ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 39

Thread: HIV POSITIVE ALSO

  1. #1
    Guest
    I have the same problem Pat need help with can I get my greencard being HIV postive please tell me what I need to do. THANKS

  2. #2
    Guest
    I have the same problem Pat need help with can I get my greencard being HIV postive please tell me what I need to do. THANKS

  3. #3
    Guest
    Do you have plans to get married?
    Asylum based on HIV-status?
    Family?

    I guess you have more chances to get your GC if you apply any way but Asylum, unless you are from Middle East and you have beed persecuted and you can prove this to the States.

    Some people says you Do have a chance if you are getting married with a USC as long as you prove to INS you wont ask for goverment assistance for your Illnes, same on Family application.

    I am not sure, but they are some organizations where you can find information and help about this, usually... Gay resources, even if you are not gay. check the links below and good luck

    http://www.lgirtf.org/

    They do say is HIV test for green card is discrimination... ans it is, if you realize they do not test fot leuquimia, cancer and others. It is true, cancer is not a STD and it is not contagious.. but if you are HIV that does not mean you are haveing sex with everybody without proteccion...

    Hope this help, you Do have a chance

    Alien?

  4. #4
    Guest
    ^^^^^^

  5. #5
    Guest
    Noncitizens who want to permanently immigrate to the United States as lawful permanent residents must take a medical exam that includes an HIV test. People coming to the United States for other reasons, such as study, work, or a visit, must fill out a "non-immigrant" visa application which asks: "Have you ever been afflicted with a communicable disease of public health significance." In the immigration law, "infection with the etiologic agent for acquired immune deficiency syndrome" is specifically listed as a "communicable disease of public health significance." Since this is a reason for keeping non-citizens from entering the United States, INS can turn away anyone who answers "yes" to this question. INS also may keep anyone out who it thinks is HIV+ because, for instance, the person is carrying AIDS medications in his/her luggage.

    Lawful permanent residents who plan to travel outside the United States should be aware that all the inadmissibility grounds apply to them, including the HIV and public charge grounds, IF they are gone for more than 6 months or have committed criminal acts here or abroad. People in these categories should meet with an immigration advocate before they leave the United States. At the same time, INS requires most applicants for lawful permanent residence to take a medical exam which includes the HIV test. This is true whether a non-citizen is applying from another country or from inside the United States. Applicants who test HIV+ can't become lawful permanent residents unless they get an *HIV waiver.* Waivers are often hard to get and not everyone is eligible.

    HIV as a Ground of Inadmissibility:

    Two major sets of rules prevent non-citizens from entering and staying in the United States: the inadmissibility grounds and the deportation grounds.

    HIV is NOT a ground of deportation, but it is a ground of inadmissibility. This means INS can "remove" someone from the United States for HIV+ ONLY if the person entered the United States without INS permission. It cannot deport people for being HIV+ if they entered on visas or now have lawful permanent residence.

    HIV is specifically listed in the immigration law as a reason for finding non-citizens "inadmissible" to the United States. Another inadmissibility ground that is a barrier for many HIV+ noncitizens is the "public charge" ground. Because HIV is a ground of inadmissibility, INS may keep everyone who is HIV+, except US citizens, out of the U.S. This includes temporary visitors (non-immigrants) and those intending to live in the United States permanently (immigrants). Most people applying for lawful permanent residence also must show they are admissible, so INS may deny lawful permanent residence to anyone who is HIV+, whether the person applies from another country or from inside the United States.

    The HIV Test

    INS requires most applicants for lawful permanent residence to take a medical exam given by a doctor on an INS list. The doctors on this list are called "civil surgeons" (even though they are not surgeons). Civil surgeons start by giving applicants the Enzyme-Linked Immuno-Sorbent Assay (ELISA) HIV test. If the noncitizen tests positive or indeterminate, the doctor must perform another ELISA and then the Western Blot test to confirm the applicant's HIV seropositivity. If all three tests are positive, the doctor should tell the non-citizen about the test results. Whether the civil surgeon says anything or not, the client should ask for a copy of the HIV test results. The doctor does not give the results directly to INS; he gives the noncitizen the medical results in a sealed envelope. The non-citizen must bring the sealed envelope to the interview at INS or the United States embassy. State or local laws, however, may require the doctor to report HIV+ test results to state or local health departments. Applicants for lawful permanent residence should not wait to learn their HIV status until they have to take the INS medical exam. They should take an HIV test first with a local center THAT PROVIDES CONFIDENTIAL OR ANONYMOUS TESTING, so they can weigh the risks of continuing with their applications.

