VIRUSMYTH HOMEPAGE
THE CONTRADICTIONS AND
PARADOXES OF AIDS ORTHODOXY
By Michael Wright
June 2000
Not having a specialized educational background
in biology, I have arrived at my skepticism about
AIDS dogma mostly from a process of common sense
reasoning along with the willingness to question
government authority and media-manufactured consensus
I have never understood, for example, how the
dogmatists have gone about reconstructing the
the conventional wisdom prior to the Age of AIDS.
At that time our doctors were telling us that the
presence of antibodies in the bloodstream indicated
the victory of the immune system in developing a
defense against a virus. In the Age of AIDS, we
are told that presence of "HIV antibodies" confirms
infection by a virus which will be deadly unless
treated by expensive pharmaceutical remedies with
numerous adverse effects.
How do the dogmatists deal with this paradox?
Perhaps someone else can explain this to me.
Do they claim that HIV represents a newly-discovered
type of virus against which antibodies are ineffective?
If so, then why are the proteins activated by the
immune system called "antibodies," which, by earlier
definition, acted to disable pathogens? How are these
irregularities resolved?
Perhaps the dogmatists' answer would be to remind me
that the very essence of HIV is the suppression of the
immune system, including its attempted anti-HIV
defenses. That being the case, then how is it that the
immune system survives this attack in order to yield
HIV antibodies? And how is this reconciled with the
dogmatists' belief that there is a ten-year "latency period"
before the "tricky little virus" finally compromises the
immune system enough to permit the development of
"opportunistic" infections. Why doesn't this happen
sooner, when the virus is presumably rendering the immune
system incompetent to defend against HIV?
Here's another question for the dogmatists: they are
fond of saying that the "trickly little virus" is "always
mutating." Are the dissidents who claim that duplicate
copies of HIV have never been isolated correct, and is
the line about "always mutating" just the dogmatists'
way of putting their own spin on the situation? And
why is it that, in its long career, the always mutating
trickly little virus never mutates into a benign form?
And how is it that the same ELISA/Western Blot
testing kit can be continually used to detect the
antibodies stimulated by HIV? If HIV is really always
mutating, should there not also be an always updated
detection kit to keep up with the latest strain?
Paraphrasing Duesberg, perhaps this is the answer:
there are no tricky little viruses -- only tricky
little virus-hunters!
All the trumpeting we hear about an "AIDS vaccine" raises
more questions. For example, if HIV is really "always mutating,"
what will the development costs be for the continual updating
of a "tricky little vaccine" to mutate right along with it?
More troubling is the fact that, prior to the AIDS era, it
was commonly accepted that the purpose of a vaccine was
to stimulate the immune system into responding to a faux
virus by manufacturing antibodies. In fact, antibody tests
are commonly used to determine if a vaccine has been
effective, and to make judgements about whether a booster
shot is needed.
In response to the idea of the vaccine, along with other
skeptics, I have pointed to another paradox: if the AIDS
industry is going to market a "vaccine," how are they to
determine its effectiveness in preventing disease, except
by testing for the very same HIV antibodies always claimed
earlier to confirm active and threatening presence of the
alleged lethal agent?
The only choice they have, it would seem, is to engage in
the Orwellian enterprise of twisting reality around to suit
their agenda. Not surprisingly, that is exactly what they
are doing.
In an online BBC news article (1), (May 26, 2000)
Neil Nathanson, director of the US Office of AIDS Research,
resolves the paradox with this language: "The belief that
successful vaccines work by producing antibodies is almost
certainly wrong."
The CDC, on the other hand, needs to do a little bit of house-
cleaning in order to get its act together, for on this question
the agency has not adjusted its propaganda in alignment with
the current needs of AIDS dogma. In an online public information
message (2) about how vaccines work, the agency says that after
vaccination "the body makes antibodies to fight the weak or
dead germs in the vaccine," and that the "antibodies practice
on the weak germs" in order to develop safeguards from "the
real disease germs."
Now, we folks who have not surrendered our common sense logic
to postmodernist rubbish know that two contradictory propositions
cannot be true at the same time. We are now greeted with two
different government agencies making contradictory statements
about the relationship between vaccines and antibodies. Clearly,
at least one of the agencies is either dishonest, incompetent, or
both.
(1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_761000/761979.stm
(2) for the link to the CDC statement, go http://www.cdc.gov/nip then click
on 'How Vaccines Work'
VIRUSMYTH HOMEPAGE