In the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of June 5th 1981, James Curran implied the existence of a major new sexually transmitted disease. This was based on five cases of homosexual men with yeast infections and a rare form of pneumonia, who had shared no sexual relations, but only a long history of amyl nitrate (poppers) abuse1.
The definition of this new syndrome extended to incorporate (sometimes not even similar) symptoms of immune suppression found in haemophiliacs and intravenous drug users, and then expanded further to incorporate cases of immune suppression from around the world.
‘The Centers for Disease Control (cdc) were now taking known and classified conditions… and reclassifying them as “strange unknowns”’2.
Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome (aids) was announced in July 1982.
Christine Maggiore: ‘aids is not new and is not a disease. aids is a new name given by the cdc to a collection of 29 [and more] familiar illnesses and conditions including yeast infection, herpes, diarrhoea, some pneumonias, certain cancers, salmonella, and tuberculosis … It is only through the expansions of the aids definition that the number of new aids cases has grown…’3
Dr Peter Duesberg: ‘All aids diseases in America and Europe that exceed their long established, normal backgrounds are caused by the long-term consumption of recreational drugs and by azt and its analogs.
The correct hypothesis of aids must:
1) explain why a [single] agent is a plausible cause of one or all of the thirty fatal AIDS diseases and
2) predict all clinical… aspects of aids. The drug hypothesis meets these criteria to the letter, but the hiv hypothesis does not.’ 4
Ransom and Day sum it up in questioning what is devastating Africa: “The same things that have always devastated Africa. Western meddling, malaria, tuberculosis, and contaminated water. Two billion people around the world do not have access to basic sanitation.
Over 1 billion do not have a safe supply of water close to their homes… And yet these basic problems are largely overlooked by the global health agencies in their headlong rush to promote `a killer aids epidemic’”5
The dominance of virology in the medical establishment created the race to find a viral cause for this ‘new disease’ called aids. Despite Roche Laboratories finding no evidence of a virus in the ten samples sent to them6, on the 23rd April 1984 Dr Robert Gallo was announced to the world media as having isolated a virus: ‘the probable cause of aids had been found’7.
Dr Stefan Lanka maintains that “No photograph of an isolated hiv particle has ever been published. No control experiments as mentioned have been published to date. What has been shown are photos of virus like particles in cell cultures but none of isolated viruses, let alone a structure within the human body having the shape ascribed to hiv. What the whole world has seen are models representing hiv…’8
Rather it was James Curran at the cdc who told Gallo on the 12 March 1984 that Gallo’s blood test procedure confirmed the presence of the virus in suspected aids patients9.
So how is such a discrepancy possible?
The Eliza and Western blot hiv antibody tests are just that, they are antibody tests. They do not detect hiv in the body, but the antibodies that are thought to have resulted as a response to the virus, thereby inferring the presence of ‘hiv’. When one considers that all the ‘aids-defining illnesses’ can trigger a positive result on a test; that there are a minimum of 66 factors that cause ‘cross reactions’ or what are known as ‘false/positives’ (such as even having certain vaccinations or being pregnant – for full list with references see Biophile’s website), then one can understand why the likes of Dr David Rasnick calls for the banning of all hiv testing.
The pcr test, that is said to test for ‘viral load’, is ‘inappropriate for use in aids medicine’, according to its Nobel Laureate creator Dr Kary Mullis10. Matt Irwin writes that ‘much of the rna measured by viral load assays does not come from hiv, but rather comes from other microbes and from normal human cells’.11
Christine Maggiore explains that if a person has tuberculosis for example, then the antibodies present to fight the illness can trigger a positive result. If tested positive, the person is said to have ‘hiv/aids; if tested negative, then they have tb.
The US Congress’s Office of Technology Assessment found at the time in 1987 that “9 in 10 positive findings are called false positives, indicating infection where none exists”12.
When one considers that doctors have reported patients literally dying from the hiv diagnosis itself (called psycho-neuro-immunology), the difference between having TB and the stigma of having ‘hiv/aids’ is itself life-threatening. Indeed, the ‘visual only diagnosis’ introduced in Africa by the World Health Organization asks for symptoms identical to those displayed by the old illnesses endemic to Africa, and is why a tb patient can look exactly like an aids patient through either being ‘tested’ or simply ‘looked at’.
Despite the scientific debates, the bottom line should be the experiences of aids patients who have tested negative for hiv; the experiences of hiv positive patients who have never developed aids (without drugs); and the experiences of those said to be in ‘the latter stages of aids’ who have completely recovered through their own means.
The hiv=aids=eventual death hypothesis can not stand up to this. ?
1. Ransom and Day 2000 World Without aids and 2005 The Truth About HIV Credence Publications
2. Ransom and Day 2005, pg. 20
3. Christine Maggiore eds 2000 What if everything you knew about aids Was
Wrong? pg. 1/2
4. Peter Duesberg 1996 Inventing the aids Virus Regnery Publishing Inc, pg 414, cited in Ransom and Day 2005
5. Ransom and Day 2000, 2005
6. Ransom and Day 2005, pg. 39
7. US Health Secretary Margaret Heckler cited in Joan Shenton’s 1998 Positively False pg. 45 IB Taurus and Co.
8. Stefan Lanka “HIV: Reality or Artefact” Continuum vol 3 no.1 April May 1995
9. Ransom and Day 2005 The Truth About HIV pg. 39
10. cited in Ransom and Day 2005, pg. 67
11. False Positive Viral Loads – What are We Measuring? 2001 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/miloads.htm
12. US News and World Report 23rd April 1987 cited in Ransom and day 2005 pg, 64