Researchers have found that an anti-alcoholism drug can help battling HIV. But you should always be careful when you read anything so optimistic about a pharmaceutical product. Drugs don’t cure anything and are always toxic. So a large dose of suspicion is necessary with studies like this.
You can wonder if a drug is the right way to fight alcoholism. Most recovering addicts to anything will say that just quitting is the best way to deal with it, usually in combination with self-help groups or psycho-therapy. Also with these things pharmaceuticals should be the last choice and only be used when nothing else works. But it’s not unusual that the side-effect of a drug becomes the main effect when that’s convenient. After all, drugs only have effects and if you can sell more by changing the purpose of the drug then nobody will stop you.
In this study people taking anti-retrovirals also took the anti-alcoholism drug and the researchers state that that didn’t give any adverse effects. Well, I don’t know how they define adverse effects, but it’s extremely unlikely that this combination wouldn’t cause all kinds of problems. Anti-retroviral drugs are extremely toxic, so if you combine that with another toxic drug then this must make you really sick. But I suppose “really sick” is not an adverse effect. It’s all about definitions.
“HIV latency, where the virus remains dormant in the body in people taking ART, is one of the biggest hurdles to achieving a cure for the viral infection that causes AIDS.” I find the theory of dormant viruses highly fascinating, because it doesn’t make any sense. If a person has a proper immune system then the virus will be elimited immediately. If the person does not have a good immune system he/she will get sick. And why would a virus wait for a long time before making someone sick? After all, the theory is that viruses just exist to make plants and animals sick. They have no reason to wait a long time before attacking.
“HIV/AIDS has killed some 34 million people since the 1980s, according to the United Nations HIV programme UNAIDS.” It’s interesting how that number fluctuates all the time, depending on the need. Whether a country still has AIDS depends on the definition, which is adjusted on a regular basis. With a variety of diagnostic criteria it’s very easy to get any number you want. Many people think that AIDS is a disease that can be diagnosed as easily as measles, but reality is that the symptoms vary enormously depending on the country you live in. That’s of course a huge red flag and it makes any kind of research useless. It also shows that the science behind AIDS is flawed at best, but more likely non-existent.
“HIV can be held in check by ART, and by the end of 2014 an estimated 36.9 million people around the world were living with the virus.” Again: how do they know this number? Maybe the number would be ten times as high, but if people don’t get tested nobody would know. But the test is a story in itself. Most people will think that an HIV test is very reliable, with just a small margin of error. It couldn’t be further away from the truth. A HIV test needs to be interpreted. And how that interpretation happens depends on the brand of the test, the country that the person lives in and the lab assistant doing the interpretation. That means that one and the same blood sample can give a positive result at one place, a negative result at another place and undetermined at a third. That’s why they say you should do another test to confirm a positive test. But the second test is interpreted in the same way. As is every test you will do after that. Conclusion: you can better flip a coin, as that will at least give you the correct result 50% of the time.
So if doctors and researchers cannot possibly know which person is infected and which one isn’t, then what do they base their research on? It cannot possibly be anything else than assumptions and fantasies. “Scientists say finding ways of “waking up” the virus in these dormant cells and then destroying them is a key cure strategy,” So how do you wake up a virus that you cannot find? How can you know that a virus is dormant, when you cannot test for it and you cannot see it under a microscope? How would you know the virus is there and that it has woken up? And how would you know you have killed it?
“one of the main concerns is the toxicity of the drugs trialled.” All drugs are toxic, but anything related to HIV is on the top of the list for toxicity. Many people have died from these drugs and they have never saved a person. How can they save anyone, if nobody knows what is the use of them? “could quite possibly be the game changer we need” Researchers definitely need a game changer if they want to keep their jobs for much longer, for HIV research hasn’t shown any results for as long as there has been a HIV test. And if you never come with anything that can be published as a breakthrough people start forgetting about you. So this game changer isn’t for those diagnosed with HIV, but for the researchers. Let’s keep this clear.
“Even though the drug was only given for three days, we saw a clear increase in virus in [blood] plasma, which was very encouraging.” Interesting. How do they know this, when there is no reliable test and they can’t see the virus with a microscope? What exactly did they see in the plasma? I have no idea how they measure “virus load”, as it just doesn’t seem to be possible in any way.
There is just one conclusion possible: HIV is a hoax (or if you want: a scam) and HIV and AIDS research only exist to keep the researchers in a well paid job. As after all this time there is still no proof that HIV actually exists and causes a certain disease, then we can safely state that it just doesn’t. It’s time that the world is told this, for many people have been killed by the drugs and many simply die because they believe they are dying. The HIV hoax is a crime against humanity and it’s time that it’s exposed as such.
(Have a look at the four pictures I added. They are all supposed to be HIV virus. Do you see the similarities? Me either.)