It is important to bear in mind when looking over this claim that AZT is not
impeached on pharmacological grounds as it is in this book. Essentially, the
plaintiff simply pleads the manufacturer’s and other authorities’ indications
for the use of the drug. In other words, the plaintiff throws the doctor’s own
book at him, and complains that he didn’t read it. What his book contains is
not challenged in the claim.
Similarly, for the purposes of this claim, ‘HIV antibody’ testing is accepted
as valid. Which it certainly isn’t, but that is not relevant to this case where the
complaint is based on the doctor’s recommendation of a different kind of test,
a PCR test. ‘HIV antibody’ testing will come under judicial scrutiny in another
‘false-positive’ case I’m running for a fellow who went for a routine HIV test
for insurance purposes. Just like I did in March 2000. But his test was
reactive. He understandably flipped. The averments to be made in that claim,
also for psychological trauma, are anticipated in my article above, Why
the AIDS test is useless and
pathologists agree.
In this claim, reference is made throughout to ‘HIV’ on the basis, for present
purposes, that the stressed cellular phenomena ascribed to the presence of a
unique new pathogenic retrovirus, HIV, are unambiguous evidence for it.
Actually they are nothing of the sort. The debate on this most fundamental
controversy between Duesberg at the University of California at Berkeley and
Papadopulos-Eleopulos at the Royal Perth Hospital makes a riveting read. It’s
posted on the www.virusmyth.com site, in the chapter, Missing Virus.
Duesberg, strangely enough, argues the HIV isolation claims of his opponents
Luc Montagnier and Gallo. He accepts them; he just says the virus is harmless.
Papadopulos-Eleopulos on the other hand contends that no virus has been
isolated, and that virologists abuse the expression ‘isolation’ when they
assert the presence of markers like reverse transcriptase activity, the
detection of certain proteins, or the observation of uncharacterised particles
in unpurified cell cultures. But don’t ask any ‘AIDS expert’ to explain any of
this, because it was evident to me as I looked around that they weren’t
following a word of Dr Val Turner’s address on the isolation and antibody
problems when he addressed the second meeting of Mbeki’s AIDS Advisory Panel in
Johannesburg in July 2000. You’ll have to make your own way: On 6 June 2000,
David Rasnick on the Panel reported at a meeting in the San Francisco Public
Library that the “internet debate of the SA AIDS Panel is moribund… Only the
dissidents have posted material - especially the Perth Group… from the other
side it has been nothing but silence.” Reading a private exchange posted on the
Perth group’s web-site between Makgoba and the Perth group on the subject of
the isolation problem is a cringing embarrassment. The orthodox ‘experts’
decided that instead of a debate as Mbeki had wished for, to press their case
by signing a declaration of faith together, “The Durban Declaration.” Mbeki let
it be known through his spokesman that he thought it fit only for the rubbish
bin. Which it was. (The press conference to present it at the Durban AIDS
Conference was cancelled.) It’s no good signing petitions. In the legal
business, if you won’t answer your opponent’s claim, you lose the case by
default. If only the same applied to science.
Plaintiff is […], an adult male, born on […], a medical pensioner, formerly employed as a
policeman with the rank of […] by the South African Police Services, who
resides at […].
Defendant is
[…], an adult male general practitioner whose surgeries are at […], and who
resides at […]
At all material times hereto:
3.1 Defendant
held an appointment as a District Surgeon for the district of […], whose duties
entailed inter alia the performance
of post-mortem examinations at the police mortuary at […];
3.2 Plaintiff occupied the post of medico-legal aide at the mortuary;
3.3 Plaintiff had been allocated this post as a light-duty assignment at his request;
3.4 The reason for this relatively light posting was that Plaintiff was suffering from
accumulated traumatic stress caused by repeated exposure on duty to personally
dangerous and horrifying incidents, and needed to recuperate psychologically in
an employment environment in which he would be exposed to a relatively low
level of psychological stress;
3.5 Plaintiff remained exposed to repeated stressful psychological insults in daily handling
dead bodies, including those of murdered colleagues who had been mutilated;
3.6 Defendant was aware of the reason for Plaintiff’s posting at the mortuary, and of the
extreme psychological strain that he was experiencing;
3.7 Defendant anticipated, alternatively ought reasonably to have anticipated, that any
advice of a medical nature that he proffered to Plaintiff would be relied on
and acted on by him;
