January 2007

An HIV jail in America? by Dr. Heide Hartmann‑Taylor

From the June 27, 2006 issue of The New York Times: The New York City health department is proposing to track HIV "in a manner similar to tuberculosis, monitoring patients and trying to ensure that they take their medications properly."

No one seems to have paid much any attention to this announcement; apparently very few remember exactly how they "tracked" tuberculosis, even though it was not that long ago.

The Times explained: "Thanks to a major infusion of federal financing, New York health officials took an active approach, getting as many patients as possible on directly observed therapy, known as D.O.T., in which outreach workers administered tuberculosis medications in clinics, patients' homes and on the street. For patients who 'failed' D.O.T., the health department employed forcible detention, either at Bellevue Hospital or at Goldwater Hospital. More than 250 patients were detained between 1993 and 1998, some for as long as two years."

"Failing D.O.T." means not taking or refusing to take their tuberculosis medications, for any reason. In other words, you don't want to take the drugs we think you should, we'll lock you up against your will for two years and make you!

The ward in Bellevue is called the "TB Jail," and it's still active and receiving patients. It's such a good idea, apparently, that New York wants to use the same model for HIV. In other words, they want to create an "HIV Jail," where anyone who fails or refuses to take their HIV medications can be locked up and force fed their drugs.

Who is supposed to take HIV medications, and will end up in the HIV Jail if they don't? Anyone the medical establishment deems to be HIV‑Positive and at risk for AIDS. After all, it's for their own good, despite the fact that a new study published in the August 2006 issue of The Lancet concluded that the newest Highly Active Anti‑Retroviral Therapy (HAART) was no more effective in decreasing mortality than it was ten years ago.

How accurate are the HIV blood tests that determine who is HIV‑Positive? I posed that question to Stephen Davis, former Arizona state senator, Physician's Assistant, Director of Development at Sherman College of Straight Chiropractic, and now the author of "Wrongful Death: The AIDS Trial," who has spent the last ten years researching AIDS and HIV.

His statements are shocking but important for all health care professionals to read.

(Dr. Heide Hartmann‑Taylor has an active chiropractic practice in Chino Valley, AZ.)

========

January 2007

An interview with Stephen Davis

Stephen Davis: There are some major problems with these HIV tests, to say the least. To start off with, they do not test for HIV at all. They test for HIV antibodies. So the first question to ask is why having the antibodies to a virus is suddenly a bad thing. In virtually every other antibody test, if you come up Positive, you're said to be immune from the disease the virus can cause. That's the theoretical basis of all vaccinations: give a small dose of the virus, let the immune system figure out how to defeat it, and then create antibodies for future defense. But instead, when a person is diagnosed HIV‑Positive, we somehow throw all antibody theory out the window and tell them they're going to die.

Dr. Heide Hartmann‑Taylor: That doesn't make any sense.

Davis: Nothing about the HIV tests makes any sense. Let me just list a few of the other problems.

First, no HIV test, whether it's blood or saliva, has ever been approved by the FDA to diagnose HIV infection. In fact, every test kit manufacturer includes an insert in the package ‑‑ which no one ever sees ‑‑ that says that the test was not designed to test for the presence or absence of HIV.

Next, over 50 scientific studies have proven that there are more than seventy factors in a human body that can cause a false positive result. These include a recent flu shot, prior pregnancies, even generalized warts and drinking too much unpasteurized cow's milk. Statistics show that there can be up to 90% false positive rate for these tests.

Thirdly, the same blood sample was sent to nineteen different labs and came back with nineteen different results. And there are ten different criteria in use around the world to judge the results; each one can produce a different outcome. You can be Positive in New York City, Indeterminate in San Francisco, and Negative in Sydney, Australia. That's really shoddy science when you remember that a Positive diagnosis is equivalent to a death sentence.

If that's not bad enough, the proteins used in the test kits have never been proven to be specific to HIV. In fact, all 10 proteins have been found associated with other things in a human body, which means that testing Positive is not a specific indication of HIV. In fact, there is literally no way to tell what someone is testing "positive" for.

Worse than that, HIV has never been properly isolated according to the recognized standards in place since 1973 to isolate retroviruses, so we have no idea what proteins might be associated with and specific to HIV.

Hartmann‑Taylor: Surely these tests were validated prior to being put into use.

Davis: Unfortunately, no. To validate these tests, you'd have to take, say, a thousand people who test HIV‑Positive and then find the actual HIV virus in them, and another thousand who test Negative, and not find the virus in them. That's never been done.

Hartmann‑Taylor: But what about the viral load tests?

Davis: They have the same problems, using non‑specific proteins to measure the viral load. There are plenty of cases on record where the person had a high HIV viral load result, but a Negative HIV blood test. Even Dr. Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize for the invention of the PCR ‑‑ utilized in most viral load tests ‑‑ has repeatedly said that the PCR cannot be used to measure HIV, that it's "meaningless."

Hartmann‑Taylor: So we're diagnosing people HIV‑Positive based on very questionable tests?

Davis: Yes, and we're putting them through tremendous emotional and psychological trauma, family stress, social rejection, and financial hardship as a result. But the bigger tragedy is that people who test HIV‑Positive are going to be pressured into taking anti‑retroviral drugs. We don't give chemotherapy to cancer patients without verifying the presence of the active cancer. But active HIV cannot be found in any AIDS patients, much less in those testing HIV‑Positive. So we're forcing drugs on these people without any proof that they need them ‑‑ drugs which are admitted to have lethal side effects, mainly organ failure, and are responsible for more than half of the AIDS deaths since 2002.

Hartmann‑Taylor: I assume you have references to back up all of this.

Davis: Absolutely. Lots of them. You can find direct links to some of them on one of my websites, www.adeathsentence.com, and more than 900 scientific studies listed at www.theAIDStrial.com.