Wrong. Many HIV positives don't even know they are HIV positive, never
get sick and are fine.

Wrong again.  ARV's are toxic poisons which are "AIDS by Prescription"

Important video relating to HIV and AIDS.

http://www.aidsfraudvideo.com

http://aidsmyth.addr.com/enteraidsmyth.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Sold-Out-Really-Cause/dp/1556436424
http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-AIDS-Virus-Peter-Duesberg/dp/0895263998
http://aras.ab.ca/rethinkers.php
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/culshaw1.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1430/is_n9_v14/ai_12508167
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aids/chap6.htm
http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com/producer.htm

rocketscience

Moira,

The nice thing about the internet is that everyone can read what you
actually wrote.

There is no need for you to tell people what I really think, they
can use google and read it for themselves.

Now, I'm sure you would love for me to have made unsupportable
statements like 'hiv doesn't exist'. The difference is that I don't know
whether: hiv exists; what it really does, if anything; etc.

However, having a minor background in the humanities and
at having learned something  about statistics and surveys, I can
easily say the following:

1) Antenatal Clinic Surveys are not statistically sound, and
therefore, they are unscientific. The way they were interpreted
was laden with presumptions about their representativeness,
especially because they were not representative. They failed
the following tests.

1a) They were too small; usually conisting of a couple of hundred
pregnant women who gave blood at antenatal clinics.

1b) They were not a reflection of the general population.
(They were unrepresentative of children, men, unpregant
women, pregnant women at hospitals, etc.) And what is
more, pregnancy plays havoc with a whole set of tests,
not just the so-called HIV test.

As a 'dissident', I insist on the following:

*Falsifyability*

In other words, hypotheses must be able to be proven wrong,
as well as right. (Or to paraphrase Aristotle's demand for
logical statements, a concise statement is either true, or it is
untrue, and there is no third option - his principium tertii exclusi.)

The characteristic of fields of inquiry that are abandoned by
real scientists, like race (leading to scientific racism), is that
scientific standards such as falsifyability become absent from
the debate. Instead, the field was taken over by the scions of
former plantation owners (in the case of scientific racism) or
it is taken over by money grubbing hacks (like AID$ science),
supported by social activists and multi-billion dollar corporations,
and the existentialist fear that you might have sex and die.

Falsifyability in the AID$ hypothesis is missing when:

1) AIDS kills in 8-10 years after infection. Either it does, or it doesn't.
The copout: an entire group of 'patients' named 'long term non-progressors'.

2) Christine Maggiore has been HIV positive for 20 years,
but she hasn't developed AIDS. The copout: then she must
be testing false positive. HIV is transmitted from mother to
child - unless it isn't (allegedly her daughter was HIV positive,
but her son wasn't?).

3) HIV tests are 99% accurate. Unless they aren't.
The copout: 60 or so conditions that are known and
documented to cause 'false positives'. The tests are either
extremely accurate, or they are not extremely accurate.
Should there really be a third option? There shouldn't be.
But there is - for instance, in a population in which most people
test negative, nearly all of the positive tests are false positives.
And what precisely is a false positive? What causes it, if
these tests and the proteins they test for are so specific?
Either (HIV) ELISA tests for the P24 protein that is specific to
antibodies which are specific to HIV, or it doesn't.

4) The 'HIV test'. It is no more an 'HIV test', than it is an
'AIDS test'. It tests for proteins, that are presumed to be
specific to antibodies, which are presumed to be specific
to HIV.

5) HIV is never directly (let alone routinely) isolated or
cultured from the individual patient.

6) 25 years later, there is no test that (routinely or not) tests
for the whole virus. Astonishing.

I mean, there is so much money going to AIDS, and yet
the standards set are so deplorable.

But I am not a microbiologist, or even an epidemiologist,
so I will stick to surveys and how they are used to drum up
AID$ hysteria and scare entire continents half to death.

7) It is now accepted that ANCs routinely and massively
overstate national HIV prevalence, compared to DHS
surveys. DHS surveys have the benefit of being statistically
sound. And yet there has been no public apology, no mea
culpa, from UNAIDS or any of the organisations who used
these surveys or the data that was based on it.

South Africa went from 19% to 11%. Swaziland (girls 15-19)
went from 32.5% to 6%. Sierra Leone, most dramatically,
went from 7% to under 1%. And now India has cut it's
estimated HIV prevalence in half.

I have said so for many years (in fact since the nineties)
that ANCs are not statistically representative.

8) And yet, -DHS surveys rely on a single, unconfirmed
ELISA, the same test that is being used because it is
so cheap, not because it is so accurate. And yet, no one
in the USA is allowed to be diagnosed 'HIV positive'
on one or even two ELISA tests. In other words,
the standard for testing in surveys, including DHS
surveys, is much lower than testing for individual
diagnosis. And it wouldn't even cost that much
money to do a confirmation Western Blot for the
1,000 or so people who test positive in the 10,000
person DHS surveys. And yet it is not done.

Now, Moira, you can stop misrepresenting what I
believe, and read what I actually do believe.

Alex

For girls in Swaziland, see:
http://www.plusnews.org/AIDSReport.ASP?ReportID=3819&SelectRegion=Southern_Afric
a&SelectCountry=SWAZ
ILAND

In this article, instead of admitting they used a different
survey type, they credit 'awareness'.

" "Kids are getting smarter: they see what is happening; they want
to save themselves," said Albertina Nyatsi, a counsellor with the
Swaziland AIDS Support Organisation (SASO), a counselling
group for HIV-positive people whose teenage members take
HIV prevention messages to high schools."

Whatever.

You mean I purposely repost and add 'repost' to the subject line. :-/
There was a glitch in the software (which led to the word 'repost' being
added to the subject line as well).

Alex