    HIV Waivers

    Most applicants for lawful permanent residence must take an HIV test as part of the application process. (Those who win cancellation of removal or the old suspension of deportation do not take an INS medical exam.) The kind of waiver applicants must get depends on how they are applying for status. Asylees, refugees, and those who applied through the legalization program may get an HIV waiver based on "family unity, humanitarian purposes or public interest" concerns. The immigration statute says asylees and refugees, unlike most other applicants, do not have to overcome the public charge problem to become lawful permanent residents. As noted in the box on the Extra Test, however, INS includes considerations similar to public charge when it makes HIV waiver decisions.

    Other applicants overcome the HIV ground of inadmissibility if they are:
    - husbands/wives of US citizens, lawful permanent residents, or people with immigrant visas waiting to process their permanent residence cards;
    - unmarried sons and daughters of US citizens, lawful permanent residents, or people with immigrant visas waiting to process their permanent residence cards;
    - parents of US citizens, lawful permanent residents, or people with immigrant visas waiting to process their permanent residence cards; or
    - battered spouses or children of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

    The Extra Test: Importing Public Charge into the HIV Waiver

    INS applies a three-part test to all HIV+ non-citizens seeking lawful permanent residence, even though this test does not appear in the immigration law. To meet the extra test, an applicant must show that granting him or her status will pose:

    - minimal danger to the public health,
    - minimal possibility of the spread of HIV, and
    - no cost to a government agency without that agency's prior consent to providing necessary services or benefits.

    Applicants can meet the first two parts of the test by showing that they are aware of the nature and severity of their medical condition, are willing to attend educational sessions, and understand the way HIV is transmitted. Generally, a letter from a doctor or counselor, plus the applicant's statement about his or her understanding of HIV, will satisfy these requirements. The third part of the test is just like showing you will not be a public charge. Many applicants must show they will not be a public charge anyway; if they can do so, this third part of the test should not be a problem. The extra requirement is most harmful to applicants who don't otherwise have to meet the public charge test.



    It is unlikely that INS will find out a non-citizen is HIV positive unless someone tells it. This is why it's very important that you find out ahead of time whether an agency has strict confidentiality policies and will NOT report HIV+ non-citizens to INS. Do not contact INS before you've discussed your case with an immigration advocate.

    Many non-citizens with HIV, regardless of their status, may have some immigration options and may be able to work or get some benefits.

    No one should speak to INS or go to INS before talking to an immigration law expert. If non-citizens go to INS by themselves, INS may arrest them and remove them from the United States (formerly called "deporting them") before they have the chance to talk to a lawyer.

    However one should be prepared for being arrested and detained by INS. Although it is unlikely that INS will make arresting HIV+ non-citizens a high priority, it will remove non-citizens simply because they may have entered without permission or be illegally in the U.S., for instance, and it may prevent returning non-citizens with legal status from reentering the United States if it realizes they are HIV+.


    Everyone should get counseling on HIV THAT ASSURES CONFIDENTIALITY OR ANONYMITY OR BOTH. Before taking an INS medical exam, a noncitizen should get tested at a local clinic. Most testing centers will ensure results are confidential, meaning they will share them only with the person taking the test. Despite this assurance, however, some states may require them to turn over the names of people who test HIV+ to state or federal agencies. If this is a problem in your state, non-citizens should only *take tests anonymously,* so that no one knows who they are.

    Also it is very important that you make sure you don't go to an office or individual that will report them to any state or federal agency, including INS. If you do not know the HIV/AIDS service organizations in your area, call the National AIDS Hotline (1-800-342-2437) or contact a state or local AIDS office or health department to get the name and number of a place where you can get an anonymous or confidential HIV antibody test.


