HIV Denial or Informed AIDS Dissent?

[Guest guest]

Hey Everyone,

 

I'm the first AIDS Dissident appointed to the Federation of Gay Games, " AIDS,

Breast Cancer and Wellness Subcommittee " and I wanted to provide you with some

AIDS Alternative resources challenging the 'HIV' theory of immuno-deficiency,

including the definition and diagnosis of what is called 'AIDS.' Did you know

there were hundreds of dissenting or dissident scientists, Nobel Laureates and

Members of the National Academy of Sciences, who are confirming Alternative

Medicine's long questioning of the virus/germ mode or 'one-cause, one-course'

drug-based model? I support fully informed consent and a free scientific inquiry

and proportionate access to alternative health care. Unfortunately, much of the

AIDS Industry does not respect these basic health and human rights. I also think

the 'bug-chasing' phenomenon is a little overblown as researchers assume that

those who do not practise what is called 'safe-sex' must be in denial, and not

be informed in their dissent. I have observed a

growing skeptisizm within the gay community, not only apathy about socalled

'safe-sex.' Not all those barebacking are bug-chasers as we know, and one must

be a bug-believer in order to accept the scientific and medical evidence as

sufficient in establishing or proving the affirmative statement or theory which

posits 'HIV's existance as a uniquely identified, exogenous (unnaturally

occuring, unlike all other retroviruses which are endogenous or naturally

occuring as a part of our genetic make-up) and/or pathogenic (disease-causing)

bug. And that is the question, isn't it, or haven't you allowed for that

possibility? That there is no 'HIV' and no 'AIDS' too.

 

HIV cannot be the cause or the sole cause of AIDS. Why would a virus infect 1%

of the US population and 30% of some African countries? Why would a virus cause

different symptoms depending on your age, gender, race or sexual orientation and

geographic location? Why hasn't 20 years worth of research and billions of

dollars spent created a vaccine or cure or safe and effective treatment? Why do

the pharmaceutical companies, AIDS Industry and government agencies censor the

scientists, doctors and laypeople that raise these critical questions and

provide reasonable answers? AIDS Dissidents raise critical questions about the

accuracy and specificity of the 'HIV' antibody tests and the redefinition and

misdiagnosis of all the old diseases that are now lumped under the 'AIDS'

catagory. After more than 20 years and billions of dollars in research, there is

still no proof that anyone has ever been infected with a retrovirus that is the

underlying cause of all the old diseases now called

'AIDS.' So what are the REAL health risk co-factors faced by those who test

'positive' on socalled 'HIV tests' and what are the REAL co-causes of illnesses

attributed to 'AIDS?' Those are the practical questions AIDS Rethinkers or AIDS

Dissidents address.

 

Socalled " Bug Chasers " are getting a lot of media attention recently. They are

those subset of gay men who are obviously bug believers who are desirous to

register an 'HIV' antibody positive response through socalled 'unsafe' sex.

There is a documentary out called " The Gift " for one example and Rolling Stone

did an investigative piece on the topic which created a stir or sorts. I do

think AIDS Dissidents should ride out this bare-backing movement, in reaching

out to this sector of the gay male population who have subconsciously at least,

offered some passive-aggressive resistance to the infectious misconception. Some

would say bare-backers and Dissidents may prefer to disbelieve SEX=DEATH and

EQUATE LOVE-MAKING with LIFE-TAKING, and to that we plead guilty. Why does the

other side prefer to believe that equation absent the burden of proof to the

contrary?

 

 

 

 

 

SLIDE EFFECTS AND CONDOMANIA [iNDEX OF PAPERS]

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/safesex.htm

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND SUMMARY:

 

1) Many heterosexuals engage in anal sex, yet are not selectively biased under

the PPVs or Positive Predictive Values formulary labeling gay men as 'at risk'

for who they love. Prevention education programs focused on testing and

retesting of all gay men which 5% population represented about 40% of all 'HIV'

tests given. If they heterosexuals are tested, their results are more likely to

be interpreted as cross-reactive or indeterminant because they are not in a

'high risk' group, so even if they would just as frequently test 'HIV' antibody

positive they are not being tested proportion- ately. The 'HIV' non-specific

antibody tests do not measure 'HIV' infection and with over 60 known

cross-reactors, do not establish probable cause to live and love in fear.

