'BOYCOTT OF HIV TESTS'
An exchange between the Perth Group and David Crowe. With a final note from the PG to Jensen, Knoll and Brink.
Read from the bottom up.
Sent: 08 September 2011 08:24 AM
To: 'Claus Jensen'; 'Rod Knoll'
Cc: 'Anthony Brink'
Claus we agree with your articles for the Symposium. [link] We thank you for your extraordinary support and hard work. The same to Anthony and Rodney.
A few points:
1. We think someone should ask Crowe to tell the 2.5K dissidents that the aim of RA is not to deconstruct the HIV theory of AIDS. Because the way he is talking they would think the opposite.
2. At least twice we have asked Crowe to read our papers and tell us why we are wrong about semen. Despite this Crowe has not produced any scientific criticism and still expounds his view that semen is not toxic.
3. Rodney may be right about Crowe and condoms. However, from our biased position we see an extra reason. As you all know Crowe claims that the drug theory of AIDS belongs to Duesberg. All the PG did was to add semen. This means that if semen plays no role the PG has no theory.
4. There is a very good reason why Tony Lance’s views (which Bauer elevated to a theory) on AIDS pathogenesis cannot be correct. A positive antibody and AIDS are directly related to number of sexual contacts with ejaculation in PAI. Not douching. However, we do think probiotics might turn out to be helpful but they are currently unproven. Need RCTs.
5. In regard to Ruggiero and GcMAF. Since according to Gallo and Montagnier you cannot have either AIDS or HIV without stimulation  and since according to Ruggiero GcMAF is one of the best stimulants (which is a fact) the result will be AIDS and HIV. If given with probiotics the result will be whichever agents wins. Probably not Yoghurt. Again need RCTs. Has anyone managed to find an RCT or even preliminary clinical data on GcMAF?
Once again all our thanks
E and V
1. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM. Oxidative stress, HIV and AIDS. Res Immunol. 1992;143:145-8.
From: David Crowe [mailto:David.Crowe@aras.ab.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, 17 August 2011 11:00 PM
To: Val Turner
Subject: Re: Boycott of HIV/AIDS tests
Thank you for your document from July 27th, I appreciate your willingness to enter into discussion.
Your introductory paragraph illustrates some of the difficulty that you get into because of your desire to have an alternative explanation for AIDS when AIDS is undefinable. You write, "for the efficient therapy of a disease a precise pathogenesis needs to be understood". I will assume that you meant "safe and effective", rather than "efficient", which conjures up cost reduction and triage rather than what is best for an individual.
The first thing that worries me is your use of the term "disease".
Not only is AIDS not a disease by any definition, but it is a syndrome of diseases that is defined differently in different places, with probably as many variants as you found for the interpretation of the Western Blot test. Furthermore, in some places it is a list of rather specific, mostly uncommon conditions, and in other places very vague, very common conditions. And, in the US alone, it is diagnosed mostly without illness, just on the basis of low CD4 counts or on the CD4/CD8 ratio.
How can there be a precise pathogenesis for something so vague?
This does not mean that I reject your theory of oxidative stress. I am willing to agree that it explains many, perhaps most, cases that are called "AIDS". But I am not willing to say that it explains all.
And I am especially concerned about implications that HIV tests are a reliable indicator of oxidative stress and thus of future development of "AIDS" in HIV-positive currently healthy people.
In addition, your theory that semen is toxic, even vaginally, seems unsupported to me. We all know that prostitutes are not a risk group for AIDS if they are not drug users. In fact, in Senegal women had higher CD4 counts than men (Mair C et al. Factors associated with CD4 lymphocyte counts in HIV-negative Senegalese individuals. Clin Exp Immunol. 2008 Mar; 151(3): 432-40.) and prostitutes higher than women in general. Assuming not much homosexuality the exposure to semen is inversely related to CD4 count. This could be because CD4 counts are useless indicators or perhaps that prostitutes are actually economically better off in some cultures than the average person.
This is important because a lot of evidence for "immune suppression" is really just a low CD4 count measurement.
I am also concerned about your distortions of the position of Rethinking AIDS which, on detailed scientific issues (such as the existence of HIV), often does not have a position but allows its members to think and speak for themselves. I don't know where you got your assertion that "According to RA HIV is a cause of AIDS". Our statement that, "Stopping drug use, providing nutritious food, are obvious solutions to obvious problems and a blood test is unlikely to help." clearly should not be read as if "obvious problems" are "AIDS" and certainly should not be read to imply that they are caused by HIV. It seems very obvious to me that the best route to health for an IVDU is to stop injecting drugs. That alone may well not be enough, but it is hard to believe that health can be restored in a chronic drug user that continues to inject. It is hard to believe that knowledge that they are HIV+ can help do anything except create stress. I am sure you have had many panicky emails from HIV+ people freaked out by a recent HIV test, CD4 count or viral load. For them the nightmare starts with the HIV test and gets worse if they buy into all the other tests that follow.
RA does not advise people to ignore safe sex education. This is another false statement that you make.
I do not understand why you would deliberately distort what we have so clearly written and conclude that, "you accept that HIV is sexually transmitted and is a cause of AIDS". First of all if "you" means David Crowe you know that this is a false representation of my beliefs. And if "you" means RA, while there are some who believe that HIV can be sexually transmitted, I don't know of any who believe it is a cause of AIDS, which is by far the most important part of the belief.
I understand that you want to believe that there is an easily demarcated division between us, but there is not. Many of our beliefs are concordant. Not all, but then my beliefs are not concordant with every member of the RA board either. I believe that some members of RA are wrong in their belief about a passenger virus, but I also believe that you are seriously exaggerating the toxicity of semen. If we worked together I think we'd get closer to the real truth.
Speaking of semen, a while back you sent me a paper by Wang et al on semen and HPV/Cervical cancer. I thought it was very weak and speculative and certainly did not increase my confidence that you were on the right track. First of all, you'd have to accept that HPV is the cause of cervical cancer, rather than environmental factors.
Their major evidence that semen is the cause is that >80% of cervical cancer cases are in developing countries which they imply is due to the type of birth control used. They imply that condom use is widespread as a means of birth control in developing countries, thus limiting semen exposure.
But, it appears that this is not so, the following article: [link] says that IUDs are most common form in developing countries that and condoms are much more commonly used by women in developed countries.
They don't provide any evidence for their belief that people in developing countries are less exposed to semen.
I would love to see your concerns about semen better developed, I'm not dismissing them entirely, just pointing out at present that you seem to be relying on very weak evidence. It is strange that at times you can be extremely rational and methodical in the development of an argument but, when you really want to believe something, such as that RA is your mirror image or that semen is the cause of many diseases, you lose your rationality and accept any evidence that supports your views, no matter how weak or unsupported it is.
The Perth Group, email 27 July 2011:
This is a series of emails (read from bottom) between David Crowe and the PG. It began with our asking about RA’s recommendation to boycott the “HIV/AIDS tests”.
The response we sent Crowe is attached. [Below in blue font]
Please note Crowe told us he sent the email immediately below to his Board and Martin Barnes. So we asked him if we could send it and our response to “our Board”. To which he agreed.
We accept that scientific differences exist in our views of AIDS. We believe, however, that for the efficient therapy of a disease a precise pathogenesis needs to be understood.
At the beginning of the AIDS era we put forward a theory of AIDS pathogenesis, presented supporting evidence and made predictions. Our views have not changed. Most of them, including,
(1) evidence that neither Montagnier nor Gallo isolated "HIV" from "fresh AIDS tissues" or from cultures, and thus proved its existence;
(2) evidence that AIDS patients and those at risk are exposed to strong oxidising agents i.e. these individuals will be oxidised;
(3) the relationship between redox and immune deficiency;
(4) the relationship between redox, antibody synthesis and antibody/antigen reactions;
(5) the role of drugs in AIDS and the mechanism (cellular oxidation), that is, the drug theory of AIDS;
(6) semen toxicity, its role in AIDS and its mechanism;
(7) the synergistic effects between semen and drugs;
(8) ways of preventing and treating AIDS;
can be found in: EPE, Reappraisal of AIDS-Is the oxidation induced by the risk factors the primary cause?, Medical Hypoth. 1988; 25:151-162. Additional data on (6), including
1. semen does not discriminate between the sexes. It is toxic irrespective of where it is deposited, gut or vagina. Although the site may determine different pathological effects.
2. the toxicity of semen is facilitated by gut trauma, drugs, poor nutrition, stress.
3. the toxicity of semen itself in a gay man may turn out not to be much higher than in a woman practising exclusively vaginal intercourse exposed to a similar volume of semen over a similar time.
can be found in E P-E, VT, JP, Kaposi's Sarcoma and HIV. Medical Hypoth. 1992; 39:22-29. You may also like to read Looking Back on the Oxidative Stress Theory of AIDS. http://theperthgroup.com/CONTINUUM/lookingback.html
Sometime around the mid 1990s, someone, somehow, changed the name of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis to Rethinking AIDS. RA has been claiming Montagnier proved the existence of HIV, the virus is sexually transmitted, albeit not very efficiently, but is harmless. More recently “the last two presidents” claimed they showed there is no evidence that proves the existence of HIV. But they also claim Montagnier did prove the existence of a retrovirus, an endogenous retrovirus, although all retrovirologists agree there are no endogenous retroviruses. Neither have they published such evidence.
Now, in its "new phase" RA lets dissidents know that:
1. Montagnier says “HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS”.
2. According to RA HIV is a cause of AIDS and “Stopping drug use, providing nutritious food, are obvious solutions to obvious problems and a blood test is unlikely to help”. (There is no HIV expert who will not agree that factors other than HIV may cause immune deficiency and AIDS indicator diseases; that HIV needs co-factors, accepted by Gallo in 1986, and that all drugs, recreational, prescription and ART, are toxic).
In other words, in its “new phase”, RA has exchanged position with Montagnier in regard to AIDS pathogenesis. It appears RA is more devoted to Montagnier’s virus than Montagnier is himself.
There are two main differences between the HIV experts and RA.
1. The HIV experts advocate testing. RA states the test for the very virus that is a cause of AIDS, “is unlikely to help”. In fact, you advise those at risk to boycott the tests.
2. The HIV experts claim AIDS is sexually transmitted. RA states AIDS “it’s not sexually transmissible” and advise those at risk to ignore safe sex education.
Since you accept that HIV is sexually transmitted and is a cause of AIDS, and the scientific literature shows beyond reasonable doubt that sex plays a role in AIDS, your advice is not only illogical, it is also grossly negligent. No wonder you now say “there is no RA science” and the scope of RA is not to deconstruct the HIV theory of AIDS.
From: David Crowe
Sent: Friday, 15 July 2011 11:26 AM
To: Val Turner
Subject: RE: Boycott of HIV/AIDS tests
I appreciate the fact that you replied, but this type of reply is something I would expect from the other side, from a dogmatist. It is not something that I can respect as part of a constructive dialogue.
I believe that I understand what has happened to you that has resulted in you putting yourself into a corner that you now cannot get out of.
You decided, I postulate, around the time of the Parenzee trial, that there were two sides of AIDS dissent, black and white, the Perth Group and your supporters, and Rethinking AIDS and theirs.
Everything Rethinking AIDS did and, by extension, everything David Crowe, Peter Duesberg, Etienne de Harven, did, was wrong, and needed to be criticized. Everything that your side did -- Anthony Brink's accusations about the Green Party, attacks on the Duesberg/Ruggiero papers in Medical Hypotheses -- was justified, even if in many cases it resulted in you siding with the establishment.
Your dogmatism required you to believe that Rethinking AIDS supported only the passenger virus hypothesis despite more than a decade's evidence that the last two presidents of the RA board (Etienne and myself) had publicly rejected the evidence for the existence of HIV.
Scientifically, your rigid division of dissidents into two camps also caused you problems. Your old statement that, "AIDS is not sexually transmitted but it is sexually acquired" was polished off and this caused you to overemphasize the role of semen even more than before. I never got a reasonable response when I pointed out to you that the evidence is for this position is very weak. I will accept that their is a little bit of evidence that rectal exposure to semen can increase the chance of a positive HIV test, but the evidence that semen alone can cause AIDS is totally lacking. You just have to think about how this experiment could be performed to realize the absurdity of the claim. Your hypothesis about semen put you into the position of saying that a positive HIV test was a good indicator of future development of AIDS, which is frighteningly close to the establishment position.