    Under the 1996 welfare law, state and local governments will decide who receives many public benefits. Since Congress has eliminated many forms of *federal* public assistance for many non-citizens, the *local* support becomes vital, both for individuals -- *state* and *local* public assistance may remain available for all immigrants, regardless of immigration status. Your efforts to convince state and local governments that you as a non-citizens should receive public assistance will be crucial.

    Be aware, though, that some people administering public benefits have racist, homophobic, and anti-immigrant attitudes. Before going to an agency, including an AIDS/HIV agency, find out that agency's policies on reporting people to INS. Ask them whether they believe they can't help non-citizens or must report them to the INS. Although many local benefits administrators are not required to report people they suspect are undocumented to INS, they may think they are. Moreover, unsympathetic service providers may call INS if a non-citizen is HIV positive. Sympathetic benefits providers, in contrast, may wish to help challenge the legality, morality and practicality of reporting applicants to INS.
    The best you can do is to help them understand their choices, and provide them with whatever support you can find. Some of your clients may be able to get an immigration status that will allow them to work, but many will not be able to get any immigration status at all. You should be aware that Congress has eliminated public benefits for many noncitizens and made getting immigration status harder.
    Because of fraudulent immigration practitioners who may take advantage of desperate noncitizens by promising to get them "green cards," non-citizens who use false green cards may face very severe criminal and immigration consequences.

    -------------------------------

    Page Location: http://www.nationalimmigrationproject.org/HIV/HIV.htm

  6. #6
    Guest
    How will you pay for your treatment or hospitalization if needed in the future?

  7. #7
    Guest
    will not

  8. #8
    Guest
    Oh my Gosh!!! I cannot get what these people are saying!!! I mean, who are these people of National Immigration Project that advise HIV+ aliens to hide from the INS -- what would these people do if these very HIV+ aliens would go and transmit the deadly disease to one of their children??!!! Almost all HIV+ people -- who know of their HIV+ status -- do not tell their future partners they're HIV+, we all know that! And these immigration lawyers, law students, jailhouse lawyers, and legal workers want to help AIDS aliens to keep staying in our country!!! They should be deported immidiately and this website,

    http://www.nationalimmigrationproject.org/

    should be suspended IMMEDIATELY. I am sending the link to appropriate agencies.

    Jesus H. Christ, am I mad!

  9. #9
    Guest
    "If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."



    Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.
    ---------------------


    On 28 June 1998 scientists at the 12th World AIDS Conference in Geneva heard arguments that a modern dogma, almost universally accepted, is flawed in a fundamental and dangerous way. This is the idea, first propounded at an international press conference in the United States in April 1984 and adopted almost immediately worldwide, that the cause of AIDS is a deadly virus, HIV (human immunodeficiency virus).

    The theory seemed validated scientifically when Dr Robert Gallo, of the NIH (National Institutes of Health,) published 4 long papers in a single issue of the journal Science purporting to have identified the new virus as the primary cause of AIDS and to have produced a diagnostic test for it. The hypothesis became the basis of an industry that has since received tens of billions of dollars for research and treatment in Europe and North America, with more than $ 45billion contributed by US taxpayers alone. Gallo's apparent discovery was hailed as adding "another miracle to the long honour roll of American medicine and science", although it was to herald a worldwide panic over sex, with predictions that millions would die as the virus surreptitiously spread.

    Yet according to a group of scientists who are for the first time being given an opportunity to put their ideas before the world AIDS community, basic checks needed to establish the nature and even the existence of such a virus were never completed. Evidence accumulated by these critics indicates that genetic and biochemical signals that gave rise to the HIV theory are better understood as arising from within the body's immune cells, rather than as a consequence of invasion by a deadly new microbe.

    Various prolonged stresses on the body can cause these signals to appear. They include infection by a range of known germs; exposure to other people's bodily fluids such as blood and semen; and assaults on the body by some medical and recreational drugs. Malnutrition also plays a part, especially in parts of Asia and Africa, because it greatly increases vulnerability to chronic infections such as tuberculosis and leprosy that also cause a person to test "HIV" positive.

    According to this view, antibodies detected in the blood with the "HIV" test are non-specific: they do not mean a person is infected with a particular virus that is slowly destroying their immune system. The test should therefore be scrapped. The same is true of so-called "viral counts", technology that picks up altered levels of certain genetic sequences in the body. This genetic activity is connected with immune system activation but has never been shown to relate to a specific virus. The multi-billion-dollar effort to develop drugs or a vaccine targeting "HIV" should be reappraised, as it is unlikely to get to the root of the problem of AIDS and may have been adding to the suffering of victims.

    * * *

    In short, "HIV" is a myth, along with many of the beliefs accompanying the theory. The pictures of the virus that have appeared around the world are artists' impressions and computer simulations, based on indirect observations by molecular biologists, not isolation of the virus itself.

    * * *

    The scientist at the centre of this amazing critique is Eleni Eleopulos, of the department of medical physics, Royal Perth Hospital, in Western Australia. An expert on cell oxidation, she recognised 14 years ago that the phenomena claimed to show the presence of a new virus in AIDS might instead be arising from mechanisms of cell stress. She has been researching the issue ever since.

    Eleopulos is supported by Dr Valendar Turner, an emergency physician who has also dedicated years of work to an analysis of AIDS science; Dr David Causer, Eleopulos's head of department; and Dr John Papadimitriou, professor of pathology at the University of Western Australia, an internationally renowned expert on electron microscopy. All 4 presented their case, via a satellite link-up from Perth, in a two-hour symposium at the world conference entitled "HIV Testing: Open Questions Regarding Specificity". Dr Etienne de Harven, former professor of pathology at the University of Toronto, who pioneered a method of purifying viruses during 25 years' work at the Sloan Kettering Institute in New York, also took part in the symposium. Now based in France, he agrees with Eleopulos's dramatic claim that HIV researchers have failed to demonstrate the existence of "HIV" in AIDS patients. Recent attempts to make good this omission, with electron microscope studies that should have been done 15 years ago, produced "disastrous" results, he says, suggesting "billions of research dollars gone up in smoke".

    Even more lucrative is the rapidly growing market for combinations of expensive drugs claimed to be therapeutic in "HIV disease", such as Glaxo Wellcome's Combivir, approved by the European Commission this year. Sales are not just directed towards AIDS patients but to the much larger groups who, according to the orthodox view, are in the grip of a viral illness that is slowly wearing down their immune system years before symptoms develop. By last year, cumulative worldwide sales of Glaxo Wellcome's AZT, the first "anti-HIV therapy", had exceeded $ 2.5billion, despite severe concerns about its toxicity. AIDS grew into a multi-billion-dollar business when it was claimed in the mid-1980s that the virus "does not discriminate" and that it would be only a matter of time before it swept through the world's sexually active populations. The huge investment of money and energy made it difficult for ideas about the nature of the illness to change. Government and industry scientists, as well as public health officials, AIDS advocacy groups, journal editors and specialist correspondents became defensive.

    According to Eleopulos, the relationship is real, even though HIV is not. When antibodies are present in the blood at levels that cause a person to test positive, this may well indicate an abnormal immune system state. However, the abnormalities are not caused by "HIV" but by factors in patients' lives that overstimulate their immune cells. These factors may be either toxic or infectious in nature. Sometimes the stimuli are only temporary - even a dose of flu, or a course of flu jabs, can cause a positive result. Longer-lasting assaults are the ones that may trigger a process leading to AIDS.

    In a huge review article published in Bio/Technology, a sister journal to Nature, Eleopulos and her colleagues argued that none of the HIV tests marketed was ever properly validated by showing that protein reagents used to detect "HIV" antibodies really were connected to the virus. The reason this validation was never performed, they say, is that it proved impossible to isolate the virus from patients. The main means of attempting to confirm the usefulness of the tests was to show that antibodies which react with the test proteins were much more likely to be found in AIDS patients and people at risk of AIDS than in healthy people. However, all of those so-called "HIV" markers have been shown to have other sources within the body, so even if HIV existed the antibodies could not be said to signify its presence. Huge confusion has been created by this situation. One review of the medical literature found no fewer than 70 different disease conditions, often involving an auto-immune response, documented as capable of triggering a positive result with the test.

