The alternative “HIV/AIDS�?hypothesis and why the “experts�?will not address it.

I shall begin with the second point first, because it is central to the problem. Before one can attempt to construct a scientific hypothesis, one must have access to precise language (or create it himself/herself), lest science degenerate into ideological blather. For example, if someone accuses you of being a “liberal�?or a “conservative�?because of something you have said or done, you will not necessarily be able to convince him/her otherwise �?ever. In such a situation, because there is no one definition of “liberal�?or “conservative�?that all agree upon and is flexible enough to be useful in all situations, attempting to resolve such claims is often a futile endeavor �?even between two people only.

Something similar has occurred in the “HIV/AIDS�?field. These claimants argue that if one’s symptoms fit perfectly into the clinical syndrome (CS) called “AIDS,�?but if one is “HIV negative,�?the person cannot possibly have “AIDS.�? CSs exist because an understanding of the molecular-level sequence of events is absent or clearly incomplete. CSs are based upon observed symptoms, and as all agree, a “positive HIV test�?does not mean that any symptoms are present. Even in the case of something like “liver failure,�?it may not be known (and never be known) exactly what happened at the molecular level, but in this case it was known that the damage originated in a particular organ. Anything could have caused it, or it could have been a combination of factors that was toxic. With “AIDS,�?there is a multiplicity of very diverse pathological phenomena, and thus to claim that “HIV�?is the only cause of “AIDS�?invalidates the professional terminology, rendering an objective investigation impossible (because those in power can simply redefine whatever they want to, whenever they want wish). One must either explicitly reinvent or modify significantly the medical language or agree that if symptoms fit a clinical syndrome, then that person’s condition is to be classified as that syndrome.

The other possibility is to determine exactly what is occurring at the molecular level, and then different classifications might indeed be possible. In “HIV/AIDS�?and many other “diseases,�?for example, there is damage that is done directly by TNF-alpha, but this molecule is generated by the body as part of the normal “inflammatory�?process. Any cellular-level stressor can cause this problem. Thus, if damage to the body was done by TNF-alpha (and there is certainly plenty of evidence for this notion), resulting in various “diseases,�?there may never be anything more than a TNF-alpha Syndrome, because there are too many ways it can occur. The intelligent thing to do, once this was determined, would be to look for the kinds of stressors that would generate such a result, remove it, and see if the syndrome resolves. Our “health experts,�?however, have been smitten with the “germ theory,�?and seek to destroy the “bugs�?that are causing the “disease,�?when in fact the “bugs�?are just opportunistic, in a way, responding to conditions in a manner that works for them, in an evolutionary sense.

“HIV/AIDS�?claimants have placed themselves in an impossible position, because if “AIDS�?is due to “HIV,�?then there is no reason for the “syndrome�?designation. They use it because they do not know exactly what is occurring at the molecular level. They have placed models and assumptions in a privileged position, above the scientific method, and anyone who questions such a bizarre practice is labeled a “quack,�?while it is they who are engaged in the actual quackery. In this way, they hope to deflect attention from those who insist that before telling millions of people to take highly toxic “medications,�?the claims being made in support of this prescription must meet the criteria of the scientific method. It is interesting to note how much more media coverage those who claim to have been abducted by “UFO aliens�?receive than those who point out how flawed the “HIV/AIDS�?claim is, and how it is not even consistent with accepted medical terminology.

Now on to point one; there is a very well-known reason why certain practices often lead to an “immune-deficiency�?problem, though even this makes little sense, since “AIDS�?patients do not die of just any “disease.�? Rather, they possess “immune systems�?that have been altered. But we are back to the first problem again, because the “AIDS�?CS was created, as all CSs are, to help doctors determine the best course of action in the absence of complete knowledge (and often in a situation where very little is known or understood). “AIDS�?has, in fact, been modified over the years, but in a ludicrous expansive way, to include those who “test positive for HIV�?rather than to attempt to make the CS “leaner,�?and to place it into a more coherent overall framework. Thus, any attempt to suggest that “AIDS�?should be changed in way that would exclude certain patients is met by the illogical response that if “HIV�?is present, then it has to be “AIDS.�? Of course, if “HIV�?was in fact present and doing damage, then this would be demonstrable, and one could simply abandon the syndrome designation. A scientist could examine blood or tissue samples and determine whether the “HIV�?was doing certain kinds of damage or not, and then if it was not, the person would no longer be considered an “AIDS patient.�? Those in charge have thus created something of a fairy tale existence for this disease/syndrome. It is a “disease�?when it is convenient for it to be for them, but it is a syndrome when it is convenient for it to be for them. However, if one could demonstrate “AIDS�?in the absence of “HIV,�?the scientific method requires that one conclude that “HIV�?does not cause “AIDS.�? The reason those in charge refuse to accept the scientific method in this instance, presumably, is that they believe that certain markers indicate that a “retrovirus�?must be present. But if this is accurate (and the whole notion of a “retrovirus�?is rather obscure, especially in the sense of whether it is the cause or effect of stressors), it makes their actions even more egregious, because if a CS is present, but the “pathogen�?is not, then the pathogen cannot be the cause of the CS. It does not get much simpler than this, in terms of adhering to the scientific method. Thus, they have insulated themselves from science while at the same time calling others who point out the necessity of adhering to the scientific method “quacks�?by a use of terminology that is patently illogical.

Finally, as to point one, I will mention that it is rather simple to induce “AIDS,�?at least in humans, by excessive antigenic exposure. When a certain threshold is reached (which will vary somewhat from one person to another, obviously), “immune system�?cells that are “regulatory�?stimulate certain T cells to undergo apoptosis. Why? It’s really quite simple. If they body is exposed to too many different antigens, there is nothing certain T cells can do, because just about everything that they might “attack�?either looks “foreign�?or like “self.�? The body must not let these cells “do their thing,�?because that would mean massive autoimmune damage, and perhaps a quick death. It is also true that a certain amount of oxidative stress, perhaps exacerbated by other factors (even the fatty acids one eats), will cause a loss of certain T cells. The “HIV tests�?measure the amount of antigenic exposure or the amount of apoptopic bodies circulating, and such tests may indeed be a good indicator of future “illness,�?but not because of a specific virus that attacks and destroys these cells in an asymptomatic way. Viruses causing damage elicit a very noticeable inflammatory reaction. Too much antigenic exposure, leading to a loss of these cells, would not do this, and of course this is consistent with the evidence, while the “HIV�?notion is not.

But again, once they claim that in the absence of a “positive HIV test�?there can be no CS of “AIDS,�?even if all the observable and measurable criteria are met, they have closed the door on those who wish to present alternative explanations, preventing the scientific method from being utilized here. It would not matter, for example, if a scientist could create “AIDS patients�?simply by excessive antigenic stimulation alone, thereby demonstrating that this is at least one cause of “AIDS,�?because the powers that be have decided that “HIV�?was not present, but obviously, that is the whole point of doing such an experiment! One of the most basic principles of the scientific method is that if something is deemed to be the sole cause of a particular phenomenon, and yet an experiment is done and it is demonstrated that something else can also cause the same phenomenon, then the claim that there is a sole cause is not accurate. And so what appears to be the case, in light of the evidence, that is, that what they perceive as “retroviral infection�?is just the effect of excessive antigenic exposure, is disallowed, and pursuing this possibility will get one labeled a quack, even if that person in fact follows the scientific method “to the letter.�? Until this situation is corrected, “HIV/AIDS�?claimants are like a child who closes his eyes, put his hands over his ears, and says, “la la la la la �?I can’t hear you,�?over and over again. Hopefully, such a child will never be given the kind of power the “HIV/AIDS�?claimants now possess.

I used to think of “HIV/AIDS�?as a cult, but it’s more than that; there is a self-fulfilling prophecy element to it as well. Imagine the following; a leader of a small group who consider themselves “fundamentalist�?Christians decide that because Jesus favored the lowest strata of society, and because criminals are now viewed in this light, that they should commit crimes. The leader also tells them that they will know that they are truly following the correct Christian path because they, like Jesus, will be persecuted, while other Christians in the USA are not. Of course, they will be “persecuted�?because they commit crimes, not because of their beliefs, but you will never be able to convince them of this, just like the “HIV/AIDS�?claimants will not allow the scientific method to be used to determine what the causes of the various “AIDS�?phenomena are. In both instances, a self-fulfilling prophecy is at play. Moreover, those who have and continue to expose themselves to large amounts of antigens, and who “test positive for HIV�?will likely continue to live their lives in a way that will mean the same or more antigenic exposure (because they are already “infected with HIV�?and don’t think that “AIDS�?can be caused by anything else), while at the same time taking “medicines�?that are highly toxic but totally unnecessary. Years later, when “AIDS�?presents, these drugs may “keep the bugs down�?due to their toxicity, and so the drugs may indeed keep these people alive for several months longer, on average. However, the opportunity to completely prevent “AIDS�?from occurring in the first place will be missed, and instead those who “test positive�?are involuntary converts to the cult, and become the self-fulfilling prophecy the “HIV/AIDS�?claimants point to when they argue that the “case is closed�?with regard to “HIV�?causing “AIDS.�?

This alternative hypothesis does not originate with me, but with those who specialize in the "immune system," for example: “…the basic function of all cells of the organism is appropriately timed death "from natural causes". This type of cell death, or apoptosis, generates no stress signals. If, on the other hand, a cell is "murdered" by an infectious agent or dies an untimely death due to necrosis or ischemia, the cell undergoes a stress response with the liberation of stress protein-peptide complexes into the extracellular environment upon cell lysis. Not only do they serve as a "danger signal" to alert the immune system to the death of a cell under stress, but their role as protein carriers allows the immune effector cells to survey the peptides released by this stressed cell and to activate against new or unrecognized peptides carried by the stress protein. Matzinger bases the Danger Theory of Immunity on three "Laws of Lymphotics". These laws state that: (1) resting T lymphocytes require both antigen stimulation by an antigen-presenting cell (APC) and co-stimulation with a danger signal to become activated; (2) the co-stimulatory signal must be received through the APC; and (3) T cells receiving only antigen stimulation without the co-stimulatory signal undergo apoptosis.�

Source: Immunopharmacology. 2000 Jul 25;48(3):299-302.

A more technical explanation is:

"It is likely that suppression of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte function has evolved as a mechanism to control the immunopathological damage that can occur as a consequence of cytolytic killing by CD8+ T cells. For example, in the mouse model for hepatitis B infection CD8+ T cells exhibit virus control via gamma interferon and tumor necrosis factor alpha production without causing the liver tissue destruction that would result from active cytolysis (18). In human immunodeficiency virus infections, the down-regulation of perforin in virus-specific CD8+ T cells from gut-associated lymphoid tissue may be a mechanism to protect the integrity of the rectal mucosa from cytotoxic T-lymphocyte activity..."

Source: Journal of Virology, August 2005, p. 10619-10626, Vol. 79, No. 16

Excessive antigenic exposure without the proper "danger" signals can lead to what one might call “opportunistic infections AIDS,�?whereas in some other instances of “AIDS,�?inflammatory molecules like TNF-alpha do the damage that leads to what gets called an “AIDS case�?(in other cases, malnutrition is the underlying cause - of the "positive HIV test," that is). If you examine the mainstream “HIV/AIDS�?studies, you soon realize that at least several different molecular-level mechanisms are at play, for instance, compare “AIDS�?wasting�?with “AIDS dementia.�? If “AIDS�?were a useful CS, there would not be diverse molecular-level phenomena, as there undeniably is. If one wishes to use the CS designation correctly, it should be reorganized into several different syndromes, and, as I pointed out above, there is no reason to insist on “HIV infection,�?because that implies that the molecular-level mechanisms are known to such a degree that one can explain how “HIV�?causes “dementia�?with certain molecules involved (such as gamma-interferon or TNF-alpha), but also causes wasting with different molecules doing the damage. It is undeniable that such knowledge does not exist at present. In the case of Africans, there indeed may be a pathological amount of apoptosis occurring, due to a poor diet and other factors, but again, this should be a separate CS. In my case, back in 2000, there was oral thrush, anti-nuclear antibodies, wasting, raised EBV levels, severe osteoporosis, pronounced skin rashes, soft fingernails, frequent GI track infections (food poisoning like episodes), tendonosis, “floaters�?appearing in my vision, and other symptoms that would lead to a typical diagnosis of “AIDS�?in Africa today. I now realize that my supposedly healthy vegan diet was at least partly to blame. I ate little salt, for example, and at some point was unable to produce stomach acid. My tendonosis lasted for over two years �?I eventually ate more and better quality protein, along with supplementing with stomach acid, and the tendonosis pain was gone in about two to three months, at most.

Note that one would expect Africans said to have “AIDS�?to have high levels of apoptopic bodies, indicating that they are not receiving adequate nutrition, but this is also a sign of excessive antigenic exposure, and so the claim that the “disease�?is the same only makes sense on this level, that is, on the level of markers that the “experts�?decided (due to their belief in models and “germ theory�?assumptions) was “proof�?that a viral infection is the cause in both cases, despite how ridiculous this claim is when examines the evidence as a whole.