For twenty years, news stories, politicians, and drug companies exploited fear, promoting massive African AIDS cases that, in fact, never did exist, with “AIDS” cases bearing no relationship to immune deficiency caused by a virus. It is vital to further note that most of the $9.8 billion a year of U.S. tax dollars presently going to Africa (noted above) via PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief) is earmarked for the exact anti-viral drugs that have been causing the mortality of Americans the last 15 years, year after year, and with no solution in sight staying the present course.
The conspiracy of “HIV” testing.
One may also legitimately ask President Obama’s new science advisors whether or not there has not been some vast conspiracy regarding “HIV” molecular testing, and questions about who stands to gain from “an HIV diagnosis because “HIV” test kits cross-react non-specifically with other factors and known disease syndromes.
In human patients, with respect to the accuracy of diagnosis, it should also be taken into account that at least 70 false positive “HIV” cross-reactivities with various markers used in the test kits have been reported in the scientific peer-reviewed literature, and some of these are recognized by the CDC and are listed by many MMWR’s, and Public Health Agency Guidelines.
Therefore, to obtain an unequivocally positive “HIV” diagnosis (assuming that we ignore for a moment that “HIV” hasn’t been isolated, and that no test kit claims to be able to confirm a positive surrogate marker, and that different places have different standards for convicting someone as being “HIV” positive), each of the following potential cross reactivities should be eliminated through differential diagnosis by an “HIV/AIDS expert” as possible cause of a false-positive result on the ELISA’s, WB’s, or PCR-based tests, before a positive “HIV” conviction is made by an attending physician:
The spurious detection of p18, p24, p55, p12, p32, p51, p66 and gp160, gp41, gp120 antigens that may be present in fluids obtained from patients who have warts or who are pregnant, or from patients who suffer from acute viral infections, or who have had recent flu or hepatitis B vaccinations.
For example, Josephson et al. (3) reported the results of a Western Blot study that analyzed the supposed “HIV” capsid protein, p24, in indeterminate patients, in which they claimed:
“Despite the fact the majority of p24-and p24/25-indeterminate specimens exhibited specific antibody reactivity with HIV core antigen, there was no evidence linking this reactivity to HIV infection. On the contrary, based on available data and limited patient information, we predict that HIV infection was not the cause in most cases. For example, all of the specimens were collected in an area of the country which has a low prevalence of AIDS. Of the 21 patients exhibiting specific p24 reactivity for whom results were indeterminate, 12 were also from low-prevalence groups (i.e., blood donors and women). In addition, results for all five patients who were retested after a period of weeks or months remained indeterminate. One patient in particular who was healthy and not at risk for HIV infection, remained moderately (2+) reactive to recombinant p24 for 6 months. In addition to our own data, Kleinman et al., (8) recently reported that only a small percentage (4.3 of blood donors who exhibited indeterminate p24 reactivity in the HIV Western blot, progressed to show positive reactivity by Western blot over a mean interval of 20 weeks. Most of the donors, however, showed persistent p24 reactivity. Although Ranki et al. (13) have reported that a persistent and restrictive antibody response to the core proteins of HIV is a sign of latent HIV infection in a high-risk population, similar results have not yet been demonstrated in low-risk individuals.”
“A possible explanation for the specific p24 antibody reactivity in our patient population is that it represents cross-reactivity with another human retrovirus.”
In other words, although all of the samples tested were initially reactive, the authors “feel” that in actuality none of the patients were really carrying “HIV,” because 12 were from “low-risk groups” (perhaps they weren’t black, or openly admitting that they had just competed a 20 year addiction to heroin, or were in fact pregnant, or had warts). The explanation these AIDS researchers provided is really quite imaginative as well-that perhaps these people were all infected with some other retrovirus to account for their indeterminate reactions (HTLV-5 is even suggested). So if you test indeterminate for “HIV” as all these 21 samples did, then perhaps you harbor “a different retrovirus,” one perhaps that in time, will cause 99 diseases instead of the mundane 48 that “HIV” “causes?”