3.8 In volunteering medical advice to Plaintiff in the circumstances, Defendant
assumed a duty of care towards Plaintiff to advise him correctly; and,
3.9 Plaintiff relied on the medical advice that Defendant gave him.
4.1 On […], on Defendant’s instructions, and using a hypodermic needle and syringe, Plaintiff
drew a blood sample for testing from a corpse in the course of a routine
post-mortem examination;
4.2 Whilst so doing, Plaintiff was wearing a protective transparent plastic facial mask to
prevent blood or other fluids from splashing onto the mucotaneous surface of his
eyes and mouth;
4.3 In the process of depositing the blood sample into a vial, the syringe jammed;
4.4 Pressure applied by Plaintiff to release the stoppage resulted in an accident in which
some of the blood sample splashed up from the base of the vial onto the skin of
Plaintiff’s face;
4.5 Plaintiff washed the blood off his skin immediately;
4.6 Blood from the corpse was immediately tested for the presence of HIV antibodies, and was
reported HIV-positive;
4.7 Plaintiff’s blood was tested for the presence of HIV antibodies on the following day, and
was reported HIV-negative;
4.8 When Plaintiff’s blood was reported HIV-negative, Defendant advised him that the
test might not have detected an HIV infection resulting from the accident, and
that Plaintiff should have his blood retested three months later.
On the same day that the accident occurred, Defendant recommended to Plaintiff that he undergo
a course of AZT treatment for post exposure prophylaxis for HIV, and made
arrangements with a medical practitioner at […] Hospital, […] for the
prescription and supply of the drug in combination with a chemically related
drug, 3TC, both of which are manufactured by the pharmaceutical corporation
GlaxoWellcome and marketed under the trade-names Retrovir and Epivir
respectively.
6.1 AZT is a profoundly toxic compound synthesized in the early 1960’s and tested as an
experimental cell-poison, with numerous life-threatening ill-effects that are
cautioned against by GlaxoWellcome in bold-type upper-case letters at the head
of its PRODUCT INFORMATION release about the drug, and which are profusely
documented in the medical literature.
6.2 The chemical name of AZT is 3’-azido-3’-deoxythymidine, its generic name zidovudine, and its
brand name Retrovir.
6.3 3TC is a more recently synthesized compound with an analogous pharmacological action,
whose potent toxicities and potentially dangerous ill-effects are similarly
warned against by the manufacturer at the head of its PRODUCT INFORMATION
release about the drug.
6.4 The chemical name of 3TC is
(2R,cis)-4-amino-1-(2-hydroxymethyl-1,3-oxathiolan-5-yl)-(1H)-pyrimidin-2-one,
its generic name lamivudine, and its brand name Epivir.
Plaintiff commenced the recommended treatment, but had to abandon it after about three
weeks on account of the drugs’ unendurable ill-effects.
8.1 The drugs made Plaintiff acutely ill and suffer severe distress and discomfort, namely
continuous throbbing intense headache, persistent uncontrollable diarrhoea and
intense nausea, loss of balance and motor discoordination, insomnia,
irritability, complete taste loss, muscle weakness, weight loss, loss of
appetite, and inability to retain food in his gut normally;
8.2 All these ill-effects were reasonably predictable having regard to the drugs’ well-established
pharmacology and toxicity profile;
8.3 The metabolic poisoning experienced by Plaintiff was apparently transient, and the
ill-effects of the drugs as described above passed after about a month
following Plaintiff’s abandonment of the treatment; however, in view of the
potential carcinogenicity of AZT documented in the medical literature, and the
carcinogenicity caveats in its PRODUCT INFORMATION release concerning AZT which
GlaxoWellcome amplified on 4 March 1998, Plaintiff reserves the right to claim
damages from Defendant in the event that he develops a cancerous illness as a
consequence of his ingestion of the drug.
