Validity Of AIDS/HIV Tests Challenged By New Lawsuit

Health Supreme reports:

The test kits used to determine "HIV positive" status in patients are deeply flawed - they were developed on the basis of faulty scientific methodology and assumptions and are without value in determining whether a person suffers from "HIV Aids", alleges Kim Marie Bannon in a civil suit filed under the Consumer Protection Act of the State of Kansas, US.

The legal action against the makers of Aids test kits CALYPTE BIOMEDICAL CORPORATION and ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION was filed more than a year ago, on 12 April 2004 in the Sedgwick County District Court by Dennis Webb of Wichita Kansas.

Photo credit: Adam Ciesielski

At the base of the suit is the scientific mishandling of the Aids crisis from the very beginning, when on April 23, 1984, the then US Health Secretary Margaret Heckler announced at a press conference that the "probable" cause of AIDS had been found.

A controversy between Gallo and Montagnier distracted us from the fact that the "virus" thought to cause immune deficiency had never been unequivocally isolated.

Neither has anyone explained in scientific terms how the virus, which cannot be found in large numbers of immune deficient individuals, causes the illness.

Neville Hodgkinson has written up the history for us to follow.

Hodgkinson's excellent article, which first appeared in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, really sheds lots of new light on this tragic issue.

Kim Marie Bannon, the courageous woman who is taking on the multibillion pharma manufacturers, says:

I was "diagnosed" in 1992. I spent 10 years doubting yet living with the stigma of conventional AIDS dogma. In April 2002 I stumbled on the Perth Group's article "The Yin and Yang of HIV."

I began studying the issue and eventually started looking for an attorney. I've worked in the legal field in Wichita since 1983, and I feel it is only my excellent reputation with the local bar that enabled me to get a lawyer to take the case.

Rest assured I'm not looking for a settlement. I want lots of publicity.

I welcome anyone with media contacts to help me get my story out.

I plan to have the defendants so totally exposed that a settlement and gag order would do them no good anyway.

I realize that my life might be more peaceful if I just kept my HIV "status" under wraps and went on with the knowledge that I'm not going to die from AIDS, but my soul would not be at peace knowing that so many suffer from the orthodox viewpoint.

My lawsuit focuses on the narrow issue of the tests which will hopefully be easier for a jury to understand than the multitude of issues that will surely eventually be raised in the whole fiasco.

It will provide a precedent upon which other cases can be built in the future. And if they can't test you, they can't diagnose you. Others can escape the terror that has been perpetrated on me, as well as on so many of you.

If you are interested in the legal details, here is a copy of the papers filed in court just two weeks ago.

Also of relevance in this quest for understanding more and better of where the truth about AIDS really lays, is the interesting AIDS article that Sepp Hasslberger had published over a year ago. On his Health Supreme blog, he recounts in detail a great exchange he had just been having with others who, like many of us indeed, thought that the AIDS cures and tests had nothing really bad about them. He wrote:

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 that I had forwarded to some people, a medical doctor friend has had the following comment:

"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.

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?"

which then elicited 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...

In essence, despite more than $100 billion spent on AIDS by US taxpayers alone, scientists have not been able to ascertain how HIV causes the AIDS syndrome.

Predictions about the course of the epidemic have proved inaccurate.

While millions are said to be infected and dying in Africa, AIDS deaths have fallen in Europe and the USA and now total fewer than 250 a year in the UK, which has a population of nearly 60 million.

Claims that cocktails of antiviral drugs are responsible for a decline in Western AIDS are unsupported by clear evidence.

On the contrary, the US Government has reversed a policy of "hit hard, hit early" in HIV-positive people, citing "unexpected toxicities" from the drugs.

The HIV theory of AIDS causation has fulfilled certain social and public health needs, but the scientific community has not acknowledged or addressed serious flaws in AIDS theory and medical practice, in particular a failure to validate "HIV" diagnostic tests against isolation of virus.

Genetic and chemical signals produced by disordered immune cells may have been misinterpreted as evidence of the presence of a lethal virus.

There is vast over-diagnosis of AIDS and "HIV disease" in Africa and other countries where malnutrition and grossly impoverished living circumstances, with associated infections, are the real killers.

The harmful consequences of these mistakes and omissions are increasing now that the World Health Organisation and UNAIDS, convinced of an African pandemic, are urging finance ministers of African countries to devote more domestic funds to HIV/AIDS activities.

On the other hand, if debt relief and other emergency aid for which UNAIDS is also campaigning are used appropriately, enormous relief of human suffering will be possible.

A reasoned response from the scientific community to the full range of evidence challenging the HIV theory is overdue.

If you want to find out more about this thorny issue, here are plenty of great pointers to start analyzing the validity of the information you have taken for granted until now.