In making an “HIV” or “AIDS” diagnosis, it should also be determined that alcoholic hepatitis, exposure to alpha interferon therapy, antibodies of healthy patients with high affinity for polystyrene used in different test kits, anti-carbohydrate antibodies, anti-collagen antibodies, arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma, connective tissue disease, dermatomyostitis, tuberculosis, some strains of malaria, hemophilia, hepatitis, hemodialysis, high levels of circulating immune complexes, herpes simplex I and II, HLA antibodies (to Class I and II leukocyte antigens), hyperbilirubinemia, hypergammaglobulinemia, leprosy, lipemic serum, malaria, the presence of some malignant neoplasms, mycobacteriaum avium, non-specific detection of free ribonucleoproteins, organ transplantation, other retroviruses, the receipt of gamma globulin or immune globulin (as prophylaxis against infections), multiple transfusions, pregnancy especially in multiparous women, Q-fever with associated hepatitis, primary biliary cirrhosis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, renal failure, rheumatoid arthritis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, recent tetanus, flu, or hepatitis B vaccination, T-cell leukocyte antibodies, chronic drug addiction, or visceral leishmaniasis are not responsible for a false cross-reactive HIV test, as all of these (and about 40 other) factors have been shown to generate false positives (4).
AIDS diagnosis is different in different places.
To emphasize the deadly absurdity of the situation, if someone HIV+ is diagnosed with AIDS in the U.S., all he/she has to do is go to Canada for another opinion, and voila (!), nineteen out of twenty times he/she will no longer be an AIDS patient, and thus not be prescribed the toxic drugs that actually bring mortality by their “side effects” such as liver or pancreatic failure, lymphoma, mitochondria destruction, and heart attacks.
One must also take into account, that when diagnosing the 48 AIDS defining illnesses by surveillance definitions, that the standards for making an HIV, ARC, or AIDS diagnosis vary, and are different depending upon the country or region of a country where people are tested.
For example, if a WB is performed on an African in most countries in Africa, the presence of any two of the 9 proteins detectable on a Western Blot (WB) including GAG (p24, p40, p55), POL (p32, p53, p68), or ENV (p 41, p120, p160) is diagnostic of a positive diagnosis, whereas in Australia, one or more ENV-associated proteins plus one or more of either POL or GAG is diagnostic of a positive diagnosis.
In The united Kingdom, any one or more of the ENV proteins, plus p31 (p32), plus p24 is diagnostic of a positive diagnosis, whereas, in the US, all 4 ENV proteins, plus p31, and p24 must be present, according to the CDC. The US FDA, and Red Cross have different standards as well (with respect to how many bands must be present on the WB (Biotechnology, June, 1993,11:696-711).
In 2001, the CDC’s MMWR, Guidelines for Laboratory Test Result Reporting of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Ribonucleic Acid Determination, the recommendations from a CDC Working Group as of November 16, 2001 ( 50(RR20);1-12) reported that:
“Results obtained with available test methods are variable, and laboratories present these results in different ways, indicating that guidelines to promote standard practice in reporting of test results are warranted.” 2A
“No test reporting standardization exists; specifically, standard units of measurement of test method have not been established. Laboratory viral load test reports should be accurate and adequate for patient treatment and public health monitoring of the HIV and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) epidemic. To assure test reporting comparability among laboratories, standard methods are needed; moreover, standardized results are needed for early detection of infection, early access to patient care, and early detection of treatment failure.”
“Results obtained with available test methods are variable, and laboratories present these results in different ways, indicating that guidelines to promote standard practice in reporting of test results are warranted.”
“Adoption of these guidelines by all public and private laboratories that perform HIV viral load testing will improve the quality and usefulness of viral load test results for the physician ordering the test and for reporting to public health departments.”
In January 1, 2000, the CDC HIV-infection surveillance case definition was expanded to include viral load test results despite the fact that:
“In certain cases, laboratory slips indicated that HIV had been detected at a value below the test’s lower limit (e.g., HIV detected was <400 copies/mL), or the laboratory slip provided an actual number of copies outside of the stated reportable range.”
The National Institutes of Health and Henry J. Kaiser Foundation, US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, 2001 have claimed the following (vailable at <http://www.hivatis.org>. Accessed July 20, 2001):
…”Until a common standard is available to use for normalizing values obtained with different assay methods, choosing one assay method is advisable when HIV RNA levels are monitored to guide therapeutic decision-making. The goal to develop a common standard for normalizing values obtained with different test kits has recently been reported.”
“Available tests are not licensed for diagnosing HIV infection, but the viral load test results are used for reporting HIV infection to local and state health departments.”