Defendant’s prescription of AZT and 3TC to Plaintiff in the circumstances of the accident
was inappropriate and unreasonable, causing Plaintiff unnecessary suffering, in
that:
9.1 the only indication by GlaxoWellcome for the use of AZT in male adults is as a
therapeutic agent for “the initial treatment of HIV-infected adults with CD4
cell counts of 500 cells/mm3 or less” (per
Mosby Yearbook 1996), alternatively, “for the treatment of HIV infection
when antiretroviral therapy is warranted” (per
PRODUCT INFORMATION release issued by GlaxoWellcome in May 1998), alternatively
“for the management of certain patients with Human Immunodeficiency Virus” (per Retrovir package insert in South
Africa) - and Plaintiff fell outside this category, not having been infected
with HIV according to the result of the antibody test performed upon him;
9.2 AZT is not indicated by GlaxoWellcome for prophylactic use to prevent HIV particles from infecting
target cells of persons exposed to the virus;
9.3 Defendant:
9.3.1 failed to
comply with GlaxoWellcome’s recommendation set out in its advisories regarding
AZT mentioned above: “Patients should be advised that therapy with Retrovir has
not been shown to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV to others through …
blood contamination”;
9.3.2 failed to
comply with a recommendation expressed in identical terms regarding 3TC in a similar
advisory;
9.4 Defendant
failed to inform Plaintiff that AZT either alone or in combination with 3TC has
not been demonstrated in any reported study to be efficacious for prophylactic
use in the circumstances of his accident;
9.5 Defendant
failed to inform Plaintiff that in experimental animal studies in which
antiretroviral drugs were employed for post-exposure viral interdiction,
results were indeterminate;
9.6 Defendant
failed to provide Plaintiff with any information furnished by GlaxoWellcome about
the drugs so as to enable him to make an informed choice about whether to
commence with the recommended treatment regimen, and in particular, Defendant
neglected to inform Plaintiff that the drugs were extremely toxic and would
probably cause him to suffer considerable discomfort from their severe
ill-effects.
9.7 Defendant failed to inform Plaintiff that in
experimental studies reported in the medical literature a high percentage of
subjects taking AZT alone or in combination with other drugs marketed as
antiretroviral agents after occupational exposure to HIV-positive blood had
been unable to complete their treatments due to the acute toxicity of AZT and
similar drugs and their unendurable ill-effects, and that some developed
dangerous illnesses as a direct consequence of these toxicities.
9.8 Defendant failed to inform Plaintiff that according to
current medical knowledge as reflected in Morbidity
and Mortality Report June 7, 1996; 45:468-472, published by the Centres for
Disease Control of the Department of Health in the United States (“the CDC”),
“Theoretically no virus is able to penetrate intact skin” and that his risk of
having become infected with HIV was accordingly negligible;
9.9 Defendant failed to
inform Plaintiff that the CDC recommended in the above–cited report - and the
National Institute for Virology in South Africa endorsed this - that in an
accident such as his, where no percutaneous injury or mucotaneous splash had
occurred, but merely short-duration skin surface contact with HIV-positive
blood, AZT and 3TC should merely be offered, and should not be recommended by
the managing physician.
9.10 Defendant
failed to inform Plaintiff that in its Morbidity
and Mortality Weekly Report, September 25, 1998 Vol 47 No. RR-17, the CDC
had qualified the recommendation mentioned in paragraphs 9.8-9 above further by
cautioning, “Because PEP is potentially toxic, its use is not justified for
exposures that pose a negligible risk of transmission (e.g. potentially
infected body fluid on intact skin)”.
