AIDS Diagnosis Based on Pseudo Science?
Is AIDS caused by a virus or is the immune weakness we observe in some people due to environmental toxins that degrade immune functions and thereby open those affected to the ravages of 'secondary' or 'opportunistic' infections?
The concept of AIDS and especially the idea of a viral cause for immune weakness, stands and falls with our methods of diagnosis. When we tell people they are infected with a virus that must be kept in check with pharmaceutical drugs, we really have little to base such an affirmation on. All we see from the tests is the presence of a certain protein fraction of specific weight that is thought to be associated with the presence of a destructive virus. But is this really the case?
Aids Test - Image: YourType.com.
Well, the protein fraction that is supposed to show the presence of a virus can only be found in about 40 % of "infected" individuals. The virus cannot be isolated from those infected individuals, and whenever something is isolated, it cannot be used to infect healthy individuals, which would be proof that indeed the virus causes the degradation of immune defenses that is typical of AIDS.
Too many questions remain open to confirm that HIV indeed does cause AIDS and that an anti-viral intervention is the proper type of therapy. Beldeu Singh says that AIDS diagnostics are based on pseudo science, and it does not seem he is wrong about that. Here is what he says about the tests:
- - -
THE POWER OF PSEUDO-SCIENCE IN AIDS DIAGNOSTICS
The question by Dr Andrew Maniotis, Ph.D. (Program Director in the Cell and Developmental Biology of Cancer, Department of Pathology, and Bioengineering, University of Illinois at Chicago
Chicago, IL 60607) raises the specter of pseudo-science and how it can be used to prey on ignorance and build a multi-billion dollar industry. It is about deciding whether you are HIV-positive based on a cut-off in the reading of a test that tests for the amount of a protein called p24. His poser:-Can you be "HIV" positive with a value of 2 consecutive tests exceeding or equaling 30pg/ml (picograms per milliliter) p24 protein versus 29pg/ml of p24 protein, and do you need toxic antiretroviral if you have a consistent value of 30pg/ml value versus a consistent p24 value of 29pg/ml or lower? Why are healthy control cells considered by the DAIDS culturing manual to be 29pg/ml or less on consecutive tests while diseased, 'HIV' infected cells are valued at 30pg/ml or more (*see below).Does anyone know if these women who were dissuaded from breast feeding and who tested positive for "HIV" were tested according to The DAIDS 1997 official "HIV" culturing manual, where it says, under quality control, Section VI, page 45, "Do not use PHA stimulated PBMC older than 3 days post stimulation when testing them for the absence of HIV from your healthy donor source," and in the Reporting Results Section (section VII), a rationale follows that apparently employs both healthy (or non-infected cells) and infected cells-although I don't think anybody tests intentionally non-"infected cells") in a manner that is rational or what we would considered CONTROLLED. For example:
Cultures whose supernatant meet one of the following criteria are considered culture positive IF:
"Two consecutive HIV p24 antigen VQA CORRECTED values of > 30 pg/ml (read: from a healthy donor source), of which the second value is at least four times greater than the first value or "out of range" (O.D.>2); Or
"Two consecutive HIV p24 antigen VQA CORRECTED values (read: from a healthy donor source) that are "out of range (Optical density.> 2); Or
"Three consecutive HIV p24 antigen VQA CORRECTED values of > 30 pg/ml (read: from a healthy donor source), where neither consecutive value is > four times the previous sample, but the third value is at least four times greater than the first,"
Would you consider a sample negative (read: from a healthy donor source) if the 3 consecutive HIV p24 antigen VQA corrected values read (first test) 25 pg/ml, and (second test) 15 pg/ml, (third test) 5 pg/ml?
Would you use these cells as uninfected controls?
Asked another way, are these control cells considered non-infected if they read 25 on the first reading, and 15 on the second and 5 on the third?
Try a second sample using the first criterion stated above: (And the poser becomes more intriguing)."Two consecutive HIV p24 antigen VQA CORRECTED values of > 30 pg/ml, of which the second value is at least four times greater than the first value or out of range" (O.D.>2)First sample =6pg/ml: second sample) = 23pg/ml
Yes? No? Maybe better get other "healthy cells" than go with a 6 and a 23? Or are these two readings enough to say, "Aw-what the heck-they aren't over 30pg/ml and the second series isn't quite 4 times greater than the first value of 6, so I will just tell the doc that they are negative, and will tell the patient nothing about it?
