A03739
Articles : Human RightsThere Will Be No Heterosexual AIDS Epidemic, Experts Admit
It is 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).
No, really. But take it from someone you trust, Dr. Kevin de Cock of the World Health Organization(WHO): “[T]here will be no generalised epidemic of AIDS in the heterosexual population outside Africa.”
“A 25-year health campaign was misplaced outside the continent of Africa,” the article concedes, daring you hang them all. And so they’re quick to add a massive fiction: “But the disease still kills more than all wars and conflicts.”
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.
How do “Hiv tests” work? In sum, they don’t work at all. They 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.” (Threatment of intestinal worms is associated with decreased HIV plasma viral load. J.AIDS, September, 2002)
How is “AIDS” diagnosed in Africa? AIDS in Africa is and has always been a clinical diagnosis. It is here too, but we’re more attached to a process of testing, which is, in essence, illusory, because the tests are limited to use in certain groups, for whom the non-specific tests are said to have a “higher positive predictive value,” or to be “more accurate.” But in Africa, this is dispensed with entirely, and “AIDS” is diagnosed based on the symptoms of hunger, thirst, 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 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, the humanitarian news and analysis service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Cited by Scheff, 2005, Knowing is Beautiful. GNN)
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.”
What disease? AIDS? Or Poverty? And can you tell the difference from the tests?
“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 is the new philosophy of AIDS, and it’s quite a shift (From the Independent): “Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised 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 advertised version for twenty-five 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 H.I.V…. 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, (with and without original bits and pieces), 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 enough?
We used to have a science in the early 20th Century, that similarly was able to pick the unfit out of risk groups – it was called Eugenics. If humanity is nothing else, we are certainly dogged in our ability to re-invent our old, bad ideas, again and again.
- For the reprehensibly curious, I’ve linked my 2003 exploration of the topic of AIDS causes, numbers, drugs and tests. [Here]
Posted by Liam
Liam Scheff - Writer and Journalist on Politics, History, Race, Class and Culture. In 2004, I broke open the NIH clinical trial scandal - government researchers testing New York City orphans with combinations of toxic, speculative drugs. My research was used as the...
RELATED ITEMS
- The writing is on the wall for UNAIDS
Posted by Liam on Monday, May 26th 2008 - NY Times To The Rescue!
Posted by Liam on Saturday, July 16th 2005 - Will the Real 'Hiv Test Result' Please Stand Up?
Posted by Liam on Wednesday, November 14th 2007 - Saving African Lives from Immune Deficiency
Posted by Liam on Thursday, November 15th 2007 - What Nancy Padian Knows About Sex
Posted by Liam on Friday, November 9th 2007
Thanks GNN Users “Beagle” for some nice edit suggestions, Manu and others for comments, and all for votes.
This article deserves to be where it is. I commend you for it.
So, where has the threat actually gone?
How can it vanish into thin air?
Was the Durban Declaration wrong?
“The Durban declaration has been signed by over 5,000 people, including Nobel prizewinners, directors of leading research institutions, scientific academies and medical societies, notably the US National Academy of Sciences, the US Institute of Medicine, Max Planck institutes, the European Molecular Biology Organization, the Pasteur Institute in Paris, the Royal Society of London, the AIDS Society of India and the National Institute of Virology in South Africa. In addition, thousands of individual scientists and doctors have signed, including many from the countries bearing the greatest burden of the epidemic. Signatories are of MD, PhD level or equivalent, although scientists working for commercial companies were asked not to sign.”
Was does Mr. De Cock leave all this?
That was a good read.
Thanks, Liam…
The NIH Scandal and the Future of AIDS Research
Great stuff, Liam!Ok, let’s get this straight.
No heterosexual AIDS epidemic. Unless you’re black. OK, makes sense.
Good thing I don’t dig into the AIDS literature and think for myself.
Well, gotta run. I’m gay and need to get tested. Ta’!
“Oh woe is me” cried doctor Moore
“My macaque AIDS model out the door
They just aren’t black or gay or poor
My funding’s pulled; of that I’m sure”
“My whole life spent on HIV
The party’s over don’t you see?
I’m left without a pot to pee
No job, no future, woe is me”
MrsBlobby,
I think Moore is going to be left holding the bag.
Peter Piot’s stepping down. Watch for other key figures to do the same very soon.
But, Mr. Moore doesn’t strike me as smart enough to get out of this before the shit hits the fan.
I’m shocked. I’ll have to read that all again. I feel disorientated — I’m drowning in an ocean lies.
From the Guardian:
The exploitation of Aids 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 Organisation’s HIV/Aids department says there is no need for heterosexuals to fret.
Now The Guardian too LOL I can’t believe the Guardian printed that!
Seems like journalism is cleaning up its house. Opening up the windows to let that old 25 year stench of mendacity out…
That’s a hell of a thing in the Guardian. I guess a lot of people have been sitting on their hands, biting their tongues, and waiting for a shoe to drop. Save that Guardian piece for safe-keeping. I’ll post it on my blog.
Looks like the band’s playing on, but a different tune, all at once.
Amazing. Abandon ship, everybody.
You know, what’s the NYTimes gonna do with its libels of me, of Celia, Duesberg, the rest? What are they gonna do?
What’s ‘sceptic’ Skeptic magazine gonna do? Any bets they offer no apologies at all, but pretend that they ‘always thought this, really, deep down’ – or that it’s really ‘only a slight difference?’
What are they gonna rename “aids” – “Afro-GRID?” It’s beyond self-satire at this point. What an amazing turn of events…
That’s a hell of a thing in the Guardian. I guess a lot of people have been sitting on their hands, biting their tongues, and waiting for a shoe to drop.
I agree.
Unfortunately, as far as apologies go from the NYTimes or anybody else for that matter, don’t hold your breath.
...
We used to have a science in the early 20th Century, that similarly was able to pick the unfit out of risk groups – it was called Eugenics
Google News has picked up Liam Scheff’s article
I search “Hyams KC et al. HIV infection in a non-drug abusing prostitute population. Scand J Infect Dis. 1989” on Google and all I get is a study that’s almost word for word except they were investigating Hepatitis B. It seems to have been a year off though, so I looked through the archives for the Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases in 1989. Volume 21 Issue 3 in 1989 has a listing, but it is listed as under Letter to the Editors. Odd.
Then again, I don’t really care. I’m just bored. Does someone happen to have the text for that particular citation freely available on the Internet?
Liam’s article doesn’t mention this, but one of the freakiest aspects of all this, and it is something that was raised by Celia Farber a lot in her outstanding reporting in Spin (and Rolling Stone too I believe) many years ago, is that the prescribed “treatment” for an HIV-positive test result is ARV therapy. These cytotoxic “cocktails” had extreme effects, probably causing in large part the ‘AIDS victim’ appearance. Supposedly the newer drugs “aren’t as bad” but of course AIDS was still real; it had become accepted as axiomatic. But look at this picture from the standpoint of Africa – and the possibility of conspiracy elements is indeed frightening – an HIV+ diagnosis based on a single flawed test could lead to administration of drugs that would quite likely kill a person already suffering from typical African maladies like Hepatitis and malaria.
So the “diagnosis” becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Let’s see if this washes out making Mbeki look good and Mugabe look a bit less crazy.
Great work liam… Thanks so much…
I organized a show today in correlation
on the fallacies of testing and the dangers of the drugs
not to mention the fascist approaches to positive mothers and thier children
Jeff Farias
www.1480kphx.com
June 12th podcast at about 1:30 into the show…
I will be shooting for more media interviews regarding this topic!
Thanks for your well written summary that exposes the truth in the spin!
Jes
I Dugg this, but it doesn’t seem to appear in the connected link under the article.
Her is the Digg link
Answer to request for Hyams, et al survey on Tijuana prostitutes:
Slightly longer excerpt:
“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 from female prostitutes was positive for HIV-1 or HIV-2.
The female prostitutes (mean age 29 years. range 18-49) had been active prostitutes for an average of 4.2 years and reported an average of 4.1 partners per week.
Condoms were used by 59% of prostitutes but for less than half of their sexual contacts.
Only 4 female prostitutes (1%) admitted to ever having used intravenous drugs.
