Damned Heretics

Condemned by the established, but very often right

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

Qualified outsiders and maverick insiders are often right about the need to replace received wisdom in science and society, as the history of the Nobel prize shows. This blog exists to back the best of them in their uphill assault on the massively entrenched edifice of resistance to and prejudice against reviewing, let alone revising, ruling ideas. In support of such qualified dissenters and courageous heretics we search for scientific paradigms and other established beliefs which may be maintained only by the power and politics of the status quo, comparing them with academic research and the published experimental and investigative record.

We especially defend and support the funding of honest, accomplished, independent minded and often heroic scientists, inventors and other original thinkers and their right to free speech and publication against the censorship, mudslinging, false arguments, ad hominem propaganda, overwhelming crowd prejudice and internal science politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, health and medicine, diet and nutrition.


Henry Bauer, Peter Breggin , Harvey Bialy, Giordano Bruno, Erwin Chargaff, Nicolaus Copernicus, Francis Crick, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw, Freeman Dyson, Peter Duesberg, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, John Fewster, Galileo Galilei, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Edward Jenner, Benjamin Jesty, Michio Kaku, Adrian Kent, Ernst Krebs, Thomas Kuhn, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling, Eric Penrose, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick, Sherwood Rowland, Carl Sagan, Otto Rossler, Fred Singer, Thomas Szasz, Alfred Wegener, Edward O. Wilson, James Watson.

Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

Skepticism is dangerous. That’s exactly its function, in my view. It is the business of skepticism to be dangerous. And that’s why there is a great reluctance to teach it in schools. That’s why you don’t find a general fluency in skepticism in the media. On the other hand, how will we negotiate a very perilous future if we don’t have the elementary intellectual tools to ask searching questions of those nominally in charge, especially in a democracy? – Carl Sagan (The Burden of Skepticism, keynote address to CSICOP Annual Conference, Pasadena, April 3/4, 1982).

It is really important to underscore that everything we’re talking about tonight could be utter nonsense. – Brian Greene (NYU panel on Hidden Dimensions June 5 2010, World Science Festival)

I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing ever interfered with my learning was my education. My name as you already perceive without a doubt is George Bernard Shaw, and I certainly approve of this blog, in that its guiding spirit appears to be blasphemous in regard to the High Church doctrines of science, and it flouts the censorship of the powers that be, and as I have famously remarked, all great truths begin as blasphemy, and the first duty of the truthteller is to fight censorship, and while I notice that its seriousness of purpose is often alleviated by a satirical irony which sometimes borders on the facetious, this is all to the good, for as I have also famously remarked, if you wish to be a dissenter, make certain that you frame your ideas in jest, otherwise they will seek to kill you.  My own method was always to take the utmost trouble to find the right thing to say, and then to say it with the utmost levity. (Photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt for Life magazine) One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny, and is likely to interfere with happiness in all kinds of ways. – Bertrand Russell, Conquest of Happiness (1930) ch. 9

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Belief)

Expanded GUIDE TO SITE PURPOSE AND LAYOUT is in the lower blue section at the bottom of every home page.

Libyan nurses ransomed

$500,000 each may be enough from the European Union

Slander charges dismissed

libyaburse1.jpgThe five Libyan nurses and Palestinian doctor have been ransomed for $3 million so far by the EU, according to a report today, which suggests these catastrophic victims of scientific ignorance and Libyan politics may be freed soon.

They were sentenced to death by firing squad earlier this month.

A verdict is due today on a separate matter, the accusation that they have slandered the Tripoli police by reporting that beatings, electric shocks and dogs were used to extract their confessions. Will they have to recant to gain freedom?

Whatever happens, the whole episode will stand in the archives of AIDS nuttiness as a warning to dissidents not to hope for too much from politicians, even if the politicians involved in this outrage are provincials by world standards.

The disgraceful episode is a prime example of how politics at the highest level ignores even mainstream science when there is something to be gained, and the lives and welfare of individuals are of no great account in the calculations of the great, except where they can be traded for money or political advantage.

When will Clinton jump?

libyanurse.jpgWe conclude that the only thing likely to motivate the two Clintons, Obama and other opportunistic politicans riding the HIV∫AIDS bandwagon to jump off it is the imminent implosion of the paradigm, which seems unlikely to occur before a well publicised and hard fought court case in the US.

