“Immune responses are activated, but neutralizing HIV antibodies do not occur before 4 months after primary infection and insufficient to eradicate infection.”
The discoveries of human papilloma viruses that cause cervical cancer and of human immunodeficiency virus. Nobel Prize Committee. 2008 Oct 6
“The [new] Genscreen Plus HIV Antigen–Antibody is an EIA [Enzyme Immuno-Assay or ELISA] for the detection of HIV infection based on the detection (sandwich technique) of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2, as well as the HIV-1 p24 antigen in human serum or plasma. These assays become valuable in diagnosing early HIV infection, reducing the window period by 4–5 days compared with third-generation assays…Using this assay in 18 infants with three consecutive negative HIV-DNA PCR we found that…10 were positive (age range 19–20 months). Of the 10 infants positive by the fourth generation assay, nine were negative by our previous third-generation HIV assay (performed simultaneously). Repeat fourth-generation EIA testing was negative for nine infants within a few months, confirming waning levels of maternal antibody and not emerging infection. In one infant it was not possible to obtain a repeat sample but it shows no clinical evidence of HIV infection [although a positive HIV test with no symptoms is usually accepted as a genuine infection].”
Nastouli E et al. False-positive HIV antibody results with ultrasensitive serological assays in uninfected infants born to mothers with HIV. AIDS. 2007 May 31;21(9):1222-1223.
“HIV EIAs have become increasingly more sensitive and specific since HIV testing began in the early 1980s. This has shortened the ‘window period’, or the time from exposure to seroconversion, from up to 12 weeks or more in the early days of diagnostic testing to the current ‘window period’ of less than three weeks in most cases. The small disadvantage of such a highly sensitive test is that the test produces false positives, the number and type of which vary with the assay used and the HIV prevalence in the tested population.”
Fearon M. The laboratory diagnosis of HIV infections. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2005 Jan;16(1):26-30.
“there is currently no evidence from these studies to suggest that therapy during PHI [Primary HIV Infection – the flu-like illness and/or rash that is believed to occur shortly after HIV infection] results in a reduction in clinical progression compared with use of effective therapy in later disease, nor are there comparative data to suggest that short-term use of HAART during PHI can alter future disease progression.”
Smith DE et al. Is antiretroviral treatment of primary HIV infection clinically justified on the basis of current evidence?. AIDS. 2004 Mar 26;18(5):709-18.
“Although unproven, the presumed mechanism for HIV PEP comes from animal and human work suggesting that shortly after an exposure to HIV, a window period exists during which the viral load is small enough to be controlled by the body's immune system.”
Merchant RC, Keshavarz R. Human Immunodeficiency Virus Postexposure Prophylaxis for adolescents and children. Pediatrics. 2001 Aug;108(2):e38.
“In June 1997, whole blood was collected from a repeat blood donor at the Singapore Blood Transfusion Service, Singapore, after the donor denied having any HIV-related risk factors. At that time, serum from the donor tested negative for both HIV antibodies and p24 antigen. When returning in October 1997, the donor was found to be HIV antibody positive. Two recipients of platelets and red blood cells derived from the June 1997 donation also tested positive for HIV…The 2 commercial quantitative RNA assays failed to detect HIV RNA during the window period [the time after infection in which antibodies are already believed not to be present]
Ling AE et al. Failure of routine HIV-1 tests in a case involving transmission with preseroconversion blood components during the infectious window period. JAMA. 2000 Jul 12;284(2):210-4.
“In two-thirds (64) of the 94 cases [of ‘documented’ HIV infection], the time of the first positive test for antibodies to HIV was reported. Seroconversion within 6 months of exposure was documented in 57 case patients (89%); of these, 42 had been tested and found to be seropositive by 3 months following exposure. Of the 15 first found to seropositive at 6 months post-exposure, only two (cases 9 and 31) had been tested at 104 days and 42 days post-exposure, respectively. In eight cases, antibodies to HIV were first detected at more than 6 months post-exposure; one (case 18) had been tested at 3 but not 6 months following exposure, and four (cases 47, 52, 61, and 66) had a documented negative test HIV antibodies at 6 months post-exposure. One (case 66) was retested on presentation with an AIDS-defining illness months after exposure…An acute retroviral illness occurred in 42 case patients…In 33 (79%) of these, the onset of symptoms occurred within 6 weeks of exposure.”
Ippolito G et al. Occupational human immunodeficiency virus infection in health care workers: worldwide cases through September 1997. Clin Infect Dis. 1999 Feb;28(2):365-83.
“The interval between exposure and infection is similar to that seen for hepatitis B virus. In general, antigen is detectable within 4-6 wk, followed shortly thereafter by the appearance of antibody to various antigens of the virus (30). There are occasional instances where HIV virus has been reported to be detectable in a latent form by virus culture or through application of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification technique months to years before antibody (31).”
Blattner WA. HIV epidemiology: past, present, and future. FASEB. 1991 Jul;5(10):2340-8.
[Figure 1 shows a drop in CD4 counts starting 1 year before seroconversion (first positive HIV test) implying that the window period is between 6 months and 1 year long ... or that the drop in CD4 counts preceded HIV infection and is therefore unrelated]
Lang W et al. Patterns of T lymphocyte changes with human immunodeficiency virus infection: from seroconversion to the development of AIDS. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1989;2(1):63-9.
“225 cultures of peripheral-blood lymphocytes from 133 seronegative men were performed, and HIV-1 was isolated [actually, detected indirectly using non-specific markers] in cultures from 31 men (23%). Of these men, four have seroconverted after being seronegative for 11 to 17 months after the initial isolation of the virus. The virus was not always isolated at every visit after the first successful isolation”
Imagawa DT et al. Human immunodeficiency virus type I infection in homosexual men who remain seronegative for prolonged periods. N Engl J Med. 1989 Jun 1;320(22):1458-62.
“The recently recognized cases of virus transmission by blood transfusion are due to donors being missed by current antibody screening tests during the window of seroconversion. There is a period of about 4 to 8 weeks in which newly HIV-infected persons are capable of transmitting HIV, but have not yet developed antibodies.”
Blattner W, Gallo RC, Temin HM. HIV Causes AIDS (with response by Peter Duesberg). Science. 1988 Jul 29;241:515,517.
“recent research has indicated that infection may precede seroconversion by as much as several years in some individuals”
Detels R et al. Patterns of CD4+ cell changes after HIV-1 infection indicate the existence of a codeterminant of AIDS. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1988;1(4):390-5.
“A donor who became HIV+ was investigated, and one person who had received his blood before his seroconversion (among 26 other units) was found to be positive by ELISA and WB 4 months after transfusion”
van der Poel CL et al. Transmission of HIV by transfusion of ELISA-negative blood. Vox Sang. 1988;54(4):247.
“Free HIV antigen and/or low-titre antibodies to recombinant structural or non-structural proteins were seen 6-14 months before seroconversion in all 9 subjects who seroconverted [so, isn’t the window period 6-14 months then?]
Ranki A et al. Long latency precedes overt seroconversion in sexually transmitted human-immunodeficiency-virus infection. Lancet. 1987 Sep 12;2:589-93.



