...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
| Page Properties | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||
|
...
|
...
|
| Page Properties | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
|
By Roberto A. Giraldo, Michael Ellner, Celia Farber, Barnett J. Weiss,
Francis R. Buianouckas, Tom DiFerdinando, and Edward A. Lieb
Continuum (London) Summer 1999; 5(5): 38-52.
...
There are no scientific facts to support the following beliefs: that AIDS is an infectious disease caused by a retrovirus named HIV; that AIDS is a physically contagious illness transmitted through body fluids including blood, genital secretions and breast milk; that a positive result in the so-called "AIDS test" is indicative of infection with HIV; that once positive on the "AIDS test" the individual will develop AIDS; that a person who has a positive reaction to the "AIDS test" can prevent the development of AIDS by using several antiretroviral drugs; that the use of antiretroviral drugs can prevent the transmission of HIV from HIV-positive pregnant women to their babies; that AIDS can be treated with antiretroviral drugs; that the use of antiretroviral drugs is safe and free of harmful effects; and that therefore, it is rational to treat and prevent AIDS with antiretroviral medications. These are just unvalidated assumptions.
On the contrary, there are many scientific facts indicating that: the tests used for the diagnosis of HIV are extraordinarily inaccurate; that being HIV positive does not mean that the person is infected with HIV, the so-called "AIDS virus"; that there are more than 70 different non-HIV related reasons to have a positive result on the "AIDS test"; that the transmission and infectivity of AIDS is not real; that the risk of developing AIDS after being labeled "HIV positive" is unknown; that HIV is not the cause of AIDS; that HIV may not even exist as a virus; that what is called "AIDS" is a toxic and nutritional syndrome; that all antiretroviral drugs are highly toxic to humans; that the antiretroviral medications can by themselves cause AIDS; and that pregnant women, infants, and children are especially vulnerable to the toxic effects of antiretroviral medications.
The scientific data presented here demonstrate that it is not only irrational but indeed unethical to treat or prevent AIDS with toxic antiretroviral drugs in anybody (344-346). Besides that, it is contrary to common sense to treat or prevent a highly toxicological syndrome with even more toxicity.
To treat or prevent AIDS with toxic antiretroviral medications is also a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" (347). Therefore, no one has the right to "subject persons with HIV or AIDS to inhuman and degrading treatment even if purportedly in the community’s interests" (347).
The use of antiretroviral medications to treat or prevent AIDS should therefore be stopped immediately.
...
It is likewise urgent that the entire conception of AIDS as an infectious and transmissible viral disease caused by HIV be reappraised immediately.
People have the right to know both sides of a story, especially when they have to make decisions regarding their own health care. Not informing people of all the facts - as mentioned in this article - is a serious violation of the person’s right to make informed consent medical decisions (69,71).
"Self-determination and autonomy have been recognized, in fact, as a fundamental moral value in US law and are routinely applied to a medical context. In the 1914 Schloendorff case, Justice Nenjamin Cordozo opined: Every Human Being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body" (70).
"The requirements for informed consent are as follows: 1) The practitioner must disclose all information, including risks and benefits that a reasonable person would need to know in order to make a decision. 2) The one consenting must be competent and must understand the information provided. 3) The consent must be given voluntarily and without coercion" (70).
Is it really rational or even ethical to use toxic antiretroviral drugs in the treatment and prevention of AIDS in pregnant women, infants, children or anybody else?
...