 

2) Semen may cause minor antigenic stimulation or even immune supression, which

also occurs, byt the way, in women who develop morning sickness upon conception

to allow furtilization of the egg. It has not been established by the Perth

Group or others as to the quantity or quality of semen that may be more or less

immune suppressive and this deserves further study. Human contact and certainly

human physical and sexual intimacy is never 'safe' by nature. Yet gay men have

been having anal sex throughout history, and most gay men who do practise anal

sex are not testing 'HIV' non-specific antibody positive, yet with the added

stress upon an emerging gay subculture and the widespread use of street drugs in

the late 1970s, and other health-style factors that are important in all

illness/wellness equations-- combined to contribute to aquired immune

deficiencies among a certain sub-set of gay men. Yet, all gay men were assumed

'at risk' by the CDC in the 1980s because 'AIDS' was assumed to

have a homosexual pathology or sexual transmission, even though there were many

known health-style factors of the original sub-group of gay men, originally

described as 'GRID'[Gay Related Immune Deficiency]. This, even though all of the

CDC's official 29 'AIDS' defining conditions occur in those diagnosed 'HIV'

negative and all have well documented causes and treatments unrelated to

'HIV/AIDS.' KS is one of the original defining condition, originally called the

'gay cancer' was first described in the literature in the 1800s and is seen

today among middle eastern men. Today, KS is rarely seen in 'AIDS' patients and

remains confined to gay men diagnosed with 'AIDS' though Gallo, the alleged

'co-discover' of the putative 'HIV' and other mainstream researchers admit KS

likely has been correlated to amyl nitrites or " poppers " used by some gay men

and another virus associated with it, HHV-8.

 

3) Anal health and hygiene, colon hydrotherapy, colonics, fasting, diet all are

important illness preventives including reconsidering certain anal sex

practises, fisting or rough, " unsanitary " sex. This might include the pull out

method or accessing your partners general health while taking steps to sustain

your own general health. Anal retentive focus on " bugs " or hypochondriacal

sex-negativity are anathma to a holistic or multi-factorial, 'many-cause,

many-courses' wellness promotion strategy. Where is the evidence that anal

receptive partners or " bottoms " are the gay men testing socalled positive and

the anal insertive partners or " tops " are the ones testing negative? This is the

major impediment to the statement by even some AIDS Dissidents who propose anal

receptive sex, without controlling for the amounts and quality of semen or

seminal fluid which might be inherrantly immune suppressive.

 

4) Latex condoms and chemically carcingen-containing lubes role in immune

suppression and the astronomical increase in anal cancer rates, from allergic to

immunologic and even death, particularly among gay men. These products were

never studied for internal (anal) use, were never approved for such and indicate

for *topical use only* on package inserts.

 

5) Many STDs are not alleged to be spread through semen or seminal fluid, but

sores and saliva. Condoms have not been shown effective in preventing most

common STDs. Even if one 'contracts' these bugs, approximately 80-90% of those

are said to be 'carriers' who do not develop chronic symptoms in their

lifetimes, clear it from their bodies naturally after a short course of

conventional antiboitic treatment or preferably through the more prophylactic

use of alternative, non-toxic immune enhancing therapies-- thus calling into

question the significance of the germ-seed or bug-virus over the human host or

organism's role in immune sufficiency and sustainability.

 

 

Healthfully and Hopefully,

 

Kelly Jon Landis

 

 

 

What if 'HIV=AIDS' Were An Infectious Misconception and Almost

Everything You Thought You Knew About 'HIV/AIDS' Were Wrong?

 

 

 

Will you offer the human moral response in supporting...

 

 

 

FULLY INFORMED CONSENT before someone is given information about 'HIV/AIDS' or

given an 'HIV' antibody test, given a diagnosis of death and told to expect

illness with 'AIDS' or prescribed up to

forty highly toxic, experimental chemo-therapy like drugs. The AIDS Industry

should provide access to AIDS Alternative resources and information, including

those dissenting from, and uncomplementary to, the dominant, conventional

pharmaceutically-based medical model for the alleged viral pathogenesis and

progression of 'HIV=AIDS.'