9.11 Having
regard to its pharmacological action as described by GlaxoWellcome in the
advisory packaged with the drug, AZT is incapable of exerting any prophylactic
action against HIV for the reasons that:
9.11. 1 It is
rudimentary knowledge in clinical medicine that:
9.11.1.1 HIV is
a retrovirus;
9.11.1.2
Retroviruses contain RNA and not DNA at their core;
9.11.1.3 RNA
differs from DNA inter alia in that
RNA contains no thymidine but has uracil in its place as one of its four
nucleotides;
9.11.2 In its PRODUCT INFORMATION release (and in the
Retrovir package insert in substantially similar terms), GlaxoWellcome
describes AZT as “a thymidine analogue
[which is] converted to the triphosphate derivative by…cellular enzymes. [AZT]
triphosphate interferes with the HIV viral RNA dependent DNA polymerase
(reverse transcriptase) and thus, inhibits viral replication… In vitro, [AZT]
triphosphate has been shown to be incorporated into growing chains of DNA by
viral reverse transcriptase. When incorporation by the viral enzyme occurs, the
DNA chain is terminated”; in other words, GlaxoWellcome explains the
pharmacological action of AZT against HIV in terms of a process of chain
termination of proviral DNA synthesis, after the virus has already infected a
target cell, by the substitution of AZT triphosphate in place of natural
thymidine during viral replication.
9.11.3 AZT can
therefore not be effective against HIV prior to infection in that it cannot
exert any antagonistic action towards cell-free HIV until after infection of
target cells has already been achieved; and Defendant’s advice to Plaintiff
that he undergo a course of AZT to prevent him becoming infected with HIV
consequently had no rational basis.
9.12 Defendant
failed to acquaint himself with GlaxoWellcome’s specific indications for the
prescription of the drugs and the recommendations of the CDC in this regard,
particularly in view of their extreme toxicity.
In the premises,
Defendant’s prescription of the said toxic drugs to Plaintiff was wrongful and
negligent.
About three
months after the accident, and when Plaintiff was due on Defendant’s advice to
be retested, Defendant advised Plaintiff that on reporting to the pathologist
for his second HIV test, he should specify that a PCR test should be conducted.
12.1 When
stipulating that a PCR test should be performed, Defendant informed Plaintiff
that the result of this kind of HIV test was more reliable than the results of
HIV antibody tests; and,
12.2 Plaintiff
accordingly understood from this that the result of the recommended test would
be more accurate and dependable than the result of an HIV antibody test and
less prone to yield misleading results.
13.1 A PCR test
is a nucleic acid amplification assay based on Polymerase Chain Reaction
technology;
13.2 Several
different kinds of HIV tests employ adapted forms of PCR technology in clinical
and research settings;
13.3 The only
PCR-based HIV test approved by the United States Federal Drug Agency (“FDA”)
for use in clinical practice, and recommended by its manufacturer for this
purpose, is a quantitative HIV PCR assay manufactured by Roche Diagnostics
Corporation, called the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test, employed for the
measurement of a parameter called ‘viral load’ in order to make disease
prognoses;
13.4 Qualitative
PCR-based HIV tests, which purport to detect HIV DNA following infection and
incorporation of the virus into target cells, are manufactured and supplied for
research purposes only, and are explicitly contraindicated by their
manufacturers for use for clinical diagnostic purposes, as illustrated by Roche
Diagnostics Corporation’s caveat in
relation to its AMPLICOR HIV-1 Test, a qualitative PCR test: “ For research use
only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.”
13.5 In clinical practice a request for an HIV PCR test:
13.5.1 means a
PCR assay approved and recommended for use in clinical practice, namely a
quantitative HIV PCR assay; and,
13.5.2 implies
that the patient to be so tested has already been found to be HIV-positive,
having been diagnosed as such with an HIV antibody test.
14.1 On or about
[…] Plaintiff duly conveyed Defendant’s instructions regarding the kind of test
to be performed, by entering ‘PCR’ on the form given to him upon his arrival at
the laboratory of pathologists […] and Partners.
