Monday, March 4, 2013

Baby born with HIV is apparently cured with aggressive drug treatment byDavid Brown at the Washington Post.

To: Dr. David Brown, The Washington Post, re: your story today:
Baby born with HIV is apparently cured with aggressive drug treatment
David,

Some questions you may not have thought to ask:

(1)  What was the race of the mother, treated so aggressively by Caucasian physician Dr. Hannah Gay of Mississippi?
http://www.ummchealth.com/doctors/gay_hannah/ 

(2) And speaking of race, how can it be that African American women are 20x more likely than Caucasian women, according to the CDC,
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/ ...to be "infected" by a purportedly sexually transmitted pathogen? Do they have 20 times as much sex?

(3) What was the informed consent obtained from the mother, for "treatment" of a day-old infant with therapeutic doses of chemotherapy cocktails that have well-assessed, highly toxic adverse effects?

(4) Does it not seem a little odd to you that with 50,000 alleged new "HIV infections" every year in the U.S. fewer than 200 are from mother-to-child transmission, given the claim that this is a blood-borne pathogen?

(5) What is the evidence that 300,000 babies around the world are "infected" with HIV every year from mother-to-child transmission? Fauci uses "one thousand per day." What nice round numbers.  

(6) What were the presenting illnesses--at 30 hours old--of this baby, who was "cured?"  How do you "cure" someone of a retrovirus you don't even know a host has at the time you start administering toxic drugs--which you seem to acknowledge in your story, when you note there's no way to know whether a new-born infant is carrying an active viral pathogen or just its mother's anti-bodies?

This is incredible, even for The HIV-AIDS Industry.  It is just another attempt to line the pockets of drug companies, like Tony Fauci's friends at Gilead Sciences, selling the toxic chemotherapy, sales of which were about $20 billion in 2012, up 250% from just five years before.  And these thousand-dollar-per-month drugs are funded almost entirely by taxpayers.

This "cure" means child-and-family service agencies around the country, already threatening mothers with taking away their babies for refusing "treatment," will have another bullet to hold to the head of those who question drugging a defenseless child.

As always, in your stories, you refuse to quote a single dissenting voice.  Ask Dr. Jay Levy, the "third discoverer of HIV," what he thinks about early drugging.  Ask Dr. Nancy Turner Banks, a Harvard Medical School-educated OBGYN, what she thinks. Ask Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, who treated the first cases of immune deficiency among gay men in New York, what he thinks. (I can supply you with their contact information.)

--Terry Michaels

3 comments:

  1. 1. 80% of babies born HIV+ are HIV- by 18 months--spontaneously.
    This is not because they have been cured, but because the passive
    immunity that they receive at birth through the placenta and breast milk if
    breast fed is subsiding and the immune system is beginning to mature.

    Even the CDC knows this and has stated so on its web site.
    Because all successful pregnancies are shifted toward Th2,
    humoral immunity--all babies are born with a Th2 shift and elevated antibodies.
    Before the age of AIDS idiocy, this was known to be a good thing.

    2. This is also why the HIV antibody test is not used in infants-- however
    the VL also cannot be used to diagnose and so in essence there is no
    diagnosis of infants--clearly the baby did not have the S. So what the baby was cured of is a test that diagnoses nothing? (You can't argue with stupid!)

    3. The placenta is full of what are called 'HERVS' which may have the
    same DNA fingerprint of the so called "HIV DNA". In other words, the VL test
    is also worthless in infants.

    This baby was not "cured", it was given mutagenic and carcinogenic drugs for a wrong diagnosis.
    Dr. Nancy Turner Banks, MD, MBA (Harvard Med School-educated OBGYN) and author of „AIDS, Opium, Diamonds, and Empire

    ReplyDelete
  2. From my HIV/AIDS book
    Most pertinent, p. 172
    Babies test HIV-positive often enough, and 75-90 percent of them revert
    to negative before their teens (Tables 25, 26, 27, Figure 2).

    p.86 The same study noted high F(HIV) among antenatal and postpartum
    women, again concordant with HIV-positive as marking physiological stress.
    Beyond that, a large percentage of HIV-positive babies had HIV-negative mothers,
    a direct indication that HIV-positive does not mean „infection‰ with „HIV‰

    p. 99 and thereabouts: the variation of average F(HIV) with age;
    male babies more often HIV+ than female babies

    p. 130 Thus antiretroviral medications constitute a most non-selective and toxic
    chemotherapy. To expectations based on their known toxicity, Duesberg adds
    actual evidence: mortality among HIV-positive hemophiliacs increased sharply
    after they began to be treated with antiretroviral medications; HIV-free ani-
    mals given these drugs experienced weight loss, depletion of T-cells, and other
    symptoms typical of AIDS; HIV-free human babies, treated because their moth-
    ers were HIV-positive, experienced fever, pneumonia, anemia, and mitochon-
    drial dysfunction.
    Dr. Henry Bauer, PhD, author of „The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory‰


    ReplyDelete
  3. Infectious Disease and HIV specialists bringing to Orlando innovative care in the treatment of viral infections, including Chronic Viral Hepatitis B, HIV Treatment

    ReplyDelete