Dear Senator Obama-The CDC recommends universal “HIV” testing which is a faith-based not scientific recommendation.

DEAR SENATOR OBAMA-THE CDC RECOMMENDS UNIVERSAL HIV TESTING WHICH IS A FAITH-BASED AND NOT A SCIENTIFIC RECOMMENDATION.

Dear Mr. Obama,

 You are a wonderful Senator and I will vote for you again. But you should be aware that Representative Mary Flowers’ promotion of the CDC and IDPH recommendation for universal “HIV” screening of all Illinois citizens and indeed all Americans is a faith-based recommendation, and not a scientific one. Due to your recent media-projected “HIV” testing, you could be in grave if not mortal danger. I’d hate to see your life ruined, and the potential good you will do for Illinois and the nation thwarted, because of medical and scientific ignorance, and because of institutionalized racism regarding “HIV” among many of my peers in the scientific/medical establishment.

 I’m aware that your wife, as well, has pioneered outreach programs at the University of Chicago. These are the programs that are most needed, not for “HIV” testing, or drugging, but for high blood pressure, diabetes, and other programs. I hope that she knows about the testing issue as I have tried to convey here to you.

 Sincerely,

 Andrew Maniotis, Ph.D.

Program Director in the Cell and Developmental Biology of Cancer

Departments of Pathology, and Bioengineering,

University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607

Email: amanioti@uic.edu

Office:312-996-4838

The U.S. medical establishment and public health agencies are currently pressing for legislation requiring mandatory HIV testing for Americans between the ages of 3 and 80. This is the biggest mistake that the U.S. could make    the most costly mistake and the most damaging mistake for the largest amount of people possible because when you test populations of people that are considered what the promoters of AIDS say are “low risk,” you are going to get a huge number of false positive test results, which is essentially going to ruin the lives of tens of thousands or perhaps as many as hundreds of thousands of people. All who test “HIV-positive” in a “low risk” population are false positives, by definition. It is my contention that all who test “HIV-positive,” or whose T-cells are deemed “too low” are selectively biased by these tests, by definition.

 Why? You are going to get a number of people who really are not sick in any way, shape or form, to test positive. And they won’t be able to get health insurance. They may be fired from their jobs. The stigma of having AIDS causes suicide, as it did with David Acer, the dentist whom the CDC later exonerated (after his suicide), because the CDC could find no evidence after he committed suicide that the dentist’s 5 “HIV-positive” patients contracted their “HIV” signatures from him. There is evidence, however, that countless others who have been given the diagnosis of an “HIV infection,” in addition to Dr. Acer, have chosen to end their lives upon getting an “HIV-positive” test result. “HIV” terrorizes both parents and children that are split apart by The State when children are placed into foster care, and people are forcibly drugged. I am not understating these facts and egregious violations of human rights.

 On February 10th, 2005, three articles appeared in the New England Journal of

Medicine advocating that it would be timely and cost effective to test every man, woman, and child for “HIV” at least once in their lifetime.

 “In all but the lowest-risk populations, routine, voluntary screening for HIV once every three to five years is justified on both clinical and cost-effectiveness grounds. One-time screening in the general population may also be cost-effective” [1-3].

The authors of these articles do not define with precision who should be selectively targeted “in all but the lowest risk populations,” but they now recommend testing for children, and monogamous adults, in addition to “high risk” people who are African Americans, Hispanics, alcoholics and drug addicts, pregnant women, and men who have sex with men. Some have suggested, in addition, routinely testing persons during every emergency room visit.

 Other “HIV” “experts” more recently have claimed screening for AIDS would be cost-effective based on parallels with results obtained through screening for cancer (emboldened words or underlined words are my emphasis and are highlighted to point out baseless or non-scientifically validated assumptions):

 In the United States, approximately 1 million persons are living with HIV infection or AIDS, and 164,000 to 312,000 of them remain unaware of their infection. Experts hypothesize hat most of the 40,000 new infections that occur annually in this country arise from contact with these undiagnosed persons. Given this likelihood, investigators have examined the potential benefit of routine screening, rather than testing of only those perceived to be at increased risk. This strategy appearsto be as cost-effective as screening for colon, breast, or prostate cancer, and the availability of a rapid oral test has simplified broad scale testing” [4].

 One problem with these proposals is that “HIV” has no unique and isolatable identity or proven molecular signature as an exogenous retrovirus (a virus that comes from outside of a cell or organism) that is the cause of AIDS. “HIV” gene sequences can be detected in non-infected humans, chimps, and monkeys:

 HIV-like sequences exist in normal human, chimpanzee, and rhesus monkey DNAs…Herein we describe the first report of the presence of nucleotide sequences related to HIV-1 in human, chimpanzee, and rhesus monkey DNAs from normal uninfected individuals.” [5].

 Because the primate test subjects in this study were normal and healthy (no low lymphocyte counts or detectable illness), yet “HIV” sequences were detected, the molecular signature attributed to an assumed exogenous retrovirus, “HIV,” may represent an inducible HERV (Human Endogenous Retroviral Sequence) molecular sequence or inducible genetic polymorphism, which has not in itself been adequately demonstrated to be causal of immune suppression, or illness, but has been merely associated with less than 1/3 of human subjects who may be immune suppressed, according to the original studies of Robert Gallo’s group that claimed a causal connection between “HIV’s” molecular signature, and AIDS.