With much appreciation,Andrew Maniotis, Ph.D.
Program Director in the Cell and Developmental Biology of Cancer
Department of Pathology and Bioengineering
University of Illinois at Chicago
Chicago, IL 60607Well, pseudo-science does work if you have institutions behind you or rather in front of you to endorse the tests. After all, most people and politicians are not science literate up to that level at which they will pose questions based on basic science that can help reveal the truth and reveal whether the test is based on science or pseudo-science. And there is no need to worry about the doctors who will recommend these tests and prescribe the pharmaceutically prescribed “medication”. Doctors are not always scientists. Most of them are not trained as researchers or scientists. They are trained to administer the test and prescribe.
The first part of the AIDS pseudo-science is found in a statement by Dr. Gallo. Dr Robert Gallo, the American government researcher whose team developed and marketed the first test kits, says in a letter in this month’s Harper’s that "no test in medicine is perfect, but done correctly and with a confirmatory second test, the HIV blood test developed in our laboratory comes close." The fact is there are no confirmatory tests. The so-called "confirmatory test", called western blot, relied on the same principle as the test kits it was supposed to be checking and so was liable to the same kind of false-positive reactions. These test kits carry the same disclaimer - that they cannot be used to diagnose and treat AIDS. Subsequent research has repeatedly confirmed this problem: more than 60 conditions that cause such false-positives have been documented. One is malaria. Another is flu. Another is tuberculosis, which produces symptoms of AIDS as defined in Africa and is immensely widespread among impoverished people (see HIV Test Bogus - Based on Circular Reasoning, May 23 2006, Health Supreme).
Palamara et al, investigated the effect of glutathione on the replication of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in chronically infected macrophages, a known reservoir of the virus in the body [AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1996 Nov 1;12(16):1537-41] and found that exogenous GSH strongly suppresses the production of p24 protein. That is an interesting link between glutathione (GSH), an antioxidant enzyme produced in the body and p24. The higher the amount of exogenous GSH the lower the amount of p24 the body will produce. Similarly if the patient gets bioavailable selenium which is essential to the production of glutathione in the body the level of p24 will decline. So, is the p24 part of the body’s antioxidant defense mechanism and an indication of low glutathione or is it an antigen that indicates a viral infection? Take into account the fact that it is not viral specific and not specific to the HIV ((see: Are Malnutrition and Oxidative Stress the Cause of gp41, gp120 and gp160 in Robert Gallo's HIV Isolate?)As I predicted (see: AIDS, NON-HIV AIDS AND PRESCRIPTION AIDS), there will never be a vaccine for AIDS - "The only logical hypothesis is that toxic chemicals, whether or not they are approved for medication, if they generate free radicals in the body that decrease white blood cell count or kill T4 cells or damage the cell walls of cells of the immune system or the endocrine system will generate AIDS. It results in immune deficiencies or immune disorders or damage to the genetic material and explains the variation of the symptoms of AIDS and that also means there will be no such thing as an AIDS vaccine". How can there be a vaccine for a condition that is precipitated by excess free radicals? But what is peculiar to these HIV tests?
“It never proved possible to validate the tests by culturing, purifying and analyzing particles of the purported virus from patients who test positive, then demonstrating that these are not present in patients who test negative. This was despite heroic efforts to make the virus reveal itself in patients with Aids or at risk of Aids, in which their immune cells were stimulated for weeks in laboratory cultures using a variety of agents.
After the cells had been activated in this way, HIV pioneers found some 30 proteins in filtered material that gathered at a density characteristic of retroviruses. They attributed some of these to various parts of the virus. But they never demonstrated that these so-called "HIV antigens" belonged to a new retrovirus.
So, out of the 30 proteins, how did they select the ones to be defined as being from HIV? The answer is shocking, and goes to the root of what is probably the biggest scandal in medical history. They selected those that were most reactive with antibodies in blood samples from Aids patients and those at risk of Aids.