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.”
They go on to say – and this ought to be telling – that these PROSTITUTES who have sex without condoms 41% of the time (and then only half that in practice) maybe aren’t “positive” because…
you ready?
Because ‘maybe’ they’re not exposed to “RISK GROUPS.”
Who’s that?
Homosexual Men and i.v. drug users.
Some goddamn sex disease, huh?
But it’s all in the testing. Antibody tests love to react with antibodies – and drug abuse produces lots and lots and lots of antibodies.
The medical students call it hypergammaglobulinaemia. A lot of gamma globulin, IgM, immune-system proteins, antibodies, etc.
You’re sick, you have a lot of these. You have malaria, TB, you have a lot of these. You have diarrhea, sepsis, you have a lot of these. Drug use, alcohol abuse, starving to death, being exposed to many toxins, you have a lot of these.
So when the ‘hiv tests’ come up reactive all over the place in sick people, healthy people, mice, dogs, milkmaids, goat serum, etc… well, they have to decide before or after the fact, what the test is gonna mean. And that’s the whole “risk group” run-around.
A gay man’s antibodies ‘weigh more’ in the minds of Aids researchers, than a straight man’s. And that’s just how this system works. And if you believe it indicates real infection in one, then you can’t excuse the other. And that means that all false positives are really true, and that there are probably billions of “hiv infected” people walking around, who just don’t know it.
On the other hand, if your go with the lowest common denominator, the hardest logic, and you say that you can’t accuse one person of being “positive” if the identical result means nothing in someone else, then no one has ever been “hiv positive.”
That’s why the test manufacturers work so hard in the small print, telling you there are no standards, that the diagnosis must always be made “clinically,” and not based on any test result. They tell you this, so you can’t sue them to ruin for non-diagnostic, but life-ending test results.
Look up Audrey Seranno’s case from last year – she couldn’t sue the manufacturer for their fake test, she did sue the doctor and hospital for their fake diagnosis, however, and won.
It’s an absolutely transparent lie, it’s right out there in the open, and it’s cracking open, at this very moment.
Thanks for indulging me Liam. Forgot to mention it earlier (what with everyone already saying it), but great article.
pretty great read, Liam, and thanks for it
still can’t keep from laughing every time i read Dr. de Cock though…
Nice,
Peace
Notdansavage I agree. Moore wasn’t standing in the right queue when the brains were being handed out – he was outside sweeping sun off the road (West Indian saying). He will soon be the lone rabid voice howling into the void. Finally, after much pompous posturing, he will realise he stands alone on the deck. Let’s just hope he can’t swim.
Vitamins are unlawful for Africans. Toxic ‘black-box” label medication is good.
AIDTruth carries this story too…JP Moore seems happy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7453449.stm
hope to read more from you soon, dude, good work
as i said earlier, i don’t know if i agree with everything you say, i lack the insight needed to make that judgement, but i do strongly believe in a dissenting voice
you’re that voice
is there somebody here on GNN willing to write an article challenging Liam’s pov?
maybe we should invite this guy
He and Liam have quite a history together…
Actually, “monk”, you and I have quite a history together, whatever that means.
Your comment is irrelevant to the questions in the piece. You’re sewing personal intrigue where there is none. If you want to argue, be a grown-up and argue. I’ll take your questions. Nobody at GNN has ever agreed to debate me on this. They always claim, after denigrating, that they’re not expert enough.
I’m just a goddamn journalist, a very independent one. I’ve got no special pedigree. You want to debate me, you have my email. No worries, we’ll set it up.
If that’s what you’re going for. But I think what you’re trying to do is to change the subject. The subject at hand is the WHO’s admission that this thing is over, and never was going to be a problem for the majority of wealthy, well-fed, white, straight people.
You want to debate that, call your friend de Cock, and debate him.
ps – Nick Bennett is on the board of Aidstruth, they’re a pharma cabal, they threaten people’s jobs, get people fired, get stories pulled from the press, and force nations – that’s South Africa, to ban vitamin trials for sick people. Ban them, legally. That’s Nick Bennett, Nathan Geffen, and the rest of this mafia.
