[Firestarter]

HIV tests unreliable

I’ve found an interesting literature review that has a lot of information on AIDS from AIDS-whistleblowers.
It includes information that shows that HIV tests aren’t reliable…

In 1996, Johnson reported more than 60 factors that can cause a false-positive HIV-positive test result.
No fewer than 5 different criteria have been used by different groups in the US to decide if somebody is HIV-positive. The criteria for a HIV-positive test are p41 and p24, protein–antigens that are found in the blood of “healthy individuals”. This means that criteria used to “flag” the presence of HIV aren’t “specific to HIV or AIDS patients [and] p24 and p41 are not even specific to illness”. In other words, healthy victims can test HIV-positive but without ever being “infected” by HIV...

There are significant differences worldwide in how the test results are interpreted. If someone tests positive for p160 and p120 he/she would be sentenced as HIV-positive in Africa, but not in Britain. On the other hand a test reaction to p41, p32, and p24 would be considered HIV-positive in Britain, but negative in Africa.
Celia Farber comment cynically:

… a person could revert to being HIV-negative simply by buying a plane ticket from Uganda to Australia.

In 2010, the scientist Etienne de Harven added to the debate that none of the images of particles supposedly representing HIV ever show HIV-particles coming from an AIDS-patient.

Kay Mullis, who won the 1993 Nobel Prize for chemistry for inventing PCR for detecting DNA, explained that PCR couldn’t be used to test for HIV:

these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.

According to Mullis, AIDS is caused by “system overloads”, maybe the result of a “chain reaction”. His hypothesis assumes that AIDS is caused by: “

an overwhelming number of distinct organisms, which causes the immune dysfunction. These may individually be harmless.

Patricia Goodson – Questioning the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis: 30 Years of Dissent (2014): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172096/
(archived here: http://archive.is/sOXts)


A lot of information in this thread is hard to read because of its “scientific” language. The following article on the HIV/AIDS sham from December 2016 is more of a journalistic piece so much easier to read…

Just like for vaccines, new AIDS therapies are exempted from proper placebo controlled trials.
Antiretroviral trials are usually performed without a placebo for controls.

Matt Irwin explained the unreliability of HIV-tests:

When [the viral load tests] are done on the serum of people considered HIV-negative, 3% to 10% of them commonly have positive viral loads, and the highest reported rate of false positive results is a remarkable 60% (HIV surrogate marker coll. group 2000). Although most cases reported have false viral loads of 10,000 or less, there have been reports of false positive viral loads as high as 100,000 copies per milliliter.

In the United States, where the prevalence of HIV is about 1 in 250 people (0.4%), a false positive rate of only 2% would still mean that random screening of the population would result in 5 false positives for every true positive, and a false positive rate of 10% would result in 25 false positives for every true positive. The most likely explanation for this high false positive rate is that HIV-RNA assays commonly react with non-HIV RNA, such as that produced by normal human cells and other microbes.

In 2015, nearly 16 million HIV-positive people were treated, compared to 9.7 million in late 2012 (worldwide)! This isn’t caused by a huge increase in the number of HIV-positive people, but by the efforts of health authorities to poison the victims from the first time they have been sentenced to HIV-positive status.

A 2005 study showed that HIV-positive victims poisoned with HAART therapy suffered from:

deaths related to end stage liver disease were more common than deaths from opportunistic infections… Hospitalizations for lactic acidosis, reconstitution syndromes and late stage complications related to HAART were becoming more apparent. Some authors also noted an increase in mortality and hospital admission rate as the HAART era progressed.

It’s highly likely that at least some of these “symptoms” were the direct result of the HAART therapy.

Bertrand, who was sentenced to be HIV-positive 7 years earlier, refused AIDS-treatment. They tried to make him paranoid by telling him that his “viral load” was around 250,000 copies which caused him to “freak out”. Despite the unfavourable forecasts of the doctors his “viral load” spontaneously fell to 11,500; it has never stabilised, oscillating around a “load” of some 40,000 copies.
Bertrand also noted variations in his T-cell (CD4) count:

Over the tests, I was able to notice significant variation in my count, without an apparent link to my health. It had already gone down to 220 CD4, and then it rose up naturally. On average, it would yo-yo around 350, without ever exceeding 500.

Parents thought they could outsmart big pharma and stopped poisoning their HIV-positive son with the ARV. Suddenly their son got better and his CD4 and viral loads became much better according to the medical quacks.
One day the medical “doctors” found out that the boy had no “medication” in his blood. The parents were reported to the Child Protection Court and their parental rights were restricted. From then on they were controlled by a doctor, who kept poisoning the child.

There are no reliable statistics on the number of HIV-positive victims, who refuse triple therapy. This makes it impossible to know how many HIV-positive victims stay healthy without the “benefit” of antiretroviral therapy: http://pryskaducoeurjoly.com/actu/2447/h...hy?lang=en
(archived here: http://archive.is/gZLA0)