    Tragically, there is much evidence that the "HIV" diagnosis itself has killed many. Apart from causing suicides and other deaths related to the psychological stress involved, the diagnosis led doctors to prescribe highly toxic drugs to try to defeat the virus. Some of the most experienced physicians, such as Dr. Donald Abrams, professor of medicine and director of the AIDS programme at San Francisco General Hospital, have begun to awaken to the disaster. In a lecture to medical students of the University of California at San Francisco, reported in their magazine, Synapse, Abrams said: "People who have chosen not to take any antiretrovirals. . .watched all of their friends go on the antiviral bandwagon and die."

    Thousands of scientists and AIDS experts around the world have concluded that the "lethal virus" theory of AIDS is inadequate. Several hundred of these, including two Nobel prize winners, have gone public on the issue. Through an organisation called the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis, set up 10 years ago, they have been pressing the scientific community to reexamine the cause or causes of AIDS. Support for this call is growing as a result of the construction of two dissident websites. One of these

    http://www.virusmyth.com

    contains more than 250 articles. The webmaster is Robert Laarhoven, a Dutch AIDS analyst who 8 years ago was ejected from the 10th World AIDS Conference in Berlin after he persisted in setting out literature concerning the dissident case on an unused table. He was threatened with arrest and expulsion from Germany if he returned. Gay activists who set fire to some of the literature were left unimpeded.


    Recent claims in the New England Journal of Medicine that rapid falls in AIDS cases and deaths are attributable to the use of the more intensive drug treatments were not based on a scientific trial but on a study wide open to bias. Besides, the falls began well before the new treatments were introduced. AIDS doctors earnestly want to find something to show for the billions of dollars put into the HIV theory, but their desperation is clouding their judgment, according to some scientists. Dr David Rasnick, a biochemist and US AIDS researcher who worked with protease inhibitors for 20 years, pointed out last year that none of the recently lauded drugs in that class approved by the US Food and Drug Administration had completed a full clinical trial. Instead, trials are stopped before potential problems emerge. For example, a 1,200-person trial was halted prematurely in February last year because there were 18 deaths in a group receiving two anti-viral drugs, compared with only 8 deaths in a group receiving three, including a protease inhibitor. This result was presented as meaning the protease inhibitor cocktail reduces deaths by half but even the trial leader admitted that with 1,200 people being studied, the difference had not reached statistical significance. Much the same happened with AZT, the first alleged "gold standard" of AIDS treatment: in a four-year Anglo-French study it was shown to be bringing a 25% rise in deaths in those receiving the drug compared with those given a placebo.

    Contrary to the impression given by the media, there are now thousands of dissenters to the HIV theory. It took root in the medical mind only 15 years ago but on its basis more than 100,000 papers have been published. Much courage and humility will be needed by the medical profession to look at it afresh. The longer the arguments over virus isolation and the validity of the test remain unacknowledged, the greater the potential crisis for medical science.


    ISSUES
    ---------

    - The phenomena labeled "HIV" may qualify as entirely harmless.

    - Illnesses diagnosed as "AIDS" may derive not from a retroviral infection, but rather from other factors, such as one or more of the following:

    1. Direct or indirect effects of recreational drug consumption.

    2. Immunological exposure to foreign proteins, such as through hemophilia clotting factor therapy and blood transfusions.

    3. Impoverished living conditions.

    4. Toxic chemotherapy with "anti-HIV" pharmaceuticals such as AZT and protease inhibitors.

    5. Psychosomatic terror inspired by a positive HIV diagnosis.

    6. Conventional infections, such as those normally diagnosed as tuberculosis, malaria, and enteric infections.


    - Within the AIDS risk groups, conditions diagnosable as "AIDS" may appear at increased frequencies even among those who test negative on the "HIV tests." This would represent a reason to look beyond retrovirology in order to explain AIDS, and a need to reconsider the official AIDS definition, which limits diagnoses to patients whose blood reacts to these tests.

