Four Papers on “Aids” That Make You Say, WTF?!

Malaria Causes Aids, Nevirapine Doesn’t Help (even though it hurts), Viral Load Tests Don’t Really Work, Viral Load Tests Don’t Work For Sh*t.

Feel free to thread the needle with these, and tell me how they weave together…

One

The Associated Press reports that Malaria causes Aids: (Here)

That is, people in poorest, rural Africa who have malaria also have a strong response on the Viral Load test.

Note: ‘Viral Load’ (or PCR) is the test used to tell convince certain people (the brown, gay and poor), that they have a fatal sex disease (which they afix with the well-known moniker “Aids”), and must start taking strong drugs.

Aids, inc, interprets these results as showing that somehow Malaria causes Aids, instead of deducing that Malaria causes these, shall we say, ‘imperfect’ tests to give higher or stronger results. Therefore, they believe that Malaria patients need more life-saving (life-ending) drugs like Nevirapine.

Two

The New England Journal of Medicine reports that Nevirapine, that life-saving (life-ending) drug, is not actually life-saving. (Here)

They report that the drug, which has and does cause fatal skin death and fatal organ failure in the men, women and infants dosed with it, also causes “significantly higher rates of virologic failure” than those who were given taking a placebo (no drug at all).

This means that after you give the drug, you produce higher results on the Viral Load test, which is interpreted as more “virus.”

So what does a “life-saving” drug that also kills actually do when it no longer is “life-saving?”

Three

The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that the Viral Load test is nearly worthless for diagnosing Aids. (Here )

The study shows that these tests are unable to predict T-Cell loss (used to define “Aids”) in patients, the very job they are used for. Patients’ T-Cell levels only relate to high (positive) Viral Load test response 4% to 9% of the time.

From AIDSMap

  • “Plasma HIV RNA (viral load) measurements predict no more than 9% of the rate of CD4 cell loss in untreated HIV-positive individuals….viral load measurements [should] play a diminishing role in informing decisions regarding when to start antiretroviral therapy.”

The Viral Load test is used by Aids, Inc. to “diagnose HIV infection”. But it only predicts that thing that defines Aids, at most, in 9% of cases. So “HIV causes Aids,” we’re told, but only about 9% of it.

What causes the rest? See “fatal skin death” in the entry above.

Four

The New York Times reports that Viral Load Tests are, essentially, pure garbage, and are read according to “100 different protocols” by the labs that interpret them. (Here)

The story details how doctors no longer feel the need to actually find the particles they blame for disease, when they have “quick” short-cuts like molecular tests.

The tests, however, do not work to diagnose illness. They work by picking up and wildly amplifying minor signals; these signals are based on copies of tiny bits of a genome, that only need to correspond enough to a synthetic probe so that the probe can attach to it in the heating dish in the laboratory. But it does not stand in the real world.

From the piece:

  • “At Dartmouth the decision was to use a test, P.C.R., for polymerase chain reaction. It is a molecular test that, until recently, was confined to molecular biology laboratories.” [ed – for “diagnosing” Aids, Bird Flu, Sars, etc.]
  • ”[E]ach laboratory may do them [the tests] in its own way … their very sensitivity makes false positives likely, and when hundreds or thousands of people are tested, as occurred at Dartmouth, false positives can make it seem like there is an epidemic.”

And so, an Epidemic was invented, says the Times, and hundreds of people were drugged, and thousands were given vaccines, for a disease that was not there.

From the piece:

  • “Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test that led them astray.”
  • “There are no national data on pseudo-epidemics caused by an overreliance on such molecular tests, said Dr. Trish M. Perl, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and past president of the Society of Health Care Epidemiologists of America. But, she said, pseudo-epidemics happen all the time.”

So, I’ll ask. Do you think it could happen on a larger scale? For example, with an entire continent of poor, starving people? Or in a ghettoized, and historically hated, isolated, stigmatized and marginalized community in the US or Europe?

For the record, I do think so. I think that’s exactly what has happened. And I think we’re terrified and loathe to look into it deeply.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Four Papers on “Aids” That Make You Say, WTF?!

  1. Great idea putting these articles together!

    I think I hear the sound of a foundation crumbling under the weight of it’s own lies.

  2. Crruuuunnnkkk!!!!

    Krrrrraaaaaccckkkk!!!!!

    Well, we’ll see. This thing is so resilient, you know, it should’ve been dead a thousand times, if logic were the issue.