 

FREE SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY and EXCHANGE, end to AIDS Apologist arrogance and

ignorance in not supporting even 1% of research, education and health care

dollars directed to exploring outside the virus/germ 'one-cause, one-course or

cure' drug-based model-- including the Dissident Scientific and Alternative

Medicine paradigm and protocols.

 

PROPORTIONATE ACCESS TO ALTERNATIVE HEALTH CARE, when more than 50% of those

'HIV/AIDS' diagnosed do not avail conventional drug therapies and 40-69% of

Americans use some form of Alternative Medicine-- AIDS Apologists do not support

even 1% of the health care budget in providing primary Alternative Health Care

which is more cost effective and at least as clinically efficacious without

major side effects.

 

 

The CDC/NIH/NIAID/NCCAM currently do not fund any research outside

the dominant, conventional medical model, research that challenges or

does not accept without question, the 'HIV' theory of immuno-

deficiency. Dissident Scientists and Advocates and Alternative

Medicine Physicians and Consumers are addressing the health of such

persons given an 'HIV/AIDS' [mis]diagnosis, though are not involved

in treating 'HIV' or 'AIDS' as we do not accept the evidence as

sufficient in establishing 'HIV' non-specific antibody response,

indicating anything more than past exposure, current immunity or one,

possible indicator of a stressed immune system. We also do not accept

the evidence as sufficient establishing the 'AIDS' definition valid

as diagnosis, since all of the 'AIDS' defining conditions occur in

those who test 'HIV' negative, and all have seperate causes and

treatments unrelated to 'HIV' or 'AIDS.' The definition and diagnosis

of 'AIDS' is therefore a circular construct, in which 29 old

illnesses are lumped under a new classification called 'AIDS' only in

persons who test 'HIV' positive-- whatever that non-specific marker

means.

 

HOW CAN YOU HELP?

 

By communicating these concerns to your local 'HIV/AIDS' service

provider, AIDS organization, community center, religious or civic

leaders and representatives-- you can become a part of the solution

in peace-making and justice-pursuing in this matter. Persons are

being given a diagnosis of death, told to expect illness and

prescribed up to 40 highly toxic and experimental drugs known to

cause many of the 'AIDS' [re]defining conditions. Messages from this

billion dollar health scare campaign teach people to fear sex and

equate love-making with life-taking.

 

If enough people hear from enough all of us, it will make a

difference with policy makers and program personel.

 

==

 

If not you, who will be the answer?

If not you, who will heal the cancer?

If not you . . . who?

 

Who will tell the children that they can fly?

Who will play the catcher in the rye?

Where are the teachers who ask the reasons why?

In the schools the minds all die.

 

 

 

Dissidents dissent from a legitimate scientific and medical bases as to the

causatives and curatives for 29 previously known and unrelated 'AIDS' clinically

redefined illnesses, all of which occur

in those diagnosed'HIV' non-specific antibody negative. So, besides the

definition and diagnosis of what is called 'AIDS' Dissidents are also

challenging the accuracy and specifity of the 'HIV' non-specific antibody tests

to measure infection with any virus since there are over 60+ known

cross-reactors from pregnancy to the flu to immunizations to hepatitis to

transfusions and on and on.

 

We endorse a multi-factorial approach to immune suficiency and sustainability in

addressing the oxidative stressors including physical[malnutrition],

chemical[toxicologic], biological[dis-ease], psychological[chronic stress], and

spiritual[religious reconciling]-- of which 'HIV' non-specific, non-confirmatory

marker positivity is no reliable indicator of worthiness or wellness.

 

 

We are disbelievers in a [sAME-]SEXUAL=SIN=SICKNESS mindset having lead to the

unquestioned acceptance of the HIV=AIDS=DEATH paradigm.

 

 

 

 

Warmly,

 

Kelly Jon Landis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BEYOND FLAT EARTH MEDICINE

 

How popular consensus and the medical establishment have often stubbornly clung

to the wrong ideas, unable to think outside the box. When medically 'correct'

wasn't always.

