About “The AIDS Pandemic “

Dr. Marc Deru, Belgium.

Having read chapters 1, 3 and 4 of “The AIDS Pandemic”, I stopped as further reading of this book appeared to be pointless. James Chin seems to be an honest and competent epidemiologist (at least as far as infectious diseases are concerned) but the idea does not seem to have ever crossed his mind that AIDS could be non-infectious. This therefore constitutes a major bias which distorts his whole epidemical study.

However he correctly raises the crucial question from the start (p.3):

As of late 2006 two extreme views about this pandemic persist:

  • The position of Duesberg and other AIDS “dissidents”: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is not the cause of AIDS!…
  • The prevailing UNAIDS paradigm: HIV is the cause of AIDS…”

Apart from the exclamation mark, that looks like a promising starting point, does it not? But surprisingly enough, his analysis does not go further than setting the dilemma. On the same page, without lingering on the problem any longer, he decides there is none; “There is no question that HIV is the cause of AIDS.”

James Chin does not question any of the mainstream assertions. He just keeps relying on what “the experts say” and what “everybody knows”, the apparent standards for mainstream AIDS science… He has no doubt about AIDS being a transmissible infection caused by “HIV” (the name is itself the proof…), “HIV” test being highly specific, “HIV” disease (just another name for AIDS…) being a terrible pandemic (see UNAIDS statistics…), and so on.

I guess the reason why James Chin does not question Robert Gallo’s and other AIDS experts’ integrity and competence is that he is himself an honest scientist. Consequently, and unfortunately, he trusts the authorities who claim that “HIV” has been isolated. Just like the vast majority of scientists and doctors all over the world, he trusts “all evidence collected over the past couple of decades by thousands of medical scientists” (p.3) and considers all AIDS studies as obviously reliable and unquestionable. This is the radical flaw of the book.

Who is going to send him a copy of Rebecca Culshaw’s book “Science Sold Out” as a present? He seems badly in need of that kind of reading.

More disturbing from a dissident’s point of view is the fact that James Chin actually confuses the whole AIDS dissident position with Peter Duesberg’s position and limits it to that only one.

Since Peter Duesberg does not question the existence of “HIV” and never uses quotation marks to mention its name, no wonder that James Chin does not question it either. He seems to be unaware of our basic and crucial argument: “HIV” was never isolated and consequently it does not really make sense to talk about “viral” protein, “viral” RNA and genome, “HIV” test, etc… The Perth Group expressed it most clearly in “The Last Debate”:

“HIV” is the main obstacle in deconstructing the HIV theory of AIDS.

Demonstrating that HIV has not been isolated is not an “existentialist” debate. In fact we consider this to be the strongest argument we can muster.

If we accept there is no proof for the existence of HIV then undoubtedly “the construction AIDS, also called HIV disease, collapses immediately as well as all the so called “HIV tests” that are automatically unmasked for being useless”. If, on the other hand, we accept the existence of HIV, the debate could be endless, no matter how courageously one fights and what sacrifices one makes.”

I also read the NIH fact sheet again, “The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS”. James Chin refers to it as the “the detailed and documented responses to all the questions raised by persons who are sceptical about HIV being the causative agent of AIDS” (p.51, note).

In “answering the sceptics” the authors do not directly hint at the non-isolation objection which they answer in no way, detection of surrogate markers by means of “modern culture techniques” being for them the same thing as virus isolation…

The reason for the lack of a specific answer (although the list of responses is rather exhaustive: 13 “myths” taken into account) is crystal-clear: it is the only “unanswerable” argument.

Anyway I cannot help admitting that most of their arguments and answers have some scientific consistency and conviction power AS LONG AS the existence of “HIV” and reliability of the “HIV” test are not challenged. Since they are not, most of our opponents are honestly convinced we are utterly wrong.

Facing such confusion, the only firm position is for us to go back and stick to basics. First of all, at a minimum, let us stop, all of us, with semantic inconsistencies such as “HIV is not the cause of AIDS” (i.e.: “immunodeficiency virus is not the cause of “immunodeficiency” sounds a bit strange, does it not?). The name HIV grates on a dissident ear or pen. When we cannot help using it, it is so easy to say or write: so-called HIV or “HIV”.

Should it be a mere semantic precision? Yes but a very important one. An error in wording, may it be voluntary or not, is most deceptive and fraught with consequences, because giving a name for something makes the thing a bit real even if it was not at the start. The most cleverly chosen name of “HIV” and its use by millions, more probably billions of people made a scientifically unfounded hypothesis a worldwide accepted fact. “HIV” has no factual reality but it is an unquestioning reality in people’s mind. And this mental reality becomes excessively strong if the dissidents themselves quite inconsistently use its fraudulent name.

Now if we quit using it we correct the semantic cheating and rightly denounce the basic manipulation trick.

Doing this makes our position unambiguous and clear. We are all of us denying immunodeficiency syndrome as a viral infection. Even those among us who are standing up for an associated virus don’t accept it as causative, they cannot accept the word “HIV” which implies causation.

Secondly let us focus on the irrefutable fact: there never was a single paper giving evidence of virus isolation. Quite the opposite (Bess et al, Gluschankof et al). We all can agree on that. Even if an associated retroviral entity should exist, it has never been isolated/purified.

From that only fact the whole “HIV/AIDS” theory collapses: no proof for the existence of a new exogenous transmissible virus and for AIDS being an infection, no gold standard, no “viral” load, no “HIV” specific markers, no specific “HIV” antibody test, no reliable UNAIDS statistics, and in the end no AIDS pandemic either.

No AIDS pandemic?

As a clinical entity AIDS is not and never was a pandemic. Since neither reliable “HIV/AIDS” test nor reliable statistics are available, AIDS can only be considered as a clinical entity, as it was at the start in the early ‘80s. As such AIDS is and always was restricted to the so-called risk group. Everybody agrees on the fact but not on the meaning of the word “risk”. Here again a clear definition is needed.

For mainstream scientists, including James Chin, the risk factors are exclusively sexual and blood-related. They do not go beyond the “HIV” infection theory and so they do not take into account the numerous other non-infectious risk factors for immune deficiency. Now clinical epidemiology clearly shows that the risk factors for AIDS are related to immune suppressive conditions and way of life and are mainly non-infectious and non sexual. They are toxic, chemical, nutritional, biological, psychological, etc… And if clinical surveys have shown that AIDS is locally epidemic or endemic according to the living status of a considered community or population, there is no such thing as an “AIDS pandemic”.

So, at that point, let us conclude these comments on James Chin’s book. The actual pandemic is somewhere else: a real pandemic of scientists’ blindness and confusion as well as a pandemic of deceptive testing campaigns.

 

References:

  • You are here:  
  • Home
  • Review of The AIDS Pandemic