A reader by the name of Johannes Kries left two comments regarding antiretroviral drugs in general and AZT in particular on my recent post, The Drugs Don’t Work. The information contained in these comments is important enough that I’m reposting them here, with permission, rather than leaving them lost and buried in the comments section. I don’t agree one hundred percent with every word (when does that ever happen for anyone?), but
To understand the question a little background is needed. What Charles refers to cannot be found in any modern medical textbook, because science claims to know so much.
AZT was supposed to act against the HI Virus, while the symptoms that are (wrongly) attributed to the HI virus in the form of “AIDS defining” diseases comprise (among others) prolonged fever, diarrhea and weight loss. In Africa, with a positive HIV test and prolonged fever (common with malaria) you have AIDS. In the past, due to the lack of test facilities, one bypassed the test and declared people with prolonged fever, diarrhea and weight loss directly as AIDS cases. That enormously inflated the AID Syndrome statistics in Africa.
To understand the HIV=AIDS catastrophe it is important to distinguish between the virus (HIV) and the symptoms (AID Syndrome) again. According to the guidelines perfectly healthy persons without any symptoms are treated with highly toxic substance after a positive test. We know this from COVID-19 and the many “symptomless ill” persons. The positive test defines the disease, not the symptoms.
Also tuberculosis is “AIDS defining”. Tuberculosis is very frequent in Africa. According to the early definitions of the AID Syndrome, also HIV-negative AIDS was possible. Even without HIV test or inconclusive test result a disease from a set of “AIDS defining” diseases defined the diagnosis.
• CDC, Center for Disease Control, “Revision of the CDC surveillance Case Definition for Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome” MMS Supplement, August 14, 1987, Vol. 36, No. 1S, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/other/mmsu3601.pdf
[FIGURE I. Flow diagram for revised CDC case definition of AIDS, September 1, 1987]
As stated in Appendix II of the above document tuberculosis and the “HIV wasting syndrome” are “AIDS defining”. Now, imagine how symptoms like weight loss, prolong fever or diarrhea inflated the AIDS statistic in Africa, where people often suffer from weight loss, fever and diarrhea due to parasitic infections, malaria or tuberculosis (“AIDS defining” by itself).
Before the 1980s there was no AID Syndrome. It was supposedly a new disease that consisted of a catalog of so called “AIDS defining” diseases. The “AIDS defining” diseases were old and well known diseases. But now they were summed up under a new label, the “AID Syndrome”. That is why the zoonosis hypothesis is so important (i.e. the hypothesis that HIV resulted from at least 13 zoonoses in Africa around 1930, from at least 3 different ape and monkey species). The supposedly new disease, which in fact it wasn’t, needed a new virus. Otherwise we had observed the AID Syndrome much earlier.
However, the real AID Syndrome in severely sick homosexuals in the USA was caused by the newly and broadly available drugs and the corresponding gay life style. The Vietnam war and the rise of drug addicts that came back from Vietnam played a decisive role here.
In the 1990 and early 2000s, this catalog of “AIDS defining diseases” was extended several times. And each time the statistic was further inflated. In 1993 the CDC separated for the last time the different definition in its case report and one clearly sees how the number of cases of the AID Syndrome rose, simply by extending the cases definitions.
[Figure 6, AIDS cases by quarter-year of report and definition category, reported 1983 through
1993, United States]
Later, in the early 2000s one began to drop the “AIDS defining” diseases for the diagnosis of AIDS and began using the CD4 cell count alone as a measure of an “AIDS condition”. That inflated the case numbers further, because it did not matter if the person had any objective symptoms or not. Below a certain threshold (around 500 [cells per microliter]) a HIV+ measured person is considered an “AIDS case”.
But, firstly, there is no general definition of what the CD4 cell count in a healthy person is. In some areas of the world it can be below 250 [cells per microliter] in perfectly healthy persons,
“1.5% and 6% respectively had baseline counts below 350 cells/μl and 1.5% and 2.5% below 250 cells per μl. Transient dips to below 250 cells/μl were observed in seven individuals, with two individuals having persistently low CD4 counts over more than one year.”
„In common with neighbouring countries, HIV-negative populations in Malawi have CD4 counts considerably lower than European reference ranges, and healthy individuals may have persistently or transiently low counts. Within Malawi, ranges differ according to the selected population.“
And secondly, the CD4 cell count reacts to almost any kind of infection or stressing of the body. Even a slight sunburn can lower the CD4 cell count, (“OKT4+ helper T cells” is an old name for CD4 cells]
“OKT4+ helper T cells were reduced and there was a significant decrease in the OKT4/OKT8 ratio.”