But that seems inevitable at some point, if current trends to prosecuting HIV positive heterosexuals for murder with a deadly weapon continues.

The story is here – Libyan body sees sign of end to AIDS death row saga

Khaleej Times

27 May 2007

Libyan body sees sign of end to AIDS death row saga

TRIPOLI – A Libyan organisation headed by the son of leader Moamer Kadhafi said on Sunday the saga of AIDS-affected children and six foreign medics condemned to death for allegedly deliberately injecting them with tainted blood, may soon be resolved.

‘Indications of an impending solution to this crisis have appeared after negotiations in Brussels on May 10 between representatives of the families of Libyan children stricken with AIDS and the European Union,’ said a statement from the Kadhafi Foundation headed by Saif Al Islam.

‘Representatives of the families have welcomed with satisfaction the results of these negotiations, and rays of hope for a rapid resolution of this crisis have appeared,’ foundation official Saleh Abdessalam said in the statement.

He said the Kafhafi Foundation ‘is trying to bring together the points of view of the Libyan families’ representatives and those of the international community.’

Libyan sources told AFP recently that the discreet negotiations could enable the six condemned medics to avoid the death penalty.

The five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor have been in prison for more than eight years and were condemned to death in May 2004 after being convicted of infecting 438 children with tainted blood at a Benghazi hospital, 56 of whom have since died.

The sentence against the nurses — Kristiana Valcheva, Nassia Nenova, Valia Cherveniachka, Valentina Siropoulo and Snejana Dimitrova — and Doctor Ashraf Ahmad Juma was upheld last December.

They are now awaiting a final verdict on their appeal against the death penalty. The hearing was expected early in May but has been delayed to a date yet to be determined, which sources close to the case say may mean a solution is in sight.

Last week, the families of the infected children said they would meet British Prime Minister Tony Blair next week during a visit by him to Libya as part of an African farewell tour before he leaves office on June 27.

They said they hoped a meeting would ‘relaunch the European initiative aimed at ending the drama and reaching an equitable solution that satisfies all parties.’

No confirmation of the visit was forthcoming from London, which does not announce the prime minister’s engagements in advance for security reasons.

Bulgarian Foreign Minister Ivailo Kalfin said this month the European Union had so far contributed between two million and 2.5 million euros (2.7 million to 3.3 million dollars) to an international fund set up in 2005.

He said the money was to help the treatment of children afflicted with AIDS and to train Libyan doctors. ‘This is not money given as compensation,’ he said.

Bulgaria has insisted that the detained nurses are innocent and that compensation is not justified. Foreign health experts suggested the AIDS epidemic in Libya’s second city of Benghazi had been sparked by poor hygiene.

A Libyan court is also due to give its verdict on Sunday in a separate case against the medics who are accused of slandering the police by claiming they had been tortured while in custody.

The accused insist that their confessions in the trial were forced from them under torture, including beatings, electric shocks and being threatened with dogs. Update:
Slander charges dismissed

The Libyan court dismissed the charges of slander in ten minutes today (Sun May 27), which bodes well for the nurses and doctor, we’d say. After all, it effectively admits that torture was used on the unhappy sextet during the eight years in hell that was their reward for ministering unto the health of Libyan children.

Presumably the Libyan officers and doctor thought they could get some of the EU money being dispensed as ransom.

The verdict comes as the Libyan Supreme Court is considering the final appeal of the death sentences and as the families of the children are negotiating a settlement with the European Commission that may allow the six to be pardoned.

It is easy to imagine how embarrassing this must be to educated Libyans in Libya or abroad. Perhaps they may be interested in hearing how the United States and almost all Western governments are behaving in almost as irresponsible, venal and vindictive manner in HIV∫AIDS as their own dictator.

Even the torture has its counterpart in the excruciating treatment of good scientists who raise their voice against the AIDS meme.
The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

May 28, 2007
Libya Court Clears 6 of Slander in H.I.V. Case

SOFIA, Bulgaria, May 27 — A Libyan court on Sunday acquitted five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor on charges of slander.

The six were accused of making false accusations that Libyan officials had tortured them to extract confessions in an investigation into H.I.V. infections at a children’s hospital in Benghazi where they worked.

