In the 1980's, when I was still in Belgium, the Belgian government launched a campaign against aids, distributing a flyer containing information about aids. What the flyer basically told was that aids is extremely contagious (by contact) and everybody with a sex life should use condoms. One wonders if the condom manufacturers had a good friend within the government, because the facts in the brochure did not reflect what was known in medical circles. The medical community immediately reacted against the statements in the brochure and told us the real facts about aids, based on their own experience. They said that having sex with a person who has aids, does not mean you will get aids too. You might contract aids after the first sex act, but some people don't get aids at all, after years of sexual contact with an aids person. The government told us that aids was rampant and epidemic, while the medical community says that there is absolutely no aids epidemic at all. Africa would be depopulated by aids, but Africa's population is actually increasing. Are we told lies again by our government? What is aids actually from a medical point of view?

So, I decided to look around a little on the internet, and came across surprising finds that Aids is linked to tuberculosis and not the retrovirus htlv-3 as is commonly accepted. The whole story is complicated, but I have tried to make it into an understandable summary that can be understood by most people.

.................

The whole HIV and Aids issue has always been a controversial one, and is more complex than what is given here. Aids is still not curable by the medical establishment. In this light is it not advisable to re-examine other interpretations about what Aids is than the officially acknowledged one? Some scientist have done so, and came up with other possibilities that make more sense, although they have been heavily criticized. In this article, a concept is presented that Aids is most probably linked to tuberculosis. You can find more information in a scientific document, Is AIDS really caused by a virus? by Lawrence Broxmeyer, Med-America Research, Whitestone, New York, USA; that you can find at http://aras.ab.ca/articles/scientific/IsAIDSReallyCausedByAVirus-Broxmeyer.pdf  .

Prominent scientists have come forward claiming that the whole aids issue is a firmly rooted belief system not backed by scientific proof. By definition human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a retrovirus that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), a condition in humans in which the immune system begins to fail, leading to life-threatening opportunistic infections (opportunistic=other microbes takes advantage of the weakened immune system to proliferate). A retrovirus is an RNA virus that is replicated in a host cell via the enzyme reverse transcriptase to produce DNA from its RNA genome. The DNA is then incorporated into the host's genome by an integrase enzyme. The virus thereafter replicates as part of the host cell's DNA. For this reason retroviruses are generally not harmful to the host, what is quite in contrast to AIDS.

Nobel price winner Kary Mullis (biochemist) and Peter Duesberg (molecular and cell biology professor at the University of California, Berkely) found that there were no scientific references that prooved that HIV causes AIDS. In his 1996 book Inventing the AIDS Virus[9] and in numerous journal articles and letters to the editor, Duesberg asserts that HIV is harmless and that recreational and pharmaceutical drug use, especially of zidovudine (AZT, a drug used in the treatment of AIDS) are the causes of AIDS outside Africa (the so-called Duesberg hypothesis). He considers AIDS diseases as markers for drug use, e.g. use of alkyl nitrites (sexual recreational drug) among some homosexuals, pointing out a correlation between AIDS and recreational drug use. Duesberg asserts that AIDS in Africa is misdiagnosed and the epidemic a "myth," claiming incorrectly that the diagnostic criteria for AIDS are different in Africa than elsewhere and that the breakdown of the immune system in African AIDS patients can be explained exclusively by factors such as malnutrition, tainted drinking water, and various infections that he presumes are common to AIDS patients in Africa. Duesberg also argues that retroviruses like HIV must be harmless to survive, and that the normal mode of retroviral propagation is mother-to-child transmission by infection in utero.

All these were strong statements, and not accepted by the medical community.

By the way, AZT, or azidothymidine, only delays the progression of the disease and the replication of virus, even at very high doses; but it also destroys the immune system itself. AZT is known to suppress the ability of the body to produce red blood cells (anemia) and white blood cells; and it has many other adverse affects on the body.

Originally it was found that gay people and drug addicts who were diagnosed as having Aids, were succumbing to Kaposi’s sarcoma and pneumocystis pneumonia. In other words those people's immune system went down giving rise to the development of some rare diseases. The CD4 lymphocyte cells, (=one of the T-cells, or white blood cells that help fight invaders) collapsed or disappeared. It was suggested that some specific viruses were the cause of this disorder called AIDS, but these were only attempts for an explanation. basically something made the immune system collapse, but what was it?

Dr. Shyh-Ching Lo was a senior scientist at the prestigious, world-renowned Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington. As he watched events unfold and it became obvious that it was going to be dictum that HIV caused AIDS, he just had one problem: whenever he examined someone who had died of AIDS, he could never find HIV, not even a trace of HIV-infected tissue damage. So Lo began his own search for an AIDS cause which led him to a ‘virus-like infectious agent’. Knowing he was onto something, Shyh-Ching Lo followed his conscience, against the grain of most other scientists, and finally isolated a mycoplasma. And in one study of 24 people with AIDS, he found antibody titers to it in practically everyone.

