AIDS has been about since the early nineteen eighties but in recent years the term 'AIDS denialism' or 'AIDS denialist' has found its way into mainstream media.
This refers to those who believe that acquired immune deficiency (AIDS) is NOT caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) but acknowledges that AIDS does exist, caused by some other means.
This refers to those who believe that acquired immune deficiency (AIDS) is NOT caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) but acknowledges that AIDS does exist, caused by some other means.
The arguments for or against the HIV/AIDS hypothesis has indeed been a subject for stormy debate over the years. Whatever side of the fence you the reader may have taken, please have a look at my questions challenging the HIV/AIDS hypothesis:
1. We know that AIDS is based on individuals having a confirmatory 'HIV test-positive' result. However, it has been said that the HIV test is greatly flawed because there are something like 70 different conditions individuals could have which would give a false-positive test result. For example, someone with a simple illness like a cold or flu could give a false-positive result...
So, how can it be known for sure that HIV is the cause when the HIV test result can be skewed by these infectious agents?
2. Does this non-specificity of the HIV test not just indicate unreliability but also questions the very existence of the HIV virus?
3. HIV tests are interpreted differently in different parts of the world. This means you could be test-positive in one country and then later find yourself test-negative in another! Again, doesn't this challenge the validity of the HIV test?
4. Why do the medical/pharmaceutical establishment and mass media never inform us of the above HIV test unreliability, after all, we have a right to know..?
5.On the subject regarding the said existence of the HIV virus. You can Google search for the said HIV virus and sure enough lots of microscope images come up. However, a number of virologists have commented on these images, saying that at best they only look like particles suggestive of HIV. Because these virologists claim that the early work of Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo was flawed and they had not successfully isolated and identified the HIV particle by the appropriate test procedure. So, doesn't this invalidate the HIV/AIDS hypothesis?
6. Since Montagnier and Gallo's early work mentioned above, as far as I can see, no follow up has been made to confirm HIV causes AIDS. In other words, if this insubstantial evidence at best is all we have, isn't the whole HIV/AIDS thing a case of the emperor has no clothes?
7. Or, are we looking at a deliberate oversight here which allows certain individuals to profiteer greatly from wildly inaccurate testing kits and unnecessary pharmaceutical drugs..?
8. If a virus is responsible for AIDS then how is it that it behaves uncharacteristically in the follow ways?
a) When viral infections occur such as the common cold it randomly infects humans, thus 50% males and 50% females are infected. In Africa AIDS is 50/50 male/female which indeed is what you might expect if a virus is the cause, but how can a virus infect individuals in the USA differently, which in this case is roughly 85/15 male and female respectively?
Could it be that this global inconsistency is because the AIDS is not due to a virus but caused by the immune system getting severly weakened through constant recreational drug taking and allowing opportunistic infection to set in, since 85% males and 15% females is the ratio for drug taking history in the USA which ties in..?
b) How can HIV have an uncharacteristically long latency period? That is, unlike other viruses, how can someone be infected with the virus and then take for example 7 years for full blown AIDS to finally manifest; doesn't this defy the laws of microbiology?
9. Some individuals can be HIV negative but have AIDS. While others can be HIV positive and not have AIDS. Doesn't this expose the flawed logic in the HIV AIDS hypothesis?
10. Population studies suggest that AIDS has not spread wider than certain groups at risk, only in exceptional situations; doesn't this suggest that AIDS could be caused by a non-infectious agent..?
11. Overall, can AIDS, an umbrella term for some roughly thirty illnesses where the immune system has been severely weakened be explained without the need to attribute it to a single virus? For examples, as already mentioned, AIDS in America through drug taking... Could the AIDS related illnesses in Africa; cholera, parasitic infection, mal-nutrition... etc be explained just by poverty?
12. There has been much publicity whereby individuals are labelled as 'AIDS denialists.' Claims have been made that they have died through ignoring conventional medicine's treatment of anti-virals... But why have the mainstream media played down the fact that there have been many cured of AIDS by strengthening their immune system through treatment using various natural health approaches having turned their back on conventional medicine..?
This concludes my 12 questions but I realize that there are many more...
If you liked reading this article then go to www.NewParadigm.ws for more related articles including a free download PDF. NewParadigm is a portal to transformation, consciousness, spirituality, mind, body, health,
alternative media and much more... Hosted by Paul A Philips.
Once again the link is: