La fin de cette terrible épopée du sida trouve ses conclusions
June 2008
- From the UK, Officials Say AIDS Pandemic is Cancelled
- India Asks, "Is HIV the Cause of AIDS?"
- New Radio Shows and Podcasts with AIDS Rethinkers
The Big Myth Officially Shattered:
Top AIDS Leader Admits There's No Heterosexual Pandemic
The
latest news in AIDS is at least two decades old, but 20 years ago-and
as recently as last month-UNAIDS and the World Health Organization
continued to deny it, squelching data that showed AIDS was not
affecting the general public around the globe.
Back
in 1987, Rethinking AIDS board member Gordon Stewart, Emeritus
Professor of Public Health at the University of Glasgow, tried
unsuccessfully to point out that AIDS predictions didn't add up and
that the notion of a global AIDS epidemic among heterosexual
populations was at best a huge mistake, or at worst, a dishonest
marketing scheme.
Now,
hundreds of billions of dollars later, the recklessly ignored facts are
coming to light as the top AIDS official at the World Health
Organization finally admits there is no evidence that the world at
large is--or ever was--at risk for AIDS, and UNAIDS comes under fire
for promoting unfounded fear and squandering precious healthcare
dollars on a problem that didn't exist.
The
new official word on AIDS is the old word: Everyone is not at risk;
AIDS is confined to distinct high-risk groups such as injection drug
users and men having sex with men...except if you live in certain parts
of Africa.
According
to the new version of orthodox AIDS-think, unlike other people in other
parts of the world, heterosexual Black Africans still remain at high
risk for AIDS. Dr. James Chin, former epidemiologist for the World
Health Organization, claims this is because 20% to 40% of the adult
population in sub-Saharan Africa participates in "multiple concurrent
overlapping relationships" involving sexual intercourse with several
different people and several changing partners every few weeks.
The
startling concept of African AIDS epidemics due to wildly promiscuous
Blacks and the remarkable admission that 20 years of global AIDS policy
followed a false premise have yet to be reported by any major US media.
Excerpted from the June 12, 2008 UK Guardian
The Exploitation of AIDS
By Brendan O'Neill
"The AIDS scare was one of the most distorted, duplicitous and cynical public health panics of the last 30 years..."
Finally
we have a high-level admission that there is no threat of a global AIDS
pandemic among heterosexuals. After 25 years of official scaremongering
about western societies being ravaged by the disease - with salacious,
tombstone-illustrated government propaganda warning people to wear a
condom or "die of ignorance" - the head of the World Health
Organization's HIV/AIDS department says there is no need for
heterosexuals to fret.
Kevin
de Cock, who has headed the global battle against AIDS said that
outside very poor African countries, AIDS is confined to "high-risk
groups," and even in these communities it remains quite rare. In other
words, all that hysterical fear mongering about AIDS spreading among
sexed-up western
youth was a pack of lies.
Much
of the media has treated Dr. De Cock's admission as a startling
revelation when in truth, experts have known for many years that in the
vast majority of the world, AIDS has little impact on the "general
population." In her new book The Wisdom of Whores, Elizabeth Pisani -
who worked for 10 years in what she refers to as "the AIDS bureaucracy"
- admits that by 1998 it was clear that "HIV wasn't going to rage
through the billions in the 'general population', and we knew it."
And
it isn't the case that the heterosexual pandemic failed to materialize
because officialdom's omnipresent pro-condom propaganda was a success.
According to James Chin, a clinical professor of epidemiology at the
University of California at Berkeley and author of the new book The
AIDS Pandemic, it was always a "glorious myth" that there would be an
"HIV epidemic in general populations." That myth was the product of
"misunderstanding or deliberate distortions of HIV epidemiology" by
UNAIDS and other AIDS activists, says Chin.
It
is time to recognize that the AIDS scare was one of the most distorted,
duplicitous and cynical public health panics of the past 30 years.
Instead of being treated as a sexually transmitted disease that
affected certain high-risk communities, the "war against AIDS" was
turned into moral crusade.
Governments
exploited the disease to create a new moral framework for society.
Through baseless fear mongering, officials sought to police and
regulate the behavior of the public. No longer able to appeal to
outdated Victorian ideals of chastity or restraint, the powers-that-be
used the specter of an AIDS calamity to terrify us into behaving
"responsibly" in sexual and social matters.
They
were aided and abetted by the radical left. Gay rights campaigners,
feminists and left-leaning health and social workers stood
shoulder-to-shoulder in spreading the "glorious myth" of a possible
future AIDS pandemic. An unholy alliance of old-style, prudish
conservatives and post-radical, lifestyle-obsessed leftists latched on
to AIDS as a disease that might provide them with a sense of moral
purpose.
And they ruthlessly sought to
silence anyone who questioned them. Those who challenged the idea that
AIDS would devour sexually promiscuous young people and transform
once-civilized western societies into diseased dystopias were denounced
as "AIDS deniers" and "heretics." Anyone who suggested that homosexuals
were at greater risk than heterosexuals was denounced as homophobic.
Nothing could be allowed to stand in the way of the glorious moral
effort to make everyone submit to the sexual and moral conformism of
the AIDS crusaders.
Even in Africa, the
international focus on AIDS has been motivated more by pernicious
moralism than straightforward charity. Diseases such as malaria and
tuberculosis are bigger killers than AIDS. Yet focusing on AIDS allows
western governments and NGOs to lecture Africans about their morality
and personal behavior.
The relentless
politicization and moralization of AIDS has not only distorted public
understanding of the disease and generated unnecessary fear and angst -
it has also potentially cost lives. James Chin estimates that UNAIDS
wastes around $1billion a year in activities such as "raising
awareness" about AIDS in communities that are at little risk. How many
lives could that kind of money save?
===
Excerpted from Guerilla News Network, June 13, 2008
WHO Confesses to 25 Years of Misguided AIDS Policies...But They Still Want You to Believe Them
By Liam Scheff
It's
official: AIDS is not explicable by sexual transmission, at least not
outside of Sub-Saharan Africans, gay men, intravenous drug users and
prostitutes. For the rest of us, there is no heterosexual AIDS
pandemic, and further, there will be no heterosexual AIDS pandemic.
"Threat
of world AIDS pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits," The
Independent announced on Sunday, June 8, 2008 (mimicking what I have
been reporting for years and what some of my colleagues have been
reporting for decades).
But
take it from someone you trust, Dr. Kevin de Cock of the World Health
Organization (WHO): "[T]here will be no generalized epidemic of AIDS in
the heterosexual population outside Africa."
The
authorities explain that they misled the entire world, for decades,
because admitting the grandeur of their farce would have encouraged
their critics: "Any revision of the threat was liable to be seized on
by those who rejected HIV as the cause of the disease." Of course!
We've got to protect flawed science from criticism!
But,
regardless of past and current performance (and admissions of outright
massive fraud), the authorities at the WHO and UNAIDS still want you to
believe them when they talk about AIDS, Bird Flu, SARS, and other
advertised but not achieved super-pandemics.
Such
a weak defense might encourage a curious mind to wonder at the other
flaws in their paradigm. For example, are we now to believe that there
is a virus that causes a fatal disease, but only in Africans, (wherever
in the world they may be), gay men and drug addicts? But not the
entirety of the human population that is sexually active?
The
answer to the riddle may be found in the actual cause of "HIV" -
namely, "HIV testing." Figure out who is tested, how the tests work
(or, more to the point, how they don't work), and who the tests are
said to be accurate for, and you'll get an understanding of how the
"AIDS" diagnosis - now, no better than a brand name applied to poverty
and drug addiction - actually works.
"HIV tests" come up as "false positives" in numbers far exceeding "true positives":
"Sir,
In the May 9 issue of The Lancet, Round the World correspondents
discussed AIDS-associated problems in former Eastern bloc countries...I
would like to emphasize another alarming concern - namely, the rapid
growth in false-positive HIV tests in the former USSR, and in Russia
especially. In 1990, of 20.2 million HIV tests done in Russia only 12
were confirmed and about 20,000 were false positives. 1991 saw some
30,000 false positives out of 29.4 million tests, with only 66
confirmations." (The Lancet, June 1992)
They
have no ability to determine if someone has or does not have the
antibodies they think they're looking for; the interpretation of "HIV
positive" is subjective and not consistent:
"At
present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence
or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood." (Abbott
labs HIV-1/2 test, 1986 to the present).
They don't produce singular or diagnostically specific results - they cross-react all over the map:
"Heterophile
antibodies are a well-recognized cause of erroneous results in
immunoassays. We describe here a 22-month-old child with heterophile
antibodies reactive with bovine [Cow] serum albumin and caprine [Goat]
proteins causing false-positive results to human immunodeficiency virus
[HIV] type 1 and other infectious serology testing. (CLINICAL AND
DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY IMMUNOLOGY, July 1999)
"False-positive
ELISA test results can be caused by alloantibodies resulting from
transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune disorders,
malignancies, alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that are
unclear." (Doran, et al. False-Positive and Indeterminate Human
Immunodeficiency Virus Test Results in Pregnant Women. Arch Family
Medicine, 2000)
The
secondary tests that are sometimes used to give a sense of validity to
an initial test are either reformulations of the same material (the
Western Blot), or are synthetic genetic probes (PCR Viral Load) that
likewise cross-react and give no diagnostically specific reaction (and
these tests are rarely to never used when you're talking about "AIDS in
Africa"):
"Persons
at risk of HIV-1 infection have been classified incorrectly as HIV
infected because of Western blot results, but the frequency of
false-positive Western blot results is unknown." (JAMA. 1998; 280:
1080-1085)
"The
HIV-1 PCR assay was designed to monitor HIV therapy, not to diagnose
HIV infection...In patients (like ours) with a low prior probability of
disease, almost all positive test results are false positive." (False
Positive HIV Diagnosis b HIV-1 Plasma Viral Load Testing. Ann Intern
Med, 1999.)
"Helminth
(parasitic worm) "load" is correlated to HIV plasma Viral Load, and
successful deworming is associated with a significant decrease in HIV
plasma Viral Load." (Treatment of intestinal worms is associated with
decreased HIV plasma viral load. J.AIDS, September, 2002)
AIDS
in Africa is and has always been a clinical diagnosis. Essentially, the
test is dispensed with and "AIDS" is diagnosed based on the symptoms of
hunger, TB and malaria - in other words, poverty:
"Our
attention is now focused on the considerably large number of the
seronegative group (135/227, 59%) who were clinically diagnosed as
having AIDS. All the patients had three major signs: weight loss,
prolonged diarrhoea, and chronic fever. Many of them also had other
AIDS-associated signs, such as lymphadenopathy, tuberculosis,
dermatological diseases, and neurological disorders." (Hishida O et al.
Clinically diagnosed AIDS cases without evident association with HIV
type 1 and 2 infections in Ghana Lancet. 1992 Oct 17).
The
numbers that have been reported are also entirely fabricated based on
exponential projections from one small group to entire populations.
Very recently, these numbers have been revised to such a massive degree
so as to drive the AIDS prognosticators to painful public redaction: In
Swaziland this year, the rate of HIV infection among young women
decreased remarkably, from 32.5 to 6 percent. A drop of 81% -
overnight. UNICEF's Swaziland representative, Dr. Alan Brody, told the
press "The problems is that all the sero-surveillance data came from
pregnant women, and estimates for other demographics was based on
that." (August, 2004, IRIN News)
Who
are the tests considered "accurate" for? The tests are only considered
to be "accurate" for certain groups. Those considered to be at "high
risk" are much more likely to be tested, and to have their tests
interpreted as either a "true positive," or, as you can see below, a
"false negative." In other words, if they want you for the "AIDS"
diagnosis, they'll get you:
"Suppose,
for example, a single rapid test that has 99.4% specificity is
administered to 1,000 people, meaning six will test false-positive.
That error rate won't matter much in areas with a high prevalence of
HIV, because in all probability the people testing false-positive will
have the disease...
"But
if the same test was performed on 1,000 white, affluent suburban
housewives - a low-prevalence population - in all likelihood all
positive results will be false, and positive predictive values plummet
to zero. (Coming to Your Clinic - Candidates for Rapid Tests. AIDS
Alert, 1998)
Here,
from the Independent, is the new philosophy of AIDS, and it's quite a
shift: "Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere,
it was now recognized that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined
to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug
users, and sex workers and their clients."
So
how did we get to, "It's only gay men, Africans, drug addicts and
prostitutes," from the version advertised for 25 years: "Everyone is at
equal risk to contract HIV and to develop AIDS."
What happened to the theory of sexual transmission?
The
10-year 1997 study by Dr. Nancy Padian had a lot to do with its
downfall. The study took 175 "mixed" heterosexual couples (that is, one
partner testing "positive" and one "negative") who practiced vaginal
and anal sex [for the latter - 37.9% at the commencement of the study,
decreasing to 8.1% by the end], both with and without condoms [32.2%
condom use at the beginning, increasing to 74% at the end]. But no
matter how these folks did it, nobody who was negative became positive:
"We
followed up 175 HIV-discordant couples [one partner tests positive, one
negative] over time, for a total of approximately 282 couple-years of
follow up... No transmission [of HIV] occurred among the 25% of couples
who did not use their condoms consistently, nor among the 47 couples
who intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of
follow-up...We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study
[nobody became HIV positive]...This evidence argues for low infectivity
in the absence of either needle sharing and/or other cofactors.""
Padian
determined that outside of intravenous drug use, this was not a very
transmissible "sexually-transmissible disease." But there is a
contention made by Dr. de Cock that some sort of special sexual
activity in Sub-Saharan Africa must (but is not evidenced to) explain
the differences in "HIV prevalence." It's worth looking at studies of
sex and "HIV positivity" for comparison. Does sex correlate with "HIV
positivity" more than I.V. drug addiction?
In West Africa, these women, all prostitutes, have remained negative for more than five years:
"[This
study involved] a group of repeatedly exposed but persistently
seronegative female prostitutes in The Gambia, West Africa...have
worked as prostitutes for more than five years, use condoms
infrequently with clients and only rarely with their regular partners
and have a high incidence of other sexually transmitted diseases"
(Rowland-Jones S et al. HIV-specific cytotoxic T-cells in HIV-exposed
but uninfected Gambian women. Nat Med. 1995 Jan)
In sum, lots of STDs, lots of exposure to HIV positive persons, and no HIV.
Here, as reported on PBS's "RX for Survival" (2005) a group of prostitutes refuses to get sick:
"In
Nairobi, a group of prostitutes appear to have natural immunity against
HIV...because they have an abnormally large number of killer T-cells."
(New York Times, 2005. Author: ANITA GATES)
In this study in Tel Aviv, girl and boy prostitutes don't turn "positive," unless they're injection drug users:
"Human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence was studied in an unselected
group of 216 female and transsexual prostitutes ... All 128 females who
did not admit to drug abuse were seronegative; 2 of the 52 females
(3.8%) who admitted to intravenous drug abuse were seropositive. "
(Modan B et al. Prevalence of HIV antibodies in transsexual and female
prostitutes. Am J Public Health. 1992 Apr)
In
Tijuana, among a group of hundreds of prostitutes, condoms were used by
a slight majority, but then, they said, for less than half the time:
"In
order to determine whether prostitutes operating outside of areas of
high drug abuse have equally elevated rates of infection, 354
prostitutes were surveyed in Tijuana, Mexico... None of the 354 [blood]
samples...was positive for HIV-1 or HIV-2. Condoms were used by 59% of
prostitutes but for less than half of their sexual contacts. ...
Infection with HIV was not found in this prostitute population despite
the close proximity to neighboring San Diego, CA, which has a high
incidence of diagnosed cases of AIDS, and to Los Angeles, which has a
reported 4% prevalence of HIV infection in prostitutes." (Hyams KC et
al. HIV infection in a non-drug abusing prostitute population. Scand J
Infect Dis. 1989)
No
condoms, no drug use - zero positivity. The same is found in the US and
throughout Europe. Injection drug use, not sex, equals "HIV positivity."
"HIV
infection in non-drug using prostitutes tends to be low or absent,
implying that sexual activity does not place them at high risk, while
prostitutes who use intravenous drugs are far more likely to be
infected with HIV. Other prostitute studies tend to be small but
similarly emphasize the central role of drug use as a major risk
factor: in New York City, 50 per cent of 12 drug users were positive,
compared with 7 per cent of 65 nonusers; in Italy, 59 per cent of 22
drug users were positive, whereas none of the nonusers were. None of
the 50 prostitutes tested in London, 56 in Paris, or 399 in Nuremberg
were seropositive." (Rosenberg MJ, Weiner JM. Prostitutes and AIDS: a
health department priority?. Am J Public Health. 1988 Apr)
That doesn't sound like much of an STD.
So,
do you still believe the WHO, and the medical authorities when they
talk about AIDS? Despite their incredible, world-changing lies and
deceptions, advertising campaigns and persecution of dissenting
scientists, do you still believe them when they say that AIDS is still
a sex-disease, but now, only if you're Black, gay or poor?
Commenter |
0 Trackbacks