The unproven exogenous retroviral identity of so-called specific “HIV” derived proteins also can be appreciated, for instance, by considering what Nobelists Howard Temin and David Baltimore once proposed, who discovered reverse transcriptase (RT), and what Nobelist and former NIH head Harold Varmus wrote regarding reverse transcriptase, an enzyme once thought to be solely specific to retroviruses:

“[Reverse transcriptase] is a normal protein found in the uninfected cells of yeasts, insects, and mammals”[6].

More recently, other investigators have claimed RT is an endogenous cellular enzyme that can assume various forms and it is important for telomere replication at the tips of normal chromosomes [7], and may have nothing to do with exogenous retroviruses. Once claimed by AIDS scientists to be a specific molecular component required for “HIV” replication, RT is now seen in market magazines concerning biotechnology stocks [8, 9], in the context of normal, non-pathological situations, despite what AIDS proponents continue to claim about the specificity of RT to exogenous retroviruses.

p24, another protein once thought to be unique to “HIV” is known to be expressed in the thymus glands of “HIV-negative children [10].” Other studies show that goat and cow milk that is unpasteurized induce positive “HIV” tests for proteins once thought to be derived from exogenous “retroviral HIV.” Fifty percent of dogs in one study also exhibited “HIV” structural proteins but did not develop “AIDS” either [12]. Experiments testing the hypothesized ability of “HIV” integrase to interact with normal chromosomes revealed that the enzyme has no activity when compared side by side with histone H1 or polyamines, or the topoisomerases, and thus constituted a negative control for the minor groove-binding of the topoisomerases [13].

Although the template for the molecular signatures of “HIV” may derive from common endogenous DNA sequences whose proteins are expressed by normal uninfected yeast, insects, dogs, rhesus monkeys, chimps, humans, and even in allo-immunized mice (non-“HIV-infected” mice given sera from other “non-infected” mice), as has been known by scientists since this experiment was published in 1991, neither “HIV’s proposed 9,150 base pair molecular sequence, or its proteins have been isolated or identified without contaminating cellular components. For instance, it has been repeatedly shown more than 64-100 times in “HIV” vaccine trials that antibodies against “HIV” proteins aren’t evoked even when the so-called unique and diagnostic “HIV'” antigens are injected directly into the bloodstream of healthy humans. According to “experts,” no molecular entity associated with “HIV” sequences, proteins, or glycoproteins such as GP120, has been shown to be immunogenic in humans, perhaps because it is a case of self being challenged by molecules derived from self? The Merck “HIV” vaccine was just announced in September of 2007 as a complete and disappointing failure, not only in preventing acquisition of “HIV,” but in the failure to evoke anti-“HIV” antibodies in the 741 volunteers:

In a major setback, one of the leading experimental AIDS vaccines not only failed to prevent test subjects from becoming infected with HIV, but it didn’t offer any indication it might delay the onset of full-blown AIDS, which had been a key hope.”

 “24 of 741 volunteers who got the vaccine in one segment of the experiment later became infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In a comparison group of volunteers who got dummy shots, 21 of 762 participants also became infected.”

 “The ultimate fear among researchers is that the whole theory underlying the Merck vaccine might be flawed, which, if true, could doom an entire class of experimental vaccines.”

 As mentioned before, it may be more appropriate to say that the whole theory of “HIV=AIDS” is flawed, because there is no evidence that an exogenous “AIDS virus” has been isolated, and shown to evoke an antibody response in vaccine recipients or cause disease in either an animal model or a human being.

Unless one would like to make unfounded assumptions that the 24 of the 741 volunteers that “became infected” in this last of more than 60 failed “HIV” trials actually represents an extremely low rate of seroconversion due to exposure of isolated “HIV” components to the human immune system (24/741), and that these 24 individuals are now immunized against “HIV” instead of having acquired an “HIV” infection, the similar rate of seroconversion in the control group (21/762) suggests that this cannot be the case, and it is more likely, that seroconversion in both groups represents mere testing artifacts.

In support of this seemingly radical idea, “AIDS experts” themselves like Anthony Fauci have just cancelled the new PAVE vaccine trial, and Robert Gallo wrote in the pages of Science several years ago that:

 “A sound rationale (is) needed for Phase III HIV vaccine trials” [14].

n 2006, Barre-Sinoussi (of the Luc Montagnier team) has “come out of the closet,” so to speak on this issue at the Toronto International AIDS conference, where she said:

 It is not clear if therapeutic vaccines might be useful, since 15 trials to date have not demonstrated definitive evidence of improved outcomes.”

 Perhaps more importantly, even after the 120 million dollar failure called AIDSVAX was announced in 2004 that prompted Dr. Gallo to state: “a sound rationale is needed for Phase III HIV vaccine trials,” no re-evaluation of the basic premises of AIDS science has taken place. Instead, following that failure, Donald Francis’s 120 million dollar AIDSVAX program and his company VaxGen has now been rescued with our tax dollars by the military to produce a new anthrax vaccine that also failed-but that is a different $857 million dollar story.

