Summations by Defence Lawyer Kevin Borick’s and Prosecution Lawyer Sandi McDonald

At the end of the trial Kevin Borick summarized (5.4 MB pdf) the reasons why an appeal in the Parenzee case is justified due to uncertainties over the science claimed to support the HIV=AIDS=Death dogma.

The court schedule can be found here (click on “Supreme Court of South Australia” and then “Court of Criminal Appeal”).

A short dialogue between the lawyers and the judge, mostly prosecution lawyer McDonald trying to come to grips with the challenges to the original Gallo scientific papers.

A summary of the prosecution case was provided by government lawyer Sandi McDonald (3 MB searchable pdf). Some quotes from this document and our response are found below…

A range of controlled tests are carefully conducted during the course of virus isolation to ensure that the growth of the virus is pure and not contaminated. Therefore, there is no scientific basis for requiring further purification after replication of the virus in the cell culture or to allege that all cellular debris must be removed to ascertain whether a particular virus is present in a cell culture.

This is claiming that purity of a virus can be established when you never have pure virus. In a cell culture the overwhelming amount of material will be cellular in origin. No wonder McDonald didn’t specify what the “range of controlled tests” actually is!

no virus can ever be said to be pure of all other host cellular material.

Now you’re getting the picture!

It could be argued that genetic testing has now become the ultimate “gold standard” in HIV diagnosis.

You can argue anything you want, but this argument is weak. If the validity of the genetic probes is not established by purifying virus and ensuring that the probes are viral material, then genetic tests are no more valid than any other unvalidated HIV test.

In the mainstream global scientific community, the scientific debate as to whether HIV was the cause of AIDS was over by the mid 1980’s

Sadly this is true. It would not be the first time science had closed debate on a subject with major questions unanswered. The Piltdown Man was wrongly accepted for about 40 years and Continental Drift (now Plate Tectonics) was wrongly rejected for about 50 years.

It is absolutely necessary that a person be infected with HIV to be diagnosed with AIDS.

This is actually not true, some conditions (such as Kaposi’s Sarcoma) can result in an AIDS diagnosis in the absence of an HIV test, but ignoring that, McDonald has clearly described the tautology (circular logic) of HIV. A disease like Tuberculosis is just itself normally, but if the person is HIV-positive it becomes AIDS. Does that prove that HIV causes AIDS because virtually every disease that occurs with HIV is called AIDS?

Professor Cooper described his own experience in the following way: “I care for about four or five hundred HIV infected people at any one time. I’ve probably cared for two and a half thousand HIV infected people over my career…it is extraordinary the number of patients I’ve had that have been infected on their first sexual exposure, even on the occasion of their sexual debut.” In such circumstances it is unhelpful to attempt to come up with a mathematic[al] equation in an attempt to formulate how many sexual contacts are required for HIV transmission.

McDonald is trying to sidestep the 10 year long Padian study that showed no HIV infections in couples of which one was HIV positive and the other negative, despite the lack of safe sex precautions by many couples. Also, if the true risk (as estimated by Padian and widely accepted) was about 1/1000 or less, the chances of infection upon first sexual contact would be very small. Cooper may have ignored the fact that he did not know how many of these people were actually HIV-positive at the time of their first sexual experience!

After being diagnosed as HIV positive [the accused] commenced a sexual relationship with **** ****. Ms. **** was not involved in any other sexual relationships during this time nor was she in any other risk group. She subsequently tested positive for HIV. Within a few years of diagnosis, at a time when Ms ****'s immune system started to drop away very rapidly, she became extremely unwell to a point that her life was at risk.

McDonald does not say whether the illness of Ms. **** corresponds to the initiation of anti-retroviral therapy based on low CD4 cell counts (interpreted as the failure of the immune system, even though this occurs in healthy people).