14.2 In
accordance with Defendant’s instructions, and their implication concerning the
type of HIV PCR assay to be used, Plaintiff’s blood was tested with a
quantitative PCR test, the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test, version 1.5,
manufactured by Roche Diagnostics.
15.1 The said
test was reactive in that it registered a significant viral load count;
15.2 On […],
Defendant personally informed Plaintiff that the result of his second HIV test
was positive for HIV.
Plaintiff
understood from this HIV-positive diagnosis that he was infected with the Human
Immunodeficiency Virus, an incurable viral pathogen that targets and destroys
human immune cells, and that he would consequently develop AIDS and die within
a few years of the accident.
Plaintiff’s
apprehensions accorded with the HIV-AIDS model of disease pathogenesis
currently prevailing in contemporary medicine, and widely propounded to the
public under official public health programmes.
On […],
Plaintiff was HIV tested for a third time; an HIV antibody test was employed
and was non-reactive.
Plaintiff’s
mortal dread and consequent psychic trauma (particularised below) were not
alleviated by the third HIV-negative test result because:
19.1 Defendant
had conveyed to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff believed accordingly, that a PCR test
is more accurate and reliable than an antibody test for HIV; and,
19.2 Plaintiff’s
personal physician cautioned Plaintiff that he should submit to a fourth HIV
test in a further three months time, for the reason that only after six months
of the accident could he be sure that he had not sero-converted to
HIV-positive.
Plaintiff’s
physician’s advice was correct inasmuch as it accords with conventional wisdom
and practice in contemporary medicine in regard to the diagnosis of HIV in
cases of suspected sexual or occupational HIV exposure.
21.1 On […],
Plaintiff was HIV tested for a fourth time; again an HIV antibody test was
used, and the HIV-negative result was interpreted by Plaintiff’s physician to
confirm that Plaintiff was not infected with HIV.
21.2 Plaintiff’s
physician’s interpretation was correct with regard to the norms of contemporary
medicine regarding the accepted protocol for the diagnosis of HIV infection.
The result of
the second HIV test was a ‘false-positive’, in that notwithstanding the
reactive result, Plaintiff was not in fact infected with HIV.
Defendant’s
communication to Plaintiff that his blood sample had reacted positively to the
HIV PCR test caused Plaintiff to suffer acute emotional and psychological
trauma; in particular, Plaintiff:
23.1 became
severely clinically depressed, characterised by repeated thoughts of suicide
which twice resulted in his being ordered by his superiors to surrender his
service pistol;
23.2 began to
suffer random and uncontrollable panic attacks and general anxiety, assessed by
his clinical psychologist as ‘very high’;
23.3 needed to
be booked off work;
23.4 needed
treatment by a psychiatrist with psychiatric drugs, and counseling by a
clinical psychologist;
23.5 developed a
profound psychological aversion to continuing with his work in the mortuary
where he might again be exposed to infected blood, and since the date of the
false-positive result has not been able to resume it;
23.6 suffered a
change in personality causing him to become socially withdrawn, unfriendly,
morose, and irritable;
23.7 has
suffered a consequent deterioration in his marital relationship, and with his
friends and colleagues;
23.8 has been
permanently psychologically damaged by the HIV false-positive PCR test result,
to the extent that he was found by a medical board to be no longer fit for
further employment in the South African Police Services, and was discharged
accordingly on […] on the basis of psychiatric diagnoses of incapacitating Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder of an extremely high scale and Panic Disorder with
Agoraphobia.
The psychic
shock and trauma experienced by Plaintiff was exacerbated by:
24.1 Defendant’s
advice that a PCR HIV test is an exceptionally accurate diagnostic test for HIV
infection; and
24.2 Plaintiff’s
already fragile psychological state at the time of the accident, and when the
false-positive HIV test result was communicated to him.
Defendant’s advice
to Plaintiff that he take an HIV PCR test was negligent in that it was given
without regard to the limitations of his expertise as an unspecialised general
practitioner, and his unfamiliarity with the technology of HIV testing,
particularly concerning the unascertained specificity of HIV PCR assays and
their consequent unsuitability for diagnostic use in a clinical setting, and
their specific limited purpose and utility in clinical pathology practice and
research institutions.
