CD4 test
[back] Medical tests
[back] Medical study ploys
See: Antibody Theory
The second leg of the selection process for poisoning Africans with ARVs is CD4 cell counting, on the premise that such a count indicates a person’s immune status, i.e. his health. But as early as April 1994, having employed CD4 cell counts as a surrogate marker for drug efficacy in the Concorde trial, the researchers reported the irrelevance of this laboratory measure and its lack of a correlation to clinical health in Lancet 343(8902):871-81, noting that the results of the study call into question the uncritical use of CD4 cell counts as a surrogate endpoint for assessment of benefit from long-term antiretroviral therapy. Anthony Brink's criminal complaint of genocide laid against Zackie Achmat
It has been known since at least 1993 (when the results of the Concorde AZT study were published), and has been publicly admitted by public health officials, that the CD4 test is worthless; nevertheless, this worthless test is still being used to evaluate the alleged efficacy of toxic and worthless AIDS drugs. 'AIDS: A Death Cult' by John Lauritsen
In order to explain failure to find a retrovirus that directly caused cancer,
they claimed to be able to measure the immune system. But this is ridiculous. In
the Journal of the American Medical Association, August 28, 1981, it was
published that it makes no sense to measure lymphocytes in the blood
because only a few of them are in the blood. The immune system is carried out,
not in the blood, but in the tissues. Only rarely and accidentally do we see
some of them in the blood. We've already carried out thousands of studies which
have proven no correlation between disease or health, in old or young, in
T-cells; and even less, of course, in T-cell subsets.
But, even though they knew
that these T-cell tests had not meaning, they were selling them to the market.
Beginning in 1977, starting in the United States, it was possible to patent
biological entities or biological techniques, so people started to make money
out of biological ideas.
[1995] INTERVIEW STEFAN LANKA
"A new medical definition (Idiopathic CD4+ T-cell lymphocytopenia) was created to avoid the fact that AIDS occurs in the absence of HIV."----John Kirkham http://www.sickofdoctors.addr.com/articles/top100_aids_inconsistencies.htm
"Some other operatives I was aware of played a role in getting mainstream researchers to lobby for, and win, a new standard for HIV illness, based purely on numbers of T-cells. [Note: this "innovation" came later, long after 1987.] Tests would determine if a person was 'getting sick,' or if he was 'getting better' after taking his AZT – all measured by how many T-cells [part of the immune system defense] showed up on the tests. These operatives knew, and had been briefed on this, that T-cells could actually vary all over the place, up and down, depending on factors like the time of day a person was given the test. It was another area of shoddy science, and they took advantage of it. I'll give you an example. You've got some guy who has been told he's HIV positive, and so, even though he's not sick at all, he gets tested every few months for numbers of T-cells. Sooner or later, those numbers will go down on a test. If the doctor isn't really attentive, he'll tell the patient he is now officially diagnosed with full-blown AIDS, because those numbers are too low. If the patient hasn't been taking AZT yet, he will go for it now." [2003] Depopulation and HIV by Jon Rappoport