In that case, the defendants were found guilty of intentionally infecting 426 children with H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, and have twice been sentenced to death, in May 2004 and December 2006. They have been in jail since 1999. International AIDS experts have concluded that the virus predated the nurses’ arrival and was probably spread by contaminated needles.

“The court dismisses the accusations,” Judge Salem Hamrouni said of the slander charges in a hearing on Sunday that lasted 10 minutes, Reuters reported.

A spokesman for the Bulgarian Foreign Ministry, Dimitar Tsanchev, expressed his satisfaction with the result.

“This will allow an overall solution to be found for this painful case, which has lasted more than eight years,” Mr. Tsanchev said. “We are very satisfied with the activity in recent weeks on behalf of the parties involved, in which the European Commission has played a leading role.”

The verdict comes as the Libyan Supreme Court is considering the final appeal of the death sentences and as the families of the children are negotiating a settlement with the European Commission that may allow the six to be pardoned.

On Sunday, before the verdict was announced, the Qaddafi Foundation, headed by Saif al-Islam, son of the Libyan leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, issued a statement saying a resolution may be reached soon, Agence France-Presse reported. Mr. Islam has said before that the nurses and doctor will not be killed.

In previous years, unidentified Libyan officials had been quoted in the news media as saying that the nurses could be freed if Bulgaria paid compensation of $10 million per child, the same amount that Libya agreed to pay each of the families of the people killed in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, for which Libya has accepted responsibility.

Bulgaria has refused to speak about “compensation” because it maintains that the nurses are innocent.

Unofficially, Bulgaria has been willing to help organize and donate to a humanitarian fund to provide medical care for the sick children, create modern health facilities in Benghazi and help the families financially. European Union member states, the United States and Libya have also contributed to the fund.

“Our main political instrument is the solidarity of our European partners,” Prime Minister Sergei Stanishev of Bulgaria said at a conference last week in Rome, The Associated Press reported.

The slander charges were brought by two Libyan police officers in February. They were later joined by another officer and a doctor.

13 Responses to “Libyan nurses ransomed”

  1. MartinDKessler Says:

    How would people who have “tested positive” but probably have no retroviruses that could be identified as the indicted culprit be defended? Would a strategy to first show that the antibody tests are invalid (ie they’ve never been validated) be a start? When the establishment expert counters with the mortality rate for those who “tested positive”, the defense could show that only those who received the neucleoside analogues and protease inhibitors were the majority of the mortalities and those who never used the so-called AIDS drugs not only didn’t die (at least from actual AIDS diseases) but didn’t even get sick. The defense would demonstrate that the mortality statistics came from the CDC’s own data. I would gather that the Adelaide defense took the most extreme stategy (that HIV didn’t exist) and was a dificult sell to the “HIV believers”. It seems to me that the best way to approach a defense is to destroy the credibilty of a cornerstone of the establishment : the antibody test.

  2. MacDonald Says:


    Actually a very large part of the Adelaide defence was to try and show that the HIV tests don’t work (are not HIV specific) The main target for the ‘HIV test cross examination’ was Dr. Elizabeth Dax – who did not do extremely well. However, once you give up one extreme position – that the tests don’t work because the virus has not been properly purified/isolated/identified/characterized – you are forced into an even more extreme position, which is the one you describe above.

    The HIV expert would say something like what Dr. Dax says here:

    A reactive ELISA, a reactive Western blot and that person has gone on to have their viral load measured and there is a significant viral load. Putting those three together, is there any room for error that person is HIV-positive?

    This would be backed up with an argument that ‘back in the good old days there might have been some doubt, but we are doing our best and we/our technology get better all the time’.

    What’s left is precisely what you propose, to show that the stats and the correlations aren’t what they seem, and that the drugs are the real killers.

    This would change the emphasis from more or less honest lab mistakes to the definitely less honest no matter how you spin it, ‘the CDC and others are manipulating stats to cover up the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have been killed over two decades because of a test that picks up on a harmless condition’. Now that sounds extreme to me. Does that mean the War on Terror isn’t what it seems either?

  3. MartinDKessler Says:

    Macdonald: I believe you’re on to something. AIDS which is an Inquisition and the “War on Terror” – a Crusade trying to convert a part of the world to the “true government” (formally the true faith) are virtually impossible to fight with reason.

