Science Guardian

Truth, beauty and paradigm power in science and society

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

News, views and reviews measured against professional literature in peer reviewed journals (adjusted for design flaws and bias), well researched books, authoritative encyclopedias (not the bowdlerized Wiki entries on controversial topics) and the investigative reporting and skeptical studies of courageous original thinkers among academics, philosophers, researchers, scholars, authors, filmmakers and journalists.

Supporting the right of exceptional minds to free speech, publication, media coverage and funding against the crowd prejudice, leadership resistance, monetary influences and internal professional politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, HIV(not)AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, information technology, religions and cults, health, medicine, diet and nutrition.

***************************************************

HONOR ROLL OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTHSEEKERS

Halton C. Arp wki/obit/txt/vds/txt/txt/bk/bk, Henry Bauer txt/blg/ blg/bks/bk/txt/bk/vd, John Beard bk, Harvey Bialy bk/bk/txt/txt/rdo/vd, John Bockris bio/txt/ltr/bk, Donald W. Braben, Peter Breggin ste/fb/col/bks, Darin Brown txt/txt/txt/txt/txt/vd, Giordano Bruno bk/bio/bio, Frank R. Buianouckas, Stanislav Burzynski mov, Erwin Chargaff bio/bk/bio/prs, James Chin bk/vd, Nicolaus Copernicus bk, Mark Craddock, Francis Crick vd, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw txt/bk, Roger Cunningham, Charles Darwin txts/bk, Erasmus Darwin txt//bk/txt/hse/bks, Peter Duesberg ste/ste/bk/txt/vd/vd, Freeman Dyson, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman bio, John Fewster, Rosalind Franklin, Bernard Forscher tx, Galileo Galilei, Walter Gilbert vd, Goethe bio/bk/bio, Nicolas Gonzalez tlk/rec/stetxt/txt, Patricia Goodson txt/bk/bk, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Etienne de Harven bk/txt/vd, Alfred Hassig intw/txt, Robert G. Houston txt, Steven Jonas vd, Edward Jenner txt, Benjamin Jesty, Adrian Kent vd, Thomas Kuhn, Fred Kummerow, Stefan Lanka txt/txt/vd, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen vd, Paul Lauterbur vd, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, James Lovelock, Andrew Maniotis, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, Christi Meyer vd, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Luc Montagnier txt/txt/vd, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling prs/vd/vd, Eric Penrose, Roger Penrose vd, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick bio/vd/bk, Robert Root-Bernstein vd, Sherwood Rowland, Otto Rossler, Harry Rubin, Marco Ruggiero txt/txt/intw/vd, Bertrand Russell Carl Sagan vd, Erwin Schrodinger, Fred Singer, Barbara Starfield txt, Gordon Stewart txt/txt, Richard Strohman, Thomas Szasz, Nicola Tesla bio/bio, Charles Thomas intw/vd, Frank Tipler, James Watson vd/vd, Alfred Wegener vd, Edward O. Wilson vd.

ACADEMICS, DOCTORS, AUTHORS, FILMMAKERS, REPORTERS AND COMMENTATORS WHO HAVE NOBLY AIDED REVIEW OF THE STATUS QUO

Jad Adams bk, Marci Angell bk/txt/txt/txt, Clark Baker ste/txt/rdo/vd, James Blodgett, Tony Brown vd, Hiram Caton txt/txt/txt/bk/ste, Jonathan Collin ste , Marcus Cohen, David Crowe vd, Margaret Cuomo, Stephen Davis BK/BK,/rdo, Michael Ellner vd, Elizabeth Ely txt/txt/ste, Epicurus, Dean Esmay, Celia Farber bio/txt/txt/txt/vd, Jonathan Fishbein txt/txt/wk, T.C.Fry, Michael Fumento, Max Gerson txt, Charles Geshekter vd, Michael Geiger, Roberto Giraldo, David Healy txt, Bob Herbert, Mike Hersee ste/rdo, Neville Hodgkinson txt /vd, James P. Hogan, Richard Horton bio/vd/vd, Christopher Hitchens, Eric Johnson, Claus Jensen vd, Phillip Johnson, Coleman Jones vds, William Donald Kelley, Ernst T. Krebs Sr txt, Ernst T. Krebs Jr. txt,/bio/txt/txt/ltr, Paul Krugman, Brett Leung MOV/ste/txt/txt/tx+vd/txt, Katie Leishman, Anthony Liversidge blg/intv/intv/txt/txts/txt/intv/txt/vd/vd, Bruce Livesey txt, James W. Loewen, Frank Lusardi, Nathaniel Lehrman vd, Christine Maggiore bk/ste/rec/rdo/vd, Rouben Mamoulian txt/txt/txt/txt/txt/doc/flm/flm, Noreen Martin vd, Robert Maver txt/itw, Eric Merola MOV, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, Michael Moore bio/MOV/MOV/MOV, Gordon Moran, Ralph Nader bk, Ralph Moss txt/blg/ste/bks, Gary Null /txt/rdo/vd, Dan Olmsted wki, Toby Ord vd, Charles Ortleb bk/txt/bk/intw/flm, Neenyah Ostrom bk, Dennis Overbye, Mehmet Dr Oz vd, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos ste/vd, Maria Papagiannidou bk, Thomas Piketty bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk, Robert Pollin txt/vd/bk, Jon Rappoport bio/bk/bk/ste/bk/bk/vd, Janine Roberts bk/bk, Luis Sancho vd, Liam Scheff ste/txt/bk/bk/rdio/vd, John Scythes, Casper Schmidt txt/txt, Joan Shenton vd/vd, Joseph Sonnabend vd, John Stauber, David Steele, Joseph Stiglitz bk/txt, Will Storr rdo Wolfgang Streeck, James P. Tankersley ste, Gary Taubes vd, Mwizenge S. Tembo, John Tierney vd, Michael Tracey, Valendar Turner rec, Jesse Ventura bk, Michael Verney-Elliott bio/vds/vd, Voltaire, Walter Wagner, Andrew Weil vd, David Weinberger bio/bk/blg/blg/BK/bk/pds, Robert Willner bk/txt/txt/vd, Howard Zinn.

*****************************************************
I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing that ever interfered with my learning was my education. I am Freeman Dyson, and I approve of this blog, but would warn the author that life as a heretic is a hard one, since the ignorant and the half informed, let alone those who should know better, will automatically trash their betters who try to enlighten them with independent thinking, as I have found to my sorrow in commenting on "global warming" and its cures.
Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

The progress of science is strewn, like an ancient desert trail, with the bleached skeletons of discarded theories which once seemed to possess eternal life. - Arthur Koestler

One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison. – Bertrand Russell

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. - Samuel Johnson

A sudden bold and unexpected question doth many times surprise a man and lay him open. – Sir Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626)

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. – John Stuart Mill

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform. – Mark Twain

Although science has led to the generally high living standards that most of the industrialized world enjoys today, the astounding discoveries underpinning them were made by a tiny number of courageous, out-of-step, visionary, determined, and passionate scientists working to their own agenda and radically challenging the status quo. – Donald W. Braben

An old error is always more popular than a new truth. — German Proverb

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself. – Mark Twain

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair

A clash of doctrines is not a disaster, but an opportunity. - Alfred North Whitehead

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. – Samuel Johnson

Man’s mind cannot grasp the causes of events in their completeness, but the desire to find those causes is implanted in man’s soul. And without considering the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, he snatches at the first approximation to a cause that seems to him intelligible and says: “This is the cause!” – Leo Tolstoy

The evolution of the world tends to show the absolute importance of the category of the individual apart from the crowd. - Soren Kierkegaard

Who does not know the truth is simply a fool, yet who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a criminal. – Bertold Brecht

How easily the learned give up the evidence of their senses to preserve the coherence of ideas in their imagination. – Adam Smith

Education consists mainly in what we have unlearned. – Mark Twain

The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. If we watch ourselves honestly, we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated. – Arthur Koestler

Whenever the human race assembles to a number exceeding four, it cannot stand free speech. – Mark Twain

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith

There isn’t anything so grotesque or so incredible that the average human being can’t believe it. – Mark Twain

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. – John Stuart Mill

It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere. – Voltaire

People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.- Blaise Pascal.

Illusion is the first of all pleasures. – Voltaire

The applause of a single human being is of great consequence. – Samuel Johnson

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Human Nature)

Important: This site is best viewed in LARGE FONT, and in Firefox for image title visibility (place cursor on pics to reveal comments) and layout display. Click the title of any post to get only that post and its Comments for printing. All posts guaranteed fact checked according to reference level cited, typically the original journal studies. Full guide to site purpose, layout and how to print posts out is in the lower blue section at the bottom of the home page.
---Admin AL/E/ILMK---

AIDS reports embarrass Clinton at UN

Clinton will give Forum opening address today, but his platform is creaking

Opinion on HIV/AIDS is shifting, with doubts gathering on size of spending

Even paradigm skepticism is peeking through, at last

bill_clinton.jpgThis afternoon at 3pm (June 9, Monday) President Emeritus William Jefferson Clinton reasserts his stature in the wake of needless analysis of the degree to which his public pronouncements contributed to the demise of his wife’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. (Click photo for enlargement of this photo portrait)

The once extremely popular and still strikingly handsome politician and global corporate charity chieftain will address the UN First HIV/TB Global Leaders’ Forum on what we all should do to curb the spread of the arguably harmless virus HIV, now known also to anyone who troubles to read the relevant journals to be almost entirely noninfectious.

This universally recognized threat has been vigorously dealt with since 2002 by the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative (CHAI), which has managed to increase the cash flow of drug companies in the field by a significant amount as it raised enough money to deliver noxious drugs to 1.4 million “HIV positives”, real and supposed, in 22 countries mostly in Africa.

President Clinton to Discuss Strategies for Addressing the Global Threat of HIV/TB

President Clinton Will Deliver Opening Address to the First HIV/TB Global Leaders’ Forum at United Nations

New York, NY – President Bill Clinton will deliver opening remarks to distinguished global leaders at the first HIV/TB Global Leaders’ Forum on Monday, June 9 at the United Nations. The Forum, hosted by former Portuguese President Jorge Sampaio, the United Nations Special Envoy to Stop TB and in conjunction with the WHO, Stop TB Partnership, the Global Fund, the World Bank, and UNAIDS, is being held to highlight the need for collaboration to reduce the number of people living with HIV and dying of Tuberculosis. President Clinton and the William J. Clinton Foundation are committed to turning the tide on the global HIV/AIDS epidemic. Since 2002, the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative (CHAI) has worked to assist 22 countries’ implementation of large-scale, integrated, HIV/AIDS care and treatment programs, and to increase the availability of high-quality AIDS medicine and diagnostics for people in more than 60 developing countries. Today, 1.4 million people around the world have access to life-saving AIDS medicines as a result of CHAI’s efforts.

Overspending on HIV/AIDS

We don’t know which ink stained wretch in the Clinton Foundation PR department worked up the speech for the hot blooded spousal campaigner, but we hope that he/she took note of the BMJ editorial: The writing is on the wall for UNAIDS a month ago pointing out what everyone has know for twenty years, that the funding for fighting HIV/AIDS is wildly out of proportion to the supposed threat from this misinterpreted scourge, which unread top science journal reviews show is really a global epidemic of relabeling other illnesses and nothing more, and it diverts funds from much greater killers such as heart disease, cancer, and many tropical diseases such as TB and the inarguably much more lethal malaria, which kills millions of infants annually in places where $10 mosquito nets have not yet been delivered by the country most responsible for banning DDT.

Views & Reviews
The writing is on the wall for UNAIDS

Roger England, chairman, Health Systems Workshop, Grenada

roger.england@healthsystemsworkshop.org

The creation of UNAIDS, the joint United Nations programme on HIV and AIDS, was justified by the proposition that HIV is exceptional. The foundations of exceptionalism were laid when the “rights” arguments of gay men succeeded in making HIV a special case that demanded confidentiality and informed consent and discouraged routine testing and tracing of contacts, contrary to proved experience in public health.1 But exceptionalism grew—to encompass HIV as a disease of poverty, a developmental catastrophe, and an emergency demanding special measures, requiring multisectoral interventions beyond the leadership of the World Health Organization.

The exceptionality argument was used to raise international political commitment and large sums of money for the fight against HIV from, among others, the World Bank, through its multi-country AIDS programme, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and the US Presidents’ Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. With its own UN agency, HIV has been treated like an economic sector rather than a disease.

The proposition of exceptionality is now under stress. The poverty argument has been exposed as baseless. The country surveys carried out by Measure DHS (Demographic and Health Surveys) of, for example, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania show that prevalence is highest among the middle classes and more educated people.2 Although HIV can tip households into poverty and constrain national development, so can all serious diseases and disasters. HIV is a major disease in southern Africa, but it is not a global catastrophe, and language from a top UNAIDS official that describes it as “one of the make-or-break forces of this century” and a “potential threat to the survival and well-being of people worldwide” is sensationalist.3 Worldwide the number of deaths from HIV each year is about the same as that among children aged under 5 years in India.

Similarly, multisectoral programmes were misguided and have got nowhere slowly and expensively. Some small projects of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have successfully integrated sectoral efforts, but government ministries such as agriculture and education have not succeeded in the HIV roles imposed on them. Vast sums have been wasted through national commissions and in funding esoteric disciplines and projects4 instead of beefing up public health capacity that could have controlled transmission.5 Only 10% of the $9 billion (£4.5 billion; {euro}5.8 billion) a year dedicated to fighting HIV is needed for the free treatment programme for the two million people taking those treatments. Much of the rest funds ineffective activities outside the health sector.

These fractures in the structure of exceptionalism are now obvious. Less obvious is the possibility that it is exceptionalism, not rural Africans, that drives stigma and discrimination.6 Managers of Médecins Sans Frontières’s pioneering treatment project in South Africa fretted about what to call the centres providing the treatment, fearing that stigma would deter clients, so they called them infectious disease clinics. Patients had no such inhibitions, however, and within days were queuing to get into the “AIDS clinic.”7 But relentless promotion of HIV as different can only have reinforced stigma, the equivalent of a public health “own goal.”

