Recently, a friend from the UK sent a copy of an article published in the Observer, titled: "UK firm tried HIV drug on orphans" which details experiments with toxic AIDS drugs on orphans in New York, involving the British drug giant GlaxoSmithKline. Reading the article I forwarded to some people, a medical doctor friend has the following to say:
"I see nothing wrong with this. At least the children received treatment for free." That's where we differ, I replied.
To me, AIDS treatment (AZT) is highly toxic and potentially will kill the patient. Considering the high rate of false positives of the AIDS test, that is something to be avoided. My friend's reply to that was that "there are several AIDS tests, the initial screening test may have a low false positive rate, but not the others - one can count the number of AIDS virus particles in the blood, etc."
Knowing that this is not the case, I tried once more, saying no Aids test is able to count virus particles in the blood. Both Elisa and Western blot are non-specific and react to (stressed) protein fractions. None of the tests counts virus particles in the blood. In fact, the virus itself is a construct that escapes logic. It is not present in many so-called HIV positive individuals, even in people with full blown Aids symptomology, and it has not been shown scientifically to cause anything.
If you start looking into the critical literature you'll get a great surprise. Not content with my reply, my doctor friend asked for help from a pharmacist, editor of several pharmacists' publications and specific drug databases.
The question "Is Josef right about distrusting AIDS tests and viral counts ?" felicited the following answer: "I think this is an extreme position, but one that some folks around the world have taken. I think the president of some African nation took this position and his people decided not to protect against HIV and it resulted in thousands or millions more HIV positive individuals. We'll get you an answer..."
After some days, my friend wrote, saying "Here is a reply worth noting, to try to put the AIDS test question in its proper perspective. It comes from the objective source that does not make money on any drugs."

The "expert", Jim Avedikian, owner of what his website describes as "the Largest and Oldest HIV Specialty Pharmacy in the San Gabriel Valley", had this to say: "I can't believe that this myth is still floating around! If 4 out of 5 AIDS tests were false positives, you would be hearing a lot more about it in the media. Although it may be technically true that HIV does not kill you directly, the decimated immune system it leaves behind subjects you to dozens of opportunitic infections which will kill you. Please do not reprint or spread these rumors in your publications ... it will do a lot more harm than good !"
Less than convinced, I replied once more, saying "the response of Jim Avedikian is rather disappointing. He avoids the scientific issue of the validity of Aids tests. 
You would be hearing a lot more about it in the media is not really an argument that allays any scientific concern."
My friend, after this, bowed out of the conversation with an excuse, but it just so happens that in another online conversation, I came across the answer to the question. Neville Hodgkinson, former medical correspondent of the London Sunday Times, has outlined the history of our medical response to the AIDS problem in a highly interesting article, meticulously documenting what he says.
After this eye opener, the ball is back with the scientists who have been telling us to take the drugs and shut up. Let them respond, if they can... Go to original : Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 87-120, 2003
AIDS: Scientific or Viral Catastrophe ? - by Neville Hodgkinson - www.altheal.org

vedere anche: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/04/12/hivaids_a_tragic_error.htm

HIV-Aids: A Tragic Error
The Economist article you sent is following an official line of AIDS = HIV = Treatment = Death, which is incorrect.

Aids is neither expensive nor ubiquitous. The "test" used to determine who is "infected" is  fraudulent and indicates falsely that many people have Aids when in fact all they have may be a cold, dysentery, a recent vaccination or a whole number of other non related conditions.
It is the treatment (with expensive and toxic medicines) which will kill you - not the HIV virus, which incidentally has never been unequivocally demonstrated to even exist.
(By Josef Hasslberger )

WHEN SILENCE IS NOT GOLDEN - Apr 15th 2004 
Indians start voting next week to choose a new government. Its first priority should be AIDS

ONE subject not being discussed in India's current election campaign is AIDS. Yet, on the most conservative of estimates, 600,000 Indians already have the disease and 4.58m are infected with HIV, the virus that causes it. That means India ranks second only to South Africa in terms of its number of infections--and that with only about 0.9% of the adult population HIV-positive, compared with over 20% in South Africa.
If India's rate were to rise by just a few percentage points, not only would millions more Indians be condemned to live with--or, more likely, die of--AIDS, but so would millions of their neighbours. India's population alone is much bigger than the whole of Africa's. Throw in that of Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan, and you have the makings of a regional pandemic affecting nearly a quarter of the world.
Fortunately, no country is condemned to follow Africa into an AIDS inferno. As has been shown by Brazil and Thailand, both of which were poised to experience an HIV calamity ten or 15 years ago, disaster can be averted. How ? The policies adopted by not-so-distant Thailand probably have the greatest relevance for India. Our special report[1] assesses how India measures up against the Thai standard and finds it is doing most of the right things, albeit slowly, late and often on too small a scale. In two particular respects, though, much more is needed: India's campaign needs more money, and it needs stronger political commitment. The two are related.

Nowhere has an AIDS epidemic been headed off without hefty expenditure. Thailand spends roughly 55 cents per person on prevention and treatment, Uganda $1.85, but India only about 17 cents. On the face of it, India's money problem is being eased. International agencies, the World Bank, bilateral donors and philanthropic foundations have all pitched in with the promise of large sums. India itself, though, has spent next to nothing. In part this reflects the country's undoubted poverty, in part the low priority that the government gives to health in general and AIDS in particular. In 2000 (the latest year for which comparative figures exist), India spent only $71 per person on health, of which four-fifths was in the private sector; indeed, on one measure government health spending was only $4 per person. India was one of only eight countries whose public-health budget took less than 1% of
GDP.

This indifference to public health shows up in other statistics. India has more tuberculosis infections than any other country--over 20,000 Indians catch TB each day and almost 450,000 of them die of it each year. TB is the commonest cause of death among HIV-positive people.
India is also high in the league table for sexually transmitted disease, a crucial factor in the spread of HIV. And, according to a study paid for by the World Bank, 60% of injections in the private sector are carried out with unsafe needles; in the public sector the figure is 69%.

No wonder one UN agency thinks the number of Indian infections will rise to 12m by 2015. The government itself, in the shape of its National AIDS Control Organisation, has said that even if it achieves its own objectives 9m Indians will be infected by 2010. America's CIA predicts 20m-25m by that date.

AIDS is mostly spread by sex--in India over 80% of infections start this way--and most governments find sex an awkward subject. India's is no exception. It may be the land of the Kama Sutra, the land whose temples depict a licentiousness seldom shown in public elsewhere. But it is also a land so prudish that its film industry has only recently started to show kisses on screen. Defence is easy by comparison. India spent 3.1% of GDP on defence in 2000. It has nuclear weapons. It also has a space programme. It even offers soft loans to African countries to help them fight AIDS. But it is loth to launch an all-out programme to promote condoms. It prefers instead to preach ABC--Abstinence, Be faithful and use a Condom--a message whose crucial component tends to get lost in transmission, say those with experience of other epidemics.

In different ways, many Indians are doing their best to battle AIDS. But if they are to have a chance of success, they need help from the people at the top, and from others in every other walk of public life.
The prime minister himself needs to take charge of the campaign. He needs to make all his ministers and civil servants include a message about AIDS in all their speeches and pronouncements, as the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh already does. Public figures infected with HIV--at least one prominent politician is widely believed to have died of AIDS--must stand up and encourage others to take tests. Cricketers and Bollywood stars must do their bit.

NO CHEAP WAY OUT AIDS is an expensive disease, expensive to prevent and expensive to treat. With a limited budget, more money for prevention means less for treatment--and why, ask some, should scarce resources go to treating homosexuals, drug addicts, prostitutes and other promiscuous people who happen to have contracted AIDS? One answer is that without the promise of treatment no one has the incentive to be tested, and without tests the disease will spread. Then it will be apparent that AIDS is also an expensive disease to neglect.

In much of the country, particularly the more prosperous parts, it already affects other groups hitherto considered low-risk, notably teenagers and monogamous wives. Were it to spread into the general population right across the country, as it has in parts of Africa, the world would have a new pandemic of hideous proportions. Fortunately, India has some advantages. It has a vast information-technology industry and its health-management companies and drug makers are capable of carrying out tests and providing cheap drugs on a huge—and as yet unexploited--scale.

America's secretary of state, Colin Powell, said last week that "HIV/AIDS is the greatest threat of mankind today, the greatest weapon of mass destruction on the earth". India should listen. Time is not on the side of the wishful-thinkers, the makers of false economies or those who think AIDS is too unsavoury a subject for widespread public discussion. This disease demands a lead from the top, and a commitment of public money too. India cannot afford the alternative.
-----
[1] http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_ID=2592960
See this article with graphics and related items at
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2603788
www.worldisgreen.com   | www.deeshaa.com   | +91.40.3101 2234
By La Leva di Archimede - freedom of choice: http://www.laleva.cc  

"Il paziente malato di Aids NON muore a causa del virus dell'HIV ma per alterazioni dell'assorbimento intestinale  e quindi per ipoalimentazione  (malNutrizione), dovuta a una grave micosi." (By Dott. Gerhard Orth, Leuthkirch) + L'altra storia dell'Aids + Hiv virus inventato