  4. Truthseeker Says:

    Exactly, Martin we agree with you completely, and MacD. The point of attack in the court cases should be the validity and meaning of the antibody test, not the very existence of HIV, which is a politically disastrous approach, whatever truth there may be in it, which we find has yet to be made clear by the Perthians in Down Under or here.

    The two issues are connected in some way, it is clear, and it is not impossible that there is nothing but worms in this can. But it is much more sensible to accept that HIV exists and then challenge whether the tests indicate its presence in the blood, which the literature indicates they usually do not, if the HIV+ person has a functioning immune system, which can easily be shown by referring to and quoting literature written by the top proponents of the paradigm.

    Moreover, the antibodies which are detected by the HIV test are often not even HIV antibodies, it seems clear, from the same literature, well reviewed by the Perth group, which has found more than three score cross reactions acknowledged. So a positive HIV test does not indicate the presence of HIV, necessarily, and does not indicate biologically significant levels of HIV if any at all. Thus the suggestion that it can be transmitted by sex in normal heterosexual circumstances is clearly absurd, and the result achieved by Nancy Padian that no such transmission could be detected in her study was therefore utterly predictable.

    So the accusation that an HIV positive heterosexual is risking the life of his or her partners is null and void, whatever the law might say. People do not transfer antibodies, for a start, so the test is only relevant if it indicates a significant residual amount of HIV or its proteins lurking in some tissue somewhere, which desperate claim the paradigm faithful have failed to substantiate in two decades. A positive HIV test does not reveal the testee as carrying a murder weapon in the form of a virus, it shows that he/she is almost certainly not doing anything of the sort, even if you fervently believe the now fatuous claim that HIV is any kind of danger to the immune system.

    For all we know this may be the message that the Perth pair were struggling to get out in Adelaide, and if so they would have won the case hands down if they hadn’t gone overboard and tried to deny the existence of HIV instead of its significance to health, which the mainstream literature indicates is nil. Much better if they had just attacked the meaning and significance of the tests, both of which are nil in the health realm, at least that part of it founded on science rather than politics.

  5. Bwian Says:

    This just as I thought Nick Naylor was absurd. HIV is the most studied pathogen in history, since 1983 generation after generation of the most accurate tests have been developed using state of the art technology. if the tests for this virus are unreliable, all tests for all viruses are unreliable.

  6. Truthseeker Says:

    if the tests for this virus are unreliable, all tests for all viruses are unreliable.

    Bwian, you may have missed the point, which is that though HIV can be nailed as a virus which can be detected and characterized reliably, its relationship to HIV antibody testing is shaky and its capacity to harm the immune system non existent. HIV tests cross react with a great number of antibodies to other proteins, it seems clear. In this country as many as 90/100 positive Elisas prove false upon further testing, which is a predictable result in the US population at large since the occurrence of HIV is so low (prevalence in the general population is 1 in 300 Army recruits, ie 1 million in the US population of 300 million according to Burke).

    In Africa, Max Essex of Harvard as early as 1984 found that mycobacteria such as TB which infest Africans in Kinshasa, Zaire (formerly the Belgian Congo) caused a huge amount of false positives. As many as 95% of people with mycobacteria (TB) who tested HIV antibody positive (40 out of 57 did, or 70/100) were false positive by Elisa and 85% by follow up Western Blot. He wrote that HIV testing “may not be sufficient” for a diagnosis of AIDS in Africa for that reason (not that testing is wildly popular in Africa owing to its expense, in fact hardly happens outside South Africa and university studies elsewhere).

    The point however is that even if the antibody test is accurate and the antibodies it detects are for HIV in an individual case, there is probably no HIV present to any significant biological level, since antibodies defeat HIV, either as virions outside the cell or its proteins, both of which are thoroughly eradicated by antibody binding. The HIV boys are fond of getting provirus sleeping inside the (white) blood cells of an HIV+ person where it is harming nobody, since it is inactive and literally contained, and cultivating it in a culture away from defeating antibodies over weeks using special stimulants when they can finally get some HIV virions to emerge, and then to say Aha! it was present in the body.

    That is why the Perthians like to stipulate No culture please! when asking for validation of HIV detection in humans with its antibody tests, a rather silly stipulation since culturing is usually necessary to establish the presence of a virus which has to be maintained on some medium for transport and examination and certainly to prove its infectivity when a virus has only 1 in 1000 infectious particles. The two major techniques for counting HIV involve culture – PBMC (peripheral blood mononuclear cell) culture and plasma culture – according to a 1993 review by S. Hammer et al.

    Bottom line is that HIV and its proteins are controlled, subdued, manacled, imprisoned and ejected from the country by the border guards and police of the immune system, just as Duesberg said twenty years ago, and any claims to the contrary are spurious, and if they are the basis of any prejudicial law that law is founded on fantasy and not fact.

  7. Bwian Says:

    Truthseeker, these are your words from this and another thread. If the antibody test is positive and the PCR test correlates, the test is working whether the amount of detectable virus is large or small.

    The point however is that even if the antibody test is accurate and the antibodies it detects are for HIV in an individual case, there is probably no HIV present to any significant biological level

    6. The specific genetic DNA for HIV has been detected with PCR in most antibody positive persons with or without AIDS, but in hardly any people who are HIV negative.

  8. Michael Says:

    Obviously, Bwian is Bwainwashed, and Truthseeker was absolutely incorrect in his belief that PCR is reliable at finding HIV specific DNA. PCR labs will not even allow HIV negatives to be tested for HIV DNA viral loads, as the PCR shows viral loads in many HIV negative people as well as those testing positive on elisa and western blot:

    The following is from Positively Negative at http://www.equilibrauk.com/CTM.htm

    It is standard practice in most UK haematology and/or other blood testing laboratories to conduct at least two tests if the first test reads ‘positive’. Confirmatory testing is usually carried out at any one of a number of Public Health Laboratory Service centres, for instance, across the UK. Credence Publications contacted the virus reference library at the UK’s leading PHLS in Colindale, north London, to determine if they had ever been able directly to identify the presence of HIV in any of the blood samples sent to them. Was it rather the case that their blood test was designed to measure the presence of antibodies only? The representative from the lab informed us that he was not permitted to answer any of our questions, referring us instead to their press office. On asking the press office for the references that would point to HIV having been independently isolated, we were informed that of course HIV had been identified. “The virus was isolated as far back as 1983 by Drs Gallo and Montagnier.”

    Concerned at the high level of ignorance demonstrated in this reply from a leading virus laboratory, an attempt was made to speak to someone at management level at Colindale. A Mr John Parry, deputy head at the virus library, could make only vague references to papers he believed proved the existence of HIV, and he admitted that the testing procedures employed at the laboratories included ELISA, Western Blot and Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), and that they were not one hundred percent precise.

    In particular, PCR is used to measure the supposed ‘viral load’ of HIV, since the elusive virus itself can never be found, using traditional methods of detection such as virus culture. PCR’s highly theoretical technique is supposed to detect fragments of genetic material in the blood that allegedly indicate the presence of HIV. The problem once again is, no proof has ever been furnished that any ‘fragments’ produced by PCR are peculiar to HIV, doubtless the reason the Roche PCR testing kit actually contains a warning against using PCR as a test for the presence of HIV: “The test is not to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV.”

    This significant fact was pointed out to Mr Parry. During the course of the conversation, Mr Parry was also reminded that Kary Mullis, the Nobel laureate inventor of PCR, publicly referred to his own diagnostic invention as “inappropriate for use in AIDS medicine.” Startled perhaps that an ordinary member of the public actually knew what PCR stood for, was well versed on its history of unreliability, and then had the audacity to question what went on within Colindale Laboratories, Mr Parry chose to offer no further reply.

    The simple question remaining for the reader? Would you trust your blood sample to this methodology? The stark truth here is that a blood sample, quite falsely deemed HIV positive by the highly inaccurate ELISA test, is then sent on to Colindale and other ‘specialist’ laboratories to be ‘confirmed as positive or otherwise’ again by ELISA and then secondarily tested in the same establishment by the equally inaccurate PCR or ‘viral load’. Another glaring example of following an incorrect course with the maximum of precision. Can it really get any worse?

    Yes. In the case of the Western Blot test, the positive criteria differ from continent to continent! You can be tested positive in one country, and with the same blood sample, be tested negative in another. Gene Franks, author of Testing, Testing states:

    “Another reason the medical community loves diagnostic testing is that it is so wonderfully unreliable. One test leads to another and to another. Tests are rated according to their sensitivity and specificity. Accuracy is determined by balancing specificity and sensitivity. Incredibly, some very expensive tests are less than 50% accurate.”

  9. Truthseeker Says:

    You are free to quarrel with either statement if you wish, Brian, that was the point of the intro of May 1:

    What is needed is a list of facts, or contradiction of facts and statement of true substitute facts. As far as we understand it from the NIH and Duesberg:

    The accuracy of PCR tests when there is effectively almost no virus floating around is up to you to decide, especially when they culture up before PCR. If you are an expert like Martel in all this, perhaps you can tell us. Maybe you haven’t read the humunguous thread on the topic.

    However, if you deny that antibodies deal with HIV and its proteins very effectively then you are up against the leaders of the paradigm promotion league, since they admit this freely.

  10. Michael Says:

    However, Bwian was absolutely correct about the following statement he quite accurately made:

    “if the tests for this virus are unreliable, all tests for all viruses are unreliable”

  11. Michael Says:

    “Hey Bwian! You look terrible. Are you alright? You look a bit peaked. Have you considered an ‘AIDS test’…?”

    To quote from Equilibrauk again ((this page):

    “AIDS test”. Those two words instill only fear. Who is not aware that an HIV-positive diagnosis is synonymous with a suspended death sentence? In reality, the term ‘AIDS test’ is fraudulently misleading. There is not, nor ever has been, a ‘test for AIDS’. Neither of course has there ever been a successful ‘test for HIV’ – the virus that not only has never been proven to cause AIDS, but, ever more disconcertingly, never seems to put in an appearance. What can be said with absolute certainty, however, is this. The ELISA and Western Blot tests are generating enormous incomes around the world for their respective manufacturers.

    These two tests, we are told, identify HIV antibodies that have been created by a person’s immune system in response to ‘HIV invasion’. This statement is nonsense, and dangerous nonsense, as we shall discover. So what are these tests – the ELISA and the Western Blot – and how are they supposed to work?

    The ELISA (Enzyme-Linked, Immuno-Absorbent Assay) and Western Blot tests are designed to highlight the presence of the supposed HIV, not by identifying the virus itself, but by identifying the presence of antibodies in the blood, allegedly unique to, and stimulated by the virus. The only real difference between the two tests is that the ELISA is supposed to measure antibody activity as a whole, whereas the Western Blot measures reactions to separate proteins supposedly making up the virus. As a result of this claim, the Western Blot method is deemed by most in the AIDS industry to be more specific than the ELISA test, and will often be used to confirm a positive ELISA test. But, as we shall discover, all the diagnostic methods employed by the recognised laboratories are far from specific.

    To carry out the test, the clinician introduces a foreign protein (antigen) into the blood sample and then monitors the blood for any signs of unique activity as the antigen meets up with the immune system’s antibodies. And it is here that we immediately encounter the first hurdle. Introducing a foreign body into the bloodstream will always provoke a response from the immune system, the foreign presence releasing killer blood cells to combat the invading germ. This is what our immune system has been designed to do. The problem is that no antibody is ever specific to any one disease – a fact that has been widely known in science for a number of years. The ELISA and Western Blot tests are both marketed as being highly specific and accurate in identifying the presence of HIV antibodies in a person’s body, but, as Christine Maggiore explains:

    “Both tests are non-specific to HIV antibodies and are highly inaccurate. Non-specific means that these tests respond to a great number of non-HIV antibodies, microbes, bacteria and other conditions that are often found in the blood of normal, healthy people. A reaction to any one of these other antibodies and conditions will result in an HIV-positive diagnosis. A simple illness like a cold or the flu can cause a positive reading on an HIV test. A flu shot or other vaccine can also create positive results. Having or having had herpes or hepatitis may produce a positive test, as can a vaccination for hepatitis B. Exposure to diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria commonly cause false positive results, as do the presence of tape worms and other parasites. Conditions such as alcoholism, liver disease and blood that is highly oxidated through drug use may be interpreted as the presence of HIV antibodies. Pregnancy and prior pregnancy can also cause a positive result.”

    Yes, you read correctly. A simple illness like a cold or flu, and even pregnancy can cause an HIV positive reading. You could be suffering from a relatively innocuous illness, and your immune system, functioning quite normally, has detected the presence of an invader and ordered the defender blood cells into action. The activity of those perfectly healthy killers working away in the blood can then be interpreted by the ‘AIDS test’ and the experts administering it as indicative of the presence of the elusive HIV. Did you know that?

    Christine Johnson of Project HEAL in Los Angeles, a voluntary organisation dedicated to exposing the myth of viral AIDS, has compiled and referenced some sixty different conditions that can cause a false HIV-positive reading. Some of these conditions have been included below for sober consideration.

    “Naturally occurring antibodies, exposure to viral vaccine, flu, flu vaccination, tuberculosis, renal failure, hepatitis, organ transplant, haemophilia, tetanus vaccination, leprosy, alcoholic liver disease, blood transfusions, malignant cancers, proteins on the test filter papers, rheumatoid arthritis, herpes, Hepatitis B vaccination, healthy individuals as a result of poorly understood cross-reactions…. [plus forty-six others].”

    In the case of haemophilia and AIDS, it is Factor VIII, the man-made compound used to help in the coagulation process, that in the main has been responsible for false HIV readings. Introducing this artificial agent into the bloodstream to help stem blood-flow will naturally provoke an antibody response, the immune system demonstrating it is functioning properly. These heightened levels of antibody activity are mistakenly read by the HIV test as indicative of the presence of HIV. Haemophiliacs, by the very nature of their condition, are prone to a number of life-threatening illnesses, and many do indeed die, but not from HIV. The popular tabloids, of course, prefer to blare out ‘HIV INFECTED BLOOD FOUND IN BLOOD BANKS MAY INFECT THOUSANDS’ rather than report the prosaic truth. Explaining the subtleties of opportunistic infection and blood-test cross-reaction does not sell newspapers.

    Prior to the AIDS phenomenon, the presence of antibodies had never been used as an indicator of any illness. Yet since Gallo’s HIV hypothesis was popularised, antibody testing has become de rigeur in the AIDS establishment as the indicator of infection, when the presence of antibodies actually denotes a normal immune system response to contaminants.

    The following extract from Foundation News is a glaring example:
    “Professor Andrew McMichael in Oxford announced that 50 Nairobi prostitutes had high levels of killer T-cells in their bodies, which suggested they had been exposed to HIV. The Nairobi research was complemented by Oxford studies in Gambia which yielded similar results.” Said Dr Omu Anzala: ‘This was further evidence that it was the presence of T-cells which was holding the virus at bay’.”

    The possibility that the test kits could merely be reacting with parasites, TB bacilli, candida albicans, fungal conditions and other medical problems common to Africans is rarely considered by these doctors, even though the problem of inadvertent cross-reaction is common knowledge in the higher echelons of the AIDS establishment. In reality, a ‘positive’ reading is actually a ‘false positive’, the tests confirming only that the immune system is functioning satisfactorily. NO VIRUS IS ACTUALLY DETECTED, ONLY ANTIBODIES!

    The potential for false diagnosis with HIV tests has been fleetingly alluded to in mainstream publications such as The London Times, The European Union’s The Business, USA Today, The Telegraph and The Wall Street Journal, the latter of which, on 11th January 1995, reported that the FDA were recalling HIV testing kits due to problems with high rates of ‘false positives’.

    Frank Prescott, writing on behalf of Peltec Publishing in Perceptions Magazine in 1993, tells us: “The London Times reports a major research group has recently proven the test for HIV to be completely invalid and ‘riddled with false positives’. Malnutrition, multiple infections, having once had the flu, measles or a simple flu shot can all result in positive HIV diagnosis.”
    This one fact alone destroys any validity of an ‘AIDS test’. Yet there are many more ….

    The US Food and Drug Administration also admits the ‘highly specific’ AIDS test has some worrying glitches, as the following USA Today bulletin tells us:

    “People who receive gamma globulin shots for chicken pox, measles and hepatitis could test positive for HIV even if they have never been infected. The Food and Drug Administration says that a positive test could be caused by antibodies found in most of America’s supply of gamma globulin. Gamma globulin is made from blood collected from thousands of donors and is routinely given to millions of people each year as temporary protection against many infectious diseases. Dr Thomas Zuck of the FDA’s Blood and Blood Products Division says the government didn’t release the information because ‘we thought it would do more harm than good.'”

