HIV-Aids: Are Antibodies Good Or Bad?
Jon Rappoport just posted an article that asks an interesting question: In all germ-related illnesses, when you have developed antibodies it means your body has been successful in fighting the disease. You are not going to get sick.
Why then is it, that when we talk about HIV and Aids, the presence of antibodies means something completely different? Are the standard rules of medical treatment not valid for Aids? Something to think about...
And another question: If we were to have an Aids Vaccine tomorrow, and people were to start making HIV antibodies AFTER receiving a vaccine, would those antibodies still signify that they should be treated with deadly AZT?
Read: WHEN THE RULES WENT OUT THE WINDOW
- - -
WHEN THE RULES WENT OUT THE WINDOW
AUGUST 28, 2005. In the spring of 1984, Dr. Robert Gallo and representatives of the US government announced that the cause of AIDS had been found. During this televised press conference, a virus was named. It would later be called HIV.
What very few people realized at the time was, Gallo, the purported hero, hadn't published a single paper that made a serious effort at PROVING that HIV was the cause of AIDS.
Until that moment, researchers at least paid lip service to the idea that you had to publish evidence, and that evidence had to be tested and retested by other scientists, before any conclusions about disease causation could be publicly advanced.
After all, this was what separated science from speculation.
But on that day in 1984, everything changed.
Even when many researchers realized that Gallo's claim of discovery was unsupported by the facts, all but a few of them remained silent. They gave up without a struggle.
The day after Gallo made his preemptive 1984 announcement, all government funding for AIDS research took a sharp right turn. Suddenly, there was no money for investigation into the cause of AIDS. Now, the $$ were slated for people who could establish the mechanism by which HIV attacked and destroyed the immune system.
So any potential rebellion in the ranks was squashed by the re-assignment of dollars.
While I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., in 1987, I discovered the above facts. I also learned that researchers don't simply cast a net into the water when they are searching for the cause of a disease. They are, from the outset, narrowing their field of inquiry.
Gallo had been researching the possible role of so-called retroviruses in cancer. Despite Gallo's optimistic assertions, this effort had yielded nothing of significance. But when the word AIDS appeared on the horizon, he decided to gather his forces and find money to keep researching this type of virus as a potential cause of AIDS. That was his territory, so he went with it.
But it was a strange starting point for him. If he thought that retroviruses caused cancer---which is all about out-of-control proliferation of cells---why would he think that retroviruses would be involved in the destruction of immune-system cells---the hallmark of AIDS?
As I wrote my book, I saw more and more holes in the HIV hypothesis. If HIV was not the cause of AIDS, then what was AIDS? The CDC had just issued a new definition of the disease, in which more and more so-called opportunistic illnesses were listed as markers for AIDS. It was asserted that these marker illnesses were ushered in by the initial immune-system collapse caused by HIV.
But if HIV was a fraudulent cause, then what we were left with? A whole host of diseases that were connected by nothing more than a word: AIDS.
And that word was being used to connect people in Haiti, starving people in Africa, heroin addicts in New York, gay men in San Francisco and New York, and hemophiliacs.
We were also assured that HIV would cause widespread deaths beyond those populations. AIDS, for example, would soon kill large numbers of heterosexual men in the US.
It never happened.
Why not? Was this the first germ that had such esoteric preferences for certain "risk groups?"
During the years since 1987, I met many people who had been diagnosed as HIV positive. They remained healthy, and the common denominator was, they hadn't taken the AIDS drugs.
I also met many people who told me stories about their healthy friends and family who had, on the strength of an HIV positive diagnosis, taken AZT, rapidly declined, and died.
AZT, a failed chemotherapy drug, attacks all cells of the body and destroys the ability of cells to reproduce. In other words, it kills.
The HIV blood test itself was riddled with flaws. A falsely positive result could ensue because of 60 or more factors that had nothing to do with HIV.
I deconstructed and reconstructed the AIDS legend. If you boldly and arbitrarily and falsely announced that a certain group---say, people who inhabited a certain park in a major city---had been exposed to a deadly germ; and if you then undertook a major propaganda campaign to convince these people to get tested for the germ; and if the test yielded false-positive results like crazy; and if you made a major push to have people who tested positive take a deadly drug; you would essentially be consigning these people to destruction.
Name a group. Any group. Put them through this step-by-step process, and many of them end up dead.
That was the assembly line. It still is.
In writing AIDS INC., I examined every so-called high-risk group for AIDS, and I found factors---non-viral factors---in each group that could easily account for the immune-system collapse that was being called AIDS. The factors tended to be different for each group. Some factors were recent. Some were age-old.
When I wrote AIDS INC., there were only a handful of recognized scientists who were speaking out against the fraudulent and death-dealing "research" behind AIDS. Among them, Peter Duesberg and Harvey Bialy. I had learned much from Peter and Harvey. Since those days, a number of other scientists have stepped up to the plate. They are largely ignored by the press.
