"Does HIV exist?"
So-called HIV has never been proven to exist, after more than 30 years of research. It has never been purified. When cultures thought to contain HIV were subjected to purification by sucrose gradient, subsequent electron microscopic examination of the band that was expected to contain the purified virus showed no virus.
Why do scientists disagree on the existence of HIV?
Scientists who disagree on whether HIV exists set different standards of proof. Some still seem to accept enzyme activity by reverse transcriptase as sufficient to show the presence of a retrovirus, although this indirect evidence has been shown to be unreliable because it is not unique to retroviruses. Scientists who say that the evidence does not prove the existence of HIV point to the facts that it has not been purified, and when the extract from patients' blood thought to contain the virus are subjected to a purification technique and examined under an electron microscope, no retroviruses of any kind, including the hypothetical HIV, can be found.
If HIV doesn't exist, what causes what they call "AIDS"?
Of course immune system damage and resulting vulnerability to disease exist! There is not a single cause for everybody affected. There are many possible known factors that can damage our immune systems.
HOWEVER, the very existence of HIV has not been proven, nor has it been proven that ANY virus or retrovirus is the cause of what is called "AIDS."
Should I ask for proof of HIV isolation & purification before I ingest Anti-RetroVirals (ARVs)?
Absolutely. By all means ask your doctor, ask medical authorities, and ask your government. But go a step further; legally record their responses and share them with us!
"Does HIV cause AIDS?"
So-called HIV has never been proven to cause AIDS or any other health problem. Despite its created name, "Human Immunodeficiency Virus" ("HIV") has not been proven 1) to be a virus, that 2) causes immunodeficiency in humans. It's very existence has not been proven to the satisfaction of some scientists.
But even scientsts who, based only on the detection of nonspecific enzyme activity, accept that "HIV" exists, may not accept the theory that it causes AIDS or any illness in humans. Prof. Peter Duesberg of the University of California-Berkeley, for example, describes HIV as a harmless "passenger" virus that may be hiding in cells like many other retroviruses, but never causes any health problems. He says that levels of virus capable of causing illness have never been found in humans.
Although many factors have been shown convincingly to impair immune function, that is, cause immunodeficiency, HIV is not one of them.
A: What is called "HIV" has NEVER been proven to cause AIDS or any other serious illness associated with AIDS.
It's been more than 30 years since April 23, 1984, when the claim was first made that HIV causes AIDS, and yet, today, still there is no scientific proof that has been published that leads to that conclusion.
Kary Mullis, the Nobel Prize winning scientist who invented the PCR test,notes that the claim that HIV causes AIDS is not backed up by any published scientific study leading to that conclusion.
Please view this short video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL3cAS3YUKM
"I was told I have HIV, and after one year of talking drugs called Anti-Retroviral Therapy (ART), I then stopped and went to do the HIV test and it was negative and my CD4 was normal and my immune is very OK and strong. After 6 months of stopping drugs I went to do HIV test again. It was still negative and every thing is normal. HIV undetectable for 1-year and 6month. Still undetectable. Does it mean that you no longer have HIV or it just hidden for some time?"
"What is AIDS?"
AIDS has been defined and redefined over and over, and is defined more differently in Africa than anywhere else. It is not the African people who defined it differently, but the imperialistic World Health Organization. The definitions seem to be created to advance agendas and serve financial interests. They are not based on science. In fact, it is admitted that such differences are imposed for "practical" reasons.
In April of 2014, the US Centers For Disease Control once again redefined AIDS. The CDC broke down so-called "HIV infection" into 5 stages (similar to but more bizarre than cancer), and said AIDS is Stage 3 of HIV infection. The stages are: 0, 1, 2, 3, and "unknown").
Stage 3 or "AIDS" is reached if your CD+ count is under 200 (for people 6 years or older)
OR you have any of these "opportunistic diseases":
Candidiasis of bronchi, trachea, or lungs
Candidiasis of esophagus
Cervical cancer, invasive†
Coccidioidomycosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
Cryptococcosis, extrapulmonary
Cryptosporidiosis, chronic intestinal (>1 month's duration)
Cytomegalovirus disease (other than liver, spleen, or nodes), onset at age >1 month
Cytomegalovirus retinitis (with loss of vision)
Encephalopathy attributed to HIV§
Herpes simplex: chronic ulcers (>1 month's duration) or bronchitis, pneumonitis, or esophagitis (onset at age >1 month)
Histoplasmosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
Isosporiasis, chronic intestinal (>1 month's duration)
Kaposi sarcoma
Lymphoma, Burkitt (or equivalent term)
Lymphoma, immunoblastic (or equivalent term)
Lymphoma, primary, of brain
Mycobacterium avium complex or
Mycobacterium kansasii, disseminated or extrapulmonary
Mycobacterium tuberculosis of any site, pulmonary†, disseminated, or extrapulmonary
Mycobacterium, other species or unidentified species, disseminated or extrapulmonary
Pneumocystis jirovecii (previously known as "
Pneumocystis carinii") pneumonia
Pneumonia, recurrent†
Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
Salmonella septicemia, recurrent
Toxoplasmosis of brain, onset at age >1 month
Wasting syndrome attributed to HIV§
† Only among adults, adolescents, and children aged ≥6 years.