 Other “HIV” vaccine enthusiasts claim that although “HIV” vaccines don’t work because they aren’t immunogenic, it is asserted tacitly that certain vaccine adjuvants will do the job (because the so-called proteins of “HIV” repeatedly fail to evoke humoral immunity, mucosal immunity, cellular immunity, or even T-cell activation). Vaccine adjuvants like squalene (MF-59), however, when they have been added to certain lots of anthrax (and “HIV”) vaccines given to soldiers and other “volunteers” on threat of court martial if they don’t roll up their shirt on command (in contrast to Walter Reed’s voluntary experiment with yellow fever), It is now established that some of these vaccine adjuvants have been responsible for autoimmune syndromes in most of the sick Gulf-War I veterans tested, as evidenced by the fact that sick veterans invariably generate antibodies to vaccine adjuvant, squalene, in their blood [15, 16]. This type of “promising vaccine experimentation” on our young soldiers is particularly disturbing in light of the fact that squalene and other similar vaccine adjuvants have been traditionally used by scientists who study rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, or demyelinating syndromes, because experimental rodents will reliably develop experimental arthritis, macrophagic myofasciitis, mutliple-sclerosis (demyelinating syndromes), and lupus-like syndromes upon intravenous exposure to squalene [17, 18, 19].

 The proposal for universal “HIV” testing raises other issues about “HIV-testing” itself. In 1985, at the beginning of HIV testing among sperm donors, it was known that “68% to 89% of all repeatedly reactive ELISA (HIV antibody) tests [were] likely to represent false positive results” [20]. This and many other similar false-testing trials all support the hypothesis was suggested above regarding testing artifact to explain the 24/741 and 21/762 numbers obtained in the context of the failed Merck STEP vaccine trial mentioned above.

 The modern “HIV” screening tests, especially the rapid ones, are contradictory from test result to test result, they are inconsistent across national boundaries, and no consensus about their validity exists. An “HIV” positive test result obtained with an ELISA, Western Blot, or PCR, may not even mean that a person who tests positive is infected with a virus, or is expressing evoked “HIV”-endogenous sequences or molecular markers [5]. Cross reactivity has also again and again been shown to exist regarding “HIV” sequences and proteins, and normal endogenous cellular components are expressed or shed under certain conditions of immunological or other types of physiological stress [10]. In this regard, a principal issue to reconcile before universal testing is implemented is that the makers of the test kits used to measure “HIV” or progression to “AIDS” are themselves aware of these issues, because they all claim their ELISA, Western Blot, and PCR-based kits can’t really detect “HIV” virus in their package inserts:

 “ELISA testing alone cannot be used to diagnose AIDS” [21].

 Do not use this kit as the sole basis for HIV infection,” [22].

The Amplicor HIV-1 monitor test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV, nor as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection” [23].

“The NucliSens(R) HIV-1 QT assay is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV-1 nor is it to be used as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV-1 infection” [24].

 “COBAS AmpliScreen HIV-1 Test is not intended for use as an aid in diagnosis[25].

 The Cambridge Biotech HIV-1 Western Blot Kit insert: “The clinical implications of antibodies to HIV-1 in an asymptomatic person are not known” [26].

 “The OraSure HIV-l Western Blot Kit is not intended for use with blood, serum/plasma or urine specimens, or for screening or reinstating potential blood donors” [27].

 The Red Cross recently reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that even after repeated testing using different test kits, low-risk populations, such as blood donors (or military recruits) will typically yield 12 (PCR-positive) or 2 (ELISA positive) out of 37,000,000 samples, leaving potentially 10 out of 12 false positives, depending on which test kit you believe accurately detects “HIV’s” molecular signatures [28]. While it has been pointed out that of the 2 of the 12 who initially tested positive on ELISA seroconverted in subsequent months to the molecular signature of “HIV” detected on PCR, and thus may warrant an investigation as to what the meaning of these molecular markers represent among persons who exhibit clinical symptoms, it could be argued that 2 or 8 out of 37,000,000 does not constitute a national health crisis, or communicable illness of the proportions of other STD’s, and certainly doesn’t warrant research budgets in the billions or trillions, or universal testing of “low risk” individuals, or anybody else.

 The value of the rapid “HIV” test kits is even more problematic, and some of them have been banned from the US:

 “A District Court in Seattle has granted a request from the Federal Trade Commission and issued a temporary restraining order to prevent the sale and distribution of “defective” home HIV test kits. According to FTC, the kits’ maker, Seville Marketing of British Columbia, Canada, on two Web sites had advertised the “Discreet” home HIV test kits as producing 99.4% accurate results based on three independent studies. However, CDC studied the test kits and found they were not as accurate as the company claimed on its Web site.”

“FTC will seek a permanent ban on sales and advertising of the kits in the United States and a permanent order to seize any kits that are imported. Consumers who have used the kits are advised to see a health professional for another test to determine their HIV status, according to the release”[29].

 None of these tests have been validated against the isolation of pure “HIV” itself. They have been validated instead against other test kits that were assumed to detect “HIV.”

 Moreover, it has been recently proposed that viral load does not correlate with T-cell numbers, and the rate of progression (when an individual will exhibit symptoms of AIDS) can only be predicted in 4%-6% of HIV-positives studied (out of 2,800):

“A nationwide team of orthodox AIDS researchers led by doctors Benigno Rodriguez and Michael Lederman of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland are disputing the value of viral load tests-a standard used since 1996 to assess health, predict progression to disease, and grant approval to new AIDS drugs after their study of 2,800 HIV positives concluded viral load measures failed in more than 90% of cases to predict or explain immune status…”“Viral load is only able to predict progression to disease in 4% to 6% of HIV-positives studied, challenging much of the basis for current AIDS science and treatment policy”[30, 31].