• Hersey et al., “Alteration of T cell subsets and induction of suppressor T cell activity in normal subjects after exposure to sunlight.”, J Immunol. 1983 Jul;131(1):171-4, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6223071
“In comparison to concurrent studies on 13 age- and sex-matched controls, sun-exposed subjects had a significant increase in their circulation of T cells recognized by OKT8 monoclonal antibodies and a decrease in OKT4 positive T cells.”
For malaria (very frequent in Africa), the CD4 cell count of malaria-ill but HIV-neg. persons can be lower than in HIV+ persons not suffering from malaria,
• Chirenda, “Low CD4 count in HIV negative malaria cases and normal CD4 count in HIV positive and malaria negative patients.”, Cent Afr J Med. 1999 Sep;45(9):248, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11019476
Almost every disease lowers the CD4 cell count also in HIV-neg. persons,
• Kavuma Mwanje et al., “Association between CD4 T cell counts and the immune status among adult critically ill HIV-negative patients in intensive care units in Uganda.”, AAS Open Res. 2019 Jan 8;2:2, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6742509/
“CD4 T cell counts were generally low among HIV-negative critically ill patients. Low CD4 T cells did not predict ICU mortality at day 28.”
“After a 28-day follow up, 71 [54.6%, 95% CI (45.9-63.3)] were found to have CD4 counts less than 500 cells/mm³, […]”
According to the current definitions and guidelines in case of a positive HIV test, these persons had immediately AIDS (by definition) and the treatment with very toxic substances like AZT would begin. Now they start “dying from HIV and AIDS”.
In 2006 Rodriguez et al. published a paper on the relationship between CD4 cell count and the HIV viral load, i.e. of the virus that is supposed to kill CD4 cell. They found almost no relationship.
• Rodriguez et al. „Predictive Value of Plasma HIV RNA Level on Rate of CD4 T-Cell Decline in Untreated HIV Infection”, JAMA, Sep 27, 2006, Vol 296 (12), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17003398
"Only a small proportion of CD4 cell loss variability (4% -6%) could be explained by presenting plasma HIV RNA level"
This paper was heavily attacked as it aimed at the heart of the virus hypothesis of the AID Syndrome, HIV kills CD4 cells.
• Henry et al. „Explaining, predicting, and treating HIV-associated CD4 cell loss: after 25 years still a puzzle.“, JAMA, Sep 27, 2006, 296(12), p. 1523-5, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17003402
AZT like all the other putative antiretroviral agents against HIV never cured tuberculosis or weight loss or prolonged fever or diarrhea or other “AIDS defining” diseases. AZT & Co never cured anything. They only do harm. But the damages are attributed to the HI virus.
HIV+ measured persons, who do not suffer from any real illness, are not sick. Even according to the (wrong) “slow virus” hypothesis of AIDS, they do not show “AIDS defining” symptoms for the first 15 – 20 years.
Irrespective of what a person might suffer from, to “bounce back to “Health””, that is not possible with so called antiretroviral substances. We know how people look like after years of antiretroviral “therapy”, see below.
One problem is, that the moment a person is measured HIV+ all real sufferings are ignored. In Africa, what often happens is this:
People in Africa suffer from a lot of things, bad water quality, heavy metal poising of water, malnutrition, many kinds of parasites, cholera, malaria, tuberculosis and so on. When they agree to take the so called antiretroviral medication, they receive medical care, clear water, food, medical checks, treatment of parasites etc. But, that does not mean that they actually take the antiretroviral pills. Many people do not adhere to the putative antiretroviral treatment, but still continue to receive medical care, food, fresh water etc. These people can actually be healed from what they suffered from in the first place, which is not HIV.
We know from industrial nations like Italy how people look like, who adhere to the putative antiretroviral medication. They suffer from multiple non-HIV related morbidities, which correspond 1:1 to the severe adverse effects of these antiretroviral substances they have been taking for years.
• Maggi et al., “Clusterization of co-morbidities and multi-morbidities among persons living with HIV: a cross-sectional study.”, BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Jun 25;19(1):555, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31238916
“Non-HIV co-morbidities included: cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, oncologic diseases, osteoporosis, probable case of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, psychiatric illness, kidney disease.”
“Table 1 - Characteristics of 1087 patients enrolled in the Cluster Project: Years since ART initiation 9.0 (4.0–16.0)”
“The most frequent co-morbidity was dyslipidemia (55.3%), followed by hypertension (31.4%), COPD (29.4%), hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection (25.4, 5.5% with detectable HCVRNA), psychiatric illness (10.3%), diagnosis of osteopenia/osteoporosis (10.1%), diabetes (6.1%), and renal impairment (4.8%); 95 (8.7%) subjects had history of non-AIDS-defining cancer. Forty-nine patients (4.5%) had pCVD events.“
“Our data evidence that, in spite of mean age lower than 50, co-morbidity was the rule among our PLWH (82%), and that more than 50% of our patients were multi-morbid. Moreover, about 30% of them had three or more chronic non-HIV related conditions, thus confirming recent data provided by other studies in the field.”
