Film Review: The Other Side of AIDS

Is there any reason to question what we have been told about AIDS? After all it has been twenty four years since the first AIDS cases were identified in 1981. But what if much of what we have been told is based on false hypothesis', misrepresentation of data, or claims of facts that are not in evidence?

For several weeks I followed dozens of posts at Dean's World blog on AIDS starting with Scientific Dissenters which peaked my interest and interactive questions and answer comments with Molecular Biologist Dr. Harvey Bialy and other Dean's World readers, many working in the field of medicine, or with medical knowledge.

In this, and later in part II review of "The Other Side of AIDS" I intend to show that there is strong evidence that you should question what you may know about AIDS. Further that you may question the wisdom of taking AIDS and HIV positive treatment drugs.

Im April, 1984 Margaret Heckler, Secretary US Dept of Health and Human Services said:

"First, the probable cause of AIDS has been found, a variant of a known human cancer virus. Second, not only has the agent been identified, but a new process has been developed to mass produce this virus. Thirdly, with discovery of both the virus and this new process, we now have a blood test for AIDS. With the blood test we can identify AIDS victims with essentially 100 percent certainty."

Though vaguely, I do remember the tempestuous acclaim hitting the news after that rining proclamation of success back then. Yet $120 billion dollars and twenty one years later we have yet to find any so-called HIV virus in human blood, in spite of Hecklers claim then. As far as her claim that we now have a blood test for AIDS with essentially 100 percent certainty, all aids test kits contain a disclaimer, below are some samples:

ELISA HIV Antibody Test Kit InsertAt present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence and absense of HIV in human blood.

Western Blot HIV Antibody Test Kit InsertA sample that is reactive in both the ELISA screening test and the Western Blot is presumed to be positive for antibody to HIV indicating infection with this virus.

Viral Load HIV Test Kit InsertThe Amplicor HIV-1 monitor test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection.

Then what does it mean to test HIV positive? The tests are not a test for AIDS or even HIV, although it is claimed that the test is for HIV antibodies, it is not. What the tests do is test for anti-bodies that may or may not have anything to do with AIDS or HIV, because the test is non-specific. In the words of Robert Da Prato, MD, HIV testing specialist for the US Armed Services:

"I don't recommend people ever getting tested. The reason is I don't know what the tests mean, and I think no one else knows what the tests mean. I' ve never seen any evidence that what these tests purport to show they're actually showing; namely, the presence of a virus, the presence of an exogenous virus. I really would like to see the electron microscopic data of this, and apparently there is none. There is none where you've done a rigorous isolation protocol."

So much for Margaret Heckler's "essentially 100 percent certainty." Still if you test HIV positive and are pregnant you may be asked to take HIV/AIDS drugs, and when your child is born, your child may be forced to take cancer causing drugs like AZT in a highly toxic cocktail. Your refusal to comply could cause you to loose custody of your child. In part II you will see just how easily that happens without justification.

What do you suppose would happen if you had pneumonia and took an HIV test? You may well be labeled as being HIV positive because your body is producing antibodies to the pneumonia. The results of the tests themself can have quite a negative effect with intense and long lasting emotions. They could include guilt, shame, fear of isolation, loss of friends and fear of death, and all the while you may not be in any danger at all.

Todate the FDA has never approved a test kit that claims to be used for the purpose of diagnosing HIV infection. Searching the internet for test kits I find some that say "FDA approved," but the wording doesn't include diagnosis for HIV, or the HIV virus. So if you do a search and see a HIV/AIDS drug that says "FDA approved," the approval is as non-specific as the tests, and are not approved as an indication for the presence of HIV.

So what is HIV other than an acronym for Human Immunodeficiency Virus? My knowledge of the medical field is pretty well non-existent, so while I listened to the contentions in this film, I also did a lot of internet research before doing this review. While learning a lot from both points of view I'm still by no means an expert on HIV/AIDS, but I started to see a pattern.

What is AIDS besides a deficient immune system? AIDS is a collection of about thirty diseases that if you have one or more of—for example pnumonia—and also test HIV positive, then it is called AIDS. Yet if you have pnumonia and your 'T' cell is high enough that you are not labeled as HIV, then you only have pnumonia and not AIDS.

