Toxicity in our city... 2002-11-20

Let's see if I can make myself clear on this one. The concept's easy enough to understand, but it does involve a little bit of biology/virology. (Oh yeah, this is another one of those examples that make me disappointed at the stupidity of people.)

I'm talking about AIDS. HIV. There's a lot of fear generated around it, there's a lot of science devoted to finding the cure (in fact it's one of the highest government subsidized research programs in medicine right now), and there's even conspiracy theories about who started it and how it's spread.

I'm moving beyond all that. I'm going to tell a few truths. A few simple facts. That's all.

So, HIV is a retrovirus. What does that mean? A retrovirus is a virus that acts like a parasite, it is dependent upon the host cell for its survival. Unlike normal viruses, which invades cell tissue and destroys it. The only way a retrovirus spreads is when the infected cell replicates. Essentially, there is no evidence pointing to retroviruses being harmful to humans, and there is some speculation (by a very small, not popular, group of scientists) that retroviruses might not exist at all.

Whew, get all that? Basically, it says retroviruses are harmless, and HIV is a retrovirus.

Not making sense? Perhaps its because HIV causes AIDS, a virus which is often lethal. But wait, how can a harmless retrovirus cause a lethal virus?

Here's the main question: Is AIDS actually a virus?

Well, let's go slow here. When you go to get tested for HIV, if you are found to be "positive" they haven't actually found HIV in your system. The HIV test looks for antibodies which ARE BELIEVED TO BE HIV specific.

So the HIV test is essentially just looking for antibodies.

Okay, fine. When else can you find antibodies in your system? When you've been sick. When you've been in a physically traumatizing experience. When you use drugs like heroin or morphine. When you get an infection. To sum up, when your body is actively trying to purge its system of whatever is wrong with it. So is it possible for the HIV test to make mistakes? YES, and often.

A man was in a car accident, his leg was smashed and ruined. While he was in the hospital, they found HIV in his system (or antibodies they believe to be HIV specific). They told him he had HIV. So his wife left him. He lost his job. His friends. His life was destroyed by that simple information. Two years later, he has no trace of HIV in his system. Too late for the rest of his life, however. Oopsy, the hospital says.

How often does shit like that happen? Who knows? Statistics of AIDS victims are grossly inaccurate.

Here's a fact. In Africa (where there is the largest number of AIDS victims recorded), a continent that consistently has a poor standard of living in most of its countries, HIV tests are the only medical help a lot of people get. People come to the hospital for treatable diseases, for malaria, or pneumonia, but if they test positive for HIV, they aren't treated. They become an AIDS statistic. Why?

1. They don't have treatment for them anyway.

2. Malaria, pneumonia, and other treatable diseases are catalogued as known symptoms of the AIDS virus.

How many millions have died in Africa because America's foreign medical AID has consisted of nothing but HIV testing kits?

Another big thing "they" warn about is to not share dirty needles. Hmm. Let's think about this for a second. Do you think people are catching the AIDS "virus" from the person they are sharing the needle with? Or from sticking a fucking needle full of heroin into their veins? Continued use of vein-injected drugs has been proven to significantly lower the body's ability to fight disease. Wow, doesn't that sound like an aquired immune deficiency?

The more and more you study AIDS, and what causes it, the more and more you'll begin to piece together a few things.

1. That AIDS appears to act and look more like a toxic disease than a viral one. (Well, if it looks like a duck, and acts like a duck...)

2. That there is virtually no scientific research (and certainly no funded scientific research) into the idea that maybe HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

3. That the main reason there is no research is that it is not politically correct to tell someone that their lifestyle is killing them.

4. That the main research for a cure is actually research to create more HIV tests, and that most research is funded by pharmaceutical companies.

I could go on and on. Instead, if you are interested, go read "Positively False: the Truth about HIV and AIDS" (search at Amazon.com or BarnesandNoble.com). It's an incredibly interesting book, and you don't have to agree, just consider that perhaps we are not looking at all sides of the problem.