Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Vote for Viral Parity

Why does HIV get the exclusivity of causing AIDS (by man-made definitional construct) when clearly so many other viruses cause immune deficiency too?

Doesn't that seem wrong to anybody else, but me...It's stupid to me that my immune disorder (which I can epidemiologically link to other sexual partners) is called HIV-Negative AIDS.

It basically tells me one of a few things (which I have listed in compounding horrific order):

1) If the HIV/AIDS connection is 100% correct, then I have an undetectable strain of HIV.

2) If the HIV/AIDS connection is partially correct, then HIV is not the only cause of AIDS and the definition of AIDS is flawed, and in dire need of reevaluation. (Read my "LET'S REDEFINE AIDS" post, http://cfsstraighttalk.blogspot.com/2005/07/lets-redefine-aids.html)

3) If the HIV/AIDS connection is 100% incorrect, then HIV is not the cause of AIDS, which means:

OOPS, we got the HIV/AIDS connection wrong. We are so sorry, but we refuse to acknowledge that we could have botched up the AIDS definition so badly (and 'wasted' trillions of dollars worth of taxpayer’s money in the process) over the past 2 decades that we can not even bring ourselves to acknowledge it, never mind attempting to fix it.  So, rather than reevaluating the definition and recognizing the real possibility that we missed the mark, we are going to create a detractive HIV-Negative AIDS category instead (because these AIDS-like immunodeficient patients just keep showing up and we have to put them somewhere).  And, since we definitely do not like smart people asking smart questions, and presenting their medical cases based solely on fact, before one actually progresses to the severity of an HIV-NEGATIVE AIDS diagnosis, we are going to try to dumb-them-down, by tossing them into the mysterious miscellaneous Chronic Fatigue Syndrome bucket. Do you want a pen-pal and a lolli-pop with that?

Because, based on our experience, most CFS patients would rather suffer timelessly chitchatting amongst themselves than to get their representatives (i.e. the politicians) rocking out of their seats -- by demanding them to investigate the underlying truths about their hideous illnesses. History has also shown us that CFS patients do not have the tenacity to question our Great and Almighty CFS & AIDS paradigms (i.e. our theoretical frameworks) -- and repressed is just the way we like 'em.

There is nothing more natural for me than to compare the clinical diagnoses of CFS and HIV-Negative AIDS, since the severity of my illness is such that the two sit harmoniously in my medical file.  It seems awfully suspect to me that a sick HIV-Negative immunosuppressed CFS patient (E.g., me) looks more like an ailing AIDS patient than a healthy long-term HIV+ patient does. So, I would love for someone to explain it all to me, because there is something fishy going on with AIDS and CFS research.  And, if you can not explain my medical file to me, you should be equally (if not more) horrified by it all.

Because, as HIV-Negative AIDS patients continue to present themselves, as they have been dating back to 1992, there is one of four problems going on:

1) we have a new undetectable virus on our hands,
2) we need to acknowledge that perhaps the wrong virus was selected as the causal pathogen of the man-made AIDS definition,
3) we have to redraft our AIDS definition to include all viruses that cause immune deficiencies, or

4) all of the above.

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

Please express your concerns to your senator and congressmen, regarding the lack of research and funding on "HIV-Negative AIDS cases." 

I would also submit that, while you are writing your senator requesting a “Reevaluation of AIDS,” you inquire as to how they are planning on classifying “Chronic Fatigue Syndrome” in the USA’s adaptation of the WHO’s International Classification of Diseases (in its 10th revision). I believe that the answer, which existed long before I entered the scene, is their early acknowledgement of our very deep rooted problems.