    - Pharmaceuticals prescribed to treat HIV infections may actually cause some cases of AIDS.

    - Most people who react positively on the "HIV tests" may possess no active HIV infections, including many AIDS patients.

    - Contrary to the public health message that "everyone is at risk for HIV and AIDS," the vast majority of even sexually active Americans have no significant risk of either.

    - Public officials, medical scientists, and social activists may have:

    1. Accepted the infectious HIV/AIDS model with out properly scrutinizing it; and

    2. Dismissed alternative models without properly considering them; and

    3. Created an environment in which their peers, subordinates, and others feel unable to express conclusions that contradict the HIV explanation of AIDS, for fear of severe political, professional, and social penalties.

    --------------------------------------------------


    What Causes AIDS?

    by

    - Charles A. Thomas Jr., a biochemist, is president of the Helicon Foundation in San Diego and secretary of the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis.
    - Kary B. Mullis is the 1993 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry for his invention of the polymerase chain reaction technique, for detecting DNA, which is used to search for fragments of HIV in AIDS patients.
    - Phillip E. Johnson is the Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley.



    Most people believe they know what causes AIDS. For a decade, scientist, government officials, physicians, journalists, public-service ads, TV shows, and movies have told them that AIDS is caused by a retrovirus called HIV. This virus supposedly infects and kills the "T-cells" of the immune system, leading to an inevitably, fatal immune deficiency after an asymptomatic period that averages 10 years or so. Most people do not know -- because there has been a visual media blackout on the subject --about a longstanding scientific controversy over the cause of AIDS. A controversy that has become increasingly heated as the official theory's predictions have turned out to be wrong.

    Leading biochemical scientists, including University of California at Berkeley retrovirus expert Peter Duesberg and Nobel Prize winner Walter Gilbert, have been warning for years that there is no proof that HIV causes AIDS. The warnings were met first with silence, then with ridicule and contempt. Peter H. Duesberg's proposition that HIV is not the cause of AIDS at all is, to our minds, equally absurd." Viewers of ABC's 1993 Day One special on the cause of AIDS -- almost the only occasion on which network television has covered the controversy -- saw Robert Gallo, the leading exponent of the HIV theory, stomp away from the microphone in a rage when asked to respond to the views of Gilbert and Duesberg.

    Such displays of rage and ridicule are familiar to those who question the HIV theory of AIDS. Ever since 1984, when Gallo announced the discovery of what the newspapers call "HIV, the virus that causes AIDS," at a government press conference, the HIV theory has been the basis of all scientific work on AIDS. If the theory is mistaken, billions of dollars have been wasted-and immense harm has been done to persons who have tested positive for antibodies to HIV and therefore have been told to expect an early and painful death. The furious reactions to the suggestion that a colossal mistake may have been made are not surprising, given that the credibility of the biomedical establishment is at stake. It is time to think about the unthinkable, however, because there are at least three reasons for doubting the official theory that HIV causes AIDS.

    -- First, after spending billions of dollars, HIV researchers are still unable to explain how HIV, a conventional retrovirus with a very simple genetic organization, damages the immune system, much less how to stop it. The present stalemate contrasts dramatically with the confidence expressed in 1984. At that time Gallo thought the virus killed cells directly by infecting them, and U.S. government officials predicted a vaccine would be available in two years. Even 20 years later no vaccine is in sight, and the certainty about how the virus destroys the immune system has dissolved in confusion.

    -- Second, in the absence of any agreement about how HIV causes AIDS, the only evidence that HIV does cause AIDS is correlation. The correlation is imperfect at best, however. There are many cases of persons with all the symptoms of AIDS who do not have any HIV infection.

    http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/rrbhivneg.htm

    There are also many cases of persons who have been infected by HIV for more than a decade and show no signs of illness.