There you have it. No “handful of wild-eyed conspiracy theorists.” No “right-wing racists,” as the Aids industry’s spinmeisters would have you believe. Just 19 very serious, concerned, highly educated people from every corner of the globe who sense that an enormous tragedy is unfolding due to the medical establishment’s unwillingness to face the evidence that the Hiv-Aids theory is a mistake.

The people on this page were intellectually curious enough to have sought out and studied the arguments that discredit the Hiv-Aids theory. Since the mass media and professional journals censor these arguments, the vast majority of doctors and scientists, although decent people who want to do the right thing, have never been exposed to them, and so accept the biased conclusions of politicized bureaucracies like the CDC and WHO, whose coziness with the drug industry is legendary and whose recommendations always seems to dovetail perfectly with drug industry marketing plans.

Were it not for the massive media blackout of information that contradicts the Hiv theory, many more people would be asking tough questions.

The next time you hear the media say, “only a handful of scientists doubt Hiv’s role in Aids,” refer them to this page. Explain to them that it is wrong to misrepresent the fact that there is enormous dissent to the Hiv-Aids paradigm.

The next time you hear the media drone, “Hiv, the virus that causes Aids,” remind them that journalists are supposed to distinguish between what is a theory and what is a fact. That Hiv-Aids is only a theory and has never been proven, is admitted by top scientists even in the Aids establishment.

The next time the media announce that tens of millions of people are dying from Hiv in Africa, ask them how they know that. Remind them that journalists are supposed to question dubious assertions from powerful, drug-industry funded agencies like the WHO, not parrot them as if they were indisputable. Ask them why they report these numbers as if they were actual Aids cases, when in fact they are projections made by WHO’s computer programs, based on very questionable statistical methodologies and contradicted by many facts including the continual large population increases experienced in the countries supposedly worst affected.

Request that the media stop twisting the truth in support of a politicized, entrenched Aids establishment that profits financially by terrorizing people, pokes its nose shamelessly into people’s private sex lives, compels people to submit to inaccurate tests and literally forces mothers and babies to swallow toxic, unproven chemotherapy drugs with horrific, often-fatal side effects.

Explain to them that this is irresponsible, and that such actions cause needless anxiety, shatter people’s lives, tear families apart, destroy hope and trigger countless suicides. And that while we realize that sensational headlines about “killer viruses” sell newspapers, the social cost of these profits is unacceptable.

Make the media understand that keeping people in the dark about the large number of credentialed dissenters to the Hiv-Aids dogmas, and the financial conflicts of interest that are rampant among Hiv-Aids scientists and NGOs, is a violation of everyone’s human right to informed consent and freedom of information.



Note: Affiliation with an organization does not imply that the organization supports the individual HIV/AIDS skeptic’s position.


Does Hiv cause Aids? Lots of scientists say ‘no.’ Read more.

Rethinking AIDS

Alive And Well

HEAL Toronto

Dr. Peter Duesberg

The Perth Group

Treatment Information Group

Immunity Resource Foundation

Alberta Reappraising Aids Society



Last updated January 30, 2013.