Virus MythFonte: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/index.htm

Cada vez mais aumenta o nmero de cientistas que afirmam que a causa da AIDS ainda desconhecida, pois o suposto vrus HIV, segundo suas argumentaes, nunca foi isolado.

O comeo da dissidncia:Em 1984, a Secretaria de Servios Humanos e de Sade dos Estados Unidos anunciou ao mundo a descoberta do agente causador da AIDS, o qual seria um vrus HIV. Tal afirmao foi recebida como fato no meio cientfico, mesmo necessitando de maiores discusses no meio acadmico. Aps 28 anos desta descoberta, nenhuma cura foi descoberta e nenhuma vacina obteve xito, fazendo com que os programas de sade governamentais concentrassem seu foco em polticas de profilaxia e retardamento doena.Desde 1987, dados referentes natureza do vrus foram acumulados, e seus resultados so contraditrios. Assim, formou-se o group for the scientific reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS, ou seja, um grupo de cientistas que objetivam realizar uma investigao imparcial acerca de uma pergunta imprescindvel: o vrus HIV realmente o causador da AIDS?Este grupo de cientista contestam alguns axiomas relativos doena. Um deles, por exemplo, a de que a hiptese do HIV implausvel porque ele contradiz diversos princpios da virologia e da imunologia retrovrus geralmente no matam suas clulas hospedeiras, pois necessitam delas para sua reproduo. Ademais, os vrus so responsveis por doenas que se manifestam logo aps a infeco, antes que o sistema imunolgico possa responder invaso, o que no ocorre no caso da AIDS, j que a doena somente se manifesta aps um longo perodo do momento em que sobreveio a infeco.Alm disso, a AIDS continua confinada ao mesmo grupo de risco do tempo em que foi descoberta, e a quantidade de casos prognosticados muito maior do que os casos de fato. Vale ressaltar ainda que o mesmo nmero de doenas encontrado em indivduos consumidores de drogas injetveis HIV positivo e HIV negativo, e em geral o ndice de mortalidade dos dois grupos o mesmo.Controvrsias tambm so levantadas em relao aos testes de anticorpos do HIV, pois tais procedimentos no so padronizados e no so reproduzveis. As protenas consideradas anticorpos do HIV podem ser nada mais do que protenas celulares normais. Isso significa que um teste d o resultado positivo pode apenas denotar uma reao entre antgenos e anticorpos no relacionados ao HIV.Argumentos de peso:Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry:"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."(Sunday Times (London) 28 nov. 1993).

Dr. Heinz Ludwig Snger,Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, Mnchen. Robert Koch Award 1978:"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology."(Letter to Sddeutsche Zeitung 2000)

Dr. Gordon Stewart, Emeritus Professor of Public Health, University of Glasgow:"AIDS is a behavioural disease. It is multifactorial, brought on by several simultaneous strains on the immune system - drugs, pharmaceutical and recreational, sexually transmitted diseases, multiple viral infections."(Spin June 1992)

Dr. Harvey Bialy, Molecular Biologist, former editor ofBio/TechnologyandNature Biotechnology:"HIV is an ordinary retrovirus. There is nothing about this virus that is unique. Everything that is discovered about HIV has an analogue in other retroviruses that don't cause AIDS. HIV only contains a very small piece of genetic information. There's no way it can do all these elaborate things they say it does."(Spin June 1992)Artigos: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cffiction.htm Science Fiction by Celia Farber (Gear Magazine, march 2000): It's telling, and perfectly symbolic that when AIDS researcher David Ho's face appeared on the cover of Time as Man of the Year, 1996, you couldn't see his eyes. Instead, a colorful swirl meant to represent HIV filled his glasses. George Orwell used precisely this image -- a man whose eyes are gone, whose glasses have been filled with the refracting light of his ideology -- to convey the triumph of politics over truth in his famous essay Politics and the English Language.

"People can have a high viral load and be healthy and have a low viral load and be sick and everything in between," says Rasnick. "These guys will admit t his between themselves, they just don't admit it publicly."

AIDS; WORDS FROM THE FRONTInterview with Peter DuesbergBy Bob Guccione, Jr.SpinSept. 1993Professor Peter Duesberg believes HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Is he the heretic the medical establishment claims, or a 20th - century Galileo? Bob Guccione, Jr. tries to find out.In March 1987, Dr. Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and one of the world's leading experts on retroviruses, a field he helped pioneer, wrote in Cancer Research that he didn't believe HIV, a retrovirus, caused AIDS. He argued that HIV was too inactive, infected too few cells, and was too difficult to even find in AIDS patients to be responsible. And since the virus is notoriously difficult to isolate, antibody detection became the indicator of infection-something Duesberg protested is highly inconsistent. Antibodies dominant over a virtually unfindable virus has always meant the immune system has triumphed over the invader, not capitulated to it. Finally, there were AIDS cases without any HIV, virus or antibody, further weakening the hypothesis. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) swept those under the carpet by changing the definition of what an AIDS patient is to necessarily include HIV infections. A number of the world's top scientists began agreeing with him, including Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR, the most elaborate HIV detection machine: He believes HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

SPIN: Why do you think HIV doesn't cause AIDS?Dr. Peter Duesberg: Every virus I've ever seen gets its job done by killing a cell at a time, and when it has killed enough, you get sick. HIV is said to be responsible for the loss of T-cells, which are the immune system. Now, in every AIDS patient studied so far, there is never more than, on average, one in 1,000 cells infected by HIV. How many cells in 1,000 would another virus infect-for instance a flu virus? If it would cause flu, then 30 percent of your lung cells are ruined by the virus, the lining is gone, or is infected. If you have hepatitis almost every single cell in your liver is infected. A lot of very bright scientists are working in AIDS and they don't all have dubious agendas and they must have asked themselves the same questions. If HIV doesn't kill a lot of cells, why is it widely believed to be the cause of AIDS? But back to this argument about HIV. Viruses can only work one way. They can only be toxic if they affect a cell. They cannot work at a distance. There's no exception. Viruses are what you call an intracellular parasite. They don't have an autonomous life. They are just a little piece of information that is stuck into a cell and acts like a parasite. But outside of the cell it's like a disc outside a computer. So is there any precedent of a virus creating an autoimmune disease? There are a few hypotheses, but no. When a doctor doesn't know how to explain a disease, he has two classical crutches: it's a slow virus or it's an autoimmune disease. I've heard that for the last 20 years. When they didn't know what diabetes was, it was a slow virus or an autoimmune disease. Alzheimer's: slow virus or an autoimmune disease. And with AIDS, slow virus, causing an autoimmune disease. You have both!