Fauci gonged again. Are two Nobels next?
June 22nd, 2008Director of NIAID awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom, but may be losing influence
Critics of paradigm complain that massive censorship is not “freedom”
Is the SS HIV/AIDS running into pack ice? Why are its officers hiding?
The much honored and celebrated director of NIAID, the smartly tailored and trimmed Anthony Fauci, was once saluted by President Ronald Reagan as a “hero of AIDS”, and he pocketed a Lasker Award last year (see previous post Fauci wins Lasker).
Now this outstanding bureaucrat, more responsible than anybody else in the US for the massive war on “HIV/AIDS” being conducted here and around the world, and in particular, its rationale that “HIV” and nothing else causes “AIDS”, was awarded, as the Washington Post notes with a very nice picture in Bush bestows Presidential Medal of Freedom awards, the Medal of Freedom on Friday (Jun 20 2008).
Here is what the President said as he awarded the prizes (or at least, what the pr release from the White House said he said):
Three decades ago, a mysterious and terrifying plague began to take the lives of people across the world. Before this malady even had a name, it had a fierce opponent in Dr. Anthony Fauci. As the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for more than 23 years, Tony Fauci has led the fight against HIV and AIDS. He was also a leading architect and champion of the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which over the past five years has reached millions of people — preventing HIV infections in infants and easing suffering and bringing dying communities back to life.The man who would lead the fight against this dreaded disease came from an Italian American family in Brooklyn. Even as a boy, Tony was distinguished by his courage. In a neighborhood full of Brooklyn Dodgers fans — (laughter) — he rooted for the Yankees. (Laughter.) Tony earned a full scholarship to Regis High School, a Jesuit school in Manhattan. And he still quotes what he learned from Jesuit teaching: “Precision of thought, economy of expression.” And now you know why he never ran for public office. (Laughter.)
Those who know Tony do admit one flaw: sometimes he forgets to stop working. He regularly puts in 80-hour weeks. And from time to time, he’s even found notes on his windshield left by coworkers that say things like, “Go home. You’re making me feel guilty.” (Laughter.) A friend once commented that Tony was so obsessed with work that his wife must be a pretty patient woman. The truth of the matter is, she’s very busy herself. Christine Grady is a renowned bioethicist. And together they raised three talented daughters: Jennifer, Meghan, and Allison. And I hope each of you know that for all Tony has accomplished, he considers you to be one of his — not one of his — his most important achievement. Your love and support have strengthened him as he works to save lives across the world.
For his determined and aggressive efforts to help others live longer and healthier lives, I’m proud to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Dr. Anthony S. Fauci. (Applause.)
Of course, the big news here for this audience is that Fauci’s wife, Christine Grady, is a “bioethicist”, which must amaze those who like to call her husband the Dr. Mengele of HIV/AIDS, which is very impolite, but not undeserved on the grounds that he has blocked media review of the rationale on which the often fatal drug AZT was and still is administered (though less of it, along with other ARVs) to his loyal congregation of gay AIDS patients.
Perhaps the truth is that Dr Fauci never sees his wife, what with his 80 hour work week running the global anti-HIV political and propaganda machine. He barely has enough time for sleep, it would seem, which may explain why he resists further thinking about the issue of HIV and AIDS, and wishes nobody else to raise the vexed topic. Or perhaps it is because he has already given an inattentive world the final answer to HIV/AIDS, and no one has yet noticed (see below).
Sometimes the Medal is awarded to grease the honoree’s exit from his official position, as in the case of George Tenet, mushy headed ex-director of the CIA, so we hope this is not indicative of this great public servant’s imminent departure from his leadership role. After all, it is not certain that the global HIV/AIDS system could survive the loss intact, especially when the UNAID’s unshaven Pierre Piot is stepping down as he quietly announced in April (Head of UN’s AIDS program Piot to step down).
Why not the Nobel?
Can the Nobel be far behind? This blog hurries to point out that we have already nominated the natty functionary for the top prize in science, despite our fundamental quarrel with his propaganda on behalf of the unlikely, unproven, in fact thoroughly reviewed and rejected and effectively disproven notion that HIV causes “AIDS” or any illness of any kind (”AIDS” illnesses all have other clear causes, as elucidated from 1986 onwards by the best scientist in the field, Peter Duesberg, see rest of blog, starting with post number one).
