World 'losing fight against Aids'

Here's an excellent review of that new book that has just been released in June 2007:

==================

One of the most difficult things to write is a refutation of a massive fraud, especially a health fraud, in the face of media control and knowledge monopolies by financial powerhouses. Making it still more difficult is the possible threat of libel lawsuits from the powerful parties essentially accused of scientific misconduct at best and criminal negligence at worst. Following in the footsteps of Peter Duesberg, Robert Root-Bernstein, Neville Hodgkinson, Gordon Stewart, David Crowe, Linda Marsa and many others, Henry Bauer has produced a very readable explanation of why HIV does not cause AIDS, and whatever AIDS is, it has not caused an epidemic. His civility of tone is remarkable. Dr. Bauer's conclusions are backed up by about 450 references, about 100 to primary medical journals. The book has a good index, 27 figures and 35 tables.

Part I shows that HIV does not cause AIDS. Dr. Bauer makes it clear that "HIV positive" means a response to a test that shows little more than stress and immune system potentiation. Because of this, Dr. Bauer labels the prevalence or frequency of positive HIV tests "F(HIV)". An actual virus has not been isolated. This is the main reason that no vaccine has appeared. People who test positive are usually not sick, will not develop AIDS, may spontaneously change so they are no longer HIV positive, and are not likely to infect anyone else by blood transfer or sex. The failure of F(HIV) to spread, and its steady incidence, with some decline, over 20 years contradict the scary warnings that permeate publications and TV programs. The % of people who show HIV-positive is dependent on race, sex and location, not their behavior. Some people who develop AIDS were not HIV positive. Further obfuscating the issue was a medical cabal confusing an outbreak of Kaposi's sarcoma in the 1980s with AIDS. More confusion was sown by changing the definition of AIDS to merely being HIV positive, rather than a wasting illness from infections normally controlled by a healthy body. Many perfectly healthy people who were given AZT or mixtures of anti-retroviral drugs (triple cocktail) developed symptoms said to be AIDS that were actually drug side effects. In a sneaky way this "confirmed" the false premise that a positive HIV test indicated AIDS. Even now, healthy people who have a positive test are said to be "living with AIDS", a false and destructive description, according to Dr. Bauer.

Part II discusses other mistakes and scares in medical science. One sequence is on treatment of schizophrenics, who were infected with malaria, treated by electric shock, and then by lobotomy as supposed "cures" we see today as brutal and idiotic. The very common notion that high cholesterol levels cause atherosclerosis and heart attacks is also mentioned by Dr. Bauer as false. So was the resistance of orthodox medicine to admit that bacteria were the prime cause of stomach ulcers. Much of this resistance to the latter pair of ailments was said to be Big Pharma's desire to maintain profits, which also applies to anti-retroviral drugs.

Part III is the most wrenching to read, at times as hard as reading details of the Holocaust. The claim by Robert Gallo in the National Cancer Institute to have isolated "the cause of AIDS", eventually named HIV. After his receipt of a sample of something in AIDS patients from the Pasteur Institute, he developed a test for antibodies to HIV. This was followed by a patent dispute between the NCI and the PI on who invented the test. Dr. Bauer noted that the PI probably did it based on the outcome of the patent fight. Dr. Bauer also noted that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention spread panic about the connection between F(HIV) and AIDS, exactly opposite to one of their mandated functions. Exact quotations from the CDC and others on HIV and AIDS were reproduced with explanations of internal inconsistencies or mutant statistics. Turns out that President Mbeki of South Africa was correct to refuse anti-retroviral drugs, and that there is no epidemic of AIDS or even F(HIV) in Africa. On p241 Dr. Bauer cites a WHO claim that 34,000,000 people worldwide were HIV positive in 2000, and that there were 470,000 AIDS cases. This is only 1.4%, of which many would be misdiagnoses. A gullible media, also prone to financial pressure by withdrawal of advertising revenues, gets some blame, with most reporters accused of going only to mainstream "experts", and not taking the time to understand the field. The control of medical journals and failures and biases of peer-review are aired. (See my review of The Trouble with Medical Journals.) The difficulty of dumping the dogma is made only too clear as Dr. Bauer discusses the near-impossibility of having so many organizations recant, partly because of the record number of lawsuits that would arise.

