Don’t talk about AIDS now, just talk about HIV

In Spring 2017, the US government website AIDS.gov will become HIV.gov. The reasons for the change are outlined in a blog post here. While AIDS always had a lurgy connotation, it emphasises the drift towards worrying about ‘HIV disease’ which is more concerned about T-cell count and misattributed affects of ARVs.

Just imagine if The British Heart Foundation renamed themselves The British Cholesterol Foundation. That’s admitting that you’ve moved from broad cardiovascular problems with myriad causes to one bankrupt hypothesis.

The US have actually been pipped by Britain because Public Health England announced in their 2014 report: It is of particular concern that a large proportion of people with HIV are diagnosed late in London (37% from 2012 to 2014, compared to 42% in England), as defined by a CD4 count of less than 350 cells/mm3 at diagnosis

As you can see, the worry about late-stage HIV is not AIDS, just CD4 decline.

The argument is that ARVs have made HIV controllable, something managed like diabetes, for example. But when you simply reduce the toxicity of the medicines and cannot explain HIV’s mechanism, that’s just sleight of hand.

NHS England forced to fund slow genocide

Not only is the HIV theory of AIDS a colossal mistake, now NHS England is being forced to pay for treatment (PrEP) at the expense of treatments for 9 other conditions.

If HIV theory were true it would undoubtedly be more cost-effective to fund a new safer sex campaign, but as it’s not (the likely reason for the ‘failure’ of previous safe sex campaigns) it’s money down the toilet when the unique myriad causes of AIDS could be treated more precisely, cheaply, more safely and often not permanently.

‘Patient 0’ not responsible for US AIDS epidemic

Gaetan Dugas was said to be the man responsible for bringing AIDS to the US, but he has now been exonerated. Dugas also died of kidney failure, which is not an AIDS-defining illness but an ARVs one.

Perhaps with a bit more digging they’ll realise that the HIV story is dangerous nonsense.

In the 1980s it was reported that scientists feared that “AIDS affects haemophiliacs differently“. Why would that be? Maybe because despite a similar biomarker the nature of their immunodeficiency is not shared with non-haemophilic HIV-positives.

Is this cure for HIV also a cure for AIDS?

6 news outlets, among others, reported on the news of a possible ‘HIV cure’ after a 44-year-old British HIV+ man showed undetectable HIV in the blood following “kick and kill” treatment: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

One of the striking things about the story is that only 2 of the outlets mentioned the acronym AIDS, one of which only used it in an info box (The Sunday Times may have used the acronym but it is a pay-walled article). While this is undoubtedly trivial it shows that the disease state is now of less interest than the alleged cause.

If this man is either an ‘elite controller’ or just benignly HIV+ we cannot say with confidence that removal of ‘evidence’ of HIV averted his developing AIDS. On the flip, if this man comes to develop an AIDS-defining illness and continues to test HIV-negative would it be correct to say that disease is not AIDS simply because of the absence of ‘HIV’?

I predict this ‘cure’ will come to nothing, like all the others.

1 in 10 untreated HIV+ children immune from AIDS, says study

Each and everyday the mainstream view of AIDS seems to be crumbling, even if just a tiny bit at a time.

Today BBC News has reported on a study that has found that 1/10th of untreated ‘HIV-infected’ children are immune from developing AIDS due to a “monkey-like” immune system.

Given that children’s immune systems are developing this is a bizarre finding. Or, if you disbelieve that ‘HIV’ causes AIDS, highly expected.

Any AIDS you find is from anything but ‘HIV’.

 

Vancouver mother tested ‘false-positive’

Given that ‘false-positives’ are rare I’m quite surprised by how often they make the news.

Click the source link below and you’ll see that a mother from British Columbia was told that she was HIV+ and may have passed it on to her baby via breastfeeding, as well as someone else’s baby she shared milk with. Three babies in total were unnecessarily treated with ARVs because two mothers were misdiagnosed.

BC Women’s Hospital said: “Unfortunately, false positives can occur with any test. When a positive test is received, retesting is rushed and repeated within hours…”

I’m quite surprised that the mothers were fortunately retested as this is not common practice. But had they still tested positive you still can’t be sure that that they were truly positive as HIV has never been purely isolated (Luc Montagnier’s words) and the test reacts with many health states, some benign.

[Source: Global News (Canada)]