Today a growing movement of doctors, researchers and HIV positive people question the accuracy of the HIV tests and challenge the idea that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Their challenges for the most part are not welcome in the media or the scientific community. In spite of the notion that science welcomes skepticism, questioning a hypothesis or testing results, it doesn't apply to aids. In fact those that criticize are rebuffed and called names, like bigots, homophobes, baby killers, flat earthers by their peers.

Those that say the HIV virus causes AIDS will say things like, the scientific evidence is absolutely overwhelming, but if you look for research papers that show even remotely that HIV causes AIDS there are none. When you look for supporting data claims of evidence abound, but the elusive labratory evidence to show that HIV causes AIDS just isn't there. Only a consensus among many researchers, scientists and media without the labratory data.

Former director of San Francisco Dept of Public Health, Mervin Silverman MD, when asked in the film if there is a test that can difinatively tell you if your infected with the virus simply pointed to the HIV ELISA test and said:

"Well, you can — you can — the test is to do the ELISA test, which really demonstrates, in essence, it's a — it's a surrogate also because it represents antibody production to the virus. But they have demonstrated the virus. They have crystal — they have crystalline models of the virus. HIV exists."

AIDS patients test HIV positve, and healthy people also test HIV positive meaning that you don't have AIDS, but supposedly have the HIV virus that causes it. Some that are HIV positive are later diagnosed with AIDS and some are not. What they do is determine by your immune system system T-4 cell count whether you are just HIV positive, or have AIDS. If your T-4 cell count falls below a certain level you have AIDS. As that level is higher in the US than it is in Canada, you can be HIV positive or non-AIDS in Canada, but have AIDS in the US.

Well the tests only assume you have the HIV virus, and no matter how healthy you are, your encouraged to take anti-HIV drugs. The drugs themself actually attack the immune system 'T' cells. AZT for example essentially kills cells. That might lead one to believe this could cause a perfectly healthy HIV positive person's immune system to deteriorate under the anti-HIV/AIDS drugs to the level of having full blown AIDS, or one who has AIDS to find the cure worse than the disease. The cures like AZT are some pretty toxic and potent drugs. In fact AZT carries the skull and crossbones on the label.

From Peter Duesberg, PHD, A Nobel Prize nominee for his discovery of oncogenes and pioneer in the field of retroviruses, and the best known of the HIV/AIDS dissidents.

If you think about it, you give — you put in a person making hundred thousands of new T cells every minute an inhibitor of DNA synthesis because the virus needs DNA to be replicated, but the virus is 10 kilobases and the human cell is a million kilobases. You're shooting with nuclear weapons at bunnies. Yes, you probably knock out a few bunnies. But the forest doesn't look very good after your hunt is over.

Dr Kary Mullis, the 1993 winner of the Nobel Prize for chemistry for his invention of PCR, was hired to do a PCR for a HIV project for a private company. As his first sentence on the paper he wrote that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. Then he turned to a virologist and asked, "What is the reference for that." He was told, "You don't need it." Well Mullis was smarter than that. He knew something this new you always had to have the original papers to establish a claim.

"Then and only then I started looking into it. I looked up a bunch of papers in science that Bob Gallo — I knew about him — had written. And I figured, well, Gallo must have been the one to figure it out because he is the name I've heard associated with it. I looked at his papers, and I didn't find anything in there that actually showed me that there was a fact now in science called HIV is the cause of AIDS, or even the probable cause of AIDS, which is all I would have expected, the probable cause of AIDS, highly probable, because they were attacking the whole problem by then as though it were certainly the cause. So I would expect it to be highly probable. But I couldn't find anything that said it was remotely probable even. It was possible, but it wasn't probable. And so, therefore, it wasn't even close to what you would call a fact."

Charles Farthing, MD, Medical Director of AIDS Healthcare Foundation sees it in more simpler if not confusing with this response.

"In essence, AIDS is advanced HIV infection as opposed to early HIV infection. AIDS is when you're ill, and HIV infection without AIDS is when you're heading towards being ill but you're not ill."

Well that's real scientific! And this guy is Dir of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation?

Thanks to Dean Esmay at Dean's World for sending me the preview DVD for this review.