” proteins reacts with antibodies in a patient's serum. In the WB, the “HIV” proteins are first separated along the entire length of a nitrocellulose ribbon. This makes it possible to visualize the individual reactions to the ten “HIV” proteins in the form of a series of darkened “bands”. The WB test is used to "confirm" several times positive Elisa tests. because experts agree that the Elisa test "overreacts"; in other words, it is insufficiently specific *.
Prior to 1987, an “HIV-specific” WB band was considered to be evidence of HIV infection. However, since 15 to 25% of healthy and non-risk individuals have "HIV-specific" WB bands, it became necessary to redefine HIV positive by adding additional selection bands,
*: NDIV (not using intravenous drugs).
otherwise at least one in seven people would have been diagnosed with HIV. (Nevertheless, in the MACS, only one band was maintained as proof of HIV infection in homosexual men until 1990) Furthermore, although AIDS had started to decline in Europe and the United States in 1987, this tendency was thwarted by the addition of an increasing number of diseases and, quite recently, following simple laboratory anomalies by successive revisions (1985, 1987, 1993) of the first CDC definition, that of 1982.
These changes had the effect of maintaining a correlation between the "HIV" and "AIDS" antibodies in the "at risk" groups, while the risk of an HIV / AIDS diagnosis outside these groups remained low. This was further accentuated later on by the fact that testing outside risk groups was avoided. However, when such studies were done with 89 anonymously tested blood specimens from patients carefully chosen not to be at risk for AIDS in 547 American hospitals, 26 to 0,7% of men and 21,7, 0,0 to 7,8% of women aged 25 to 44 were found to be HIV positive with the WB test. (It is estimated that approximately 1% of men are homosexual. Also, in the five hospitals where the highest HIV antibody levels were found, one-third of the positive tests belonged to women. Yet the men far outnumber women among AIDS patients.)
In addition, the FUS Consortium for Retrovirus Serology Standardization reported that 127 (10%) of the 1306 individuals "at low risk" for AIDS, including "specimens from blood donor centers", tested positive for HIV American WB "The most severe".
Thus, the correlation between “HIV” antibodies and AIDS that experts consider to be the only in vivo proof that HIV causes AIDS is not a statistic linked to the natural and unbridled activity of a virus, but a device created by the man. Not only does correlation never prove causation, but the artificiality of this particular "correlation" severely compromises its scientific analysis.
One of the most bizarre aspects of the theory of HIV / AIDS is that different laboratories, institutions and countries define WB tape sets differently as a positive test. Global variations in interpretive criteria mean that in Australia, for example, a positive test requires specific sets of four bands. In the United States, different, sets of two or three bands are sufficient, which may or may not include the bands required in Australia. In Africa, only one designated set of two bands is required. In a nutshell, this means that the same person tested on the same day in three different cities may or may not be infected with HIV.
If the diagnosis of HIV infection was a game of poker, a flush would require five cards of the same suit in one country, but only one or two elsewhere. A virus cannot behave this way but, according to the HIV test, which is said to have a specificity of 99,999%, it behaves well as well. As incomprehensible as it may seem, other difficulties remain. For example, an Australian tested in Australia with one or two "HIV specific" bands would not be classified as HIV infected. It is clear, however, that there must be a reason for explaining that an uninfected individual, such as a healthy blood donor or a military recruit, may have several or even a single "specific" band. HIV ”. Experts say these bands are caused by "non-HIV" antibodies that cross-react, that is, "fake" antibodies, which react with "HIV" proteins. Thus, it is postulated that an antibody which reacts with a particular protein is not necessarily an antibody which the immune system has specifically generated in response to this protein.
The Australian National HIV Reference Laboratory (NRL) concedes that "false reactivity can be from one or more protein bands [HIV] and it is common (20 to 25% of HIV negative blood donors will present one or more bands to the test. WB) ". However, argues Eleopulos, if "non-HIV" antibodies cause "one or more protein bands", why are they not able to cause four or five? Or all ten? On what basis do experts claim that some antibodies are "false" and others "true"? Or again, how do the same three bands, provoked by “fake” antibodies (not “HIV”), become “true” when accompanied by a fourth? On what basis do experts claim that there are "real" HIV antibodies? If the Australian traveler was tested in the United States, where two or three bands are enough to make the diagnosis of HIV infection, his antibodies would be "false" in Australia but "true" as soon as his plane landed in Los Angeles?
In 1994, one of us (VFT) wrote to the Medical Journal of Australia looking for justifications for both the Australian criteria for a positive test and for its global variability. The letter from Dr Elizabeth Dax of NRL135 did not answer any of these questions, and subsequent correspondence was not forwarded to the editorial staff of the same journal. When the same questions were later asked through Senator Chris Ellison's secretariat, the first question still remained unanswered, and the widely different criteria between Australia and Africa were justified by the argument that, in Africa, “false reactivity is much less widespread than in Australia, so that the criteria of interpretation to define. [real] positivity may be less stringent. " However, no scientist can make such an assertion without data.
All antibody tests are subject to the vagaries of cross-reaction, and the only way to calculate the impact of "real" and "false" antibodies is to examine reactions against what the test is supposed to measure carefully. say against HIV itself.
Isolation of HIV is the only "gold standard" for determining antibody specificity, and this should be assessed before the test is introduced in clinical practice.
However, despite the fact that the WB test is widely used and is a "heavyweight" in HIV research, this data has never been provided by the NRL or any other laboratory. Even in the absence of such evidence since (a) the NRL admits that cross-reacting antibodies cause misleading reactions in WB in a quarter of healthy Australians and that (b), unlike Australians, Africans (as well as groups at risk of AIDS) are exposed to a multitude of infectious agents producing myriads of antibodies, each being susceptible to cross-reactions, the "false reactivity" will be much higher in Africa, where WB criteria should be the most stringent. If "HIV" antibodies do prove that a third of heterosexual adults in some central and eastern African countries are infected with HIV, "life in these countries must be a permanent orgy".
If the proteins used in the Elisa and WB HIV tests are unique constituents of an exogenous retrovirus, and if such a virus induces specific antibodies, one would never expect to find such antibodies in the absence of HIV. However, in addition to the circumstances mentioned above, there are many others where antibodies that react with "HIV-specific" proteins appear where experts admit there is no HIV. This is particularly the case for healthy mice having received injections of similar mouse lymphocytes or bacterial extracts (V. Colizzi et alii, personal communication); following transfusions, HIV137-free blood or autotransfused blood; and 72 dogs out of 144 tested at the Davis veterinary clinic (California, United States). In addition, antibodies to microbes that cause fungal and mycobacterial diseases affecting 90% of people with AIDS react with "HIV-specific" proteins.
This year it has been reported that 35% of patients with primary biliary cirrhosis, 39% of patients with other biliary disorders, 29% of patients with lupus, 60% of patients with hepatitis B, »135% of patients suffering from hepatitis C all non-HIV non-AIDS diseases have antibodies to the “core” protein p24 of HIV. Until 1990, an unknown number of 4 homosexual men tested in the NIACS were diagnosed as infected with HIV on the basis of an antibody to the protein "specific to HIV", ie on the basis of 'only one WB band. Why don't all other similar tests prove HIV infection?
Why are homosexual men infected with a deadly virus with the single band p24, while patients with bile and liver disease, with the same band, are not? Why have the criteria for HIV infection been less rigorously set for gay men and Africans? And, if the HIV antibodies are specific and the HIV infection is "lifelong", why do repentant drug addicts, leading healthy lives, lose their HIV antibodies.
Although all HIV experts accept cross-reactivity in HIV antibody tests, the New South Wales Department of Health in 1993 interpreted the discovery of HIV antibodies in four women as "absolute proof" of transmission of HIV by a gay man during minor surgery in 1989. However, there was no evidence that the man was infected with HIV at the time of the interventions, nor that any of the women were operated after human contamination.
This report remains the only one of its kind in the world, and it immediately led to the constitution of a special commission of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, which wrote to all its members inviting them to make submissions on the subject. But, rather than grasping the rarity of the event and launching a formal scientific investigation to find out if the “HIV” antibodies are caused by infection due to a retrovirus, the College accepted this data as evidence of a cross infection but concludes that "the mode of transmission is unknown".
Unlike the experts in the field of HIV / AIDS, who affirm the 99,999% specificity of the HIV antibody test, a manufacturer of HIV antibody tests notes in his accompanying instructions: "To date, there is no standard known to establish the presence or absence of IUV 1 antibodies in human blood. This is why the sensitivity was calculated according to the clinical diagnosis of AIDS, and the specificity based on healthy blood donors. ”The latter were chosen as not infected defacto with HIV for the purpose of determining how many tests are false positive. With this "reasoning", however, since the majority of HIV-positive individuals are in good health, they cannot be infected. Thus, the predictions of a global pandemic made by the WHO are manifestly false.
0 x
