[Firestarter]

Strange but true, there is absolutely no evidence that the magical HIV virus causes AIDS. But according to the state media, this is an established “fact” nonetheless and if you don’t believe this nonsense you must be labelled a nutcase “conspiracy theorist”.
There is however evidence that the first “medicine” to treat AIDS, AZT, causes immune deficiency and death.
There are also many other causes of immune deficiency...
 
 
AIDS-discoverer Montagnier – HIV not THE cause of AIDS
Dr. Robert Gallo and Professor Luc Montagnier are the scientists credited with discovering AIDS. Luc Montagnier won the 2008 Nobel Prize for discovering HIV. Gallo couldn’t get the Nobel Prize because he had been caught in a few cases of scientific fraud too many...
 
In 2009, Montagnier made some statements in the "House of Numbers" documentary in an interview with Brent Leung - shocking because they come from one of the 2 men most credited with inventing that HIV causes AIDS.
 
Montagnier explains that it isn’t only HIV that causes AIDS as people with a good immune system can deal with HIV, and names some “co-factors” that (also cause AIDS), like:
Oxidative stress;
Contaminated water;
Bad nutrition.
 
If I understand correctly Montagnier claims that HIV is one of many factors that can cause AIDS; so he only tells part of the truth.
Montagnier doesn’t believe that any vaccine can prevent AIDS.
Here is an extract from the interview (6:52).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqnWEGyjUoE
 
See some quotes from the interview:

Leung: You talked about oxidative stress earlier. Is treating oxidative stress one of the best ways to deal with the African AIDS epidemic?

Montagnier: I think this is one way to approach, to decrease the rate of transmission, because I believe HIV we can be exposed to HIV many times without bring chronically infected, our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system; and this is the problem also of the African people.
Their nutrition is not very equilibrated, they are in oxidative stress, even if they are not infected with HIV; so their immune system doesn't work well already. So it's prone, it can, you know, allow HIV to get in and persist. So there are many ways which are not the vaccine, the magic name, the vaccine, many ways to decrease the transmission just by simple measures of nutrition, giving antioxidants - proper antioxidants - hygiene measures, fighting the other infections.
So they are not spectacular, but they could, you know, decrease very well the epidemic, to the level they are in occidental countries, western countries.
 
Leung: So if you have a good immune system, then your body can naturally get rid of HIV?
Montagnier: Yes.
 
Leung: Oh, interesting. Do you think we should have more of a push for antioxidants, and things of that nature, in Africa than antiretrovirals (AIDS drugs)?
Montagnier: We should push for more, you know, a combination of measures; antioxidants, nutrition advice, nutritions, fighting other infections - malaria, tuberculosis, parasitosis, worms - education of course, genital hygiene for women and men also, very simple measures which [are] not very expensive, but which could do a lot.
And this is my, actually my worry about the many spectacular action for the global funds to buy drugs and so on, and Bill Gates and so on, for the vaccine.
But you know those kind of measures are not very well funded, they're not funded at all, or they are, you know, it really depends on the local government to take choice of this, but local governments they take advice of the scientific advisors from the intelligent institutions, and they don't get this kind of advice very often.
 
Leung: Well there's no money in nutrition, right? There's no profit.
Montagnier: There's no profit, yes. Water is important. Water is key.

 
Here’s the full interview that shows that these statements weren’t taken out of context (1:02:04): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyPq-waF-h4
 
 
HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, other death causes, AZT kills
There are not only thousands of cases of HIV-positives that never develop AIDS, but even of AIDS without HIV: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/kmreason.htm
 
 
According to 2 European studies from 2011 the most common causes of deaths in HIV-positive victims are not AIDS but cancer and liver failure: https://www.poz.com/article/hiv-deaths-mortality-20011-5126
 
 
In the following study 167 deaths occurred among 9,583 HIV-positive subjects; only 54 of these deaths were related to AIDS (32%). Neuhaus et al, Risk of All-cause Mortality Associated with Non-fatal AIDS and .. Infected with HIV (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897168/pdf/nihms203665.pdf
 
 
From the Concorde trial evidence it’s clear that HIV-positive victims die (sooner) because of AZT; Seligmann et al “Concorde: MRC/ANRS...” (1994): http://davidcrowe.ca/SciHealthEnv/papers/123-Concorde.pdf
 
 
Much more children born to women poisoned with AZT in pregnancy get severely sick and die than of untreated (HIV-positive) future mothers. Rapid disease progression ... (1999): http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=1999&issue=05280&article=00008&type=abstract
 
 
In 1993 came a giant step for mankind in the treatment to AIDS with the results from the Margaret Fischl study comparing AZT and ddC (without placebo); the results were that 42% on AZT, 43% on ddC and 39% on AZT/ddC had progressed to serious illness or death. They claimed these dramatic results as evidence that AZT combined with ddC was superior (than AZT as monotherapy). From 1995 on the cocktail ARV was given to AIDS victims, so unsurprisingly the death rate dropped (ddC is less toxic than AZT).
 
It must be clear (even if you believe AIDS is caused by HIV) that the stories about AIDS (that I heard in the 1980s and 1990s) were meant to create hysteria. Neville Hodgkinson put together a lot information - AIDS: Scientific or Viral Catastrophe? (2003)http://www.immunity.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/JScE-article.pdf
 
 
E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al. conclude that  HIV is not the cause of AIDS, but people die because of AZT and the HIV-tests are not reliable Is a Positive Western Blot Proof of HIV infection (1993): http://virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/epwbtest.htm
 
 
Peter Duesberg
The main scientist that for many years has understood that AIDS is caused by toxic chemicals like AZT is Peter Duesberg, see for example the following article (he has published several books about the AIDS hoax).
The “AZT” medicine for AIDS was already discovered in the 1960s by Jerome Horwitz but rejected as a chemotherapy for cancer because it´s just too toxic: http://www.duesberg.com/subject/africa2.html
 
Following is a good article by Peter Duesberg, Koehnlein and Rasnick  from 2003.
Below are some excerpts from the paper, which show that:
1) AIDS isn’t caused by a contagious virus;
2) In Africa there is a correlation between malnutrition and AIDS;
3) There is a correlation between “recreational” drugs use and AIDS.
I’m not convinced (like Duesberg) that “recreational” drugs cause AIDS though...
 

However, the plethora of AIDS diseases was not, and still is not randomly distributed even among the different risk groups (table 2). For example, Kaposi’s sarcoma was exclusively diagnosed in male homosexual risk groups using nitrite inhalants and other psychoactive drugs as aphrodisiacs (Newell et al 1984; Haverkos et al 1985; Selik et al 1987; Duesberg 1988; Haverkos and Dougherty 1988; Beral et al 1990). Bacterial pneumonia was primarily diagnosed in children from mothers using psychoactive drugs during pregnancy (Novick and Rubinstein 1987; Duesberg 1988, 1992; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1997). Tuberculosis and pneumonia were, and still are more prevalent in intravenous drug users and “crack” (cocaine) smokers than in other risk groups (Lerner 1989; Duesberg 1992; Duesberg and Rasnick 1998).

(…)
In sharp contrast to its US/European namesakes, the African AIDS epidemic is randomly distributed between the sexes and not restricted to behavioural risk groups (Blattner et al 1988; Duesberg 1988; World Health Organization 2001a). Hence sub-Saharan African AIDS is compatible with a random, either microbial or chemical cause.
(…)
But, only 1 in 1000 unprotected sexual contacts transmits HIV (32–34) , and only 1 of 275 US citizens is HIV-infected (29, 30), (figure 1b). Therefore, an average un-infected US citizen needs 275,000 random “sexual contacts” to get infected and spread HIV – an unlikely basis for an epidemic!
(…)
But, in the peer-reviewed literature there is not one doctor or nurse who has ever contracted AIDS (not just HIV) from the over 816,000 AIDS patients recorded in the US in 22 years (30). Not one of over ten thousand HIV researchers has contracted AIDS. Wives of hemophiliacs do not get AIDS (35). And there is no AIDS-epidemic in prostitutes (36–38). Thus AIDS is not contagious (39, 40).
(…)
According to the article “the state’s top AIDS and HIV prevention officials came up with the smoking gun of all statistics: Gay men in California who use speed are twice as likely to be HIV-positive . . .” (Heredia 2003a).
(…)
The case for malnutrition and lack of drinkable water as the common denominator and probable cause of African AIDS in the HIV-era has been made by scientific (Mims and White 1984; Seligmann et al 1984; Konotey-Ahulu 1987a, b, 1989; Fiala 1998; Oliver 2000; Stewart et al 2000; Ross 2003) and non-scientific observers (Hodgkinson 1996; Shenton 1998; Malan 2001). The non-scientific observers even include the United Nations (Namango and World Food Program of the United Nations 2001) and president Mbeki of South Africa (Cherry 2000; Gellman 2000).
(…)
For example, the Lancet published in 1993 a Canadian epidemiological study, “HIV and the etiology of AIDS”, which found that 88% of AIDS cases in a cohort of male homosexuals at risk for AIDS had used nitrite inhalants and that 75–80% of the same cohort had also used “cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, lysergic acid dimethyl amide, or methylenedioxy amphetamine” (Schechter et al 1993). One of the subjects even passed away on an “overdose” of recreational drugs during the study. In addition an undisclosed percentage (but in 1993 certainly a high percentage, see above) was also prescribed the DNA chain-terminator AZT as anti-HIV drug (Duesberg 1993a, c). Thus not a single drug-free AIDS patient was identified. But, the study concluded, “drugs and sexual activity is rejected by these data” as causes of AIDS. Nevertheless, the authors acknowledged that their study “does not rule out a role for cofactors . . .”.
(…)
A sudden 10-fold increase in the mortality of HIV-positive British hemophiliacs, right after the introduction of AZT in 1987, made scientific headlines in 1995, because the increased mortality was attributed to HIV by the authors of the study, i.e. Darby et al (1995), as well as by the editor of Nature, “More conviction on HIV and AIDS” (Maddox 1995). Even the editor of the Lancet wrote an editorial asking, “Will Duesberg now concede defeat” (Horton 1995)? Darby et al based their conclusion on the sudden 10-fold increase of the hemophiliacs’ mortality in 1987, shown in figure 5, on the facts that the increased mortality was restricted to HIVpositive hemophiliacs and that the increase was independent of the degree of hemophilia (which is inversely proportional to the life expectancy of the patient).
(…)
Moreover, the mortality of hemophiliacs was steadily decreasing since the 1970s until 1987 – despite the presence of HIV (Duesberg 1995c)! Thus the only new risk of mortality, in and after 1987, was not HIV, but AZT. Darby et al even acknowledged “treatment, by prophylaxis against P. carinii pneumonia or with zidovudine (AZT), has been widespread for HIV-infected haemophiliacs since about 1989 (more accurately since 1987)”. The editor of Nature also pointed out that, “Darby et al failed to provide full details of the drug regimen followed” (Maddox 1995). The AZT-mortality hypothesis would of course also explain why the new hemophilia mortality was independent of the severity of the hemophilia, as Darby et al observed.

 
Peter Duesberg, Koehnlein and Rasnick  – The chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition (2003): http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/pddrchemical.pdf
 
 
No evidence that HIV causes AIDS
According to the “independent” Wikipedia:

On May 4, 1984, Gallo and his collaborators published a series of four papers in the scientific journal Science [14] demonstrating that a retrovirus they had isolated, called HTLV-III in the belief that the virus was related to the leukemia viruses of Gallo's earlier work, was the cause of AIDS.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gallo
 
This is what AIDS-whistleblower E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos had to say about this "evidence":

Although Gallo claims that in the four Science papers (Gallo et al., 1986) he and his colleagues "provided clearcut evidence that the aetiology of AIDS and ARC was the new lymphotropic retrovirus, HTLV-III", no such data were presented. (Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1993b)

(…)
To be fair, in his 1984 Science papers Gallo did not make such a direct claim. He said HIV was the probable cause of AIDS. But even this conclusion is questionable. Even if Gallo's evidence was incontrovertible proof he had isolated a retrovirus he only managed to isolate it from 26 out of 72 AIDS patients. That's only 36 percent. And only 88% of 49 AIDS patients had antibodies.
There was no evidence. But two years later, when Gallo was defending the accusation he had used the French virus to discover his version of HIV, he was much more definite about his 1984 papers. He said they provided "clearcut" evidence that HIV is the cause of AIDS. And his opinion was no different in 1993.

 
Following are the 4 articles from 4 May 1984 of Gallo et al in Science. Like Papadopulos-Eleopulos concluded, these don’t even claim that HIV causes AIDS.
The first 3 articles make no claim whatsoever that HIV is the cause of AIDS.
 
The 4th paper (page 18) “Antibodies Reactive with Human T-Lymphotropic Retroviruses (HTLV-III) in the Serum of Patients with AIDS” M. G. Sarngadharan, Mikulas Popovic, Lilian Bruch, Jörg Schüpbach, Robert C. Gallo; is the most interesting one of these and this is THE only (according to Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Duesberg and Nobel laureate Kary Mullis) paper used by the state media as “evidence” that HIV is the cause of AIDS.
 
The only claim made is that there appears to be a relation between AIDS, homosexuality and HIV (that was named as HTLV-III). These are the most interesting quotes I found in the 4th article:

Serum samples from 88 percent of patients with AIDS and from 79 percent of homosexual men with signs and symptoms that frequently precede AIDS, but from less than 1 percent of heterosexual subjects, have antibodies reactive against antigens of HTLV-III.

(...)
These new isolates are designated HTLV-III and are described in the accompanyning reports (30-32). Here we describe the use of HTLV-III in an immunological screening of serum samples from patients with AIDS and pre-AIDS and from individuals at increased risk for AIDS.
(...)
Serum samples were obtained from patients with clinically documented AIDS, Kaposi’s sarcoma, sexual contacts of AIDS patients, intravenous drug abusers, homosexual men, and heterosexual subjects. These sera were tested for their reactivity to HTLV-III by means of the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (34).
(...)
Because these 17 men had been seeking medical as¬sistance, they are not a representative sample of the homosexual population, and the high incidence of HTLV-III–specific antibodies in their sera may not reflect the true incidence in the homosexual population.
(...)
Among the positive serum samples from AIDS patients there appears to be a wide variation in antibody titer to HTLV-III. Generally, the titers in sera from patients with advanced AIDS are significantly lower than those in sera from newly diagnosed patients and patients with pre-AIDS. This is consistent with the idea that HTLV-III infection causes an initial lymphoid proliferation but eventually causes death of the target lymphocytes (OKT4+) leading to the abnormal T4+/T8+ ratios and loss of helper T-cell functions including antibody production by B cells.
(...)
In conclusion, we have shown a high incidence of specific antibodies to HTLV-III in patients with AIDS and pre-AIDS. Among the antibody-positive cases reported here a few are of particular importance with respect to the transmission of the disease.

 
Here are the 4 papers from 4 May 1984 of Gallo et al in Science: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.373.354&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=4
 
 
Fiala - AIDS in Africa
I’ll end this first post with an interesting story about how the AIDS numbers were exaggerated in the 1990s by Christian Fiala. He focusses on the AIDS figures in Uganda and Tanzania to conclude that a heterosexually transmitted AIDS epidemic in Africa can only be regarded as cynical.
 
AIDS DEFINITION
In October 1985 in Bangui, Niger the World Health Organisation (WHO) published a definition of AIDS that was exclusively applicable to developing countries. In this definition AIDS is determined - not by testing for HIV, but based on symptoms, like: diarrhoea for more than one month, 10% weight loss, and cough for one month. These symptoms weren’t rare in a country like Uganda with 20 years of systematic destruction behind it. Tuberculosis in Uganda could officially lead to an AIDS diagnosis.
Half of the beds in the internal ward of the Makerere University Clinic in Kampala were occupied by "AIDS patients". From 1986 on Uganda's AIDS figures increased sharply and Uganda was declared the "epicentre of AIDS".
In Tanzania another (narrower) definition was used to diagnose “AIDS”. Then, for reasons unknown, "AIDS cases" in Tanzania were reported that didn’t fulfil the definition; see the following excerpt from a report by the Tanzanian health ministry from August 1990:

Of the 1,987 new cases registered, only 667 (33.6%) fulfilled the above mentioned criteria. Although 1,320 cases would not strictly qualify to be called AIDS cases, we have taken them as cases assuming that those who reported them just made an omission at the stage of compiling the forms.

In other words 2 third of the newly registered AIDS cases didn’t fulfil the definition for AIDS!
 
MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS
After the WHO definition had been in use for several years, the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Pan-American Health Organisation (PAHO) concluded that the WHO definition of AIDS "may not be adequate for clinical work" because of "the potential inapplicability of that definition". This means that AIDS could also be diagnosed based on other criteria.
Since then, developing countries can choose between the 3 definitions to diagnose AIDS. They can also diagnose AIDS based on the tighter definitions used in the developed world. In international statistics, however, all the AIDS cases are summarised together, although their numbers are based on different definitions thus not comparable.
It must be clear that when a disease is diagnosed based on symptoms that can be caused by (other) diseases - the number of AIDS cases doesn’t mean a thing.
 
STATISTRICS
The number of new AIDS cases in Uganda and Tanzania increased every year until 1991. Since then the numbers have been dropping.
All AIDS cases worldwide are registered by the WHO in Geneva. As there is an unknown number that isn’t registered, the WHO multiplies the registered cases to estimate the "actual" figure. This multiplication factor increases year by year.
In 1996, the WHO multiplied the registered AIDS cases in Africa by 12; in 1997 by 17. In the last one and a half years alone (written in 1998), 116,000 new cases of AIDS in Africa have been registered with the WHO. The WHO estimated the new cases in Africa by a whole 5.5 million, thus multiplying the reported cases by 47.
It is also bizarre that the AIDS figures are presented cumulatively. In this way not the number of new cases are seen by the gullible public, but only the total amount. In this way even a small amount of new AIDS cases (which could lead to a dangerous conclusion that the AIDS epidemic is over) leads to an increase in the number of AIDS cases.
 
Christian Fiala – AIDS in Africa: dirty tricks (1998): http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/chrftricks.htm