The state budget and AIDS policy

By Frank Stoppenbach
Red Hook

Published: Friday, July 30, 2010 2:14 AM EDT

Though unable to craft a balanced state budget, New York’s fractious legislature voted unanimously to no longer require written consent for HIV tests.

I would have voted against the bill.  First, because of the life-changing (and permanent) implications of a positive HIV test.  Second, and more important, because there are many unresolved questions about HIV tests that really call for a reexamination of them.

I can actually prove the need for a reexamination.  How can someone who is neither a doctor nor a scientist do so?

The same way business people and legislators who are not technical experts do – by asking reasonable questions (often formulated for them by technical experts).  If reasonable answers do not come back, something is wrong.

For HIV and AIDS, 38 questions raised by doctors and scientists were put into a presentation and sent, along with a cover letter summarizing ten of the questions, to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).

HHS did respond to seven of the questions, and you can see the correspondence back and forth at www.aidspetition.org/Questions.  I think it is evident that HHS was not able to resolve the ten questions, with one exception.

Three of the questions were (1) Why do criteria for a positive HIV test, unlike any other test, differ by geography; (2) Dr. Henry Bauer’s finding that positive HIV tests in the U. S. correlated with race, even in low risk populations, suggesting that the tests indicate general immune system activity, not the presence of a microbe; (3) The fact that most babies who test HIV-positive at 9 months (after maternal antibodies have disappeared) turn negative by 24 months, seemingly curing themselves of incurable HIV.

A few months ago, HIV co-discoverer Dr. Montagnier, seeking to explain the high rates of HIV in Africa, and low rates here, in effect said that a healthy immune system can get rid of HIV[1].

Which raised the question: why are we spending huge sums (nearly 3 percent of New York state’s entire budget, an incredible $3.2 billion), mostly on very costly anti-HIV drugs, if basic nutrition and health measures can solve the problem?

It may come as a surprise that the HIV tests, which form the basis for an AIDS or HIV diagnosis, have unresolved concerns.  Or that the role of HIV in AIDS is unproven.

The latter point was made by Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis, who discovered that there was no scientific reference that could back up the statement, “HIV is the probable cause of AIDS”.

Dr. Robert Gallo, the co-author of the original and widely referenced paper linking HIV with AIDS, acknowledged under oath that it was not sufficient for proof.

In normal science, such questions get resolved by debate and new experiments.  But HIV/AIDS has really transcended science, and is now almost beyond questioning.

This situation is due to HIV/AIDS’ dual role: (1) as an explanation for certain illnesses; (2) as a cautionary tale to promote sexual responsibility.  Questioning the first undermines the second, so we are caught in what might be termed a policy trap, doomed to continue spending outrageous sums that amount to a wealth transfer from taxpayers to the drug industry.

Slowly, though, the questions are getting asked, as in the documentary “House of Numbers”.  And perhaps New York’s budget problems will finally lead to hearings on the questions surrounding AIDS policy and spending.

Questioning AIDS dogma is controversial, but it is not clear why.  All other policies undergo review and audit, and the scientists who have raised questions have only asked for a fair hearing.

The worst that could happen, if the concerns are unfounded, is that a small amount of time and money would have been spent gaining more confidence in the current policy.

On the other hand, if the HIV skeptics are proven correct, it is possible that tens of millions will have stigma lifted, and the chance to be cured, likely saving many billions of dollars annually.

Thoughtful comments are welcome (siteinfo@aidspetition.org).  For critics, do try to include an explanation for the self-curing babies.

Original Source: http://www.thedailymail.net/articles/2010/07/30/opinion/doc4c5267ebb5df2488101532.txt

HIV vaccines cause 50 percent false positive rate in HIV tests

(NaturalNews) It may come as a big surprise to most people, but HIV tests given to people today don't actually test for the presence of the HIV virus. Rather, they test for the presence of HIV antibodies that the immune system creates to defend itself against HIV. And just because you have HIV antibodies doesn't mean you actually carry HIV. In some circumstances, up to 50 percent of HIV positives are false, causing havoc with the lives of those patients who are falsely accused of being "HIV positive."

This startling fact was revealed in a recent study that's being published in the July 21 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. It shows that patients who are recruited for HIV vaccine trials often end up testing positive for HIV even though they were only exposed to the vaccine, not the virus.