§ Suggested diagnostic criteria for these illnesses, which might be particularly important for HIV encephalopathy and HIV wasting syndrome, are described in the following references: CDC. 1994 Revised classification system for human immunodeficiency virus infection in children less than 13 years of age. MMWR 1994;43(No. RR-12). CDC. 1993 Revised classification system for HIV infection and expanded surveillance case definition for AIDS among adolescents and adults. MMWR 1992;41(No. RR-17).
Source:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6303a1.htm?s_cid=rr6303a1_e
So according to the new definition, if you are living in the U.S. and were diagnosed "HIV+" the diagnosis of "AIDS" comes when the CD4+ count goes below 200 (higher numbers for children under six), even if you are healthy, or if you get any of the diseases on the list above.
In Africa, testing is not even necessary for a diagnosis of AIDS. When tests are used, they may be interpreted differently. The Western Blot, for example, requires only a minimal reaction to be judged positive, so the result is that in Africa more people test "positive."
The term AIDS has been so concocted and twisted that it is best considered to be what it really is: a useless construct.
It is not helpful to take people suffering from a variety of infections
OR cancers
OR healthy with low CD4+ counts and lump them all together and say they are suffering from one "syndrome." (Actually, they are all suffering from the Acquired Iatrogenic Syndrome, AIS).
Similarly, in Africa, it is not responsible public health policy to lump together people suffering from malnutrition
OR chemical poisoning
OR infections and say they all have AIDS and should take the same pill.
"AIDS" has not worked to improve health or remedy any illness for more than 30 years; in fact it has damaged and ended lives. It is based on false assumptions, invalid methodology, and highly speculative and imaginative conclusions. And it's time to give it up.
Should we forget about AIDS and start talking about AISD?
It would be useful to have a different name for the real immunodeficiencies that can be acquired, because "AIDS," as it has been officially constructed and defined, is an obstruction of reality.
AISD = Acquired Immuno Suppression Disorder.
Does AIDS really exist? Aren't AIDS deaths either due to the meds or previously understood illnesses?
Does the ability to acquire an immunodeficiency exist? Absolutely, although the construct "AIDS" as it has been defined, is based on a political-economic agenda, in defiance of science or health concerns.
While the deaths may in some cases be due to an infection that could not be conquered, the real question is why someone became so vulnerable to begin with.
There are many, many, many known factors that can produce an acquired immunodeficiency/immunosuppression, such as:
(1) drugs (a subclass of toxic chemicals) (verify by checking the physician's desk reference,
pdr.net); and (2) other toxic chemicals (example: benzene
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp...); (3) malnutrition; (4) non-chemical environmental factors (such as radiation); (5) lifestyle (lack of sleep, lack of exercise, etc.); (6) oxidative stress (overabundance of free radicals, shortage of antioxidants); (7) emotional stress/depression/psychoimmunological factors; and (8) blood transfusions.
Keep in mind that all of the cells comprising the immune system originate from bone marrow cells, so if you see something that causes bone-marrow suppression/depression, that means it is damaging or destroying the immune system.
If you are HIV+ and you are faithful to your meds and free from substance abuse, would you live your life like you would have anyway?
- The "meds" are the worst form of substance abuse. Taking so-called anti-retroviral drug treatment is not a prescription for a healthy life. Don't take my word for it. Check the effects of your "meds" at www.pdr.net. Liver failure kills. Broken bones are also common. Your immune system can be damaged. Mental depression, etc., etc. All from the "meds." They are cytotoxic, that is they kill living cells, and over time, they are killing you. Some people live longer than others, just like some substance abusers live longer than others.
- We have looked at the scientific evidence and concluded that: 1) the existence of HIV has never been proven; 2) it has never been proven that HIV causes AIDS or any other disease; 3) the so-called "HIV test" does not test for HIV; 4) a positive antibody test is nonspecific, and, as the package inserts state, are NOT appropriately used to diagnose HIV infecton; 5) "viral load" is not viral load but a measure of how well nucleic acid fragments from your blood multiply in the laboratory -- the clinical significance of which has not been demonstrated; 6) CD4+ counts are not conducted or interpreted correctly.
Please read some of the other material posted for details.
People who are diagnosed "HIV+" can be very healthy or very sick -- just like "HIV-." So what you need to do to stay healthy depends where you are at now. But a lifetime on "meds" is not a choice most people would make once they know the facts.
How does one know if he/she is infected by HIV. in the early stage?
It has not been proven that HIV exists, infects, or causes any symptoms or diseases. If you have symptoms, you should look for a real, scientifically validated cause.
Copyright 2014 By Richard Jannaccio
