The Nature of HIV and AIDS
John C. Rankin
(April 2, 2014; new edit uploaded April 5, 2020)
Presupposition:
In the scientific method, all hypotheses need to be rigorously tested, and even when “truth” seems established on a given question, it is always guarded by the principle and possibility of falsification.
Salient questions:
- Have the original 1884 Koch’s Postulates ever been falsified?
- Has the hypothesis of HIV as the cause of the AIDS diseases ever been subjected modestly or rigorously to the principle of falsification?
- If the original Koch’s Postulates stand, can the HIV and AIDS hypothesis withstand the principle of falsification?
- If not, how do we proceed?
My present scientific understanding:
[1] The HIV retrovirus hypothesis has never met (Robert) Koch’s Postulates as an infectious disease, as defined in his 1884 paper on tuberculosis, that which has been the standard ever since. At least until it was jettisoned for no scientific reason or explanation with the advent of the artifact of definition of the AIDS acronym (Acquired Immunosuppressive Disease Syndrome). In the 1980s, my father, as chief of hematology at the Hartford Hospital, lost all his hemophiliacs due to AIDS infected blood, as of course they were already severely immunosuppressive. He noted then that the HIV hypothesis fails to meet Koch’s Postulates. [2] Peter Duesberg is the first scientist to map the genetic structures of retroviruses (pre-AIDS), but because of his critique of the HIV hypothesis, lost his funding with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and was ostracized from the insular scientific and academic world of the NIH and the Centers of Disease Control (CDC). They eschewed all debate with him, and he only stayed employed because he already had tenure at the University of California (UC) Berkeley. He chronicles all in his 1996 book: Inventing the AIDS Virus. And there are very many top scientists who agreed with him outside the NIH/CDC loop. [3] Koch’s Postulates from 1884 are these:- First, the germ must be found growing abundantly in every patient and every diseased tissue.
- Second, the germ must be isolated and grown in the laboratory.
- Third, the purified germ must cause the disease again in another host (Duesberg, p. 35).
- the microorganism or other pathogen must be present in all cases of the disease;
- the pathogen can be isolated from the diseased host and grown in pure culture;
- the pathogen from the pure culture must cause the disease when inoculated into a healthy, susceptible laboratory animal;
- the pathogen must be reisolated from the new host and shown to be the same as the originally inoculated pathogen.”
- Epidemiological association: the suspected cause must be strongly associated with the disease.
- Isolation: the suspected pathogen can be isolated – and propagated – outside the host.
- Transmission pathogenesis: transfer of the suspected pathogen to an uninfected host, man or animal, produces disease in that host.
[7] On its website, the NIH never cites the original Koch’s Postulates, it gives no substantiation for such a change, but merely assumes its new definition of terms without notifying it readers accordingly.
[8] Charles Darwin and his unannounced and dishonest changing of the terms of debate from observable morphology (structure) to assumed homology (common descent) [The Descent of Man, p. 31, 1871].
[9] The debate in 1927ff between Werner Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and the rebuttal by Kurt Gödel in his Incomplete Theorems; the same subjective v. objective attempt to weave prejudice into science (cf. T.H. Kuhn and R. Bernstein). Truth won out in this debate, as Gödel, Albert Einstein’s close friend and colleague, was perhaps the preeminent mathematician in the twentieth century.
[10] The NIH pours out much “information” on HIV contra Occam’s Razor (“the simplest explanation is usually the truest one”). Namely, the simple becomes complex, and original cause and subsequent effects, is not argued.
[11] The NIH notes “epidemiological association,” which as a discipline is vulnerable to subjective gloss. From “every” or “all” per Koch, to “strongly associated” per the NIH. Epidemiology is a very broad field, where eisegesis over exegesis can masquerade easily.
[12] HIV is a retrovirus, a sub-species of the virus genus, and far weaker than a virus. Not once, in all these years of scientific inquiry in lab tests etc., has the HIV retrovirus ever, even once, been shown to attack another living cell or any form of living organism.
[13] HIV is a benign passenger retrovirus, like countless others, and was selected because of statistical association according to preset, indeed political, criteria.
[14] The lifespan of the HIV retrovirus is so short that it can never be properly “isolated,” but can only be detected by its very few antibodies.
[15] How can such a proven benign retrovirus thus destroy the labyrinth of the human immune system?
[16] Thus, HIV does not cause any of the defined AIDS diseases.
[17] The acronym of AIDS is an artifact of definition for 26-30 historically known and very different immunosuppressive diseases, united only by the HIV hypothesis. A whole range of exotic diseases and cancers come to pass due to a severely compromised immune system (e.g., pneumocystis carinni pneumonia [PCP], mycobacterium avium complex [MAC], and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy [PML], aka the JC brain virus), and accounting for the majority of AIDS diseases in the U.S.
[18] In other words, it is not a disease, but a collection of many different diseases under one acronym. What is the scientific protocol and history of such a unique creature? And as such, an acronym of different diseases needs to be proven with every disease, then linked somehow. This has not been done.
[19] So, for example, diagnostically in the designation of AIDS: tuberculosis + HIV = AIDS; whereas tuberculosis – HIV = tuberculosis. This is true for all other putative AIDS diseases.
[20] Very many people with so-called AIDS do not have HIV, and very many people with diagnosed HIV do not have an AIDS disease, even as the theoretical latency period now extends to half a century. This does not suffice for Koch Postulates and it does not equal cause and effect.
[21] How do we account for an AIDS cure for many who immediately cut off all drugs, recreational and antiviral HIV, and then proactively build their immune systems? The founder of ACT-UP (the militant pro-homosexual group in the 1980s), Larry Kramer, when diagnosed with HIV, forswore all drugs and embraced a macrobiotic diet, regained his health and is now age 84. Duesberg argues that tennis great Arthur Ashe, with de facto non-symptomatic HIV, went on the antiretroviral drug AZT, and died from it.
[22] Antiretrovirals, and their often-refined cocktails, simply seek to simultaneously build up the immune system chemically in the face of attacking the immune system to kill the HIV. These enormously immunosuppressive pharmaceuticals need to be so toxic because HIV is so hard to detect and eradicate. A bunker-busting bomb to kill a mosquito. They hope to tip the balance. But such a mix can never hope to bring the CD4+ levels, which measure immunological health, above 200 (a healthy person is 600-1500), and are prescribed for life. And few even reach the 200 level.
[23] The real question for the health of AIDS patients is not the levels of the phantom and non-Koch’s HIV, but the CD4+ levels of immune strength. For AIDS patients do not die of AIDS, they die of compromised immune systems.
[24] All American AIDS diagnoses in the early 1980s on forward were initially and properly tied into drug abuse (in its known specificities and extent) in the fast track homosexual world, which systematically over 8-10 years destroys the human immune system.
[25] But the politics of the age would have none of it – nothing that would indict such a painful lifestyle. We were told that HIV would eventually strike all of us, but it remains within the drug-infected world to this day in the U.S.
[26] AIDS internationally equal different diseases, all of which involve an immunosuppressive process.
[27] All drugs by definition are poisons, so the deeply poisonous and deeply immunosuppressive antiretroviral drugs only further attack the immune system, and cause illness and death against the sound wisdom of getting off all drugs, and proactively building back up the immune system.
[28] The antiretroviral attack of a benign retrovirus kills the CD4+ levels of the immune system, leaving opportunistic infections like PCP and MAC and JC lurking and ready to strike, along with various cancers, all in the name of killing a phantom agent.
###