In 1992, the Lancet reported that for 66 true positives, there were 30,000 false positives. And in pregnant women,

 there were 8,000 false positives for 6 confirmations.” [32].

In 1995, the CDC recommended offering HIV testing to all pregnant women, but according to official AIDS websites like the CDC’s and on package inserts of “HIV” test kits, false positives due to pregnancy occur frequently [33]. There are some 70 factors or conditions that are known to generate false positive test results including flu vaccination [34] and hepatitis B vaccination [35], although it still isn’t clear that these conclusions weren’t due to vaccination cross-reactivity, or attributable to problems with the “HIV” test kits themselves. Different testing standards in different countries makes it possible that if you test “HIV” positive in the US in the morning, one can fly the same day to Canada, the UK, or Australia, where different standards are considered diagnostic, and you will be considered negative the same day and thereby retain your insurance, job, relationships, pregnancy, or life. Many countries such as England do not use a confirmatory WESTERN BLOT.

 By 18 months after birth, in 1993, Parekh et al. reported:

 “a 60% rate of seroreversion in infants born of “HIV-positive” mothers [36, 37].

 Seroreversion means, that the infants may test positive at birth, but that 60% of them will generate a negative test if tested at 12 or 18 months. Thus, under the new mandate to universally test infants, 60% of infants who initially test positive will serorevert by 18 months post-partum, and if 60% of infants who initially test positive serorevert (change from a positive to a negative “HIV” test result) are forced to imbibe “anti-retrovirals,” then 60% of infants will be needlessly exposed to toxic chemo (either in utero, post-partum, or through surgically inserted gastric feeding tubes placed there by doctors to force compliance of these deadly medications).

 PCR results in infant testing are not diagnostic in infants either, because the inventor of PCR, the Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis, has repeatedly claimed that viral load cannot be detected using PCR, because PCR can only be used to amplify the assumed nucleic acid signature of “HIV,” which again, has not been validated against the isolation of “HIV” itself (Kary Mullis in numerous writings and statements that are typically ignored, belittled, and derided by “AIDS experts” and the promoters of AIDS).

 “If “HIV/AIDS” is chemotherapeutically hit hard and early as a consequence of an impassioned crusade to provide what amounts to toxic chemotherapy (see any AntiRetroviral-ARV- package insert) to millions of those who test positive (even those who live in Kenya who only have a cup of diluted gruel paste/day as food-liquid to wash down their medications-see Christine Amanpour’s July 19, 2006 documentary on CNN-http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/07/17/amanpour.africa.btsc/index.html), universal testing for “HIV” “infection” would increase morbidity and death amongst those designated as “HIV/AIDS” patients, rather than decrease morbidity and death.

 For example, de Martino et al. concluded that children born to ZDV-treated mothers (ZVD is AZT, or the AIDS drug, Azidothymidine):

 are more likely to have a rapid course of HIV-1 infection compared with children born to untreated mothers, as disease progression and immunological deterioration are significantly more rapid and the risk of death is actually increased during the first 3 years of life[38].

 In the journal Pediatrics, Antoni Noguera et al reported that:

 Almost half of the children (63 of 127) who were exposed to nucleoside analogues developed benign and self-limited hyperlactatemia when symptomatic, nucleoside analogue–induced toxicity affected neurologic development [39].

In 1992, The Veterans Affairs Co-operative Study Group reported that AZT disproportionately harmed Blacks and Hispanics, and provided no benefit to the quelling of advancing immune suppression in Caucasians, and harmed healthier subjects (early treated) more than persons considered to exhibit clinical symptoms of AIDS [40].

 The Concorde trial, which was published without endorsement by Burroughs Wellcome’s Coordinating Committee who declined to endorse the final report, and which was the largest, longest, and best controlled adult AZT trial concluded:

 “The results of Concorde do not encourage the early use of zidovudine in symptom-free HIV-infected adults. They also call into question the uncritical use of CD4 cell counts as a surrogate endpoint for assessment of benefit from long-term antiretroviral therapy” [41].

 When considering “HIV” testing all infants and all subjects who visit their doctor or emergency rooms, faith-based science and medicine currently dominate ideas and therapies that address the imagined “mutability” of the “HIV” virus, and the failure of ARV-therapy is always based on mutation, rather than toxicity caused by the drugs. Individuals who fail ARV therapy are told their virus has mutated and is no longer sensitive to the drugs. The impact of this hypothesis on persons living with “HIV” or “AIDS” is unfair, uninformed, and cruel. For example, Mark Harrington, a member of The Treatment Action Group (TAG) summoned “the power of prayer” over “HIV” mutability, and discussed “The Chinese Menu Approach” in a description of a meeting he attended on developments regarding anti-retrovirals that included AIDS leaders such as Marc Wainberg, Director, McGill AIDS Centre, and the 2006 Chair of The Toronto International AIDS Conference-who possesses several “HIV” drug patents such as lamivudine (3TC), and grants from GlaxoSmithKlein, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Boehringer-Ingelheim. Also present at the meeting was Emilio Emini, Tufts University’s John Coffin, Roche’s Noel Roberts, the CDC’s Harold Jaffe, Chiron’s David Chernoff, the ACTG’s Robert (“Chip”) Schooley and John Mellors (developer and champion of the viral load tests now known to be invalid [30]), as well as treatment activist Dawn Averitt-Doherty of Atlanta-based Woman’s Information Service and Exchange (WISE):

 “During the coffee break, I (Harrington) joined three activists outside to share nicotine and despair. What was the point of quitting smoking if we were still all passengers on the speeding train heading for the cliff? The Birmingham resistance data were wrenching. Our fears of multiple cross-resistance, from November 1995’s 3TC and saquinavir FDA approval hearings, reared their ugly heads. Several months of post-Vancouver euphoria crumbled in a moment as it became clear that many of those who developed resistance to ritonavir and indirovine-as thousands clearly would-might have no protease inhibiting options ahead of them. Today’s resistance news made for a toxic cocktail. As I left the auditorium I bumped into Emilio Emini.”

