I found this article about HIV and AIDS and I thought it was worth a blog post. For very strange things have happened since the first gay people showed up with health problems that hadn’t been seen before. Let’s first do a little bit of history. These gay people in the USA mainly had PCP, a lung disease, and Kaposi sarcoma, a skin disease. These so-called AIDS symptoms are never seen in any other group of AIDS patients, which is a red flag as big as a football field. So what are these diseases? When you dig into this it’s actually not so difficult. The type of PCP these gay people had was caused by the liberal use of poppers. And Kaposi sarcoma is not cancer, but it’s irreversible damage to the blood vessels under the skin, also caused by poppers. It’s rare in people who have not used this stuff. Every doctor should be able to diagnose these things correctly, but for reasons unknown to me very few actually did.
So let’s see what this article says. “deaths from a mysterious illness ” It’s certainly a mysterious illness, as it shows completely different symptoms in different groups of people and in different areas of the world. A homosexual American has a completely different disease than an African mother. It’s not so hard to see that this cannot possibly be the same disease. There is a variety of diagnostic criteria, which not only differ from situation to situation, but also from time to time. The symptoms of AIDS were obviously completely different in 1985 than in 2015. That’s another big red flag.
“researchers, clinicians, activists and public health professionals have worked hard” No doubt they have worked hard, but doing what exactly? If you can’t see that one person has completely different symptoms than another then you are not a health professional, but a quack. Whatever the agenda of these people is, they have no interest in solving the AIDS problem.
“Only one of the approximately 80 million people infected since 1981 is considered truly cured,” That’s interesting, as I know many stories of people who had a positive test and later had a negative test. If 20 years later they are still in good health, shouldn’t they be considered cured? Actually many people could get cured of HIV by simply moving to another country. For one and the same test result might make you positive in the USA, but negative in Europe or Australia. You didn’t know that? Most people don’t, though doctors should also know this. Lab technicians who process the tests know that it’s all just a matter of interpretation. And have you ever done any other kind medical test that required you to fill in a questionaire about your lifestyle? It’s very odd, and totally unscientific to make the results of a test dependent on whether someone has a certain lifestyle. It’s absurd and it’s very strange that nobody questions this practice.
“Combination antiretroviral therapies revolutionised treatment of HIV from 1995 and today” I don’t know if you can call it a revolution, but these pills surely have killed many people that were healthy before they started to take them. Again, there are many stories of people who were perfectly healthy, got a positive HIV test, started to take these drugs and were dead a year later. It was said that they died from AIDS, but it’s obvious that they died from the highly toxic drugs.
“Although most people who take antiretroviral therapies have very low or undetectable levels of HIV in their blood” Now it gets interesting. For these tests suggest that you can measure “viral load”, but you can’t. Viruses are way too small to measure and they can’t be seen with any kind of microscope. So whatever is measured, it’s not viruses. It’s something that is assumed to have something to do with the development of the disease, but it’s a stretch. If someone with a huge “viral load” won’t do anything, they most likely will never get any “AIDS symptoms”, whatever that might be.
“Ninety-nine per cent of people who stop their treatment will have the virus in their blood two to three weeks later,” That’s a nice statement, but professor Lewin, can you prove that? And can you prove that that actually means something? I would say that it likely means that the body is detoxifiying and produces a huge amount of viruses to get back to health. But also that’s an assumption, which I cannot prove.
“said HIV also hides in the body during antiretroviral therapy.” The virus hides. What a smart virus. Why does the virus do that? Why can’t the body simply attack it and eliminate it? And why would nature produce a “super virus” that only exists to kill people? What would be the use for the virus to hide? And what would be the use for any virus to stay dormant for a lenghty period of time? Once you start thinking about it, nothing about HIV adds up. But professor Lewin keeps going on with her absurd fantasies.
“While the use of this technology is “interesting science”,”. I’m sure that it’s very interesting, but calling this quackery science is wishful thinking. “That doesn’t mean that it’s not a perfectly reasonable research agenda” That’s a quote from professor Emery, who no doubt is also handsomely paid for his work. That his work is useless doesn’t seem to bother anyone.
“She also said Australia needed to make testing easier.” You mean using that test that needs to be interpreted based on a questionaire and that can have any kind of outcome, depending on country, manufacturer, lab and technician? Why on earth would any one use such a test? You can better flip a coin. Then at least you have a 50% chance for a correct result.
“Vaccines are the Holy Grail for HIV.” No, they are the dream of the researchers and the pharmaceutical industry. But there is a big problem with a HIV vaccine. The efficacy of all other vaccines is determined based on the number of antibodies. The higher the number of antibodies, the better the protection. But the HIV test says that a high number of antibodies means you are NOT protected. Huh? Is it really that hard to keep some theories straight? Do antibodies mean protection or disease? The world has more than enough dangerous and ineffective vaccines and there is no reason to add more. Unless you want to make a lot of money, of course.
So what is HIV/AIDS about? It’s all about a weird virus that doesn’t stick with any rules of nature or virology. Then it’s about a test that is less reliable than flipping a coin. And then it’s about whatever symptoms fit in your situation. Which idiot would call this science? The definition of quackery is “selling a medicine or treatment you know doesn’t work only to make a lot of money”. That puts HIV research firmly in the category of quackery. And it will never get out of there.
(Recentely I wrote another blog about this topic and I used the same pictures: https://thefictionofscience.wordpress.com/2015/11/21/alcoholism-and-hiv/ All these pictures are supposed to show a HIV virus. Do you see the problem?)