Cape Town South Africa – Recently I tried to explain to a friend of mine, the invalidity of all the tests that medical practitioners are using to diagnose people as ‘HIV-positive’. My friend argued that an ‘HIV-positive’ diagnosis should be regarded as valid because people get tested three times with different types of tests.
Johan Beaurain
‘That’s why a person has to double check their status, get three doctors opinions before someone can make a conclusion, its like any other sickness one is being diagnosed.’
I used all the scientific and legal arguments I knew, to try and persuade my friend that her thinking is not correct, because all ‘HIV-tests’ are invalid, as none of the tests are testing specifically for ‘HIV’. I argued: ‘My friend you are a lawyer; I think you will agree with me that a test used to diagnose a person as ‘HIV-positive’ needs to be licensed for that purpose.’
The truth is that none of the tests that they are using to diagnose people as ‘HIV-positive’ are licensed to confirm the presence of ‘HIV’. That is so because none of the tests that they are using to diagnose a person as ‘HIV-positive’ are scientifically validated for that purpose.
Testing people three times with a different test of which each test is neither licensed nor scientifically validated for the purpose of confirming the presence of ‘HIV’, will still not deliver a valid result.
But apparently I made no impact on the thinking of my friend. She did not even respond to my arguments. I then thought about the argument used by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos in her paper Proving the existence of HIV, in which she argued:
By definition, HIV proteins are those present in the HIV particle. This is no different from what defines your kidney, your blood or your proteins. And, if you are a woman, your baby. These are yours because they are obtained from your body. If a pathologist is handed a kidney and finds it contains a cancer, it is your cancer because of a forensic system of recording that begins with a surgical team identifying your body as that upon which the surgeon has operated. Likewise if a police officer suspects you are driving under the influence of alcohol you are obliged to undergo a compulsory blood alcohol test. Without such documentation there would be utter chaos.
I then decided to use an example of the chaos that would erupt in our courts if we were to use ‘HIV’ logic in our courts of law – also for driving under the influence of alcohol. I decided to try and sketch such a scenario to my friend in an attempt to get through to her.
My friend, to help you to understand my point regarding the invalidity of all of those so called ‘HIV- tests’ that they are using to test unsuspecting people for ‘HIV’, let us rather use another example that is less emotionally loaded. Let us imagine a situation where the traffic police stop your car whilst you were driving down the road after a night out at a smart restaurant.
The traffic police have one look at your face, and they then accuse you of driving your vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol. You are protesting, telling the police that you are not drinking alcohol because your mother brought you up with the principle that a woman should never drink alcohol, and that you are as sober as can be. The traffic police start laughing in your face and they then immediately arrest you, put you into the back of their van and take you to a medical doctor who immediately takes a sample of your blood.
They lock you up in a cell at the police station, telling you that you should sleep your drunken stupor off. You feel most humiliated with the way that they are treating you.
You arrive at court the next morning and you hear the prosecutor presenting evidence that your blood was tested and that they came to the conclusion that you were driving under the influence of alcohol. You immediately demand to see the test results of the tests that they said they performed. They show you the results. You study the results, and you discover that they performed three different tests on your blood. The prosecutor then started explaining the test results to you.
The first time they tested your blood for pumpkin, and the result was positive – your blood contained traces of pumpkin. You start protesting, telling the court:
‘Yes I had butternut soup as a starter.’
The magistrate tells you to keep quiet.
The second time they tested your blood for fish, and it came back positive, your blood contained traces of fish. You start protesting, telling them:
‘Yes I had Kingklip as a main course’
The magistrate again tells you to keep quiet.
The third time they tested your blood for ice-cream and again the results came back positive, you had traces of ice-cream in your blood. You started protesting, telling them:
‘Yes I had ice-cream and chocolate sauce as a dessert, but what has that got to do with your accusation of me driving my vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol?’
This time round the magistrate becomes very angry with you. He shouts at you:
‘Lady I told you to keep quiet, you can not possibly come and tell us that you had this lavish meal without a drop of alcohol…..
You lie!…
This is a court of law!…
We will not allow you to take us for fools!…
You are guilty as charged!…
I am finding you guilty of driving your vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol!… and I am sentencing you to life imprisonment without the option of a fine! …
Please remove this woman from my court, and lock her up in jail….immediately!…’
Will you be happy? I don’t think so.
The above analogy is just a joke to illustrate how silly they are when they claim that they are testing people for ‘HIV’. I do also realise that it is not really a proper analogy, because in the case of ‘HIV’ they do not claim to be testing for different things like pumpkin, fish and ice cream when they are repeating their tests three times.
They do often repeat their tests three times when testing for ‘HIV’, but every time when they test, they claim that the test is for ‘HIV’. Only, that is not true; they are not testing for ‘HIV’; because the tests that they are using are not specific for ‘HIV’.
My understanding is that all ‘HIV’ tests are invalid. The tests are invalid because the sample used to develop the ‘HIV’ test must be taken from purified ‘HIV’. And as you know, scientists have not yet succeeded in purifying ‘HIV’.
If they are not working with purified ‘HIV’, then the tests developed from the unpurified soup that they think contains ‘HIV’ will also light up for many other conditions.
‘HIV’ antibody tests have been documented to react to more than seventy different, unrelated health conditions, including alcoholic liver disease, flu, flu vaccinations, malaria, tuberculosis, hepatitis, hepatitis B vaccination, and so on. Even malnutrition and past pregnancy can cause the test to react positively and mislead the doctor or nurse doing the test to tell a woman that she is infected with ‘HIV’ when she isn’t.
Johan Beaurain studied as a Master’s degree student at the University of the Western Cape (UWC) in South Africa. Johan’s research proposal (PDF ) was to study whether learning and applying a particular holistic self-healing modality like Ayurveda, could make a difference in learners’ own health and well being. The learning sessions would focus particularly on the possible effects of Ayurveda consciousness with regard to what in allopathic medicine is called “HIV/AIDS”. He has been unable to get approval to proceed with his thesis.
Tweet This Post
Tags: court, criminal, HIV tests, Humor, Johan Beaurain