The psychiatric
and psychological injury suffered by Plaintiff was a direct result of
Defendant’s negligent advice to Plaintiff that:
26.1 he should
specifically request the consulting pathologist to perform a PCR HIV test; and,
26.2 a PCR HIV
test result is more reliable than that of an HIV antibody test.
Defendant acted
wrongfully and negligently in specifying to Plaintiff that a PCR test for HIV
be performed in one or more of the following respects:
27.1 The current
standard protocol observed in contemporary clinical medicine for the diagnosis
of HIV infection requires the employment of HIV antibody detection technology.
27.2 Although there is no
uniformity of practice within the field of HIV antibody testing, according to
contemporary medical practice and norms an HIV-positive diagnosis is based on
the reactive result of a third-generation enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
(ELISA), which is either confirmed by immediate repetition of the same test or
a similar test made by a different manufacturer, or by means of a supplemental
HIV antibody test based on what is conventionally regarded as a more specific
testing technology, namely, Western blotting.
27.3 The current standard
protocol observed in contemporary medicine for the diagnosis of HIV infection
excludes the use of PCR-based HIV tests, as is expressed in the warning issued
by The National Institute for Virology in South Africa that “PCR is not
recommended as a diagnostic test for post-exposure diagnosis of HIV infection
either following needlestick or sexual exposure because of misleading false
positives or false negative results”, and this contraindication applies equally
to skin-contact exposure to HIV-positive blood.
27.4 In clinical
practice, the only recognised and approved uses of PCR-based HIV tests are for
the purposes of making disease prognoses and monitoring treatment responses, in
cases where HIV infection has already been diagnosed by means of HIV antibody
testing, and where the patient presents with clinically conspicuous symptoms
and other laboratory markers of disease progression.
27.5 The most
widely used and best known PCR-based test for the prognostic and monitoring
purposes mentioned above, is the Roche Diagnostics AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test,
version 1.5, as was used in Plaintiff’s second HIV test.
27.6 The
manufacturer of the said test explicitly contraindicates the use of the test
for the purpose to which it was put in testing Plaintiff’s blood on Defendant’s
advice, in the following terms as set out in the instruction manual provided
with the test kit: “The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test, version 1.5 is not
intended to be used as a screening test for HIV-1 or as a diagnostic test to
confirm the presence of HIV-1 infection.”
27.7 When on 3
March 1999, the FDA licensed the introduction of the said test into clinical
practice, it did so on the basis that the test would be employed for prognostic
and treatment monitoring purposes, and not for the diagnosis of HIV infection
at first instance.
27.8 This
licensing limitation on the employment of PCR-based HIV tests for use in
clinical pathology laboratories was imposed on account of the unsuitability of
PCR technology for HIV diagnostic purposes having regard to one or more of the
following facts:
27.8.1 the
propensity of PCR-based HIV tests to register false-positives is amply
documented in the medical literature;
27.8.2 the HIV
specificity of such tests has never been determined and remains unknown; in
other words, the extent to which the tests yield false-positives has never been
assessed in percentage terms;
27.8.3 the
specificity of any form of PCR-based HIV test for the putative viral genome of
HIV has never been determined by comparing reactive results with confirmed
infections, determined directly by means isolation of HIV from infected cells
by observing the well-settled procedure for the isolation of retroviruses
discussed and reiterated in papers presented at an international symposium on
the procedure, held at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France in 1973;
27.8.4 the
detection of nucleic acids asserted by the manufacturers of such test-kits to
be uniquely constituent of HIV correlates poorly and unpredictably with the
detection of HIV antibodies; and in the only comparative study of its type yet
performed, the concordance of reactive PCR test results for HIV with positive
