Too big to fail? (From November 2022)

Is the HIV AIDS story just too entrenched in the public imagination at this point?

This post was first published in November 2022, and was barely seen, so I’m republishing it now because it is highly relevant today.

*******

We are now in our fifth decade of AIDS. By all accounts, the “war on AIDS” has been a dismal failure. Prevalence of HIV antibody positivity remains effectively identical, at one million Americans, as it was in the mid 1980s. AIDS and other immune dysfunction and dysregulation disease states remain a huge public health problem. No vaccine and no cure is available; the best the AIDS establishment can offer is the tremendously dangerous concept of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) — which basically amounts to using DNA chain terminating drugs as HIV vaccines, and to prescribing healthy HIV negative people a regime of toxic daily chemotherapy for life.

One big reason that the HIV theory of AIDS causation remains the default despite slim (at best) evidence for its accuracy is that it has become so entrenched at this point that it is almost too big to fail.

Almost.

Forty years in, we have no real understanding of how HIV allegedly causes the depletion of T cells seen in AIDS. Whatever HIV is, it does not kill T cells in culture and can only be found in a tiny minority of T cells in vivo. Furthermore, a nontrivial portion of studies of “HIV” are performed in silico—via computer models, with no actual virus of any sort involved, merely an abstraction.

Furthermore, in a peculiar pivot, focus seems to be shifting from the T cell depletion model of AIDS to a “massive HIV-mediated inflammation” model of AIDS. Ignoring for the moment the possibility that the inflammation maybe have more to do with antiretrovirals than any infection, and ignoring for the moment the fact that inflammation is typically a sign of immune over-activation and not massive immune depletion that has been believed to be the hallmark of AIDS, the obvious question that needs to be asked is the following:

If, in the early 1980s, doctors and scientists had been looking for a pathogen capable of producing massive inflammation rather than one that is attracted to a certain subset of T cells, would HIV have even made the short list?

The fallout that has occurred as a consequence of the research focus settling into the very narrow avenue of “HIV is the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS” cannot be overstated. Millions of lives have been ended or severely disrupted, by a bankrupt diagnosis, by psychological terror, by toxic drugs, by the stigma and isolation associated with a diagnosis of “HIV positive,” even in the absence of any disease pathology whatsoever.

In the spirit of a post by Dr. Briggs, I present to you a partial list of the grievances committed by the AIDS orthodoxy, and suggestions as to how to remedy them (when such solutions exist). These will have to be addressed when the reckoning comes — and it will come.

1. The gay and African American communities must be issued a formal apology by the public health community for having been scapegoated as the sacrificial victims in the AIDS madness. I cannot overstate how egregious the treatment of these communities has been; leaving a stain of “dirty” that is unfair and almost impossible to remove. But it must be removed.

2. Everyone who has been harmed by AZT, HAART, and PrEP must be compensated legally for the harm that has been done to their health and their lives due to these toxic drugs. Class action lawsuits such as the Truvada lawsuit must be undertaken en masse.

3. Pregnant women and mothers whose children have been forced to be tested for HIV and forced to administer HIV drugs to their children must be compensated.

4. Clinical decisions based on the useless HIV antibody test and the even more useless “viral load” test must stop immediately. These tests — the viral load especially — could easily be legally considered a “defective product,” meaning that hundreds of millions of lives that have been affected and in some cases, destroyed, by these tests that should never have been brought to market.

5. Hundreds of scientists have spoken up expressing serious concerns about the HIV hypothesis, and with the exception of truly independent researchers, most of their careers have been destroyed or severely undermined. This began to happen far before the HIV hypothesis became so entrenched — as early as 1987, Peter Duesberg was vilified for his seminal paper in Cancer Research. Recall also that the HIV hypothesis of AIDS was first announced at a press conference in 1984, before any supporting papers had been published in the literature. This alone constitutes a grave abuse of the scientific process, and sets an extremely dangerous precedent for any such similar situation in the future. I admit I don’t know what the solution is for those whistleblowers whose careers have been sabotaged, but I do know that this level of disdain for debate or alternative views will eventually spell suicide for the scientific method. There MUST be a “safe space” for scientific dissent. If those in the mainstream are confident enough in their hypothesis, they should have no problem whatsoever with this suggestion as if they are right, it can only help them. The fact that dissent is squashed speaks volumes.

This last point is perhaps the most important. The future of science depends on healthy debate and discussion, not a narrow consensus that is set up to punish anyone who expresses any doubt at all. The Covid crisis has brought the mistreatment of dissenting scientists (many of whom turned out to be absolutely correct) into the light, but this mistreatment is not limited to Covid.

It isn’t hard to see how a rush to judgment leads to the creation of a “scientific consensus” that becomes more entrenched and difficult to dismantle as the years pass. Error gets piled on top of error until the entire edifice becomes so opaque and confusing that the truth is almost impossible to discern. This doesn’t happen in a vacuum— there are powerful entities and people propping up the paradigm, who have a tremendous amount to lose when the truth comes to light. Unfortunately with each year that passes, and the mainstream media’s refusal to consider any explanation other than the “official story”, the house of mirrors becomes even more confusing and difficult to navigate.

There is a way out. HIV may be nearly too big to fail, but fail it must.