It seemed a little complicated, but there was much discussion of what exactly the micro-organism was, some saw it as a virus, some as a bacterium, some as a form in between. It was also a matter of how to define these microbes. So, it gave rise to a lot of confusion. Then comes along the discovery that tuberculosis (Mycobacterium tuberculosis) and Mycobacterium avium (causes penile ulceration) are recognized leading causes of infectious disease in AIDS (actually there is more tuberculosis in the USA than  AIDS). Little known was that tuberculosis can be spread sexually.

In the mean time a retrovirus, called HTLV-3, was suggested as the cause of HIV, but largely because the researchers were only looking for a retrovirus as possible cause. It was upheld by the majority of scientists and as such declared as the only truth. But the problem was that it would not show up in other blood tests. African studies of the lymph nodes of patients with HIV also showed them indistinguishable from those with just tuberculosis and without AIDS. And tuberculosis microbes continued to show up in aids patients. True, tuberculosis and diarrhea, prominent in African AIDS, had been killing Africans for some time, but suddenly they had become untreatable. A new name was needed for an old affliction. And that name, AIDS, was supplied, hurriedly, perhaps too hurriedly. It was in Africa that those who hailed HIV as the cause of AIDS faced their first and most serious challenge over extremely suspicious coincidences. Over 65% of African AIDS patients not HIV-positive.

Let's go back to the supposed cause of aids, the retrovirus HTLV-3. Although this idea is accepted by the majority of scientists, retroviruses were never known to kill cells. It was the one thing retrovirologists always knew and agreed upon. So, how can it kill the CDC4 T-cells of the immune system? The answer is, it doesn't. Known AIDS-risk groups may have low CD4, even in the face of persistently negative HIV antibody tests. HIV is not the cause of immune cell destruction. But virulent tuberculosis can, and does. But It has long been known that a low CD4 count in and of itself did not automatically lead to the severe immunodepression found in AIDS.

Then a new discovery was made. Macrophages, or white blood cells. Their role is to phagocytose (engulf and then digest) cellular debris and pathogens either as stationary or as mobile cells, and to stimulate lymphocytes and other immune cells to respond to the pathogen. Tuberculosis microbes were found to not only resist the engulfment of macrophages, but also to kill the microphages in the process. It made the tuberculosis microbe even more virulent.

In short, AIDS is a mycobacterial disease and patients with advanced TB or Avium are indistinguishable from those with ‘HIV’.

By the way, tuberculosis is also difficult to treat with conventional medicines. My brother once had tuberculosis (2nd stage in the lungs), and had to take a daily dose of several heavy duty medicines for a whole year. He told me that it took a great toll on his body.

Then, the question remains, as with all diseases, how is it possible for those microbes to flourish in the human body? Tuberculosis microbes are not the only one which can remain dormant, or be very slow infecting, for many years, if not a life time. What makes microbes virulent? The answer lies in the holistic approach. I can not go into detail here, but it has to do with the balance in the human body. Whenever the human gets out of balance, the microbes get into action and multiply and destroy. Imbalance can be caused by many factors: environment, toxins, malnutrition, etc. In order to get healthy again, one must restore this balance. That means, one must change one's life style, to incorporate healthy food, elimination of toxins, while at the same time employing microbe killing healing methods (look at our Healing Tools section for information and links to electric and magnetic 'zappers'). Pharmaceutical products (which are unable to cure aids, and very expensive) are often very destructive for one's health too.

Can Aids be cured? The official explanation is no. But they said the same for cancer, and many people have cured themselves of cancer. I have met three different people who have cured themselves of terminal cancer, and were vibrant and healthy many years after. There many different alternative methods to cure cancer; but one has to do his homework to understand how to balance the body again. But the cancer causing microbe can also be killed directly, as Royal Rife has shown. By the way, Royal Rife also found that tuberculosis was cause by a microbe AND a virus living inside this microbe. Killing the microbe alone, would release the virus which was more deadly, and would kill the patient. With his ray device he would target both pathogen at the same time; it was the only way to cure patients of tuberculosis effectively.

Anyway, this is enough to give you an idea that aids is not exactly as the medical establishment claims it to be. If you want to know more, you can go look around on the web; one website that goes into the controversy is http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/index.htm .

While the medical establishment is unable to cure aids, shouldn't we explore some other, alternative healing methods? unfortunately, as with cancer, when a person is cured with an alternative method not sanctioned by the medical establishment, it will not be published, nor acknowledged, and never scientifically studied.

I mentioned the electric and magnetic 'zappers' to kill a large variety of microbes, but there are other methods too to try and heal from aids. here are some links, and judge for yourself if there is any value in it for yourself.

"HERBALIST TAKES ON SUPREME COURT AND FOUND TO CURE AIDS, CANCER AND OTHERS" 

The material in this site is provided for educational and informational purposes only, and is not intended to be a substitute for consultation by a healthcare provider. Please consult your own physician or appropriate healthcare provider about the applicability of any opinions or recommendations with respect to your own symptoms or medical conditions.