Another factor is this. The so called antiretroviral therapy damages the lipometabolism and people taking antiretroviral substances can even become obese. But that does not mean that they became healthy.
Here is a study from 2019, that reported many noninfectious co-morbidities (that is, not virus related) in 90% of the persons, who took antiretroviral substances for on the average 5 years (around 60 months). That included overweight/obesity in 36.4 % of the cases,
• Hernández et al., “Increased incidences of noninfectious comorbidities among aging populations living with human immunodeficiency virus in Ecuador: a multicenter retrospective analysis.”, HIV AIDS (Auckl). 2019 Apr 1;11:55-59, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31114389
“The average age at HIV diagnosis was 34.1 years old and cART in average was started 15.9 months after HIV-diagnosis. Recruited patients were receiving cART for an average of 59.2±40.2 months. Only 9.9% (n=50) of the patients did not show any NICMs [noninfectious comorbidities]. Diabetes and pre-diabetes was found in 6% (n=30) and 16.3% (n=82) patients, respectively; however, dyslipidemia and overweight/obesity was frequent, as they affected 41.4% (n=208) and 36.4% (n=183) patients, respectively.”
“Conclusion: Prevalence of NICMs among subjects under cART was greater than that reported among the Ecuadorian general population, therefore specific public health actions are required to make patients aware of and prevent NICMs among PLHIV in Ecuador.”
We know from people who had been misdiagnosed as HIV+ and who have taken the antiretroviral pills without ever being HIV+, that they show the same symptoms of non-HIV related morbidities. These substances do not heal, they only do harm.
It is important to understand, that the open questions concerning the virus hypothesis of the AID Syndrome were open from the start, that is, since almost 40 years. Until today sciences has not answered one of the open questions. But science, they are the ones with the billion dollar budgets. How does HIV-1 cause AIDS, if only 1 in 5000 CD4 cells is infected? Where is the proof for the at least 13 zoonoses around 1930 in Africa? How can it be always the same molecular mechanism, if every HIV+ measured person carries his own variant? What do the tests measure, if there are millions of variants? Why is there no animal model for HIV and AIDS? Apes don’t get AIDS. Where is the proof that antibodies against HIV are useless as science claims? There is no proof. Where is the proof for the “slow virus” hypothesis? Again, there is no proof for this speculation, but after years of putative “therapy” HIV+ measured persons are sick from the severe adverse effects of the medication.
Open questions from the start to the end. But in the discussion often the claim comes up, that some people have been healed. Healed from what? HIV+ measured persons, who do not suffer from any real illness, are not sick. They are perfectly healthy. Until they start the so called antiretroviral treatment.
We cannot praise a so called therapy, while more than 50% of the persons, who are taking these toxic substances, are multi-morbid from non-HIV related morbidities (Maggi et al., 2019). The allegedly new virus has nothing to do with any of the old and well known diseases that make up the catalog of “AIDS defining” diseases.
They do not become sick at all, provided they do not take the highly toxic substances of the so called antiretroviral therapy.
When a new virus enters the body, the immune system reacts within a couple of days. That is related to the cell cycle which operates on a level of hours. This defense reaction of the body causes the symptoms of the infection like for example fever. After the immune system has started to produce antibodies the virus is neutralized. Then the body forms memory cells, and if this virus enters the body again, the body can produce many antibodies in a short time. The body is then immune.
That is what happens also when HIV enters the body. The healthy human body is full of bacteria and viruses most of which are completely harmless because the body neutralizes them with antibodies. HIV is one of them.
Now, according to the false virus hypothesis of the AID Syndrome, HIV is supposed to damage the immune system. But, many people, who are measured HIV+ do not show any deterioration of their immune system but stay healthy, even with low CD4 cell count and without treatment.
That was already known in the 1990s, as I pointed out before.
• Hoover et al., “Long-term survival without clinical AIDS after CD4+ cell counts fall below 200 x 10(6)/l.”, AIDS. 1995 Feb;9(2):145-52, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7718184
“Although antiretroviral therapy and Pneumocystis carinii prophylaxis extend AIDS-free survival, 45% of the group who were AIDS-free > or = 3 years after CD4+ cells fell below 200 x 10(6)/l had not used these treatments.”