"Almost half of HIV-negative people who participate in clinical trials for HIV vaccines end up testing positive on routine HIV tests -- even though they're not actually infected" reports US News & World Report.

Some vaccines caused a false positive rate of over 86 percent.

HIV tests lack credibility

What this new study clearly demonstrates is the complete lack of scientific credibility of common HIV tests. It also demonstrates the dangers of getting vaccinated against HIV, because the mere act of receiving an HIV vaccination may cause you to test positive for HIV which, in turn, can have many serious repercussions in your life:

• You may be denied employment because tests show you are "HIV positive."

• You may be denied health insurance coverage or be charged significantly more than others for the same coverage.

• You may be denied residence in other countries, as many countries require HIV tests for prospective new residency.

• You may be falsely accused of having AIDS by health authorities who archive your medical records and use them against you.

• You may be arrested and sent to prison, accused of attempted murder, by sleeping with someone and not telling them you were HIV positive (even though you don't have AIDS).

• You may be denied the opportunity to participate in certain professions or activities (such as sporting events).

• You may be socially stigmatized and thought of as an "AIDS carrier."

• You may be shunned by sex partners or a spouse.

All this could happen to you if you receive an HIV vaccine -- even if you don't carry the HIV virus!

Why HIV and AIDS vaccines are medically unnecessary

We have already established here on NaturalNews that HIV / AIDS vaccines are medically unnecessary. A healthy immune system can fight off HIV in the same way it fights off a cold virus. But don't just take my word for it; listen to the words of Dr Luc Montagnier, the Nobel prize-winning virologist credited with the co-discovery of HIV. He says:

"We can be exposed to HIV many times without being ... infected. Our immune system creates [antibodies] within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system."
(http://naturalnews.com/027355_AIDS_...)

Your own body, in other words, can protect itself from HIV exposure with the same technology your body uses to save your life from influenza every year: Your immune system.

HIV vaccines, then, are entirely unnecessary. Vaccines are Big Pharma's way of selling you something you don't need by trying to convince you that you might die without it. And when it comes to AIDS, Big Pharma has done a terrific job of scaring people into pursuing all kinds of unnecessary treatments that only harm their health in the long run.

In this way, the AIDS industry is much like the breast cancer industry... or the prostate cancer industry: Most of what they push onto people is medically unjustified, scientifically unproven and actually harms more people than it helps. But it's great for generating more profits for Big Pharma.

And that's the point of all this. AIDS is just another profit center for the drug industry, and if their vaccines actually cause you to test positive for HIV, that's even better for their profits because some percentage of those people who test positive are probably going to be put on retroviral drugs to treat HIV, and those drugs are massive profit centers for Big Pharma.

Western medicine causes disease instead of curing it

See, what's really fascinating here is that the AIDS industry demonstrates yet again how the medical industry causes the very diseases it claims to be treating. Mammograms -- which claim to "detect" breast cancer -- actually cause breast cancer. So if you get enough mammograms, eventually you'll develop breast cancer and require expensive cancer treatments.

The AIDS industry now works in much the same way: If you get an HIV vaccine, chances are you're then going to test positive for being an HIV carrier, and you'll become an "AIDS patient" who spends your life savings on needless drugs and other expensive treatments for a disease you don't even have!

The psychiatric industry works the same way, too: It actually invents fictitious diseases such as "oppositional defiance disorder" (which means disagreeing with authority) and then tries to put children and adults on mind-altering psychotropic drugs to "treat" that disease.

The more you look into the industries of pharmaceuticals and vaccines, the more you realize the whole business is just full of bunk. Their vaccines don't work, their tests produce false positives and their pharmaceuticals can kill you.

That's why it's so much easier to just take care of your own health, build up a healthy immune system, avoid exposure to toxic chemicals and let your body's miraculous immune system do the job for you.

See this jaw-dropping video clip about the AIDS fraud

Do you still think an AIDS diagnosis is reliable? Did you know that a huge percentage of people who are diagnosed with AIDS were never tested for HIV?

Watch this stunning new video clip from House of Numbers to learn the rest of the story: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=0B547...

See more clips or buy the DVD of this remarkable documentary at www.HouseOfNumbers.com

Sources for this story include:
http://health.usnews.com/health-new...