 

Any medical dictionary will tell you that influenza is caused by a virus or that

scurvy results from lack of vitamin C - both pieces of common knowledge. Less

well known is the fact that the majority of doctors and scientists started out

with the wrong ideas about these and many other diseases. It is often the case

that what becomes common knowledge has first to be argued by a lone dissenting

voice against huge resistance. Science is regularly reminded that Nature is

oblivious to democracy. Derek Freeman, who challenged Margaret Mead on Coming of

Age in Samoa, once said, " To seek to dispose of a major scientific issue by a

show of hands is a striking demonstration of the way in which belief can come to

dominate the thinking of scholars. " The prevailing hypothesis, in the long run,

is a matter of natural selection - not popular concensus.

 

 

A Brief History of Mismanaged Epidemics

[Disease]---[Popular Consensus]---[Actual Cause]

 

Scurvy------Contagious---Malnutrition: Vitamin C deficiency

 

Beri-beri---Contagious---Malnutrition: Thiamin deficiency

 

Maternal Fever---Non-contagious---Contagious: Unsanitary doctor practices

 

Influenza---Bacteria---Virus

 

Pellagra----Contagious---Malnutrition: Niacin deficiency

 

SMON(1950s-70s, Japan)---New Virus---Iatrogenic: Pharmaceutically induced

 

 

In science as in the law, the affirmative theory bears the burden of proof for

establishing itself. Those who critique it's establishment in fact, are not

required to reprove or replace another theory of it's aetiology, especially when

immune dysfunction has a multi-factorially influenced set of unrelated

conditions, or according to Alternative Medicine, all illness/wellness is on a

continuum and the result of immune sufficiency or deficiency.

 

Alternative Medicine has long questioned the virus/germ theory of illness which

is confirmed by the work of hundreds of Dissident Scientists, including Nobel

Laureates, Members of the National Academy of Sciences and pioneers in their

fields. Many often disconnect the alternative theories from the alternative

therapies-- in how Alternative Medicine diagnoses illness. They treat the

underlying causes of symptoms, not syndromes and they do not generally recognize

conventional disease classifications.

 

" For disease, all experience shows, are adjectives, not noun substantives. "

 

" There are no specific diseases: there are [only] specific disease conditions. "

 

Florence Nightingale (Nursing Pioneer, Dis-ease Dissident)

 

Interesting that AIDS Apologists, or those who defend or defer to the

affirmative statement or new theory, in this case the 'HIV=AIDS' hypothesis,

often compare AIDS Dissidents with Flat Earthers, but Galileo was a Dissident,

the Flat Earthers were the mainstream scientific establishment.

 

There is a famous story about Galileo, that is relevant here, I think. Galileo

was in trouble with the Church authorities, for his observation of Jupiter's

moons, through his telescope. (The four moons that he saw are traditionally

called the " Galilean " moons, after their discoverer.) Anyway, he offered to let

an influential member of the Clergy look through the telescope at these moons,

so that said clergyman would see what Galileo had seen. This pious man refused,

saying that as long as he did not look, his religious faith could remain intact.

 

Sadly, we are dealing with a kind of medical " church " , regarding the HIV theory;

its members do not want their faith shaken (or stirred! :-) )

 

Scurvy was thought to be transmitted by a microbe for 200 years even while

Dissident Scientists were arguing it was a Vitamin C deficiency. The implication

was that Seamen or Sailors engaged in 'buggary' were sexually transmissing a

'bug.' Homosexuality was deemed a psychiatric disorder by the medical and

scientific establishment until 1973, a decade later the medical diagnosis of

GRID-- Gay Related Immune Dysfunction was described in the literature.

 

 

 

AIDS DISSIDENT SCIENTIFIC SUMMARY ANALYSIS

 

 

 

 

 

what is hiv?

 

No laboratory has ever obtained an undisputed sample of human immunodeficiency

virus (HIV), despite countless attempts. Most laboratories, clinics and medical

corporations have come to accept indirect signs, or 'markers', such as antibody

reactions, proteins, genetic fragments, 'virus-like' particles, enzymes - that

could suggest a virus but also other things - as proving the presence and

existence of an 'HIV'.

 

If such a virus were ever isolated by standards applicable until the late 1970s,

the expectations are that it would be a retrovirus - a concept of viruses

adopted in the early 1970s. The genetic code of a retrovirus would work

'backwards' - 'retro' - transforming RNA to DNA. Most retroviruses are known as

harmless passenger viruses a part of all of endogenous or naturally occuring

genetic make-up. 'HIV' has never been found in suficient quantities to kill

T-Cells and in fact there is no concensus even after 21+ years as to 'HIV's

cytotoxic or cell killing mechanism. For a decade, researchers thought cancer

was caused by a retrovirus. Professor Peter Duesberg, UC Berkeley, isolated the

first retrovirus and is a Father of Retrovirology says 'HIV' is a harmless

passenger virus that does not cause the syndrome known as 'AIDS.'

 

In 1984 some signs suggesting a possible new virus were detected in cell

cultures by the scientific teams of Frenchman Luc Montagnier in Paris, and

American Robert Gallo in Washington, who were trying to explain a single cause

for 'AIDS'. The French called their findings Lymphadenopathy Associated Virus

(LAV), the Americans called theirs Human T-cell Lymphotrophic Virus III

(HTLV-III). The US Government announced at a press conference in 1984 that a new

virus was " the probable cause of AIDS, " yet before any scientific papers

inviting peer scrutiny were published. When such papers appeared in Science some

weeks later, a dispute erupted between Montagnier and Gallo. Gallo was found

guilty of scientific misconduct by a Senate Ethics Committee, for

misappropriating material and photographs of 'virus- like' particles from the

French. Because of the financial stakes - Gallo and the US government applied

for a patent for tests for 'HIV' the day of the press conference - the matter

was

eventually solved only by a closed meeting between the scientists which

produced an official history of events, and a meeting between the US and French

Presidents.

 

However, neither Gallo nor Montagnier ever managed to purify samples of the

virus they claimed to have detected. Many scientists believe that without

fulfiling this traditional primary requirement of virus isolation, multiple

confusions at the molecular biological level are inevitable over what or whether

anything has actually been found. To this day, primary purification of 'HIV' has

never been achieved. The last attempts, published in 1997 in Virology, revealed

proteins and genetic fragments from microvesicles - sub-cell particles - but no

virus.

 

hiv antibody tests

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epcurmedres98.htm

 

 

Over the years of the HIV/AIDS theory, different types of test have been used to

try to detect such a virus in patients. These have included (1) antibody tests,

which look for a reaction in a person's blood between their natural antibodies

and synthetic proteins said to belong to HIV, and (2) Polymerase Chain Reaction

- PCR - or 'viral load' genetic tests, which purport to use part of the virus'

genetic code to detect its presence.

 

All these tests are indirect, or surrogate. They do not claim to detect any

whole virus. Rather, they use markers to infer whether a virus might be present.

Unfortunately for the accuracy of these tests, these same markers can be found

in a variety of non-HIV situations. No HIV test of any kind has ever been

validated against the one measure that is not indirect - the gold standard:

physical virus isolation. This is because isolation of HIV by the previously

conventional standards of viral isolation has never been achieved, despite

numerous attempts.

 

Of the antibody tests for HIV, there are two main types - called ELISA, and

Western Blot. Neither was designed especially for HIV, but are examples of

laboratory methodologies used in many investigations. Around the world many

companies market their versions of the ELISA and Western Blot antibody tests for

HIV.

 

However, the uncertain, unvalidated nature of these tests is reflected in the

product literature supplied by their manufacturers.

 

A typical example for the ELISA reads:

 

" At present there is no recognised standard for establishing the presence or

absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood. " - Axsym System, Abbott

Laboratories

 

A typical example for the Western Blot reads:

 

" Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection. " -

Epitope, Organon Teknika

 

" Of course we looked for it [HIV]... We saw some particles but they did not have

the morphology [shape] typical of retroviruses. ... I repeat we did not purify. "

~ Dr. Luc Montagnier, the " discoverer of HIV "

(see French transcript of quote from the interview

http://healtoronto.com/lmfrench.html , Did Luc Montagnier Discover HIV?

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/dtinterviewlm.htm

or video)

 

" No one believed we really had that many isolates... No one believed we really

meant that... "

~ Dr. Robert Gallo, also discovered " HIV "

(see Gallo Investigated http://healtoronto.com/galloindex.html)

 

 

 

'viral load' / PCR test

 

Polymerase Chain Reaction - PCR - or the 'viral load' test, purports to detect,

and quantify, blood-borne HIV in patients. However, the genetic fragments it

amplifies have never been proved to originate in HIV, or in any virus. The

accuracy of PCR viral load is estimated by leading doctors at plus or minus 300%

- i.e. a reading of 90,000 could be 30,000 or 270,000!