    US News & World Report had this to say on the subject on 23rd November 1987:

    “With public health officials and politicians thrashing out who should be tested for HIV, the accuracy of the test itself has been nearly ignored. A study last month by Congress’s Office of Technology Assessment found that HIV tests can be very inaccurate indeed. For groups at very low risk – people who don’t use IV drugs or have sex with gay or bisexual men – 9 in 10 positive findings are called false positives, indicating infection where none exists.”

    The New England Journal of Medicine recorded the following:

    “The techniques of the HIV test have not been standardized, and the magnitude and consequences of inter-laboratory variations have not been measured. Its results require interpretation, and the criteria for this interpretation vary not only from lab to lab, but also from month to month.”

    In reality, what one of the most respected medical journals in the world is diplomatically attempting to tell the reader here is that the HIV test is utterly invalid. A tacit endorsement of these sentiments comes from a surprising and unexpected source – the manufacturer’s leaflet which accompanies the Western Blot (HIV) test kit itself! “The test for the existence of antibodies against AIDS-associated virus is not diagnostic of AIDS and AIDS-like diseases. Negative tests do not exclude the possibility of contact or infection with the AIDS-associated virus. Positive tests do not prove AIDS or pre-AIDS disease status nor that these diseases will be acquired.”

    This from the test which is supposed to confirm the ELISA test! In other words the test kit is saying: “Thank you for spending your money on me. In return for your considerable investment, I can predict absolutely nothing except that your blood sample contains antibodies.”

  12. Bwian Says:

    Trutseeker, Michael, there may be, or have been, technical difficulties with PCR, but to say that “no proof has ever been furnished that any ‘fragments’ produced by PCR are peculiar to HIV”, is just the same old denialist nonsense. HIV was sequenced in the mid-eighties and since then thousands of HIV genomes have been stored for reference. The fragments where then, and still are, unique to HIV. How do you think those reference genomes were extracted in the first place?

    The accuracy of PCR tests when there is effectively almost no virus floating around is up to you to decide, especially when they culture up before PCR

    To suggest that PCR is unreliable if HIV is not present or available in large quantities is irrelevant. This is not about PCR as a quantitative measure. If you are saying that PCR would start picking up something else in the non-presence of HIV you are just peddling Michael’s argument in a different form.

    However, if you deny that antibodies deal with HIV and its proteins very effectively then you are up against the leaders of the paradigm promotion league, since they admit this freely.

    Truthseeker, you seem to be confused about the different issues. The antibody test is functioning if it reliably finds HIV antibodies. It is not the task of the test to tell us what the antibodies signify.

  13. Truthseeker Says:

    That’s fine, Bwian, we have no quarrel, if you wish to say that HIV is sequenced reliably, and that PCR is not a quantitative measure.

    But DNA PCR is not as reliable as you imply. It will apparently pick up other stuff in the absence of HIV, since the Busch study found HIV in 10-20% of HIV negative people (for the exact reference see the Maniotis paper at the AIDS Wiki, The ABCs of AIDS Denialism), and Busch also found that only 25% of HIV positives showed evidence of HIV on PCR assay. Perhaps RNA PCR is more reliable.

    The antibody test finds antibodies to HIV, yes. But it also finds other material and cross reacts to such an extent that to find out whether it has found HIV antibodies or something else demands multiple testings, and let’s face it, the Western Blot merely tells which proteins are reacting among the aggregate detected by the Elisa. So even if Western Blot is used for confirmation which really doesnt happen in Africa outside university studies, the results of both are still not 100% reliable, and even if they are accurate they do not mean that there is any threat to health.

    Or do you imagine that HIV antibodies predict future sickness in some other way than suggesting exposure to other threats to health in certain risk groups?

    They indicate that HIV is under control and neutralized!

    That is the whole purpose of vaccination. So what we have is natural vaccination, as Abraham Karpas of Cambridge pointed out long long ago. “Top HIV virologist notes that HIV antibody response amounts to a natural vaccination.” Gee, funny how we never saw that headline in the New York Times.

    Bottom line, would you take the “meds” if you scored HIV positive, were not in a risk group and were not ill, or does reason still mean something to you? Enquiring minds want to know.

    We would like to know the answer in your case. Gallo told us he would have to think about it.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Bad Behavior has blocked 300 access attempts in the last 7 days.