And the joke is, they won’t debate. We’ve begged them. Begged. Begged them for open debate. “No, we don’t debate your kind.” Is their constant answer.
You see what you get when you ask. Go try.
You’re sewing personal intrigue where there is none. If you want to argue, be a grown-up and argue.
How very grown-up! More personal intrigue sewn here by you.
Nobody at GNN has ever agreed to debate me...
Huh?
Wait…what?
But I think what you’re trying to do is to change the subject.
Hey, this is GNN...we will change subjects as we damn well please.
Good day, sir!
Again, is that somebody wanting to debate any particular issue? The point of the article, again, is that the WHO has now admitted that they’ve to everyone for two decades.
You want a debate, you arrange it. You linked to three blogs. What does that mean to you? What does that mean to the story that the WHO has lied to you for 20 years?
Two of the threads you linked are people who refuse to debate me. One of them won’t even use his real name, like yourself.
The issue here is that you won’t talk about the WHO admission. You want personal denigration, rather than hearing the issue head on and thinking about it.
You two nameless bloggers above, who won’t use your real identities, want to be as important to the story as Kevin de Cock’s announcement. You’re not. Not even close.
I’ll still make time to answer any questions you have that arise from research. But I don’t see any.
You’ve been lied to for 20 years or more, from the public institutions you’ve chosen to trust for health directive and policy. They’re now issuing a quiet mea culpa. What does that mean to you? What does it meant to the world?
PS – some of what you’ve linked, nameless blogger, is me defending myself from people who attack but who will not allow me to respond. I have a right, forever, whether you like it or not, to defend myself, and people, like those you linked to, who feel they have a right to attack, but to answer nothing, and to refuse debate, are, in my opinion, absolutely cowards.
I think that’s the definition of cowardice. To attack and to refuse to allow response? Cowardice.
So, what is it that you’re after, if not to change the subject?
You’ve been lied to for 20 years. Have you defended this lie? What does that mean to you?
Do you believe that Africans, gay men and drug users all pass a supervirus, that can’t be tested for with any standard measure, while well-fed, hetero-happy people don’t?
I’ll debate that point with anyone in a position of power in the Aids paradigm, who wishes to come forward, in real name, in a public forum.
If you can arrange it, it will be done.
dude, my post wasn’t an attack on you, reread it
chill
all I want is a lively debate, I googled “AIDS dissent” I found that blog and was surprised to see your name on the first page
that’s all
de Cock isn’t my friend, don’t know the guy, never met him, all I said is that his name is pretty common here in Belgium and that making two jokes about the name was one to many, IMO
again, that’s all
relax
take a deep breath
heh, totally forgot about the “GNN debate club”
...
You two nameless bloggers above,
you know my name
what’s up, Liam?
sorry if I offended you or something
Offended? Don’t worry about it. But I’d like to keep this on the research. That’s where it gets away from quickly, when you cite people like Bennett, who attacks but will not debate, and whose group suppresses scientific research and inquiry.
So, back to the questions – twenty years of very Christian condom-nation for fear of absolute and unavoidable death – and it was just some bad advertising? No, it is the scientific scandal of the 20/21st century.
So, that’s debate. The subject is the article above. No one needs special dispensation to figure out what “We observed no seroconversions” means, or implies. No one needs special authority to understand what “this test has no standard” (‘nor this one, nor this one’) means.
Remember, I don’t have any pedigree so special as de Cock’s (and what a name!). No WHO post, no position there. I’m just an independent researcher and journalist. So, what’s to be done?
Do you think they don’t know about this article? You think they haven’t been reading my work for 5 years?
Why haven’t they responded to me personally? Never once has anyone in a position of authority at the WHO or UNAIDS, or the NIH EVER WRITTEN me, saying,:
“Young man, you make some good points, we shouldn’t necessarily use orphans in drug trials; but you’re incorrect about the tests, and here’s the document you need to understand all of this.”
You think they don’t read me? They do. So I’ve been told from within, but they don’t reply. I’ve been attacked, personally, but not in the major and repeated themes of my research. My research having concluded that:
1) These tests have no standard and give no meaningful diagnosis. That they are pseudo-scientific, that they are used to confirm pre-existing biases now couched in “risk groups” of Africans (blacks), “MSM” (gay men), and then the third world.