This means that "HIV" antigens are defined as such not on the basis of being shown to belong to HIV, but on the basis that they react with antibodies in Aids patients. Aids patients are then diagnosed as being infected with HIV on the basis that they have antibodies” (see: HIV Test Bogus - Based on Circular Reasoning, May 23 2006, Health Supreme).
The circular reasoning appears sound but there is science to suggest or even clearly indicate that the Gallo isolate does not contain a virus but possibly polymer actin proteins produced by white blood cells under oxidative stress, the kind of oxidative stress found in malnourished people and in people recovering from malaria or flu etc. The antibodies in such people are an auto-immune response of their body to these polymer proteins. Hence they respond clinically to proper nutritional interventions (see: Are Malnutrition and Oxidative Stress the Cause of gp41, gp120 and gp160 in Robert Gallo's HIV Isolate?). Now they are saying that they have only detected virus particles.The AIDS posse claims that the HIV is an enveloped virus but to date no one has seen it under the electron microscope and no one has observed its budding process. It is supposed to be a big virus, because they claim that it is complex and can integrate its genetic material into the host DNA and later on this genetic material can slice itself out and become re-activated. All these processes require an intricate enzyme system. Such enzymes have not been proven either.
And there are many AIDS sufferers who do not have the virus that the AIDS posse claims is virulent and targets the immune system and impairs it sufficiently to allow opportunistic infections to establish in the patients, especially carcinomas and infections of the lungs. Yet 5000 researchers recently signed a document declaring that the HIV is the sole cause of AIDS. Such is the power of pseudo-science.
Basic secondary school science education can equip you to know that for a virus or any pathogen to be the sole cause of a disease, it must be found in every patient and it must be isolated and used to re-infect healthy hosts to prove that it is in fact the sole agent causing the disease. Dr. Gallo has testified that the so called HIV virus is found in only 40% of the cases and it is not detected directly but its existence is assumed by only looking for the p24 protein in the supernatants. And is that protein merely a protein or an antigen…well lets see…by studying their recommended diagnostic test as described above by Dr Andrew Maniotis.
So…must you be given toxic antiretroviral drugs when you have 30pg/ml p24 protein versus 29pg/ml of p24 protein or if you have a consistent value of 30pg/ml value versus a consistent p24 value of 29pg/ml or lower? And if they read 25 on the first reading and 15 on the second and 5 on the third are you to be treated as non-infected?
If the antigen is virus specific as they claim it to be, then why must the diagnosis be based on the amount of p24 protein rather than on its presence or absence? Why? I hope your doctor or your health authorities can explain that to you. It cannot be an antigen specific to the HIV and it may be nothing more than a polymer actin protein associated with oxidative stress. .
It appears to be a case of a bogus virus and a bogus antigen with bogus tests that have established a legitimate industry.
- - -
For a listing of other articles by Beldeu Singh, see
Alternatives to AZT in Aids Patients
(scroll down to the end of that article)
- - -
A recent article:
Merck's Experimental AIDS Vaccine Fails
"It's very disappointing news," said Keith Gottesdiener, head of Merck's clinical infectious disease and vaccine research group. "A major effort to develop a vaccine for HIV really did not deliver on the promise."
Comments Croft W. from Canada: "Since HIV/AIDS emerged in the early '80s, all known and accepted scientific investigative techniques have failed to prove the existence of a virus. No electron photograph (micrograph) of an isolated HIV particle has ever been published." He asks the question no one seems to ask : "....if an HIV vaccine is ever developed that does not injure or kill, how will anyone know that it works? By testing HIV–positive?" adding "... to produce a vaccine one must have a virus. No virus, no vaccine, no Nobel Prize!"Vince Boehm (in the US) also comments in a similar manner:
Pharmaceutical research these days hinges on hypotheses. And failed hypotheses are routinely ignored. Consider the Dopamine Hypothesis, the Serotonin Hypothesis and many others. These are all failed hypotheses.
Many AIDS activists consider the HIV/AIDS hypothesis a failed hypothesis as well. But after 26 years the industry keeps plugging along grinding out things to clobber the HIV virus. This is certainly puzzling considering the shakiness of the original hypothesis and the fact that this hypothetical virus has never been isolated so a weakened version can be used as a vaccine.
This is massively alarming in light of the mortality outcomes prior to 1985 when substances of far greater toxicity were used to treat this presumed relationship between HIV and AIDS.
The Pharmas refuse to reconsider the basic question of whether HIV actually causes AIDS.
Curiouser and curiouser? You bet. This fits well into my Dodo theory. I have a huge problem with hypotheses that masquerade as "science". Only the gullible accept the hypothetical as scientific fact.
This is a contest of sorts with an enormous pot of gold as its prize.
In Lewis Carrol's Alices Adventures in Wonderland a number of the characters got wet at one point.
The dodo decided to issue a competition. All were to run around a lake until they were dry. Nobody cared to measure how far or long they they had run.
When they asked the dodo who had won, he gave this question thoughtful consideration and announced, "Everyone has won and all must have prizes."Now comes financially beleagered Merck with a vaccine that was purported to prevent the HIV virus. It failed because in did not perform much better than the placebo.
Nowhere was the basic question asked.
Does the HIV virus actually cause AIDS?As the lady once said, "Curiuoser and Curiouser?
Vince
- - -
And Liam Scheff has posted his comments to the vaccine failure on his blog under the title
Vaccine Blues - The Aids Crusade Moves On
- - -
Beldeu Singh responds to Liam Scheff explaining why there cannot logically be a vaccine against HIV
THERE WILL NEVER BE A VACCINE FOR HIV-AIDS
- - -
See also:
Aids Incorporated (2007) by Gary Null
The cost in the war against AIDS has now surpassed the financial investment committed to cardiovascular diseases and diverse cancers. While the science supporting the causes of heart disease and many cancers are relatively conclusive within the medical research community, the etiology of AIDS remains questionable. Simultaneously, a safe cure is no closer in sight today than it was when the disease first burst on the scene three decades ago. Yet the perception of a global AIDS epidemic looms in the minds of the media, medical associations and government leaders.Today there is a rapidly growing body of physicians, medical researchers, virologists, journalists and activists who are starting to voice their opposition to the prevailing scientific paradigm of AIDS and who are calling for a reevaluation of the medical research, epidemiological evidence, diagnostic methodologies and treatments. These voices-now numbering over 5,000, including a couple Nobel Prize laureates-have been virtually shunned by the medical academies and major peer-reviewed publications.
posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Thursday September 20 2007
updated on Wednesday November 24 2010URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2007/09/20/aids_diagnosis_based_on_pseudo_science.htm
Related ArticlesWhy I Quit HIV - Is AIDS Myth Falling Apart?
A Canadian mathematical biologist working as an Assistant Professor of Mathematics at University of Texas at Tyler, who has lived and breathed the theory of Aids and HIV infection for practically all of her professional life, has announced that she "quit HIV". Click for larger image Cartoon by Emma Holister There are a number of reasons for Rebecca Culshaw's decision - none of them should be a surprise to regulars... [read more]
May 03, 2006 - Sepp HasslbergerHIV-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 HasslbergerAids Test Unscientific: Test Kit Makers Sued in Kansas
The test kits used to determine "HIV positive" status in patients are deeply flawed - they were developed on the basis of faulty scientific methodology and assumptions and are without value in determining whether a person suffers from "HIV Aids", alleges Kim Marie Bannon in a civil suit filed under the Consumer Protection Act of the State of Kansas, US. The legal action against the makers of Aids test kits... [read more]
April 27, 2004 - Sepp HasslbergerAIDS 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 Hasslberger'Global Business Coalition' Wants More Testing: But Tests Do Not Show AIDS
BANGKOK - 15th International AIDS Conference: "Testing is the missing link," said Trevor Neilson, executive director of the Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS, representing 150 companies around the world, according to an article on Reuters, calling for routine HIV testing on a large scale. There is only one problem: No AIDS virus has been scientifically isolated as yet - incredible but true - and therefore available tests can not be... [read more]
July 10, 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 Hasslberger