“CONCLUSIONS:
Significant numbers of individuals remain free of illnesses and AIDS symptoms > or = 3 years after CD4+ cell counts drop below 200 x 10(6)/l. This occurs even in the absence of treatment. The associations seen here suggest that host and viral factors play important roles.”
So they had a HI virus infection, but they had no effect. Now the so called science had a problem, how to explain the “AIDS defining” diseases, when the virus does no harm? In response to that the so called science came up with the hypothesis of the “slow virus” (the technical term is lentivirus). That means, to save the virus hypothesis of the AID Syndrome, HIV was declared a “slow virus”, that is supposed to cause damages (that is, “AIDS defining” diseases) after 15 – 20 years.
So there is the (wrong) virus hypothesis of the AID Syndrome, and within the (wrong) virus hypothesis is the (wrong) “slow virus” hypothesis. There is absolutely no proof for the concept of “slow viruses”, that is, viruses that can cause damages (here, “AIDS defining” diseases) years after they have been neutralized by antibodies.
But, that means, that even after the (wrong) virus hypothesis of the AID Syndrome, a HIV+ measured person is not sick for the first 15 years. Actually that person is not sick at all and will never become sick from HIV. However, due to the immense pressure people start taking the antiretroviral pills. And then they become sick from the severe damages caused by the so called antiretroviral therapy.
As Maggi et al. (2019) clearly show, the damages caused by the antiretroviral pills have nothing to do with the “AIDS defining” diseases, which according to the (wrong) theory are supposed to show after 15 – 20 years. Correctly Maggi et al. (2019) call them “non-HIV related morbidities”. They have nothing to do with HIV, but they correspond 1:1 to the severe adverse effects of the so called therapy.
However that naming happened only recently. For many years these severe damages caused by the therapy were called “HIV-related”, because one could not establish a direct link between HIV and these damages, e.g. cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, kidney and liver damages. On the one hand by this naming trick (“HIV-related”) one circumvented the problem of the “slow virus” hypothesis by claiming that HIV could cause something, also within the first 15 years. This is much more convenient for the theory. And on the other hand it deflects attention from highly toxic substances like AZT and Didanosine.
PCR played an important role here. As Kary Mullis, Nobel laureate and the inventor of the PCR test, pointed out, with PCR one can find anything in everything, because it is so ultra-sensitive. But that says nothing about the causality. After one had a positive HIV test in a certain tissue, science attributed any damage in that tissue to HIV, without any proof of the causality and ignoring that in the same tissue were antibodies that neutralized the HI virus.
The virus hypothesis of the AID Syndrome is wrong. The severely sick homosexuals in the 1980s were sick from severe drug addiction, years of antibiotics abuse, alcohol abuse and multiple infections with sexually transmitted diseases. That was the real AID Syndrome in the 1980s, which has nothing to do with a putatively new virus from a zoonosis. Very vague case definitions for the AID Syndrome, like prolonged fever, diarrhea, weight loss or other (real) disease like tuberculosis, inflated the case numbers. And the bogus HIV tests defined healthy people as sick and the toxic substances used in the so called therapy caused real damages. The virus hypothesis of the AID Syndrome was wrong from the start, but every time this hypothesis runs into problems, science invents a new hypothesis to explain the hole in the virus hypothesis.
At that time, in the 1980s, the so called science had tried in vain for two decades to relate retroviruses (to which HIV belongs) to cancer. The reason for that was that retroviruses do not kill cells. Cancer cells do not die, but they become immortal and that is the problem, because cancer tissue grows indefinitely and thus creates tumors. The virus theory of cancer, and thus the idea of cancer as a transmittable disease, had just failed. Beginning of the 1980s there were a lot of specialists for retroviruses without a job. And they simply jumped the band wagon, when the claim came up a retrovirus might be involved in the AID Syndrome.
Peter Duesberg described already in 1987 the failure of the retrovirus hypothesis for cancer and the AID Syndrome.
Peter Duesberg was and is one of the main experts on retroviruses. His article was ignored and after he insisted and demanded a discussion the so called science “froze him out”, as he has put in an interview in the documentary on the HIV=AIDS dogma “House of Numbers”.
A case of AIDS in Africa is defined in a decisively different way than one in the US.
How exactly does AZT ameliorate dry cough, loss of body weight, diarrhea and other clinical symptoms?
I don't understand your question? I wanted to attempt to answer
To understand the question a little background is needed. What Charles refers to cannot be found in any modern medical textbook, because science claims to know so much.
AZT was supposed to act against the HI Virus, while the symptoms that are (wrongly) attributed to the HI virus in the form of “AIDS defining” diseases comprise (among others) prolonged fever, diarrhea and weight loss. In Africa, with a positive HIV test and prolonged fever (common with malaria) you have AIDS. In the past, due to the lack of test facilities, one bypassed the test and declared people with prolonged fever, diarrhea and weight loss directly as AIDS cases. That enormously inflated the AID Syndrome statistics in Africa.
To understand the HIV=AIDS catastrophe it is important to distinguish between the virus (HIV) and the symptoms (AID Syndrome) again. According to the guidelines perfectly healthy persons without any symptoms are treated with highly toxic substance after a positive test. We know this from COVID-19 and the many “symptomless ill” persons. The positive test defines the disease, not the symptoms.
Also tuberculosis is “AIDS defining”. Tuberculosis is very frequent in Africa. According to the early definitions of the AID Syndrome, also HIV-negative AIDS was possible. Even without HIV test or inconclusive test result a disease from a set of “AIDS defining” diseases defined the diagnosis.
• CDC, Center for Disease Control, “Revision of the CDC surveillance Case Definition for Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome” MMS Supplement, August 14, 1987, Vol. 36, No. 1S, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/other/mmsu3601.pdf
[FIGURE I. Flow diagram for revised CDC case definition of AIDS, September 1, 1987]
As stated in Appendix II of the above document tuberculosis and the “HIV wasting syndrome” are “AIDS defining”. Now, imagine how symptoms like weight loss, prolong fever or diarrhea inflated the AIDS statistic in Africa, where people often suffer from weight loss, fever and diarrhea due to parasitic infections, malaria or tuberculosis (“AIDS defining” by itself).
Before the 1980s there was no AID Syndrome. It was supposedly a new disease that consisted of a catalog of so called “AIDS defining” diseases. The “AIDS defining” diseases were old and well known diseases. But now they were summed up under a new label, the “AID Syndrome”. That is why the zoonosis hypothesis is so important (i.e. the hypothesis that HIV resulted from at least 13 zoonoses in Africa around 1930, from at least 3 different ape and monkey species). The supposedly new disease, which in fact it wasn’t, needed a new virus. Otherwise we had observed the AID Syndrome much earlier.
However, the real AID Syndrome in severely sick homosexuals in the USA was caused by the newly and broadly available drugs and the corresponding gay life style. The Vietnam war and the rise of drug addicts that came back from Vietnam played a decisive role here.
In the 1990 and early 2000s, this catalog of “AIDS defining diseases” was extended several times. And each time the statistic was further inflated. In 1993 the CDC separated for the last time the different definition in its case report and one clearly sees how the number of cases of the AID Syndrome rose, simply by extending the cases definitions.
• CDC, “U.S. HIV and AIDS cases reported through December 1993”, 1993, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, Year-end Edition, Vol. 5, No. 4, https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/library/reports/surveillance/cdc-hiv-surveillance-report-1993-vol-5-4.pdf
[Figure 6, AIDS cases by quarter-year of report and definition category, reported 1983 through
1993, United States]
Later, in the early 2000s one began to drop the “AIDS defining” diseases for the diagnosis of AIDS and began using the CD4 cell count alone as a measure of an “AIDS condition”. That inflated the case numbers further, because it did not matter if the person had any objective symptoms or not. Below a certain threshold (around 500 [cells per microliter]) a HIV+ measured person is considered an “AIDS case”.
But, firstly, there is no general definition of what the CD4 cell count in a healthy person is. In some areas of the world it can be below 250 [cells per microliter] in perfectly healthy persons,
• Crampin, „Normal Range of CD4 Cell Counts and Temporal Changes in Two HIV Negative Malawian Populations“, The Open AIDS Journal, 2011, 5, 74-79, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3162193/
“1.5% and 6% respectively had baseline counts below 350 cells/μl and 1.5% and 2.5% below 250 cells per μl. Transient dips to below 250 cells/μl were observed in seven individuals, with two individuals having persistently low CD4 counts over more than one year.”
„In common with neighbouring countries, HIV-negative populations in Malawi have CD4 counts considerably lower than European reference ranges, and healthy individuals may have persistently or transiently low counts. Within Malawi, ranges differ according to the selected population.“
And secondly, the CD4 cell count reacts to almost any kind of infection or stressing of the body. Even a slight sunburn can lower the CD4 cell count, (“OKT4+ helper T cells” is an old name for CD4 cells]
• Hersey et al. “Immunological effects of solarium exposure.”, Lancet. 1983 Mar 1 2;1(8324):545-8, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6131254
“OKT4+ helper T cells were reduced and there was a significant decrease in the OKT4/OKT8 ratio.”
• Hersey et al., “Alteration of T cell subsets and induction of suppressor T cell activity in normal subjects after exposure to sunlight.”, J Immunol. 1983 Jul;131(1):171-4, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6223071
“In comparison to concurrent studies on 13 age- and sex-matched controls, sun-exposed subjects had a significant increase in their circulation of T cells recognized by OKT8 monoclonal antibodies and a decrease in OKT4 positive T cells.”
For malaria (very frequent in Africa), the CD4 cell count of malaria-ill but HIV-neg. persons can be lower than in HIV+ persons not suffering from malaria,
• Chirenda, “Low CD4 count in HIV negative malaria cases and normal CD4 count in HIV positive and malaria negative patients.”, Cent Afr J Med. 1999 Sep;45(9):248, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11019476
Almost every disease lowers the CD4 cell count also in HIV-neg. persons,
• Kavuma Mwanje et al., “Association between CD4 T cell counts and the immune status among adult critically ill HIV-negative patients in intensive care units in Uganda.”, AAS Open Res. 2019 Jan 8;2:2, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6742509/
“CD4 T cell counts were generally low among HIV-negative critically ill patients. Low CD4 T cells did not predict ICU mortality at day 28.”
“After a 28-day follow up, 71 [54.6%, 95% CI (45.9-63.3)] were found to have CD4 counts less than 500 cells/mm³, […]”
According to the current definitions and guidelines in case of a positive HIV test, these persons had immediately AIDS (by definition) and the treatment with very toxic substances like AZT would begin. Now they start “dying from HIV and AIDS”.
In 2006 Rodriguez et al. published a paper on the relationship between CD4 cell count and the HIV viral load, i.e. of the virus that is supposed to kill CD4 cell. They found almost no relationship.
• Rodriguez et al. „Predictive Value of Plasma HIV RNA Level on Rate of CD4 T-Cell Decline in Untreated HIV Infection”, JAMA, Sep 27, 2006, Vol 296 (12), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17003398
"Only a small proportion of CD4 cell loss variability (4% -6%) could be explained by presenting plasma HIV RNA level"
This paper was heavily attacked as it aimed at the heart of the virus hypothesis of the AID Syndrome, HIV kills CD4 cells.
• Henry et al. „Explaining, predicting, and treating HIV-associated CD4 cell loss: after 25 years still a puzzle.“, JAMA, Sep 27, 2006, 296(12), p. 1523-5, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17003402
AZT like all the other putative antiretroviral agents against HIV never cured tuberculosis or weight loss or prolonged fever or diarrhea or other “AIDS defining” diseases. AZT & Co never cured anything. They only do harm. But the damages are attributed to the HI virus.
Some critical points you have raised, but we have seen people gained weight and bounce back to "Health" after ARVs treatment in South Africa
HIV+ measured persons, who do not suffer from any real illness, are not sick. Even according to the (wrong) “slow virus” hypothesis of AIDS, they do not show “AIDS defining” symptoms for the first 15 – 20 years.
Irrespective of what a person might suffer from, to “bounce back to “Health””, that is not possible with so called antiretroviral substances. We know how people look like after years of antiretroviral “therapy”, see below.
One problem is, that the moment a person is measured HIV+ all real sufferings are ignored. In Africa, what often happens is this:
People in Africa suffer from a lot of things, bad water quality, heavy metal poising of water, malnutrition, many kinds of parasites, cholera, malaria, tuberculosis and so on. When they agree to take the so called antiretroviral medication, they receive medical care, clear water, food, medical checks, treatment of parasites etc. But, that does not mean that they actually take the antiretroviral pills. Many people do not adhere to the putative antiretroviral treatment, but still continue to receive medical care, food, fresh water etc. These people can actually be healed from what they suffered from in the first place, which is not HIV.
We know from industrial nations like Italy how people look like, who adhere to the putative antiretroviral medication. They suffer from multiple non-HIV related morbidities, which correspond 1:1 to the severe adverse effects of these antiretroviral substances they have been taking for years.
• Maggi et al., “Clusterization of co-morbidities and multi-morbidities among persons living with HIV: a cross-sectional study.”, BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Jun 25;19(1):555, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31238916
“Non-HIV co-morbidities included: cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, oncologic diseases, osteoporosis, probable case of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, psychiatric illness, kidney disease.”
“Table 1 - Characteristics of 1087 patients enrolled in the Cluster Project: Years since ART initiation 9.0 (4.0–16.0)”
“The most frequent co-morbidity was dyslipidemia (55.3%), followed by hypertension (31.4%), COPD (29.4%), hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection (25.4, 5.5% with detectable HCVRNA), psychiatric illness (10.3%), diagnosis of osteopenia/osteoporosis (10.1%), diabetes (6.1%), and renal impairment (4.8%); 95 (8.7%) subjects had history of non-AIDS-defining cancer. Forty-nine patients (4.5%) had pCVD events.“
“Our data evidence that, in spite of mean age lower than 50, co-morbidity was the rule among our PLWH (82%), and that more than 50% of our patients were multi-morbid. Moreover, about 30% of them had three or more chronic non-HIV related conditions, thus confirming recent data provided by other studies in the field.”
Another factor is this. The so called antiretroviral therapy damages the lipometabolism and people taking antiretroviral substances can even become obese. But that does not mean that they became healthy.
Here is a study from 2019, that reported many noninfectious co-morbidities (that is, not virus related) in 90% of the persons, who took antiretroviral substances for on the average 5 years (around 60 months). That included overweight/obesity in 36.4 % of the cases,
• Hernández et al., “Increased incidences of noninfectious comorbidities among aging populations living with human immunodeficiency virus in Ecuador: a multicenter retrospective analysis.”, HIV AIDS (Auckl). 2019 Apr 1;11:55-59, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31114389
“The average age at HIV diagnosis was 34.1 years old and cART in average was started 15.9 months after HIV-diagnosis. Recruited patients were receiving cART for an average of 59.2±40.2 months. Only 9.9% (n=50) of the patients did not show any NICMs [noninfectious comorbidities]. Diabetes and pre-diabetes was found in 6% (n=30) and 16.3% (n=82) patients, respectively; however, dyslipidemia and overweight/obesity was frequent, as they affected 41.4% (n=208) and 36.4% (n=183) patients, respectively.”
“Conclusion: Prevalence of NICMs among subjects under cART was greater than that reported among the Ecuadorian general population, therefore specific public health actions are required to make patients aware of and prevent NICMs among PLHIV in Ecuador.”
We know from people who had been misdiagnosed as HIV+ and who have taken the antiretroviral pills without ever being HIV+, that they show the same symptoms of non-HIV related morbidities. These substances do not heal, they only do harm.
It is important to understand, that the open questions concerning the virus hypothesis of the AID Syndrome were open from the start, that is, since almost 40 years. Until today sciences has not answered one of the open questions. But science, they are the ones with the billion dollar budgets. How does HIV-1 cause AIDS, if only 1 in 5000 CD4 cells is infected? Where is the proof for the at least 13 zoonoses around 1930 in Africa? How can it be always the same molecular mechanism, if every HIV+ measured person carries his own variant? What do the tests measure, if there are millions of variants? Why is there no animal model for HIV and AIDS? Apes don’t get AIDS. Where is the proof that antibodies against HIV are useless as science claims? There is no proof. Where is the proof for the “slow virus” hypothesis? Again, there is no proof for this speculation, but after years of putative “therapy” HIV+ measured persons are sick from the severe adverse effects of the medication.
Open questions from the start to the end. But in the discussion often the claim comes up, that some people have been healed. Healed from what? HIV+ measured persons, who do not suffer from any real illness, are not sick. They are perfectly healthy. Until they start the so called antiretroviral treatment.
We cannot praise a so called therapy, while more than 50% of the persons, who are taking these toxic substances, are multi-morbid from non-HIV related morbidities (Maggi et al., 2019). The allegedly new virus has nothing to do with any of the old and well known diseases that make up the catalog of “AIDS defining” diseases.
HIV+ measured? Why is that your reference?
After 15 - 20 years they start becoming sick?
They do not become sick at all, provided they do not take the highly toxic substances of the so called antiretroviral therapy.
When a new virus enters the body, the immune system reacts within a couple of days. That is related to the cell cycle which operates on a level of hours. This defense reaction of the body causes the symptoms of the infection like for example fever. After the immune system has started to produce antibodies the virus is neutralized. Then the body forms memory cells, and if this virus enters the body again, the body can produce many antibodies in a short time. The body is then immune.
That is what happens also when HIV enters the body. The healthy human body is full of bacteria and viruses most of which are completely harmless because the body neutralizes them with antibodies. HIV is one of them.
Now, according to the false virus hypothesis of the AID Syndrome, HIV is supposed to damage the immune system. But, many people, who are measured HIV+ do not show any deterioration of their immune system but stay healthy, even with low CD4 cell count and without treatment.
That was already known in the 1990s, as I pointed out before.
• Hoover et al., “Long-term survival without clinical AIDS after CD4+ cell counts fall below 200 x 10(6)/l.”, AIDS. 1995 Feb;9(2):145-52, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7718184
“Although antiretroviral therapy and Pneumocystis carinii prophylaxis extend AIDS-free survival, 45% of the group who were AIDS-free > or = 3 years after CD4+ cells fell below 200 x 10(6)/l had not used these treatments.”
“CONCLUSIONS:
Significant numbers of individuals remain free of illnesses and AIDS symptoms > or = 3 years after CD4+ cell counts drop below 200 x 10(6)/l. This occurs even in the absence of treatment. The associations seen here suggest that host and viral factors play important roles.”
So they had a HI virus infection, but they had no effect. Now the so called science had a problem, how to explain the “AIDS defining” diseases, when the virus does no harm? In response to that the so called science came up with the hypothesis of the “slow virus” (the technical term is lentivirus). That means, to save the virus hypothesis of the AID Syndrome, HIV was declared a “slow virus”, that is supposed to cause damages (that is, “AIDS defining” diseases) after 15 – 20 years.
So there is the (wrong) virus hypothesis of the AID Syndrome, and within the (wrong) virus hypothesis is the (wrong) “slow virus” hypothesis. There is absolutely no proof for the concept of “slow viruses”, that is, viruses that can cause damages (here, “AIDS defining” diseases) years after they have been neutralized by antibodies.
But, that means, that even after the (wrong) virus hypothesis of the AID Syndrome, a HIV+ measured person is not sick for the first 15 years. Actually that person is not sick at all and will never become sick from HIV. However, due to the immense pressure people start taking the antiretroviral pills. And then they become sick from the severe damages caused by the so called antiretroviral therapy.
As Maggi et al. (2019) clearly show, the damages caused by the antiretroviral pills have nothing to do with the “AIDS defining” diseases, which according to the (wrong) theory are supposed to show after 15 – 20 years. Correctly Maggi et al. (2019) call them “non-HIV related morbidities”. They have nothing to do with HIV, but they correspond 1:1 to the severe adverse effects of the so called therapy.
However that naming happened only recently. For many years these severe damages caused by the therapy were called “HIV-related”, because one could not establish a direct link between HIV and these damages, e.g. cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, kidney and liver damages. On the one hand by this naming trick (“HIV-related”) one circumvented the problem of the “slow virus” hypothesis by claiming that HIV could cause something, also within the first 15 years. This is much more convenient for the theory. And on the other hand it deflects attention from highly toxic substances like AZT and Didanosine.
PCR played an important role here. As Kary Mullis, Nobel laureate and the inventor of the PCR test, pointed out, with PCR one can find anything in everything, because it is so ultra-sensitive. But that says nothing about the causality. After one had a positive HIV test in a certain tissue, science attributed any damage in that tissue to HIV, without any proof of the causality and ignoring that in the same tissue were antibodies that neutralized the HI virus.
The virus hypothesis of the AID Syndrome is wrong. The severely sick homosexuals in the 1980s were sick from severe drug addiction, years of antibiotics abuse, alcohol abuse and multiple infections with sexually transmitted diseases. That was the real AID Syndrome in the 1980s, which has nothing to do with a putatively new virus from a zoonosis. Very vague case definitions for the AID Syndrome, like prolonged fever, diarrhea, weight loss or other (real) disease like tuberculosis, inflated the case numbers. And the bogus HIV tests defined healthy people as sick and the toxic substances used in the so called therapy caused real damages. The virus hypothesis of the AID Syndrome was wrong from the start, but every time this hypothesis runs into problems, science invents a new hypothesis to explain the hole in the virus hypothesis.
At that time, in the 1980s, the so called science had tried in vain for two decades to relate retroviruses (to which HIV belongs) to cancer. The reason for that was that retroviruses do not kill cells. Cancer cells do not die, but they become immortal and that is the problem, because cancer tissue grows indefinitely and thus creates tumors. The virus theory of cancer, and thus the idea of cancer as a transmittable disease, had just failed. Beginning of the 1980s there were a lot of specialists for retroviruses without a job. And they simply jumped the band wagon, when the claim came up a retrovirus might be involved in the AID Syndrome.
Peter Duesberg described already in 1987 the failure of the retrovirus hypothesis for cancer and the AID Syndrome.
• Duesberg, „Retroviruses as carcinogens and pathogens: expectations and reality.”, Cancer Res. 1987 Mar 1;47(5):1199-220, https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/47/5/1199/492213/Retroviruses-as-Carcinogens-and-Pathogens
Peter Duesberg was and is one of the main experts on retroviruses. His article was ignored and after he insisted and demanded a discussion the so called science “froze him out”, as he has put in an interview in the documentary on the HIV=AIDS dogma “House of Numbers”.
• House of Numbers, Anatomy of an Epidemic, 2009 (http://www.houseofnumbers.com)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq8gT0xUcKY