HIV antibody test results ranged from 40% to 100%;
27.8.5 PCR test
results for HIV are poorly reproducible;
27.8.6 PCR-based
HIV test kits do not detect and measure copies of whole virus, but rather,
genetic fragments attributed to HIV;
27.8.7 the
genetic fragments detected by such tests, and registered as a given number of
HIV-RNA copies, are non-infectious, do not indicate the presence of an entire
HIV genome, and cannot orchestrate the synthesis of new viral particles
accordingly, and their detected presence can therefore not properly be
interpreted as evidence of an active infection with HIV;
27.8.8 the
ribonucleic acid employed in such tests as primers for the detection and
amplification of HIV RNA has never been demonstrated to be uniquely constituent
of an exogenously acquired infectious viral particle;
27.8.9 the
nucleic acid probes and primers used in PCR-based HIV test kits are commonly
obtained from leukaemic T4 cell lines putatively infected with HIV, but this
leukaemia is claimed by Dr Robert Gallo (author of the HIV-AIDS causation
hypothesis) and generally accepted to be caused by a retrovirus similar to HIV,
namely HTLV-1, and such cell lines have been shown to contain other
retroviruses; consequently, such probes and primers cannot reliably be asserted
to be specific for HIV as opposed to HTLV-1 or other retroviruses;
27.8.10 the
nucleic acid mentioned in paragraph 27.8.9 above is derived from cells
putatively infected with HIV, with the viral RNA ostensibly purified and sedimenting
at a density gradient of 1.16 g/ml following zonal ultracentrifugation in
sucrose, and this is done on the erroneous assumption that material found at
this density gradient is almost exclusively retroviral, whereas electron
photomicrographs of such matter published in March 1997 by Bess et al and Gluschankof et al in the journal Virology reveals it exclusively,
alternatively, overwhelmingly predominantly to comprise microvesicles and
cellular debris; consequently RNA sourced from such density gradients is
certainly, alternatively, overwhelmingly likely to be cellular and not
retroviral;
27.8.11 the
genetic material said to comprise HIV hybridises with that of HTLV-1 and
HTLV-11 (two other human retroviruses), and the normal human genome contains sequences
similar to these retroviruses - the ramifications of which are that if the PCR
probes for HIV find genetic material from these other retroviruses, or similar
endogenous genetic sequences, they will bind to it and deliver a false signal
that they have found HIV;
27.8.12 Dr Kary
Mullis, the inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction technology employed in
PCR-based HIV test kits such as the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test, version 1.5
used in Plaintiff’s case has accordingly repudiated such tests as a scientific
abuse of the technology he invented, for which was awarded the Nobel prize in
1993, and has condemned the quantitative HIV PCR test as “a scientific
oxymoron.”
28.1 As a result
of Defendant’s negligence Plaintiff has incurred damages (a) for distress and
discomfort through poisoning with inappropriately and unnecessarily prescribed
dangerously toxic drugs, and (b) for permanently disabling psychiatric injury,
medical treatment, and reduced future income, in the combined sum of R[…]
28.2 Plaintiff’s
damages are made up as follows:
28.2.1 for pain
and suffering through poisoning with toxic drugs: R[…];
28.2.2 general
damages for permanent psychiatric injury suffered on account of the
false-positive PCR HIV test result: R[…];
28.2.4 loss of
income: R[…], calculated in the manner set out in annexure ‘A’;
28.2.5 medical
expenses, past and future: R{…], enumerated in annexure ‘B’.
WHEREFORE
Plaintiff claims judgment against Defendant for:
(a) Payment of R[…];
(b) Interest on
the sum claimed at the prescribed legal rate reckoned from the date on which
summons is served;
(c) Costs of suit;
(d) Leave to set this action down again on amplified pleadings after the determination of his
principal claim for the recovery of further damages in the event that Plaintiff
develops a cancerous illness arising from his ingestion of AZT and 3TC;
(e) Further and/or alternative relief.
Signed at Pietermaritzburg on this day of […].
______________________
[…] S.C.
Plaintiff’s Counsel
______________________
A R BRINK
Plaintiff’s Counsel
___________________
[…]
Plaintiff’s Attorney