H I V   S C I E N C E     © 2001 by PROFESSOR  JENS  JERNDAL M.D.(MA), D.Sc.h.c., M.Sc., B.A., F.W.A.I.M.

The so called science around HIV and AIDS does not deserve its name. Actually, most of it has nothing to do with Science. Media have been manipulated into continuous forging, hammering, pounding, thumping, and chanting of the fatal dogma of faith proclaiming that AIDS IS CAUSED BY THE HIV, AND THE  HIV IS THE VIRUS THAT CAUSES AIDS. And there is no cure. So just sell everything you own to buy the grossly overpriced lethal poison that is the only authorized treatment, and get ready to die in a few years´ time!

THE FACTS ARE QUITE DIFFERENT. HERE THEY ARE:

1.       A number of so called strains of human retrovirus have been laboriously produced in the laboratory and given names to suggest that they cause immuno-deficiency in humans, but there is NO scientific proof whatsoever that any of them causes any disease, or even that any of them actually can live and reproduce in the human organism. NO so called HIV virus has ever been isolated live in a human being.  Not what you have been told, is it?

2.       The accepted criterion for declaring that the HIV is present in a patient´s blood is a so called antibody test, which shows certain antibody activity, meaning that the immune system is, or has been,  active defending the organism against some agent or condition that is considered a threat. 

      Antibody tests have been used for a hundred years to indicate immunity against certain infectious agents, such as the Tuberculosis bacterium, and a positive test means that the body's immune system has overcome the infectious agent in question, and therefore is no longer at risk of falling ill with that particular illness. 

 To artificially produce antibodies in the patient is the basis for all vaccinations, also called immunisations, which would be meaningless in somebody who already has antibodies to the targeted disease. Yet, vaccines against HIV is a big, if unsuccessful, issue that is attracting tens if not hundreds of millions in funding. So by all known and proven criteria, a positive antibody test for HIV, should mean that the body has been exposed to this retrovirus, and that it has overcome whatever threat it may have posed, and therefore is no longer at risk of falling ill.  

 Again, not exactly what you have been told, is it? Another smoke screen used to mimick scientific facts is the test for so called “viral load”, which again is highly unspecific and does not even prove the actual presence of live viruses of any kind, much less the so called HIV.

3.      The antibody test used to diagnose the presence of HIV and consequently - according to the unproven but officially imposed dogma - impending AIDS, was invented by the US Government virologist Robert Gallo simultaneously with his purported “discovery” of  “a new retrovirus” creatively (and profitably) labeled HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), and was patented by him the very same day that he and the Reagan Government ruled that the “new” retrovirus that Gallo had produced in his laboratory, was the “probable cause” of AIDS.

       The admission inherent in the word “probable” was dropped forthwith without any further proof or scientific foundation of any kind. Not only was no further discussion or research funded or encouraged from that moment on, but anyone who questioned the decreed dogma, and wanted to continue researching it, was heavily suppressed or punished by all means available to the powerful monopolistic establishment governed by US federal institutions, but funded and orchestrated by the multinational pharmaceutical industry. 

      All funding of research, as well as dissemination of information, was from then on strictly limited to the HIV and drugs to attack it. No widening of the search to include other approaches has been tolerated.

4.       But there is more: It has been established by independent scientists, that the so called HIV test (in media outrageously also known as “the AIDS test”) is highly unspecific and will react to a large number of different challenges to the immune system, that have absolutely nothing to do with the so called HIV or AIDS. 

      In excess of 60 different medical conditions have been recorded that can give rise to a false HIV+ reading. These separate conditions include flu, flu jab, malaria, tetanus jab, Hepatitis A and B, Hepatitis jabs, alcohol and drug use, recent viral infections and pregnancy! 

5.       The HIV test is now apparently recommended in England and the USA to all expectant mothers as standard antenatal procedure. A false positive antibody test for HIV will be perceived by the patient as a death sentence, and will prompt establishment trained doctors to recommend a course of “anti- HIV” drugs. 

      These drugs are highly toxic and have the well-documented capacity to harm, and even kill, the mother, and also to severely deform and kill the unborn child. Research has shown that children who have received these drugs, or whose mothers have received these drugs during pregnancy, run a far higher risk of developing severe and life-threatening conditions during the first year of life, than HIV+ children who have had no such exposure. 

 Far from remembering the Hippocrates oath to first of all do no harm, doctors are now urged to poison healthy babies with drugs that were considered too toxic to be authorized for cancer patients. They will even take those babies away from their mothers, if the mothers have too much common sense to let their babies be poisoned.

 6.       Among the plentiful examples of really bad science around AIDS is the notion that a positive antibody test in a newborn child means that the child has been “infected” with HIV by its mother, and thus will develop AIDS. We have already discussed the true significance of a positive antibody test. 

      The fact is that a mother's immune cells are normally and naturally transmitted to her unborn child. Thus a child born to a “HIV-positive” mother should have antibodies from the mother until it has had time to build up it own immune system. But these antibodies show inherited immunity, and not infection! 

      When it was discovered that children who had been born HIV-positive, after some time no longer tested positive, there were exclamations, bewilderment, and confusion... Had the child been spontaneously cured of AIDS??? 

 Since HIV/AIDS was held to be incurable, how was this possible? – The ignorance this reaction reveals is abysmal. The loss of antibodies in the child only shows that what it tested positive to, was antibodies transmitted by the mother, and no disease. And as its own immune system develops, it loses the antibodies it inherited from the mother. No illness, and no risk of developing any.  