Buried under this exposé of brutal bureaucratic bungling and fraud, some really good news emerged from this book. In my opinion, if you test positive for HIV, relax, and refuse any treatment if you have no symptoms. If you have had "unprotected sex" at any time, relax, because transmission of whatever the test responds to is under 1/1000. Many people, babies especially, spontaneously become HIV negative. Of course, refuse to have the test if at all possible, and where you are forced to have the test, be ready to sign on to any class-action lawsuit for invasion of privacy, since transmission rates are so low, negating the excuse for invading privacy in the first place. Not in the book were promising results of treatment of AIDS patients with low levels of CD4 cells or with PCP by means of intravenous sodium ascorbate. (See pp92-102 and my review of: Levy TE (2002). Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases, and Toxins, Xlibris.com, Xlibris.)

Originally posted by Funkat
Wrong. HIV has never been scientifically proven. It doesnt even pass Koch's Postulates.

Read through my posts here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes, it has been proven to exist and does fulfill Koch's Postulates. That is a tired argument put forth by a small group of people who cannot accept the validity of HIV/AIDS no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary. I have seen the virus many times with my own eyes through an electron micrograph, and studied it in detail for many years, so pardon if I have grown weary with this debate.

Let's face it, I could tell you why HIV testing works the way it does and why variations appear in the various tests we currently have avaliable. I could also explain why a low viral load has been mistaken over the years to mean HIV does not exist, and how virologists like Duesberg interpret this evidence. However, even if I prove it you still will not believe me, so why should I make an effort to do so?

[edit on 1-8-2007 by Jazzerman]

Originally posted by Jazzerman

Yes, it has been proven to exist and does fulfill Koch's Postulates. That is a tired argument put forth by a small group of people who cannot accept the validity of HIV/AIDS no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary. I have seen the virus many times with my own eyes through an electron micrograph, and studied it in detail for many years, so pardon if I have grown weary with this debate.

Let's face it, I could tell you why HIV testing works the way it does and why variations appear in the various tests we currently have avaliable. I could also explain why a low viral load has been mistaken over the years to mean HIV does not exist, and how virologists like Duesberg interpret this evidence. However, even if I prove it you still will not believe me, so why should I make an effort to do so?

[edit on 1-8-2007 by Jazzerman]

What you've seen in the microscope was a virus that came directly from a human? or was it from a culture?
If you've seen the real virus coming straight from a human, how come the HIV tests work by detecting anti-bodies to HIV and not HIV itself?
Why the disclaimers on every HIV test kit say these tests shouldnt be used for a definitive diagnosis? Because there isn't a Gold Standard to compare it to. HIV hasn't been properly isolated. If it has, please show me the paper, I'd love to see it.

Will do. You'll have to wait until tomorrow however, as it's getting late here and I'm getting tired. I will have your answer tomorrow.

Until then...

Originally posted by Funkat

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
What is your direct personal experience with it, if you don't mind enlightening us?

I feel really sorry for you that you talk without having watched any of what I posted. You havent explained to me how is it possible that there are thousands of people with AIDS that test HIV-... please, explain?
The fact that you watched people die from AIDS (those 30+ diseases that are called AIDS IF you test HIV+ are really real but arent caused by HIV) doesnt make your opinion better than mine. I've researched the Scientific FACTS, not the bull fed to us through the controlled media and pharmaceutical industry that rakes in millions of $.

You didn't answer my question. Would you care to elucidate? I am all "ears."

Originally posted by Funkat
What you've seen in the microscope was a virus that came directly from a human? or was it from a culture?

Both, and there are several different methods to visibly see any virus or bacteria from samples. Scanning electron micrographs are used to visibly locate HIV around Lymphocytes located in human tissue, and generally produce images such as these:

HIV: Electron Micrograph
Another image

These images can be obtained from cultured HIV infected cells or from samples of patients blood in a sterilized laboratory. In fact, there are some very detailed photographs taken from Transmission Electron Microscopes and Scanning Electron Micrographs that show HIV budding from infected cells. I do not currently have these images avaliable, but I'm sure you can find various ones on the internet with a quick search. All samples of HIV I have seen look very similar to these, however, having a medical background may help you identify the various structures present in the photographs.

If you've seen the real virus coming straight from a human, how come the HIV tests work by detecting anti-bodies to HIV and not HIV itself?

There are several different testing methods avaliable. The most common are Rapid tests like Orasure, OraQuick, and UniGold Recombigen which detect specific antibodies built up in resistance to HIV and other infections. There has been some consideration taken with these tests and they are only used as a means to screen potential infections. In other words, people with possible secondary immunological infections or diseases such as Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, Hepatitis C, and others can skew the results and the test will show a positive result even if the person is HIV negative.

If a person initially tests positive for HIV antibodies they are then adminsitered a Westen Blot test. This test begins as HIV infected Lymphocytes are actually opened up, the proteins are then seperated and transferred to another membrane. From there ELISA testing can begin to detect the HIV antibodies. From clinical results produced in laboratories around the world we know of a specific protein called P24 which is only found in HIV, and an Antigen test can be administered to produce antibodies that only bind to this specific protein. In other words, Antibodies and Antigens are like the ignition system on a car for lack of better comparison...only one key will start a particular car by matching up the grooves on the key's surface...and in turn only specific antibodies will attach to certain antigens. This is how we know antibodies are specifically built up to certain diseases, and why there is such a differentiation between them.

There is also another method currently avaliable using Nucleic Acid that is similar to PCR testing. I'm sure there is a website somewhere that will go over it (to save time and space in this post).

Why the disclaimers on every HIV test kit say these tests shouldnt be used for a definitive diagnosis? Because there isn't a Gold Standard to compare it to.

Correct. Rapid HIV testing kits are not definitive results, and this is why they are always followed up by more accurate testing methods briefly described above. The "Golden Standard" for HIV testing follows a method used in almost every Biochemistry lab in the world. It's called a Polymerase Chain Reaction test (PCR for short) that can isolate viral RNA and cellular DNA, thus producing results that are so accurate it has become a staple in Molecular Biology and Virology. Here is a more in depth description of the method of PCR testing:

PCR: How it tests for HIV

Here is an article from a study conducted with Polymerase Chain Reaction on Viral RNA. You probably won't be able to read the whole thing, but it includes their objective and conclusions: HIV: PCR test

HIV hasn't been properly isolated. If it has, please show me the paper, I'd love to see it.

Vying for that cash prize? Viral cultures and the isolation of HIV go hand in hand (those dissenting groups often twist words to make the two sound different), and this is typically how any virus or bacterial agent is isolated. That is, in controlled and sterilized conditions by multiple researchers and technicians. The hundreds of photographs avaliable online from HIV cultures and blood samples show isolation has become a reality. Here is one article directly from the National Institute of Health dealing with this subject, and the established criteria for doing so:

NIH: Isolation of HIV

QED

Thanks again jazzerman for your valuable input and excellent information.

Thanks Jazzerman ... Again excellent !!!!!!!!!!

Just one point of clarification to our dear friends and doubters. There are immediate treatment regimes aimed at reducing the infection uptake rate of healthcare professionals exposed via stick injuries and the like. I am sure Jazzerman can give more details of these but I am at work and this is recreation for me.
To another point, I researched a couple of years ago into the persistence of HIV in the environment as I had sustained a needle stick injury from a needle discarded on a beach ( thanks guys). This beach was raked every night so in theory the needle could have been as little as 3-5 hrs old. Anyway I had a full penetration injury so looked up the survival rates in various protected regimes ( presence of blood - as in my needle) protein , salt ,low water content etc...The virus can survive for considerable periods of time if the right factors are present. I had to wait six months to get the all clear, which was fairly stressful. The testing lead to the conclusion I had some liver issues etc ..LOL but no HIV infection....

There are sometimes exceptions to every rule, for instance herpes simplex II is not know for great longevity, however I know for a fact ( as I know the guy who did the work) that the virus (live !!)has been recovered from a lavatory seat after 36 hrs of exposure. So the old addage can be said to be true . You can get stds from a toilet seat..

Old story was yes you can but there are more comfortable places .....

Pls help Jazzerman I'm sure you know the treatment regimens I am talking about for stick injuries.

Originally posted by Deharg
Thanks Jazzerman ... Again excellent !!!!!!!!!!

Seconded. A great post


So the old addage can be said to be true . You can get stds from a toilet seat..

Old story was yes you can but there are more comfortable places .....
.

Several years back in Staffordshir a neighbours son of 11 developed Ghonorhoea. There was quite a big fuss locally made about this and the eventual decision was that he got it from a public toilet that he had visited.