    But it ain’t. It’s the sex-death religion, and it serves too well, too many purposes.

    But these pieces were interesting. They tell a lot about what you need to know.

  3. He who would do a great evil must first of all convince himself he is doing a great good [Mahatma Gandhi]

    A recent NEJM article admits “virological failure” of drug treatment for HIV (1). Virological failure is another invented Orwellian double speak phrase that actually means the opposite. It does not mean that the virus has failed, but instead means that the virus has succeeded in replicating and the drug treatment has failed (2).

    I suggest that this confusing terminology is adopted to avoid admitting failure of the drug treatment, as this would end any further drug study funding by the drug company.

    Since HIV is part of the patient, its proviral genome integrated into the host’s own DNA, the term “virological failure” can also subliminally suggest the patient has somehow “failed” drug treatment, another form of “blame the patient” (3).

    The lead author, Myron (Max) Essex (4), whose early work dealt with the feline leukemia retrovirus has 370 articles to his name, about 60 dealing with cats dating back to the early 1980’s. In 1982, based on his cat research, Essex suggested to Gallo a link between the feline leukemia retrovirus and the new “AIDS syndrome”. Thus, Essex might be considered to be the real “inventor” of the AIDS virus, rather than Gallo.

    Back in the 1980’s, Essex started a bio-tech company, Cambridge Bioscience Corporation, which marketed a popular cat vaccine for feline leukemia. One might ask the obvious question, how could there be a successful vaccine for one retrovirus, feline leukemia, and not for HIV?

    The answer to this is simple. All “infected cats”, even though vaccinated, have persistent plasma RNA viral load. In other words, the cats have “virological failure” in spite of the vaccine. Hofmann-Lehmann writes, “commonly used FeLV vaccines understood to be successful model antiretroviral vaccines protecting against FeLV-related diseases do not confer sterilizing immunity.” (5). By the way, Max’s Cambridge Bioscience also sells an HIV antibody test kit.

    Although the concept of “virological failure” is fairly new, a Library of Medicine search of “virological failure” yields 768 articles, 624 within the last 6 years, and 534 of these relating to HIV research. This brings us back to the question of why so many studies deal with “virological failure” of HIV drug treatment. These treatments fail “because”, as Steven Hughes (6 ) explains, “the viral DNA becomes part of the host genome, and infection is permanent. The infected cells, and all their progeny, will carry the inserted viral sequence” (7).

    This explains the harm and futility of attempting to eliminate a genetic sequence in the host DNA by the administration of toxic drugs as seen with the recent NEJM study of nevirapine to prevent HIV transmission from parent to offspring in Botswana,
    Africa (1).

    The DAIDS-sponsored clinical trial, HIVNET012 nevirapine study was completed in Uganda and published in Lancet in 1999 (8). Considering the evidence of widespread scientific and professional misconduct at the NIH, NIAID and DAIDS provided by whistle blower Jonathan Fishbein, M.D.(9), why hasn’t nevirapine been banned?

    Another important question is how prevalent is death from AIDS among children born from HIV positive mothers in America who do not receive treatment with toxic antiviral drugs? In 20 HIV positive children over the age of one year, who were born from IV drug user HIV positive mothers in New York public hospitals, only one died from AIDS giving a 95% survival rate with no treatment (10). These 20 children were untreated because AZT had not been approved for children under 13 until May 3, 1990 which is after the date of the study.

    If you browse through the mother-to-child pediatric HIV/AIDS medical literature, you will notice the recurring theme of intravenous drug use. Peter Duesberg points out in The Scientist, “about 80 percent of pediatric AIDS in the United States and Europe is the consequence of intravenous drugs received by newborns from their mothers prior to birth” (11).

    Considering this information, why risk giving a highly toxic drug such as nevirapine to pregnant mothers and their babies? Instead of offering them compassionate care, the medical system has succeeded in driving these mothers into hiding (12).

    As for the orphan children and crack babies of HIV positive mothers, words cannot describe the deep repulsion and disgust experienced when reading the stories of the medical experimentation forced on them without their consent (13, 14, 15).

    These events represent an embarrassment to the entire medical profession, and evoke images of medical experimentation performed by ordinary doctors on concentration camp victims during the Holocaust (16, 17, 18, 19).

    http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2007/01/jeffrey_dach_on_1.html

    regards,

    Jeffrey Dach, M.D.
    http://www.drdach.com

Comments are closed.