Of course, we deplore the neatly groomed NIAID director’s imposition of censorship on the ‘What is the true cause of AIDS?’ debate for the last two decades. Long ago Fauci notoriously noted in a AAAS newsletter than any reporter who raised the topic of Peter Duesberg, and Duesberg’s complete rejection of HIV as the cause of “AIDS” in reviews written in the highest journals in science, would be treated as unqualified to report on the topic of “AIDS” and his/her phone calls never again returned by the pr staff or the scientists under Dr Fauci’s paramilitary NIAID command:
AIDS has created a whole new interaction between scientists and the press (…) Journalists who make too many mistakes or who are too sloppy are going to find that their access to scientists may diminish.
But we have no trouble at all in recognizing the great man as a leader in advancing the cause of the critics of HIV.
For in Fauci’s discreetly schizophrenic analysis of how HIV/AIDS works, he publicly acknowledged in answer to an question by the distinguished Science Guardian consultant Robert G. Houston that HIV not only did not kill T-cells, it provoked their increased production. This helpful admission was made at the New School panel in 2006 (see previous post
A thorough account of this watershed event and the Fauci Steam Theory of AIDS is at this post, How Fauci solved AIDS, which also had interesting comments attached.
The main point, however, is one which we hereby underline while Fauci is basking in the glory of his new Medal, since we are not sure it is widely appreciated yet as his greatest achievement of all: Fauci is the one who has discovered the ultimate vaccine against HIV, the one sure antidote to HIV/AIDS, and still no one except the editors of Science Guardian has recognized this giant step forward for mankind: Fauci has shown that the best answer to HIV…is HIV!
Fauci’s Steaming HIV Theory
It is a pity that the media seem to have ignored the true significance of these important SG/NAR posts, and the Fauci views they recorded.
For the bottom line of what Fauci publicly told Houston, and wrote in the quiet backwaters of a specialist textbook perused only in the library by the dedicated deep researchers of Science Guardian/New AIDS Review, in paragraphs apparently hidden from the eyes of mainstream media reporters who otherwise faithfully follow, transcribe and reproduce every precious word that comes from the handsomely clipped head of the best dressed man in Washington, is that HIV/AIDS can solved without drugs:
Several investigators have demonstrated that there is an increase in CD4+ T-cell proliferation in both HIV and SIV infection. In certain studies, the enhanced T-cell proliferation that was observed during active disease was significantly decreased following the initiation of anti-retroviral therapy, and proliferation increased again in parallel with plasma viremia following the cessation of treatment in these individuals.
What we are trying to draw attention to is what now must be labeled The Fauci Steam Theory of and Solution to HIV/AIDS , which is a double barreled solution to World AIDS as follows:
1) If there is any concern that HIV is causing any problems, simply add more HIV.
2) If the body shows any sign of “running out of steam”, add proper nutrients.
This is why we nominate Anthony Fauci for the Nobel. For in company with Peter Duesberg, John P. Moore of Cornell, Robert C. Gallo, Luc Montagnier, and Kevin De Cock, he has revealed the truth about HIV/AIDS which he has long attempted to curtain off from the media, namely, that HIV is not harmful, and that any and all of “AIDS” illnesses are caused by other factors, which are not even “co-factors”, but entirely independent factors, which do not need HIV to do their dirty work.
But it is Anthony Fauci, and Anthony Fauci alone, who has made the ultimate breakthrough and endorsed HIV as a positive antidote to itself, the single best answer to HIV positivity.
For this, this fine bureaucrat, despite his strenuous attempts to restrain media recognition and discussion of this line of thinking (that lets HIV off the hook as a cause of “AIDS”), which we can only presume are motivated by a sincere modesty and unwillingness to take credit for his seminal breakthrough, has brought to the world what it has long sought, in fact spent billions over two decades trying to find: the Final Solution to HIV/AIDS.
Fauci’s cost free solution to “AIDS”
What is more, the cost of Fauci’s solution is minimal, compared to the projected cost of AIDS drugs and an AIDS vaccine. It is, in fact, cost free.