HIV drug causes liver damage, admits FDA

Monday, July 19, 2010 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The HIV drug Videx (sold generically as didanosine) may cause fatal liver problems, the FDA has warned.

Since the drug's initial approval, the agency has received 42 adverse event reports linking Videx and its delayed release version Videx EC to a rare liver disorder known as non-cirrotic portal hypertension. In four of these cases, patients died from liver failure or severe bleeding. Only three patients were able to fully recover from the condition, and all of those needed a liver transplant. Patients had been undergoing treatment with the drug for anywhere from months to years.

Although it has not yet been proven that the drugs caused the liver disorder, the FDA noted that there is definitely an association between the two.

In non-cirrotic portal hypertension, blood flow through a major vein in the liver becomes constricted, causing blood to back up into the esophagus. Veins in the throat can become so enlarged that they rupture, leading to serious and potentially fatal bleeding.

Although the FDA stated that the benefits for HIV patients still outweigh the risks, it warned that Videx patients should be closely monitored for any signs of portal hypertension. Furthermore, it noted that "the decision to use this drug ... must be made on an individual basis between the treating physician and the patient."

Videx was first approved in 1991, and the delayed release version was approved in 2000. The drug is a type of antiretroviral drug known as a nucleoside analogue, and slows the proliferation of HIV to prolong the onset of AIDS and extend the life of patients.

It has previously been linked to other forms of liver damage, especially in combination with other antiretroviral drugs including hydroxyurea and ribavirin.

According to a spokesperson for manufacturer Bristol-Myers Squib, worldwide sales of the drug amounted to $71 million in 2009.

Sources for this story include: www.aboutlawsuits.com/hiv-drug-vide... online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100129-714703.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines; www.medscape.com/viewarticle/716198.

Watch House of Numbers to learn more about HIV, AIDS and AIDS Drugs. 

Nobel laureate gives homeopathy a boost

The Australian July 05, 2010 12:00AM

A NOBEL laureate who discovered the link between HIV and AIDS has suggested there could be a firm scientific foundation for homeopathy.


French virologist Luc Montagnier stunned his colleagues at a prestigious international conference when he presented a new method for detecting viral infections that bore close parallels to the basic tenets of homeopathy.

Although fellow Nobel prize winners -- who view homeopathy as quackery -- were left openly shaking their heads, Montagnier's comments were rapidly embraced by homeopaths eager for greater credibility.

Montagnier told the conference last week that solutions containing the DNA of pathogenic bacteria and viruses, including HIV, "could emit low frequency radio waves" that induced surrounding water molecules to become arranged into "nanostructures". These water molecules, he said, could also emit radio waves.

He suggested water could retain such properties even after the original solutions were massively diluted, to the point where the original DNA had effectively vanished. In this way, he suggested, water could retain the "memory" of substances with which it had been in contact -- and doctors could use the emissions to detect disease.

To a lay person this may sound tenuous. For a scientist it is highly provocative in its similarity to the principles said to underpin homeopathy.

Homeopathic medicines work on the principle that a toxic substance taken in minute amounts will cure the same symptoms that it would cause if it were taken in large amounts.

Scientists completely reject this, claiming there is no evidence to show that water can retain or transmit information and that homeopathic treatments have never been proven in full clinical trials.

Montagnier's claims come at a particularly sensitive time, with the British Medical Association last week calling for the National Health Service to stop spending pound stg. 4 million ($7.2m) a year on homeopathy.

The growing concern of doctors is linked to homeopathy's rising popularity. Users of homeopathy include the Queen and David Beckham.

Montagnier was awarded the Nobel prize in 2008 for research carried out in the 1980s that confirmed the link between HIV and AIDS. The breakthrough opened the way to new treatments that have extended the lives of millions of people.

Last week, he was speaking at the Lindau Nobel laureate meeting in Germany where 60 Nobel prize winners had gathered, along with 700 other scientists, to discuss the latest breakthroughs in medicine, chemistry and physics.

Cristal Sumner, of the British Homeopathic Association, said Montagnier's work gave homeopathy "a true scientific ethos".

The Sunday Times

Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/nobel-laureate-gives-homeopathy-a-boost/story-e6frg8y6-1225887772305