Fallacies, Flaws in 'HIv/AIDs' Construct

[Guest guest]

==============================================

Logical Fallacies Used Against AIDS Dissidents

==============================================

 

 

Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum)

 

Definition:

A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true

or is held to be true by some sector of the population.

 

Example:

Everyone knows HIV causes AIDS, so why do you persist in your

outlandish claims?

 

 

 

Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

 

Definition:

 

Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been

proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may

assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore

false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes

that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be

false.)

 

Example:

Since you cannot prove that HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV causes AIDS.

 

 

 

Appeal to Consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam)

 

Definition:

The author points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a

particular belief in order to show that this belief is false.

 

Example:

If you don't believe HIV causes AIDS, you're going to die of AIDS.

 

 

 

Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)

 

Definition:

While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support

a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is

inappropriate if:

 

(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the

subject, (ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue.

(iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being

serious

 

Example:

Thousands of scientists agree there is overwhelming evidence that HIV

causes AIDS.

 

 

 

Fallacy of Exclusion

 

Definition:

Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is

excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant

information be included is called the " principle of total evidence " .

 

Example:

Healthy HIV positive people who have never taken HIV/AIDS medications

are not included in many of the studies HIV/AIDS proponents cite as

evidence that HIV causes AIDS.

 

 

 

Coincidental Correlation (post hoc ergo propter hoc)

 

Definition:

The name in Latin means " after this therefore because of this. " This

describes the fallacy. An author commits the fallacy when it is

assumed that because one thing follows another that the one thing was

caused by the other. However, correlation is not causation.

 

Example:

Jack came down with pneumonia after an HIV positive test result.

Therefore, Jack's pneumonia is AIDS caused by HIV because he tested

HIV+.

 

 

 

Begging the Question ( petitio principii )

 

Definition:

The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. Often, the

conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a slightly different

form. In more difficult cases, the premise is a consequence of the

conclusion.

 

Example:

HIV causes AIDS because the evidence is overwhelming that HIV causes

AIDS. Therefore, HIV causes AIDS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

=======================================================

Fundamental Failings, Flaws in the 'HIV/AIDS' Construct

=======================================================

 

 

Flaw No.1: Co-Causal Factors Ignored

 

In order to assemble the HIV/AIDS construct, virologists had to make

a point of ignoring the prevalent, tangible causal factors for AIDS

and the absense of sexual contact between the cases they were

starting to see.

 

They then had to abuse genetic technology, exploiting the prestige of

its techniques in order to present a fa?de of credibility. The origin

of HIV/AIDS is not Africa, it is the abuse of genetic technology. We

only got HIV/AIDS when the technology arose to construct it. Science

was subsumed by technology. We know that anti-HIV drugs destroy T-

cells ( see this index of CD4 T-cells: What Do They Count For?

http://healtoronto.com/cd4counts.html ) and even the establishment

were forced to admit that HIV does NOT kill T-cells, at least not

directly, and the variety of other co-causes for T-cell depletion.

 

Although there is a shortage of studies examining the effects of

antiretroviral drugs upon CD4 cells, what we do have provides grounds

for saying that they definitely do destroy CD4 cells, that the effect

is predominantly a long term usage outcome and is most likely due to

cumulative mitochondrial damage. There are many references relating

to recreational drugs cytoxic effect.

 

And we also know that antiretroviral drugs destroy mitochondria

(Lewis et al. Mitochondrial toxicity of Antiretroviral Drugs, Nature

Medicine, Vol. 1, No. 5, pp 417-422, 1995). CD4 cells contain

mitochondria. We would expect the effects of mitochondrial toxicity

to be accentuated in CD4 T-cells because their rapid turnover renders

them more prone to cumulative mitochondrial DNA damage.

 

AZT has been found in several studies to be toxic to CD4 cells

(Balzarini et al. Journal of Biological Chemistry Vol. 264, pp 6127-

6133, 1989; Mansuri et al. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Vol.

34, pp637-641, 1990; Hitchcock et al. Antiviral Chemistry and

Chemotherapy, Vol 2, pp 125-132, 1991.) An independent study showed

that AZT is about 1000-times (!) more toxic for human T-cells in

culture (at about 1 µM concentration) than the study conducted by its

manufacturer and the NIH concluded (Avramis et al, AIDS, Vol. 3, pp

417-422). Lymphocyte counts decreased significantly in humans treated

with AZT but not in untreated controls (Richman et al, NEJM, Vol. 317

pp 192-197, 1987) Another study found that AZT users experienced more

rapid CD4 cell depletion than those not on antiretrovirals (Alcabes

et al, American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 137, pp 898-1000, 1993).

Didanosine (ddI or Videx), is listed in the Physician's Desk Reference

(1999) as causing serious levels of " leukopenia " which involves

reductions of all white blood cells including lymphocytes in 13% to

16% of users.

 

In the June 2, 2002 issue of the Journal of Virology, researchers

report that the protease inhibitor drugs Crixivan (indinavir) and

Invarase (saquinavir) caused T cell death in healthy HIV negative

donor blood in three separate experiments:

 

http://healtoronto.com/tcelldeath.html

 

Immunology Today 1998 Vol.19 p 10-17 entitled " HIV-induced decline in

blood CD4/CD8 ratios: viral killing or altered lymphocyte

traffiking? " To quote from the article:

 

" During HIV infection CD4 cell numbers and CD4/CD8 ratios decline in

the blood. This is usually attributed to direct viral killing or to

other indirect mechanisms.

 

However, current models generally assume that such changes in the

blood are representative of changes in total CD4 T-cell numbers

throughout the body.

 

This article discusses the importance of alterations in CD4 and CD8

cell migration in regulating blood lymphocyte levels and questions

the extent of virus mediated CD4 T-cell destruction "

 

To also quote from Roederer, Nature Med. Vol 4 p145:

 

" In this issue of Nature Medicine, reports by Pakker et al and

Gorochov et al provide the final nails in the coffin for models of T-

cell dynamics in which a major reason for changes in T-cell numbers

is the death of HIV infected cells. "

 

 

 

Flaw No.2: No Isolation or Validation

 

Any scientist who declares that a genetic sequence, moreover a

genetic sequence arrived at by human concensus, represents a naturally

occuring virus, has compromised their scientific integrity. To further

suggest that this genetic sequence represents a competent, exogenous,

sexually transmitted and indeed pathogenic retrovirus is to enter the

realms of pseudo-science. Without HIV isolation all is mere

speculation. Even if HIV were isolated and the proteins tested for by

the ELISA antibody test were actually proteins specific to HIV, an

antibody test would still not be accurate enough for determining

actual viral infection. Everyone tests HIV positive on ELISA if their

serum is not diluted by a factor of 400 because of non-specific

antibodies which bind to any proteins.

 

 

 

Flaw No.3: Mutation

 

Any biological entity that mutates to the degree that HIV is said to

do cannot be biologically viable. For example " HIV protease " has to

make a large number of cleavages in the " HIV " gag-pol polyprotein in

order to produce biologically viable HIV. Kinetic analysis (J. of

Biological Chemistry, 1997, Vol. 272, p 6348-6353) shows that a

mutated HIV protease could not do this.

 

The idea with evolution by natural selection is that organisms

improve themselves by random mutations preserved by natural selection.

So, if a mutation confers an advantage it is preserved and the

organism is optimised for survival. When mutations confer a

disadvantage they are selected against because the organism carrying

this unfortuate mutation cannot persist in the population. If we are

talking about HIV as a viable biological entity then always the

fittest virions will comprise the greatest proportion of any

particular HIV population. Natural selection dictates that beneficial

mutations are PRESERVED. The basic message is that viral populations

can tolerate " high " levels of mutation as long as they are not so

high that beneficial mutations cannot be preserved in the majority of

the viral population.

 

We are being asked to believe that HIV is so prone to mutation as to

become simultaneously resistant to a combination of 3 anti-retroviral

agents and that despite this level of mutation HIV can still sustain

itself as a pathogenic virus.

 

If we assume that HIV does not mutate to an extent that renders it

naturally harmless (it is harmless anyway) then it will have

optimised its activity through natural selection. When exposed to an

unnatural inhibitor designed to block its HIV protease, the protease

will mutate to become resistant but because of the high precision

required of the protease in its function, infectious HIV cannot be

produced. To quote Dissident Scientist Dave Rasnick, PhD and former

designer of PIs or Protease Inhibitors from an article:

 

" Since the wild-type HIV protease has evolved to the optimal level of

activity, virtually all alterations to the enzyme's structure that

affect catalytic efficiency are lethal to the virus. Mutations of the

protease that reduce inhibitor binding result in an even more

profound reduction in catalytic activity. This is because the overall

catalytic efficiency of a mutant HIV protease is given by the product

of the relative efficiencies of the mutant enzyme with respect

to the wild-type for all eight obligatory cleavages (28) . These eight

cleavages can be thought of as an eight-number combination lock. Not

only does HIV protease have to make all eight cleavages, but the

enzyme must do it in the right order.

 

Therefore, even in the absence of inhibitors, the inhibitor-resistant

mutant HIV proteases do not lead to viable, infectious virus. "

 

The latest questionable trend in AIDS research, drug resistance

testing deserve close scrutiny. Recent reports of growing numbers of

socalled " drug resistant " HIV positives have inspired sensational

media stories, calls for new drug development, and warnings that

unsafe sex is on the rise, effectively rallying public support for

more funding and more focus on AIDS.

 

I wonder how these tests can work if no actual HIV isolates are used

in the process. I also wonder why the AIDS Apologists assume that HIV

positives who have never taken AIDS meds and show drug resistance

must be having unsafe sex with HIV positives who are on the

treatments. Why not consider that resistance tests are flawed if they

show drug resistance in people who've never taken the drugs?

 

 

 

Flaw No.4: Viral Load

 

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. " He says it is a misapplication of his

technology and measures genetic fragments or debris.

 

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

 

VIRAL LOAD OF WHAT?

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/chjppcrap.htm

 

It hardly matters if PCR can accurately detect an arbitrary set of

RNA bases when no one has shown that that set causes any problems

like immune deficiency.

 

The fact that bacteria are replicated by RNA and DNA sequences means

nothing about their virulence. They replicate anything you stick in

there, that's what they do.

 

So, even if it came from outside the body[exogenous or non-naturally

occuring when most retroviruses are known to be endogenous or

naturally occuring as a part of all of our genetic make-up], that

still doesn't mean it is still there when the tests can't find it

anymore. Perhaps it is a parasite that was killed. It is no longer

there. Maybe your body produces antibodies to parasites and they

remain even after the parasites have been killed.

 

Dr. 'Hit Em Hard, Hit Em Early' Ho's viral load theory is merely a

mathematical model. It has no scientific foundation whatsoever. Even

establishment HIV scientists admit this now, see Nature Medicine,

1998, Vol 4, No.2, p 145-146. Viral load was just more technological

subterfuge to disguise the fact that " HIV " could never be found in HIV

positive people in numbers sufficient to cause disease.

 

 

 

Flaw No.5: Absence of Controls

 

The claims made by the AIDS establishment are simply not supported by

properly controlled, statistically significant studies. Here are some

examples of critically important controls for which the required

substantive studies do not exist despite the enormous amounts of

money given to AIDS research:

 

Prevalence of positive " viral load " in HIV negatives.

 

Comparison of CD4 T-cell counts over a long period between a group of

HIV negatives and a group of healthy, heterosexual HIV positives who

lead a healthy lifestyle (do not take recreational drugs, AIDS drug

cocktails, etc.).

 

Perfectly healthy people have been pushed onto the combos either as a

result of the " hit hard, hit early " doctrine or as a result of

indirect markers like viral load and CD4 count. There is no

comparison of survival times in developed countries of healthy HIV+

heterosexuals who lead a healthy lifestyle and were not given combos

for either of these reasons, with those in the same group who

were given them for these reasons.

 

Apart from the early fraudulent AZT trials and the damning Concorde

study (172 participants died, 169 while taking AZT, 3 while on

placebo) all studies of drug efficacy compare drugs with drugs, there

are no unmedicated controls.

 

 

 

Flaw No.6: Mechanism

 

HIV theory contradicts basic viological knowledge. Retroviruses

require cell proliferation for their propagation not cell death. They

do not kill cells.

 

In the early days of the HIV era a small group of virologists to

which everyone deferred stated as fact that HIV causes AIDS by

directly destroying CD4 cells, although there was no evidence for

this at the time.

 

When there was still no evidence, rather than follow the scientific

method, consider the importance of other factors, it was confidently

stated as fact that HIV instead causes AIDS by INDIRECTLY destroying,

or indirectly reducing, the number of CD4 cells. True to form, there

is still no evidence to clarify this position. Even after receiving

mind bogglingly huge research funding for over 21+ years HIV

'scientists' or 'specialists' still do not have the evidence to show

how the putative 'HIV' can cause the catch-all condition called AIDS.

 

==

 

 

 

AIDS MYTH EXPOSED

http://groups.msn.com/AidsMythExposed

 

HIV/AIDS ALTERNATIVE VIEWS

http://forums.about.com/innocuous