It is no longer heresy to point out that far too much is spent on HIV relative to other needs and that this is damaging health systems.8 9 10 11 Although HIV causes 3.7% of mortality, it receives 25% of international healthcare aid and a big chunk of domestic expenditure. HIV aid often exceeds total domestic health budgets themselves, including their HIV spending. It has created parallel financing, employment, and organisational structures, weakening national health systems at a crucial time and sidelining needed structural reform.12 13 Massive off-budget funding dedicated to HIV provides no incentives for countries to create sustainable systems, entrenches bad planning and budgeting practices, undermines sensible reforms such as sector-wide approaches and basket funding (where different donors contribute funds to a central “basket,” from which a separate body distributes money to various projects), achieves poor value for money, and increases dependency on aid. Yet UNAIDS is calling for huge increases: from $9 billion today to $42 billion by 2010 and $54 billion by 2015. UNAIDS is out of touch with reality, and its single issue advocacy is harming health systems and diverting resources from more effective interventions against other diseases.

Steadily, the demand is increasing for better healthcare systems, not funding for HIV. Mozambique’s health minister stated: “The reality in many countries is that funds are not needed specifically for AIDS, tuberculosis, or malaria. Funds are firstly and mostly needed to strengthen national health systems so that a range of diseases and health conditions can be managed effectively.”14 Guyana’s national health sector strategy notes the need “to convince our development partners (who support us with external aid) that some of the money they provide us with should no longer be earmarked for their favourite diseases, mainly HIV, but must be spent to improve our general health services so that we can handle all diseases better and according to our actual disease priorities.”15

HIV exceptionalism is dead—and the writing is on the wall for UNAIDS. Why a UN agency for HIV and not for pneumonia or diabetes, which both kill more people? UNAIDS is scurrying to reposition itself in the face of these realities and will no doubt soon join the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) and the Global Fund in claiming expertise in how to strengthen health systems. But continuation of a dedicated HIV organisation can only distort healthcare financing and delivery systems. UNAIDS should be closed down rapidly, not because it has performed badly given its mandate, which it has not, but because its mandate is wrong and harmful. Its technical functions should be refitted into WHO, to be balanced with those for other diseases.

Putting HIV in its place among other priorities will be resisted strongly. The global HIV industry is too big and out of control. We have created a monster with too many vested interests and reputations at stake, too many single issue NGOs (in Mozambique, 100 NGOs are devoted to HIV for every one concerned with maternal and child health),14 too many relatively well paid HIV staff in affected countries, and too many rock stars with AIDS support as a fashion accessory. But until we do put HIV in its place, countries will not get the delivery systems they need, and switching $10 billion from HIV to support general health budgets would make a big difference—roughly doubling health workers’ salaries in the whole of sub-Saharan Africa, for example (or trebling them, if you don’t include South Africa).

In other words, even if scientifically illiterate officials, bureaucrats, and activists believe as consultant Roger England claims to do (we cannot help wondering if he really does), that “HIV causes 3.7% of mortality,” far too much aid is being directed at it compared with other priorities. HIV/AIDS funding looms so large in Africa that like a cancer on the system it is draining the blood from more effective spending, just as it is in the US.

All students of linguistic manoeuvers in defense of HIV/AIDS funding should read the Comments, known as Rapid Responses, that followed this remarkable outburst of realism in the British Medical Journal, which attracted the usual meaningless rote phrases in defense of the indefensible.

The BMJ honors itself in publishing this kind of editorial, and in fact has been one of the very few journals to occasionally tell it like it is in HIV/AIDS, where all coverage in normally in thrall to the censors led by Anthony Fauci of NIAID who forbid any recognition of the absurdity of the claims of the HIV paradigm promoters in AIDS and the accumulating mountain of evidence that they are quite wrong about HIV and always have been and have known it.

Clinton’s dilemma: will his AIDS charity stature vanish too?

So what will Clinton do in the wake of this kind of comment, which is only one of several recent comments along these lines in recent weeks, which are building up to a kind of retreat from HIV/AIDS gospel that threatens to leave him as naked as an adulterer surprised by detectives in a hotel bedroom in his campaign to rebuild his reputation since his Presidency by raising money for AIDS drugs in Africa?

decock.jpgToday he will come face to face with the author of the most remarkable item in the series, a report by Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO’s department of HIV/Aids, which concludes that there will be no generalized epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa. You heard it right – this remarkably named UN functionary has concluded that heterosexuals outside Africa won’t get AIDS after all, panic over.

Threat of world Aids pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits

A 25-year health campaign was misplaced outside the continent of Africa. But the disease still kills more than all wars and conflicts

By Jeremy Laurance
The Independent, Sunday, 8 June 2008

A quarter of a century after the outbreak of Aids, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has accepted that the threat of a global heterosexual pandemic has disappeared.

In the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy promoted by the major Aids organisations may have been misdirected, Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO’s department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.

Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. 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.

Dr De Cock said: “It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries. 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. But we have to be careful. As an epidemiologist it is better to describe what we can measure. There could be small outbreaks in some areas.”

In 2006, the Global Fund for HIV, Malaria and Tuberculosis, which provides 20 per cent of all funding for Aids, warned that Russia was on the cusp of a catastrophe. An estimated 1 per cent of the population was infected, mainly through injecting drug use, the same level of infection as in South Africa in 1991 where the prevalence of the infection has since risen to 25 per cent.

Dr De Cock said: “I think it is unlikely there will be extensive heterosexual spread in Russia. But clearly there will be some spread.”

Aids still kills more adults than all wars and conflicts combined, and is vastly bigger than current efforts to address it. A joint WHO/UN Aids report published this month showed that nearly three million people are now receiving anti-retroviral drugs in the developing world, but this is less than a third of the estimated 9.7 million people who need them. In all there were 33 million people living with HIV in 2007, 2.5 million people became newly infected and 2.1 million died of Aids.

Aids organisations, including the WHO, UN Aids and the Global Fund, have come under attack for inflating estimates of the number of people infected, diverting funds from other health needs such as malaria, spending it on the wrong measures such as abstinence programmes rather than condoms, and failing to build up health systems.

Dr De Cock labelled these the “four malignant arguments” undermining support for the global campaign against Aids, which still faced formidable challenges, despite the receding threat of a generalised epidemic beyond Africa.

Any revision of the threat was liable to be seized on by those who rejected HIV as the cause of the disease, or who used the disease as a weapon to stigmatise high risk groups, he said.

“Aids still remains the leading infectious disease challenge in public health. It is an acute infection but a chronic disease. It is for the very, very long haul. People are backing off, saying it is taking care of itself. It is not.”

Critics of the global Aids strategy complain that vast sums are being spent educating people about the disease who are not at risk, when a far bigger impact could be achieved by targeting high-risk groups and focusing on interventions known to work, such as circumcision, which cuts the risk of infection by 60 per cent, and reducing the number of sexual partners.

There were “elements of truth” in the criticism, Dr De Cock said. “You will not do much about Aids in London by spending the funds in schools. You need to go where transmission is occurring. It is true that countries have not always been good at that.”

But he rejected an argument put in The New York Times that only $30m (£15m) had been spent on safe water projects, far less than on Aids, despite knowledge of the risks that contaminated water pose.

“It sounds a good argument. But where is the scandal? That less than a third of Aids patients are being treated – or that we have never resolved the safe water scandal?”

One of the danger areas for the Aids strategy was among men who had sex with men. He said: ” We face a bit of a crisis [in this area]. In the industrialised world transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men is not declining and in some places has increased.

“In the developing world, it has been neglected. We have only recently started looking for it and when we look, we find it. And when we examine HIV rates we find they are high.

“It is astonishing how badly we have done with men who have sex with men. It is something that is going to have to be discussed much more rigorously.”

The biggest puzzle was what had caused heterosexual spread of the disease in sub-Saharan Africa – with infection rates exceeding 40 per cent of adults in Swaziland, the worst-affected country – but nowhere else.

“It is the question we are asked most often – why is the situation so bad in sub-Saharan Africa? It is a combination of factors – more commercial sex workers, more ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases, a young population and concurrent sexual partnerships.”

“Sexual behaviour is obviously important but it doesn’t seem to explain [all] the differences between populations. Even if the total number of sexual partners [in sub-Saharan Africa] is no greater than in the UK, there seems to be a higher frequency of overlapping sexual partnerships creating sexual networks that, from an epidemiological point of view, are more efficient at spreading infection.”

Low rates of circumcision, which is protective, and high rates of genital herpes, which causes ulcers on the genitals through which the virus can enter the body, also contributed to Africa’s heterosexual epidemic.

But the factors driving HIV were still not fully understood, he said.

“The impact of HIV is so heterogeneous. In the US , the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota, the region with the lowest rate. That is in one country. How do you explain such differences?”

Nice main point, but in trying to make it consistent with the rest of his beliefs in the complex HIV/AIDS fiction, the good epidemiologist still seems somewhat confused. Perhaps someone should bring to honest Dr de Cock’s attention Nancy Padian’s study showing that transmission of “HIV positivity” through sex among heterosexuals is effectively zero.

The inability of good men in the field of AIDS to realize that all the inconsistencies vanish as soon as the basic premise that HIV is the cause is removed from their analysis is quite astonishing. Apparently the paradigm has some kind of hypnotic effect which prevents anyone ever wondering if it is true, however many absurdities it produces. Or is it simply the inability of honest men to conceive that their superiors are misleading them?

What Clinton should know

Perhaps this is the time for us to contact the embarrassed ex-President with the information we promised him on this topic, since according to this report on DNA, an Indian news site, the retreat from HIV/AIDS gospel which began with the last utter failure of the vaccine effort is now encouraging the rank heresy that HIV/AIDS promoters have been wrong all along, and led the world on a wild virus chase for twenty two years and $250 billion and counting:

Does HIV cause AIDS
Mayank Tewari
Monday, June 09, 2008 02:26 IST

A much sought-after vaccine against the virus has re-ignited an old debate.
Mayank Tiwari explores the controversy

The recently reported pessimism among researchers over the failure of an AIDS vaccine has reignited a spectacular science controversy.
Is HIV the cause of AIDS?

Last September, AIDS researchers were dealt a heavy blow when clinical trials of the most promising candidate for an HIV vaccine were stopped after it turned out to be a dud.

The clinical trials showed that the vaccine might have put the people who received it at greater risk of infection rather than preventing HIV or reducing its effect. A survey of top AIDS scientists conducted by The Independent showed most believed a vaccine was nowhere near, with some even believing that effective immunization against HIV may never be possible.

“Nearly a billion dollars is spent globally on AIDS research annually, and yet the sobering reality is that at present there are no promising candidates for an HIV vaccine,” wrote Harvard Medical School’s Bruce Walker in the journal Science, summing up the failure of the expensive effort.

The development has strengthened the position of a vocal minority of scientists who argue that HIV is a harmless passenger virus (found in diseased tissue, but not contributing to the cause of the disease).

This community of scientists includes Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, David Rasnick, a prominent American biochemist, and Nobel laureate Kary Mullis, another American biochemist, and enjoys the support of South African President Thabo Mbeki. They have from the very beginning of the AIDS era—supposed to be 1984 when US biomedical researcher Robert Gallo published a series of papers arguing that HIV was the cause of AIDS—questioned the “causal link” between the virus and the disease.

Other developments, too, have strengthened the position of the AIDS dissidents. Among these are: periodic revisions of the number of people suffering from AIDS; the demographic factor, which is against the nature of infectious viruses to spread regardless of identity clusters; and AIDS symptoms like tuberculosis and cancer being common results of lifestyle conditions.

Duesberg even says that it is AIDS drugs, such as AZT, that cause the disease owing to their high toxicity. The dissenters also cite data showing HIV+ individuals tend to get AIDS when they take AZT and get better if they stop taking the drug.

Among the main reasons dissenters cite in favour of their movement is skewed health funding, especially in developing countries. On May 10, the British Medical Journal carried an article calling for UNAIDS to be shut down as it distorts health funding. In it, Roger England, who heads a Grenada-based think tank, Health Systems Workshop, argued that too much is being spent on HIV compared to other diseases which kill more people.

“It is no longer heresy to point out that far too much is spent on HIV relative to other needs and that this is damaging health systems. Although HIV causes 3.7% of mortality, it receives 25% of international healthcare aid and a big chunk of domestic expenditure. HIV aid often exceeds total domestic health budgets themselves.”

Purushottam Muloli, a New Delhi-based member of Rethinking AIDS, a loose group of scientists and policy makers who do not agree with the prevalent HIV/AIDS theory, says he has been questioning the Indian health ministry and UNAIDS about the scientific evidence behind labelling sections of the population, such as homosexuals, high-risk
groups.

“The health policy of the country is being controlled by international donors. Can you believe that the entire health budget of India is less than the amount of international funding the country receives on HIV?”

Rethinking AIDS president David Crowe says the AIDS “dogma” persists because doctors are trained to obey their superiors. “There are many examples of bad medical advice becoming dogma due to the power of senior medical people. The dogma of AIDS has resulted in hopelessness and despair caused by the stigma of HIV+ status. ”

The view from India

gatess-wave-beside-aids-ribbon.jpg
With AIDS funding enormous, there is a disincentive to quarrel with its rationale. As the man says, “The health policy of the country is being controlled by international donors. Can you believe that the entire health budget of India is less than the amount of international funding the country receives on HIV?”

India, of course, is where the Academy of Science published the last definitive broadside against the belief that HIV causes AIDS by Peter Duesberg, the only competent and distinguished scientist to examine this topic thoroughly at the peer reviewed level. Like his other masterworks demolishing the HIV/AIDS paradigm in every respect, it has gone uncontested at the same level in that journal or elsewhere.

With Duesberg awarded the Semmelweiss Clean Hands award last month in Washington for his honorable public service and integrity in this matter (see below), perhaps this is what allowed the Indian correspondent to learn more about true facts of this lethally twisted global scientific paradigm.

But since Clinton is probably in need of a fuller briefing on the topic, we will contact him as soon as events allow, now that the enormous distraction of Hillary’s brave but ill fated campaign is over.

We predict he will go along with the steady trend in the field of global disease and move away from HIV/AIDS to the real killers, on which the Gates’s alone have spent hundreds of millions already.

If he doesn’t he will become known as the man who delivered useless and harmful drugs to
Africans at a cost of hundreds of millions of wasted dollars, at a time when any schoolkids who buy $10 nets to protect African babies from malaria will be doing more to save lives.

21 Responses to “AIDS reports embarrass Clinton at UN”

  1. MartinDKessler Says:

    Bill Clinton is a political animal. To step outside the box is not an option for him. Once the political tide changes with respect to HIV=AIDS=Death, he will jump off the Bandwagon with both feet, but only when it’s safe to do so. I believe that Republican/Conservative and Libertarian politicians will have less baggage to leave behind once the paradigm shifts. After all they have never really been a friend to gays. I believe AIDS was and still is a politically motivated “disease”. Republicans and Democrats have both used AIDS as a political weapon. Republicans to motivate conservatives in the culture war and Democrats to cultivate the gay vote. None of them in the beginning listened to Dr. Duesberg. It’s time now to start paying attention.

  2. RSBell Media Says:

    I interviewed Professor Duesberg most recently May 25, 2008 on my radio show regarding his coverage in Discover Magazine and the Semmelweis Clean Hands Award. He remains committed to scientific integrity in the face of such extraordinarily unscientific obstinacy — and he does so with a positively “infectious” sense of humor. I find him amazingly resilient in his positive outlook despite everything that has been thrown at him over the years. I hope that you will enjoy the podcasts as much as I did in having him on-the-air live recently. Should you have interest, here are the direct links to listen:

    1) http://www.switchpod.com/f70164.html?puser=none (May 25, 2008 on-air interview on Talk Radio Network)
    2) http://www.switchpod.com/f70522.html?puser=none (May 25, 2008 off-air interview for internet podcast)

  3. MacDonald Says:

    The Blog Host is quite right to note that the MERCK vaccine failure was the initial left hook that wobbled the unbelievably sturdy-legged HIV/AIDS heavyweight funding champion. The inflated UNAIDS HIV statistics was the stiff jab that caught the reeling paradigm on its heels, and the latest misdirected-funding flurry, ending with the admission that the Durban Declaration was wrong! . . .

    http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2008/06/threat-of-heter.html#comment-117996022

    . . .has for the perhaps first time forced it to take a standing count.

    One can only marvel at the almost poetic appropriateness of Mr. Clinton finding himself facing De Cock at the very point when his spousal Oval Office exertions as well as his charitable payloads seem to be fast approaching a red-faced and anti-climactic end.

  4. Truthseeker Says:

    Thanks RSBell for those important tracks, which will be placed prominently in the new iteration of this blog just coming up as we turn it into a monster site, DamnedHeretics.com.

    Nice point MacD. So has Barnesworld woken up from its Rip Van Winkle slumber? This is excellent news. Perhaps there is a new Otis, for thus far the entries are short and sweet, and lack the sharp toothed bite of the original witty shorthand of the first Barnes, or the barracuda flesh removing impolitesse of his knowledgeably impatient successor. Perhaps one of our faithful posters here is engaging his first gear in a first few warm up posts before shifting into his own fearsome style of eviscerating the ignorant standard bearers of the paradigm defense battalion.

    Anyhow nice post listing the handful of current books on the topic, any one of which talks more sense and substance than the entire panoply of misguided mainstream HIV/AIDS research based as it is on a foolish premise which provoked only guffaws among the knowledgeable when it was first launched these 24 years ago, but which Federal funding, gay activist support, NIAID press censorship and public gullibility and trust in science and its leaders has turned into a global monster of fictional ideology the like of which has not been seen before in scientific history.

  5. MacDonald Says:

    None of the people currently posting here is identical with the present incarnation of Otis; neither does anyone here have an editorial stake in any of the manoeuvers fairly or unfairly described as first gear.

    The original Shorthand Barnes is indeed part of the warm-up act currently entertaining on YBYL. The reason why the eagle-eyed Blog Host may have been deceived into thinking he does not recongize the style is that the erstwhile Wizard of Witty One-Liners is being complemented by another rethinker of fame whose style is somewhat more formal and meticulous. Occasionally the rather odd stylistic blend may appear unsatisfactory Upstairs as well as Downstairs. In this case I tried to remedy the lack of a well-defined journalistic angle in the arguable too short and sweet YBYL Times story by pointing out that De Cock has quite cheerfully pulled the carpet from under the Durban Declaration – which I think encapsulates perfectly the momentousness of the new developments.

  6. Truthseeker Says:

    Barnesworld You Bet Your Life has posted the Wall Street Journal reaction to the Independent’s news story on Monday, June 10, as follows (their post is complete with live links):

    Wall Street Journal, June 9, 2008

    Retro Virus
    “A quarter of a century after the outbreak of Aids, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has accepted that the threat of a global heterosexual pandemic has disappeared,” reports the Independent, a leftist London daily:

    In the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy promoted by the major Aids organisations may have been misdirected, Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO’s department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.

    Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. 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.

    Dr De Cock said: “It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries. 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. But we have to be careful. As an epidemiologist it is better to describe what we can measure. There could be small outbreaks in some areas.”

    Oh, well, never mind! Anyone old enough to remember the 1980s will recall that America was subjected to a heterosexual AIDS scare. As Time magazine reported in 1985:

    By early this year, most Americans had become aware of AIDS, conscious of a trickle of news about a disease that was threatening homosexuals and drug addicts. AIDS, the experts said, was spreading rapidly. The number of cases was increasing geometrically, doubling every ten months, and the threat to heterosexuals appeared to be growing. But it was the shocking news two weeks ago of Actor Rock Hudson’s illness that finally catapulted AIDS out of the closet, transforming it overnight from someone else’s problem, a “gay plague,” to a cause of international alarm. AIDS was suddenly a front-page disease, the lead item on the evening news and a frequent topic on TV talk shows.

    Two years later, “How Heterosexuals Are Coping With AIDS” was the topic of a Time cover story:

    At first AIDS seemed an affliction of drug addicts and especially of homosexuals, a “gay disease.” No longer. The numbers as yet are small, but AIDS is a growing threat to the heterosexual population. Straight men and women in some cases do not believe it, in some cases do not want to believe it. But barring the development of a vaccine, swingers of all persuasions may sooner or later be faced with the reality of a new era of sexual caution and restraint.

    Now perhaps it is true that the AIDS scare bred “sexual caution and restraint.” It did strike us on reading this passage that the word swingers sounds awfully quaint.

    In 1991, basketball star Earvin “Magic” Johnson announced that he was infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. The following year, a Time cover declared: “Losing the Battle: Mysterious Non-HIV Cases Emerge. The Search for a Cure Stalls. Infection Among Women Grows.”

    And then . . . the AIDS scare fizzled out. Treatments improved; Magic Johnson reportedly has not contracted full-blown AIDS, nearly 17 years after his HIV diagnosis. The disease did not spread to the general population in America–or, as WHO now acknowledges, in most of the rest of the world.

    A search of Time covers turns up only three dealing with AIDS since 1992: one in 1996 on Johnson’s brief return to the NBA; another that same year on AIDS researcher David Ho, Time’s Man of the Year; and one in 2001, on AIDS in Africa. (We don’t mean to single out Time, which happens to be one of the few news sources with comprehensive archives available on the Web.)

    None of this is to gainsay concern over AIDS in Africa, which is a genuine catastrophe. But the dire warnings of the 1980s that everyone was at risk from AIDS turned out to be false. Those warnings made for more gripping journalism, of course, and they also served certain ideological interests. Social conservatives, who believed sex outside marriage was wrong, were able to argue that it was dangerous as well. (To be fair, it is, but not nearly as much so as the late-’80s AIDS reportage would have had us believe.)

    Gay-rights advocates, meanwhile, overcame a huge threat to their cause. Without the heterosexual AIDS scare, it is unlikely that homosexuality would have achieved the degree of public acceptance it has since the 1980s. Indeed, gays might have found themselves abandoned by liberals, who today tend to value hygiene over individual freedom (and if you don’t believe us, try walking into a gay bar in New York City and lighting a cigarette).

    The AIDS epidemic that wasn’t is one reason we are skeptical of global warmism, another purported cataclysm that is supposedly just around the corner, that is purportedly based on science but about which one may not ask questions, and that dovetails conveniently with pre-existing ideological agendas.

    Ten or 20 years hence, will we be reading articles about the U.N. admitting that global warming wasn’t all it was cracked up to be? Let’s hope so.

    This rather absurd point is not the most interesting thing about the editorial. It is the firm recognition/acceptance/admission that the whole heterosexual scare was trumped up, as in “But the dire warnings of the 1980s that everyone was at risk from AIDS turned out to be false,” and for political advantage, as in “Social conservatives, who believed sex outside marriage was wrong, were able to argue that it was dangerous as well…Gay-rights advocates, meanwhile, overcame a huge threat to their cause. Without the heterosexual AIDS scare, it is unlikely that homosexuality would have achieved the degree of public acceptance it has since the 1980s.”

    Perhaps we should resubscribe to the Journal to capture more admissions of political and scientific reality in the months ahead. Afrter all, it was the Journal that carried Katie Leishman’s early Op Ed piece warning that Duesberg had a point.

    Anyone who knows what happened to the erstwhile Atlantic national correspondent Leishman please contact us.

  7. MacDonald Says:

    Mincemeat it is. Thanks Celia.

    And now please lend your hand. Go tell it on the mountain, over the hills and everywhere. This is the time to blow the Horn of Jericho; the waters they are a-rising and the walls they are a-crumbling!

    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.

    Surely some revelation is at hand!

    The darkness drops again; but now I know
    That twenty centuries of stony sleep
    Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

    From the Guardian:

    The exploitation of Aids

    The Aids scare was one of the most distorted, duplicitous and cynical public health panics of the last 30 years

    By Brendan O’Neill

    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.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/12/aids.health

  8. cervantes Says:

    MacDonald, The NIAID bastion of HIV and AIDS run by Anthony Fauci has for 23 years, and to this day, has unequivocally stuck by its guns that HIV (whatever that is) is lethal, and Fauci has also quashed such as Peter Duesberg. Duesberg told about the many times (years ago) he was informed at the last minute he was cancelled to appear on quite a few TV shows questioning AIDS, such as Ted Koppel, but in actuality no other than Fauci appeared in Peter’s place to spread the fear. So Peter joked that Fauci was his best stand-in!

    More seriously, Fauci has the best, oily gift for bullshit (and lies) I’ve seen in few others, and he mesmerizes the politicos on Capitol Hill that fund his NIAID many $billions per year for HIV (whatever that is), and I know someone who worked under him and thought he was/is a fine hero with his dedicated labors. Have you ever seen him on his many interviews? He is a master of his domain and sooooo smooth, keeping the HIV paradigm inviolate.

    The only way to bring sense to the American scene of AIDS is to successfully fight against Fauci, but of course there are so many other bastions such as the Harvard School of Public Health, etc., that have reputations to defend to the last. Fauci has built his empire that now commands about $4 billion alone for NIAID for AIDS. Another gigantic $21 billion for other U.S. domestic AIDS programs is funded annually by Congress.

    Senator DeMint (South Carolina) is fighting against the additional $10 billion funding per year for African AIDS (some for malaria), and I have provided much info to help him (showing that HIV per se is not particularly dangerous, so toxic drugs are a mistake), but results are pending.

    Additionally, I have attention of a major Washington Times Editor, but again, what will probably happen, she will call up Tony Fauci to get his view, and Voila! – the LIE continues.

  9. cervantes Says:

    I’m Puzzled. Barnesworld You Bet Your Life is correct about the London news piece quoting WHO’s Dr. De that Western hetero AIDS as a fiction is accurate, but can’t find that the Wall Street Journal picked this up and/or printed about it.

    An American news outlet such as the WSJ is in fact crucial, if it does print such as De Cock. Then, this becomes an atom bomb to use against Fauci. What American paper will be first if not the WSJ? Did the WSJ do this online, but not in print? Is You Bet Your Life hoaxing everyone?

  10. Truthseeker Says:

    This occurred to us too but we were unable to check, and assumed possibly wrongly that it was true. Unfortunately we are restoring a WSJ subscription which was interrupted, and won’t have access on line till then. We assumed that it was copied from the site, and appeared in the daily. If not this will have to be adjusted. We will check tomorrow.

    Oh OK here it is Retro Virus By JAMES TARANTO June 9, 2008.

    Retro Virus
    “A quarter of a century after the outbreak of Aids, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has accepted that the threat of a global heterosexual pandemic has disappeared,” reports the Independent, a leftist London daily:

    In the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy promoted by the major Aids organisations may have been misdirected, Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO’s department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.

    Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. 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.

    Dr De Cock said: “It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries. 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. But we have to be careful. As an epidemiologist it is better to describe what we can measure. There could be small outbreaks in some areas.”

    Oh, well, never mind! Anyone old enough to remember the 1980s will recall that America was subjected to a heterosexual AIDS scare. As Time magazine reported in 1985:

    By early this year, most Americans had become aware of AIDS, conscious of a trickle of news about a disease that was threatening homosexuals and drug addicts. AIDS, the experts said, was spreading rapidly. The number of cases was increasing geometrically, doubling every ten months, and the threat to heterosexuals appeared to be growing. But it was the shocking news two weeks ago of Actor Rock Hudson’s illness that finally catapulted AIDS out of the closet, transforming it overnight from someone else’s problem, a “gay plague,” to a cause of international alarm. AIDS was suddenly a front-page disease, the lead item on the evening news and a frequent topic on TV talk shows.

    Two years later, “How Heterosexuals Are Coping With AIDS” was the topic of a Time cover story:

    At first AIDS seemed an affliction of drug addicts and especially of homosexuals, a “gay disease.” No longer. The numbers as yet are small, but AIDS is a growing threat to the heterosexual population. Straight men and women in some cases do not believe it, in some cases do not want to believe it. But barring the development of a vaccine, swingers of all persuasions may sooner or later be faced with the reality of a new era of sexual caution and restraint.

    Now perhaps it is true that the AIDS scare bred “sexual caution and restraint.” It did strike us on reading this passage that the word swingers sounds awfully quaint.

    In 1991, basketball star Earvin “Magic” Johnson announced that he was infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. The following year, a Time cover declared: “Losing the Battle: Mysterious Non-HIV Cases Emerge. The Search for a Cure Stalls. Infection Among Women Grows.”

    And then . . . the AIDS scare fizzled out. Treatments improved; Magic Johnson reportedly has not contracted full-blown AIDS, nearly 17 years after his HIV diagnosis. The disease did not spread to the general population in America–or, as WHO now acknowledges, in most of the rest of the world.

    A search of Time covers turns up only three dealing with AIDS since 1992: one in 1996 on Johnson’s brief return to the NBA; another that same year on AIDS researcher David Ho, Time’s Man of the Year; and one in 2001, on AIDS in Africa. (We don’t mean to single out Time, which happens to be one of the few news sources with comprehensive archives available on the Web.)

    None of this is to gainsay concern over AIDS in Africa, which is a genuine catastrophe. But the dire warnings of the 1980s that everyone was at risk from AIDS turned out to be false. Those warnings made for more gripping journalism, of course, and they also served certain ideological interests. Social conservatives, who believed sex outside marriage was wrong, were able to argue that it was dangerous as well. (To be fair, it is, but not nearly as much so as the late-’80s AIDS reportage would have had us believe.)

    Gay-rights advocates, meanwhile, overcame a huge threat to their cause. Without the heterosexual AIDS scare, it is unlikely that homosexuality would have achieved the degree of public acceptance it has since the 1980s. Indeed, gays might have found themselves abandoned by liberals, who today tend to value hygiene over individual freedom (and if you don’t believe us, try walking into a gay bar in New York City and lighting a cigarette).

    The AIDS epidemic that wasn’t is one reason we are skeptical of global warmism, another purported cataclysm that is supposedly just around the corner, that is purportedly based on science but about which one may not ask questions, and that dovetails conveniently with pre-existing ideological agendas.

    Ten or 20 years hence, will we be reading articles about the U.N. admitting that global warming wasn’t all it was cracked up to be? Let’s hope so.

    How pathetic indeed it is for the Wall Street Journal to be employing reporters who have to use Nexis to catch up on the million hints over the years that the heterosexual epidemic in the West was null and void, and then babble about “None of this is to gainsay concern over AIDS in Africa, which is a genuine catastrophe,” and then use as a Parthian shot that they hope that global warming skepticism will not turn out to be correct also. Haven’t they learned yet after ten years that the only readership they are going to get when information is free everywhere is going to be the product of using their tiny brains on the data they receive no earlier than most people on Earth who have access to a computer on the Net? This fellow James had better watch out for Rupert passing by in the corridor, he is liable to get a swift boot in the pants if he doesn’t watch out and at least catch up with Science Guardian. Maybe we should email him to that effect.

    Anyhow the piece is easily found on the WSJ site by simple typing in two words: “De Cock”.

  11. Cathyvm Says:

    It wasn’t an original WSJ article but a “Best of the web today” that linked back to the UK Independent article. Still – it means many US and other citizens will be exposed to this sort of information, which is good. Now that 2 prominent British newspapers have aired this issue the rest of the world will hopefully not ignore it. Now those media that have ignored/ censored this kind of news are going to be experiencing a schizophrenic dilemma – which side of the fence is going to be most career-promoting for them.
    The main thing is the cracks in the massive Hoover dam that is HIV-AIDS are becoming visible to anyone who wants to see and as long as the dissidents keep up with the pressure I delight in the fact that at some point the whole dam is going to blow – the sooner the better.

  12. Michael Says:

    You damn well better call me, TS. Big happenings are and have been afoot! The historians will need your accurate record of it.

  13. Nick Naylor Says:

    I’m sorry to be the wet blanket at the party, but until Peter Duesberg is testifying in front of Congress, there’s not much here to celebrate.

    The corpse of the heterosexual pandemic has been lying there for many years now and was only kept lifelike by the respirators of hypothetical mathematical models in Africa which naive journalists reported as “statistics”. De Cock is merely spinning the obvious.

    And none of this has anything to do with the CO2 problem and accelerated climate/ocean change.

  14. Douglas Says:

    I’m afraid you are right Nick. I have much admiration and praise for those who participated in the the aids dissident role to promote the movement. We gained an inch but have miles to go. Fortunately, the river is widening and deepening and there are some major cracks in the dam.

    I hope you will see my forum and want to contribute with some of the latest developments. It now is connected with YouTube so it really comes alive.

    Regards,

    Douglas

    P.S. You should be able to link to it by clicking on my name here or clicking on

    http://forum1.aimoo.com/rethinkers_worldwide_forum

    or

    http://www.aidsmyth.addr.com

    Then go to “Today” and scroll down

  15. Truthseeker Says:

    I believe you are being realistic but too pessimistic, Nick. This fundamental point took two decades to be admitted at the high official level, but it is one of two big shoes dropping. In terms of attack on the universal belief that HIV is the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS, otherwise known as the dead fish paradigm, it is the wedge which opens the door a little for critics which previously was shut and locked.

    However, if you then say, it will still take another two decades for the other shoe to drop, maybe it will, maybe it won’t. But a widely reported crack in the pyramid surely may well be the tipping point ie the harbinger of a total crumble if it can be exploited well enough by its critics, one likes to think. A united front without a single concession has been the successful policy of the paradigm promoters to date, but now it has been changed to a double sided front where one side is now invaded and taken over. How long can a house divided against itself, theoretically speaking, stand? Surely this is why they always mercilessly trounced Michael Fumento and his The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS and anyone else who pointed out the obvious, that heterosexuals did not get AIDS in the West or anywhere before the African fiction was concocted.

    An admission of gross error is hugely significant and embarrassing and despite the damage control this one can be quoted forever.

  16. Cathyvm Says:

    JP Moore has allegedly extricated himself/been ejected from AIDSLIES.con – what gives? Tara rolls over and refuses to discuss HIV-AIDS ‘cuz she’s all wet, and JayPee goes walkabout? Erk – what is happening? Who is going to provide our biggest stream of lively entertainment?
    Has anyone asked Nancy what her feelings are on the De Cock admission supporting her 1997 findings? So many questions and no answers so far…

  17. yello Says:

    *Jaw Drops*

    Excuse my francais, but, Holy blue fuck!!! I NEVER thought I’d see this day come.
    Mr. Naylor Sir, my apologies, but I hope you are wrong. *Weeps* as I think of this, I think of all thoses murdered and experimented in the name of this horrifying debacle.

    I am a poor, queer layman, just barely paying the net rent. Please, I support you all fully, please, annihilate these bastards. Kill them professionally, find a way to do it that can’t be censored. I want these profiting murderers to HANG. No….I want them on the anti-retrovirals for the rest of their lives.

    To turn around phrases that has been lauched against me and mine for so long to describe our “worthlessness”, I want these faggoty dykes dead.

    They tried to kill my people, ALL my fellow humans, adults and children alike, for the sake of power, money and reputation. They must hang.

    Fuck Weinberg, Fuck Gallo, Fuck Piot,Fuck Montegnior, Fuck Tara, Fuck Orac, Fuck PZ Meyers even, they and _every single_fucking one of these bastards and their ditto men are going to a special place in hell for an aeon of testing.

    30 Fuckin’ YEARS!!! They killed us!

  18. Michael Says:

    Yes, yello. And all of the criminals involved must be confronted. As such, I have sent the following to Jon Cohen, the hiv/aids writer for Science Magazine, who since the very beginning, promoted the agenda of gallo, fauci, et all, the following email. Lauri Garrett will be getting the same letter, as will any other HIV aids reporters who promote the agenda of AIDS Inc.

    I encourage all others to do the same, in either copying and sending the same letter, or another of your own to:

    joncohen45@hotmail.com

    Dear Jon Cohen.

    Thank You for all you have done in reporting issues of HIV and AIDS.

    But, If you had made a mistake, would you have the courage to correct it?

    All of the writing you have done over the years has promoted the belief that somehow HIV is verified by any of the current HIV tests. Therefore, you have promoted the assumption that the HIV statistics are correct.

    You have conveniently ignored the FACT that there is NO HIV test that detects HIV.
    You have ignored the FACT that all HIV teststs are antibody tests.
    You have ignored the FACT that there are 70 factors known and proven and listed in scientific journals to cause false positive test results.
    You have ignored the FACT that HIV drugs are responsible for 90 percent of deaths in those taking AIDS drugs.

    What you have done Jon Cohen, is WRONG.

    Because YOU have ignored these facts, Because you have ignored the fact that HIV drugs are 90 percent of the cause of death in HIV positives in the west,

    Because YOU have failed to heed a thousand efforts to open and educate your unwilling mind,

    As a member of the Gay Community that has been devastated by the promotion of your works, I HOLD YOU PERSONALLY, JON COHEN, FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR PROMOTING AND THEREFORE CAUSING 90 PERCENT OF THE DEATHS OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF GAY MEN WHO TOOK AZT, AND THE CURRENT GENERATIONS OF DRUGS.

    I HOLD YOU PERSONALLY, JON COHEN, AS FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR 90 PERCENT OF THE DEATHS IN BLACKS, HERE AND IN AFRICA, WHO TOOK THE HIV DRUGS.

    YOU ARE GUILTY OF PROMOTING GENOCIDE. YOU ARE A CRIMINAL JUST LIKE THE JOURNALISTS WHO PROMOTED HITLER’S AGENDAS.

    YOU ARE GUILTY OF SCARING BLACKS AND GAYS INTO THE CATTLE CARS OF IATROGENOCIDE.

    YOU ARE GUILTY OF PROMOTING THE MURDER AND GENOCIDE AND POISONING OF BLACKS AND GAYS.

    PS, John. How much money have you made from promoting lies? Not as much as doctors and researchers!

    It is a shame they did not put nazi journalists, not unlike yourself, on trial in Nuremberg.

    I see your partners in crime, JP Moore and Mark Wainberg have removed their names from their AIDSLies.org site. Very interesting. The criminals are running away to hide. Will you be next?

    It is a shame they did not put nazi journalists, not unlike yourself, on trial in Nuremberg.

    MICHAEL A GEIGER
    SAN DIEGO, CA

  19. Michael Says:

    And, by the way, letter writing campaigns will only be effective, if a large number of such letters are sent. One letter such as just from me, can easily be dismissed as a crank. 10 letters is better, and 100 letters are devastating, and a thousand such letters are the voice of God.

    The following is taken from a prominent sign at the Holocaust Museum:

    “Hark, Your brothers blood cries out to me from the ground” Genesis

  20. Truthseeker Says:

    Letters will be more effective if the name of the recipient eg Laurie Garrett is spelled correctly, one imagines 🙂

    Probably such letters will be more effective also if posted on a respected site and without the capital letters, earned though they might be. Shouting tends to imply you don’t carry a big stick. Softly softly catcheee monkey until the Congressional investigation and trials are over, though has it ever been that any journalists have ever been held to account for misreporting onesidedly a life or death medical scientific issue, or indeed any issue at all except inside information plus buying shares in the product covered? Perhaps they could be prosecuted under that head in this case since they are doing exactly that but the benefit is difficult to gauge or link in financial terms.

    The lack of professional and political responsibility reflects the absence of any threat of punishment for such journalistic misdemeanors, since at the first stage they are fully protected by all the editors and publishers who stand to look professionally rather stupid, not to mention with blood on their own hands, if it all comes out. No doubt they all will resist till the dam is breached and then a flood of coverage will cover up the previous sins, except of course NIAID will have hurriedly confirmed by then that HIV mutated into a harmless version so they can proudly say they were correct all along in saying the current versions of HIV are deadly, it is HIV that has changed, not their minds.

    Seem to be that all this kind of screaming overlooks the excruciatingly superficial level of research into this of most people involved who simply go on whatever they gather their supposedly expert friends think. How can you go wrong when everybody in the wheelhouse agrees on the course? All that screaming does is prove that the screamer is not in the wheelhouse, which means you don’t have to pay a lot of attention unless they can break the door down or find a key, and even then your sailors can wrestle them to the ground and cart them off to the brig.

    Revolutions are achieved mostly Pizarro style by stealing into the captain’s dining room and capturing them all unawares as they scoff their rich feast of roasted and carved human bodies- oops, please excuse, the host has momentarily fallen into extreme metaphor too.

  21. Michael Says:

    Excuse me, TS, but the caps were not at all any kind of a scream, and no need to read that into them. They were simply firmly stated facts.

    As a military historian myself, and as a long time student fond of miltary strategies from Alexander the Great to the Battles of World War II, I am very familiar with strategy.

    And where did this interest come from?

    As a man whose own ancestors fought the tyranny of their own time, with some of whom even gave up their very lives for the cause, fighting under George Washington in the American Revolutionary War, in successfully birthing this Nation of these United States of America, under the banner of Liberty and Justice and Freedom and Equality and Dignity for all, there is now no less of a worthy offering that I myself can make to my own inherited past, than to fully and completely dedicate my own life to overthrowing and deposing and freeing our country and the world from this HIV AIDS pogram, the greatest of all tyrannies of this one we currently face, here and now, in our own time.

    No lesser sacrifice or donation of my own is worthy of my own ancestors, one of whom died an atrocious death as a prisoner of war, starved and frozen to death in a British prison ship in 1777. No lesser sacrifice is worthy of my ancestors who fought even at the battle of Yorktown, where the surrender of the British Kings troops was fully realized, and which gave birth to this great nation in which I live, a nation that is supposed to be standing on freedom, equality, and justice for all.

    Such is my own inheritance, which I am now, forced by the experiences of my own life, what with friends and loved ones having died from called to defend and protect.

    The tyrants of HIV aids have robbed and pillaged and plundered this nation and its least equal citizens long enough. Their reign of terror must now be brought to a swift end.

    And have no fear, strategies are well in hand, and many have been decided. Time, as they say, is on my side.

    I as a gay man will no longer allow the tyrants involved to target myself, my loved ones, my friends, or my community, or any others in our global society.

    And I hereby inform you and all other rethinkers and dissidents, to fully know that I hereby solemnly swear to Divine Providence, To All their Is or ever will be in the Universe that I, and those who choose to support such, will bring AIDS Incorporated completely down to dust, and assign it to the trash dumps and annals of history, and fully expose it for what it is, ie; the greatest blunder and greatest error that mankind has yet made to date.

    I have absolute faith that AIDS Incorporated and all of the treacherous leeches that have thrived at the expense of the most marginalized and defenseless of our society, will be brought to their very knees.

    Others can do what they will, but I will gladly give up my very own life, if such need be, and I will do whatsoever I need to do, to bring those promoting the fraud of HIV and AIDS and toxic deadly AIDS drugs to full justice, to freedom for our society of this corruption and ignorance, and to bring this madness and this vile tyranny of human insanity to an expedient and abrupt end. So Help Me God!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 1445 access attempts in the last 7 days.