Fauci’s answer to HIV/AIDS is the simplest one of all, and one long advocated by the critics of the paradigm. When tested HIV positive, take the following action: Do nothing at all, other than eat and live in healthy fashion, and most particularly, do not have anything at all to do with conventional HIV/AIDS treatment and medication.
The lesson of course for policymakers is to withdraw all funding from HIV/AIDS, and apply it to ensuring that the health infrastructure, nutrition and living conditions of nations and individuals are maximized, and all possible measures to combat real disease such as TB and malaria (together probably the real nature of most of African “AIDS”, other than undernourishment and starvation) be taken.
Much AIDS is malnutrition in Africa, and food restores HIV+ babies to normal
Just how damaging and widespread malnutrition is in Africa is being underlined tonight on 60 Minutes, which has a section on Plumpynuts, a simple and wildly successful intervention in Africa where the visible and hidden malnutrition of Niger’s black tots is countered by bags of a ready-to-eat peanut mix equivalent to milk plus vitamins. The aim is to get it to 120,000 kids by next year, but it still be a drop in the bucket - 120 million starving small children around the world need it, and five million die each year without it.
This is the kind of thing which the makes the New York Times editorial yesterday, A Global AIDS Campaign Stalled, wringing its hands over the hold up to the $50 billion expected to be authorized by Congress for the Global AIDS-Malaria-TB campaign, look a little more ignorant than normal. Apart from the usual boiler plate of “H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS,” the concern for the enormous jump in funding for the next five years (it was $19 billion for the last five years) seems entirely focused on “all the treatment and prevention programs needed to quell the epidemic”. Hurry up and pass the bill before the purse strings tighten next year urges the editorial writer, anxious to circumcise as many Africans as possible.
Perhaps someone should force this writer to sit down and watch the 60 Minutes episode, and then thrust this paper (noted today at AIDSWiki) in front of them: Home-based therapy with ready-to-use therapeutic food is of benefit to malnourished, HIV-infected Malawian children (Acta Paediatr. 2005 Feb;94(2):222-5), which shows that food restores children to normal weight more effectively that ARVs:
CONCLUSION: More than half of malnourished, HIV-infected children not receiving antiretroviral chemotherapy benefit from home-based nutritional rehabilitation. Home-based therapy RUTF is associated with more rapid weight gain and a higher likelihood of reaching 100% weight-for-height
.
Here is the full summary:
Home-based therapy with ready-to-use therapeutic food is of benefit to malnourished, HIV-infected Malawian children.Ndekha MJ, Manary MJ, Ashorn P, Briend A.
College of Medicine, University of Malawi, Malawi.
AIM: To determine if home-based nutritional therapy will benefit a significant fraction of malnourished, HIV-infected Malawian children, and to determine if ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) is more effective in home-based nutritional therapy than traditional foods. METHODS: 93 HIV-positive children >1 y old discharged from the nutrition unit in Blantyre, Malawi were systematically allocated to one of three dietary regimens: RUTF, RUTF supplement or blended maize/soy flour. RUTF and maize/soy flour provided 730 kJ x kg(-1) x d(-1), while the RUTF supplement provided a fixed amount of energy, 2100 kJ/d. These children did not receive antiretroviral chemotherapy. Children were followed fortnightly. Children completed the study when they reached 100% weight-for-height, relapsed or died. Outcomes were compared using regression modeling to account for differences in the severity of malnutrition between the dietary groups. RESULTS: 52/93 (56%) of all children reached 100% weight-for-height. Regression modeling found that the children receiving RUTF gained weight more rapidly and were more likely to reach 100% weight-for-height than the other two dietary groups (p < 0.05).CONCLUSION: More than half of malnourished, HIV-infected children not receiving antiretroviral chemotherapy benefit from home-based nutritional rehabilitation. Home-based therapy RUTF is associated with more rapid weight gain and a higher likelihood of reaching 100% weight-for-height.
PMID: 15981758
Such studies bring home the extreme tragedy that anyone should think that AIDS drugs are the right intervention for African children.
With NIAID shut down, a second Nobel?
Since Anthony Fauci’s view, on the other hand, implies the immediate shutdown of all NIAID activity, we are newly stunned by the daring and public responsibility of his leadership in this respect.