    -- Third, predictions based on the HIV theory have failed spectacularly. AIDS in the United States and Europe has not spread through the general population. The number of HIV-infected Americans has remained constant for years instead of increasing rapidly as predicted, which suggests that HIV is an old virus that has been with us for centuries without causing an epidemic.

    The seemingly close correlation between AIDS and HIV is largely an artifact of the misleading definition of AIDS used by the US government' s Centers for Disease Control. AIDS is a syndrome defined by the presence of one or more of 30 independent diseases -- when accompanied by a positive result on a test that detects antibodies to HIV. The same disease conditions are not defined as AIDS when the antibody test is negative. Tuberculosis with a positive antibody test is AIDS; tuberculosis with a negative test is just TB. The skewed definition of AIDS makes a close correlation with HIV inevitable, regardless of the facts. This situation was briefly exposed at the International AIDS Conference in Amsterdam in 1992, when the existence of dozens of suppressed "AIDS without HIV" cases first became publicly known. Instead of considering the obvious implications of these cases for the HIV theory, the authorities at the CDC, who had known about some of the cases for years but had kept the subject under wraps, quickly buried the anomaly by inventing a new disease called ICL (Idiopathic CD4+Lympho-cytopenia) -- a conveniently forgettable name that means "AIDS without HIV."

    There are probably thousands of cases of AIDS without HIV in the United States alone. Peter Duesberg found 4,621 cases recorded in the literature, 1,691 of them in U.S. (Such cases tend to disappear from the official statistics because, once it's clear that HIV is absent, the CDC no longer counts them as AIDS.) In a 1993 article published in Bio/Technology, Duesberg documented the consistent failure of the CDC to report on the true incidence of positive HIV tests in AIDS cases. The CDC concedes that at least 40,000 "AIDS cases" were diagnosed on the basis of presumptive criteria -- that is, without antibody testing, on the basis of diseases such as Kaposi's sarcoma. Yet these diseases can occur without HIV or immunodeficiency. Perhaps some of the patients diagnosed as having AIDS would have tested negative, or actually did test negative, for HIV. Physicians and health departments have an incentive to diagnose patients with AIDS symptoms as AIDS cases whenever they can, because the federal government pays the medical expenses of AIDS patients under the Ryan White Act but not of persons equally sick with the same diseases who test negative for HIV antibodies.

    The claimed correlation between HIV and AIDS is flawed at an even more fundamental level, however. Even if the "AIDS test" were administered in every case, the tests are unreliable. Authoritative papers in both Bio/Technology (June 1993) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (November 27, 1991) have shown that the tests are not standardized and give many "false positives" because they react to substances other than HIV antibodies. Even if that were not the case, the tests at best confirm the presence of antibodies and not the virus itself, much less the virus in an active, replicating state. Antibodies typically mean that the body has fought off a viral infection, and they may persist long after the virus itself has disappeared from the body. Since it is often difficult to find live virus even in the bodies of patients who are dying of AIDS, Gallo and others have to speculate that HIV can cause AIDS even when it is no longer present and only antibodies are left.

    Just as there are cases of AIDS without HIV, there are cases of HIV-positive persons who remain healthy for more than a decade and who may never suffer from AIDS. According to Greene's article in Scientific American, "It is even possible that some rare strains [of HIV] are benign. Some homosexual men in the U.S. who have been infected with HIV for at least 11 years show as yet no signs of damage to their immune systems. My colleagues . . .and I are studying these long-term survivors to ascertain whether something unusual about their immune systems explains their response or whether they carry an avirulent strain of the virus."

    The faulty correlation between HIV and AIDS would not disprove the HIV theory if there were strong independent evidence that HIV causes AIDS. As we have seen, however, researchers have been unable to establish a mechanism of causation. Nor have they succeeded in confirming the HIV model by inducing AIDS in animals. Chimps have repeatedly been infected with HIV, but none of them have developed AIDS. In the absence of a mechanism or an animal model, the HIV theory is based only upon a correlation that turns out to be primarily an artifact of the theory itself.


