Bad HIV/AIDS science
A 1998 article in Behavioural Ecology recently brought to HEAL London's attention has shed more light on both the incompetence of AIDS researchers in their claims to be able to measure immune system suppression due to HIV, and also blatant fraud in claiming that only HIV causes the drop in CD4 cells that is then labelled as 'AIDS'. In questioning whether or not testosterone has an immunosuppressive effect, the article points instead to immune system cell redistribution or relocation as the mechanism. A key section of the article of particular interest to HEAL London members says:
A likely explanation of the origin of "HIV's" molecular signature comes from recent studies in genomic research that suggests that the so-called template for the protein molecular signatures of "HIV" may derive from endogenous DNA sequences (coming from cellular origin instead of viral origin). It is known that these cellular proteins are expressed under certain conditions by normal uninfected yeast, insects, dogs, rhesus monkeys, chimps, and humans. "HIV" is said to have 9150 base pairs, but this template has not been purified without contaminating cellular nucleic acids. "HIV's" molecular signature could represent a HERV (Human Endogenous Retrovirus) nucleic acid sequence, or, what is called a 'retroid' of one kind or another. A retroid is a special kind of mobile gene associated with diseases such as multiple sclerosis, and with normal biological functions involving the placenta.
It's not knowledge, it's attitude
"Patients who don't learn about mistakes from the history of medicine are condemned to have the arrogance of doctors repeated on them"
- What George Santayana might have said if he'd learnt about AIDS
Most people may think of the prolonged medical blunder of scurvy as being only of historical interest because of improvement in both knowledge and scientific method. However, what it also demonstrates how attitudes, especially those of medical professionals and others in positions of authority, contributed to repeated denial of reality. It also demonstrates very well how existing beliefs tend to distort people's perception of empirical evidence gathered by their own senses that people can be totally led astray by their own minds. When common misperceptions are widespread in a population, the whole population can be led astray. Even if only the people regarded as experts or professionals on a particular subject have a widespread misperception, this eventually is likely to lead to the rest of the population becoming misled. Those who have a clearer grasp of reality as it is can only look on in despair as first the ‘experts' and then the rest of the population go charging off down a blind alley, unwilling to listen to anyone who is pointing to a reality they don't want to see.
This is important because what has been repeatedly shown is that major blunders - any field of human endeavour - are rarely caused by of ‘lack of knowledge': It is almost always problems with attitudes resulting from natural human inclinations that led to the succession of progressive errors that resulted in the final calamity. I think it's fair to say that humans as a biological species have not evolved that much in the last 2000 years and that human failings prevalent over that period of time will be just as evident in any profession, including science and medicine today.
During a recent interview it was put to me that AIDS was now a heterosexual disease too as equal numbers of heterosexuals were being diagnosed as gay men. The source wasn't quoted and I hadn't looked at those apparent figures in detail, but I thought it was an important point to answer thoroughly. So in addition to the verbal answer I gave I later on sat down and wrote a longer response utilising some figures I had already analysed more comprehensively.
As I think this is an important point to deal with, because the claim that ‘HIV' is spreading among heterosexuals is used as confirmation of HIV diagnoses being primarily sexually transmitted, I decided to reproduce my detailed response here and to include more detail than the verbal response I had originally given. I'm not apologising for not having analysed the most recently available data, because the same kinds of misrepresentations in the presentation of HIV/AIDS related data has been occurring from the very beginning. Even the late, celebrated Mathematician Serge Lang resigned from the American Mathematical Society because he was so frustrated that his exposés of inappropriate and misleading statistical methods in HIV/AIDS figures were being ignored. The shit remains the same, only the year changes.
IS "HIV" REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS?
ARE THERE REALLY ONLY "A FEW" SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS?
This is a short, printable version taken from the original at http://aras.ab.ca/aidsquotes.htm
"It's not even probable, let alone scientifically proven, that HIV causes AIDS. If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There are no such documents."
Spin Magazine, Vol. 10 No.4, 1994
"The HIV-causes-AIDS theory is one hell of a mistake."
Foreword, "Inventing the AIDS Virus"
"Years from now, people will find our acceptance of the HIV theory of AIDS as silly as we find those who excommunicated Galileo."
"Dancing Naked in the Mind Field," 1998
"Where is the research that says HIV is the cause of AIDS? There are 10,000 people in the world now who specialize in HIV. None has any interest in the possibility HIV doesn't cause AIDS because if it doesn't, their expertise is useless."
"People keep asking me, ‘You mean you don't believe that HIV causes AIDS?' And I say, ‘Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant! I have no scientific evidence for it.' I might believe in God, and He could have told me in a dream that HIV causes AIDS. But I wouldn't stand up in front of scientists and say, ‘I believe HIV causes AIDS because God told me.' I'd say, ‘I have papers here in hand and experiments that have been done that can be demonstrated to others.' It's not what somebody believes, it's experimental proof that counts. And those guys don't have that."
California Monthly, Sept 1994
"If you think a virus is the cause of AIDS, do a control without it. To do a control is the first thing you teach undergraduates. But it hasn't been done. The epidemiology of AIDS is a pile of anecdotal stories selected to the virus-AIDS hypothesis. People don't bother to check the details of popular dogma or consensus views."
HIV not Guilty, Oct 5, 1996
"[Aids] is not ‘God's wrath' or any other absurdity. A segment of our society was experimenting with their lifestyle, and it didn't work. They got sick. Another segment of our pluralistic society, call them doctor/scientist refugees from the failed War on Cancer, or just call them professional jackals, discovered that it did work. It worked for them. They are still making payments on their new BMWs out of your pocket."
Dancing Naked in the Mind Field. Vintage Books. 2000
- Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD, Biochemist, Winner, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for inventing the polymerase chain reaction, the basis for the HIV viral load tests.