2) They violate the priniciple of informed consent.
3) The drugs used are FDA Black-Box labeled, and cause permanent damage and death in people who take them.
4) The Aids diagnosis is no more than a brand name applied to the worlds poor, to drug addicts, and to gay men.
And now the WHO has confirmed that these are, indeed and in fact, who is “at risk” for their diagnosis. Why are these people “at risk” for their diagnosis? Because that’s who will allow it.
Here’s a thought for you:
If you were able to candidly and with absolute transparency examine the sexual practices at UC Berkeley, or Cal State San Diego, you would easily find a significantly larger population that engaged in “partner swapping” than you do in any part of Africa. (In some African tribes, it’s called “Polygamy. At college it’s called “Any Friday and Saturday Night.”
If you conducted “hiv rapid testing” in the major US cities, among the poorest, pregnant-est or most drug-abusing women, and extrapolated it to the entirety of the State’s – or Nation’s population – as is done throughout sub-Saharan Africa, I predict that the US would suddenly be in the midst of a massive “Aids crisis.” With hundreds of millions “infected.”
So why don’t we do it? Because, they tell us not to, over and over again in the literature.“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.” (AidsAlert 1998)
“Counseling people at low risk [wealthy, white, heterosexual] requires paying particular attention to false positives, that is, to the possibility that the client has a positive HIV test even though he or she is not infected with the virus.”
“If clients are not informed about this fact, they tend to believe that a positive test means that they are infected with absolute certainty …. Emotional pain and lives can be saved if counselors inform the clients about the possibility of false positives.” (Max Plank Institute – Guidelines for HIV testing in Low-Risk Client)
So, more to chew on while we all watch South Africa BAN micronutrient vitamin studies for poor, hungry people. In other words, don’t feed their bodies, don’t help them reconstitute – AZT is the only solution.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7453449.stm
That’s their idea of debate, and the blog author you cited above, is on that committee, and it’s Aidstruth. And their mission is to stop you and anyone else from thinking about, knowing about, or dissenting with that South African position.
From the BBC:
What crtics? Are there really reports of deaths from using vitamin A, C and E and being fed? Go read Rath’s research, and find out.
So, there’s Nathan Geffen. Of your friend Nick Bennett’s group, Aidstruth, dedicated to the use of Nevirapine and AZT in all Africans in his country.
(Nevirapine, the drug that has caused thousands of toxic reactions and at least, a dozen deaths in Uganda, all reported, and buried in the NIH trials – reported at GNN in The Truth about Nevirapine, and part of an international whistle-blower scandal centered around the NIH dept of Aids, Jonathan Fishbein, the death of Joyce-Ann-Hafford, and the absolute “I could give a shit” attitude of the head of DIADS, Edmund Tramont).
South Africa. Where white Dutch Afrikaners couldn’t tolerate Blacks VOTING or having the rights of CITIZENS through the 1980s.
A judiciary and a people (or at least a vocal actiivist minority therein) who could not wait to embrace the IDEA that these same Blacks, to whom they were forced by world opinion to give the vote to –
that they could not wait to label these people as sexual lepers, based on the scandalously bad research done by American cancer researchers on Gay men who were suiciding through a decade of drug addiction.
And this is the basis for the belief that Africans have Aids. Old, old ideas about who is valuable, and who is not.
And if you don’t believe that, you have this:
“The problems is that all the sero-surveillance data came from pregnant women, and estimates for other demographics was based on that.”
“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.”
“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.”
Same test, different diagnosis, because the test is absolutely perfunctory, unnecessary, not required, and not needed for the diagnosis. All that’s needed is for you to believe that African poverty is a fatal sex disease, and then to BAN, legally, interventions to ameliorating the bad health that accompanies that poverty.
This news is outrageous, macabre, and in view of all the extremely serious question marks hanging over the general credibility of anything that has to do with “AIDS” right now, nothing short of grotesque.
Who is TAC? An extension of AIDSTruth in South Africa. These organisations are run on pharmaceutical money, run by people who are “activists” with excessive power.