 “Harrington: So what do you do if you fail Crixivan?”

 “Emini: [sighs] We don’t know what to do.”

 “Harrington: Take two new nucleosides and nevirapine?”

 “Emini: Yeah. And pray.”

 “No one had yet assessed the healing effects of prayer on viral load. This was what we’d come to. I rushed into the lobby of the Interior Department and ran into a colleague, who was wild with fear and disappointment.”

Sometimes the gap between how the researchers felt and how we felt became an abyss. They were excited about the endless possibilities opened up by the research advances of 1996; we were terrified about the limited treatment options facing people who had exhausted most of the current arsenal of antiretroviral therapy. What to do with those whose viral load refused to go undetectable? What to do with those who added a protease inhibitor to a failing two-drug regimen and appeared doomed to develop resistance, most of it-especially with ritonavir and indinovir-cross-resistant to all other protease inhibitors? What to do with those who jumped aboard last year’s bandwagon, AZT+3TC, and now appeared likely to have developed 3TC resistance and, with it, cross-resistance to ddI, ddC and possibly 1592? The Chinese menu approach to antiretroviral treatment suddenly looked much less appetizing, and much less nourishing[42].

 These same results also have been advanced in frequent warnings on MedWatch:

 “Early virologic nonresponse (91%) and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) resistance (50-95%) has been observed at a high rate in a Gilead Sciences-sponsored clinical study. Participants in the study were treatment-naive (i.e, no previous treatment for HIV) took a once-daily, 3-drug NRTI regimen. The NRTI regimen contained didanosine enteric coated beadlets (Videx EC), lamivudine (Epivir), and tenofovir (Viread)” [43].

 “The new information is consistent with several recent clinical studies evaluating the use of 3 NRTIs simultaneously. Suboptimal virology response has also been reported with abacavir, didanosine, and stavudine, as well as another regimen containing abacavir, didanosine, and zidovudine. Similarly, early virologic failure and high resistance rates have been reported with abacavir, lamivudine, and tenofovir (see eMedicine Recalls and Alerts 8/1/03, Nonresponse Reported in HIV Infection Treated with 3-Drug Regimen Including Lamivudine, Abacavir, and Tenofovir”[43].

 Other warnings on FDAMedWatch support Mr. Harrington’s sentiments regarding liver toxicity, and also warn about neural tube defects in fetuses from woman who test positive and who are treated with “the life saving” AIDS medicines:

“Increased Liver Toxicity with Nevirapine (Viramune) and Higher CD4 Counts…Revised prescribing information for nevirapine (Viramune) includes a new recommendation against starting nevirapine treatment in women with CD4 cell counts above 250 cells/mL and males with CD4 counts above 400 cells/mL unless benefits clearly outweigh risks. The new recommendation is based on an increased risk of serious liver toxicity with higher CD4 cell counts prior to starting therapy with nevirapine”[44].

Females and patients with higher CD4 cell counts are at increased risk of liver toxicity. Females have a three-fold higher risk of symptomatic nevirapine liver toxicity than males, and females with CD4 cell counts above 250 cells/mL have a 12-fold higher risk of symptomatic liver toxicity than females with CD4 cell counts below 250 (11% vs. 0.9%). Males with CD4 cell counts above 400 cells/mL have a five-fold higher risk of symptomatic liver toxicity than males with CD4 cell counts below 400 (6.3% vs. 1.2%)” [44].

 “New Drug Interaction Warning with Rifampin and Combination of Ritonavir and Saquinavir. ‘Drug-induced liver toxicity with highly elevated liver enzymes (greater than 20 times the upper limit of normal) has been observed in 39% of healthy volunteers receiving rifampin 600 mg once daily in combination with ritonavir 100 mg/saquinavir 1000 mg twice daily (ritonavir boosted saquinavir) [45].

Neural Tube Defects with First Trimester Efavirenz (Sustiva) Use. “The prescribing information for efavirenz (Sustiva) has been changed to include new information. The revision result of four reports linking neural tube defects in infants born to women with first trimester exposure to efavirenz. The four cases of neural tube defects include three cases of meningomyelocele and one Dandy Walker Syndrome. Pregnancy should be avoided in women receiving efavirenz…Efavirenz is an antiretroviral drug indicated for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS, HIV-1 infection). A registry has been established to monitor fetal outcomes born to women exposed to efavirenz..” [45].

 Perhaps from the standpoint of imagining genetic mutation abilities or inventing viral characteristics that defy all biological evidence, a Century of genetics, and all common sense, there is no bigger tragedy than what was reported several years ago with nevirapine. Virological failure or drug resistance are technical terms among “HIV-AIDS” proponents that have come to mean that an anti-retroviral drug doesn’t work (fails to suppress virus), or that disease progression is more rapid in those that take a particular drug. In the New England Journal of Medicine, it was reported (and despite its known toxicity and withdrawal from the U.S. several years ago):

 Well over 875,000 women and infants have received a single dose of nevirapine. A single dose of nevirapine is the cornerstone of the regimen recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) to prevent mother-to-child transmission among women without access to antiretroviral treatment and among those not meeting treatment criteria. However, nevirapine resistance is detected (with the use of standard genotyping techniques) in 20 to 69% of women and 33 to 87% of infants after exposure to a single, peripartum dose of nevirapine. Among 60 women starting antiretroviral treatment within 6 months after receiving placebo or a single dose of nevirapine, no women in the placebo group and 41.7% in the nevirapine group had virologic failure (P<0.001). Women who had received a single dose of nevirapine had significantly higher rates of virologic failure on subsequent nevirapine-based antiretroviral treatment than did women who had received placebo. This apparently deleterious effect of a single dose of nevirapine was concentrated in women who initiated antiretroviral treatment within 6 months after receiving a single dose of nevirapine. We did not find that a previous single dose of nevirapine compromised the efficacy of subsequent nevirapine-based antiretroviral treatment in women who started antiretroviral treatment 6 months or more after delivery. Among the 30 HIV-infected infants, a single dose of nevirapine (one each to mother and infant) as compared with placebo was associated with significantly higher rates of virologic failure and smaller CD4+percentage increases in response to subsequent nevirapine-based antiretroviral treatment” [46].

 Universal “HIV” screening of certain groups is nothing new, and it hasn’t improved the health or reduced “infection rates” of those populations for which routine screening is already in place: military recruits [47, 48], medical students, “disease ridden foreigners” (immigrants who apply for permanent residence, and any participant in the Gay Games in Chicago, despite “some conservative groups who oppose(d) the federal government’s decision to waive the ban on HIV-positive travelers to the U.S. [49], saying it threatens public health)”, and, universal screening of pregnant women. The reason why none of these groups have benefited by universal testing is because of the false positive rate of the test results, especially among those “low risk” groups that will now be tested routinely at their doctor’s office, or perhaps in emergency room visits.

If you test positive because you recently had a flu vaccine or are pregnant, grave psychological consequences can result. Has universal “HIV” screening within mandatory medical resident training programs ever prompted a letter of apology by the CDC to the family of Dr. David Acer, for his committing suicide on the basis of their mistaken charges that he spread “HIV” to his patients [50], which the CDC later exonerated him of doing (after his suicide), because the CDC could “find no evidence the dentist’s HIV-positive patients contracted their infections from him because their virus’ DNA did not match his, and also concluded the dentist’s patients did not contract the virus from one another — in effect, that unclean dental implements did not act as conduits.” Other studies and thousands of anecdotal reports that have followed exposure of health care workers have also reported no transmission of an “HIV-positive” test result, or AIDS [51].

 Not only does transmission of AIDS not occur between 60% of positive mother-infant pairs because infants serorevert, it hasn’t occurred in health care settings such as dentist’s offices, hospitals, or sperm banks, or between sexually active serodiscordant couples, such as hemophiliacs. It hasn’t even been scientifically shown to be transmitted between persons who have frequent unprotected sex in any context. From the study called “Heterosexual Transmission of HIV in Northern California: Results from a Ten-Year Study:”

 We followed up 175 HIV-discordant couples [one partner tests positive, one negative] over time, for a total of approximately 282 couple-years of follow up… No transmission [of HIV] occurred among the 25% of couples who did not use their condoms consistently, nor among the 47 couples who intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of follow-up…” We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study [nobody became HIV positive]…This evidence argues for low infectivity in the absence of either needle sharing and/or other cofactors [52].”

No scientific evidence has shown that the “HIV” “retrovirus” causes the immunodeficiency illness symptoms called AIDS. We have requested the scientific paper(s) that prove that “HIV” is the causative agent. “HIV” sequences and proteins are found in a variety of non-disease-associated contexts, and “HIV” vaccines don’t evoke antibodies and are provided with dangerous adjuvants like squalene. The “HIV” screening tests are contradictory, inconsistent across national boundaries, and no consensus exists regarding their validity. ARVS induce immune suppression according to their manufacturer’s package inserts, and fears of HIV’s mutability provide excuses for drug makers claims to conceal the fact that ARV’s don’t work. Seropositivity reverts to seronegativity in infants and in single patients and vice versa even when compared on the same test. Transmission studies show no transmission. Universal screening hasn’t protected groups where universal testing is already in place, and the stigma associated with testing positive has caused many to commit suicide, has prevented them from getting health insurance, has caused uncounted abortions, and has ruined and ended countless lives.

 Because of these considerations, the assumptions underlying universal testing are flawed. It is an idea predicated on faith rather than scientific evidence. Moreover, the numbers of “infected individuals” provided in references [1-4], by the CDC, by the WHO, or others, are fictitious.

“Estimates on HIV called too high. New data cut rates for many nations.”

“Statisticians traditionally have had a difficult time estimating the size of the pandemic. In 1986, Jim Chin, then a state epidemiologist in California who later developed models for the World Health Organization to calculate HIV prevalence, and several other US officials met in a West Virginia hotel room to figure out how many Americans had HIV.”

 “Chin recollected that the group arrived at a range of 1 million to 1.5 million people; 18 years later, the number is at about 1 million Americans. “A lot of it was guesswork, based on limited studies,” Chin said. “It was the best we could do [53].

Regarding the imagined similarities between universal “HIV” testing and early detection of cancer with routine screening [4], unlike cancer, early screening doesn’t matter with profound immune suppressive states: the symptoms considered diagnostic for “AIDS” can’t simply be removed with a surgeon’s knife, with radiation, or with a “chemical knife” once it is detected, like a non-invasive melanoma. When considering assays in human patients which diagnose “AIDS” by quantifying the number of lymphocytes/ml, patients are not considered to have an AIDS-defining illness if thy have suffered from chronic starvation, as these individuals are known to possess a helper T-cell ratio in the AIDS-defining range or even lower (< 250 cells/ml), and can present with as much as a 90% reduction in their normal T-cell number which is reversible upon nutritional supplementation and a normal diet [54, 55]. In this regard, it has been several years since the announcement in the New England Journal of Medicine that vitamin supplements can ward off progression to AIDS in the absence of HAART (Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy) [56].

The recommendation handed down from CDC for universal “HIV” screening, universal screening of pregnant woman, universal screening in routine doctor office visits, and routine testing in emergency room visits are reminiscent of the hepatitis B vaccine era. Twenty years later, the evidence shows that the current hepatitis B mandate in place not only threatens our children’s health [57], but also serves in the future to threaten our children’s education and admission to all kinds of institutions (day care and school admission).

So don’t think about science at a time like this: either refuse or obtain a religious or philosophical exemption from undergoing an “HIV” test. Faith-based exemption means that God told you not to get tested, and who can argue with that?

 REFERENCES

1.Sanders et al., Cost-Effectiveness of Screening for HIV in the Era of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy; NEJM, Volume 352:570-585, February 10, Number 6, 2005.

2. Paltiel et al. Expanded Screening for HIV in the United States – An Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness. Volume 352:586-595, February 10, Number 6, 2005.

3. Samuel A. Bozzette, M.D., Ph.D. Routine Screening for HIV Infection – Timely and Cost-Effective. Volume 352:620-621, February 10, Number 6, 2005.

4. Kent A. Sepkowitz. N. England Journal of Medicine 354:23, June, 2006.

5. Horwitz MS, Boyce-Jacino MT, Faras AJ. Novel human endogenous sequences related to human immunodeficiency virus type 1. J Virol. Apr;66

(4):2170-9, 1992.

6. Varmus H,. Reverse transcription Sci. Am. 257:48-54, 1987.

7. Ghori A. 1; Usselmann B. 2; Odogwu S. 1; Fraser I. 1; Morris A. 2 Colorectal Disease,, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 106-112, 2000.

8. Pachez M. No need to be phased. Shares, 28-32, 2001.

9. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou J, Page B, Causer D, Alfonso H, Mhlongo S, Miller T, Maniotis A, Fiala C. A critique of the Montagnier evidence for the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Med Hypotheses 63(4):597-601, 2004.

10. Dura WT, Wozniewicz BM. Expression of antigens homologous to human retrovirus molecules in normal and severely atrophic thymus. Thymus 22 (4):245-54, 1994.

11.Willman et al., Heterophile Antibodies to Bovine and Caprine Proteins Causing False-Positive Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 and Other. Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay Results. Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, p. 615-616, Vol. 6, No. 4, July 1999.

12. Strandstrom et al., Studies with canine sera that contain antibodies which recognize human immunodeficiency virus structural proteins Cancer Res 1990 Sep 1;50 17 Suppl :5628S-5630S.

13. Bojanowski, K., Maniotis, A., Ingber, D. DNA toposiomerase ll can control chromatin topology and drive chromosome condensation without enzymatically modifying DNA. J. Cellular Biochem. Vol. 69:127-142, 1998.

14. Gallo and others, Science, Vol 303 16 January, 2004.

15. P. B. Asa et al., Exp. Mol. Pathol 68, 196-197, 2000.

16.Asa PB, Wilson RB, Garry RF. Antibodies to squalene in recipients of anthrax vaccine. Exp Mol Pathol. Aug;73(1):19-27, 2002.

17. Gary Matsumoto. Vaccine A, Basic Books Publisher, 2005.

18. Holmdahl et al. Arthritis induced in rats with nonimmunogenic adjuvants as models for rheumatoid arthritis Immunol Rev. Dec;184:184-202, 2001.

19.Gherardi NK. Lessons from macrophagic myofasciitis: towards definition of a vaccine adjuvant-related syndrome. Rev Neurol (Paris). Feb;159(2):162-4), 2003.

20. Schiff I, Correia B, Ravnikar VA, Schur PH.

HTLV-III antibody testing in sperm donors.N Engl J Med. Jun 20;312(25):1638, 1985.

21.Abbott Package HIV-I ELISA Test Kit insert, 1997.

22. Epitope Package HIV-I Western Blot Test Kit insert, 1997.

23. Roche’s amplicor HIV-1 monitor test, 1996.

24. NucliSens HIV-1 package insert, Nov. 13, 2001. http://www.fda.gov/cber/pmalabel/P0100010LB.pdf.

25. COBAS AmpliScreen HIV-1 Test, version 1.5 Approval Date: 12/19/2003

(www.fda.gov/cber/label/hiv1roc121903LB.

pdf).

26. The Cambridge Biotech HIV-1 Western Blot Kit.www.fda.gov/cber/label/hiv1cam052898Lb.pdf)

27.OraSure(R) HIV-1 Western Blot Kit

(www.fda.gov/cber/pmalabel/P950004Lb.pdf)

28.Stramer et al. “Detection of HIV-1 and HCV Infections among Antibody-Negative Blood Donors by Nucleic Acid–Amplification Testing. New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 351:760-768, August 19, Number 8, 2004.

29. John Bulloch, Wall Street Journal, June 9th, 2004.

30. Rodriquez B, Sethi AK, Cheruvu VK, et

al. Predictive value of plasma HIV RNA level on rate of CD4 T-cell decline in untreated HIV infection. JAMA 296(12):1498-506, 2006.

31. Cohen J. Study says HIV blood levels don’t predict immune decline. Science 313(5795):1868, 2006.

32. Lancet 339; 1992.

33. Doran TI et al. False-Positive and Indeterminate Human Immunodeficiency Virus Test Results in Pregnant Women. Arch Fam Med. Sep/Oct; 9: 924-9, 2000.

34. Simonsen L, Buffington J, Shapiro CN, et al. Multiple false reactions in viral antibody screening assays after influenza vaccination. Am J Epidemiol 141:1089-1096,1995. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/354/13/1422

35. Lee, D, Eby W, Molinaro, G.. HIV false positivity after Hepatitis B vaccination. Lancet 339: 1060, 1992.

36. Parekh BS, Shaffer N, Coughlin R, et al. Dynamics of maternal IgG antibody decay and HIV-specific antibody synthesis in infants born to seropositive mothers. The NYC Perinatal HIV Transmission Study Group. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 9:907-12, 1993.

37. Chantry CJ, Cooper ER, Pelton SI, Zorilla C, Hillyer GV, Diaz C. Seroreversion in human immunodeficiency virus-exposed but uninfected infants. Pediatr Infect Dis J 14:382-7, 1995.

38. de Martino et al., Rapid disease progression in HIV-1 perinatally infected children born to mothers receiving zidovudine monotherapy during pregnancy. AIDS. 13(8):927-933, May 28, 1999. The Italian Register for HIV Infection in Children AIDS, 13:927-933, 1999.

39. Antoni Noguera et al. Pediatrics, Vol. 114 No. 5 November, pp 598-603, 2004.

40. JD Hamilton et. al. and the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group. A controlled trial of early versus late treatment with zidovudine in symptomatic human immunodifficiency virus infection.” New England Journal of Medicine, 326: 437-434, 1992.

41. Seligmann et al., Concorde: MRC/ANRS randomised double-blind controlled trial of immediate and deferred zidovudine in symptom-free HIV infection. Concorde Coordinating Committee. Lancet, Apr 9;343(8902):871-81, 1994.

42. TAGline/Volume 4 Issue 2 February 1997.

43. FDAMedWatch 1/19/2005.

44. FDAMedWatch 2/9/2005.

45. FDAMedWatch 6/10/2005.

46. Lockman S. et al., Response to Antiretroviral Therapy after a Single, Peripartum Dose of Nevirapine. The New England Journal of Medicine 356 january 11, 2007.

47. DS Burke et al. Human immunodeficiency virus infections among civilian applicants for United States military service, October 1985 to March 1986. Demographic factors associated with seropositivity. Volume 317:131-136, July 16, Number 3, 1987.

48. Sateren et al., HIV-1 Infection Among Civilian Applicants for US Military Service, 1985 to 2000: Epidemiology and Geography. Epidemiology And Social Science Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 32(2):215-222, February 1, 2003.

49. Awash in controversy. Is city ready for Gay Games? By Alexia Elejalde-Ruiz RedEye. Chicago Tribune, June 14, 2006.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/redeye/red-061406-gay1,1,170181.story?coll=chi-news-hed

50.Ted Anthony. STUDY: HIV not contracted from dentist. Associated Press, Thursday, December 1, 1994. ww2.aegis.org/news/ap/1994/AP941233.html

51. Hirsch MS, Wormser GP, Schooley RT, Ho DD, Felsenstein D, Hopkins CC, Joline C, Duncanson F, Sarngadharan MG, Saxinger C et al. Risk of nosocomial infection with human T-cell lymphotropic virus III (HTLV-III).N Engl J Med. Jan 3;312(1):1-4, 1985.

52. Padian, et al. Heterosexual Transmission of HIV in Northern California: Results from a Ten-Year Study.” American Journal of Epidemiology. August, 1997.

53. John Donnelly, The Boston Globe June 20, 2004.

54. Parent et al. In vitro lymphocyte-differentiating effects of thymulin (Zn-FTS) on lymphocyte subpopulation of severely malnourished children. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 60(2):274-8, 1994

55. Chevalier et al. Immune recovery of malnourished children takes longer than nutritional recovery: implications for treatment and discharge. J. Trop Pediatr 44(5):304-7, 1998.

56. Wafaie W. Fawzi, et al. A Randomized Trial of Multivitamin Supplements and HIV Disease Progression and Mortality Volume 351:23-32, July 1, Number 1, 2004.

57. Maniotis Andrew, Maniotis Rita, Espat N. Joseph; Chen Xue, Lycos Peter. Why is the Hepatitis B vaccine still mandated? Medical Veritas, Nov; 3(2):1206-1210, 2006.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: