HIV Revisionism in Fort Bragg Acquittal

Reason contributor Terry Michael investigates a military trial in Ft. Bragg, North Carolina that ended with the acquittal of an Army sergeant of charges that he didn't inform sexual partners of his positive HIV status. 

Expert witnesses raised doubts about the general validity of HIV tests during the May aggravated assault trial of the NCO referred to by supporters (Michael provides his full name) discreetly as "Sgt. TD." It also seems the prosecution either didn't mount or wasn't allowed to mount a strong attack: 

An 8-year Army veteran, Dixon spent 247 days in pre-trial custody after charges brought in 2011, when he was arrested after a former girlfriend accused him of assault and battery, for throwing a plastic bottle at her during an argument. Judge Batdorf found Dixon guilty of that physical assault charge, unrelated to HIV status disclosure, and sentenced him to 120 days (waived for time he had already served.). The arrest resulted in Dixon's "status" later being revealed, to other women identified as former sexual partners. There was no testimony in the trial from any of the women disputing Dixon's claim that he used condoms.

There also was no testimony from any of the women that they had contracted HIV from Sgt. Dixon. The defense introduced into evidence a1997 scientific paper by Dr. Nancy Padian from the Univ. of California-San Francisco, who studied the potential for transmission of HIV in 176 "sero-discordant" heterosexual couples, where one partner was HIV-positive and the other HIV-negative, and not one of the subjects ever contracted HIV through sex.

Defense lawyers got support from Clark Baker's Office of Medical and Scientific Justice and testimony from Dr. Nancy Turner Banks, an OB/GYN and skeptic of HIV testing who focuses on the unexplained disparities in positive HIV tests between blacks and whites: 

The black-white disparity phenomenon is documented by the Centers for Disease Control, which at its web page "HIV among African Americans" (Feb. 27, 2012 update) noted that, "The estimated rate of new HIV infection for black men was more than six and a half times as high as that of white men," and that for black women the rate was "more than 15 times as high as the rate for white women."

Sgt. Dixon was subjected to blood testing with standard assays that are routinely used in the medical community for declaring infection with HIV. He tested "positive" for HIV antibodies, twice on HIV Rapid Tests, twice on the ELISA, and twice on the so-called "confirmatory" Western Blot. He also tested positive twice on the so-called "viral load" test, using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) process to test for a small fragment of genetic material believed to be part of the genome of the retrovirus known since the mid-1980's as the human immunodeficiency virus, or "HIV."

In an interview after the trial, Dr. Richards said, "During my testimony, I highlighted that none of the tests used on Sgt. Dixon are validated or approved by the FDA for use in diagnosing actual infection with HIV. I also emphasized that, according to package inserts of manufacturers of the so-called confirmatory Western Blot test used to diagnose Sgt. Dixon, persons with positive results are only 'presumed to be positive for antibodies to HIV,' and in accordance with CDC guidelines put forth in 1987, are further 'presumed to be infected with the virus.' " According to Richards, "In the absence of any symptoms to inform a medical diagnosis, the link between HIV and a positive Western Blot is nothing more than one presumption layered on top of another presumption."

I presume, because he declines to use the polite "Sgt. DT" phrasing, that Michael agrees with the consensus that HIV skeptics are crackpots.* But I may presume too much. He also uses the novel-to-me phrase "HIV disease" (isn't that AIDS?) and gives a very strong hearing to the other side. I keep my cowardly place within the consensus, but several times this article made me say, "Well paint me white and call me a t-cell!"

Dixon's acquittal, Michael argues, may be an early step toward revisiting many of the laws designed to slow the spread of the immunodeficiency virus that have been adopted since the 1980s. 

Update: I did presume too much. No offense intended to HIV traditionalists, revisionists or agnostics. 

Comments

[SIV]

Terry Michael: The Libertarian Case For Obama

[Voros McCracken]

Man, that's painful

[Terry Michael]

I have no idea why "SIV" (which leads to a softcore porn site!) chose to note the piece I wrote in 2008 making a case for Obama. Since then, I have been appalled by Obama's war making, his drug warriorism and his ObamaCare giveaway to big drug companies, including those now selling $17 billion a year in AIDS drugs. I recently, as a former Democratic National Committee press secretary, endorsed Gary Johnson for president:
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/endorsements
As noted in a comment below, I am puzzled why Tim Cavanaugh came to the conclusion that I thought skeptics were crackpots. I appreciate that he just amended that. I am firmly in the camp of skeptics and have been since I was alerted to the truth about HIV and AIDS in a HIT-and-Run post by Brian Doherty back in February of 2007, when he, too, mentioned an Australian "HIV panic" statutes case. It was then that I started to intensely research the subject. None of the mainstream media allows any discussion of the long list of anomalies from HIV=AIDS orthodoxy, and The HIV-AIDS Industry (cult?) is vicious in attacking any of us who have differing views, as you'll probably see in comments to this piece. I applaud Tim Cavanaugh and Reason for showing the courage to even write about this.

[RBS]

I wouldn't worry about SIV, he's about as ornery as they come and holds a mean grudge. I'm pretty sure he hates Gary Johnson too, not pure enough.

[darius404]

He also kicks puppies and punches kittens, I'm sure.

[Virginian]

Haha. I was 19 years old when Obama was elected, and I knew he was full of shit.

I am in total awe of how someone can be so wrong and still have the audacity to lecture people about anything.

[Terry Michael]

Just to make it clear, I have been studying "HIV" for over five years and am part of the international community of scientists, physicians, epidemiologists and journalists who believe the single pathogen theory of "AIDS" or the politically correct term, "HIV disease" is the biggest and most harmful fraud in medical history. I used the sargeant's whole name because it was a public military trial and saw no reason not to. An 8,000 word "Special Report on HIV-AIDS can be found at my personal web site, http://www.terrymichael.net which reviews the whole sordid history or the fraud and explains what acquired immune deficiency syndrome really was.

[Fatty Bolger]

I read your special report and found it interesting but not entirely convincing. I agree that there seems to be some problems with the tests, especially with people of African descent. And I'm sure the situation in Africa is a muddled mess (when isn't it). But something definitely ripped through the gay community in the 80's and 90's, killing young, healthy men. I'm certainly skeptical that it was caused by a combination of drugs, fear, and well known treatable diseases. At least you admit that you (or in your words, we) don't know what did it - but something did.

Also, if HIV doesn't cause aids, then what explains the rapid rise in deaths and dramatic drop in life expectancy for hemophiliacs who were infected with HIV, which corresponded with the deaths of gay and bisexual men in the 80's 90's? I suppose it's possible that a separate but parallel pathogen was responsible, but what evidence exists for that?

[Terry Michael]

You are correct. Something was killing gay men, and it was all three of those factors, in a way an insurance actuary studying morbidity and mortality could understand. And they were not young and healthy; their relatively naive immune systems (in a small subset of urban gay men) were being assaulted by old pathogens from scores, hundreds or more initimate sexual encounters in urban gay ghettos; ingested toxins (poppers [nitrites], alcohol, cocaine, amphetamines, etc.) fueling round-the-clock nightlife (again, in a subset of gay men); and the hugely important immunosuppression from stress, as the religious right emerged and called us sick and sinful. As for Africans: pathogen laden drinking water, malnutrition, malaria, TB, no basic sanitation, etc. In other words, all the old conditions that have always compromised African immunity. Stop and think: have you ever heard of a Western Caucasian "epidemic" of "HIV disease?" As for those with hemophaelia: the blood clotting Factor 8 made from the whole blood and plasma of millions of donors was contaminated with all kinds of old pathogens, which were IMMUNE SUPPRESSIVE in a condition that was occuring in the same early-1980's time frame. Summarized, it was the perfect storm in that period a dozen years into the sexual revolution. I would be very happy to talk to you at length, at your convenience. Just email me at [e-mail] and give me a number to call. Thx for your post.

[heller]

Terry, why should anyone here give credence to your analysis when you couldn't make a single prediction about Obama's presidential prospects that wasn't pure, unadulterated bullshit? Most of the readers thought you might be intellectually backwards in '08, and now we know it to be a fact.

[Terry Michael]

From my two years of high school Latin, what you just wrote would be known as a "non sequiter." Why not just stick to the substantive topic of the thread instead of--to use another Latin phrase--making a pointless ad hominem attack?

[Mallory]

Terry, AIDS is a disease of the immune system characterized by progressive depletion of CD4 cell-mediated immune function which culminates in severe opportunistic diseases. Most of these opportunistic diseases - such as pneumocystis pneumonia or cerebral toxoplasmosis or esophageal candidiasis or CMV retinitis - are extraordinarily rare in HIV negative people although they are occasionally seen in people with life-threatening immunosuppression from certain cancers, cancer chemotherapy or transplant anti-rejection drugs. A few of the more recently added AIDS-defining conditions also occur in people with normal immune systems (for example pulmonary TB or cervical cancer), but are significantly more common in people immunosuppressed by HIV/AIDS. For example, you are 30 times more likely to develop active TB if you have untreated HIV than if you are HIV negative.

Thing is, illicit drug users, people with multiple sexual partners, Africans, hemophiliacs, people with psychological stress or victims of homophobia don't get AIDS or anything that looks remotely like AIDS unless they have HIV infection. And people with untreated HIV infection almost always eventually develop AIDS whether they have your supposed risk factors or not - about half within the first ten years after infection, and about 90% within twenty years. There is no correlation between your claimed causes and AIDS (or anything that looks like AIDS to an informed clinician) independent of HIV infection.

[Elizabeth Ely]

The problem, Mallory, lies in the circular reasoning of the "HIV tests." As Terry Michael noted, the HIV tests are acknowledged, even by their makers and the FDA, as insufficient to diagnose infection. They don't detect virus but rather "antibodes"--heavier-than-normal concentrations of certain proteins in the blood. Everyone acknowledges this, even the mainstream.

What kinds of things are these antibodies reactive to? Just "HIV"? Two points:

(1) HIV "skeptics" don't see any evidence for ever having properly isolated this "HIV" and "validated" those antibodies against isolated retrovirus.

(2) Christine Johnson has compiled a huge body of mainstream--not merely "skeptical"--research finding at least 65 diseases and conditions in the body associated with these antibodies. She updated it recently to about 100--for Clark Baker. He used this research--as yet unpublished--in the case reported above and about 40 other "HIV" criminal cases across the U.S. Defense teams are winning on the strength of that evidence.

Why are "AIDS" patients dying of the things you mention? Ms. Johnson's list includes those diseases as causing an "HIV positive" result in the first place.

The original 1996 paper is at http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjtestfp.htm. And Ms. Johnson will give her general observations at a conference this Friday in France.

Mr. Michael welcomes your further questions by e-mail.

[PutinReloaded]

"..Terry, AIDS is a disease of the immune system characterized by progressive depletion of CD4 cell-mediated immune function which culminates in severe opportunistic diseases. ..."

Wrong, AIDS has no clinical definition. The course of events you describe are called Idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia (ICL), and it can happen to people irrespective of the result of an HIV test.

[Mallory]

How many HIV negative people do you know who developed PCP - like Kimberly Bergalis or Christine Maggiore or Ryan White? Or who got cerebral toxoplasmosis like Arthur Ashe? Or who got end organ CMV disease like Karri Stokely? Or who died from fulminant Kaposis sarcoma like Emery Taylor or Huw Christie Williams?

ICL resulting in opportunistic infections is extraordinarily rare.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/1.....2113280601

[PutinReloaded]

How many HIV negative people do you know who developed PCP - like Kimberly Bergalis or Christine Maggiore or Ryan White? Or who got cerebral toxoplasmosis like Arthur Ashe? Or who got end organ CMV disease like Karri Stokely? Or who died from fulminant Kaposis sarcoma like Emery Taylor or Huw Christie Williams?

PCP, toxoplasmosis and CMV are diseases known since time immmemorial and certainly long before 1981.

Regarding PCP, Everybody has Pneumocystis jirovecci including YOU:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P....._jirovecii

"...In humans with a normal immune system, it is an extremely common silent infection...."

And this interesting study:

Pneumocystis carinii (now jiroveci) in human lungs at AUTOPSY.y

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3492758

"...To get some information about the prevalence of Pneumocystis carinii in the Danish population we have examined autopsy lung biopsies from patients at 2 large hospitals in Copenhagen, Righospitalet (RH) and Finseninstituttet (F),.."

Results:

".. pneumocysts found in 4.7% at RH hospital and in 4.4% at F hospital.."

Now you would diagnose 4.5% of the Danish hospital population with HIV, that's how much of a snake-oil saleswoman you are!

[Mallory]

Err Putin, it seems you haven't grasped the concept of an opportunistic disease.

Opportunistic diseases are rare and severe diseases caused by common microbes that otherwise are asymptomatic or cause benign self limiting infections in people with normal immune systems. Having CMV in your body is very common, but getting CMV retinitis or pneumonitis or colitis is extremely rare unless you have virtually no CD4+ cellular immune function.

Lots of people carry toxoplasma, but if you get cerebral abscesses from it you have very poor cell mediated immunity, nearly always from underlying HIV/AIDS.

Pneumocystis is a ubiquitous environmental microbe, and in healthy people causes an asymptomatic infection that is quickly controlled by the immune system. Pneumocystis pneumonia is a severe disease that is fatal if left untreated. It was extremely rare before the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and even now occurs mostly in people with untreated HIV/AIDS.

[PutinReloaded]

Opportunistic diseases are rare and severe diseases caused by common microbes that otherwise are asymptomatic

All infections are, per definition, opportunistic. They acnnot occur in people with healthy immune systems. There are dozens of known causes of immune defficeincy, do you really want me to share the list?

Now you are postulating that these millenia-old infections are all caused by HIV? This is how absurd you sound to any reader.

But there's still more... infections are only a subset of all the previously well-knwon diseases lumped in the grab-bag of AIDS, but there are also cancers and even non-diseases such a a certain level of T4 cells!

Please, explain the skeptics what are the SPECIFIC CLINICAL CRITERIA to RENAME toxoplasmosis, PCP, cervical cancer or any of the 30+ millenia-old conditions as AIDS.

Because if there is NO SPECIFIC CLINICAL PICTURE of AIDS, then the only line that separates AIDS and non-AIDS is a non-clinical parameter known as the "HIV test", am I right?

[TD]

Were the individuals in that study in whom PCP was found at autopsy immunocompetent when they died?

[PutinReloaded]

I don't have the full text, but since the dead were patients at a hospital and their disease was fatal, it's reasonable to assume their immunity was not competent enough.

However, the point is moot because neither lack of immune competence nor PCP are exclusive of HIV.

The line between AIDS and non-AIDS is not drawn by any clinical presentations but by the HIV test. The relabeling of any sickness as AIDS is tautological, not clinical.

[Mallory]

"I don't have the full text, but since the dead..."

Err, it helps to have actually - you know - read an article before citing it. Saves you having to make assumptions about what is in it.

"All infections are, per definition, opportunistic."

Well, I tried...
http://www.thefreedictionary.c.....+infection

[PutinReloaded]

it helps to have actually - you know - read an article before citing it. Saves you having to make assumptions about what is in it.

The assumptions only relate to TD's question - which anyway is moot for the reasons I explained.

Instead, your initial question "How many HIV negative people do you know who developed PCP?" is moronic, since people were getting PCP long before HIV tests were invented.

Well, I tried...

In what way is that definition contrary to mine? Providing links without accompanying reasoning only helps you look mediocre, not your opponent.

[PutinReloaded]

ICL resulting in opportunistic infections is extraordinarily rare.

Two errors in your claim:

1. CD4 counts are not a "standard of care" unless you're HIV positive, therefore ICL goes grossly underreported. This is called selection bias: http://www.umdnj.edu/idsweb/shared/biases.htm

2. The incidence of "opportunistic" infections in people positive to an HIV test is unknown, therefore you lack any base for meaningful comparison:

Duke University Health System

http://clinlabs.duke.edu/TestC.....ge=AddInfo

"...The risk of an asymptomatic person with a repeatedly reactive serum developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known.."

[SIV]

AIDS TRUTHER

[Elizabeth Ely]

"AIDS Truthiness."

[SIV]

(which leads to a softcore porn site!)

IT'S A FASHION BLOG

[Henry H. Bauer]

REASON should honor facts above presumptions. There is no "HIV" test that has been approved as able to diagnose active infection.
"HIV disease" is a commonly used term in the HIV/AIDS literature, probably because more and different symptoms are nowadays attributed to HIV than characterized AIDS in the 1980s.
The prosecution WAS UNABLE to mount a strong attack because it could not prove that TD was HIV-infected.
The problem with forming an opinion about HIV/AIDS and dissident views like those of Terry Michael and myself, and thousands of others who are not crackpots, is that there is no precedent for accredited, official medical science going so wrong for so long over so major an issue that has such immense social, political, and commercial involvements. But anyone who actually studies the primary mainstream research literature, as I did, can only conclude that there is no proof that HIV causes AIDS, and indeed very strong evidence that it does not and cannot; see for instance my own book about the epidemiology of HIV, The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory (McFarland 2007)

[Mallory]

It's nonsense to say that no diagnostic HIV tests have been approved. There are currently no fewer than 23 different HIV tests listed on the FDA's website, approved as "diagnostic" or "diagnostic supplemental", as well as numerous others used for blood donor screening or for ongoing monitoring of HIV infection. Anyone can check this for themselves: http://tiny.cc/2witfw

[Elizabeth Ely]

Mallory, the FDA approved these tests with the proviso that they include a package insert that patients rarely see. It warns that the tests are not sufficient to diagnose disease or infection.

[Mallory]

Elizabeth, all medical tests have a package insert. They document the technical specifications for the kit, and the instructions for how they are approved by the FDA to be used. They are freely available for anyone who's interested, for example by following my link above. For you to suggest that there's something occult or sinister about this is nonsense.

It's misleading to claim the FDA and the test kit inserts say these tests are not sufficient to diagnose HIV infection.

No HIV diagnosis is ever based on the result of a single screening test. An HIV diagnosis is made using an approved algorithm of multiple different tests, including repeatedly reactive screening tests and one or more positive supplemental antibody tests.
Screening tests are designed to be highly sensitive. Like all antibody tests they can rarely cross react with irrelevant antibodies - with 4th generation HIV screening tests currently in use this occurs with about 1 or 2 per 1000 truly negative samples. These then undergo supplemental testing (for example by immunoblot) which distinguish the falsely reactive screens from true positives. Tests for the virus itself - eg NAATs - are also used.

A single reactive screening test by itself is not a reliable basis for an HIV diagnosis, but a properly completed algorithm of tests is highly accurate.

(Of course, explaining how diagnostic serology works to an AIDS denialist is like trying to teach quantum physics to a hamster.)

[PutinReloaded]

"..Of course, explaining how diagnostic serology works to an AIDS denialist is like trying to teach quantum physics to a hamster..."

Try explaining an AIDS-drug-pusher that antibodies are heterophile, promiscuous and therefore prone to bind to antigens that never met before. See them swim up to their necks in The Nile.

[PutinReloaded]

"...A single reactive screening test by itself is not a reliable basis for an HIV diagnosis, but a properly completed algorithm of tests is highly accurate..."

Hardly. The problem is not limited to the absence of a gold standard and the absence of an interpretation standadrd (which makes them non-repeatable = unscientific). Matters are even wordse since both ELISA and WB "confirmation" are testing for the same non-specific antibodies and therfore a cross-reaction in the first will affect the second as well.

[PutinReloaded]

including repeatedly reactive screening tests and one or more positive supplemental antibody tests

Repeating the same faulty tests 1000 times doesn't make the results any more reliable:

"...Care must be taken, however, when interpreting the
results from a sequence of tests. Assays are generally not
strictly independent, since one source of bias may
simultaneously affect multiple laboratory techniques. For
example, EIA, W B and IFA are all techniques that detect
antibodies to HIV.
...
...Pure Bayesian analysis, which assumes strictly independent
tests, will typically therefore lead to overestimation of
predictive values with most supplementary tests (see
Table 8.1)..."

Reference: 2004, Gary P. Wormser, AIDS and other manifestations of HIV infection, 4th edition, Elsevier Academic, ISBN 0127640517.

[Mallory]

So you are citing a textbook called AIDS and other manifestations of HIV infection to argue that AIDS is not a manifestation of HIV infection.

And you wonder why you guys are called denialists?

[PutinReloaded]

So you are citing a textbook called AIDS and other manifestations of HIV infection to argue that AIDS is not a manifestation of HIV infection.

Its nobody's fault that your claims about the HIV tests are contradicted by both the experts in AIDS and the manufacturers themselves. You AIDS peddlers have set up a little sect of beliefs that has nothing to witht he actual science. Just look at how pathetic you are, only able to cite secondary sources, you've never read a clinical trial in your life!

[OMSJ]

In 2008, I was asked to examine outrageous claims against the so-called "HIV skeptics," by what Cavanaugh identifies as the "cowardly consensus." By 2009, I smelled a rat and asked the NIH and CDC for clarification.

While they stonewalled, I was attacked on pharmaceutically-funded hate blogs.

For these reasons, I founded OMSJ and began to use the criminal court system to compel "HIV experts" to answer questions that the NIH and CDC refused to answer.

I wasn't sure what to expect, but I didn't expect the scores of plea-bargains and dismissals of criminal HIV cases that we've secured since we began. In many of those cases, unwavering prosecutors surrendered just days before trial was to begin.

After $800 billion and three decades as Humanity's most existential threat, it's hard to explain why HIV experts have so much trouble testifying under oath, under penalty of perjury, before a competent defense team. The problem appears to be environmental: At hospitals and university campuses, HIV experts proselytize with the authority of Pope Urban's astrologers. But when they suddenly find themselves in the light of a competent court, they recoil like vampires in church.

Whether one BELIEVES the official story about HIV and AIDS or not, their clerical apoplexy is a sight to behold.

Clark Baker (LAPD ret)
Director, OMSJ

[Elizabeth Ely]

Thanks, Clark, for this important work. I believe it is the sole reason why AIDS advocacy groups are suddenly all aflutter with the idea that HIV must be "decriminalized" right away. Naturally. If HIV-positive sex is decriminalized, these organizations won't have to face the embarrassment of their precious "test" -- the only reason they exist as organizations -- being invalidated in court. They're running like rats for the exits!

[weescottishgit]

I need a report by an expert , say from Rodney Richards , that the ANTIBODY tests i was given in 1986 for HTLV-111 (HIV) were non specific tests, that they could have cross reacted because i was using street drugs , or that they could have cross reacted because i was stressed out about going for the tests , or because i had the shiver (herpes) virus or because i was vaccinated or had flu or had jaundice or TB as a kid. All of which is stated in my hospital files.

The other report , the main one , dated May 1992 (and there was another the same in 1993) in my medical file refers to an HIV ANTIGEN test. That test was a "diagnostic test" , see attachment. The negative result from that diagnostic test was not disclosed to me .
At the same time they took that test , they told me HIV was attacking my white blood cells. IMPOSSIBLE.
It is the only diagnostic test licenced by the FDA .

I need a doctors report to say that they , the NHS , failed in there duty of care to provide me with the information that the antibody tests were not diagnostic tests but non specific screening tests , but more so , that the NHS failed in their duty of care by the "non disclosure of the negative HIV Antigen diagnostic tests".

Any expert wishing to forward a report would be appreciated.
Contact Andy, [e-mail]

[OMSJ]

WeeScott - In the coming weeks, OMSJ will bring OPERATION LETTERHEAD online. Follow us on Twitter or sign up for our weekly newsletter for details.

[weescottishgit]

Quote;

Abbott Laboratories' HIVAG-1 test (10/4/89)
DATE: October 4, 1989
FROM: Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
SUBJECT: Abbott Laboratories' HIVAG-1 test for HIV-1 antigen(s)
not recommended for use as a donor screen.
TO: All Registered Blood Establishments
On August 3, 1989, the Food and Drug Administration licensed
Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, Illinois, to manufacture and
distribute an enzyme-linked immunoassay for the qualitative,
in-vitro, detection of HIV-1 antigen(s) in human serum or plasma.
The test is called HIVAG-1. As stated in the package insert, "It
is intended to be used as an aid in the diagnosis and prognosis
of patients with HIV-1 infection." The label does not include an
indication for donor screening.
The FDA does not recommend the use of this test for screening of
donations of either whole blood or source plasma. The purpose of
this memorandum is to declare this position, and explain its
rationale.
The indications for licensure of Abbott's antigen test were
discussed at a public meeting of the Blood Products Advisory
Committee on March 23, 1989 in Bethesda, Maryland. Paul D. Parkman, M.D

[Elizabeth Ely]

Yup.

[Christl Meyer]

Conclusion of my 2 scientific publications:
Contact: [e-mail] http://www.christl-meyer-science.net
An exogenous virus (HIV) has never been proofed by scientific standards. The called HIV- genes are ? as we know since the completion of the Human Genome Project -
An endogenous element of the human genome and are mostly found on chromosome No. 6, where they comprise the HLA (Human Leukocyte Antigen)- system of the immune system. They might have descended from ancient retroviruses. They show a high mutability and variability. Thus they are an adaption to different stimuli (i. e. a changing environment) a flexible answer of the cell ort he living system.
(Oxidative) stress, i.e. infections, drugs but even glucose deprivation (hunger) might lead to gene expression. Many additional factors like methyl-, acetyl groups, basic histones (for DNA protection), transcription factors and RNA molecules like RNA-interference are involved.

[Christl Meyer]

During pregnancy the immune system of the mother has to adapt, as 50% of the embryo derive from the father and are strange for the mother. This results in antibody production to diminish attacks on the alien cells (T1/T2- switch).
The newborn profits from breast-feeding by the protection of the mothers ?s antibodies as well as from the primal sense of trust by body contact.
The HIV-tests are not standardized and depending on the situation. The same person might test positive or negative with the same test and probe in different regions and by applying different standards for interpretation of the test result. This does not refer to a scientific standard and is thus unethical, as many people react with heavy fear ? this is called the "Nocebo-effect"? which might render them to suicide or disease ? a self-fulfilling prophecy. The contrary is he better known ?Placebo-effect").
The test reacts to more than 50 different ?substances" which include pregnancy, malaria, tuberculosis or vaccination. In addition all persons test HIV-positive, if the blood serum is not highly diluted for testing, which emphasizes that the molecules are a normal compound of all human beings and vary only in their concentrations (specific conditions).

[Christl Meyer]

The so called ?virus proof" in blood is only a proof for molecules like RNA or proteins but not for a whole virus. These molecules are normal components of the cell. A HIV- positive test result is also possible, if the person reacts allergic to the differing proteins, which can occur after blood transfusions, blood components (factor VIII for haemophiliacs) and also with the partners sperms (specifically by anal injury with non protected homosexual intercourse). Last but not least a positive HIV-test could indicate an autoimmune disease. The test is not validated and specific this is why even total healthy persons might test positive. As a conclusion these tests have to be abolished!
An intact cell and a healthy body have to maintain a certain balance in the reduction- /oxidation status of the cell. Thus the living conditions like nutrition and clean drinking water , hygiene, psychological and social factors are essential fort he health of the individual. Various molecules and substance like i.e. selenium as well as antioxidants could improve the balance of the cell. The interaction of the genes and the environment becomes more distinctness through the new findings of epigenetic. We have to realize that traits can become heritable by acquiring information from the environment.
http://www.christl-meyer-science.net

[Mallory]

Unfortunately we don't know why the judge decided in the defendant's favor, as the court documents do not appear to be public at present.

The only public mention of this case is from an organized PR campaign by well-known HIV/AIDS denialists such as Terry Michael, Clark Baker, Celia Farber, Nancy Banks and Rodney Richards. They've been doing these sorts of stunts on the internet and elsewhere for years.

You will pardon my skepticism about their claims that the military court accepted denialist arguments that the military's own HIV testing procedure is unreliable. What seems far more likely is the judge accepted the defendant's use of condoms on both occasions (as confirmed under oath by both alleged "victims") meant there wasn't a significant risk of transmission for him to disclose.

Such a judgement would be in line with UNAIDS policy on HIV and the law, and also has precedent in many (but not all) North American jurisdictions including in California and in Canada.

You should take any "interpretations" from HIV/AIDS denialists with a grain of salt, in the absence of the actual court documents.

[PutinReloaded]

"....Unfortunately we don't know why the judge decided in the defendant's favor, as the court documents do not appear to be public at present..."

We'll get them within 3 months and will get back to you.

[Mallory]

I look forward to this. I'd be especially interested in whether the judge's decision was influenced by Rodney Richards' testimony that "none of the tests used on Sgt. Dixon are validated or approved by the FDA for use in diagnosing actual infection with HIV."

There's nothing unusual about AIDS denialists telling lies as blatant as that on the internet, but it's a different matter under oath in a court of law.

[PutinReloaded]

There's nothing unusual about AIDS denialists telling lies as blatant as that on the internet, but it's a different matter under oath in a court of law.

You're a big mouthed troll, are you? Yet we're the only ones providing scientific papers to back up our criticisms, while you only known how to insult, avoid the debate or at most provide dogma (secondary sources).

[Mallory]

Cool. Please provide the scientific papers proving that none of the HIV assays listed on the FDA's website as FDA-approved for "diagnostic" and "diagnostic supplemental" use are actually approved by the FDA for those uses. Here's the link to the FDA site again: http://tiny.cc/2witfw

[PutinReloaded]

There are too many assays listed and very little space here. You try to "win" a debate by overloading your opponent with work.

It'd be much more efficient for you to select ONE or TWO essasys, the ones you believe are the BEST diagnostic tools for HIV infecion.

Since you firmly believe that those assays are specific, it measn you've got them all figured out. You'll have no problem to show us the BEST that AIDS junk-science has to offer, or will you?

Then I'll look at what your BEST assay really does and spell it for you with the science to back it up.

[Mallory]

Putin, no-one cares whether you think the FDA ought to have approved these tests or not.

The question is whether they did actually approve them or not.

According to Terry's article, Rodney Richards stood up in court and declared under oath that the FDA never approved these test kits for use in the diagnosis of HIV. This is the central claim of his testimony.

Rodney's testimony is directly contradicted by the FDA themselves, who list the HIV assays they have approved for diagnostic and diagnostic supplemental uses, and the dates they approved each kit for these purposes.

Now you are saying you have primary sources that refute the FDA's own statement about what they have and haven't approved. Please supply it.

[PutinReloaded]

no-one cares whether you think the FDA ought to have approved these tests or not.

Straw man. I never argued about the politics at the FDA. However, I'm not surprised that you're trying to con readers into buying the FDA as a primary source of scientific knowledge. It is NOT.

you are saying you have primary sources that refute the FDA's own statement about what they have and haven't approved

Statements of approval by government officials have no scientific value. What is your point?

You're not genuinely interested in finding out how HIV tests work, do you? If you were, instead of taunting me with another smoke-screen of simplistic fallacies you'd have brought your BEST HIV testing kit to the discussion table to be dissected by me. Still waiting though.

[Mallory]

My point is that Rodney Richards claimed under oath that the FDA has not approved HIV assays for diagnostic use:

In an interview after the trial, Dr. Richards said, "During my testimony, I highlighted that none of the tests used on Sgt. Dixon are validated or approved by the FDA for use in diagnosing actual infection with HIV."

The FDA says they have, and they list those assays they say they have approved for this purpose on their website. http://tiny.cc/2witfw

Whether you accept the FDA as a source for scientific knowledge or not, they are the primary source for what the FDA has or hasn't approved and for what purposes.

Either Rodney Richards or the FDA is lying about what the FDA has and hasn't approved.

Can you guess which one?

[PutinReloaded]

that none of the tests used on Sgt. Dixon are validated or approved by the FDA for use in diagnosing actual infection with HIV

I've bolded the part you didn't understand.

[PutinReloaded]

Rodney Richards stood up in court and declared under oath that the FDA never approved these test kits for use in the diagnosis of HIV.

Let's take the first of the link you provided http://tiny.cc/2witfw The word "Diagnostic" appears prominently in the column labeled "Use":

GS rLAV EIA Use: Diagnostic (Dried blood spot).

Noe let's read the actual FDA Approval Letter and check whether it was indeed approved for diagnostic of HIV infection or not:

June 29, 1998 Approval Letter

http://shorl.com/sterabasujetre

"... This in vitro qualitative enzyme immunoassay is to be used for the detection of antibodies to Human Immunodeficiency Virus type 1 in human serum, plasma, and dried blood spots..."

So the test was not actually approved for "Diagnostic of infection with HIV" but for simply "Detection of antibodies to HIV".

It's clear that whoever designed the table you linked didn't actually read the letters of approval or added his own interpretation of their content.

I leave it to you to scrutinize the rest of the Letters of Approval, and if you find one that the FDA has actually approved for DIAGNOSTIC of infection by HIV, put it forward.

[Mallory]

Putin, the Summary Basis of Approval for that test kit is here: http://tiny.cc/gnkhgw

The approved clinical use of the test is clearly spelled out in the first paragraph:

"The Genetic Systems rLAV EIA is an in vitro qualitative enzyme immunoassay is to be used for the detection of circulating antibodies to Human Immunodeficiency Virus type 1 in human serum, plasma, and dried blood spots. The rLAV EIA is intended to be used as a screening test for donated blood or plasma and as an aid in the diagnosis of infection with HIV-1."

What part of that do you and Rodney Richards not understand?

[PutinReloaded]

The Summary Basis is written by the manufacturer as a "wish list", but it's the FDA in its Approval Letter who defines which use has actually been approved. Approval Letter... guess why it's called like that?

Your bending-back updwars gimmicks to bend reality are hilarious.

[Terry Michael]

And you should take with an ocean of salt anyone who uses the term "denialist" to attack those with whom he? she? (who is "Mallory"?) disagrees. By trying to equate us with the horror of Holocaust denialists, they simply attempt to halt all serious discourse by suggesting we are genocidal maniacs. The HIV-AIDS Industry fears a debate of the facts because it would shut down the tens of billions of dollars that flow to it yearly from the biggest fraud in medical history.

[Mallory]

Terry, what you just wrote would be known as a "non sequitur". Why not just stick to the substantive topic instead of - to use another Latin phrase - making a pointless ad hominem attack?

As you state in your article, the trial transcripts are not available, and it does not appear that you were present when it was being conducted, so this raises the question of how you came to report on it, especially as all the publicity on this case appears to be part of a co-ordinated campaign from a small group of HIV/AIDS denialists to promote their ideology on the internet.

I'm sorry that you disagree with my use of the word "denialist", and I can assure you that I'm not implying any moral equivalence between HIV/AIDS denialists and Holocaust denialists. Deniers of the Shoah are of course offensive, obnoxious and belligerently ignorant but they do not still cause the deaths of the people they convince - not in the 21st century at least. Rather the term "denialist" has come to mean one who uses a particular suite of rhetorical tactics to deny an established historical or scientific fact, not to their moral character.

Nor am I attempting to shut down discourse here - quite the opposite. I note that you have not yet replied to my substantive answer to your speculations about what "really" causes AIDS, above. If you were really interested in facts you would have done so, rather than dragging out the tired old Pharma Shill Gambit.

[Terry Michael]

If you wish to discuss this, write to me at [e-mail] and identify yourself. And, if you want to read, at length, about the multi-factorial causation of immune deficiency, go here:
http://www.terrymichael.net/Ht.....eport.html

[Mallory]

Do you see yourself as some kind of immunology expert, Terry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

[PutinReloaded]

Immunology is not rocket science, neither is HIV testing. Anyone with a science degree can point at the gaping holes regarding lack of a validation standard, subjective interpretation and ubiquitous croos reactions. HIV tests are pregnancy tests, flu tests, HPV tests, you name it... anything except HIV.

[Elizabeth Ely]

I very much disagree with your offensive term "denialist," and Henry H. Bauer has also objected on occasion. Dr. Bauer, a professor emeritus at Virginia Tech, is himself a Holocaust survivor -- having escaped Europe with his family. Please peddle your hate speech elsewhere, and show some respect. Refusal to ask the obvious questions Dr. Bauer raises about AIDS leads to many deaths and much suffering. We personally know the people struggling with the persecution that begins with a bogus "HIV test" result. We have met them, talked with them, loved them, and visited the horrible ghettoes called AIDS wards where they are supposed to go to die. We have seen, and we will witness to what we have seen. We will "deny" not one shred of evidence.

[Mallory]

Ah yes, Henry Bauer - the world's leading expert on the Loch Ness Monster.

http://henryhbauer.homestead.c.....facts.html

Sorry, was he supposed to be an example of how AIDS denialists are NOT crackpots?

[PutinReloaded]

Whis evidence are "denialists" supposed to be denying? Provide the proof of causation HIV/AIDS, please.

[Mallory]

http://www.avert.org/hiv-causes-aids.htm

[PutinReloaded]

This is a secondary source. Shere is the scientific evidence - the primary source - that we are supposed to be ignoring?

[Mallory]

Way to shift the goalposts, Putin.

Did you try, you know, actually reading the paper and umm... maybe following the references?

[PutinReloaded]

You're always beating around the bush.

Do your homework and give us the BEST PRIMARY REFERENCE you have to prove that HIV causes all of the 30+ diseases lumped in the AIDS grab-bag.

I want to know to see the scientific evidence you claim I'm "denying"... does it even exist? You don't seem to ever have seen it yourself, big mouth!

[PutinReloaded]

Way to shift the goalposts, Putin.

Shifted who? A request for evidence must be met with a primary source. Secondary sources - your shifted goalpost - are NOT evidence.

It's too obvious you lack any academic education. Here, learn some concepts before you even try to debate Science:

Primary sources are original materials on which other research is based. They are usually the first formal appearance of results in physical, print or electronic format. They present original thinking, report a discovery, or share new information. They have not been filtered through interpretation.

So where are the primary sources of the "discovery" that HIV is the cause of all the various ailments relabeled as AIDS?

[PutinReloaded]

Are the "geniuses" that invented HIV any better?

From the AIDS-pushers own sources:

Montagnier Joins Mullis in the Nobel Prize Crackpot Club

http://denyingaids.blogspot.nl.....prize.html

... Well, apparently Montagnier has gone off the deep end into pseudoscience himself. He claims that his new group, Chronimed, has discovered in autistic children...
...
... What the heck? In what seems to be a desperate effort to stay relevant, Montagnier is promoting wild theories with little scientific basis...

To which I may add... HASN'T IT ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE? We've been WARNING you all this time!

Little respect are showing the AIDS-pushers for the Messiahs of their own belief system!

Then we have the bad-science and criminal activities of Mr. Capone/Gallo:

Robert C. Gallo Biography

http://www.faqs.org/health/bio.....Gallo.html

"... In 1975, Gallo and Robert E. Gallagher announced that they had discovered a human leukemia virus, but other laboratories were unable to replicate their results (junk science). Scientists to whom they had sent samples for independent confirmation had found two different retroviruses not from humans, but from animals. The samples hadbeen contaminated by viruses from a monkey or a chimp and the idea that a virus could cause cancer was publicly ridiculed..."

[Mallory]

Are you the same Elizabeth Ely who calls herself the "Public Relations Chairperson" for the AIDS denialist organization Rethinking AIDS?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.....maggi.html

[arjonline]

i read your total blog and your article it is nice and good it is very help full to us to gain more things
https://www.arjonline.org/