    * * *

    In light of the importance of the correlation argument, it is astonishing that no controlled studies have been done for three of the major risk groups: transfusion recipients, hemophiliacs, and drug abusers. Two ostensibly controlled studies involving men's groups in Vancouver and San Francisco purportedly show that AIDS developed only in the HIV-positive men and never in the "control group" of HIV negatives. These studies were designed not to test the HIV theory but to measure the rate at which HIV-positive gay men develop AIDS. They did not compare otherwise similar persons who differ only in HIV status, did not control effectively for drug use, and did not fully report the incidence of AIDS-defining diseases in the HIV-negative men. The research establishment accepted these studies uncritically because they give the HIV theory some badly needed support. But the main point they supposedly prove has already been thoroughly disproved: AIDS does occur in HIV-negative persons.

    * * *


    AIDS is not a disease. Rather, it is a syndrome defined by the presence of any of 30 separate and previously known diseases, accompanied by the actual or suspected presence of HIV. The definition has changed over time and is different for Africa (where HIV testing is rare) than for Europe and North America. The official CDC definition of AIDS in the United States was enormously broadened for 1993 in order to distribute more federal AIDS money to sick people, especially women with cervical cancer. As a direct result, AIDS cases more than doubled in 1993. Absent the HIV mystique, there would be no reason to believe that a single factor is causing cervical cancer in women, Kaposi's sarcoma in gay males, and slim disease in Africans.

    The HIV paradigm is failing every scientific test. Research based upon it has failed to provide not only a cure or vaccine but even a theoretical explanation for the disease-causing mechanism. Such success as medical science has had with AIDS has come not from the futile attempts to attack HIV with toxic antiviral drugs like AZT but from treating the various AIDS-associated diseases separately. Predictions based on the HIV theory have been falsified or are supported only by dubious statistics based mainly on the theory itself. Yet the HIV establishment continues to insist that nothing is wrong and to use its power to exclude dissenting voices, however eminent in science, from the debate.

    Research focusing on the cause of particular diseases rather than the politically defined hodgepodge of diseases we now call AIDS is needed. The cancer-like skin disease called Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) is one of the best-known AIDS-defining conditions, but leading KS and HIV experts Marcus Conant and Robin Weiss now say that dozens of non-HIV KS cases are under study in the United States and that KS is becoming much less frequent in gay male AIDS patients than it formerly was. Conant, Weiss, and other AIDS researchers now frankly attribute KS to an "unknown infectious agent" rather than to HIV, but KS is nonetheless still called AIDS when it occurs in combination with HIV. Hemophiliacs in the age of AIDS are living longer than they ever did in the past, but they still often die of conditions related to receipt of the blood concentrate called Factor VIII. Research published in The Lancet in February confirms earlier reports that symptoms diagnosed as AIDS are best treated by providing a highly purified form of Factor VIII. Researchers should study the role of blood-product impurities in causing disease in hemophiliacs, without the distortion that comes from arbitrarily assuming that HIV is responsible whenever an HIV-positive hemophiliac becomes ill.

    The HIV establishment and its journalist allies have replied to various specific criticisms of the HIV theory without taking them seriously. They have never provided an authoritative paper that undertakes to prove that HIV really is the cause of AIDS -- meaning a paper that does not start by assuming the point at issue. The HIV theory was established as fact by Robert Gallo's official press conference in 1984, before any papers were published in American journals. Thereafter, the research agenda was set in concrete, and skeptics were treated as enemies to be ignored or punished.

  10. #10
    Guest
    So basically these posters are assuming that the government is not sure that AIDS is caused by HIV, so they do not deport HIV+ aliens???

Similar Threads

  1. Need some positive advice
    By neeake in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-06-2004, 08:11 AM
  2. HIV Positive Illegals - please help, Mohan
    By in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-15-2003, 05:45 AM
  3. If hepatitis B positive
    By in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-10-2003, 07:50 PM
  4. HIV POSITIVE ALSO
    By in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 12-10-2002, 05:23 AM
  5. HIV POSITIVE ALSO
    By in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-08-2002, 12:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: