HIV is a retro-virus that replicates by using reverse transcriptase with an RNA genome to make new copies of itself via a DNA intermediate. HIV is said to suppress the immune system by destroying more CD4-T cells than the body can replace. "But, even in patients dying from AIDS less than 1 in 500 of the T-cells 'that become depleted' are ever infected by HIV" Source: Page-8 (The chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: [pdf] Peter Duesberg, Claus Koehnlein and David Rasnick) Yet T cells reproduce at around 5 percent a day, so HIV cannot kill enough T cells to suppress the immune system. It is one of the hardest things for HIV=AIDS proponents to try to explain; why AIDS patients lack so many T cells if HIV isn't killing that many.

In a normal, healthy body, there are about 1,000 T4, or infection locator cells per microliter of blood, and about half that many T8 killer cells, that go after infections. Millions of these T cells circulate in an inactive state in our bodies. During an immune response stimulated by a virus, for example, T cells reproduce until there are billions of them; they destroy the virus-infected cell, and then they start dying themselves until a baseline level of inactive cells is reached, and the immune system goes back to a resting stage.

So if even in a patient dying from AIDS, only 1 in 500 of the T-cells 'that become depleted' are infected with HIV, it seems very possible that something else may be suppressing the immune system. On HIV=AIDS there are over 100,000 research papers published, yet not one, not a single one, has any direct proof that HIV causes immune deficiency. Their entire theory is based on correlation. This correlation started to fall apart in the early years of AIDS research.

Peter Duesberg, Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at Berkley University Cal easily found over 4600 AIDS patients who were HIV negative. That caused adjustments to be made to the official AIDS definition to eliminate most cases of HIV negative AIDS. Doctors were pressured not to publish them, or publish them, but not in AIDS journals, and not as AIDS listings. Also unlike other microbes that cause specific diseases, HIV causes no specific disease disease at all. Not a single one. It supposedly suppresses the immune system so that one or more opportunistic diseases from a list of 33 can flourish. (note the list started at 14 diseases, but 19 were added) Therefore with the AID definition:

Kaposi's Sarcoma + HIV=AIDS
Kaposi's Sarcoma - HIV=Kaposi's Sarcoma

Cytomegalovirus + HIV=AIDS
Cytomegalovirus - HIV=Cytomegalovirus

Wasting Syndrome + HIV=AIDS
Wasting Syndrome - HIV=Wasting Syndrome

Tuberculosis + HIV=AIDS
Tuberculosis - HIV=Tuberculosis

And so on with the rest of the 33 diseases listed as opportunistic to AIDS. This makes it easy to correlate near 100 percent, but it's not objective, it's deceptive, and it isn't scientific. Science is designed to get around such deception. Yet the official definition was changed, based on a predetermined outcome. It is a self fulfilling prophecy, by simply removing what doesn't correlate.

Worldwide, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 28.1 million are HIV positive. The total officially reported AIDS cases is 1.4 million, or only 5 percent of those that have the HIV virus. In the US according to the CDC, 1 to 1.5 million have been infected with HIV since 1984. Approximately a half a million US AIDS cases have been reported after a latency period of over 20 years, and 62,000 of those were never tested for HIV. In Africa 14 million have HIV, but 97 percent do not have AIDS. There are 442,735 African cases of AIDS, or about 3 percent of those HIV positive. But yet those in the US infected with aids is 90/10 percent, men/women. In Africa although 97 percent are HIV+, AIDS is distributed 50/50 percent between men and women, with only 3 percent of them HIV+. How can this be explained to affect so differently by country and gender, or is there another cause?

By now I hope it is starting to raise some red flags in your mind that say, that maybe AIDS research foundations should begin to look in other areas for the cause of AIDS. While there is no proof of other causes either, there are other correlations that are much better than the HIV=AIDS correlation. Not that we should ever accept correlation as science, but it certainly is a good basis to do research, to confirm or eliminate the suggestions correlation makes. Little of that was done with HIV=AIDS.

Early on there was research being done in another area of correlation, "behavioral research," such as drug use. However that model was abandoned for the infectious HIV=AIDS model. Ever since, AIDS research has had all of it's eggs in one basket.

Lets start with some statistics other than HIV, and see if HIV as the cause should be reappraised, and hopefully stop giving millions of people a misdiagnoses of death, using toxic drugs that are known to suppress the immune system, and can do what HIV hasn't been shown to do. That is that these toxic drugs can cause AIDS itself. How many more have to die?

First, I apologize for some sources below being aged. They are from a DVD, that this post is based on. Newer CDC figures are here and are close. Lets look at who gets AIDS, source CDC 1992:

Homosexual males	62%

IV drug users		32

Hemophiliacs		1%

Transfusion		2%

			——

Total			97%

Don't jump to the conclusion that if one is homosexuals they are more likely to get AIDS yet just because 62 percent of those with AIDS are homosexual, it is still a small percentage of the gay community. And believe it or not, all homosexuals do not appear to be at risk. Further statistics show that almost all AIDS patients, are or were, drug users, and the homosexual community is a very substantial user of recreational drugs. So at the risk of being accused of gay bashing, when I hope to show that the underlying drug use (94% of cases overall, IV and recreational w/out regard to sexual preference) is the real risk, lets continue.

Drugs used by homosexuals with AIDS.

96%		Nitrite Inhalents (poppers)

35-50%		Ethylchloride Inhalents

50-60%		Cocaine

50-70%		Amphetamines

40%		Phenylcyclidine

40-60%		LSD

40-60%		Metaqualone

25%		Barbituates

90%		Marijuana

10%		Herone

So if this correlation means anything, being homosexual shouldn't put one at risk, but drug use should. However recreational drugs are used substantially, especially as an aphrodisiac in the gay community. The other major group is IV drug users, and we have knows for decades that heavy drug use suppresses the immune system. Since 1909 we have observed the horrendous effects of heroine, morphine, speed, cocaine and other injected drugs. Even antibiotics taken in large doses over time can suppress the immune system. Yet no government study has ever been done on the long term effect of hard drugs on the immune system, at least not with regard to AIDS.

Outside of the gay community thousands of HIV negative drug junkies are loosing the same CD4 T cells as AIDS patients, but they are not counted as such as long as they are HIV negative. How does the War on Drugs address this? They hand out clean needles and tell them to avoid HIV. If the focus were on extended use of harsh drugs, could thousands of lives be saved? I think it is a very good possibility.

Please watch this Google video (1HR 13MIN) with an open mind. Yes it is long, but this is a important issue. If you want you can download or buy an inexpensive copy of it here.

Thousands of South Africans are dying from ARV (anti-retroviral) poisoning. This poisoning results from extremely toxic drugs like AZT and nevirapine that were given to pregnant mothers and their children when born.

The Treatment Information Group (TIC) served a 59-page draft Bill of Indictment applying for prosecution of Zackie Achmat, leader of Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), a South African AIDS activist organization. The papers served up at the International Criminal Court at The Hague ask for prosecution for genocide.

The Montreal International AIDS conference started yesterday and runs through Friday. For what it's worth the Kaiser Family Foundation website is carrying the goings on.

Sunday opening session (in podcast, video, or .pdf).

Guide to the daily webcast.

Interviews by the Kaiser Family Foundation's Jackie Judd.

Michael Geiger has a first day report from a HIV Dissenter’s point of view. (Via Dean)

NIH whistleblower Dr. Jonathan Fishbein discusses how profit and politics rule the day in science and medicine.


In one of the studies 1998 in Uganda of 645 expectant mothers on either AZT or Nevirapine.

80 percent of mothers exhibited abnormalities.
20 percent rate of "serious adverse events" in newborns.
38 babies died, 16 on Nevirapine and 22 on AZT.

Two weeks after filing his complaint Fishbein was demoted, then fired five days later. After a long battle he was reinstated last December.

This is just the tip of the iceberg in a growing problem with politics and profit in public funding of any area of scientific research.

Please read the whole story. Thanks to Dean's World
for the link.

Is there any reason to question what we have been told about AIDS? After all it has been twenty four years since the first AIDS cases were identified in 1981. But what if much of what we have been told is based on false hypothesis', misrepresentation of data, or claims of facts that are not in evidence?

For several weeks I followed dozens of posts at Dean's World blog on AIDS starting with Scientific Dissenters which peaked my interest and interactive questions and answer comments with Molecular Biologist Dr. Harvey Bialy and other Dean's World readers, many working in the field of medicine, or with medical knowledge.

In this, and later in part II review of "The Other Side of AIDS" I intend to show that there is strong evidence that you should question what you may know about AIDS. Further that you may question the wisdom of taking AIDS and HIV positive treatment drugs.

Im April, 1984 Margaret Heckler, Secretary US Dept of Health and Human Services said:


Though vaguely, I do remember the tempestuous acclaim hitting the news after that rining proclamation of success back then. Yet $120 billion dollars and twenty one years later we have yet to find any so-called HIV virus in human blood, in spite of Hecklers claim then. As far as her claim that we now have a blood test for AIDS with essentially 100 percent certainty, all aids test kits contain a disclaimer, below are some samples:




Then what does it mean to test HIV positive? The tests are not a test for AIDS or even HIV, although it is claimed that the test is for HIV antibodies, it is not. What the tests do is test for anti-bodies that may or may not have anything to do with AIDS or HIV, because the test is non-specific. In the words of Robert Da Prato, MD, HIV testing specialist for the US Armed Services:


So much for Margaret Heckler's "essentially 100 percent certainty." Still if you test HIV positive and are pregnant you may be asked to take HIV/AIDS drugs, and when your child is born, your child may be forced to take cancer causing drugs like AZT in a highly toxic cocktail. Your refusal to comply could cause you to loose custody of your child. In part II you will see just how easily that happens without justification.

What do you suppose would happen if you had pneumonia and took an HIV test? You may well be labeled as being HIV positive because your body is producing antibodies to the pneumonia. The results of the tests themself can have quite a negative effect with intense and long lasting emotions. They could include guilt, shame, fear of isolation, loss of friends and fear of death, and all the while you may not be in any danger at all.

Todate the FDA has never approved a test kit that claims to be used for the purpose of diagnosing HIV infection. Searching the internet for test kits I find some that say "FDA approved," but the wording doesn't include diagnosis for HIV, or the HIV virus. So if you do a search and see a HIV/AIDS drug that says "FDA approved," the approval is as non-specific as the tests, and are not approved as an indication for the presence of HIV.

So what is HIV other than an acronym for Human Immunodeficiency Virus? My knowledge of the medical field is pretty well non-existent, so while I listened to the contentions in this film, I also did a lot of internet research before doing this review. While learning a lot from both points of view I'm still by no means an expert on HIV/AIDS, but I started to see a pattern.

What is AIDS besides a deficient immune system? AIDS is a collection of about thirty diseases that if you have one or more of—for example pnumonia—and also test HIV positive, then it is called AIDS. Yet if you have pnumonia and your 'T' cell is high enough that you are not labeled as HIV, then you only have pnumonia and not AIDS.

Today a growing movement of doctors, researchers and HIV positive people question the accuracy of the HIV tests and challenge the idea that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Their challenges for the most part are not welcome in the media or the scientific community. In spite of the notion that science welcomes skepticism, questioning a hypothesis or testing results, it doesn't apply to aids. In fact those that criticize are rebuffed and called names, like bigots, homophobes, baby killers, flat earthers by their peers.

Those that say the HIV virus causes AIDS will say things like, the scientific evidence is absolutely overwhelming, but if you look for research papers that show even remotely that HIV causes AIDS there are none. When you look for supporting data claims of evidence abound, but the elusive labratory evidence to show that HIV causes AIDS just isn't there. Only a consensus among many researchers, scientists and media without the labratory data.

Former director of San Francisco Dept of Public Health, Mervin Silverman MD, when asked in the film if there is a test that can difinatively tell you if your infected with the virus simply pointed to the HIV ELISA test and said:


AIDS patients test HIV positve, and healthy people also test HIV positive meaning that you don't have AIDS, but supposedly have the HIV virus that causes it. Some that are HIV positive are later diagnosed with AIDS and some are not. What they do is determine by your immune system system T-4 cell count whether you are just HIV positive, or have AIDS. If your T-4 cell count falls below a certain level you have AIDS. As that level is higher in the US than it is in Canada, you can be HIV positive or non-AIDS in Canada, but have AIDS in the US.

Well the tests only assume you have the HIV virus, and no matter how healthy you are, your encouraged to take anti-HIV drugs. The drugs themself actually attack the immune system 'T' cells. AZT for example essentially kills cells. That might lead one to believe this could cause a perfectly healthy HIV positive person's immune system to deteriorate under the anti-HIV/AIDS drugs to the level of having full blown AIDS, or one who has AIDS to find the cure worse than the disease. The cures like AZT are some pretty toxic and potent drugs. In fact AZT carries the skull and crossbones on the label.

From Peter Duesberg, PHD, A Nobel Prize nominee for his discovery of oncogenes and pioneer in the field of retroviruses, and the best known of the HIV/AIDS dissidents.


Dr Kary Mullis, the 1993 winner of the Nobel Prize for chemistry for his invention of PCR, was hired to do a PCR for a HIV project for a private company. As his first sentence on the paper he wrote that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. Then he turned to a virologist and asked, "What is the reference for that." He was told, "You don't need it." Well Mullis was smarter than that. He knew something this new you always had to have the original papers to establish a claim.



Charles Farthing, MD, Medical Director of AIDS Healthcare Foundation sees it in more simpler if not confusing with this response.


Well that's real scientific! And this guy is Dir of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation?

Thanks to Dean Esmay at Dean's World for sending me the preview DVD for this review.