 

The PCR was not invented for HIV. Its Nobel Prizewinning inventor, Dr Kary

Mullis, calls the use of PCR in AIDS medicine, " a tragedy in the practice of

Western medicine. "

 

The uncertain unvalidated nature of the PCR for HIV is reflected in the product

literature supplied by manufacturers. A typical example reads:

 

" The Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor test is not intended to be used as a screening test

for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection. " -

Roche, Amplicor

 

VIRAL LOAD OF WHAT?

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/chjppcrap.htm

 

 

t-cells

 

Since the beginning of the HIV/AIDS theory, it has been suggested that a virus

kills a certain type of cell of the immune system - called T-cells, or CD4

cells. 'T' refers to the maturing of these cells in the gland of the Thymus,

after their birth in the bone marrow. CD4 is short for Cluster Differentiation

4, referring to a method by which scientists group subsets of these cells

according to protein markers on their surface.

 

In fact there has never been any proof that an HIV kills these cells, or indeed

that even when they seem in low numbers in a person's blood, cells have not

instead migrated out of the blood to bone marrow and elsewhere. Despite common

assumptions, even by doctors, CD4/T-cell counting remains a poor predictor of

wellness and illness. Since the Berlin World AIDS Conference of 1992

considerably less scientific importance has been attached to T-cell counting.

T-cell counts are naturally variable, within an individual over time, between

individuals, and between communities. The technology for counting T-cells is

accurate only to approximately plus or minus 100 cells. The cells sampled for

counting are taken from a person's peripheral blood, where it is widely

accepted, less than 10% of a healthy person's T-cells will ever be found.

 

CD-4 T-cells: What Do They Count For? [index of articles/papers]

http://healtoronto.com/cd4counts.html

 

what is aids?

 

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is a medical diagnosis applied since

1984 in some branches of medicine and the wider public when a person perceived

as infected with a human immunodeficiency virus ('HIV') experiences one of 29

conditions. But all of the 29 conditions exist or occur in persons diagnosed

'HIV' antibody negative and are only redefined as 'AIDS' when someone tests

antibody positive.

 

'Acquired' specifies that the diagnosis does not apply to people with inherent

immune deficiencies. 'Immune Deficiency' is conventionally taken to be the

inability of a person's body to protect against illness. Syndrome is a group of

symptoms or conditions which seem to be more or less linked.

 

The growing list of conditions defined 'in the presence of HIV infection' since

1984 as AIDS, have already all been known for decades. Thus TB plus 'HIV' is

AIDS, TB without 'HIV' is TB. Cervical cancer plus 'HIV' is AIDS, without is

cervical cancer. Etc.

 

In the early 1980s the 'AIDS-indicator' conditions numbered two: pneumocystis

carinii pneumonia (thought to be caused by an opportunistic protozöon, now

thought to be fungal), and Kaposi's Sarcoma (a quasi-cancer of the skin and

other membranes, first reported in 1887). These two conditions were found

increasingly frequently in the early 1980s in the USA and Europe in men having

sex with men, and were hypothesised as resulting from infectious immune

deficiency, inferred from counting people's peripheral T-cells.

 

The syndrome was for a while classified as Gay Related Immune Deficiency (GRID).

The list of 'defining' conditions has increased substantially since 1984, though

the major risk groups for 'AIDS' in the West have remained men who have sex with

men, people with haemophilia (Haemophilia), and IV drug users (Drugs). Despite

early alarms, HIV/AIDS has never become a heterosexual epidemic in the West,

which does not mean it's a gay disease, but it has failed to meet the parameters

of the infectious model. 'HIV=AIDS' does not fulfill Koch's Postulates as none

of the apes injected with 'HIV' have developed 'AIDS' conditions.

 

The international CDC definition of AIDS is specifically founded on

'infection with HIV', assumed or demonstrated. Thus by definition it is nearly

impossible to have 'AIDS' that is not 'correlative' with 'HIV', though it is

widely accepted that 'Immune Deficiency' can be 'Acquired' in a many ways. There

are also many well documented causes and treatments for all of the 29 'AIDS'

redefined conditons or for addressing aquired immune deficiency.

 

Between different regions of the globe, the criteria and means for arriving at

an AIDS diagnosis vary. There are at least seven varying official criteria for

diagnosing 'AIDS.'

 

In Africa, for example, the same official concept of AIDS can be found, but

since a meeting in 1985 in the city of Bangui, Cote d'Ivoire, the World Health

Organisation's Bangui AIDS Definition has allowed for diagnosis of AIDS in

Africa with no test performed for 'HIV', if a person experiences the relatively

common African symptoms of weight loss, cough, fever and diarrhoea for more than

a month.

 

HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS. Why would a virus infect 1% of the US

population and 30% of some Africa countries? Why would a virus cause different

symptoms depending on your age, gender, and

location? Why hasn't 20 years worth of research and billions of dollars spent

created a vaccine or " cure " ? Why do the pharmaceutical companies and the

government censor the scientists, doctors and

laypeople that ask these questions and provide reasonable answers?

 

The infectious model does not work that way. See how 'HIV=AIDS' unfills Kochs'

Three Postulates of the Infectious Model of Disease. This is why there will

never be an 'AIDS' vaccine or cure for 'AIDS'

or way to prevent 'HIV.'

 

 

'AIDS' IN AFRICA INDEX OF PAPERS, ARTICLES

http://healtoronto.com/africa.html

 

 

 

 

==

 

The AIDS Debate

by Liam Scheff

May/June 2003

 

 

Part I: " The Most Controversial Story You've Never Heard "

http://www.weeklydig.com/dig/content/3168.aspx

 

Part II: " The Gay Plague "

http://www.weeklydig.com/dig/content/3499.aspx

 

Part III: " Africa: Treating Poverty with Toxic Drugs "

http://www.weeklydig.com/dig/content/3593.aspx

 

 

==

 

RESOURCES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

 

 

The GROUP for the SCIENTIFIC REAPPRAISAL

of the HIV/AIDS HYPOTHESIS [100s of pages of articles, papers]

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/find.htm

 

BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL [bMJ]

MODERATED ONLINE DEBATE ON HIV/AIDS http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7387/495

 

[especially note referenced contributions of The Perth Group of Austrailian AIDS

Dissident Scientists, lead by biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, whose

other extensive archives are found here]

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/perthgroup/

 

 

Roberto Giraldo, MD

President of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis

http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/papers.html

 

TREATING AND PREVENTING ILLNESS ATTRIBUTED TO OR ASSOCIATION WITH " AIDS "

http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/TreatingAndPreventingAIDS.html

 

 

REBUTTAL TO NIAID/NIH " Evidence for HIV " DOCUMENT

http://www.healtoronto.com/nih

 

 

INTERNATIONAL AIDS PANEL, INTERIM REPORT

Synthesis of deliberations by the panel of experts invited by the President of

South Africa, Thabo Mbeki and the ten experiments the Panel designed in attempt

to resolve the controversy, endorsed by the African National Congress [AIDS

Dissidents/'Denialists' and AIDS Apologists/Orthodoxy]

http://www.polity.org.za/govdocs/reports/aids/aidspanel.htm

 

 

 

REBUTTAL TO DURBAN DECLARATION http://thedurbandeclaration.org/

 

 

 

HEAL [Health Education AIDS Liason]

http://www.healtoronto.com

 

 

ANOTHER LOOK [breastfeeding and 'HIV/AIDS']

http://www.anotherlook.org

 

MOMM [Mothers Opposing Mandatory Medicine]

http://www.informedmomm.com

 

 

ALIVE and WELL

http://www.aliveandwell.org

 

 

AIDS MYTH EXPOSED

[Largest AIDS forum on MSN]

http://www.aidsmythexposed.com

 

 

 

HIV/AIDS ALTERNATIVE VIEWS

[Only AIDS forum on Delphi]

http://forums.about.com/innocuous

 

 

SIGN and READ SIGNATORIES OF THE ONLINE PETITION TO SUPPORT SOUTH AFRICAN

PRESIDENT THABO MBEKI's SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH ABOUT THE DEFINITION, DIAGNOSIS,

CAUSATION AND PREVENTION OF 'HIV/AIDS:'

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/news/mbeki.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard