Site Search
What is HIV?

Aids Dissident Scientific Summary Analysis

No laboratory has ever obtained an undisputed sample of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), despite countless attempts. Most laboratories, clinics and medical corporations have come to accept indirect signs, or 'markers', such as antibody reactions, proteins, genetic fragments, 'virus-like' particles, enzymes - that could suggest a virus but also other things - as proving the presence and existence of an 'HIV'.

If such a virus were ever isolated by standards applicable until the late 1970s, the expectations are that it would be a retrovirus - a concept of viruses adopted in the early 1970s. The genetic code of a retrovirus would work 'backwards' - 'retro' - transforming RNA to DNA. Most retroviruses are known as harmless passenger viruses a part of all of endogenous or naturally occuring genetic make-up. 'HIV' has never been found in suficient quantities to kill T-Cells and in fact there is no concensus even after 21+ years as to 'HIV's cytotoxic or cell killing mechanism. For a decade, researchers thought cancer was caused by a retrovirus. Professor Peter Duesberg, UC Berkeley, isolated the first retrovirus and is a Father of Retrovirology says 'HIV' is a harmless passenger virus that does not cause the syndrome known as 'AIDS.'

In 1984 some signs suggesting a possible new virus were detected in cell cultures by the scientific teams of Frenchman Luc Montagnier in Paris, and American Robert Gallo in Washington, who were trying to explain a single cause for 'AIDS'. The French called their findings Lymphadenopathy Associated Virus (LAV), the Americans called theirs Human T-cell Lymphotrophic Virus III (HTLV-III). The US Government announced at a press conference in 1984 that a new virus was "the probable cause of AIDS," yet before any scientific papers inviting peer scrutiny were published. When such papers appeared in Science some weeks later, a dispute erupted between Montagnier and Gallo. Gallo was found guilty of scientific misconduct by a Senate Ethics Committee, for misappropriating material and photographs of 'virus- like' particles from the French. Because of the financial stakes - Gallo and the US government applied for a patent for tests for 'HIV' the day of the press conference - the matter was eventually solved only by a closed meeting between the scientists which produced an official history of events, and a meeting between the US and French Presidents.

However, neither Gallo nor Montagnier ever managed to purify samples of the virus they claimed to have detected. Many scientists believe that without fulfiling this traditional primary requirement of virus isolation, multiple confusions at the molecular biological level are inevitable over what or whether anything has actually been found. To this day, primary purification of 'HIV' has never been achieved. The last attempts, published in 1997 in Virology, revealed proteins and genetic fragments from microvesicles - sub-cell particles - but no virus.

HIV antibody tests

Over the years of the HIV/AIDS theory, different types of test have been used to try to detect such a virus in patients. These have included (1) antibody tests, which look for a reaction in a person's blood between their natural antibodies and synthetic proteins said to belong to HIV, and (2) Polymerase Chain Reaction - PCR - or 'viral load' genetic tests, which purport to use part of the virus' genetic code to detect its presence.

All these tests are indirect, or surrogate. They do not claim to detect any whole virus. Rather, they use markers to infer whether a virus might be present. Unfortunately for the accuracy of these tests, these same markers can be found in a variety of non-HIV situations. No HIV test of any kind has ever been validated against the one measure that is not indirect - the gold standard: physical virus isolation. This is because isolation of HIV by the previously conventional standards of viral isolation has never been achieved, despite numerous attempts.

Of the antibody tests for HIV, there are two main types - called ELISA, and Western Blot. Neither was designed especially for HIV, but are examples of laboratory methodologies used in many investigations. Around the world many companies market their versions of the ELISA and Western Blot antibody tests for HIV.

However, the uncertain, unvalidated nature of these tests is reflected in the product literature supplied by their manufacturers.

A typical example for the ELISA reads:

"At present there is no recognised standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood." - Axsym System, Abbott Laboratories

A typical example for the Western Blot reads:

"Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection." - Epitope, Organon Teknika

"Of course we looked for it [HIV]... We saw some particles but they did not have the morphology [shape] typical of retroviruses. ... I repeat we did not purify."

~ Dr. Luc Montagnier, the "discoverer of HIV"
(see French transcript of quote from the interview

Did Luc Montagnier Discover HIV? or video)

"No one believed we really had that many isolates... No one believed we really meant that..."
~ Dr. Robert Gallo, also discovered "HIV"
(see Gallo Investigated

'viral load' / PCR test

Polymerase Chain Reaction - PCR - or the 'viral load' test, purports to detect, and quantify, blood-borne HIV in patients. However, the genetic fragments it amplifies have never been proved to originate in HIV, or in any virus. The accuracy of PCR viral load is estimated by leading doctors at plus or minus 300% - i.e. a reading of 90,000 could be 30,000 or 270,000!

The PCR was not invented for HIV. Its Nobel Prizewinning inventor, Dr Kary Mullis, calls the use of PCR in AIDS medicine, "a tragedy in the practice of Western medicine."

The uncertain unvalidated nature of the PCR for HIV is reflected in the product literature supplied by manufacturers. A typical example reads:

"The Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection." - Roche, Amplicor



Since the beginning of the HIV/AIDS theory, it has been suggested that a virus kills a certain type of cell of the immune system - called T-cells, or CD4 cells. 'T' refers to the maturing of these cells in the gland of the Thymus, after their birth in the bone marrow. CD4 is short for Cluster Differentiation 4, referring to a method by which scientists group subsets of these cells according to protein markers on their surface.

In fact there has never been any proof that an HIV kills these cells, or indeed that even when they seem in low numbers in a person's blood, cells have not instead migrated out of the blood to bone marrow and elsewhere. Despite common assumptions, even by doctors, CD4/T-cell counting remains a poor predictor of wellness and illness. Since the Berlin World AIDS Conference of 1992 considerably less scientific importance has been attached to T-cell counting. T-cell counts are naturally variable, within an individual over time, between individuals, and between communities. The technology for counting T-cells is accurate only to approximately plus or minus 100 cells. The cells sampled for counting are taken from a person's peripheral blood, where it is widely accepted, less than 10% of a healthy person's T-cells will ever be found.

CD-4 T-cells: What Do They Count For? [index of articles/papers]

what is aids?

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is a medical diagnosis applied since 1984 in some branches of medicine and the wider public when a person perceived as infected with a human immunodeficiency virus ('HIV') experiences one of 29 conditions. But all of the 29 conditions exist or occur in persons diagnosed 'HIV' antibody negative and are only redefined as 'AIDS' when someone tests antibody positive.

'Acquired' specifies that the diagnosis does not apply to people with inherent immune deficiencies. 'Immune Deficiency' is conventionally taken to be the inability of a person's body to protect against illness. Syndrome is a group of symptoms or conditions which seem to be more or less linked.

The growing list of conditions defined 'in the presence of HIV infection' since 1984 as AIDS, have already all been known for decades. Thus TB plus 'HIV' is AIDS, TB without 'HIV' is TB. Cervical cancer plus 'HIV' is AIDS, without is cervical cancer. Etc.

In the early 1980s the 'AIDS-indicator' conditions numbered two: pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (thought to be caused by an opportunistic protoz÷on, now thought to be fungal), and Kaposi's Sarcoma (a quasi-cancer of the skin and other membranes, first reported in 1887). These two conditions were found increasingly frequently in the early 1980s in the USA and Europe in men having sex with men, and were hypothesised as resulting from infectious immune deficiency, inferred from counting people's peripheral T-cells.

The syndrome was for a while classified as Gay Related Immune Deficiency (GRID). The list of 'defining' conditions has increased substantially since 1984, though the major risk groups for 'AIDS' in the West have remained men who have sex with men, people with haemophilia (Haemophilia), and IV drug users (Drugs). Despite early alarms, HIV/AIDS has never become a heterosexual epidemic in the West, which does not mean it's a gay disease, but it has failed to meet the parameters of the infectious model. 'HIV==AIDS' does not fulfill Koch's Postulates as none of the apes injected with 'HIV' have developed 'AIDS' conditions.

The international CDC definition of AIDS is specifically founded on 'infection with HIV', assumed or demonstrated. Thus by definition it is nearly impossible to have 'AIDS' that is not 'correlative' with 'HIV', though it is widely accepted that 'Immune Deficiency' can be 'Acquired' in a many ways. There are also many well documented causes and treatments for all of the 29 'AIDS' redefined conditons or for addressing aquired immune deficiency.

Between different regions of the globe, the criteria and means for arriving at an AIDS diagnosis vary. There are at least seven varying official criteria for diagnosing 'AIDS.'

In Africa, for example, the same official concept of AIDS can be found, but since a meeting in 1985 in the city of Bangui, Cote d'Ivoire, the World Health Organisation's Bangui AIDS Definition has allowed for diagnosis of AIDS in Africa with no test performed for 'HIV', if a person experiences the relatively common African symptoms of weight loss, cough, fever and diarrhoea for more than a month.

It is widely agreed in conventional scientific literature and elsewhere that the 'antiviral' medical drugs taken by many people with 'HIV' and 'AIDS' diagnoses in the West are toxic and experimental. In several cases the drugs are known to produce effects that mimic or create immune deficiency and 'AIDS indicator' conditions. The administration of AZT for example at doses at or greater than 1200mg/day from 1988 to 1993 is acknowledged as responsible for the deaths of those who took it. An iatrogenic, or medically induced, aspect remains close to the center of what 'AIDS' has become. All of these factors, including the changing dosages and regimens, the lack of placebo controls using those not on drug or using non-toxic alternative therapies, as well as a shifting definition of 'AIDS' contributes to the fuzzy math, epidemio- illogical numbers game.




President of The Group, Roberto Giraldo, MD, New York, NY INDEX OF PAPERS, PRESENTATIONS


Synthesis of deliberations by the panel of experts invited by the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki and the ten experiments the Panel designed in attempt to resolve the controversy, endorsed by the African National Congress [AIDS Dissidents/'Denialists' and AIDS Apologists/Orthodoxy]

HEAL [Health Education AIDS Liason]

ANOTHER LOOK [Breastfeeding and 'HIV/AIDS']

MOMM [Mothers Opposing Mandatory Medicine]


[most active AIDS message board on MSN]

[forum on Delphi, sister network]

Conditions Center
Doctors & Clinics
Politics & Law
Cleanses & Supplements