Strange.

Thanks for the support, I really appreciate it. To answer Deharg's contribution...

The general procedures for needle stick injuries in the health care environment do vary sometimes. One thing to keep in mind is that these drug regimens are only for suspected cases of infections as it generally takes between 3-6 months to detect an infection. The current exposure risk of an HIV infection from a needle stick injury is only 0.3%, but infection rates of this when compared to Hepatitis are quite different in that Hep B carries an exposure rate of 30% with Hep C around 30%-50%. As for the medications, there is a general regimen of them laid down by the CDC to deal with these type of exposures, and it is generally referred to as Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP). The options vary depending on the suspected exposure rate and any known variables, but they are generally taken as a combination of two or three drugs. Here are the most common options:

Two medication regimen (any of the following in combination):
Emtriva
Retrovir
Combivir
Epivir

Three drug regimen, any of the above in combination with:
Kaletra

-There have also been cases of known needle stick injury victims taking Zidovidine (AZT), Indinavir, or Saquinavir as replacement medications for any of the above. Also, in very "high-risk of exposure" cases they often add a Protease Inhibitor such as Indinavir or Nelfinavir.

Anyone taking these medications should expect to begin them as soon as possible, and be fully aware of the side effects caused by these medications. This regimen is very powerful and very toxic and there is a good percentage of those in the medical field that do not follow through with the regimen because of this reason (in fact, up to 40% of health care professionals stop treatment early). The regimen has to be adhered to just as strictly as someone that is HIV positive, and it is generally administered for up to 4 weeks. Taking these medications can lower the risk of transmission by as much as 70%-80% if they are taken directly after exposure; it is not 100% effective, but it can greatly reduce the risk of infection.

I have had quite a few questions about its use for the general public in the past. PEP should not be thought of as a "morning after pill" for HIV transmission risks. It is a series of medications taken for a length of time that is generally only avaliable to those in the medical field. The side effects are too great in comparison to transmission rates that there is no justification or warrant to let the general public have access to it. The cost of this treatment varies anywhere between $600 and $1,000 for people that work in health care, but would be much greater for the public...possibly up to $7,000 depending on the medications used.

I hope this helps answer the question.

Originally posted by Cibai
And male circumcision is a civilized one?
If you think female circumcision is no good, then you have to think male circumcision is no good either.

Actually, it has been proven that a circumcized male is far less likely to get HIV than an uncircumcized male. That is being the top, not the bottom. So, circumcision for males is a good thing. There are membranes in the uncircumcized male's genitilia that allows HIV to enter. Getting rid of these membranes (circumcision) reduces the risk of exposure.

Originally posted by budski
I mean be able to cure through intervention once a person has the disease, like a bacterial infection can be cured.

What about the rabies virus? Or is that not a cure?

Originally posted by Griff
What about the rabies virus? Or is that not a cure?

There is a vaccine for rabies virus, but no cure, and for anyone that gets the virus post-vaccination they are usually able to fight it off. However, without the vaccine it is virtually impossible for someone to survive after the onset of Encephalitis. Usually after infection, a treatment regimen is administered similar to PEP for possible HIV infections where 5 vaccines and a dose of Immunoglobulin are given to the patient over the couse of one month.

There are no known cures for any viral infections, but we do currently have vaccines for Influenza, Polio, Rabies, Hepatitis A & B, and others. I will not go into the particulars of the Rabies virus in this thread, even though I have an inclination to write a 10,000 word post about it. If you have any further questions about the difference between a "vaccine" and a "cure" I would be happy to help where needed.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by budski
I mean be able to cure through intervention once a person has the disease, like a bacterial infection can be cured.

What about the rabies virus? Or is that not a cure?

Well it isnt really a cure as the body hasnt developed the infection sufficiently by the time the Vaccine is administered.
I would also suspect the vaccine simply weakens the virus sufficiently enough for the bodies own antibodies to kill it.
However once the virus is sufficiently established in the body nothing will stop it.
Only one person has survived the full rabies infection. A Girl. In Canada I think?. and that was after putting her into a very deep coma

Thanks Jazzerman

Answers my question and post perfectly. I didn't do the PEP as I was out of the country on holiday and it took too long to certify who and what I was, so I had to wait.
Silly but true that 48 hrs makes all the difference.