Now we see stories in the press about a vaccine that will possibly work to prevent HIV from causing immune-system failure. Such a vaccine will, they say, produce antibodies against HIV in the body. This is taken to be a sign that the person is immune to HIV.
However, the standard HIV blood tests look for these same antibodies. If they are found, the person is said to be on the road to AIDS.
To say there is a confusion here is a vast understatement.
You see, traditionally, the production of antibodies, by the human body, was taken to be an indication that the body had warded off a disease. The germ entered the body, antibodies were produced against it, and the body knocked out the germ.
But with the advent of the AIDS legend, another rule was thrown out the window. Suddenly, antibodies to HIV were taken to be a gravely negative indicator.
Yet, even as the traditional rule was trashed, researchers were saying that a vaccine that induced those same antibodies was protective, was good, was a breakthrough.
In 1988, I spoke with a researcher at the National Institutes of Health. He told me that, when a vaccine was found, every person who took it would be given a letter. The letter would say that he was immune to HIV, and if he ever tested positive for HIV on a blood test, that result should ignored, because he was immune, not on the road to AIDS.
Antibodies naturally produced by the body against HIV=infected with the killer virus. The same antibodies produced by taking a vaccine=protective immunity.
There are researchers who understand this ridiculous and dangerous contradiction. But most of them will not speak out. As a well-known virologist at UCLA once said to me, "HIV is not an issue I'll comment on. It's political. That's all I'll say. There are other people in the research community you could approach, but they won't talk to you, either."
There is more to the AIDS story, much more....
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
See also more recent:HOW DO THEY ACTUALLY TEST FOR BIRD FLU?Â
New Book: Unraveling AIDS
The Independent Science and Promising Alternative Therapies
Mae-Wan Ho, Sam Burcher, Rhea Gala and Vejko Velkovic
"This book delves into the nutritional and other lifestyle factors that establish the biological milieu for AIDS, and perhaps is at the very root of the expression of the disease."
Henry A. Becker, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Monday August 29 2005
updated on Wednesday December 8 2010URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/08/29/hivaids_are_antibodies_good_or_bad.htm
Related ArticlesHIV-Aids: A Tragic Error
Recently, a friend from the UK sent a copy of an article published in the Observer, titled: "UK firm tried HIV drug on orphans" which details experiments with toxic AIDS drugs on orphans in New York, involving the British drug giant GlaxoSmithKline. Reading the article I forwarded to some people, a medical doctor friend has the following to say: "I see nothing wrong with this. At least the children received... [read more]
April 12, 2004 - Sepp HasslbergerSelenium Status Is Associated With Accelerated HIV / AIDS
Thanks for sending me this note Harry, then again ethics is not a strong factor amongst the medical Mafiosi - particularly when, egos, greed and wealth have superceded their consciousness. Concern for health, their supposedly original good intentions, have turned to pretense, and have simply become a tool to accomplish their goals incognito... Even more abominable is the zeal with which toxic drugs and immunization are thrust on the sick... [read more]
November 15, 2004 - Chris GuptaAIDS Test 'Is Not Proof Of Infection'
The "Aids Test", which was originally developed to make the blood supply safe and has only been really licensed for that use, is not a test that can give certainty of infection of any individual. A possible "positive" result certainly should not be used to initiate any "treatment" regimen, especially if such treatment is based on drugs that have - as side effects - some of the symptoms often associated... [read more]
June 13, 2004 - Sepp HasslbergerAIDS: 'No Gold Standard' For HIV Testing
According to the scientific literature, there is no "gold standard" for HIV tests. Liam Scheff, who has exposed how children are removed from their parents' care and forcibly drugged with highly toxic anti-retrovirals insists that testing for HIV does not mean a thing. A "positive" test result could merely "confirm that you are pregnant or have used drugs or alcohol, or that you’ve been vaccinated; that you have a cold,... [read more]
January 13, 2005 - Sepp HasslbergerAfrica - Nevirapine For AIDS Mothers: U.S. Hid Research Concerns
According to a recent article in the Indy Star, the National Institute of Health did not inform presidential aides about safety concerns that emerged during testing of nevirapine in Uganda. As a result, a U.S. led program distributed the drug to hundreds of thousands of pregnant mothers in Africa. The aim was to stem mother-to-child transmission of HIV, a retro-virus widely believed to cause the symptoms of Aids. U.S. Senator... [read more]
December 14, 2004 - Sepp HasslbergerAre AIDS, CFS Caused By Oxidative Damage?
The officially supported theory of AIDS as an illness caused by a continually mutating retrovirus called HIV has not led to progress in controlling the epidemic in over two decades. We are still looking for a vaccine but chances are it will never be found. We are still treating those reacting positively to a non-virus-specific test with toxic medications, but the results are less than brilliant. The existence of long-term... [read more]
October 11, 2005 - Sepp Hasslberger