Could it be that the man deserves two Nobels, the Biochemistry prize for solving HIV/AIDS shared with Peter Duesberg and Robert Gallo, and the Nobel Peace Prize, shared with Peter Duesberg, for doing the most to serve the public interest by diverting the billions spent on HIV/AIDS to the proper targets?
After all, for any bureaucrat, let alone a champion milker of the public purse such as the dapper Fauci, to propose shutting down his own fiefdom is probably unprecedented in the history of Washington.
The AIDS platform is cracking
Of course, we have to note as an afterthought Dr. Fauci’s willingness to step off the high platform on which he has perched and preened for so many successful fund raising years may be influenced by hearing it creaking under his polished shoes.
The UNAID rushed to issue a press release in the aftermath of Kevin De Cock’s watershed admission that heterosexual AIDS is a non starter after all, trying to reassure all concerned that the urgent global HIV/AIDS threat remains as vast as ever -
Aids claim sparks backlash for WHO
The World Health Organisation was struggling yesterday to control the global backlash from an admission by one of its most senior directors that the threat of a generalised heterosexual epidemic of Aids outside Africa may be over.
The WHO has been under siege since Kevin de Cock, head of its HIV/Aids department, told The Independent on Sunday that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, the disease was recognised to be largely limited to high-risk groups, such as injecting drug users.
Facing headlines such as “World Aids pandemic over”, specialists fear a media onslaught could hinder efforts to help those infected, and fuel further spread. One said: “People are using the interview to say all scientists are lying and funding for Aids should be cut. Kevin de Cock is the most committed, cautious epidemiologist but now a lot of people want to take him down.”
In a statement in response to the interview, the WHO said: “Aids remains the leading infectious disease challenge in global health. To suggest otherwise is irresponsible and misleading.”
The latest WHO report says that at the end of 2007 there were 33 million people with HIV; 2.5 million were infected that year; and 2.1 million died of Aids.
But the damage control was late, for at least one on line columnist, Brendan O’Neill at the Guardian of London (no relation to Science Guardian) had already committed himself to accepting De Cock’s rash admission, complaining that we have all been misled for two decades for the plain reason that HIV/AIDS governmental and non governmental organizations need funds from the public, and these will only flow freely if the threat to heterosexuals is talked up.
As O’Neill wrote in
The exploitation of Aids: 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 Organisation’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 at the weekend that, outside very poor African countries, Aids is confined to “high-risk groups”, including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers. And even in these communities it remains quite rare. “It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in countries [outside sub-Saharan Africa]”, he said. In other words? All that hysterical fearmongering about Aids spreading among sexed-up western youth was a pack of lies.
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.
Kevin de Cock, who has headed the global battle against Aids, said at the weekend that, outside very poor African countries, Aids is confined to “high-risk groups”, including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers. And even in these communities it remains quite rare. “It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in countries [outside sub-Saharan Africa]”, he said. In other words? All that hysterical fearmongering 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. 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”.
Some people knew it earlier. In 1987, my friend and colleague Dr Michael Fitzpatrick wrote a fiery pamphlet titled The Truth About the Aids Panic. At the height of the Conservative government’s scary tombstone campaign (”Don’t die of ignorance”), he wrote: “There is no good evidence that Aids is likely to spread rapidly in the West among heterosexuals.” In Britain, most of the small-scale spread of “heterosexual Aids” has been a result of infected individuals arriving from Africa. In the UK in the whole of the 1980s – the decade of the Great Aids Panic – there were 20 cases of HIV acquired through heterosexual contact with an individual infected in Europe.
And it isn’t the case that the heterosexual pandemic failed to materialise 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 recognise 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, and which should be vociferously tackled by the medical authorities, the “war against Aids” was turned into moral crusade.
Both Conservative and New Labour governments exploited the disease to create a new moral framework for society. Through baseless fearmongering, officials sought to police and regulate the behaviour of the public. No longer able to appeal to outdated Victorian ideals of chastity or restraint, the powers-that-be used the spectre of an Aids calamity to terrify us into behaving “responsibly” in sexual and social matters.
They were aided and abetted by the rump of the radical left. Gay rights campaigners, feminists and left-leaning health and social workers stood shoulder-to-shoulder, first with the Tories and later with Labour, 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-civilised western societies into diseased dystopias were denounced as “Aids deniers” and “heretics”. Anyone who suggested that homosexuals were at greater risk than heterosexuals – and therefore the focus of government funding and, where necessary, medical assistance should be in gay communities – 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 – where there is a serious and deadly Aids crisis in some countries – 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 behaviour. It also adds a new gloss to the misanthropic population-control arguments of western charities, which now present their promotion of condoms in “overly fecund” Africa as a means of preventing the spread of disease.
The relentless politicisation and moralisation 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 $1bn a year in activities such as “raising awareness” about Aids and preventing the emergence of the disease in communities that are at little risk. How many lives could that kind of money save, if it were used to develop drugs and deliver them to infected or at-risk communities? It is time people treated Aids as a normal disease, rather than as an opportunity for spreading their own moral agendas.
However, the damage control seems to have dampened the fires somewhat, with few follows up by the major media other than Fox News. Liam Scheff, one of only three mainstream journalists still willing (courageous/foolhardy) to cover the topic of flaws in HIV/AIDS ideology and practice (Celia Farber and Anthony Liversidge being the other two), and well known for his investigative pieces in AIDS drug experiments conducted on orphans in New York, coverage which resulted in a BBC documentary, took the opportunity to land a few more blows in a notable piece on the Web at GNN (Guerilla News Network) on the subject of what else might be wrong with the standard line of propaganda in HIV/AIDS, There Will Be No Heterosexual AIDS Epidemic, Experts Admit:
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)……
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.”“…
Here is the whole article, There Will Be No Heterosexual AIDS Epidemic, Experts Admit, though if you hit the link to GNN above you get the context and the photo; hit “Show” now, and “Hide” after reading to collapse it again:
There Will Be No Heterosexual AIDS Epidemic, Experts Admit
WHO confesses to 25 years of misguided AIDS policies. But they still want you to believe them.
By Liam Scheff
Thu June 12 2008
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.
Elizabeth Pisani, author of an interesting new book The Wisdom of Whores: Bureaucrats, Brothels and the Business of Aids, dissecting international AIDS statistics with a moderately skeptical eye (she does not yet notice that it all makes sense if the paradigm HIV=AIDS is jettisoned), wrote a piece in the London Times, pointing out that the UN press release did not withdraw any of the facts stated by de Cock:
It was not to last. Before the meeting was even over, the WHO and UNAids came out with a press release, signed by Dr de Cock, billed as a “correction” to the newspaper report. But it didn’t point out any errors of fact, nor did it suggest that he had been misquoted. Instead, it claimed that HIV is a heterosexual disease that affects us all.
Just as it looked as though it might make a step forward, the UN has jumped back into a refusal to acknowledge the truth about Aids. Its stance will defend the jobs and budgets for a while, perhaps. But unless a better job is done of preventing the epidemic, we the taxpayer will tire of refilling the Aids funding trough. And we can’t do a better job of preventing HIV if we refuse to be honest about where it’s spreading.
Here’s the piece in full:
Aids? There’s big money at stake
If the UN is serious about stopping HIV; then it must face up to some inconvenient facts
Elizabeth Pisani
Last week, I stood in the blinding sunshine outside the United Nations building in New York, watching cars disgorge eunuchs, activists and bureaucrats - all the usual suspects for another “UN high-level meeting on Aids”. Besides swelling profits of the New York hotel trade with money that could have been used to buy condoms and clean needles, what did this meeting achieve? Not a lot, I was prepared to report, but in fact the UN has managed to take a step backwards.
For all the talk of a “global pandemic”, there are two completely separate HIV epidemics in the world. One is in parts of Africa, where HIV is spread by unprotected sex between men and women who have more than one steady partner. Governments - such as Uganda’s, with its “zero grazing” approach to fidelity - that recognised the perils of the custom of having concurrent sexual partners confined the epidemic. Most didn’t. The result of the neglect is that in some countries up to two in five adults are infected with a fatal virus.
The second epidemic covers the rest of the globe. Nine out of ten humans (and three in ten of those infected with HIV) live in countries where the virus is spread mostly when people buy and sell sex, when they shoot up drugs, and when men have anal sex with lots of other men. Only a minority do these things in any country, but that still adds up to several million people worldwide. We know how to prevent HIV in these populations, and we have known for years that in Asia, the Americas, Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, if you do that prevention well, HIV won’t spread farther. Even if you don’t control HIV in these populations, it won’t go all that much farther.
If we don’t recognise this, we will never effectively prevent the spread of HIV. But a lot of UN agencies, governments and even Aids activists don’t want to recognise it. Governments don’t want to because it would mean recognising that if they want to deal with HIV they have to spend money on services for junkies, sex workers and gay men - groups that don’t top the popularity stakes with voters. Ironically, they will happily fund treatments for these people with expensive medicines once they do get sick. That is more acceptable to voters than to give cheap condoms and needles to prevent them getting infected in the first place.
Activists don’t want to recognise it because they fear (with some justification) that if HIV is seen as a disease of junkies, prostitutes and gays, they will lose both public support and money for prevention, as well as increasing prejudice against groups that are already vilified. A couple of UN agencies - the ones that actually spend money on doing things for those politically sensitive groups - share that fear. But most have a much greater fear of getting pushed away from the Aids funding trough. Since that trough now holds around $12 billion (£6 billion) a year and rising, it’s a lot to lose out on.
If the UN were to recognise that in most of the world Aids is not a multisectoral problem that threatens security or undermines economic development, then the agencies that work with agriculture or children would have to deal with drugs, commercial and homosexual sex, or get out. Since they want the money but not the inconvenience of dealing with such dirty issues, there is a conspiracy of silence.
If you dig into the entrails of the epidemiology chapters of the WHO/ UNAids reports, you will find that the UN’s public health experts acknowledge that HIV is never going to rage through other continents the way it has raged through Africa. But the numbers are usually sandwiched between “HIV affects us all” rhetoric that panders to the interests of everything but the truth.
That is why it was so surprising that Kevin de Cock, the head of the World Health Organisation’s HIV division, told a British newspaper the truth last week. He was quoted as saying “It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries [outside Africa]. Ten years ago a lot of people were saying there would be a generalised epidemic in Asia - China was the big worry with its huge population. That doesn’t look likely.”
That Dr de Cock, a respected scientist, said this just before the Aids circus at the UN was surely a great sign. Maybe the worthies in attendance would agree to focus prevention outside Africa on the people who need it most, instead of throwing away money on multisectoral planning jamborees and programmes for schoolgirls.
The UN even planned a session on how to find the political will to do exactly that, chaired by the President of El Salvador. (Sadly he could not summon up the political will to talk about how gay and commercial sex is driving the epidemic in El Salvador, and pulled out.) But still, at least the WHO had finally told it like it is. That must certainly make it harder for other UN agencies, grouped under UNaids, to defend their institutional interests against scientific evidence and the rational use of taxpayers’ money.
It was not to last. Before the meeting was even over, the WHO and UNAids came out with a press release, signed by Dr de Cock, billed as a “correction” to the newspaper report. But it didn’t point out any errors of fact, nor did it suggest that he had been misquoted. Instead, it claimed that HIV is a heterosexual disease that affects us all.
Just as it looked as though it might make a step forward, the UN has jumped back into a refusal to acknowledge the truth about Aids. Its stance will defend the jobs and budgets for a while, perhaps. But unless a better job is done of preventing the epidemic, we the taxpayer will tire of refilling the Aids funding trough. And we can’t do a better job of preventing HIV if we refuse to be honest about where it’s spreading.
Dr Elizabeth Pisani is an epidemiologist who has worked for more than a decade as a consultant to UNAids and the WHO and is the author of The Wisdom of Whores: Bureaucrats, Brothels and the Business of Aids.
The levees are leaking
So is this brief step forward nullified and forgotten, and are we back to the same old denialism which marks official HIV/AIDS policymaking and media coverage under the iron rule of Anthony Fauci’s censorship?
We think not. The admission by De Cock is a permanent part of history now, and it has not been successfully denied, just swept under the carpet and effectively banned from mainstream media coverage, it seems clear. But it can be quoted with great effect in any objective review of the official ideology of HIV/AIDS, which has now turned into a litany of failure in finding cause or cure, global pandemic or even any increase in deaths in any population outside gays and drug addicts, and the unfortunate heterosexuals bamboozled into taking the damaging and often fatal AIDS drugs.
Let us pause to acknowledge that over half of all AIDS deaths are due to symptoms of drug intake, recreational or medical, and not AIDS symptoms.
Contrary to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, over 50% of all American and European AIDS patients now die of liver, heart and kidney diseases - none of which are caused by HIV according to CDC definition. But these are the classical diseases of drug- and chemotherapy-related toxicity. (Duesberg, email).
In our view, the paradigm promotion propagandists in HIV/AIDS are not doing too well at present. The members of the Semmelweis society who objected to the Clean Hands prizes awarded to Duesberg and Farber this year and sabotaged their award ceremonies have been forced to resign from the society, and a statement supporting Duesberg has been issued by the Semmelweis president and posted on the front page of the HIV/AIDS paradigm critics site Rethinking AIDS:
Semmelweis Society International does not present the Clean Hands Award lightly. In Dr. Duesberg case, it is hard to imagine anyone more deserving than Professor Peter Duesberg and investigative reporter Celia Farber. These two have withstood a vicious and ongoing multiyear multicontinent personal onslaught against their livelihoods, their character, and their families that is unparalleled since the Spanish Inquisition.
Their sole “crime” is to ask if there has not been a colossal error in our thinking to date.
The simple facts are that nobody has ever been cured of AIDS. No Vaccine has ever been developed. Something is wrong here.
Dr. Duesberg has an idea, a contrarian idea; to be sure, it is an idea, nothing more, but nothing less.
Celia Farber’s “crime” is to have reported this contrarian idea, into a First Amendment Free Speech Protected Society, or so we all thought.
We pray that our elected officials will not succumb to the hostility and pressures that the AIDS/Pharma industry will use to discredit and further silence this most vital debate.
We at Semmelweis are proud of our decision to present Dr. Peter Duesberg and Celia Farber with our highest honor and wish them both all the best as they continue to find concrete answers to this elusive and misunderstood disease.
Sincerely, Roland F. Chalifoux Jr., DO, President, Semmelweis Society International
Of course, this might have been better phrased. Dr Duesberg has more than “an idea”, gentlemen: he has a series of thorough and complete reviews of the hypothesis, universally accepted but entirely unproven and unjustified, that HIV is the cause of HIV/AIDS, in peer reviewed, elite journals, with copious footnotes and no answer at the same level in twenty years to his thorough rejection of any role for HIV in causing any human sickness, except in its ability to trigger the administration of powerful and often fatal drugs.
But it stands for one more victory for the forces of reason who have argued so long and so reasonably for review of the politically generated and protected paradigm of HIV/AIDS.
Similarly, the admissions of de Cock once published in a major British daily serve as a signal setback for the promoters of the paradigm led by Dr Fauci. After all, this is a crumbling of the first main pillar of the HIV/AIDS ideology. The second, of course, is the eternally challenged idea that HIV is the cause,
One shoe has been heard
Or to put it more simply, one shoe has dropped.
When the other shoe will drop is of course the $240 billion question in HIV/AIDS, and unanswerable for now. But it surely must be coming closer, as De Cock’s admissions now amount to a large crack in the AIDS platform on which Fauci et al stand. Like Bill Clinton at the UN, it must be slightly disconcerting to find the planks beneath one’s feet creaking ominously as one delivers one’s propaganda speeches.
What might be a tiny sign of this nervous retrenchment is the remarkable removal of the names of John P. Moore and Richard Jefferys from the list of names serving the operations of the falsely named AIDSTruth.org site, actually a disinformation site attempting to undermine critics of the paradigm with spurious contradictions and ad hominem attacks.
John P. Moore of Cornell was one of the founders of this misleading, anti-scientific, slanderous embarrassment. Could it be that someone at last has threatened these two with a lawsuit for slander?
If so, it is about time. There is nothing more shameful in science than the shenanigans of John P. Moore and Mark Wainberg of Montreal in their underhanded and vicious counterattacks on critics of the HIV paradigm, which include calling the officials of a university and trying to get thoughtful and outspoken teachers fired for having an unconventional opinion on HIV/AIDS, an opinion which matches the peer reviewed critique of Peter Duesberg and the evidence in the best literature, which clearly shows year after year that the theory launched by Gallo that HIV causes AIDS should have been shelved as an embarrassment to science from the very beginning.