So, when Rethinking AIDS came out with "The AIDS Trap" brochure, you were forced to criticize it, to the point where the world's major critics of the meaning of the HIV test are now in the position of claiming that we should not be stopping people from getting tests. Perhaps we should even be encouraging HIV testing.
I assumed from your correspondence with Martin Barnes, the editor, that you were claiming that the HIV test, an absolute failure at detecting a virus, is an absolute success at detecting oxidative stress. I'm sure you'd agree that if the "HIV" test was 80% accurate at detecting oxidative stress it would be pretty useless. 20% of healthy people would be told they were in a condition of oxidative stress when they weren't and a similar percentage of people who were in a condition of oxidative stress would be told not to worry.
Consequently, you must be assuming that the "HIV test" is 99% or more accurate at detecting oxidative stress, a position for which I think there is no evidence. Even if it was accurate, many causes of oxidative stress, such as drug use, are pretty obvious, so it's not clear that a blood test would really be of any benefit. What is needed is to recognize the obvious problem and correct it. Stopping drug use, providing nutritious food, are obvious solutions to obvious problems and a blood test is unlikely to help.
Furthermore, even if "HIV tests" were good for something else, you are very aware that HIV+ people in the future, just like Andre Parenzee, Charles Mzite, Carl Leone, Trevis Smith, Philippe Padieu and many others in the past, would continue to go to jail for many years solely on the basis of their HIV test and normal consensual sexual activity, while the same people, if they had remained ignorant of their HIV status, or even better had asserted their right to not be tested, would not have committed a crime in the eyes of the law and would be free today. You are, I am sure, also aware that women who get tested for HIV, are at risk of coercive medication with AZT and its ilk, and of watching their children be poisoned against their will. Are the benefits from potentially finding out they are in a condition of oxidative stress worth the dangers of AZT and other ARVs? Are they worth the possibility of having their child seized and poisoned?
I believe that it is your dogmatic position against Rethinking AIDS that has put you into the position where you are refusing to answer my questions below, which I think are quite reasonable, despite the fact that they are clearly not answered by your publications and any correspondence with me.
I remain open to civilized discussions at any point but first you need to reject your viewpoint that AIDS rethinkers can be neatly divided into two opposing camps. Our position on the other side of the line you have drawn is not our choice. We have not separated ourselves, we are being forcibly kept out of your camp. We have no desire to be separated from yourselves and others who feel that non-existence of HIV is a position that must be imposed on all AIDS rethinkers who do not accept it voluntarily. We would love to discuss many points of science and strategy with you as individuals, free to consider and accept or reject all hypotheses that come along, whether it is regarding the existence of HIV, the strategy of AIDS rethinkers relative to the public or the legal system, or what an HIV test might mean beyond its inability to detect a virus.
P.S. I am forwarding this email to the RA Board and Martin Barnes.
Our position on the questions you have asked is clearly stated in the various papers we have published as well as in several personal communications we have had with you.
Eleni and Val
From: David Crowe
Sent: Saturday, 25 June 2011 7:57 AM
To: Martin Barnes; Val Turner
Subject: Re: Boycott of HIV/AIDS tests
Dear Val and Eleni;
Martin shared this email with me and I have some questions about your position on HIV testing. If you could answer them it would certainly help me understand your position better:
At 2:28 AM -0700 6/23/11, Martin Barnes wrote:
Hello Val and Eleni,
In response to your question, we have not decided whether we should go ahead with the boycott. We are still in the research phase. Below is a message I wrote to the RA Board analyzing your review of The AIDS Trap, and the logic behind the boycott idea.
If we went ahead, we would certainly want to boycott all the serology tests. I would assume we would boycott the viral load and PCR related tests also, but this has not been discussed.
I have not yet approached Jay Levy with your challenge to debate him by email that we discussed a few months ago, as I am waiting until I have a chance to approach him in person. I go to the Bay Area frequently as my sister lives there, and my boys have a store there.
Dear Rethinking AIDS Board,
Shortly after the brochure The AIDS Trap appeared, The Perth Group wrote a critical summary:
Perth critiqued many of the statements made in The AIDS Trap brochure about HIV testing. In the context of planning a potential boycott of HIV tests, these are interesting questions. I have labeled the questions in CAPS.
p.s. I would like to ask if any board members would like to join me in a sub-committee to advise on boycott idea.
AT is the language in The AIDS Trap
PG is Perth Group
[in brackets are my comments]
PG: ...there is a scientific basis for serological diagnosis;
the extensive data linking the presence of "HIV antibodies", whatever their genesis, to an increased probability of developing certain diseases, known as the AIDS indicator diseases. Especially in individuals who comprise the AIDS risk groups. It is scientific nonsense to state the tests "are useless as a diagnostic tool determining who will get AIDS". "
AT: A positive result on an HIV antibody test does not mean you have or will get AIDS! PG: Many patients with a positive test "have or will get AIDS!"
AT: The epidemiological evidence of "testing HIV positive" correlating with AIDS cases is simply not there
but...AT: the antibodies are "found at high levels in the blood of most early AIDS patients."
PG: In 1989 Peter Duesberg wrote: "The epidemiological correlation between these antibodies [HIV antibodies] and AIDS is the primary basis for the hypothesis that AIDS is caused by this virus·and antibodies to HIV became part of the definition of AIDS".
[PG is saying that the tests DO indicate the likelihood of AIDS indicator diseases, and therefore ARE clinically useful. PG is arguing that even though the antibody tests have innumerable 'false positives,' i.e., with pregnancy, etc, they still are clinically useful as predictors of AIDS diseases.
The question is, does the negative impact of the tests outweigh the potential good they could do. Our brochure does state that a positive result may be a warning that your immune system is compromised, but perhaps we should give this more emphasis, and continue to point out there is no proof of a virus, or of a death sentence.]
AT: A positive result on an HIV antibody test may (but not always) mean your immune system has been injured by repeated infections, heavy drug use, or inadequate rest or nutrition";"This could be a wake-up call to change the way you're living",
PG. are these not excellent reasons for having an HIV test? How does one get a "wake-up call" without the alarm clock? Especially someone in an AIDS risk group who is symptomatic? Isn't it dangerous to advise a person to forgo such a test?
The Board does not appear to consider the merits of being tested and found to be HIV negative.
QUESTION 1 repeated
[Again, PG is arguing that the tests are a good thing to have around. So far we have concluded the opposite. A positive result diverts attention from treatment of the real illness and makes it seem like a dangerous virus is present, causing panic and unwise choices.]
PG: Any doctor will confirm that antibody tests are "not 100 percent reliable" but will also add that they are routinely used in medical practice and are clinically useful. This is one of the reasons why the antibody tests cannot be used to argue against the "HIV" theory of AIDS. If there is "HIV", then there are "HIV" antibodies, and there are "HIV" tests.
PG: It is not true to say "HIV tests don't show a definite positive or negative result". Many, in fact probably most tests are clearcut positive or negative."
Laboratory tests are invariably interpreted in light of clinical data. Since no test is 100% specific there will always be false positives. However, the probability that a positive test is due to infection, that is, its positive predictive value, depends on the prevalence of infection in the group represented by the individual being tested. The higher the prevalence the higher the predictive value. There is nothing "Unfair" about this. It is a mathematical fact and how Medicine should be and is practised."
[Here is the Perthian logic with respect to seropositivity tests, recent communication:]
"At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood." (Abbott Lab HIV Test - ElA)"
PG: What's important to conclude from this quote from the packet insert: Everyone, including Abbott Laboratories, knows there is a gold standard for HIV infection. It's HIV itself. HIV isolation. After all, that's what the test is being used for. So HIV is what you need for a gold standard comparison. The packet insert statement is a disclaimer to the fact no one has used this gold standard. It is there with any eye to the time when the significance of this will be more widely appreciated, that is, for legal reasons.
...First Gallo took the proteins from the 1.16 g/ml density band and, although he did not have any proof for the existence of retroviral particles in that band, just because two of the proteins, p41 and p24, reacted most often with serum from his AIDS patients, he called them "HIV" proteins. From then on, any individual whose serum reacted with one or other of these proteins, or both, Gallo claimed was infected with HIV. But antibodies which are present in an individual may be induced by other agents and still react with the proteins in the 1.16 g/ml band, even if those proteins are HIV proteins. The only way to know that a person is infected is to use antibody tests proven specific for HIV infection. The only way to do that, as Abbott Laboratories obviously know, is to take serum from large number of people -- AIDS patients, those at risk, sick individuals, healthy people -- and compare the results of the antibody tests with the results of virus isolation/purification. If the test is 100% specific positive tests will occur only in individuals from whom the virus can be isolated/purified. A positive test will never occur in someone from whom the virus cannot be isolated/purified. These data have never been reported and could not be reported because no one has purified HIV. Which means even today no one knows if the antibody tests are 100% specific, or zero % specific, or some number in between. This is the real tragedy of the antibody tests. These tests should never have been released into clinical practice in the absence of such. This is why Abbott have their disclaimer.
[PG is saying here that it is fair to ask the person tested if they are gay, and interpret the test result accordingly. "No tests are 100% specific. It is standard textbook stuff to interpret the tests in light of the probability a person has the disease." Should we accept this? They are also arguing that the best way to attack the antibody tests is to point out there has been no isolation, no gold standard, not the lack of specificity.]
PG: It is also noteworthy that if, on the basis of an antibody test and clinical data, including prevalence, the doctor is unable to arrive at a definite conclusion, he will order a PCR test as an ancillary test to sort out the "HIV" status.
It is true the PCR does not detect full length genomes. However, a doctor will explain you do not need to detect more than a part of HIV to detect HIV.
The doctor could also point out that many full length HIV genomes are recorded in the Los Alamos Laboratory database. So will Peter Duesberg. Once one accepts the existence of "HIV" one has no choice but to also accept that the finding of a small bit of "HIV" signifies "HIV" infection. The "small chains" of the HIV genome cannot get into human bodies of their own accord. A small chain must have been the result of infection with a replication competent virus particle. That is, one that contains the complete viral genome. Furthermore, "small chains" of the "HIV" genome cannot be remnants of past infection."
[Here PG is saying that the PCR tests, just by picking up small lengths of genome, do accurately test for the full length genomes at Los Alamos. So the only way to challenge PCR tests is to say those genomes at Los Alamos are not replication competent virus particles, i.e., 'HIV does not exist.'
This is a serious problem. We can challenge the antibody tests because because of non-specificity, but we can't say that for the PCR tests. Although there apparently is a lot of variability due to mutation, there is said to still reside a 'signature' of an exogenous retrovirus in the sequences. Is this valid? The only way we can challenge the PCR tests is to challenge the identity of the Los Alamos chains. In doing this we revert to the Perthian approach, WHICH WE HAVE LABELLED A STRATEGIC BLUNDER, i.e., it is hard to get anyone to accept "HIV does not exist." The alternative is to explore Perth's chain of reasoning and become experts in explaining it in simple terms.]
PG: To date, nobody has proven the existence of HIV. What is referred to as "isolation of HIV" is no more than a collage of nonspecific phenomena which, either alone or in combination, do not prove the existence of a retrovirus, much less a unique retrovirus "HIV". The "molecular signature" of "HIV" cannot be that of HERVs for the simple reason that no one has proven their existence. As Gallo testified at the Parenzee hearing. There are also many reasons why it is not a retroid, SINE, LINE or LTR. One suffices to illustrate this point. Since all the above are present in all of us, then the "HIV" molecular signature must be found in all of us. However, to date nobody has proven the existence of the "HIV" molecular signature (the whole "HIV genome") in the uncultured cells of even one AIDS patient, much less in all of us.
[Here PG is saying that PCR has never successfully measured the whole HIV genome from uncultured cells, from the blood of AIDS patients. So I have the question, what are they measuring with viral load tests? That is certainly from fresh, uncultured blood. Aren't there other PCR tests from fresh serum besides viral load that are being used to test for HIV?]
AT: Research has proven that "viral load" tests are useless in predicting who will get AIDS.
PG: This claim is most probably based on findings published by Rodriguez et al from the Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
"·the researchers report that groups of people with higher viral loads lost more CD4 cells each year. But on an individual basis, viral load accurately predicted a person's CD4 decline just 4% to 6% of the time. "It really nicely illustrates that when you look at cohorts and find a general phenomenon-yeah, virus is high and CD4 is low-it can be very, very poorly accountable when you look at individuals,"
Doctors agree no one can predict what
will happen to a particular individual on the basis of viral load levels. The
same applies to the level of a person's blood pressure. Would an RA Board
member rather have a blood pressure of 150/110 or a blood pressure of 280/150?
After all, not all the latter will have a stroke and many strokes occur at
lesser blood pressure levels. What doctor would advise his patients against
having blood pressure measurements or taking medication to lower blood pressure?
[Here PG is interpreting the results of the Rodriguez study as saying that viral load IS a good measure of patient sickness. Is this correct?]
AT: This is tragic because thousands are suffering from the horror of being classified "HIV Positive."
PG: This brochure will not change this. Doctors will have no problem responding to questions patients ask after reading this brochure. Those who decide to be tested and are HIV positive will suffer.
Those who decide not to be tested will worry about their decision. Not being tested may prove more psychologically toxic than being tested. After all, being tested is the only way a patient can find out if he or she is HIV negative. There are many thousands who can avoid the "suffering from the horror of being classified "HIV positive" by testing HIV negative. On the other hand, the only way to avoid the "suffering from the horror of being classified "HIV positive" is to prove there is no evidence a retrovirus HIV exists.
[This is the nub of the PG argument that emphasis should be given to the existential question. The awful thing about the existing paradigm is the horror of being classified "HIV positive" and the subsequent damage that ensues. We are saying the way to approach this to to point out the antibody tests are only good for identifying an activated immune system, not a virus, therefore no reason for horror. If the PCR /viral loads tests do test for a virus, the voodoo ghost arises once a person thinks the AIDS virus is inside them. This is why we need to get to the bottom of whether PCR tests are valid. Do the chains in the Los Alamos lab really represent a retrovirus?]
PG: The Board fails to see that the clinical, laboratory and seroepidemiological data may have clinical utility, and can inform public health policy even if a retrovirus HIV does not exist. Rather than face up to this fact the Board prefers to deny the data.
However, the vast majority, if not all immunologists no longer believe there are scientific reasons to justify the long standing claim that viruses are neutralised by antibodies.
The RA Board, like the HIV experts, accepts there are HIV antibodies. This being the case there are HIV antibody tests. However, while the HIV experts claim these tests are highly specific, the RA Board claims their specificity is low. But they do not indicate how they can discriminate between a true and a false positive antibody test, for example, in a pregnant woman.
[The reason I compiled this is to analyze issues surrounding the boycott of the tests, to point out what to me are unanswered questions, and to refine our understanding and strategy. Perth is saying the tests are a good thing. Not being tested may prove more psychologically toxic than being tested. Given the current toxic cultural beliefs about AIDS, testing negative is a relief for a lot of people. And the test is a clinical flag for a weakened immune system, which is what AIDS is. That's the upside.
But does the downside outweigh that? A positive result gives a voodoo death sentence and pushes the patient to accept a diagnosis which includes wrong and dangerous medication.
Is a boycott of all HIV tests the best answer? The only way we can legitimately boycott is if the tests really are faulty, i.e., they don't test for a virus, or necessarily for a lethal disease. By claiming they are faulty, we are withdrawing the death sentence. Claiming the virus doesn't exist does the same thing. Which is better? Which is more strategic? The logic of the tests being no good is similar to the logic of the virus not existing, but easier to sell, especially if the viral load/PCR tests from fresh serum are faulty.
But if there is a virus, of course we can argue that it's a harmless virus. But until we can show the PCR tests are useless, we need to accept that maybe they measure a virus. Of course, we can challenge the paradigm also with its many other faults, the poor testing methods in Africa, the fact that AIDS is not infectious, not sexually transmitted, that the HIV/AIDS etiology is unknown, the faulty epidemiology of AIDS, the unclear definition of AIDS, the political history of AIDS, and explaining the alternative theory of AIDS being caused by oxidative stress and appropriate remedies.
The logic of the boycott is that it is a dramatic action that calls attention to the problem. Saying that the tests are incorrect is a starting point that has a prima facie believability, unlike saying that HIV does not exist. At the same time, considering the possibility that HIV does not exist, we should develop easy to understand ways of explaining why, something we don't have yet.]
Martin K. Barnes
Editor, The AIDS Trap
--- On Thu, 6/23/11, Val Turner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
1. Why does the RA Board Directors, in particular David Crowe, David Rasnick and you, want to boycott the "HIV/AIDS" tests?
2. What are the actual AIDS tests you wish to boycott?
Eleni and Val