        To treat such a mother, or such a child, with lethal chemotherapy in order to kill the immune cells, amounts to nothing less than attempted homicide, even if it is done from sheer ignorance.  AZT, the first authorized and most used drug for AIDS and HIV, was an old cancer drug, developed in the 1960ies, that had never been released for use on cancer patients, due to its extreme toxicity. 

 But its use on AIDS patients, consisting mainly of members of the so called risk groups, male homosexuals, intravenous drug addicts, Haitian immigrants (!), prostitutes (who were nearly all also intravenous drug addicts), and a few hemophiliacs, was practically instant, without the usual test protocols. And now it is being pushed on most of Africa, and especially pregnant mothers and newborn children. Incidentally, its admitted side effects read like a list of typical AIDS symptoms, and many of them are fatal with continued use. 

7.       The only so called scientific “proof” that HIV causes AIDS is a wholly artificial coincidence between a positive antibody test and one of 29 different illnesses, that all existed before AIDS was invented. 

     So, it has been decreed, any one of these 29 illnesses is AIDS, if the patient tests positive to the antibody test, but if he or she does not, then the same illness is not AIDS. The interesting thing about this “proof” is that by making the positive antibody test a condition for diagnosis, you will get a 100% coincidence: All AIDS cases are HIV-positive so how can you doubt? (If they are not HIV-positive, they will not be diagnosed as AIDS, even with exactly the same symptoms, aetiology etc.) 

     The elementary scientific rule that coincidence or association can never be accepted as automatic proof of causation is unceremoniously thrown overboard by the HIV-causes-AIDS lobby. If association or coincidence is proof of causation, then there is equally valid proof that it is the cock that causes the Sun to rise every morning! Each time the cock has crowed,  the Sun rises after a while. 100 percent correlation and always the same time sequence. 

      Consequently full scientific proof that it is the cock that brings the sun over the horizon every morning. 

 The claim that HIV causes AIDS on grounds of coincidence is actually LESS convincing, because the sunrise is at least not subject to a selective definition, which considers it a sunrise only if the cock has actually crowed, which is exactly the construction made with regards to AIDS.

 8.       The tricky part is that not all those who test positive in the antibody test actually develop any disease at all. There are two complementary solutions to this little scientific dilemma: The first one is to declare (without any proof whatsoever) that there is a period of incubation, that has been conveniently stretched from 3 years when the HIV was new, to 20 years (or indefinitely) as the years go by and HIV-positive people, who are not taking drugs, remain healthy. 

     The second solution is to indoctrinate people into believing that anyone who is “HIV+” will develop “fullblown AIDS” sooner or later, and that taking the expensive drugs (fraudulently called “anti-virals”) early will “delay the onset of AIDS”, thus buying a few extra years, although unfortunately there is no actual cure for AIDS* to date, so eventual death is inevitable.  The drugs are also claimed to “improve quality of life” during the illness. Once patients have been scared and bullied and seduced into accepting this drug regime, they are doomed. 

 They will promptly begin to develop “AIDS symptoms” from the drugs, and within a few years (how many depends on the dosis administered, the general state of their immune system, and complementary supportive therapies) the drugs will kill them, and they will become tragic victims of the terrible AIDS “epidemic”, recently promoted to “pandemic”. There is your proof that HIV causes AIDS, and that AIDS is incurable, in spite of the doctors´ and the pharmaceuticals´ heroic scientific fight against it with their wildly expensive “anti-viral” drugs!

 9.       So, if people now die from their medication, what did they die of before medication? First we should remember that the AIDS hypothesis was originally based on only 5 (FIVE!) cases of immune deficiency among gay men in San Francisco, first described in 1981. When Gallo less than three years later claimed to have found HIV in a number of AIDS patients, again the number he had investigated was hardly more than a handful.

 Even today, the number of new AIDS cases and deaths from AIDS is far, far lower than media is trying to make us believe*, and dwindling fast, in stark contrast to media's groundless but interested representations. Most of the scare statistics on AIDS, and especially so with regard to Africa*, are exorbitantly exaggerated “estimates” based on the flimsiest factual foundations or pure conjecture. Extremely few people in Africa are actually submitted to the so called HIV test, due to its high cost, so AIDS diagnosis or projections in Africa are not even based on the same criteria as in the USA or Europe. Almost any illness in Africa, of the kinds that have always existed there, is now likely to be diagnosed as AIDS. This is one reason why in Africa AIDS is said to hit more women than men, while in the US more than 80% of all diagnosed AIDS cases have been men. 

If we go back to the original “risk groups” for AIDS in the USA, there is no doubt at all that they developed AIDS mainly from chemical poisoning, partly from recreational drugs and lubricants, partly from prescription drugs, environmental chemicals, and lifestyle strains. Illness was not passed from one person to another, but hit those with the same exposure to immune-suppressing drugs or chemicals or other immune-exhaustive lifestyle factors. 

For the further development of AIDS, psycho-emotional factors have been playing an increasingly important role, as depression is a major cause of immuno-deficiency. Being given a death sentence, based on a falsely positive antibody test, and declared a public danger and a pariah will not do much to boost the immune system, and sometimes a deep depression is sufficient to cause slow death by immuno-deficiency. Then, everyone who was put on the AZT, and other toxic drugs prescribed to AIDS patients, would be effectively finished off, regardless of other conditions. Those are the facts. Tough, but true.

Master and Immune Formula

Do not forget to bookmark the site.