This was the state of affairs at the beginning of our new century. Things have gotten worse since then. In 2006, the December Senate approved Burr’s bioterrorism bill-a bill just in time for Christmas to establish the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, commonly referred to as BARDA, which passed by unanimous consent. The bill describes how forced vaccines, quarantines, criminalization of “HIV” and other molecular diseases should be signed into law as the ‘debate’ regarding Bush’s war in Iraq continues. Also in 2006, the massive recalls of “HIV-test kits” continued as they had during the last decade. For example, the FDA just last year recalled Vironostika HIV-1 test kit lots: 259606, 121566, 1008926, 259606, 121567, 1008926, 259606,121568, 1008926, 259605, 259717, 160342, 1011220, 259605, 259717,160339, 1011021, and said:
“These HIV-1 finished kit lots in the field have been reported to contain EnzAbody reagent that appears noticeably cloudy and/or flocculent, instead of clear and non-turbid as expected 30 minutes after reconstitution. Use of cloudy EnzAbody could possibly increase your risk of inaccurate HIV test results in patients and therefore should be avoided.”
Also in 2006, a nationwide team of AIDS researchers led by doctors Benigno Rodriguez and Michael Lederman of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland disputed the value of viral load tests-a standard used since 1996 to assess health, predict progression to disease, and grant approval to new AIDS drugs after their study of 2,800 HIV positives concluded that viral load measures failed in more than 90% of cases to predict or explain immune status (5):
“Viral load is only able to predict progression to disease in 4% to 6% of HIV-positives studied, challenging much of the basis for current AIDS science and treatment policy.”
This United States public health disaster, and agony on a personal level, continues every day, brought by anti-retroviral drugs and mindless vaccine trials that should be instantly stopped or minimized. U.S. AIDS cases and deaths continue to be needlessly created by the 1993 AIDS definition, and with the current useless tests, with Congress and top health officials conducting business as usual, blind to victory over AIDS throughout Europe, Australia, and even right next door in Canada, all who reject the U.S. model of AIDS. The new President Barack Obama must demand a complete reassessment of this monumental medical fiasco, and stop the mindless massacre.
February 2009
Dear Members:
The following article was submitted to us by Dr. med. Juliane Sacher, Frankfurt Germany. I hesitated to include it in our newsletter for a number of reasons, and subsequently followed up with a fairly extensive web and literature search for further information.
Dr. Andrew Maniotis gives his credentials and background on this website: http://www.novaccine.com/andrew_maniotis.asp.
However, we can see another take (a diatribe actually) on the whole situation on this website: www.aidstruth.org/documents/AndrewManiotis.pdf.
That is where you will see the strong smear campaign going on regarding Dr. Maniotis, his credentials and his research ability. This website reminds me of the “Quack Doctor” website which denounces everything that is not taught in an orthodox medical school.
From our standpoint, this article holds a great deal of interest since many of his findings are based on or developed in conjunction with the theories of Dr. med. Heinrich Kremer and Dr. Juliane Sacher. We know their concepts are valid, and it is no wonder that Dr. Maniotis has “pissed off” the likes of Dr. Robert Gallo in California. You can also refer to Dr. Sacher’s articles in Volume 3 of “The Bridge”.
My feeling is we need more brave souls to stand up and criticize the current orthodox methods that are simply not working. Note this article was published in November 2008 shortly after the 2008 US Presidential election won by Barack Obama. Please send us your comments, suggestions and experiences on the information in this article. It has been reproduced here without any editing or changes (except formatting to fit our newsletter page). See “Update Commentary (2023)” following the article.
s/ Carolyn L. Winsor
With the Stroke of A Pen,
President Obama Could Stop the
Medical Madness and Needless AIDS Deaths.
By David M. Burd, Medical Technology Consultant, Andrew Maniotis, PhD., November 21, 2008.
In May 2000, President Clinton declared AIDS to be a national security threat, followed by President Bush and Congress spending huge funds for America, Africa, and elsewhere. In October 2008 $48 billion was given for Africa alone, to be spread over the next five years. Being directly under the purview of his executive office, and commandeering almost 1% of the entire Federal budget, it is imperative President-elect Obama order a complete review of both the incredulously higher U.S. death rate compared to all other Western nations, and to ascertain the truth of genuine African AIDS belatedly acknowledged by many authorities to be grossly overestimated.
United States annual AIDS deaths have been near 16,000 for many years, providing fodder for ceaseless news accounts. What is keep quiet however, censored may be more accurate, is the U.S. death rate is twenty-five times European Union (EU) country citizens, after Third World immigrant data is discounted. Other countries such as Canada right next door, Australia, and New Zealand, match the EU success, all with AIDS deaths having sunk to double digits, basically to background levels before the term AIDS was coined 24 years ago. The self-perpetuating U.S. death toll springs from an errant definition of AIDS employed solely in the U.S. that initiates toxic drug therapies, that in turn brings iatrogenic AIDS mortality, with U.S. health generals inexplicitly failing to learn from these resounding “successes.” Having demonstrated their commitment to their undeviating tragic course, it is up to the President to relieve the captain and officers of the leviathan U.S. AIDS, without a moment’s delay.
Moreover, the preventable U.S. death toll, compared to success elsewhere, should be succinctly and logically explained to the public, politicians, and medical professionals. Equally important, there are many scientists with world-class credentials able to enlighten President Obama, and Obama must allow them to be heard and not filtered through layers of handlers, or the chiefs of NIH unwilling to review the truth amply shown all around the world.
In 1993, U.S health authorities expanded AIDS diagnoses to include a category of people having but two laboratory conditions: a low white blood cell count (low WBC) and a test showing HIV antibodies of a high concentration. This high antibody concentration will hereafter be termed HIV+ in this article. Thus these two test results, graded and judged on an arbitrary scale, despite a person having excellent clinical health and with no symptoms of disease whatsoever, stamp one in the U.S. to have “AIDS.” Then, despite beginning in fine health, the nightmare of toxic drug therapies is initiated, with scared witless new patients conjuring up ludicrous dim memories of perhaps a brief sexual fling, blood transfusion, or bloody injury often decades ago. By year 2000, this singular low WBC rogue category of AIDS (the last year this data was available) cited by New York City Department of Health data was 90% of their AIDS cases, and rising.
Since no other Western country includes this low WBC count as an AIDS category, and despite having similar HIV+ rates, other Western countries have AIDS diagnoses but a tiny fraction of the U.S. Thus, few are given the toxic treatment drugs designed to raise the WBC count and suppress “viral load.” Perhaps the physicians of these countries realize that low WBC and CD4+ T lymphocyte counts (CD4 counts) are associated with a variety of conditions, including many viral infections, bacterial infections, parasitic infections, sepsis, tuberculosis, coccidioidomycosis, burns, trauma, intravenous injections of foreign proteins, malnutrition, over-exercising, pregnancy, coricosteroid use, normal daily variation, psychological stress, and social isolation? There are also a number of people who are completely healthy and who have low CD4 counts for no apparent reason.
However, in the U.S., even if and when WBC counts are optimistically raised, patients’ clinical results and mortality have been the opposite. The results have been consistent annual U.S. AIDS cases of 39,000, with the high death toll already noted, clearly tied to the taking of the treatment drugs. These deaths are usually blamed as “HIV-caused” even though scientists after 25 years on their medical Manhattan Project have never been able to elucidate how HIV actually kills cells, and have never been able to provide an electron microscope photo from the tissues or blood of an “HIV-positive” or “AIDS patient,” of such cellular murder. Maybe, just maybe, like cold fusion, it’s all a delusion.
As for the real facts, minimal deaths in all other countries resoundingly implicate the U.S. AIDS definition and consequent treatment drugs: Germany with a population of 83 million had 73 AIDS deaths in 2006 and but 373 new AIDS cases; other 2006 examples include Sweden with 9 million having but 10 deaths and 59 new AIDS cases, Canada with 33 million people had but 34 deaths and 255 new AIDS cases, and so on (Sources: EUROHIV; HIV/AIDS surveillance in Europe: end-year report 2006; Surveillance Report to Dec. 31, 2006, Public Health Agency of Canada).
A major groundbreaking study affirms being HIV+, by itself, is anything but a death sentence: Denmark’s Dr. Nicolia Lohse, with seven co-investigators, published Jan. 16, 2007 in the Annals of Internal Medicine the status of every HIV+ Denmark resident through the years 1995-2005. The study compared those HIV+ to otherwise normal Danes, and tallied mortality of any cause, including drug overdose, accident, alcoholism, AIDS, etc. The study concluded, if “Hepatitis C patients” were excluded, the life expectancy of Danes judged HIV+ at age 25, taking the milder anti-viral drugs started in 2000, could expect another 39 years of life to age 64, compared to otherwise normal Dane life expectancy of 76.
What is even more striking in Lohse’s charts is that 25% of those HIV+ in the years’ 2000-2005 cohort refused anti-viral drugs, yet had even lower mortality rates compared to the anti-HIV drug takers, the HIV+ women refusing drug treatments in particular approaching a normal life span. Importantly, Lohse also states those HIV+ typically had high health risks such as smoking, alcohol and other drug addiction, so it should hardly be surprising those HIV+ would have a shorter life span than fellow Danes (who have less alcohol-related accidents, drug overdoses, or lung cancer/heart mortality related to smoking).
Lohse’s Denmark study, as do countless others, demolishes the entrenched belief that having HIV antibodies demands anti-viral treatments. In fact the opposite is true, as his study clearly documented the extraordinarily high mortality of those taking the earlier anti-virals like AZT. Again, these results emphatically contradict the belief that HIV+ progresses to deadly disease unless anti-viral/retroviral drugs are taken, and instead, show the exact opposite.
In view of the Denmark study being published in January, 2007, in a major journal of wide readership and undoubtedly delivered to thousands of scientists’ offices including the CDC and the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease (NIAID), and also considering the low AIDS mortality enumerated for years in Europe’s annual surveillance reports (available at the click of a mouse), the ignorance of U.S. health generals are appalling and unforgivable. As to the American press, their self-censoring of Europe’s success (and Canada, Australia, and so on), and nonstop promoting of HIV hysteria, speaks for itself.
President-elect Obama and Congressional leaders must demand of NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci, having vainly sent him over $50 Billion dollars to understand HIV, why he has not read Lohse’s study, or not learned from the other countries’ remarkable success over AIDS mortality. The utter failure of NIAID cannot be tolerated a day longer. For 20 years under Fauci, NIAID has directed hundreds of chemotherapeutic anti-HIV trials strictly limited to a first set of anti-viral/retroviral chemicals tested against a second set of toxic chemicals, without ever permitting a single true non-toxic placebo given to human subjects.
Perhaps this comes as no surprise because Dr. Fauci’s AIDS promotionalism began even before the AIDS era when he claimed that immune suppression is caused by doctors! (The term promotionalism or Promoters of AIDS is being used here to indicate those like Fauci, who continue to advance the “HIV=AIDS=Death paradigm against all the evidence). Doctors cause immune suppression, Fauci claimed, if they subject their patients to multiple transfusions, transplant surgery, or corticosteroid administration, as these drugs and treatments can non-specifically induce AIDS-specific drops in T-cells with high frequency (1, 2). Fibrosis of the lung due to heavy crack cocaine use also was considered a potent inducer of the AIDS-defining illness, PCP, by Fauci and others before the AIDS era.
Lohse’s study has drawn back this forbidden-placebo curtain with spectacular life expectancy revelations. Denmark’s study, buttressed by countries’ successes already enumerated, demands an American about face, to employ the scientific method not permitted for two decades. A thorough review by President-elect Obama is also relevant to in the most fundamental fiscal way, as spending on AIDS now comprises almost 1 percent of the entire federal budget, at this point a complete waste, and worse.
As for Africa, news stories have leaked out from WHO officials admitting AIDS numbers had been greatly exaggerated beginning in the 1980’s, and even most medical “experts” in the U.S. never have realized that most all African AIDS cases came from the “Bangui Definition,” created in 1985 by WHO and CDC officials meeting in the Central African Republic capital city of Bangui 23 years ago.
This Bangui definition stated an African AIDS case was anybody having the three health conditions of a fever, weight loss, and diarrhea over the period of 30 days (or a cough instead of fever), requiring no medical tests whatsoever that would, if taken, typically be diagnosed such as tuberculosis or scores of other identifiable, treatable diseases. Instead, virtually all African disease mortality was wrongly piled together as “AIDS” and still is.
Until recently, in Africa, and due to a lack of medical infrastructure in many areas, persistent war in other regions, and the ravages of that continue because of Apartheid in South Africa, positive “HIV-AIDS” diagnoses have been made traditionally without the use of serological testing altogether, if the treating physician felt that a particular case of persistent diarrhea or persistent coughing or tuberculosis exhibited by their patients appeared to be an AIDS case. In addition, many of the cases of “AIDS” in Africa that the WHO uses for their dire estimates of 40 million infected were extrapolated from maternity clinics where only women are tested, and projected onto the rest of the population, who weren’t pregnant (pregnancy itself is a known reason for false positives, according to the CDC). Therefore, the AIDS-defining illnesses may be different among Africans than among non-Africans, may differ among African males and females, and are different among those tested by the Red Cross, from those tested by the CDC. These differences in testing standards make it possible to test positive in the United States in the morning, and by flying to Canada and getting tested, one can test negative in the afternoon.
This is the one positive thing about “HIV” and “AIDS” that should provide optimism, even for skeptics, and especially for persons who have been victimized by selective testing bias (Blacks, Hispanics, pregnant women, people who are gay, Haitians, Africans, Indians, Asians, etc). In many cases, a negative diagnosis can be only an airplane ride away if a positive diagnosis is made in one country.
For twenty years, news stories, politicians, and drug companies exploited fear, promoting massive African AIDS cases that, in fact, never did exist, with “AIDS” cases bearing no relationship to immune deficiency caused by a virus. It is vital to further note that most of the $9.8 billion a year of U.S. tax dollars presently going to Africa (noted above) via PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief) is earmarked for the exact anti-viral drugs that have been causing the mortality of Americans the last 15 years, year after year, and with no solution in sight staying the present course.
The conspiracy of “HIV” testing.
One may also legitimately ask President Obama’s new science advisors whether or not there has not been some vast conspiracy regarding “HIV” molecular testing, and questions about who stands to gain from “an HIV diagnosis because “HIV” test kits cross-react non-specifically with other factors and known disease syndromes.
In human patients, with respect to the accuracy of diagnosis, it should also be taken into account that at least 70 false positive “HIV” cross-reactivities with various markers used in the test kits have been reported in the scientific peer-reviewed literature, and some of these are recognized by the CDC and are listed by many MMWR’s, and Public Health Agency Guidelines.
Therefore, to obtain an unequivocally positive “HIV” diagnosis (assuming that we ignore for a moment that “HIV” hasn’t been isolated, and that no test kit claims to be able to confirm a positive surrogate marker, and that different places have different standards for convicting someone as being “HIV” positive), each of the following potential cross reactivities should be eliminated through differential diagnosis by an “HIV/AIDS expert” as possible cause of a false-positive result on the ELISA’s, WB’s, or PCR-based tests, before a positive “HIV” conviction is made by an attending physician:
The spurious detection of p18, p24, p55, p12, p32, p51, p66 and gp160, gp41, gp120 antigens that may be present in fluids obtained from patients who have warts or who are pregnant, or from patients who suffer from acute viral infections, or who have had recent flu or hepatitis B vaccinations.
For example, Josephson et al. (3) reported the results of a Western Blot study that analyzed the supposed “HIV” capsid protein, p24, in indeterminate patients, in which they claimed:
“Despite the fact the majority of p24-and p24/25-indeterminate specimens exhibited specific antibody reactivity with HIV core antigen, there was no evidence linking this reactivity to HIV infection. On the contrary, based on available data and limited patient information, we predict that HIV infection was not the cause in most cases. For example, all of the specimens were collected in an area of the country which has a low prevalence of AIDS. Of the 21 patients exhibiting specific p24 reactivity for whom results were indeterminate, 12 were also from low-prevalence groups (i.e., blood donors and women). In addition, results for all five patients who were retested after a period of weeks or months remained indeterminate. One patient in particular who was healthy and not at risk for HIV infection, remained moderately (2+) reactive to recombinant p24 for 6 months. In addition to our own data, Kleinman et al., (8) recently reported that only a small percentage (4.3 of blood donors who exhibited indeterminate p24 reactivity in the HIV Western blot, progressed to show positive reactivity by Western blot over a mean interval of 20 weeks. Most of the donors, however, showed persistent p24 reactivity. Although Ranki et al. (13) have reported that a persistent and restrictive antibody response to the core proteins of HIV is a sign of latent HIV infection in a high-risk population, similar results have not yet been demonstrated in low-risk individuals.”
“A possible explanation for the specific p24 antibody reactivity in our patient population is that it represents cross-reactivity with another human retrovirus.”
In other words, although all of the samples tested were initially reactive, the authors “feel” that in actuality none of the patients were really carrying “HIV,” because 12 were from “low-risk groups” (perhaps they weren’t black, or openly admitting that they had just competed a 20 year addiction to heroin, or were in fact pregnant, or had warts). The explanation these AIDS researchers provided is really quite imaginative as well-that perhaps these people were all infected with some other retrovirus to account for their indeterminate reactions (HTLV-5 is even suggested). So if you test indeterminate for “HIV” as all these 21 samples did, then perhaps you harbor “a different retrovirus,” one perhaps that in time, will cause 99 diseases instead of the mundane 48 that “HIV” “causes?”
In making an “HIV” or “AIDS” diagnosis, it should also be determined that alcoholic hepatitis, exposure to alpha interferon therapy, antibodies of healthy patients with high affinity for polystyrene used in different test kits, anti-carbohydrate antibodies, anti-collagen antibodies, arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma, connective tissue disease, dermatomyostitis, tuberculosis, some strains of malaria, hemophilia, hepatitis, hemodialysis, high levels of circulating immune complexes, herpes simplex I and II, HLA antibodies (to Class I and II leukocyte antigens), hyperbilirubinemia, hypergammaglobulinemia, leprosy, lipemic serum, malaria, the presence of some malignant neoplasms, mycobacteriaum avium, non-specific detection of free ribonucleoproteins, organ transplantation, other retroviruses, the receipt of gamma globulin or immune globulin (as prophylaxis against infections), multiple transfusions, pregnancy especially in multiparous women, Q-fever with associated hepatitis, primary biliary cirrhosis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, renal failure, rheumatoid arthritis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, recent tetanus, flu, or hepatitis B vaccination, T-cell leukocyte antibodies, chronic drug addiction, or visceral leishmaniasis are not responsible for a false cross-reactive HIV test, as all of these (and about 40 other) factors have been shown to generate false positives (4).
AIDS diagnosis is different in different places.
To emphasize the deadly absurdity of the situation, if someone HIV+ is diagnosed with AIDS in the U.S., all he/she has to do is go to Canada for another opinion, and voila (!), nineteen out of twenty times he/she will no longer be an AIDS patient, and thus not be prescribed the toxic drugs that actually bring mortality by their “side effects” such as liver or pancreatic failure, lymphoma, mitochondria destruction, and heart attacks.
One must also take into account, that when diagnosing the 48 AIDS defining illnesses by surveillance definitions, that the standards for making an HIV, ARC, or AIDS diagnosis vary, and are different depending upon the country or region of a country where people are tested.
For example, if a WB is performed on an African in most countries in Africa, the presence of any two of the 9 proteins detectable on a Western Blot (WB) including GAG (p24, p40, p55), POL (p32, p53, p68), or ENV (p 41, p120, p160) is diagnostic of a positive diagnosis, whereas in Australia, one or more ENV-associated proteins plus one or more of either POL or GAG is diagnostic of a positive diagnosis.
In The united Kingdom, any one or more of the ENV proteins, plus p31 (p32), plus p24 is diagnostic of a positive diagnosis, whereas, in the US, all 4 ENV proteins, plus p31, and p24 must be present, according to the CDC. The US FDA, and Red Cross have different standards as well (with respect to how many bands must be present on the WB (Biotechnology, June, 1993,11:696-711).
In 2001, the CDC’s MMWR, Guidelines for Laboratory Test Result Reporting of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Ribonucleic Acid Determination, the recommendations from a CDC Working Group as of November 16, 2001 ( 50(RR20);1-12) reported that:
“Results obtained with available test methods are variable, and laboratories present these results in different ways, indicating that guidelines to promote standard practice in reporting of test results are warranted.” 2A
“No test reporting standardization exists; specifically, standard units of measurement of test method have not been established. Laboratory viral load test reports should be accurate and adequate for patient treatment and public health monitoring of the HIV and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) epidemic. To assure test reporting comparability among laboratories, standard methods are needed; moreover, standardized results are needed for early detection of infection, early access to patient care, and early detection of treatment failure.”
“Results obtained with available test methods are variable, and laboratories present these results in different ways, indicating that guidelines to promote standard practice in reporting of test results are warranted.”
“Adoption of these guidelines by all public and private laboratories that perform HIV viral load testing will improve the quality and usefulness of viral load test results for the physician ordering the test and for reporting to public health departments.”
In January 1, 2000, the CDC HIV-infection surveillance case definition was expanded to include viral load test results despite the fact that:
“In certain cases, laboratory slips indicated that HIV had been detected at a value below the test’s lower limit (e.g., HIV detected was <400 copies/mL), or the laboratory slip provided an actual number of copies outside of the stated reportable range.”
The National Institutes of Health and Henry J. Kaiser Foundation, US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, 2001 have claimed the following (vailable at <http://www.hivatis.org>. Accessed July 20, 2001):
…”Until a common standard is available to use for normalizing values obtained with different assay methods, choosing one assay method is advisable when HIV RNA levels are monitored to guide therapeutic decision-making. The goal to develop a common standard for normalizing values obtained with different test kits has recently been reported.”
“Available tests are not licensed for diagnosing HIV infection, but the viral load test results are used for reporting HIV infection to local and state health departments.”
This was the state of affairs at the beginning of our new century. Things have gotten worse since then. In 2006, the December Senate approved Burr’s bioterrorism bill-a bill just in time for Christmas to establish the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, commonly referred to as BARDA, which passed by unanimous consent. The bill describes how forced vaccines, quarantines, criminalization of “HIV” and other molecular diseases should be signed into law as the ‘debate’ regarding Bush’s war in Iraq continues. Also in 2006, the massive recalls of “HIV-test kits” continued as they had during the last decade. For example, the FDA just last year recalled Vironostika HIV-1 test kit lots: 259606, 121566, 1008926, 259606, 121567, 1008926, 259606,121568, 1008926, 259605, 259717, 160342, 1011220, 259605, 259717,160339, 1011021, and said:
“These HIV-1 finished kit lots in the field have been reported to contain EnzAbody reagent that appears noticeably cloudy and/or flocculent, instead of clear and non-turbid as expected 30 minutes after reconstitution. Use of cloudy EnzAbody could possibly increase your risk of inaccurate HIV test results in patients and therefore should be avoided.”
Also in 2006, a nationwide team of AIDS researchers led by doctors Benigno Rodriguez and Michael Lederman of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland disputed the value of viral load tests-a standard used since 1996 to assess health, predict progression to disease, and grant approval to new AIDS drugs after their study of 2,800 HIV positives concluded that viral load measures failed in more than 90% of cases to predict or explain immune status (5):
“Viral load is only able to predict progression to disease in 4% to 6% of HIV-positives studied, challenging much of the basis for current AIDS science and treatment policy.”
This United States public health disaster, and agony on a personal level, continues every day, brought by anti-retroviral drugs and mindless vaccine trials that should be instantly stopped or minimized. U.S. AIDS cases and deaths continue to be needlessly created by the 1993 AIDS definition, and with the current useless tests, with Congress and top health officials conducting business as usual, blind to victory over AIDS throughout Europe, Australia, and even right next door in Canada, all who reject the U.S. model of AIDS. The new President Barack Obama must demand a complete reassessment of this monumental medical fiasco, and stop the mindless massacre.
Update Commentary (2023):
In view of the recent COVID Pandemic situation, it is most interesting to note the involvement of Dr. Anthony Fauci (both within the article and in the references) during the AIDS “crisis”. With the hysteria surrounding AIDS and several subsequent viral “epidemics” (swine flu, avian flu, SARS, MERS and H1N1 [yet again] to name just a few), it is quite probable that the process for handling a pandemic has been being carefully developed through the various Gates and Rockefeller funded NGO and governmental alphabet organizations.
Dr. Juliane Sacher and Dr. Heinrich Kremer were foundational researchers within the AIDS crisis and worked in Berlin with some of the first cases. Over the years within the complementary medicine field, it has become clear that all viruses can be effectively and efficiently treated with orthomolecular medicine (high dose Vitamin C as one example) and almost always involve a deficiency within the Biofactor field (e.g. nitrogen with AIDS and zinc with COVID).
Let me be clear however that these illnesses can be very serious, complicated and create long term chronic secondary illnesses and damage. Let us take heed, and be prepared for what the corrupt and unethical pharmaceutical industry subsidized by the “billionaire” foundations are getting set to unleash next!
From THE BRIDGE Newsletter of OIRF
Published February 2009
© Copyright 2008, Dr. Andrew Maniotis, aidstruth.org
References:
Featured News
AMA Training
Acupuncture Meridian Assessment (AMA) Training for Detecting Parasites and Dental Problems Training Designed for MD, DO and Dentists St. Louis, Missouri Training By Simon [...]
Gateway to German Biological Medicine
Saint Louis to Baden Baden, Germany via OIRF, Canada If you are interested in good German beer, wine and/or German Biological Medicine, you may [...]
The Fall In Review
Research Associate News 19th Germany Tour The Fall of 1994 featured the Institute’s 19th German Biological Medicine Update Tour. This year’s tour, as always, [...]
Needle in the Haystack
S’pore’s first non-Chinese acupuncturist had a hard time being accepted. Race is something Justin Morais has always been very aware of. Years ago, as [...]
Sign-up to receive updates sent straight to your inbox